Look a little closer... ...and see that RMT is referring to the Pats, who have never won the Super Bowl. By the way, I am a Bears fan. I offer no excuse for their loss. They got worked by the Eagles.
<B>I'm still curious where everyone is getting the blowout prediction from. The Pats and Rams have already played this season.</B> The Rams won by a touchdown on the road. They lost 5 players to injury during the game (including Leonard Little, Adam Archileta(?), and Az-Hakim). New England scored one offensive touchdown for the game. The Rams gained 480 yards in offense to 230 for New England and controlled the ball when they needed to (7+ minute drive to end the game). They outrushed and outpassed the Patriots and moved the ball at will. Basically, the Rams dominated every phase of the game except turnovers and the scoreboard. Repeat those basic stats 10 times and the Rams blow them out more often than not. <B>It was a one touchdown ballgame, and the Pats probably would've won had it not been for a fumble on the Rams one yard line.</B> Or, it would have been a blowout if the Rams didn't have 4 turnovers of their own... When you turn the ball over 4 times on the road and still win, the odds are in your favor in a rematch on a neutral field.
Thank you, Shanna.... err... Major. And since that day, the Rams secondary has actually improved. And the game is on turf. The Rams team speed is going to tear the Patriots apart, who barely squeaked by Oakland already. Rams 41 - Patriots 13
When I tried to claim that Brett Favre gave the game away against the Rams, the prevailing opinion here and nationally was that the Rams defense was good enough to force those turnovers. Does that not work both ways? If the Pats defense was good enough to force four turnovers the first time, why can't they do it again? BTW, in the playoffs, the Pats have gotten one offensive touchdown in each game. They've been beaten in total yards and almost every category on the scoreboard except for the one that counts, points. It was the same way for most of the regular season, but the key is they found a way to win every time. I don't see why this time should be different. Also, crowd noise should be against the Rams in this game. Most New Orleans residents despise the Rams cause of the rivalry between them and the Saints. Furthmore, most people without a rooting interest are inclined to pull for the underdog, esp. if the game gets close.
<B>When I tried to claim that Brett Favre gave the game away against the Rams, the prevailing opinion here and nationally was that the Rams defense was good enough to force those turnovers. Does that not work both ways? If the Pats defense was good enough to force four turnovers the first time, why can't they do it again? </B> Of course they get credit for those. I mentioned them to counter your point about the Patriots fumbling. Turnovers go both ways. As I said in my first message in this thread, the Patriots have great pass-defense schemes that confused the hell out of Manning, and it will be interesting to see if they can repeat that against the Rams. My only point regarding turnovers was that when you win WITH 4 turnovers on the road, then you are likely dominating the opponent. <I>If</I> the Rams can keep the turnovers reasonably down, they're likely to blowout the Patriots. That's why the line is so high, most likely. <B>They've been beaten in total yards and almost every category on the scoreboard except for the one that counts, points. It was the same way for most of the regular season, but the key is they found a way to win every time. I don't see why this time should be different. </B> The difference is that the Rams are, by far, the most dominant team in the league. Last week, the Steelers were favored big as they should have been. Sure, they lost, but over the course of the season, they were much more dominant than the Patriots, and they were the more likely team to win. Same thing here. The Rams should be favored big because they are far more dominant than the Patriots. However, that's why they play the games... to prove us wrong! <B>Also, crowd noise should be against the Rams in this game. Most New Orleans residents despise the Rams cause of the rivalry between them and the Saints. Furthmore, most people without a rooting interest are inclined to pull for the underdog, esp. if the game gets close.</B> Maybe so, but people LOVE the Rams style of play. They really are "the greatest show on Earth" and they have built a pretty wide-ranging fan base. I do agree that the Patriots will have a great base underdog fans, though. Patriots need the game to stay close early, or people are just going to be watching to see the Rams play toss all over the field.
So is it "greatest show on earth" or "greatest show on turf." Turf seems better to me simply because it has the originality factor. Anyway, I know I'm a fan of the Rams because of their offense. I always feel like a bandwagoner but I really didn't begin to like them because of wins. It was all about that offense. Same reason I like the Gators. Anyway, my dream would be a 85 Bears or 89 (?) 49ers (whenever they beat Denver 55-10) type of show where the better team just comes out and puts it all together and tears the other team up. However, since I'm rooting for the Rams, I don't see that happening. My hope is to see the "greatest show" at it's best win or lose and if a great game comes of it, then so be it. My wish: 54-40 Rams. My prediction: I don't wanna jinx the Rams so I won't say anything.
<B>So is it "greatest show on earth" or "greatest show on turf." Turf seems better to me simply because it has the originality factor. Anyway, I know I'm a fan of the Rams because of their offense. I always feel like a bandwagoner but I really didn't begin to like them because of wins. It was all about that offense. Same reason I like the Gators. </B> Yeah, the turf thing does sound better, but their 8-0 road record makes them the greatest show on grass too. I'm the same way as you. To be honest, I don't care if they win for anything except that I enjoy watching their games. Also, winning breeds imitation. if they win, hopefully more teams will try to open up the games thinking that's the way to win now. After last year, the new philosophy trended towards "dink and dunk" with a good defense. That's also why I hope Spurrier kicks ass in the NFL. <B>Anyway, my dream would be a 85 Bears or 89 (?) 49ers (whenever they beat Denver 55-10) type of show where the better team just comes out and puts it all together and tears the other team up. </B> Agreed. I want them to score like crazy. I want them to throw the ball all over the field rather than going the more conservative style they used against Philly. Basically, I want to see a team that opens up the game.
My post from elsewhere is below. One thing that really enters my thinking is the Rams have to be hurting and only 1 week to recover from a very physcial game. Faulk, Warner and Pace (maybe the other starting OT as well) will take a lot of wear going into next sunday. Here goes: I said people were underestimating the Pats before this week end, I believe they are again. The Pats have a very good disciplined defense and can throw the ball, that keeps you in a lot of games. Yes they should have lost of the Raiders on the field, but it was obvious to me they were the better team things just didn't go there way against the Raiders (until the ref call). If the Rams are not sharp just like they were last weekend (not sharp at all in the Red Zone), the game will be competitive. If Pace, Faulk or Warner isn't 100%, that also tilts the game more competitively. Also, the year the Titans played the Rams tough in the superbowl the Titans statistically were way inferior I believe also, but the Titans also had a balanced team offensively, fine defense and had been on a roll (they were a call--the Tennesse mircale or whatever--away from losing their 1st game as well and then upset the dominant team in the AFC at their place--JVill at the time). Very, very similar story to the Pats, call it a gut feeling. Of course if the Rams do click it will be a blow out, but with the injuries, physical nature of Iggles, short turnaround, I am thinking the just can't flip a switch that easy.I think the game will be close, I would defintely take the 14.5 points given the short turnaround and if Pace/Warner's health is an issue.
I think he will. Right now, I think that some people are undervaluing the passing game a bit, despite the Rams success. While I completely agree that your running game has to be a threat, I think it's better to be dominant through the air. There's simply so much more of a chance of a big play... and the average pass attempt (not completion, attempt) goes for yardage than the average one. I guess the big advantage of the running game is lack of turnovers... but when you count all the punts that one usually runs into with run dominant teams, and I think that more than makes up for it. It's simply easier to stuff even a great runner sufficiently to force a punt than it is to force a good qbs to make mistakes. I think the best offenses are balanced, but with a greater influence on the passing game. Besides, it is more fun to watch the 2001 Rams than the 2000 Ravens
[Desert Scar: The Patriots are solid, but they've been tied or trailing in the 4th quarter in 8 games or something obscene like that in which they eventually won. Now, that partly means that they don't buckle under pressure. But it also means that they've had quite a bit of luck. And luck has a way of abandoning you when you're faced with a far superior opponent. IMO, the talent breakdown isn't even close Warner > Bledsoe/Brady (I think they're the same) Faulk > Smith Bruce > Brown (hell, Holt's better than Brown... maybe Hakim, too) Pace > Woody Aeneas Williams > Ty Law London Fletcher > Teddy Bruschi Rams are better at practically every position. Upsets are always possible... but this isn't one I'd call in a million years.
Cat, ever notice how you are almost always proven wrong? Seriously, I kind of hope that isn't the case this time. Not necessarily because I want the Pats to win, but only because I want to see a decent game. But I still figure Rams run away with this one at some point.
By the way, shifting the topic somewhat ... I'm a native Houstonian now living in Boston, and you would be surprised how little buzz there is here about the Patriots. This came as a big surprise to me after coming from Texas, where even high school football is big news. Over here, the locals eat, sleep, and breathe Red Sox baseball (happily paying the highest average ticket prices in the nation), and seem like they couldn't care less about the Pats. Then again, the Patriots play their games in Foxboro, which is about halfway between Boston and Providence, RI. Maybe that weakens the fervor of the fan base?
I know it's an unpopular take, but... I really think the Patsies are going to win this game. I don't know why I am thinking this. It just crept up on me the past day or so. So here goes... Pats-27 Rams-24 On a last second game winning field goal by Super Bowl MVP Adam Vinateri.
Not particularly. I bet on sports games quite frequently, and I've made quite a bit of money doing so.
Well Haven, I agree with you the Rams are better than the Pats at most all individual positions, particularly skill positions. But heck, that is true against just ANYONE the Rams face--and it was also somewhat true when the Pats faced the Raiders and Steelers. However, have the 11 best guys working togther is what football is most about. The Pats as a team however are more well-rounded than any other team with the exception of the Rams. That Pats have a QB that can throw upfield (2 of them actually). After the Rams, the Pats receivers are probably the next most outstanding at stretching the defense (this is the Iggles main weakness, they really can't stretch a D except by Donovan's legs). The Pats also have a veteran and well-disciplined defense, with among the best secondary in the league. In short, I really think the Pats and Steelers both match-up about as well as anyone against the Rams, and the Pats may match up even better because of a more balanced offense (we saw in the Steelers that their impressive passing stats was really set up by them being able to run, the Pats can throw first however). I really think the x-factor is also the short prep and beat up nature of the Rams. If they are totally in synch no one can stay on the field with them. But they were not in synch last week despite being at home, took a physical pounding from among the most physcial defenses, only have 1 week to prepare and get healthy, and finally, have all the pressure on them. In short, if the Rams don't have their A game (many of these factors work against them having it) and NE plays well (no reason they shouldn't based on recent performance), I look for a good game just like we saw last week with the Rams and Rams versus Titans 2 years ago. This is just by gut feeling, could be wrong. BTW-when are people going to realize the Raven's run was a fluke. They never ran into a really good offensive team that could stretch the field last year thus even their pathetic offense was enough to squeeze by (the Titans would have beat them anyway except for special teams blunders). The Raven's would have gotten killed by the Rams or another team that can pass downfield. In sum, I agree the idea you don't have to throw the ball (win on defense and running alone) to win the Superbowl leaves you losing out 9 times of 10. Over the last 30 years almost all superbowl teams could move the ball at least a little in the air, the vast majority of the teams had probowl caliber QBs and a good passing game. Usually superbowl teams have good enough defenses no running game alone is good enough to move the ball unless a pass threat is mixed in.
Well since the Rams are clearly the more talented team I'm going to have to take the Patriots because it's just poetic like that. Patriots 27 Rams 21
OK so there was a Super Bowl thread, it was just disguised with this title and like a week old. Anyway, I hate jinxing them like this but: Rams 30 Patriots 24 Here's hoping for 54-40 though.
<strike>Rams by at least 2 touchdowns :</strike> <strike>RAMS : 31</strike> <strike>PATS : 17</strike> RAMS : 13 PATS : 17
