The Problems in Philly

[Bill Swerski]

And how did they manage that? It's like they had ESP or something . . .

 

 

If Goodell finds some evidence of their "ESP" during his audit of their film and notes, I wouldn't be surprised. The Rams were so much better on paper that year that it's almost difficult to believe that NE won without a little something extra on their side.

[Avernus]

Also, the Rams D during the Super Bowl years was very very average. It was an advantage to know that the other team had to throw to try and keep up with the Rams O, but that D (even in the Super Bowl victory year) was average at best.

 

in 99 they had a top 5 defense...

 

other than that their D was atrocious..

[Bill Swerski]

Also, the Rams D during the Super Bowl years was very very average. It was an advantage to know that the other team had to throw to try and keep up with the Rams O, but that D (even in the Super Bowl victory year) was average at best.

 

Don't know about that. DeMarco Farr, Kevin Carter, London Fletcher, Grant Wistron, Dexter McCleon, Dre Bly, Tommy Polley, Aeneas Williams, Adam Archuletta - that's a pretty good collection of talent. Not a stud defense, but definitely above average. I don't remember who your D-coordinator was in '99, but Lovie Smith did a fantastic job with that '01 team and proved with the Bears that it wasn't a fluke.

[STL Fan]

Don't know about that. DeMarco Farr, Kevin Carter, London Fletcher, Grant Wistron, Dexter McCleon, Dre Bly, Tommy Polley, Aeneas Williams, Adam Archuletta - that's a pretty good collection of talent. Not a stud defense, but definitely above average. I don't remember who your D-coordinator was in '99, but Lovie Smith did a fantastic job with that '01 team and proved with the Bears that it wasn't a fluke.

 

DeMarco - good player, solid, not great

 

Kevin Carter - Lifetime under-achiever, no heart, but VERY talented. Dude asked to be taken out before the last play of the '99 Super Bowl because he was "tired." Vermeil almost had a heart attack right there. What has he done since then, even with a great end (Kearse) on the other side drawing the double-teams?

 

London Fletcher - Great guy, great motor, very good linebacker for his size, no question. Fan favorite for good reason.

 

Grant Wistrom - Solid lineman, but again never achieved the greatness he should have, especially against the run, even after he left.

 

Dexter McCleon - His nickname in St. Louis was "toast" 'nuff said.

 

Dre Bly - Average cover guy at best, went on to be average somewhere else, loves to give up the big play while he waves harmlessly trying to intercept the ball..

 

Tommy Polley - The worst tackler to suit up for the Rams in a long time. Useless.

 

Aneas Williams - Legend, but well past his prime as a Ram by his own admission.

 

Adam Archuletta - Soft as warm butter, especially after he hurt his shoulder in '03. Terrible tackler, terrible hitter, can't cover at all. Another fan favorite, but I have no idea why.

 

It sounds like I'm really dumping on these guys, and I'm not, my point is simply that these guys looked MUCH better on paper than they actually played because the offense controlled the game and changed the way the other team played offense.

 

Aside from Williams is there anyone there you could even mention in the same breath with the HOF and keep a straight face? I know that's not necessary, but it furthers the point. Average at best IMHO.

[Bill Swerski]

It sounds like I'm really dumping on these guys, and I'm not, my point is simply that these guys looked MUCH better on paper than they actually played because the offense controlled the game and changed the way the other team played offense... Average at best IMHO.

 

"Average at best"? LOL, you're really underestimating those defenses. The '99 Rams were 7th overall and the '01 squad was THIRD overall. While I'm sure that their elite offense helped, you don't rank that high in yards against with an "average" squad. Look at the '99-'04 Colts defenses. Even in the high-scoring Manning era, those defenses were still overwhelmingly below-average-to-bad (except for a while in '02 and in the '04 playoffs). And none of them ever got close to being ranked third overall. Hell, the '01 Rams squad held the Patriots offense to 13 points in the SB, despite the fact that their own offense had serious difficulty sustaining drives. That's not an "average" defense. It's a pretty good one.

 

Aside from Williams is there anyone there you could even mention in the same breath with the HOF and keep a straight face? I know that's not necessary, but it furthers the point.

 

Is there anybody on the Patriots (outside of Seau, who was done before he signed last year) who is a lock for the HOF? You don't need HOF studs to play well on defense. A bunch of above average and good players who execute can get the job done.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Bronco Billy]

In that era, the Rams lined up and told the defense they were going to throw and the D was still virtually powerless to stop them.

 

 

How young are you? The reason the Rams lost the SB to NE was precisely because they refused to run Faulk (who was averaging near or at 5 ypc if I remember correctly in that game). They played right into NE's strength while minimizing their D weakness. That SB loss was all about using the biggest game of the year to massage Martz's ego - and instead it ended up as one of the biggest SB upsets ever.

[Bronco Billy]

Aside from Williams is there anyone there you could even mention in the same breath with the HOF and keep a straight face? I know that's not necessary, but it furthers the point. Average at best IMHO.

 

I didn't realize a D had to be loaded with HoF players to be a very good D.

 

The STL D that year was very, very good. They played extremely well as a unit.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Big John]

 

How young are you? The reason the Rams lost the SB to NE was precisely because they refused to run Faulk (who was averaging near or at 5 ypc if I remember correctly in that game). They played right into NE's strength while minimizing their D weakness. That SB loss was all about using the biggest game of the year to massage Martz's ego - and instead it ended up as one of the biggest SB upsets ever.

He held season tickets since the Rams moved to STL in 1995.

[Bronco Billy]

He held season tickets since the Rams moved to STL in 1995.

 

 

You're frickin' amazing.

 

Okay, so maybe he's senile instead...

[gilwiggum]

Is there anybody on the Patriots (outside of Seau, who was done before he signed last year) who is a lock for the HOF? You don't need HOF studs to play well on defense. A bunch of above average and good players who execute can get the job done.

 

 

I think Seymour and possibly Harrison (I know he's a cheater and a cheapt shot artist to everyone here, but he does have some solid INT & sack numbers for a safety) from the current team. Possibly TY Law from the championship teams.

[Bill Swerski]

I think Seymour and possibly Harrison (I know he's a cheater and a cheapt shot artist to everyone here, but he does have some solid INT & sack numbers for a safety) from the current team. Possibly TY Law from the championship teams.

 

I don't think that Harrison has much of a shot (especially after the HGH suspension and his long history of dirty play). It's way too early to put Seymour in that category but, boy, he sure looks like he's headed in that direction. And I agree about Ty Law. If Dan Hampton got into the Hall, I have to believe that SOMEBODY from those three-time championship defenses (deservedly or not) will end up in Canton. My bet is Law and it's remotely possible that it might be Bruschi, depending on how much longer he plays.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[STL Fan]

 

How young are you? The reason the Rams lost the SB to NE was precisely because they refused to run Faulk (who was averaging near or at 5 ypc if I remember correctly in that game). They played right into NE's strength while minimizing their D weakness. That SB loss was all about using the biggest game of the year to massage Martz's ego - and instead it ended up as one of the biggest SB upsets ever.

 

Wow. Just wow. The Rams had 427 yards of offense in that game, and Marshall had 130 combined yards, including 76 on the ground. The Rams rushed the ball 22 times, and had 337 yards through the air. So OBVIOUSLY the passing game wasn't working, right moran? And Marshall was ignored?

 

And look at the quote where you bashed me for talking about HOF players. Does it not say right there in what you quoted that I understand that HOF players are not required to have a good defense, it just furthers the point of the mediocrity of that squad?

 

I've literally seen every snap that team has taken since they moved to STL, and been to every home game, and my point was simply that you can't just look at boxscores (which you obviously don't spend much time doing) to tell whether it was a great defense or not. The Patriots were the first team with enough intelligence and patience to stay with the ground game against the Rams and they went for 133 yards, exposing a below average run defense that had skated all year not really being tested as teams just threw trying to keep up with our offense. They won the game on a total of only 134 passing yards because they were smart enough to exploit a below-average defense where it was weakest.

 

Cripes.

[Bill Swerski]

I think that Billy has a point here. The Rams only handed off the ball 19 times in that game (and Faulk was averaging 4.5 yds/carry), despite the fact that Belichick was consistently dropping 7 players into coverage. Warner threw two picks, one of which was run back for a TD. That was incredibly stupid offensive play-calling by Martz, given that the LBs and secondary were the Pats' obvious strength that year.

[gilwiggum]

I think that Billy has a point here. The Rams only handed off the ball 19 times in that game (and Faulk was averaging 4.5 yds/carry), despite the fact that Belichick was consistently dropping 7 players into coverage. Warner threw two picks, one of which was run back for a TD. That was incredibly stupid offensive play-calling by Martz, given that the LBs and secondary were the Pats' obvious strength that year.

 

 

As I noted in another post. The Pats often have trouble with the slot receiver and the RAMS offense didn't get going until they started going to Ricky Proehl.

[STL Fan]

Here's a couple more for you stat-boy. Yes, the Rams D in 2001 was ranked 3rd in the NFL against the run. Great, right? Look deeper, though, and the stats support exactly my point. That overall statistic is based only on total yards.

 

The Rams that year had the 2nd fewest rushing attempts against them in the NFL that year, exactly as I was saying. And their average yards per rush allowed was 11th in the league, at just under 4 YPC.

 

Their pass D ranked 11th in the NFL overall at just under 194 YPG given up, and they knew the other team was going to pass 80% of the time!

 

That championship is the one that absolutely defied the old saying. It was won with OFFENSE. Period.

Edited September 21, 2007 by STL Fan

[STL Fan]

I think that Billy has a point here. The Rams only handed off the ball 19 times in that game (and Faulk was averaging 4.5 yds/carry), despite the fact that Belichick was consistently dropping 7 players into coverage. Warner threw two picks, one of which was run back for a TD. That was incredibly stupid offensive play-calling by Martz, given that the LBs and secondary were the Pats' obvious strength that year.

 

This could definitely be debated, and you did it without being a butt head. The total rushes was actually 22 in that game (well Warner had three carries, so handed off 19 times is right, I misread it), and Marshall had a lot of those little roll out and dump off type receptions that are basically long handoffs. Could they have actually handed the ball to him more? Sure, but the passing game compiled 337 yards, so it's not like it wasn't working.

 

And you make a good point about the interceptions, but the Rams were notorious for throwing a lot of picks in that era, and Martz didn't even really care. He had an attitude toward picks like "if you're going to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs." If you're going to throw 45 times in a game, you're going to throw some picks, it's not a big deal. Used to drive me crazy.

Edited September 21, 2007 by STL Fan

[Bill Swerski]

Here's a couple more for you stat-boy. Yes, the Rams D in 2001 was ranked 3rd in the NFL against the run. Great, right? Look deeper, though, and the stats support exactly my point. That overall statistic is based only on total yards.

 

Their pass D ranked 11th in the NFL overall at just under 194 YPG given up, and they knew the other team was going to pass 80% of the time!

That championship is the one that absolutely defied the old saying. It was won with OFFENSE. Period.

 

Um, just like the 2000 Rams won with that awesome offense and no defense, right?

 

Sorry, but the '01 Rams offense was above average at worst.

 

The Rams that year had the 2nd fewest rushing attempts against them in the NFL that year, exactly as I was saying. And their average yards per rush allowed was 11th in the league, at just under 4 YPC.

 

Holding opposing offenses to under 4 yds/carry is pretty good, especially when that defense expects the opposing offense to throw all of the time. You also forgot to mention that they were 10th in passing yards against and 7th in yds/attempt. Given that opposing defenses did nothing but throw at them, being ranked in the Top third of the league is pretty freaking good.

 

I don't know why you're ripping your own team's defense, but you're dead wrong about them being "below-average" that year.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[gilwiggum]

This could definitely be debated, and you did it without being a butt head. The total rushes was actually 22 in that game (well Warner had three carries, so handed off 19 times is right, I misread it), and Marshall had a lot of those little roll out and dump off type receptions that are basically long handoffs. Could they have actually handed the ball to him more? Sure, but the passing game compiled 337 yards, so it's not like it wasn't working.

 

And Wiggum makes a good point about the interceptions, but the Rams were notorious for throwing a lot of picks in that era, and Martz didn't even really care. He had an attitude toward picks like "if you're going to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs." If you're going to throw 45 times in a game, you're going to throw some picks, it's not a big deal. Used to drive me crazy.

 

 

The PATS also had McGinest on Faulk all game, everytime Faulk crossed the line of scrimmage McGinest hit him.

[Bill Swerski]

And you make a good point about the interceptions, but the Rams were notorious for throwing a lot of picks in that era, and Martz didn't even really care. He had an attitude toward picks like "if you're going to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs." If you're going to throw 45 times in a game, you're going to throw some picks, it's not a big deal. Used to drive me crazy.

 

And that's why he's not a HC anymore. That pick to Ty Law cost them the game.

[gilwiggum]

Um, just like the 2000 Rams won with that awesome offense and no defense, right?

 

Sorry, but the '01 Rams offense was above average at worst.

Holding defenses to under 4 yds/carry is pretty good, especially when that defense expects the opposing offense to throw all of the time. You also forgot to mention that they were 10th in passing yards against and 7th in yds/attempt. Given that opposing defenses did nothing but throw at them, being ranked in the Top third of the league is pretty freaking good.

 

I don't know why you're ripping your own team's defense, but you're dead wrong about them being "below-average" that year.

 

 

Is this a good stat to determine how good they were against the run? After all their offense was so high powered that by the 2nd half most teams had to essentially abandon the run to catch up so the RAMS could drop 7 guys into coverage.

[STL Fan]

Um, just like the 2000 Rams won with that awesome offense and no defense, right?

 

Sorry, but the '01 Rams offense was above average at worst.

Holding defenses to under 4 yds/carry is pretty good, especially when that defense expects the opposing offense to throw all of the time. You also forgot to mention that they were 10th in passing yards against and 7th in yds/attempt. Given that opposing defenses did nothing but throw at them, being ranked in the Top third of the league is pretty freaking good.

 

I don't know why you're ripping your own team's defense, but you're dead wrong about them being "below-average" that year.

 

Well, my intent was not really to rip them, they were obviously good enough to win, my point wsa just that you can't look at the stats without context and make accurate assumptions about that D. That's really it. People were talking about the Rams haveing a "great" defense the year they won and it just wasn't true. Not great.

[STL Fan]

And that's why he's not a HC anymore. That pick to Ty Law cost them the game.

 

This is all true, man. Painfully so. That said, I think he learned a lot from that and will probably make a better HC at his next stop. Someone will give him a shot, and he'll probably do well.

[Bill Swerski]

Is this a good stat to determine how good they were against the run? After all their offense was so high powered that by the 2nd half most teams had to essentially abandon the run to catch up so the RAMS could drop 7 guys into coverage.

 

The same could've been said about the turn-of-the-century Colts and Vikings teams or the recent Bengals teams, but their bad defenses didn't help. Even if you drop seven guys into coverage, it doesn't guarantee that you'll stop the pass. You need defensive talent/execiton to put up the numbers that the '01 Rams did.

 

The bottom line is that the Rams D were ranked in the Top 10 in...

 

Passing yards against (10th)

Passing yards per average (7th)

Passing TDs (8th)

Rushing yds (3rd)

 

... and they were ranked 11th rushing yds per carry. Even if it's paired with an explosive offense, that's a very solid defense.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[STL Fan]

Is this a good stat to determine how good they were against the run? After all their offense was so high powered that by the 2nd half most teams had to essentially abandon the run to catch up so the RAMS could drop 7 guys into coverage.

 

Excellent point. Even when they knew what the other team was going to do, their stats were mediocre, especially for a championship club. I'll tell you, the Rams fans those two SB seasons were on pins and needles every time the opponent had the ball, until we had built a 30-point lead in the third quarter of course . . .

[Bill Swerski]

People were talking about the Rams haveing a "great" defense the year they won and it just wasn't true. Not great.

 

I don't believe that I ever said "great" and I'm sorry if I inferred otherwise. I think that they were just plain "good" and better than the "above average" unit from '99. And I think that Lovie Smith had a lot to do with it.