[PARAM]

There's a genuine, authentic real honest answer that some don't want to believe.

McVay has been consistent since the playoffs on how Gurley's production played out in the NFC Championship game and the Super bowl.

Shaking my head as to why this is still challenged.

And McVay cited the 13 yard run (during the 4th series) in the 2nd half that was called back. Gurley got the ball 3 times in the first half for 10 yards. CJ got it 4 times for 10 yards. And they each had a long of 5 yards, which means on 5 of the 7 runs they got 10 yards. Was CJ injured too? Or was the key just 7 runs?

In the 2nd half Gurley had a run of 16, another of 13 that was called back and a 5 yarder matching the first half high. On 4 other runs he got 5 yards. CJ got 3 carries (all for 4 yards) for 12 yards in the 2nd half. They did have 38 yards on 10 carries in the 2nd half. But 10 carries after just 7 in the first half?

We were having trouble running the ball save for 2 runs, 1 that counted. I don't think it was due to injury but rather good defense and an OL who couldn't (or didn't) adjust. Was that on Kromer or McVay? Or was it Belichick? We had five 3 and outs on 12 possessions (not counting the 1 play drive FG miss). That's almost 50% when it seemed all year, the Rams would need 6 or 7 games to have five 3 and outs.

It’s difficult to explain just how good the Los Angeles Rams have been this season. While they’ve been almost unmovable on defense, the offense has been cruising to 30-point games in the first three weeks of the season.

They’re fourth in points scored, third in yards, second in first downs and have shown great balance between the run and the pass. The Raiders, Cardinals and Chargers all failed to limit the Rams offense, allowing an average of 439 yards in the first three games to Los Angeles.

All those stats are impressive, but this one from Bill Barnwell might take the cake. Getting the Rams off the field is obviously difficult, but doing so in the first three plays of a drive is near-impossible.

Lowest three-and-out percentage in the NFL through three games:

3) Chiefs 25.0%
3) Raiders 25.0%
3) Bengals 25.0%
2) Buccaneers 20.8%

1) Rams 6.9%

They led everybody by 14% and true that was just through 3 games but they seemed to keep it up all season. It's difficult to explain the Superbowl, so "third base"....Gurley.

The gap between the Rams and the rest of the NFL is staggering, to say the least. They’ve had 29 offensive drives through three games and only two of them have ended in three-and-outs – one of which came on the Rams’ first possession of the 2018 season.

Here are a few additional numbers and their rankings on a per-drive basis this year.

Rams rank 1st in:
- Average drive time (3:20)
- Plays per drive (7.07)
- Yards per drive (45.4)

2nd in points per drive (2.93), 8th in average starting position (29.9-yard line)

You can’t stop the Rams, you can only hope to contain them.

Well somebody stopped them. Belichick or McVay. But it's en vogue to point to Gurley's knee when it comes to 'what happened in the Superbowl' or 'what happened after the Dallas game'. And all indications.....from McVay.....from their actions (or lack of actions you might expect if something bad were truly wrong with Gurley)….but we still have the draft to go. Who knows? I trust what they're saying (and not doing).

LINK

[/zn/]

Well somebody stopped them. Belichick or McVay. But it's en vogue to point to Gurley's knee when it comes to 'what happened in the Superbowl'

That may be true somewhere, that is it is possible that someone is saying that (I wouldn't know), but no one in this thread that I saw, poster or quoted text, says that.

So why is it coming up?

No one in this thread (that I saw) is stating or defending the view that the superbowl struggle gets down to Gurley not being able to play.

I thought the superbowl struggle had more to do with the Patz defensive gameplan and the Rams OL and Goff being out of rhythm (because of the Patz D and the Rams OL).

Where does this idea come from that someone is pinning that game on Gurley?

...

[AvengerRam]

Where does this idea come from that someone is pinning that game on Gurley?

...

That’s exactly what Hammond implied in the quote from the first post of this thread. You might recognize that if you weren’t working so hard to help the thread “take on a life of its own.”

[/zn/]

That’s exactly what Hammond implied in the quote

Thanks. But. How do you get from that quotation that Hammond blames the loss on Gurley?

The most I get from that remark (which is taken out of context btw) is that RH thinks Gurley was not playing up to his best standard in that game. I don't know how anyone gets from that that RH blames the whole loss on TG. If RH DID think that (and that's not what I see him saying), it would not be worth debating. He would be wrong if he thought that. That would be a weak explanation for that game.

I don't find that issue to be the least bit important. To me, reducing the Gurley discussion to some people believing that RH blames the superbowl on Gurley is going far off the real issues for the sake of one (dubious) way of reading one remark by one guy. There is a lot more to discussing Gurley than that. And there's a lot more to discussing the superbowl than that.

Oh and btw I agree with this...and in fact it is one of the things I've been saying this whole thread:

When it comes to Gurley, I'd expect full candor if his situation was clear cut (i.e. a broken bone, torn ACL). On the other hand, with ongoing/intermittent/potentially chronic knee swelling/pain of a varying degrees of severity (aka arthritis, generally), I'd expect a bit more hedging, both on the eve of a big game and during the offseason. So, to the extent that we're not getting the whole story, I don't feel as though McVay or Snead is being untrustworthy.

Yeah. That's what we should expect.

...

...

[AvengerRam]

Hammond’s tweet strongly implies that McVay isn’t trustworthy when it comes to Gurley, and he cites the Super Bowl to justify his implication.

To me, that’s sensationalism, not journalism.

[/zn/]

Hammond’s tweet strongly implies that McVay isn’t trustworthy when it comes to Gurley, and he cites the Super Bowl to justify his implication.

To me, that’s sensationalism, not journalism.

To me, that's not sensationalism, nor journalism, nor Hammond. That's just you.

I don't see those implications in his statement. It's like I see his comment on a 45 degree angle and you see it on a 90 degree angle, and I wonder, how did he get there? (Plus it's just a tweet. If you follow twitter, reporters often use it to express a lot of personal opinions. They don't necessarily talk the same way there that they do in actual articles.)

I just see that tweet (the whole tweet, not that one line out of context) as basically being about how we really don't know the whole story on Gurley's knee. And, that's just true.

I don't see him blaming the superbowl loss on TG's knee at all. I can't get there from his actual words.

[PARAM]

Thanks. But. How do you get from that quotation that Hammond blames the loss on Gurley?

And nobody in this thread, including me, is blaming the loss on Gurley. I specifically said, CJ didn't do shit either. But the questions were out there, all over, from many pertaining to "what's the matter with Gurley" when it came to the New Orleans game and the Superbowl. Nobody asked, "what's the matter with CJ?" but ironically, he didn't do shit against New Orleans either (16 for 44; 2.8).

I suggested it was the OL not adjusting to or unable to adjust to the defenses we played in those two games. Or McVay getting away from balance, which is what he said in not so many words, many times. Or a combination of both. But it's like Captain Queeg with the ballbearings…..'the strawberries, the strawberries' or in this case, 'Gurley. What's the matter with Gurley'.

[/zn/]

And nobody in this thread, including me, is blaming the loss on Gurley. I specifically said, CJ didn't do shit either. But the questions were out there, all over, from many pertaining to "what's the matter with Gurley" when it came to the New Orleans game and the Superbowl. Nobody asked, "what's the matter with CJ?" but ironically, he didn't do shit against New Orleans either (16 for 44; 2.8). I suggested it was the OL not adjusting to or unable to adjust to the defenses we played in those two games. Or McVay getting away from balance, which is what he said in not so many words, many times.

Wait...wait.

I did not say you DID blame the loss on Gurley.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I agree with you that that game had more to do with the OL (plus the Patz gameplan) and Goff being out of sync (because of the OL and the Patz D).

In terms of Gurley in the playoffs, I really don't know if the knee was still flamed up and problematical in those games or not. I can see why some say it but I don't. I just assume he recouped after the down time and that he certainly wasn't dealing with "pain and inflammation" at that point.

[PARAM]

Wait...wait.

I did not say you DID blame the loss on Gurley.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

It all comes down to 'what's the matter with Gurley' and there's no way to deny that no matter how many circles you attempt to run.

[/zn/]

It all comes down to 'what's the matter with Gurley' and there's no way to deny that no matter how many circles you attempt to run.

Now you've lost me completely.

I have no idea what that's a response to or what you're saying.

Whatever it is it started with you not getting what my point was in responding to you a couple of posts back.

We're talking past each other, dude.

...