Photograph by John Martinez Pavliga
What yesterday’s loss amounts to isn’t a repudiation of the Rams’ progress this year; it isn’t a sign that Sam Bradford isn’t ready for primetime or that the team is too young to succeed in the postseason, whatever that’s supposed to mean. It is, very simply, a logistical matter—the results have come in, and the Rams, who could have been the worst team in the playoffs with a better performance against the Seahawks, will not be the worst team in the playoffs this year.
Sam Bradford didn’t play very well, but he was worse against the Saints and the Chiefs and much better in a similarly important game last week. People are going to pretend, throughout the offseason, that they can isolate a choke-job out of Sunday’s performance, but it’s impossible to do—he just didn’t play very well.
The questions this loss raises are the ones that have followed the Rams all season. Steven Jackson had a mediocre game to cap off the worst full season of his career, and having led the NFL in rushing attempts he’ll be especially hard-pressed to bounce back, even at 28. Careers of running backs are, as one 17th century football philosopher wrote, nasty, brutish, and short; the Rams will have to deal, going forward, with a Steven Jackson who is more dependable than dynamic.
They’ll also, very clearly, have to deal with a wide receiving situation that was almost comically poor. The Rams’ top two receivers with the NFC West on the line were Jackson and tight end Daniel Fells; all game the Seahawks batted Bradford line drives because the Rams weren’t about to test his arm.
But all yesterday’s game told us that we didn’t already know was whether they’d make the playoffs. It turns out they won’t. But what was already a successful and flawed season only got a little less successful and a little more flawed.
