Teams that are overhyped/underhyped

[megatechpc]

13 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

I think you are looking at it the wrong with when it comes to the Rams. Since Snead became the Rams GM in 2012 they have built their team in the draft and still is doing so. They arent doing things any differently than what the Eagles did last season by trading for Darby and Ajayi, signing Alshon, Blount, and Smith. Then this offseason they traded for Bennett and signed Ngata and Wallace. The Rams are taking advantage of the rookie deals. Its a copycat league so every team is starting to do that. The Rams last season was the second youngest team in the NFL. You dont get that way by going on a spending spree every offseason. I dont know what their cap space looks like now but before the signing of Cooks and Gurley they were projected to have the 3rd most cap space in 2019 and the most cap space in 2020. You dont go about that by going on a spending spree during the offseason. The Rams went about getting what they need to help them take the next step. I dont see any difference from what they did last offseason that helped them win 11 games than what they did this offseason. As I once said before, last offseason they went about reshaping the offseason. They brought in Woods, Whitworth, Sullivan, Dunbar, traded for Watkins. All guys that McVay had in mind to fit what he wanted to do on offense. This offseason Snead/McVay gave Wade the players that fit what he wanted to do on defense. So they went out and brought in Suh, traded for Talib and Peters, resigned NRC, tagged Joyner, brought in Shields. The Rams lost Watkins so they replaced him with Cooks whom the Rams really wanted last season but didnt have a 1st round pick to give to the Saints to get him. So again, I think its easier to look at the Rams and say they brought all these big name players in so automatically it isnt going to work. I think what Seattle did back when they had Wilson under his rookie deal and what the Eagles is doing with Wentz under is rookie deal is the right way. Cant confuse the smart front office managements doing it the right way. Ill even throw in Atlanta whom Snead was working there prior to coming to the Rams. He saw Demitroff go out and sign Turner, trade for Gonzalez, even make a blockbuster trade in the draft to go get Julio. Its just smart GMs making aggressive moves in the offseason to help the team take that next step. I am not saying the Rams will go (15-1) but I am not saying what they did this offseason is a bad thing. 

 

Like I said, I still expect the Rams to win the West and get 10 or 11 wins this year.  I am just not nearly as high on them as many others who simply look at all the big names and assume that will automatically equate to a best-team-in-the-league result.  On paper they certainly have a daunting collection of players and coaches but games are played on the field and not on paper.  We will see, I could be totally misreading this thing (wouldn't be the first time).

[stl4life07]

9 hours ago, megatechpc said:

 

Like I said, I still expect the Rams to win the West and get 10 or 11 wins this year.  I am just not nearly as high on them as many others who simply look at all the big names and assume that will automatically equate to a best-team-in-the-league result.  On paper they certainly have a daunting collection of players and coaches but games are played on the field and not on paper.  We will see, I could be totally misreading this thing (wouldn't be the first time).

That’s why you have to look at it closely. It’s about coaching and fit. So we look at the Rams the players they added were great fits to the scheme and McVay trust Wade coaching abilities on defense and why not? He has proven himself worthy as a DC. When people talk about the big names the Rams signed nobody on this forum outside of some Rams fans even mentioned how great and well respected coach Wade is. That he will know how to get this defense together and not let individual parts ruin it as a whole. Nobody breaksdown the scheme Wade runs and why those guys the Rams signed is a good fit. Like Cooks is a better fit in LA than Watkins because Watkins never played in an offense even close to McVay’s plus he came to the Rams so late. Cooks played in a similar system in NO for 3yrs and he has been with the Rams for the entire offseason. So again he fits. So that’s why when people talk about the Rams I want more football on the field talk because that’s why people are high on them for these moves. My personal expectations for the Rams are 12-4, win the division, and win at least one playoff game. I think 12-4 can get the Rams 2nd seed in the NFC and a bye in the playoffs. So win one game in the playoffs and they can get the the NFCCG. So that’s my expectations.

[Non-Issue]

I have seen too many “dream teams” fail to impress to get too high on the Rams big acquisitions.

But most of those big acquisitions are either cheap or on short contracts. So they’re all “win/win” situations really. We are already a very young team. We had holes. We filled many of them temporarily with some very solid pieces. Veteran players with experience are, imo, what we needed more than more rookies at this point in the teams history. Veteran leadership and veteran experience. And... as no small bonus, very good players to boot.

The only really risky play is Cooks. I have no doubt that McVay sees Cooks playing a vital role in the offense he envisions. But that is a ton of scratch to give a WR that, imo, hasn’t proven a whole lot.

I don’t think the signing was a bad one. I just think its the only signing that has the potential to backfire on the Rams in any way.

Time will tell. I have no problem with anyone being optimistic about the Rams. At the same time I don’t have a problem with anyone taking a “let’s not crown them yet” view. I am that type of person. A “don’t tell me, show me” kinda guy.

That said, I am thrilled about what my team has done in the offseason and probably haven’t looked forward to a season this much in decades. The only thing that comes close is the Rams first year back in LA. And that was tempered by the fact that we all knew our team was gonna suck.

 

[stl4life07]

3 hours ago, Non-Issue said:

I have seen too many “dream teams” fail to impress to get too high on the Rams big acquisitions.

But most of those big acquisitions are either cheap or on short contracts. So they’re all “win/win” situations really. We are already a very young team. We had holes. We filled many of them temporarily with some very solid pieces. Veteran players with experience are, imo, what we needed more than more rookies at this point in the teams history. Veteran leadership and veteran experience. And... as no small bonus, very good players to boot.

The only really risky play is Cooks. I have no doubt that McVay sees Cooks playing a vital role in the offense he envisions. But that is a ton of scratch to give a WR that, imo, hasn’t proven a whole lot.

I don’t think the signing was a bad one. I just think its the only signing that has the potential to backfire on the Rams in any way.

Time will tell. I have no problem with anyone being optimistic about the Rams. At the same time I don’t have a problem with anyone taking a “let’s not crown them yet” view. I am that type of person. A “don’t tell me, show me” kinda guy.

That said, I am thrilled about what my team has done in the offseason and probably haven’t looked forward to a season this much in decades. The only thing that comes close is the Rams first year back in LA. And that was tempered by the fact that we all knew our team was gonna suck.

 

How many "dream teams" were there? Every time someone say "dream team" they always mention the 2011 Eagles. Thats just one. And that 2011 Eagles dont compare to this Rams team. For starters, the lockout happened. That totally took away the majority of the offseason for teams to properly prepare for the season. Then the Eagles had changes to the oline. The signed big name guys like Asomugha who didnt fit the scheme the Eagles were trying to run on defense. Then the main term "dream team" was introduced by the backup QB Vince Young. Just think about that for a second. The backup QB said "dream team". Not the starter, the backup. The guy did little to nothing in the NFL career. Thats like Sean Mannion calling the Rams a "dream team". So I dont get why people try to compare the Rams with the 2011 Eagles. The Rams dont have to deal with a lockout, they have continuity on the oline, the players that Snead/McVay brought in is scheme fits, and nobody especially a backup QB who hasnt done anything in the NFL is calling the team a dream team. Now if you want to say the Rams are doing what the Seahawks did and what the Eagles did in terms of taking advantage of the cap while their QBs was on their rookie deals then I can get behind that. Because nobody called the Seahawks a "dream team" when they acquired Bennett, Avril, Lynch, Graham, Harvin, either around the time or during the time Wilson was drafted. Nobody called the Eagles a dream team when they acquired Darby, Alshon, Blount, Ajayi, Long, Smith, Wallace, Nagta, Bennett, and Long during the time Wentz was draft. I dont even hear nobody calling the Vikings a dream team since they acquired Cousins and Richardson. I could easily say the Vikings didnt NEED to go sign Cousins or Richardson. Last time I checked they couldve just kept Keenum, paid him less and still had an 11 win team. Their defense was already stacked, they didnt need Richardson. All the Seahawks, Eagles, and Vikings did was put themselves in better positions to win. So why cant anyone say the same thing about the Rams? I can say the same thing with Falcons when they brought in Turner, already had White then drafted Ryan. They lost to the Packers in the playoffs and decided to go trade all the way up to get Julio then traded for Gonzalez to help give Ryan even more weapons on offense. Nobody call them a dream team. Again all they did was put their team in a better position to win. 

[Hunter2_1]

Threads like this always end up with fans of certain teams being offended that you dare to predict they'd be 1 or 2 games worse off (but still damned good). Height of preciousness. Just opinions, guys.

[Non-Issue]

17 hours ago, stl4life07 said:

How many "dream teams" were there? Every time someone say "dream team" they always mention the 2011 Eagles. Thats just one. And that 2011 Eagles dont compare to this Rams team. For starters, the lockout happened. That totally took away the majority of the offseason for teams to properly prepare for the season. Then the Eagles had changes to the oline. The signed big name guys like Asomugha who didnt fit the scheme the Eagles were trying to run on defense. Then the main term "dream team" was introduced by the backup QB Vince Young. Just think about that for a second. The backup QB said "dream team". Not the starter, the backup. The guy did little to nothing in the NFL career. Thats like Sean Mannion calling the Rams a "dream team". So I dont get why people try to compare the Rams with the 2011 Eagles. The Rams dont have to deal with a lockout, they have continuity on the oline, the players that Snead/McVay brought in is scheme fits, and nobody especially a backup QB who hasnt done anything in the NFL is calling the team a dream team. Now if you want to say the Rams are doing what the Seahawks did and what the Eagles did in terms of taking advantage of the cap while their QBs was on their rookie deals then I can get behind that. Because nobody called the Seahawks a "dream team" when they acquired Bennett, Avril, Lynch, Graham, Harvin, either around the time or during the time Wilson was drafted. Nobody called the Eagles a dream team when they acquired Darby, Alshon, Blount, Ajayi, Long, Smith, Wallace, Nagta, Bennett, and Long during the time Wentz was draft. I dont even hear nobody calling the Vikings a dream team since they acquired Cousins and Richardson. I could easily say the Vikings didnt NEED to go sign Cousins or Richardson. Last time I checked they couldve just kept Keenum, paid him less and still had an 11 win team. Their defense was already stacked, they didnt need Richardson. All the Seahawks, Eagles, and Vikings did was put themselves in better positions to win. So why cant anyone say the same thing about the Rams? I can say the same thing with Falcons when they brought in Turner, already had White then drafted Ryan. They lost to the Packers in the playoffs and decided to go trade all the way up to get Julio then traded for Gonzalez to help give Ryan even more weapons on offense. Nobody call them a dream team. Again all they did was put their team in a better position to win. 

1. I have no idea what that wall of text is supposed to be telling me, brother. Are you saying I should expect the Rams to win the SB? All I said was I am not going to get "too high" on them. 
2. Everything you said about the 2011 Eagles is pure hindsight. 
3. "This is why they failed to impress and we won't" is a terrible argument. We can fail to impress for other reasons. And if we do, hindsight will tell us exactly why. 
4. There havent been many "dream teams". But I can think of three (2011 Eagles, 2000 Redskins, 1995 Dolphins) that failed to impress. That is three (out of how many?) too many for me to get too high on the Rams. 
 

[Non-Issue]

1 hour ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Threads like this always end up with fans of certain teams being offended that you dare to predict they'd be 1 or 2 games worse off (but still damned good). Height of preciousness. Just opinions, guys.

Its worse than that. All I said is that I am not going to get "too high" on the big acquisitions and someone took exception to it. And I am a fan of the team.

Buggin.

[Hunter2_1]

3 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

Its worse than that. All I said is that I am not going to get "too high" on the big acquisitions and someone took exception to it. And I am a fan of the team.

Buggin.

How very DARE you not get too high on said team! Obviously a hater. 

[Non-Issue]

6 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

How very DARE you not get too high on said team! Obviously a hater. 

I even said I was probably more excited going into this season than I have any other season in decades. But apparently "cautiously optimistic" aint good enough. I guess I gotta consider the season over before it begins and be like

[stl4life07]

6 hours ago, Non-Issue said:

1. I have no idea what that wall of text is supposed to be telling me, brother. Are you saying I should expect the Rams to win the SB? All I said was I am not going to get "too high" on them. 
2. Everything you said about the 2011 Eagles is pure hindsight. 
3. "This is why they failed to impress and we won't" is a terrible argument. We can fail to impress for other reasons. And if we do, hindsight will tell us exactly why. 
4. There havent been many "dream teams". But I can think of three (2011 Eagles, 2000 Redskins, 1995 Dolphins) that failed to impress. That is three (out of how many?) too many for me to get too high on the Rams. 
 

So wait I gave you examples of the 2011 Seahawks and what they did after drafting Wilson, the 2008 Falcons and everything they did after they drafted Ryan, the 2017 Eagles and what they are doing after drafting Wentz, hell even what the Vikings are doing and they just came away from one win away from a SB appearance last year and nobody still is even mentioning them as a “dream team”. Look all I know is the Rams have more in common with those teams. I don’t mind anyone who says they aren’t high on the Rams. Everyone has a certain level of high and in the NFC is going to be a dog fight but all I’m saying is people gloss over those teams I mentioned and never say “dream teams” about them. The Rams are doing exactly what those teams did but the Rams seem to be getting the “dream team” tag that those teams didn’t. The only thing I can think of is the media ran with it for the Rams now everyone is saying it. It’s cute to say but put it into context.

In the NBA “dream teams” or “super teams” are being formed a lot and some would argue that’s been happening for decades but nobody would acknowledge it till LeBron did what he did in Miami and KD did what he did in GS. It’s only fair to judge them as for what they truly will be then say “big names on one team they will implode or don’t have high expectations because of so many big names”. KD to the Warriors great fit and that’s not hindsight. People knew he would be a great fit as soon as he signed. Melo to OKC bad fit. Some knew it was a bad fit as soon as he was traded there but me I was high on them and they only won one more game with Melo, PG13, and Westbrook than they won the previous season without those additions. I’ll keep saying it that coaching and fit has a lot to do with the success of “dream teams” or “super teams”. I strongly believe the Rams brought in the guys who fit what they want to do within their schemes. The Rams also have the coaching. I know some haven’t bought into McVay yet but Wade has earned his respect I believe and that’s where all those “big names” was added to on defense. If Wade can’t get to work then I want to know who will? That’s all I’m saying. 

[jrry32]

On 8/17/2018 at 10:29 AM, Non-Issue said:

The only really risky play is Cooks. I have no doubt that McVay sees Cooks playing a vital role in the offense he envisions. But that is a ton of scratch to give a WR that, imo, hasn’t proven a whole lot.

I don’t think the signing was a bad one. I just think its the only signing that has the potential to backfire on the Rams in any way.

If practice is any indicator, Cooks is fitting in quite well here. Our WR corp has apparently been giving our stacked group of DBs all they can handle.

[Non-Issue]

1 hour ago, stl4life07 said:

So wait I gave you examples of the 2011 Seahawks and what they did after drafting Wilson, the 2008 Falcons and everything they did after they drafted Ryan, the 2017 Eagles and what they are doing after drafting Wentz, hell even what the Vikings are doing and they just came away from one win away from a SB appearance last year and nobody still is even mentioning them as a “dream team”. Look all I know is the Rams have more in common with those teams. I don’t mind anyone who says they aren’t high on the Rams. Everyone has a certain level of high and in the NFC is going to be a dog fight but all I’m saying is people gloss over those teams I mentioned and never say “dream teams” about them. The Rams are doing exactly what those teams did but the Rams seem to be getting the “dream team” tag that those teams didn’t. The only thing I can think of is the media ran with it for the Rams now everyone is saying it. It’s cute to say but put it into context.

In the NBA “dream teams” or “super teams” are being formed a lot and some would argue that’s been happening for decades but nobody would acknowledge it till LeBron did what he did in Miami and KD did what he did in GS. It’s only fair to judge them as for what they truly will be then say “big names on one team they will implode or don’t have high expectations because of so many big names”. KD to the Warriors great fit and that’s not hindsight. People knew he would be a great fit as soon as he signed. Melo to OKC bad fit. Some knew it was a bad fit as soon as he was traded there but me I was high on them and they only won one more game with Melo, PG13, and Westbrook than they won the previous season without those additions. I’ll keep saying it that coaching and fit has a lot to do with the success of “dream teams” or “super teams”. I strongly believe the Rams brought in the guys who fit what they want to do within their schemes. The Rams also have the coaching. I know some haven’t bought into McVay yet but Wade has earned his respect I believe and that’s where all those “big names” was added to on defense. If Wade can’t get to work then I want to know who will? That’s all I’m saying. 

Do you think the term "dream team" is meant as a negative?

[Non-Issue]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

If practice is any indicator, Cooks is fitting in quite well here. Our WR corp has apparently been giving our stacked group of DBs all they can handle.

I have always liked Cooks' game and I have all the faith in the world in McVay. He went after Cooks for a reason. Theyre investing in him for a reason. McVay clearly sees big things with the kid.

Just saying he is the only acquisition of the off season that really has any sort of risk of backfiring on us. Just because of the size and length of the contract compared to what he has proven on the field. The rest of our acquisitions, imo, are all completely risk free moves. 

 

[CP3MVP]

On 8/10/2018 at 1:09 AM, SkippyX said:

Jacksonville is WAY over-hyped. They are a good team which could improve, but they were not a great team.

They did own Big Ben though. (7 turnovers in 2 games)

 

Their D had 33 sacks (6.6 per game) and gave up 6.2 ppg in 5 games vs 0-16 Cleveland, 1-9 Savage/Yates Houston, and 4-12 Indy (Indy was 2-12 when not playing Savage/Yates Texans)

• The 4 QBs that Indy beat last year had a combined 1-30 record (Kizer, Hoyer, Yates, Savage)

Their D had 22 sacks in the other 11 games (2.0 per game) and gave up 23.4 ppg in those other games.

Outside of those 5 games against really weak teams... they went 5-6.

The Jags were +119 points in those 5 games and a +30 in the other 11 games.

They lost to Blaine Gabbert!

Fournette played in 16 games last year counting the playoffs. He was a sub 3 ypc in 6 of 16. He was sub 4 ypc in 12 of 16.

• He went for 165 yards on 2 carries (vs Rams(75) and Steelers(90)) Those were 2 fantastic plays.
• He averaged 3.32 ypc on his other 336 runs.

 

Jacksonville has a good to very good D (not great)

They have an average RB

They have Bortles

I mean their defense is good but people were talking about comparing them to the 85 bears 2002 Bucs type of units and I never saw it. I’m not shocked they were torched in back to back playoff games

[stl4life07]

51 minutes ago, Non-Issue said:

Do you think the term "dream team" is meant as a negative?

To me it comes across that way because everyone always point to the 2011 Eagles which again its ironic a backup QB actually uttered the words "dream team" when referring to that team. I personally dont think a "dream team" is a negative. When I think of "dream team" I think if the 1992 US Men's Olympic team.