1973-1978 LA Rams- what was their best team?

[CSKreager]

Of the 6 division winning Rams teams from 1973-1978 that won at least 10+ games each year, what edition was their best?

(Go figure that those Rams teams were strong, yet it was the 9-7 1979 team that made the SB as opposed to the other three times they could have faced the Steelers)

And BTW, if anyone wants to mention the 1980 team with Ferragamo's career year, I'll accept it.

[74_75_78_79_]

Easily 1978! As I stated on another thread, they were 7-1 against winning teams (two of them Steelers & Dallas)! Yes, there was the 5-4 finish that included the penultimate-week stinker at home to the Bengals, but they redeemed themselves in the finale by beating a 8-6-1 Packer squad that needed to win!

1980, as I also said before, was a very SB-win-capable team considering the more-even playing field amongst all the playoff teams; and better reg-season body-of-work than the SB-year prior. Down the stretch, bringing Bills into OT at frigid Rich then squashing Dallas on that late Monday Nighter made them look real good going into playoffs.

[JohnTurney]

Little bit revisionist. I get the stats, the "quality wins" and all that. But sometimes those things are not the top factor. Maybe had they been healthy 1978 could have been best, but there were lots of factors going on. In terms if line play, in terms of pass rush, passing game, running game and how it was achieved, the 1978 team was not as good as earlier teams, regardless of "quality wins". And I don't mean to disparage that metric, it has value, but I would look at it in context with other things. But that's me. Other can disagree

[JohnH19]

The 1973 team is my choice.

[BD Sullivan]

The 1973 team is my choice.

Had they defeated Dallas, they would have hosted the Vikes in the NFC title game, a contrast to them seemingly always being headed to Bloomington and watching their season end.

[L.C. Greenwood]

The 1973 team is my choice.

Had they defeated Dallas, they would have hosted the Vikes in the NFC title game, a contrast to them seemingly always being headed to Bloomington and watching their season end.

I was pulling for those '73 Rams to represent the NFC, and they had already beaten Dallas in the regular season. Alas, veteran QB John Hadl delivered a 7-23 stinker, and the Rams bought the farm.

[Jay Z]

Looking back, I think the 1970-77 schedule format is my least favorite of any that the NFL had.

Up through 1966, most of the games were in the division, only one scheduled playoff game. So you had to play any other good team in your division twice, and given six team divisions, there were probably a couple of other good teams.

1967-69, you might have had a weaker division, like Dallas or Cleveland, but you were at least guaranteed to play the other division winner in your conference.

From 1978 on the division winners from the prior year always play each other, which forces what project to be some good matchups to occur.

From 1970-77 all that was guaranteed were the division games. Everything else was rotation. You could go through a whole season with no playoff opponents, like the 1972 Dolphins did.

The 1973-77 Rams were in a weak division. No one else ever won 10 games. The 1973 Falcons won 9, 1976 49ers won 8, the 1977 Falcons won 7. That's it for teams .500 and over. The Rams lost a game to each of those teams as well.

Many years the Rams just didn't play that many good teams. In 1973 they beat the Cowboys in a close one and lost to the Vikings in a close one. Beat the Chiefs and Browns, two aging teams barely over .500.

In 1974, they managed to beat the Vikings. They lost to the Redskins, and beat the Bills, but those two games were scheduled for the last two weeks of the season, when the Rams had already clinched.

In 1975, they lost to the Cowboys in the first week. Beat the Colts in the third week, and the Colts wound up having a good year, though no one thought they would at the time. Beat the Steelers, but again the NFL had the game in the last week, when it didn't matter for the Steelers. Three games against teams over .500, and one didn't matter.

In 1976 they tied the Vikings. Played the Cardinals and Bengals, both 10-4 teams who didn't make the playoffs. Lost both of those games. Only win over a team greater than .500 was the one against the 49ers.

In 1977 they did beat the Vikings and Raiders. Lost to the Redskins, but AGAIN it doesn't matter, because it's in the last week... why did the NFL keep doing this?!? Better now with all of those final games being division matchups.

So in 1978, the Rams were more tested because at least some matchups that were likely to be good were on the schedule. It was an improved system.

[JohnTurney]

Looking back, I think the 1970-77 schedule format is my least favorite of any that the NFL had.

Up through 1966, most of the games were in the division, only one scheduled playoff game. So you had to play any other good team in your division twice, and given six team divisions, there were probably a couple of other good teams.

1967-69, you might have had a weaker division, like Dallas or Cleveland, but you were at least guaranteed to play the other division winner in your conference.

From 1978 on the division winners from the prior year always play each other, which forces what project to be some good matchups to occur.

From 1970-77 all that was guaranteed were the division games. Everything else was rotation. You could go through a whole season with no playoff opponents, like the 1972 Dolphins did.

The 1973-77 Rams were in a weak division. No one else ever won 10 games. The 1973 Falcons won 9, 1976 49ers won 8, the 1977 Falcons won 7. That's it for teams .500 and over. The Rams lost a game to each of those teams as well.

Many years the Rams just didn't play that many good teams. In 1973 they beat the Cowboys in a close one and lost to the Vikings in a close one. Beat the Chiefs and Browns, two aging teams barely over .500.

In 1974, they managed to beat the Vikings. They lost to the Redskins, and beat the Bills, but those two games were scheduled for the last two weeks of the season, when the Rams had already clinched.

In 1975, they lost to the Cowboys in the first week. Beat the Colts in the third week, and the Colts wound up having a good year, though no one thought they would at the time. Beat the Steelers, but again the NFL had the game in the last week, when it didn't matter for the Steelers. Three games against teams over .500, and one didn't matter.

In 1976 they tied the Vikings. Played the Cardinals and Bengals, both 10-4 teams who didn't make the playoffs. Lost both of those games. Only win over a team greater than .500 was the one against the 49ers.

In 1977 they did beat the Vikings and Raiders. Lost to the Redskins, but AGAIN it doesn't matter, because it's in the last week... why did the NFL keep doing this?!? Better now with all of those final games being division matchups.

So in 1978, the Rams were more tested because at least some matchups that were likely to be good were on the schedule. It was an improved system.

Get all that. But saw them play. A lot. 1978 team was not the best. Maybe more tested, sure. I think historical looks and applying this kind of data to past teams is useful, but sometimes an ahistorical look has to still be part of an evaluation. If someone wants to believe the 1978 team was the best, certainly go ahead, but if you looked at the team and their performance... how the games went, how players played I don't think they'd come up with that conclusion.

In the early 1970s to mid-1970s there was less parity. And some teams just got beat often, by everyone and that created fewer oppotunities for "quality wins".
But taking these stats into account PLUS seeing the games would be more complete analysis, IMO.

[BD Sullivan]

From 1970-77 all that was guaranteed were the division games. Everything else was rotation. You could go through a whole season with no playoff opponents, like the 1972 Dolphins did.

To be fair, everything broke perfectly that year for Miami: They were specifically scheduled to open up Arrowhead in a rematch of their Christmas classic, where the expectation was that the Chiefs would get their revenge. Two weeks later, they had to travel to Minnesota, which through a whole series of last-minute losses, ended up with its worst record of their glory era at 7-7. Finally, the Colts collapsed that year, giving the Dolphins two easy wins instead of a pair of struggles.

[Jay Z]

Get all that. But saw them play. A lot. 1978 team was not the best. Maybe more tested, sure. I think historical looks and applying this kind of data to past teams is useful, but sometimes an ahistorical look has to still be part of an evaluation. If someone wants to believe the 1978 team was the best, certainly go ahead, but if you looked at the team and their performance... how the games went, how players played I don't think they'd come up with that conclusion.

In the early 1970s to mid-1970s there was less parity. And some teams just got beat often, by everyone and that created fewer oppotunities for "quality wins".
But taking these stats into account PLUS seeing the games would be more complete analysis, IMO.

It's hard for me to separate the Knox years from the Malavasi years, since I think Malavasi was a better playoff coach. Malavasi got more out of his teams in the playoffs in both 1978 and 1979 than Knox ever did.

I suppose I would take 1974 out of the Knox teams. 1977 is too tainted by the horrid playoff loss. In 1975 and 1976 they didn't beat anyone in the regular season. 1973 looks good on paper, though I think the pass coverage was a little suspect. Plus Hadl laid an egg in the post-season after a very good regular season.

Ferragamo '79 was the only good QB play they ever got in the playoffs. Pat Haden is beloved by some people for reasons I don't understand. He was no better than the rest. Lousy special teams play for the Knox years as well. Too much to overcome.