Rams Don't Want to Follow KC Football Model

[Chiefnj2]

“Do we want to be the Chiefs, Texans or Jets?” That’s a question that bounced around the Rams’ hierarchy over the past three months, as they decided whether to break the bank to move up to No. 1. In other words, three franchises trying to go deep into the playoffs with strong defenses and questionable quarterback situations (though I’d argue Kansas City is better than that, but I’m not the one asking the question). The quest for the quarterback gained momentum as the off-season went on, got very serious at the Ole Miss Pro Day on March 28, and was consummated because it made too much sense for the needs of both teams.

- MMQB

[mcaj22]

Rams = lean on Todd Gurley

Chiefs = lean on their 25 starting caliber RBs

so, the same formula basically in a "passing era." Both are doing it wrong.

[Chief_For_Life58]

burn

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by mcaj22

Rams = lean on Todd Gurley

Chiefs = lean on their 25 starting caliber RBs

so, the same formula basically in a "passing era." Both are doing it wrong.

I'd argue that formula in a "passing era" is doing it right.

Defenses are built to stop the pass, so in theory the running game heavy teams should have an advantage.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I'd argue that formula in a "passing era" is doing it right.

Defenses are built to stop the pass, so in theory the running game heavy teams should have an advantage.

Yeah....as long as they have an offense that can win games when it needs to.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Yeah....as long as they have an offense that can win games when it needs to.

Which has been when, exactly?

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

How are they not like us?

They're going to go into this season with a strong defense and a questionable QB. I highly doubt that Goff or Wentz come in and become Peyton Manning in his prime in their first season.

They're going to play defense, run the ball and limit their QB's mistakes.....just like we ****ing do.

Well maybe they are hoping that they won't stay reliant on the defense long term. I absolutely think youre correct short term, but maybe they are hoping their 1.1 will have a higher ceiling than one of the best game managers in the league....maybe they are hoping we will break out into a guy who can take the game over etc...

Its a YUGE gamble....but if they hit it will be worth it, IMO. If not....same old sorry ass rams.

[alpha_omega]

Well, they can use whatever ever kind of excuse they want (we don't want to be like the Jets, Texans, or Chiefs)...but they didn't have any choice. If they didn't make the trade their spot in the unemployment line was coming soon...it may still come, but they had to take the risk. The comments they made here are purely an attempt to cover what they were really doing.

[mcaj22]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I'd argue that formula in a "passing era" is doing it right.

Defenses are built to stop the pass, so in theory the running game heavy teams should have an advantage.

But can the running game heavy teams score as quick as the pass heavy teams if they need a quick score? i.e. 2 minute offense?

I don't know the answer to that I'm asking, like is the Vikings 2 minute offense better than the Patriots, which one would you rather have? Teddy and AP or Tom Brady and whatever toy box of WRs/TEs he has?

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by mcaj22

But can the running game heavy teams score as quick as the pass heavy teams if they need a quick score? i.e. 2 minute offense?

I don't know the answer to that I'm asking, like is the Vikings 2 minute offense better than the Patriots, which one would you rather have? Teddy and AP or Tom Brady and whatever toy box of WRs/TEs he has?

Look at who has beaten the Chiefs the last 3 years should give you an idea, what you need under center.

[jspchief]

Too many of you are focused on your hurt feelings from a perceived slight, while ignoring the point that was being made.

The Rams made a conscious decision this year to build the team around what they feel is a franchise QB. To the degree that they are sacrificing other players (picks) to lay that foundation. That's simply a very different approach than the Chiefs have taken. It's not an insult, it's fact.

As for the chance of success versus falling on their face... there's not much evidence that failing has any negative effects that go beyond what the Chiefs have experienced doing it the safe way. KC has had a pretty stellar run on 1st round picks going all the way back to Tamba Hali. And what did all those picks result in? Varying degrees of success and failure, including the worst season in franchise history. Even the success the team has had in the last 3 years has to be partially credited to finally getting a qb.

The Rams just came out and said they believe draft picks and/or good players aren't worth much without a franchise qb. KC is a perfect example of that reality.

[-King-]

How in the **** do the Rams even have a strong defense? They were 13th in points and 23rd in yards. Chiefs were 3rd in points and 7th in yards. How the hell is it even a comparison?

And I guess they missed the Broncos winning the superbowl with literally one of the 3 worst QBs in the league last year. Or Russell Wilson game managing his way to a superbowl ring.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

How are they not like us?

They're going to go into this season with a strong defense and a questionable QB. I highly doubt that Goff or Wentz come in and become Peyton Manning in his prime in their first season.

They're going to play defense, run the ball and limit their QB's mistakes.....just like we ****ing do.

Alex Smith is no questionable. We pretty much know what we're going to get game in and game out. Thats far from what you can expect from a rookie.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Look at who has beaten the Chiefs the last 3 years should give you an idea, what you need under center.

Didn't lose either playoff game because of Smith.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Too many of you are focused on your hurt feelings from a perceived slight, while ignoring the point that was being made.

The Rams made a conscious decision this year to build the team around what they feel is a franchise QB. To the degree that they are sacrificing other players (picks) to lay that foundation. That's simply a very different approach than the Chiefs have taken. It's not an insult, it's fact.

As for the chance of success versus falling on their face... there's not much evidence that failing has any negative effects that go beyond what the Chiefs have experienced doing it the safe way. KC has had a pretty stellar run on 1st round picks going all the way back to Tamba Hali. And what did all those picks result in? Varying degrees of success and failure, including the worst season in franchise history. Even the success the team has had in the last 3 years has to be partially credited to finally getting a qb.

The Rams just came out and said they believe draft picks and/or good players aren't worth much without a franchise qb. KC is a perfect example of that reality.

Thats a fair take IMO, theres no reason to be butthurt about their comments... I've done a 180 on this move, considering the Bradford freebie and comp picks they had, what they gave up doesnt seem so terrible

1) they have a big, jaded new market they want to make an impression on

2) they also have a team thats made some big noise even with bad QB play

If they choose right, and dont **** him up with terrible coaching and too many expectations, they'll be set for the next 10 years, its actually the best move they've made in forever... too bad they didnt give the same commitment and effort to St Louis

Now about that coaching...

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Too many of you are focused on your hurt feelings from a perceived slight, while ignoring the point that was being made.

The Rams made a conscious decision this year to build the team around what they feel is a franchise QB. To the degree that they are sacrificing other players (picks) to lay that foundation. That's simply a very different approach than the Chiefs have taken. It's not an insult, it's fact.

As for the chance of success versus falling on their face... there's not much evidence that failing has any negative effects that go beyond what the Chiefs have experienced doing it the safe way. KC has had a pretty stellar run on 1st round picks going all the way back to Tamba Hali. And what did all those picks result in? Varying degrees of success and failure, including the worst season in franchise history. Even the success the team has had in the last 3 years has to be partially credited to finally getting a qb.

The Rams just came out and said they believe draft picks and/or good players aren't worth much without a franchise qb. KC is a perfect example of that reality.

Well said.