THE APEX TIMES
A year after Los Angeles fell short of the Seahawks in the NFC Championship, questions linger about whether the Rams have truly fixed the third phase of the game they struggled with all season.
The Los Angeles Rams’ offseason has turned a familiar problem into a central question: can their special teams unit stop being a recurring source of swings in tight games? In recent postseason memory, that uncertainty is tied to a specific moment. In the NFC Championship game in Seattle, a punt return by Xavier Smith resulted in a muffed ball, a mistake the Seahawks turned into a touchdown. For a team trying to leap into the conference title picture, the cost of one play can echo for months.
The concern is not limited to that one stage. The broader theme, as raised in recent analysis, is that the Rams struggled in the third phase all season long, and that those shortcomings arrived most painfully in key moments. Special teams is often judged in aggregate, but it also plays out through sudden, high-leverage outcomes, such as field position reversals, failed coverage, or returns that do not secure possession. When those issues recur, coaches and players do not just need better execution. They need consistency under pressure.
The Rams’ special teams identity matters because it affects more than scoring opportunities. A game can tighten around the margins, and then a punt or kickoff becomes a swing factor for the rest of the drive. If coverage lanes collapse or a returner cannot protect the ball, the opponent gets a shorter field, a psychological jolt, and a chance to convert momentum into points. That is why the postgame critique after a conference title matchup often goes beyond the final drive, reaching back to earlier phases of the contest.
This is also why the idea of “addition” has come up in the conversation. The analysis that prompted this look at the Rams’ special teams suggests that Los Angeles has brought in pieces to improve the group, but it still leaves open whether the upgrades can actually elevate performance from week to week, rather than only shifting outcomes in isolated instances. Special teams can improve quickly, but it can also regress if the unit has trouble syncing roles, communication, and responsibilities on punts and kicks, especially when games get physical and weather or field conditions become factors.
There is an additional wrinkle for the Rams: expectations around their overall roster construction. When a team is built to contend, the tolerance for one-unit underperformance shrinks. Even if the offense and defense show flashes of dominance, a porous special teams component can erase those advantages by creating poor starting field position or giving up touchdowns in the margins. In postseason terms, the NFC Championship game provides a clear example of how one mistake can become decisive.
What to watch next is straightforward but demanding. First, the Rams’ ability to avoid negative plays in every early-game situation, particularly on punts and kick returns where turnovers can be buried in the chaos of coverage. Second, the team’s composure on high-pressure catches and returns, where the technique has to hold up when defenders close quickly. Third, whether special teams becomes a reliable foundation that supports the rest of the game plan, instead of forcing Los Angeles to play from behind based on field position that the unit’s execution created.
For now, the lingering questions remain unresolved, and the evidence most commonly cited points to the same throughline: when the third phase failed, the Rams paid for it, and the NFC title stage made that price unmistakable. If the special teams improvements are real, the Rams’ margin for error in close games should shrink in the right direction, turning special teams from a question mark into a predictable strength.
