Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36
  1. #16
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,492
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    In case anyone is unclear on what it means to "derail" a thread, this one gives a perfect example.


  2. #17
    RAMFANRAIDERHATER's Avatar
    RAMFANRAIDERHATER is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Surf City USA
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,277
    Rep Power
    56

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Hey, this looked like an interesting thread so I thought I'd add my two cents.

    If I may...

    From Beta;

    Add Stevens to our GSOT-esq WR corps and all the sudden the Hawk offense looks pretty nasty, well, unless you have the Bears' D that is. Realistically though, on paper the Hawks' offense looks brutal, but they have not performed up to standards yet this year ( except against NY, but credit our D for that too). It will be interesting to see how the Rams' D holds up.
    I wasn't aware that the Hawks had that nasty of an offense, so I thought I'd check it out.

    Of the top 30 receivers in the NFC, the Rams employ two. Holt (#5), and Bruce at #10. The Hawks, have only one receiver in the top 30, D. Jackson @ #14. Hardly GSOT material, or, should I say; "nasty".

    Then I looked at scoring.... Rams average 22.2 pts/game, Hawks; 19.5. Hmmmm, edge to the Rams. Okay, Beta obviously knows his team, so I continued further and looked up the QB ratings of both starters. Bulger; 97.2 (3rd) and Hasselbeck; 74.6 (13th) 74.6? Well, Beta had that right, it's nasty. SO, I looked at passing yards; Rams; 234.6 yds/game (4th), Hawks; 187.0 (14th). Nope, not there. Turnovers? Rams @ +12, Hawks..........-1?

    The stats seem to lean towards the Rams as the "nastier" team on offense. Granted, we haven't played the Bears, which by all appearances, is THE team to beat in the NFC. But, we played who they put on our schedule, and only time will tell what we are about. The one stat that we need to look at and improve on, and Beta touched on this, is our run D. We're allowing 120.6 yards rushing per game. (Just for equal air time, the Hawks give up only 79.8 yards/game) ...and I understand Beta, your reference to the GSOT. When you want to make a comparision, you want to compare to the best. I got it. However, the Hawks are not even on the same planet as the GSOT. For that manner, neither are the 2006 Rams. But I think we have enough to play with the Hawks. Should be a great game.
    Faithful Rams fan since 1968

  3. #18
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,243
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Quote Originally Posted by RAMMAN68 View Post
    And we too have had our share of injuries, so that comparison is out the window. I take exception of your comparison of the GSOT of the past and your current hawk offense. Not even close, so lets not go there.
    Good points. Injuries are not exclusive to the Seahawks. Losing McCollum, Pace's ongoing concussion problems, Kennedy's broken hand, Pisa's dislocated elbow, Brown being out with an ankle and now questions about Fisher and Bartell more than even things out.

    The "GSOT-esq WR corps" comment is indeed a little off base. I'm sure Seahawk fans are excited about their group of receivers, but any comparison to what we had in the true GSOT days and what Seattle has now is non-existent.

  4. #19
    LA Rammer's Avatar
    LA Rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, CA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    2,679
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bela View Post
    I merely used an analogy familiar to Rams' fans to describe our current WR group.
    I like the fact that we set the standard, but still ...GSOT OURS!

    Other than that we will see Sunday and there is still one more game after that.
    :l Look for Steven Jackson rushing for season high! This will be his breakout game!
    LA RAMMER

    It's Jim not Chris
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQVHI_8

  5. #20
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,492
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Does anyone want to make a comment that is actually related to the point of this thread?

  6. #21
    RAMFANRAIDERHATER's Avatar
    RAMFANRAIDERHATER is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Surf City USA
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,277
    Rep Power
    56

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bela View Post
    You sir make it very difficult to abide by the rules of this forum. You’ve written a very long post arguing against a point that I never made. Congrats, you have completely wasted 10 minutes of your life.

    Of course, I assume you are referring to me? I only question that because of your misspelling of my name. I don’t generally harp on people for spelling, even though in this case it screams “I didn’t read your post.”

    In my defense, allow me to quote myself. I ask that this time you slow down and read all of the words:

    From the above comments, you get the following:

    Hmm... I don’t know where I said nasty, in fact I believe my choice of words to explain the Seahawk offense were ”less than impressive” and ”not performed up to standards.”

    The troll in me wants to make reference to the state of the education system in middle-America, or perhaps to the wheels on your home. Notwithstanding your skill in reading comprehension, I will address the point you’ve made. Please read carefully this time:

    What do you want to talk about next RAMFANRAIDERHATER? Defense? Against comparable opponents the Hawks have allowed 15 ppg (that includes 27 to the giants during garbage time), and the Rams have allowed 19.

    To mods – sorry, I didn’t start this fight. But since I was misquoted I felt compelled to respond.
    My, oh my.... testy, aren't we? First of all, let me apologize for calling you "beta", and not "Bela". My bad. Didn't have my reading glasses on. LOL.

    I of course said everything tongue-in-cheek. But you decided to attack me and make reference to my education background. But whatever floats your boat, fella.

    Hmm... I don’t know where I said nasty, in fact I believe my choice of words to explain the Seahawk offense were ”less than impressive” and ”not performed up to standards.”;

    To quote you...

    "Add Stevens to our GSOT-esq WR corps and all the sudden the Hawk offense looks pretty nasty, well, unless you have the Bears' D that is."
    What do you want to talk about next RAMFANRAIDERHATER? Defense? Against comparable opponents the Hawks have allowed 15 ppg (that includes 27 to the giants during garbage time), and the Rams have allowed 19.
    Uh, I think I did. I tried to give you props for something you wrote, but I guess you missread it?

    The one stat that we need to look at and improve on, and Beta touched on this, is our run D. We're allowing 120.6 yards rushing per game. (Just for equal air time, the Hawks give up only 79.8 yards/game) ...and I understand Beta, your reference to the GSOT. When you want to make a comparision, you want to compare to the best. I got it. However, the Hawks are not even on the same planet as the GSOT. For that manner, neither are the 2006 Rams. But I think we have enough to play with the Hawks. Should be a great game.
    Now, slow down and read it again, very slowly.
    Faithful Rams fan since 1968

  7. #22
    RamFan_Til_I_Die's Avatar
    RamFan_Til_I_Die is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,137
    Rep Power
    68

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Quote Originally Posted by bela View Post
    How about this. Lets remove from the formula the Bears, Packers and San Fran game. Against similar opponents, the Hawks are averaging 24 points per game, and the Rams are averaging 15 points per game.

    What do you want to talk about next RAMFANRAIDERHATER? Defense? Against comparable opponents the Hawks have allowed 15 ppg (that includes 27 to the giants during garbage time), and the Rams have allowed 19.
    I hate to jump in this late, but your math is off so I had to point it out. The Seahawks/Rams both played Arizona and Detroit and played similar teams against NY/Denver. Here are the results with the math spelled out:

    Seattle 9, Detroit 6
    Seattle 21, Arizona 10
    Seattle 42, NY Giants 30

    (9 + 21 + 42)/3 = 24 points scored per game. Got it right.
    (6 + 10 + 30)/3 = 15.33 points allowed per game. Got it right.
    .
    St. Louis 41, Detroit 34
    St. Louis 16, Arizona 14
    St. Louis 18, Denver 10

    (41 + 16 + 18)/3 = 25 points scored per game. Got it wrong.
    (34 + 14 + 10)/3 = 19.33 points allowed per game. Got it right.

    So what do we learn from this?
    First, bela and math do not get along. J/K...3 out of 4 aint bad.
    Second, the Rams and Seahawks both barely did enough to win those games.
    Third, the Rams and the Seahawks are scoring almost the same. And the Rams gave up 4 more PPG in those games, which isn't alot.
    Fourth, both teams better continue to improve or it's gonna be a long season for both of us.
    Fifth, as most are saying, this is gonna be a tough game. Both teams are good, and only after playing both games in Seattle and in St. Louis will we be able to tell which team is better.

  8. #23
    DisplacedHawk is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Sadly bela was banned and cannot respond to your well reasoned posts. If anybody wishes to continue the conversation, he'll be in Section 142, Row L on Sunday (look for the dude in the Mack Strong jersey).

  9. #24
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,243
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Does anyone want to make a comment that is actually related to the point of this thread?
    Well, I tried to do just that in my first post in this thread, then......bela made some comments that we had to respond to. You can't fault us for that can you??? Come on Av, it's Seahawk week!!!

  10. #25
    thoey's Avatar
    thoey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, United States
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,017
    Rep Power
    32

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Just seems a little unfair that a fan of another team voiced an opinion (a mistaken one in my opinion) that was taken badly, then multiple posts were made back and forth on that opinion, and that person gets banned, while the RAMS fans that were responding get nothing but told politely to stay on topic. I agree that this thread had got derailed and needed to go back on topic, but as I have seen posted in the past, sometimes a thread is going to get derailed.

    Bela has been a good poster from another team, usually using stats along with non-smack talk opinion to voice his point. I hope his banination is temporary.
    This space for rent...

  11. #26
    CaliGirlRamsFan's Avatar
    CaliGirlRamsFan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bay Area CA
    Posts
    899
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    I'm pretty new to the forum so my opinion may not count for much. I've read this post while Bela was posting, and unless I missed something, see no reason for him to have been banned.

    Banned from a Football Fan forum of all things? I'm just shaking my head on that one.

    Sorry guy's, I stated my opinion may not count for much.

  12. #27
    CaliGirlRamsFan's Avatar
    CaliGirlRamsFan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bay Area CA
    Posts
    899
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    If you get banned, does your name still show as a registered user? Bela's does.

    My apologies for derailing the thread further.

  13. #28
    RAMFANRAIDERHATER's Avatar
    RAMFANRAIDERHATER is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Surf City USA
    Age
    61
    Posts
    2,277
    Rep Power
    56

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    I'm confused here...

    Shut up and bring on the Hawks! Is the topic, right? If we "shut up", does that mean that we can't talk? Since we can't "bring on the Hawks", we'll have to leave that up to the players to take care of. Therefore, I assumed that the topic had to do with the Rams and the Hawks, which seemed to be what some of us were talking about.

    I'd like to request that Bela be allowed back in. His contributions to these threads always seemed well written and usually on topic. Maybe he lost it for a moment, (when he made reference to my education and spelling of his name) but it was no real big deal to me, really. I was simply responding to his post by adding some NFL stats to the conversation for reasons of comparison. Nothing more. Personally, I think these threads would be boring without some input from the other side. ...and I don't mean smack talking.

    Anyway, go Rams, bring on the Hawks!
    Faithful Rams fan since 1968

  14. #29
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,243
    Rep Power
    127

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    Other than the "GSOT-esq" comment, I certainly didn't have a problem with anything bela said. He made some good, reasonable points. We all know that threads from time to time are going to take a different direction as the result of one thing leading to another. "Derail" to me has the connotation of puposeful intent, which I don't think bela had.

    We're all getting geared up to talk Rams/Seahawks and I think this thread just happened to get caught up in that spirit.

    That said, I appologize to Av for any part I may have had in taking this thread off topic.

  15. #30
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,492
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Shut up and bring on the Hawks!

    I didn't ban Bela. I gave him an "infraction" for repeatedly, and after being warned, derailing this thread. If he's been banned, its likely because he had a prior infraction and the two added up to an automatic banning.

    We've had a policy against derailing threads for a long time. Doing it after being warned is simply not cool.

    In any event, I'm closing this thead, as there is little hope of it ever returning to its intended topic.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -10-09-2006 at 07:31 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •