Saying the 6-10 Rams from a year ago will beat the defending NFC West champs seems like wishful thinking (full disclosure: I am from Los Angeles originally and I even have a helmet with blue horns from 1972 in my possession), but consider the following:

1. Since 2012, despite the Rams being terrible, they are 2-1 at home versus the Seahag... er, Seahawks.

2. Super Bowl losers tend to have sub-par follow-up seasons. After going 13-3 in 2005 and losing to Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl, the Hags -- I mean Hawks -- went 9-7 in 2006.

3. The Rams traded Sam Bradford, who played just seven games over the past two seasons, for Nick Foles, who has thrown for 40 TDs and just 12 INTs the past two years. That's an average of one pick every 2 2/3 games.

4. The Rams defensive line has 28 more sacks than the Seahawks have over the past three seasons and they usually give Russell Wilson fits, dropping the signal caller behind the line of scrimmage 10 times in their last two meetings at the Edward Jones Dome.

5. Kam Chancellor's holdout and Byron Maxwell's defection to the Eagles mean the Hawks will have to get to Foles even faster because their secondary won't hold up as long.

You're welcome.