Do the Rams even TRY this week against the Niners? (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

How nice would he look in the middle of Spagnuolo's defense?

According to Adam Schefter, if the Rams beat San Francisco this week while Detroit loses to Chicago, the Lions could end up with the #1 pick based on strength of schedule. I can't see the Rams screwing this one up. Suh is a wrecking machine. Spags will probably sit Jackson again and instruct Null to take a knee three times and then punt each and every series.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I was hoping that Suh would end up in Detroit and that the Rams would go offense with the No. 1 pick.

Detroit could obviously need a break and get some defensive help.

 

[MAC_32]

I was hoping that Suh would end up in Detroit and that the Rams would go offense with the No. 1 pick.

I think that's what will happen, St Louis is drafting a QB, for better or worse.

 

[kaa]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

 

[Raider Nation]

I was hoping that Suh would end up in Detroit and that the Rams would go offense with the No. 1 pick.

I think that's what will happen, St Louis is drafting a QB, for better or worse.

Even though it's a "need"... the Rams will be haunted for years if they take Jimmy Clausen over the next Reggie White.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

The dudes playing for their careers don't give a crap what pick they get next year.

 

[bulger2holt]

The Rams will lose and take Suh.

Suh > Tommie Harris

 

[MCguidance]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

 

[Raider Nation]

Suh > Tommie Harris

I would certainly hope so. Harris has been a shell of his former self for three years due to injuries.Suh is more talented than Harris even when the latter was completely healthy.

 

[bulger2holt]

Suh > Tommie Harris

I would certainly hope so. Harris has been a shell of his former self for three years due to injuries.Suh is more talented than Harris even when the latter was completely healthy.

I meant when Harris was healthy. He was the best DT in football in 2006 or 2007 when healthy

 

[Capella]

Would you be able to tell the difference?

 

[MAC_32]

I was hoping that Suh would end up in Detroit and that the Rams would go offense with the No. 1 pick.

I think that's what will happen, St Louis is drafting a QB, for better or worse.

Even though it's a "need"... the Rams will be haunted for years if they take Jimmy Clausen over the next Reggie White.

Hey, I never said they should take a BAD quarterback

 

[bulger2holt]

There are no QB's worthy of the #1 pick. Not even close.

 

[Raider Nation]

There are no QB's worthy of the #1 pick. Not even close.

You can find a lot of drafts where Little Jimmy is the top pick. The very first one I looked at with a Google search, for instance:http://walterfootball.com/draft2010.php

 

[MAC_32]

There are no QB's worthy of the #1 pick. Not even close.

If Bradford's shoulder checks out he does.

 

[Avery]

I was hoping that Suh would end up in Detroit and that the Rams would go offense with the No. 1 pick.

I think that's what will happen, St Louis is drafting a QB, for better or worse.

A lot can happen by draft day, but if a Spag's coached St. Louis team is drafting #1 overall, I don't see any way they pass on Suh.

 

[Blackjacks]

As a huge Rams fan since they moved here PLEASE DON"T DRAFT A QB #1.

I like Claussen........I really do but I don't want him. I want a boy named Suh!!!!!!!!!

 

[For The Dawgs]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. The Colts tanked a game to "help" their team in the bigger picture. What's the real difference in the Rams taking an intentional loss to ensure they get a potential difference maker in Suh. That's also looking at the bigger picture. Who could blame them? How can this really be looked at any differntly?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

There are no QB's worthy of the #1 pick. Not even close.

That's the problem (if you're a Lions fan), there's really nobody there to entice them to go QB, even though they desperately need one. I don't know, we'll see. I don't think anyone really thinks the Rams will beat SF but I don't think many people though Carolina would beat the Giants 41-9 this past week.No, I don't think the Rams throw the game and no I don't think they'll win the game, but I hope they do.

 

[skillz]

There are no QB's worthy of the #1 pick. Not even close.

If Bradford's shoulder checks out he does.

As a Lions fan this is why I want Bradford or Claussen to have a lights out combine so their stock gets them up to being #1 worthy and the Rams feel they want to take either one.

 

[Raider Nation]

There are no QB's worthy of the #1 pick. Not even close.

If Bradford's shoulder checks out he does.

Man, I worry about that kid at the next level. He needs to put on about 100 lbs. of muscle or he'll get snapped clean in half.

 

[MAC_32]

There are no QB's worthy of the #1 pick. Not even close.

If Bradford's shoulder checks out he does.

As a Lions fan this is why I want Bradford or Claussen to have a lights out combine so their stock gets them up to being #1 worthy and the Rams feel they want to take either one.

I can't think of many drafts that had good QB's that did not have at least one valut to top 5 status, I can think of drafts with bad QB's but not ones with good one's. This draft has good QB's, at least one of them will move up.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. The Colts tanked a game to "help" their team in the bigger picture. What's the real difference in the Rams taking an intentional loss to ensure they get a potential difference maker in Suh. That's also looking at the bigger picture. Who could blame them? How can this really be looked at any differntly?

How is it differently? How is it remotely the same is what I say. They're in completely different situations. The Colts have won all year and have clinched a home field advantage, they're playing so that they're healthy for a Super Bowl run.The Rams haven't done squat all year. They haven't earned the right to rest players for a playoff run. Are they Rams front office going to reimburse all the paying customers for their tickets to a game there's no reason to rest players for THIS season.

The Colts fans can go to their game knowing that they're team is two games from a SB.

 

[bulger2holt]

The Rams will suck next too and will be drafting in the top 5, and take Locker. They will be ready to start rolling soon after.

 

[For The Dawgs]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. The Colts tanked a game to "help" their team in the bigger picture. What's the real difference in the Rams taking an intentional loss to ensure they get a potential difference maker in Suh. That's also looking at the bigger picture. Who could blame them? How can this really be looked at any differntly?

How is it differently? How is it remotely the same is what I say. They're in completely different situations. The Colts have won all year and have clinched a home field advantage, they're playing so that they're healthy for a Super Bowl run.The Rams haven't done squat all year. They haven't earned the right to rest players for a playoff run. Are they Rams front office going to reimburse all the paying customers for their tickets to a game there's no reason to rest players for THIS season.

The Colts fans can go to their game knowing that they're team is two games from a SB.

It's same in that they would be making an organizational decision to improve their team. They would not be worried about ONE game...they would be concerned about the bigger picture.I'm not saying they should do it. It's just not really that different.

And by the way.....It's the Colts that should be reimbursing their fans for that BS in the 3rd and 4th quarter yesterday.

 

[For The Dawgs]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. The Colts tanked a game to "help" their team in the bigger picture. What's the real difference in the Rams taking an intentional loss to ensure they get a potential difference maker in Suh. That's also looking at the bigger picture. Who could blame them? How can this really be looked at any differntly?

How is it differently? How is it remotely the same is what I say. They're in completely different situations. The Colts have won all year and have clinched a home field advantage, they're playing so that they're healthy for a Super Bowl run.The Rams haven't done squat all year. They haven't earned the right to rest players for a playoff run. Are they Rams front office going to reimburse all the paying customers for their tickets to a game there's no reason to rest players for THIS season.

The Colts fans can go to their game knowing that they're team is two games from a SB.

It's same in that they would be making an organizational decision to improve their team. They would not be worried about ONE game...they would be concerned about the bigger picture.I'm not saying they should do it. It's just not really that different.

And by the way.....It's the Colts that should be reimbursing their fans for that BS in the 3rd and 4th quarter yesterday.

 

[bulger2holt]

Suh

Long

Carriker

Lots of options and could be a great line for years to come.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. The Colts tanked a game to "help" their team in the bigger picture. What's the real difference in the Rams taking an intentional loss to ensure they get a potential difference maker in Suh. That's also looking at the bigger picture. Who could blame them? How can this really be looked at any differntly?

How is it differently? How is it remotely the same is what I say. They're in completely different situations. The Colts have won all year and have clinched a home field advantage, they're playing so that they're healthy for a Super Bowl run.The Rams haven't done squat all year. They haven't earned the right to rest players for a playoff run. Are they Rams front office going to reimburse all the paying customers for their tickets to a game there's no reason to rest players for THIS season.

The Colts fans can go to their game knowing that they're team is two games from a SB.

It's same in that they would be making an organizational decision to improve their team. They would not be worried about ONE game...they would be concerned about the bigger picture.I'm not saying they should do it. It's just not really that different.

And by the way.....It's the Colts that should be reimbursing their fans for that BS in the 3rd and 4th quarter yesterday.

How about they decide not to play all out next week and let a lot of the inside people know and they all go to Vegas and unload on a sure thing.The Colts sitting their players in the 3rd and 4th is so that they can be fresh for THiS year. There is no valid reason the Rams would sit players for this season.

These guys are professional athletes, you don't get there by throwing games. You'll have more than a handful of guy on this team that won't even be on the Rams next year, they are going out to play a football game. These guys need to play well for contracts next year, they could care less about some college kid.

 

[Avery]

The answer is, it doesn't matter how hard the Rams "try", they are going to loose so the question is moot.

 

[Raider Nation]

The answer is, it doesn't matter how hard the Rams "try", they are going to loose so the question is moot.

They lost 16-13 two weeks ago to Houston when the entire team had the swine flu and the Texans badly needed a win.As Rocco Lampone said in Godfather II: "Difficult... not impossible."

 

[Avery]

The answer is, it doesn't matter how hard the Rams "try", they are going to loose so the question is moot.

They lost 16-13 two weeks ago to Houston when the entire team had the swine flu and the Texans badly needed a win.As Rocco Lampone said in Godfather II: "Difficult... not impossible."

True. Any given Sunday.Leave it to the Rams to win on the one week they need to loose.

 

[Bri]

Gerald McCoy seems pretty awesome too. I'm not sure a team would go to too much trouble to get one over the other

 

[MCguidance]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. The Colts tanked a game to "help" their team in the bigger picture. What's the real difference in the Rams taking an intentional loss to ensure they get a potential difference maker in Suh. That's also looking at the bigger picture. Who could blame them? How can this really be looked at any differntly?

It may not be unreasonable - but this is assuming it's any different from any other year for any other sport (Duncan for the Spurs, Cavs for LeBron). It may happen, but the Colts didn't invent this type of thing.

 

[Arch Stanton]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

The Colts weren't setting any precedents. Resting starters to concentrate on the Lombardi is hardly a new concept.

 

[Bri]

hang on, please define how "intentional loss" is different than every sunday here? What's with this effort to lose stuff?

 

[Raider Nation]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

The Colts weren't setting any precedents. Resting starters to concentrate on the Lombardi is hardly a new concept.

Maybe you missed the bolded part.

 

[a_troll00]

Every player on the Rams is playing for a job next season. For their sakes, I hope they give this game their best shot.

 

[Jimmy James]

The Lions will end up with the #1 pick and will choose...a WR, of course. (to all the Lions fans out there)

Suh is going to be a monster, but I really do see whoever gets the #1 being awed by some combine freak as usual and Suh sliding down (even if it's only to #2).

 

[coolnerd]

Every player on the Rams is playing for a job next season. For their sakes, I hope they give this game their best shot.

We get some version of this thread most draft seasons. NFL rosters turn over around 1/3 every year and with bad teams the number is higher. these guys are not just fighting for a job with the Rams , but are putting together a resume on tape for the next job when the Rams cut them (and guys go from bad teams to better ones all the time). Probably 60% of that roster has legitimate concern over being on any roster next Labor Day. They are not going to roll over so the Rams can guarantee some rookie 30 million when their 300, 000 job is already at stake.

 

[BassNBrew]

Wow it would be funny if the Rams kneeled down every play on offense.

 

[Jimmy James]

Wow it would be funny if the Rams kneeled down every play on offense.

Nah.I think that's the third funniest thing they could do at best. Right off the top of my head, I'd say blowing off the game and thereby forfeiting would be funnier. I think the funniest thing I can think of would be only showing up with the bottom 11 men on the roster (including K and P) and playing both ways with them.

 

[Bri]

The Lions will end up with the #1 pick and will choose...a WR, of course. (to all the Lions fans out there)Suh is going to be a monster, but I really do see whoever gets the #1 being awed by some combine freak as usual and Suh sliding down (even if it's only to #2).

Both McCoy and Suh are "freaks". I doubt anyone surpasses both except maybe that some GM loves Bradford who BTW if this was FF would be better for the Rams to trade down and draft + the value fetched. who is top WR in your opinion? Dez?

 

[Jimmy James]

Dez seems like the most obvious candidate.

 

[thecatch]

SuhLongCarriker Lots of options and could be a great line for years to come.

Long and Carriker aren't all that good.

 

[fantasizing]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

This is why the NHL setup a lottery draft a few years back where the worst teams get drawn into a lottery, and the winner of the lottery gets the 1st pick. This way, it avoids teams intentionally trying to finish last to get the 1st overall pick. So even if a team finishes dead last in the standings, there aren't guaranteed the 1st overall pick. Seems like the NFL could adopt such a system as well.

 

[MikeApf]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. The Colts tanked a game to "help" their team in the bigger picture. What's the real difference in the Rams taking an intentional loss to ensure they get a potential difference maker in Suh. That's also looking at the bigger picture. Who could blame them? How can this really be looked at any differntly?

Playoff bound teams have been resting their starters for years. The Colts didn't set the precedent of resting your starters to keep them fresh for the playoffs. I think that's the part that's a bit far fetched.Everyone is just focusing on the Colts because of the perfect season thing, but resting your starters once you've clinched your playoff position is not new and the Colts didn't "invent it."With that said, sure it's a legit question. But how can you "legislate" with rules when a coach puts in a backup or sits someone for injury. Are coaches now going to have to call the NFL Commish each and every time they want to rest a starter? I can't tell you how many times a player has gotten shaken up in a game and then later said, "If it was the playoffs, I could forced myself back in the game. But we decided to play it safe." THIS IS NOT NEW! More importantly, if you start telling coaches they don't have control over who they play and who they don't, I think that's far worse than what happens right now. Right now, there are some minor annoyances, like the Colts thing, but by and large the best teams win most of the games and make the playoffs each year. There may be one bubble team affected, but we are still looking at the rightful teams slugging it out this year for the Super Bowl...M

 

[MikeApf]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

This is why the NHL setup a lottery draft a few years back where the worst teams get drawn into a lottery, and the winner of the lottery gets the 1st pick. This way, it avoids teams intentionally trying to finish last to get the 1st overall pick. So even if a team finishes dead last in the standings, there aren't guaranteed the 1st overall pick. Seems like the NFL could adopt such a system as well.

Agreed this would be a great solution to this particular issue...plus the lottery is exciting. It could be one of those deals where the worst team gets more "balls" in the lottery than the next worse, etc. THey could even get Sherm LEwis to pull the winning balls out of the bingo hopper. LOLM

 

[MikeApf]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

The Colts weren't setting any precedents. Resting starters to concentrate on the Lombardi is hardly a new concept.

Maybe you missed the bolded part.

Well, if that was the precedent set then -- focused on perfect season -- no worries with the Rams following it!

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

Is this serious?To the point, I don't see the Rams beating the Niners even if they do try their hardest, likely making it a moot point. Suh will be theirs if they want him.

I don't think it's an unreasonable question. The Colts tanked a game to "help" their team in the bigger picture. What's the real difference in the Rams taking an intentional loss to ensure they get a potential difference maker in Suh. That's also looking at the bigger picture. Who could blame them? How can this really be looked at any differntly?

While he Colts didn't necessarily play to win - they certainly didn't TRY to lose.

 

[coolnerd]

The Colts have set an ugly precedent. If they are allowed to throw away a potentially perfect regular season, who's to tell the Rams they can't tank the season to try to get the #1 pick? In future years, who's to tell a 0-11 team to not play backups the rest of the year to get the #1?

This is why the NHL setup a lottery draft a few years back where the worst teams get drawn into a lottery, and the winner of the lottery gets the 1st pick. This way, it avoids teams intentionally trying to finish last to get the 1st overall pick. So even if a team finishes dead last in the standings, there aren't guaranteed the 1st overall pick. Seems like the NFL could adopt such a system as well.

One of the biggest reasons to keep the current college pay system is that it is a discouragement to tanking. Most teams want no part of giving 60 million contracts to guys who have never done one thing in the league, so not only do players have a reason to play hard, organization especially cheap ones (not accusing the Rams of being cheap) don't want high draft picks because of the money. Also remember that 1 player on a team of 53 rarely makes enough difference even when you get that guy right.