Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

The Problems in Philly


The Stoner
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

It wasn't just that, it was they never strayed from their game plan until it was too late. Belichick is very good at taking what you do best away from you. If you like to run, he'll make you pass or vice versa. If you watch the game the PATS were creaming their receivers after the catch so it got to the point that the RAMS receivers were running out of bounds and missing catches. Proehl also fumbled after a reception which led to a TD with under a minute left in the 1st half. Faulk wasn't as effective in the passing game because McGinest kept bumping him on the line.Wilkins also missed a filed goal early in the game which would have given the RAMS a 10 point lead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

I don't think it was you who said "great" (I'll have to scroll back and look) but someone made the comment that the common thread between a couple SB teams including the Rams was that they had "great" defenses. That's what set me off in full hijack-this-thread mode. Sorry for the diversion to the originator of this thread.

 

Lovie clearly had a lot to do with that, and I think he made over-achievers out of average players. Maybe that's a more accurate way to depict that defense - "statistical over-achievers." And what's with Lovie's man-love for Archuleta? I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't just that, it was they never strayed from their game plan until it was too late. Belichick is very good at taking what you do best away from you. If you like to run, he'll make you pass or vice versa. If you watch the game the PATS were creaming their receivers after the catch so it got to the point that the RAMS receivers were running out of bounds and missing catches. Proehl also fumbled after a reception which led to a TD with under a minute left in the 1st half. Faulk wasn't as effective in the passing game because McGinest kept bumping him on the line.Wilkins also missed a filed goal early in the game which would have given the RAMS a 10 point lead

 

Agreed with your points, but the missed FG wouldn't have given them a 10-0 lead.

 

The Rams offense didn't really get in gear until the Pats D began to tire in the 4th quarter. And you're right that the Pats did exactly what they did against the Colts (jamming/holding WRs at the line, some illegal contact downfield, forcing fumbles, and anticipating routes/going for picks) and did just as good a job. They're not only talented, but an incredibly well-coached unit as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed with your points, but the missed FG wouldn't have given them a 10-0 lead.

 

The Rams offense didn't really get in gear until the Pats D began to tire in the 4th quarter. And you're right that the Pats did exactly what they did against the Colts (jamming/holding WRs at the line, some illegal contact downfield, forcing fumbles, and anticipating routes/going for picks) and did just as good a job. They're not only talented, but an incredibly well-coached unit as well.

 

Don't get me started . . . I guess it ain't illegal unless it gets called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Bill, how about we agree on some middle ground and say that the Rams D in that era was "overrated" and let Billy keep on thinking they were great. Did you notice that he popped in and left again after I responded to his rant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :D

 

SB XXXVI play-by play

 

link

 

Faulk rushes & rushing yards by quarter:

 

1st quarter:

 

6 rushes for 22 yds

 

2nd quarter:

 

4 rushes for 22 yds

 

3rd quarter:

 

4 rushes for 30 yds

 

4th quarter:

 

3 rushes for 2 yds

 

Total

 

17 rushes for 76 yds

 

 

Marshall Faulk, average rushes per game in 2001 after returning from injury in week 9:

 

20.1 rushes per game for 5.64 ypc

 

link

 

Patriots’ D, 2001:

 

Rushing D: 4.31 ypc (21st in the league)

 

Passing D: 6.83 ypa (19th in the league)

 

link

 

 

So, we can plainly see that through 3 quarters, Faulk got more productive as the game went on. We can also see that the NE D had a weakness at playing the run, and that STL was in fact exploiting that weakness to the tune of Faulk having 14 carries @ 5.29 ypc through the end of the third quarter.

 

We can also see that though STL outplayed NE badly, they kept NE in the game with 3 TOs in the passing game (2 INTs and 1 fumble after a catch) vs 0 TOs in the running game. And we can plainly see that Martz pretty much took the ball out of Faulk’s hands in the 4th quarter.

 

I'd be very careful how I throw around the word moran when you plainly don't understand the game of football despite professing to watching so many snaps of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Patriots didn't exactly appear powerless to stop them.

 

I agree that balance isn't completely necessary, but it helps tremendously. Success with an unbalanced offense is heavily dependent on the matchups in the playoffs. The '99 Rams, '03 Pats and, to a lesser extent, the '96 Packers were able to win without strong running games. But much of that was due to the mediocre-to-bad secondaries that they faced in the SB. It also helped that those SB champ teams ranged form very good to superb on defense.

 

There have been A LOT of teams that had passing games that looked absolutely unstoppable during the regular season ('84 Dolphins, '01 Rams, '02 Raiders, '04 Colts) that suffered big-time in the playoffs because they couldn't run the ball effectively.

 

Well, it was you. That's the phrase that set me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Riddle me this genius:

 

How is this 2001 Rams' D an average D?

 

3rd in the NFL in total D

3rd in the NFL in rushing yds yielded

10th in the NFL in passing yds yielded

11th in the NFL in yards per rushing attempt

7th in the NFL in yards per passing attempt

 

That's the earmarks of a very, very good D. Not '85 Bears great, but very good nontheless.

 

Glad you know your own team so well...

 

:D

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SB XXXVI play-by play

 

link

 

Faulk rushes & rushing yards by quarter:

 

1st quarter:

 

6 rushes for 22 yds

 

2nd quarter:

 

4 rushes for 22 yds

 

3rd quarter:

 

4 rushes for 30 yds

 

4th quarter:

 

3 rushes for 2 yds

 

Total

 

17 rushes for 76 yds

Marshall Faulk, average rushes per game in 2001 after returning from injury in week 9:

 

20.1 rushes per game for 5.64 ypc

 

link

 

Patriots’ D, 2001:

 

Rushing D: 4.31 ypc (21st in the league)

 

Passing D: 6.83 ypa (19th in the league)

 

link

So, we can plainly see that through 3 quarters, Faulk got more productive as the game went on. We can also see that the NE D had a weakness at playing the run, and that STL was in fact exploiting that weakness to the tune of Faulk having 14 carries @ 5.29 ypc through the end of the third quarter.

 

We can also see that though STL outplayed NE badly, they kept NE in the game with 3 TOs in the passing game (2 INTs and 1 fumble after a catch) vs 0 TOs in the running game. And we can plainly see that Martz pretty much took the ball out of Faulk’s hands in the 4th quarter.

 

I'd be very careful how I throw around the word moran when you plainly don't understand the game of football despite professing to watching so many snaps of it.

 

So wait, you're saying we lost that game because we abandoned the run in the 4th quarter? The quarter where we scored 14 of our total 17 points, and where even Swerski says the offense really started to click? Is that really what you're arguing? And I don't understand the game of football? Look back at how Swerski makes his points and debates this topic without being a turd. You get called names because you're confrontational and obnoxious, even when you're wrong.

Edited by STL Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riddle me this genius:

 

How is this 2001 Rams' D an average D?

 

3rd in the NFL in total D

3rd in the NFL in rushing yds yielded

10th in the NFL in passing yds yielded

11th in the NFL in yards per rushing attempt

7th in the NFL in yards per passing attempt

 

That's the earmarks of a very, very good D. Not '85 Bears great, but very good nontheless.

 

Glad you know your own team so well...

 

:D

 

Do you even read the stuff you quote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, you're saying we lost that game because we abandoned the run in the 4th quarter? The quarter where we scored 14 of our total 17 points, and where even Swerski says the offense really started to click? Is that really what you're arguing? And I don't understand the game of football? Look back at how Swerski makes his points and debates this topic without being a turd. You get called names becaue you're confrontational and obnoxious, even when you're wrong.

 

:D

 

Go back to the kiddy table. You can't hang with the adults here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even read the stuff you quote?

 

Ummm, yes.

 

I do consider being in the top 11 in the NFL to be among the better of 32 teams at something. Then you put together the amalgam of those stats, combining the balance against the run & pass, and you see a very good D.

 

Allow me to rephrase, if you understand the game and you understand stats, you see a very good D.

 

That might explain your problem here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, you're saying we lost that game because we abandoned the run in the 4th quarter? The quarter where we scored 14 of our total 17 points, and where even Swerski says the offense really started to click? Is that really what you're arguing? And I don't understand the game of football? Look back at how Swerski makes his points and debates this topic without being a turd. You get called names because you're confrontational and obnoxious, even when you're wrong.

 

STL lost because they didn't run enough throughout the game. The only reason NE was able to build a lead was because of TOs in the passing game.

 

Let's see :D hmmmmm - I'm a HC of a football team, my RB is dominating the other team in the running game, and my passing O is creating TOs that have given a weaker team a lead in the biggest game in the year. What should I do... run the ball or pass the ball?

 

Hmmmmmmmm...

 

Oh that's right, your answer is to pass some more! Well, that turned out well for STL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, uh, what would you guys say the problems in Philly are, exactly? :D

 

Peace

policy

 

:D

 

Just jumped the track a little bit, huh, policy?

 

I apologize for my part, but you know how difficult it is for me to abide abject stupidity, especially when the one spouting it is simultaneously so smug. It's not that I mind the smugness, but would it hurt him to get at least a little bit of his argument right to provide a platform for it?

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

STL lost because they didn't run enough throughout the game. The only reason NE was able to build a lead was because of TOs in the passing game.

 

Let's see :D hmmmmm - I'm a HC of a football team, my RB is dominating the other team in the running game, and my passing O is creating TOs that have given a weaker team a lead in the biggest game in the year. What should I do... run the ball or pass the ball?

 

Hmmmmmmmm...

 

Oh that's right, your answer is to pass some more! Well, that turned out well for STL.

 

You mean in 1999-2000 when we won the Super Bowl? Yes it did, thanks for asking. And a quick reminder - Marshall 130 total yards, and 337 team yards in passing. On second thought, you're right, that sounds like a game plan to abandon. Quit passing because Marshall hadn't fumbled yet. Brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the SB we won, we had a total of 29 rushing yards, and Marshall had 10 carries. Glad we abandoned that strategy, that could never work.

 

Which is why NFL HCs on all teams every year have their best RB average 10 rushes per game.

 

Good argument.

 

:D

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean in 1999-2000 when we won the Super Bowl?

 

You really do have trouble keeping the eye on the ball, don't you? Can't rebut an argument, so you change the conditions.

 

I withdraw that last comment. I don't want to insult all Dems by comparing them to STL Fan.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

 

Just jumped the track a little bit, huh, policy?

 

I apologize for my part, but you know how difficult it is for me to abide abject stupidity, especially when the one spouting it is simultaneously so smug. It's not that I mind the smugness, but would it hurt him to get at least a little bit of his argument right to provide a platform for it?

 

This is why people hate you. Sorry Policy, I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information