NFC Divisional Playoffs: Rams @ Packers - Saturday, Jan 16th, 3:35PM

[CheezWizHed]

They haven't embarrassed themselves in any game this season

They lost to the jets.

 

I'll rephrase then -- they haven't been blown out this season.

 

I am not sure why anyone believes they've played a cupcake schedule because that just isn't true at all. Buffalo is a solid team. Miami is a solid team. The AFC North is quite similar to our schedule against the South. Probably slightly better. Their division is quite clearly better than the NFC North despite the 49ers being down this year. To downplay beating Seattle twice and Tampa once is just...silly (not by you.) Those are 3 real quality wins. We don't have 3 wins against 11-5/12-4 teams on our resume.

 

The Rams have played a tough schedule. Anyone suggesting otherwise isn't really doing any research. No one gets 16 games against playoff teams -- everyone is going to have a few daisies along the way.

 

While it is true that they had a tough schedule, saying the Packers don't have as many wins vs 11 and 12 win teams is a bit of "spin". Both had 2 in the regular season. The Rams got their third while the Packers were enjoying a well-deserved bye week.

 

Both were also 2-2 vs. 11+ win teams this year too.

[adambr2]

To be clear, I wasn't implying that the Packers had an easy schedule. We have our share of quality wins, too. Would have been nice to pick one up in Tampa or Indy, but New Orleans was a very quality road win. I was only disagreeing that the Rams had an easy road and compared our schedule for context.

 

I feel like weak schedule arguments get really overused in the NFL. It's not like college football where some teams clearly don't belong on the same field as others. These are all professional teams and even the bad teams can compete relative to the good teams on their better days and the better teams can play down to the worst teams on their bad days. Unless you play in an absolute albatross of a division, you're going to play some good teams and some bad teams and most teams will fall somewhere in the middle. No one struts into the playoffs with 10 quality wins. I still remember arguing with people last year who insisted the 49ers weren't going anywhere even at 8-0 because they "hadn't played anybody". You'll learn a lot more by looking at the team itself rather than their competition.

[sveumrules]

Number one offense versus number one defense, doesn't get much better than that.

 

Rams scored 372 points this year, Packers allowed 369 points, doesn't get much closer than that.

 

Goff & Donald being banged up plus game being at Lambeau are three pretty significant factors in the Packers favor.

 

538 has the win probability at Packers (78%) Rams (22%) & that feels about right to me.

[HiAndTight]

The Rams entire resume is about as pathetic as it gets. Washington and the Bears are probably the only teams that could manage a worse resume. The Rams beat Tampa Bay in November and also beat the Seahawks 2/3 times...that is it. Their schedule this year had to be one of the weakest in the NFL.

 

They may have a good defense, but their trash schedule probably pad the stats a bit.

 

The Rams literally had the toughest strength of schedule of any NFC playoff team and the best strength of victory of any team in the NFC and 3rd best in the entire NFL.

 

 

Where do you find that? I see a dozen different SOS rankings.

 

The Rams...from what I've seen, did have a tougher strength of schedule than the Packers, but not the 3rd toughest.

 

 

http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/strength-of-schedule.php

[adambr2]

The Rams entire resume is about as pathetic as it gets. Washington and the Bears are probably the only teams that could manage a worse resume. The Rams beat Tampa Bay in November and also beat the Seahawks 2/3 times...that is it. Their schedule this year had to be one of the weakest in the NFL.

 

They may have a good defense, but their trash schedule probably pad the stats a bit.

 

The Rams literally had the toughest strength of schedule of any NFC playoff team and the best strength of victory of any team in the NFC and 3rd best in the entire NFL.

 

 

Where do you find that? I see a dozen different SOS rankings.

 

The Rams...from what I've seen, did have a tougher strength of schedule than the Packers, but not the 3rd toughest.

 

 

http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/strength-of-schedule.php

 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/standings/_/view/playoff

 

Best SOS of any NFC playoff team.

 

For 3rd best in the NFL I was referring to their SOV (behind Jacksonville and New York Jets) whose rankings in that category are a bit misleading for obvious reasons.

[HiAndTight]

I thought early on that the Rams were the best team in the NFC West once San Fran's injuries mounted beyond the point of any NFL roster being able to manage, and that's proven to be true. They are capable of beating the Packers simply because their defense is capable of wrecking the offense for Green Bay if the Packers can't take advantage of matchups with pass catchers beyond Adams, which would make the game a tossup.

 

I think Adams still gets his but doesn't have a huge day with Ramsey on him, but Tonyan, Lazard, and RBs out of the backfield could have a field day if the Oline plays well.

 

 

It's kinda funny, just one year ago the Rams were getting killed for their personnel decisions. Trading Peters, giving up a lot for Ramsey. And now they're back, competing for another SB bid.

 

I think Veldheer could really be a huge signing. You'll need Linsley to slide to help with Donald(either way, though I feel quite a bit better with Jenkins on him, though he generally lines up over the RG).

 

It's gonna be really a great matchup between the two Head Coaches as well though. They both know what the other team is going to run and each defense has practiced against a very similar offense. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a pick six on a quick hitch or a WR'er screen. Something similar to what Sullivan did vs the Lions.

[HiAndTight]

 

http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/strength-of-schedule.php

 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/standings/_/view/playoff

 

Best SOS of any NFC playoff team.

 

For 3rd best in the NFL I was referring to their SOV (behind Jacksonville and New York Jets) whose rankings in that category are a bit misleading for obvious reasons.

 

 

Got it.

[brewcrewdue80]

We're in another fortunate game this year where the opponents best won't be 100% or playing this season. Goff hurt, Donald hurt this game should be a laugher much like SF laughed at us last season hosting at home. We're better than them straight up. Sounds to me like Tonyan should be targeted more so likely a few rollouts. Adams if he is any thing like he was vs the Titans will still feast Ramsay or not. Our LBs are healthy to negate the rushing and keep it to a minimum. Green Bay all the way.

 

 

I think you're setting yourself up for a disappointment if you expect us to beat anyone in the playoffs as the 49'ers beat us last year.

 

There's going to be however many fans in the stands possibly snow. Home Field advantage is what Im referring to as a laugher like SF had. Game would have been a lot closer in GB. I would be worried if this was in LA.

 

The Packers really only bad loss was vs Tampa and I still contend the turnaround was after Rodgers took a big hit and clearly landed on top of him. Took another hit not long after and his throws ever since that initial hit just lost all zip. Until LA lands that kind of shot on Rodgers GB is going to control this game.

[MrTPlush]

The Rams entire resume is about as pathetic as it gets. Washington and the Bears are probably the only teams that could manage a worse resume. The Rams beat Tampa Bay in November and also beat the Seahawks 2/3 times...that is it. Their schedule this year had to be one of the weakest in the NFL.

 

They may have a good defense, but their trash schedule probably pad the stats a bit.

 

The Rams literally had the toughest strength of schedule of any NFC playoff team and the best strength of victory of any team in the NFC and 3rd best in the entire NFL.

 

I suppose if toughest is defined by playing almost all 6-10 to 8-8 teams. They lost 2/3 of their big non divisional games (Bills/Dolphins). I can’t say splitting with the Seahawks is overly impressive. One could argue they were never embarrassed, but at the same time they never really dominated despite playing a lot of below average teams.

[adambr2]

The Rams entire resume is about as pathetic as it gets. Washington and the Bears are probably the only teams that could manage a worse resume. The Rams beat Tampa Bay in November and also beat the Seahawks 2/3 times...that is it. Their schedule this year had to be one of the weakest in the NFL.

 

They may have a good defense, but their trash schedule probably pad the stats a bit.

 

The Rams literally had the toughest strength of schedule of any NFC playoff team and the best strength of victory of any team in the NFC and 3rd best in the entire NFL.

 

I suppose if toughest is defined by playing almost all 6-10 to 8-8 teams. They lost 2/3 of their big non divisional games (Bills/Dolphins). I can’t say splitting with the Seahawks is overly impressive. One could argue they were never embarrassed, but at the same time they never really dominated despite playing a lot of below average teams.

 

As I mentioned in another post, most teams play a few tough games, a few cupcakes, and then a bunch of middle of the road teams. That is not unique to the Rams.

 

Also, Tampa Bay isn't a big non divisional game?

 

I gave you what the actual numbers were on their strength of schedule both overall and relative to their peers. If the math doesn't convince you that you were mistaken to say that the Rams must have played one of the weakest schedules in the NFL then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

[Outlander]

I find it real hard to believe that the Rams can keep up with the Packers. Only chance for them is getting the Packers to start slow and Akers running a bunch and winning the time of possession. If the Rams fall behind they are done, Goff is pretty bad right now. Pack by 7 seems fair but imagine they win by at least twice that.

[areacodes]

The Rams literally had the toughest strength of schedule of any NFC playoff team and the best strength of victory of any team in the NFC and 3rd best in the entire NFL.

 

I suppose if toughest is defined by playing almost all 6-10 to 8-8 teams. They lost 2/3 of their big non divisional games (Bills/Dolphins). I can’t say splitting with the Seahawks is overly impressive. One could argue they were never embarrassed, but at the same time they never really dominated despite playing a lot of below average teams.

 

As I mentioned in another post, most teams play a few tough games, a few cupcakes, and then a bunch of middle of the road teams. That is not unique to the Rams.

 

Also, Tampa Bay isn't a big non divisional game?

 

I gave you what the actual numbers were on their strength of schedule both overall and relative to their peers. If the math doesn't convince you that you were mistaken to say that the Rams must have played one of the weakest schedules in the NFL then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

 

I think the Rams schedule is quite interesting and I’m sort of in the middle between the two of you. I don’t think their schedule was trash as TPlush but I feel their high SoS numbers are misleading too.

 

They played a total of 4 teams with winning records (just as the Packers did with their middle of the road SoS) for 5 games (Buf, TB, Mia, Sea x2) in the regular season. The main thing that I found to bump their SoS up was the lack of a lot of really crappy teams and playing a bunch of mediocre to average teams (in the 6-10 to 8-8 range that TPlush mentioned). They played two teams with 5 or less wins (and lost to one of them) in the Jets and Eagles.

 

Honestly, their schedule reminded me of how the Badgers would build a strong schedule in BB where they played a few elite teams and tried to reduce the really crappy teams in OOC (by playing lots of teams in the middle - teams they shouldn’t have much trouble beating but are still competitive).

 

Side note: I don’t really like the Strength of Victory stat unless I’m misunderstanding it (which is entirely possible). Anything that can potentially reward you for losing to a really crappy team like the Jets should receive extra scrutiny in my opinion.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I hate basically all schedule stats. It's easier to just go down the line and see when a team played a bunch of flower lilies, like in the case of Pittsburgh. It doesn't indicate when you played a team, how they were playing at the time, who was hurt, etc., and NFL teams go through such ebbs and flows that I find it more fruitful to just look at who is playing hot at the moment.

 

I'm slightly biased, but I think the Packers will win the Super Bowl. There is a good mix of talent on both sides of the ball and Rodgers just looks like a man on a mission. I just don't think anyone will get in his way, and they have so many complementary players to help. They're sitting right about where I always thought they had to get to win another title: Rodgers playing lights out and making their offense legit, with a defense that's teetering around top 1/3 in the league.

 

Much like in 2014, except this year I think the competition isn't as good.

[HarveysWBs]

I hate basically all schedule stats. It's easier to just go down the line and see when a team played a bunch of flower lilies, like in the case of Pittsburgh. It doesn't indicate when you played a team, how they were playing at the time, who was hurt, etc., and NFL teams go through such ebbs and flows that I find it more fruitful to just look at who is playing hot at the moment.

 

I'm slightly biased, but I think the Packers will win the Super Bowl. There is a good mix of talent on both sides of the ball and Rodgers just looks like a man on a mission. I just don't think anyone will get in his way, and they have so many complementary players to help. They're sitting right about where I always thought they had to get to win another title: Rodgers playing lights out and making their offense legit, with a defense that's teetering around top 1/3 in the league.

 

Much like in 2014, except this year I think the competition isn't as good.

Agreed. I will admit I was very worried about the defense at the midway point, but they’ve gelled beyond my wildest expectations.

 

I’ve still seen enough promising teams in the last decade implode against a monstrous defensive front to be worried about the next couple games, but I feel better about this team than I have since 2014, and think this team will be rated more highly than that one when it’s all over. I just hope I’m not playing Charlie Brown to the Packers’ Lucy one more time.

[MrTPlush]

Honestly reminds me of the 2016, but actually really good. The 2016 was pretty solid in the end, but this years team actually feels like one of the elite compared to the rest of the NFL

 

I think we make the NFCCG, but lose to Tampa Bay. Much like the Lakers winning after Kobe died something about Tom Brady at least making to Super Bowl the first year without the Patriots just seems destined to happen. Sometimes it just feels like sports go that way.

[HiAndTight]

I hate basically all schedule stats. It's easier to just go down the line and see when a team played a bunch of flower lilies, like in the case of Pittsburgh. It doesn't indicate when you played a team, how they were playing at the time, who was hurt, etc., and NFL teams go through such ebbs and flows that I find it more fruitful to just look at who is playing hot at the moment.

 

I'm slightly biased, but I think the Packers will win the Super Bowl. There is a good mix of talent on both sides of the ball and Rodgers just looks like a man on a mission. I just don't think anyone will get in his way, and they have so many complementary players to help. They're sitting right about where I always thought they had to get to win another title: Rodgers playing lights out and making their offense legit, with a defense that's teetering around top 1/3 in the league.

 

Much like in 2014, except this year I think the competition isn't as good.

 

I think we're pretty much in agreement across the board on this Packers team and how they stack up...and the Rams being the toughest matchup for them(though one they should be able to get past).

 

The Packers SHOULD be the favorites. They're the best team and they're playing well. KC is maybe the more exciting team and the sexier pick, but they won't win the way they've been playing for most of the year.

 

All those things stack up, plus they've got a talented running game and relatively speaking, very good health. They've shored up the two area's of concern, OT and DL with veterans who are able to play right away if needed.

 

 

And the SOS...I just posted one that had the Rams in the middle of the league. Above the Packers, but not by much. They didn't play a great schedule, they didn't play a bad one. Just an NFL schedule...which as Adambr said, most teams will play a handful of cupcakes, a handful of really good teams and then mostly play teams in the middle. Anyway, that really doesn't matter.

[HiAndTight]

I hate basically all schedule stats. It's easier to just go down the line and see when a team played a bunch of flower lilies, like in the case of Pittsburgh. It doesn't indicate when you played a team, how they were playing at the time, who was hurt, etc., and NFL teams go through such ebbs and flows that I find it more fruitful to just look at who is playing hot at the moment.

 

I'm slightly biased, but I think the Packers will win the Super Bowl. There is a good mix of talent on both sides of the ball and Rodgers just looks like a man on a mission. I just don't think anyone will get in his way, and they have so many complementary players to help. They're sitting right about where I always thought they had to get to win another title: Rodgers playing lights out and making their offense legit, with a defense that's teetering around top 1/3 in the league.

 

Much like in 2014, except this year I think the competition isn't as good.

Agreed. I will admit I was very worried about the defense at the midway point, but they’ve gelled beyond my wildest expectations.

 

I’ve still seen enough promising teams in the last decade implode against a monstrous defensive front to be worried about the next couple games, but I feel better about this team than I have since 2014, and think this team will be rated more highly than that one when it’s all over. I just hope I’m not playing Charlie Brown to the Packers’ Lucy one more time.

 

 

The Rams front is definitely what COULD potentially tilt this game toward the Rams. If you just swapped out Fletcher Cox for Donald, they wouldn't be that scary, but when a front has that one player who's just unblockable, it makes average players look good and good players look like Pro Bowlers. The Packers defense in the 90's is kinda proof of that.

 

The thing about this team is they're just not nearly as reliant on Rodgers. AS you said, the defense over the last 6-7 weeks, just kinda figured it out. On all three levels. The DL started playing well, Savage started to break out, Amos started playing better, Gary's really stepped up and he's been healthy over that time period.

 

But it's not like you can point to one or two players and say these guys are the reason our defense has gelled. It's really been a team effort. So much better effort.

[HiAndTight]

We're in another fortunate game this year where the opponents best won't be 100% or playing this season. Goff hurt, Donald hurt this game should be a laugher much like SF laughed at us last season hosting at home. We're better than them straight up. Sounds to me like Tonyan should be targeted more so likely a few rollouts. Adams if he is any thing like he was vs the Titans will still feast Ramsay or not. Our LBs are healthy to negate the rushing and keep it to a minimum. Green Bay all the way.

 

 

I think you're setting yourself up for a disappointment if you expect us to beat anyone in the playoffs as the 49'ers beat us last year.

 

There's going to be however many fans in the stands possibly snow. Home Field advantage is what Im referring to as a laugher like SF had. Game would have been a lot closer in GB. I would be worried if this was in LA.

 

The Packers really only bad loss was vs Tampa and I still contend the turnaround was after Rodgers took a big hit and clearly landed on top of him. Took another hit not long after and his throws ever since that initial hit just lost all zip. Until LA lands that kind of shot on Rodgers GB is going to control this game.

 

 

There are going to be about 6,000 people in the stands I believe. Not really enough to make much of a difference. And I don't think it would have been a different game if SF had played in GB rather than us playing there. Defense and a dominant run game will always travel.

 

The Rams are similar to the 49'ers...but a much lesser version. But still, the same recipe. A front that can get pressure on the QB, a very strong running game, and a secondary that can matchup...with one player in particular who can defend Adams, but also guys like Johnson that we just don't hear of very often who are very good players.

[homer]

I think Goff has only played like 3 games in temps below 40 degrees in his life.

[adambr2]

I think Goff has only played like 3 games in temps below 40 degrees in his life.

 

Did he play well in those games, or struggle?

 

Forecast is around 30 at gametime with no precipitation. While cold by LA standards I don't expect weather to be a big factor in the game like one might expect if they were playing in below zero temperatures.

[HiAndTight]

I think Goff has only played like 3 games in temps below 40 degrees in his life.

 

Did he play well in those games, or struggle?

 

Forecast is around 30 at gametime with no precipitation. While cold by LA standards I don't expect weather to be a big factor in the game like one might expect if they were playing in below zero temperatures.

 

 

His states are absolutely brutal. 0 TD's and 5 Picks IIRC with ~45 pct comp pct in 2 games under 30.

 

I just read the article...but it was also from his worst season and I believe it was mostly one awful game vs a very good defense. Maybe the Bears when they had the top D? I don't remember for certain now. But even if you can kinda explain the poor performances away in those two games, he'll be playing in the cold....with a bad thumb.

 

He ALSO has those especially tiny hands for a QB. 9 inches I think they were...much smaller than the average QB...which has been attributed to his fumbling issues and poor performances in the cold/wet weather.

 

 

That's why I'd like to see our CB's up on them and not giving them big cushions. I think they'll try to give him as many easy throws as possible. And if Kupp's out, then you can use Sullivan on one of those two athletic TE's they've got.

[Zad Fnark]

 

There are going to be about 6,000 people in the stands I believe. Not really enough to make much of a difference. And I don't think it would have been a different game if SF had played in GB rather than us playing there. Defense and a dominant run game will always travel.

 

Unless you get a guy with a booming Pete Adelis voice hurling insults at the Rams.

 

https://www.inquirer.com/sports/philadelphia-fans-boos-heckling-bryce-harper-russell-westbrook-demarcus-cousins-20190330.html

[MrTPlush]

I wouldn’t call their run game “very strong”. It’s not bad, but not exactly impressive either. They were #10 in rushing yards per game, but average yards per carry they ranked #17.

 

They certainly have some talent that can cause problems, but not a team that wrecks havoc on teams weekly with the run.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think the weather is really all that big of a difference to professional athletes, it's that he's nursing a bad injury, which you always want to do in a climate-controlled environment as opposed to 30 degrees.

 

The only way I see the Rams winning this game is if the Packers revert to just getting gutted up the middle by the run. That will slow things down and play into their hands. If the Packers go up 2 scores at any point the game is basically over. They are just not built or in the condition health-wise to come back from that.

[CheezWizHed]

Weather can have a major impact to some. Skill athletes (WR/RB/TE/CB) that don't know how to run on snow and grass tend to be much more tentative. I'm blanking on the game, but we played on earlier where the other team looked like they were tip-toeing most of the first half. Edit- I think it was Carolina.

 

And weather will effect anyone that has to hold the football. It is pretty well known about QB hand-size and cold/wet conditions (if not, just listen to Aikman brag about his big hands this week during the Packer game). Less impactful, but still some impact on RBs. And catching a frozen rock when your hands are cold isn't easy either. All the conditions effect both teams equally, but when you've done it many times, it makes it easier mentally to prepare for it and know some tricks on how to make it easier.

 

I saw somewhere that the Rams were 1-7 or 1-8 all time in playoff games below 30 degrees. That isn't Goff, but just the team in general.