This might be a weird way of looking at it, but in my book the 1973 Rams should be considered a pretty good team.Jay Z wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 5:15 pm 1973 Rams were not that good IMO for being 12-2.
Only played 2 playoff teams. Lost to Vikings and beat Cowboys. Split with the 9-5 Falcons. Avoided all of the good AFC teams.
Except for McCutcheon, every starter started all 14 games. So no adversity there. Didn't pass all that much. Apparently Hadl hurt his arm halfway through and the passing really fell off, not that they passed all that much anyway. Some questionable talent in the back 7 on defense. Tended to run it up against some weak competition. Knox improved things, but 12-2 was an overstatement.
They certainly had an easy schedule; the easiest that season in fact. But as you said they went 12-2, they put up some of the best team differential stats that season, and they also set a then record for best first down differential up to the time (+121; and they got the most and allowed the fewest in the regular season), so I'd imagine they controlled the ball well.
For me, the 1973 Rams in the same tier as say the 1987 49ers, 2011 Packers, and 2019 Ravens. All teams that unfortunately went one and done in the playoffs, but played very good regular seasons beforehand. Those are above average teams overall in my opinion, and if they had hypothetically won a Super Bowl title after the regular seasons they had, it would've been interesting to see where we would rank them amongst the actual champions.
Out of curiosity, why does a lack of adversity make a team worse? (Which seems to be implied correct me if I'm wrong) If you ask me, all that means is that we can't say injuries hurt them significantly, but still.
The Rams in the 70's on a side note, win the award for the most fascinating team that I had not heard of until I started looking up NFL history. They won 66 games in the regular season from 1973-1978; the most of anyone (easy division no doubt, but you don't become the winningest without taking some games against other teams).
The Rams may have won a title or two with a prime Hall of Fame quarterback instead of who they had (Hadl who you mentioned may not have thrown a lot, but he might've played the best season any of their quarterbacks did in the 70's; at least by passer rating).
At least that's what I'd argue. What do you think?