Rams Lions win totals for 2021? Lions now "burdened" with Goff. My prediction lions at 6.5 and the rams at 10.5. Vegas slow to pick up on reality. McVay/Snead AKA Icarus. Put your house on the rams under and the lions over.

BubbaBear said:

---

Rams Lions win totals for 2021? Lions now "burdened" with Goff. My prediction lions at 6.5 and the rams at 10.5. Vegas slow to pick up on reality. McVay/Snead AKA Icarus. Put your house on the rams under and the lions over.

---

Lions wins will depend on WRs to replace Marvin Jones, etc. and who the Bears get at QB...if they upgrade significantly over Foles/Trubisky they might very well challenge AR and GB with their defense and the Lions win total will be suppressed.

In the NFC West, I predict that Russell will stay and Seattle will challenge for the top spot again, Arizona will improve on offense (their defense already seems to give the Niners fits...iirc they were 0.500 against the west last year) and the Niners will keep half as many players healthy as last year.

The Rams' results will depend on whether they upgrade the speed at WR, the OL talent/play and whether they can keep AD healthy. Without all of these, they will not equal last year's win total.

For the Rams, after the QB trade, regular season wins are not the measuring stick. Anything less than advancing to the NFC championship game is a failed season, and losing in the NFC championship game makes it just a meh season. Given what the Rams paid for Stafford, they can't call the season a success unless they play in the Super Bowl.

For the Lions, on the other hand, their roster has so many holes that 6 wins would be a successful season.

Goff was fingered as the only reason the Rams weren't a Super Bowl team, but there are so many variables.

During the Super Bowl year, the defense was regarded as vaunted, but they let Cousins, Brees and Mahomes walk all over them. The vaunted defense didn't look all that great vs. Rodgers.

As for me? I predict the opposite of OP.

If Stafford doesn't lead them to a SB, a couple people will be fired in LA. That's the precedent set by the guy they just traded. Not much room for error.

BubbaBear said:

---

Rams Lions win totals for 2021? Lions now "burdened" with Goff. My prediction lions at 6.5 and the rams at 10.5. Vegas slow to pick up on reality. McVay/Snead AKA Icarus. Put your house on the rams under and the lions over.

---

It's really hard to say until off-season transactions and draft are over. But I don't think Rams make the NFC championship game unless they add depth somehow. I'm guessing Rams win 11 and win one playoff game.

The Lions are even harder to read. It depends on their draft. But 6 or 7 sounds about right. The problem for them is that they have to deal with Green Bay and both Minnesota and Chicago should be much improved.

Edit: After looking at their schedules, I'd say the Lions will win less than 6 games. They have a brutal schedule.
Conversely, the Rams have a reasonable schedule and I think they win 12 games and make it to the NFC championship game. I don't think they make the SB.

okaydo said:

---

Goff was fingered as the only reason the Rams weren't a Super Bowl team, but there are so many variables.

During the Super Bowl year, the defense was regarded as vaunted, but they let Cousins, Brees and Mahomes walk all over them. The vaunted defense didn't look all that great vs. Rodgers.

As for me? I predict the opposite of OP.

---

Yep. Rams over; Lions under.

The Super Bowl window is open for LA. They need to capitalize on their trades now or pay the price later. Quite frankly, I like their chances of, at least, getting as far as the Final Four.

Detroit is in full rebuild. It will be another year before they start making some noise.

P.S. Goff wasn't the only reason LA failed to make the Super Bowl but he was a big part of the equation. The outstanding question: Was it wrong place, wrong time or does he simply lack the "right stuff"? We will find out the answer to that question over the next couple years.

Goff didn't have a great season, but he had very little to do with the Rams' ceiling last season. He played well enough to get the Rams into the playoffs, and he played well in both playoff games. What happened was that the Rams defense was exposed when Donald was unable to play. That's it. If Wilson doesn't land on Donald's ribs in Seattle, Rams may very well have won in Green Bay. Ultimately it wouldn't have mattered much though, Tampa was going to win either game. So it's a lot of bruhaha about very little, and Stafford is unlikely to tilt the scales much, if at all. If Donald stays healthy the Rams should have every chance to advance farther next season. And lucky for them it'll be a TB12 "off year" for winning the SB. If Donald stays healthy and the Rams don't at least make the NFC CG the Stafford trade was a massive bust.

Rams should have kept CJ Anderson.

hanky1 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Goff was fingered as the only reason the Rams weren't a Super Bowl team, but there are so many variables.

During the Super Bowl year, the defense was regarded as vaunted, but they let Cousins, Brees and Mahomes walk all over them. The vaunted defense didn't look all that great vs. Rodgers.

As for me? I predict the opposite of OP.

---

Yep. Rams over; Lions under.

The Super Bowl window is open for LA. They need to capitalize on their trades now or pay the price later. Quite frankly, I like their chances of, at least, getting as far as the Final Four.

Detroit is in full rebuild. It will be another year before they start making some noise.

P.S. Goff wasn't the only reason LA failed to make the Super Bowl but he was a big part of the equation. The outstanding question: Was it wrong place, wrong time or does he simply lack the "right stuff"? We will find out the answer to that question over the next couple years.

---

Window definitely open. Saints are down w Brees retiring. I think Green Bay made a disaster hire at DC so I'm not sold on them. Seattle is always dangerous but their oline is such a mess. SF is a big wild card. Door wide open for LA. Other teams in the nfc are probably another year away (or a qb away) from being really dangerous. Best example is Washington Football Team.

---

I agree. WFT looks dangerous.

Also agree on the GB DC hire.

I wouldn't say the Rams definitely would've/should've won the NFC CG over Tampa just that they had a decent shot. Both GB and LA played the Bucs in the regular season and the Rams beat them while the Packers got crushed. That doesn't mean the second meeting has to go the same way just that it seems like Tampa had GB's number this year and matched up against them too well while the game with the Rams probably would have been more of a tossup, just an opinion though.

OP: Vegas isn't usually trying to give accurate odds, their goal is to get people to bet so public perception and where the money comes in is all heavily factored into their numbers (especially futures). Personally I wouldn't bet any win/loss overs or unders until I know whether there's gonna be a 17th game next season. The NFL announced that they could add one without it being negotiated in the CBA and strongly indicated that they plan to go to 17 games and expanded playoffs this year. I'm not sure how Vegas will deal with bets already on the books if/when they announce a 17th game, if they take them as-is then overs would be a safer bet

okaydo said:

---

Goff was fingered as the only reason the Rams weren't a Super Bowl team, but there are so many variables.

During the Super Bowl year, the defense was regarded as vaunted, but they let Cousins, Brees and Mahomes walk all over them. The vaunted defense didn't look all that great vs. Rodgers.

As for me? I predict the opposite of OP.

---

Goff with a good oline has a higher ceiling than Stafford.

Agree with OK's comments. Packers dominated Rams everywhere but on the score board in the NFC Divisional Round. They beat the Rams convincingly at the line of scrimmage ultimately finishing with 484 yards to the Rams' 244. Goff had good numbers considering all the times he got hit. But it is a lot easier to blame one player than say your team and coaching staff were outplayed

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wouldn't say the Rams definitely would've/should've won the NFC CG over Tampa just that they had a decent shot. Both GB and LA played the Bucs in the regular season and the Rams beat them while the Packers got crushed. That doesn't mean the second meeting has to go the same way just that it seems like Tampa had GB's number this year and matched up against them too well while the game with the Rams probably would have been more of a tossup, just an opinion though.

OP: Vegas isn't usually trying to give accurate odds, their goal is to get people to bet so public perception and where the money comes in is all heavily factored into their numbers (especially futures). Personally I wouldn't bet any win/loss overs or unders until I know whether there's gonna be a 17th game next season. The NFL announced that they could add one without it being negotiated in the CBA and strongly indicated that they plan to go to 17 games and expanded playoffs this year. I'm not sure how Vegas will deal with bets already on the books if/when they announce a 17th game, if they take them as-is then overs would be a safer bet

---

To clarify...

The OP was using numbers he created. For the reason you cited (among others), Vegas has not posted any O/U figures yet. I suspect, the Vegas numbers will be materially different once they are made public.

Thanks, I whiffed on that one. I thought they were from a real sportsbook

In case anyone was curious the 17th game for each of these teams would be Rams vs. Ravens and Lions vs. Broncos if they decide to add it

For next season the Rams still have a very good defense and some weapons. They've lost a lot of coaching and front office talent but if they have another good draft they're probably in pole position to win the NFC West. The Seahawks will still have Russ and they'll be NFCW contenders but I'm not sure how talented they really are (plus they have a pretty tough schedule). The Cardinals are wild cards because their potential is division winners but it'll take a lot of growth from key players. The Niners are in a rough spot, they have so many free agents and will have some major turnover on defense after losing Saleh; they're too good to be bad and Shanahan is a great coach but I don't know if I see them as division contenders this year.

The Lions outlook is easier: not good. The defense is a mess and with their top 5 receivers all free agents (including Marvin Jones Jr. and Kenny Golladay) they have some big questions on offense too. They can franchise tag Golladay and draft a receiver at 7 but the path to patching up that defense will take a lot more than just a good draft

Maybe he had a nagging injury. He clearly is very stoic.

hanky1 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Goff was fingered as the only reason the Rams weren't a Super Bowl team, but there are so many variables.

During the Super Bowl year, the defense was regarded as vaunted, but they let Cousins, Brees and Mahomes walk all over them. The vaunted defense didn't look all that great vs. Rodgers.

As for me? I predict the opposite of OP.

---

Goff with a good oline has a higher ceiling than Stafford.

Agree with OK's comments. Packers dominated Rams everywhere but on the score board in the NFC Divisional Round. They beat the Rams convincingly at the line of scrimmage ultimately finishing with 484 yards to the Rams' 244. Goff had good numbers considering all the times he got hit. But it is a lot easier to blame one player than say your team and coaching staff were outplayed

---

Sucks for Goff because he looked really good the first half of the year but just fell off a cliff in the second half. Not sure what happened but his number differential from first to second half of the season is HUGE.

---

Small hands in the second half?

Well, this is an NFL thread:


Photos: Getty Images; Table: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios

Great topic in the lean weeks on this board!

The 80s were a boom for Heisman to HoF...1-2 per decade prior to that.

Are there winners any from the 90s still eligible for the HoF with any likelihood of making the cut?

Quick check says no....and the 2000s will likely get a donut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Heisman_Trophy_winners

Long way to go for the recent years' recipients, but not looking good for the early 2010s.

bearister said:

---

Well, this is an NFL thread:


Photos: Getty Images; Table: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios

---

I recently watched a joint interview with Peyton Manning and Charles Woodson. They were at the Heisman ceremony together in 1997, at the NFL Draft together in 1998 (when only 4 players were invited), Woodson finally picked off Manning during their final season in the NFL, in 2015. Then Woodson picked him off again in the same game. Now, in 2021, they are going into the Hall of Fame together.

Was that before or after Manning tea bagged that trainer?

burritos said:

---

Rams should have kept CJ Anderson.

---

And utilized him in the SB instead of keeping him on ice while Gurley was stymied all game.

91Cal said:

---

Great topic in the lean weeks on this board!

The 80s were a boom for Heisman to HoF...1-2 per decade prior to that.

Are there winners any from the 90s still eligible for the HoF with any likelihood of making the cut?

Quick check says no....and the 2000s will likely get a donut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Heisman_Trophy_winners

Long way to go for the recent years' recipients, but not looking good for the early 2010s.

---

How about a list of Heisman winners who lost big games/to Cal teams as starters.