Rams 6, Colts 42: Perfection and luck still MIA for the flacid Rams

by Ryan Van Bibber on Oct 25, 2009 4:16 PM CDT

What else is there left to say? The outmatched St. Louis Rams lost big to the Indianapolis Colts. Nobody legitimately expected otherwise.

Marc Bulger, earlier in the week told reporters that the Rams would need to play "perfect." And there was a drive to start the game teasing us with the possibility that things wouldn't be the same. The requirement of perfect quickly faded to acceptable before haphazard and clubfooted became the rules of order for the Rams. The 42-6 score doesn't even tell the full story. There was a time there when it seemed the Colts could score at will, they just started running the ball in order to not run up the score. They couldn't turn down the free points though.

Thoughts on this game and the Rams 7 weeks in:

Let there be no question about how much this team lacks talent. The offense is so barren it's like an alkali flat in the middle of a big desert, making the everyone else around them look rich with talent.
Proof of this lack of talent? The only person on offense who doesn't look they were picked up off the street is Steven Jackson. Bulger just looks over-the-hill. He'll be a backup somewhere next season.
Wait. Don't tell me. Coach Spagnuolo said "drop a pass, win a prize" in the locker room?
Has there ever been a bunch of receivers so out of touch with their QB? They're both at fault.
Is this game scientific proof that 1) you get no breaks when you're this bad and 2) when are this bad you'll really play even harder to be that bad? I think that one's called pressing.
The defense was just overmatched. With a good offseason, addressing the DL mainly, this could be a good defense.

Perfection is vastly overrated. Sometimes just playing without making mistakes would be a break...for all of us.

Tweet Comment 34 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm glad you said it Van...

“Let there be no question about how much this team lacks talent. The offense is so barren it’s like an alkali flat in the middle of a big desert, making the everyone else around them look rich with talent. "

Because I surely would be accused of being pessimistic.

by victorian on Oct 25, 2009 4:50 PM CDT reply actions

I've been saying the same thing since last year...

quote: “Bulger just looks over-the-hill. He’ll be a backup somewhere next season.”

by edpjr on Oct 25, 2009 4:52 PM CDT reply actions

Maybe Carolina would be interested in the Bulge

by jb22 on Oct 25, 2009 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions

They're becoming less enthralled with Jake Delhomme daily...

by edpjr on Oct 25, 2009 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions

If you said it last year

“next season” is now and he isn’t a backup somewhere else.

I’m going to go on record as saying that Steven Jackson will not be a Ram 12 months from now.

Lived in LA during the Rams and Raiders days. Now based in NorCal, I am still a die hard Rams fan and Raiders season ticket holder.

by CoachConnors on Oct 26, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions

I missed my prediction...a little bit

Peyton and co. will throttle us 47-13
by edpjr on Oct 17, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by edpjr on Oct 25, 2009 5:06 PM CDT reply actions

congrats.

by stlcardinalsfang on Oct 25, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions

you were way too optimistic...

13 points c’mon

by loyal2therams on Oct 25, 2009 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions

i'm sorry to all who dislike bulger

but he will be on this team next year no matter what, so you better get used to it and might as well support him in the process.

as for the game, well it sucked. both lines played like shit, alex barron and jacob bell sucked air the entire game. our receiving corps decided they weren’t going to use their hands today. bulger made poor decision after poor decision, the linebackers sans laurnaitis decided not to show up and the secondary sucked.

if the rams lose next week, i’ll seriously start wondering if 0-16 is in fact a possibility.

by stlcardinalsfang on Oct 25, 2009 5:26 PM CDT reply actions

+1

by edpjr on Oct 25, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions

I am truly a glutton for punishment, thats why I will always love my Rams no matter if they are the absolute worst team in football. It just saddens me to no end to have to say that the faders are better then my team, because in football there are 2 things i hate very much…..#1 the fader fans, #2 the forty-whiners.Having said all that i do believe that in a heads up match the Russell lead faders would beat our Bulger lead Rams,lol, very sad day today

by peteyweestro on Oct 25, 2009 6:01 PM CDT reply actions

uhhh

they lost 38-0 and jamarcus russell got benched for bruce gradkowski…

by loyal2therams on Oct 25, 2009 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah 38-0...

…I’m not so sure my friend. GO RAMS!!! We’re winning next week.

"I was just letting the shots fly. You know, I don't leave any bullets in the chamber."

"Everything negative- pressure, challenges- is all an opportunity for me to rise."

-Kobe Bryant

A mantra for all athletes.

by TrojanRam on Oct 25, 2009 6:09 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

I was there

it was disgusting. To follow up the beating they gave to Philly with this vomit-inducing 38-0 home game…

and I still think their defense makes them a better team than the Rams right now. Please no one bring up the pre-season game Rams had with NYJ because that counts for nothing.

Lived in LA during the Rams and Raiders days. Now based in NorCal, I am still a die hard Rams fan and Raiders season ticket holder.

by CoachConnors on Oct 26, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Yay!

For the MAC!!!

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

by Tackle Box on Oct 25, 2009 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions

thats what so sad, much as I hate it, the faders at least play with some emotion , at least occasionally and they have been good enough or lucky enough to win twice, we have neither wins nor luck so yes the faders would beat us

by peteyweestro on Oct 27, 2009 7:37 PM CDT up reply actions

Was there a game today?

Yep, another loss.

by jlcdb70 on Oct 25, 2009 9:26 PM CDT reply actions

Chris long

Another game without a sack from Chris Long. Any way they would ever move him to strong or weak side linebacker?

by adam2588 on Oct 25, 2009 10:02 PM CDT reply actions

He is actually about as fast as Lauranitus

275 pound linebacker.

Reserved-- been waiting 6 weeks to have this sig, I guess I can wait 1 more

by Carneros on Oct 25, 2009 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions

I think that switch should be considered.

Last time I checked Long is listed at 263 lbs and Lauranitis at 244. I’ve seen Long blocked successfully by a TE, so you know those 330 lb O-Lineman are just pushing him outside and out of the way on passing downs.

by edpjr on Oct 25, 2009 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions

+1

Football players, like prostitutes, are in the business of ruining their bodies for the pleasure of strangers. ~Merle Kessler

by mlkgandhiv2k on Oct 25, 2009 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions

I was actually thinking about that move as well as Carriker back to DE.

Long’s listed at 276 on the Rams website but his 40 time (4.75) is .03 slower than Lauranitis’ 94.72. Carriker also has about that 40 time (4.72) but he is 6’6’’ 305 lbs, he’d bring as much to the table as Long at DE if not more.

Reserved-- been waiting 6 weeks to have this sig, I guess I can wait 1 more

by Carneros on Oct 25, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions

no no no

Long does not have the skill set to play LB.

Being smallish, he needs to be fasterthan he is just to play DE, which I have tried to call attention to. But to try to tell him to play OLB. That’s not something you want to see, really it’s not

Lived in LA during the Rams and Raiders days. Now based in NorCal, I am still a die hard Rams fan and Raiders season ticket holder.

by CoachConnors on Oct 26, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions

That's a fantastic idea...

that might actually save his career. I wonder if the coaches have thought or are thinking about this.

by victorian on Oct 26, 2009 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions

exactly

exactly
I agree with all the comments above. They need to consider the transition because he is such a freak athlete and I don’t want to see him waste away at DE and continue to get punished by O-Lineman. Check out his combine drills at this link and you’ll see why I raised the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECm26pV-OQQ

by adam2588 on Oct 25, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions

I think he could be useful at DE

if we get someone more dominant to play on the other end. Little is a great vet to have, but we’d need the 2001-2006 Little, not the 2009 version. I think it’s great for Chris’ development that he’s getting time on the right side, but he just doesn’t have the skills to be a productive RDE, IMO. I think he could do some great things on the left side against RTs who are generally bigger (and therefore slower). If we don’t go after Dunlap, we’ll have to unearth a gem to get the most out of Long ASAP.

Your uncle molests collies.

by 3k on Oct 25, 2009 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions

No Dunlap!!

I’ve seen this guy just give up on too many plays. He loses interest in the game. Alex Barron Part II.

by 81 Witness on Oct 26, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions

OMGosh - that's the worst possible scenario

by edpjr on Oct 26, 2009 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions

Van, I love the use of the adjective "Flaccid" in describing the Rams....

Flaccid is defined as:
1 not firm or stiff; also : lacking normal or youthful firmness , or
2 lacking vigor or force

…maybe next week we can use the word “impotent.”

by edpjr on Oct 25, 2009 10:29 PM CDT reply actions

exactly

I agree with all the comments above. They need to consider the transition because he is such a freak athlete and I don’t want to see him waste away at DE and continue to get punished by O-Lineman. Check out his combine drills at this link and you’ll see why I raised the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECm26pV-OQQ

by adam2588 on Oct 25, 2009 10:49 PM CDT reply actions

Bad Idea

we dont need anymore players playing out of position(Witherspoon Carriker) it does not usually end up in our favor………..plus im sure if that was a smart idea, the coaches would have tried it long ago…..the coaches know more than some guy who dreams up dreams of where guys should play…………since SJax is by far our best player, why dont we have him play D too? he weighs about 225-235 and is quick, maybe he can be a Will or SS……..what a waste of typing time………….By the way, Long is closer to 280lbs…….you guys need to give him some time, Mario Williams first 2 years people were ready to put the label on him…….look at him now, pro bowler……..and yes im comparing Long to Williams, they are equally athletic IMO…………Get off the Long to LB dream, it wont happen.

I Want The Rams Back In LA....The More They Lose The More Of A Chance That It Will Happen....Sorry St Louis You Cant Keep A Team(Twice)...Rams Come Home....We'll Be Here For You When You Do

by JordansDad on Oct 26, 2009 1:57 AM CDT up reply actions

"what a waste of typing time"

Hey man I’m not trying to be the Rams D-Cordinator just an idea I was throwing out there that might draw some comments. I figure what do we have to lose? I think you took my post a little too personal

by adam2588 on Oct 26, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Long

I specifically watched Long play against the Colts yesterday and he was not bad but also not great. To all the Long haters, he is a bust because he is not a Freeney or other similar player. Unfortunately, those types of players only come along every 20 years or so. The only other option that was being discussed at the time we were drafting players was Vernon Gholston or Glenn Dorsey. Both of those players are no better than Long. So what we have here is another blue collar player that is willing to fill and fit into a role i.e. a Grant WInstom type of player. So, either leave or deal with it.

PS: He did put pressure on Manning for a couple of plays but needs to be more consistent and better talent around him.

by JL67 on Oct 26, 2009 8:09 AM CDT reply actions