NFC Championship: Rams vs. Saints

[indifference]

Marcus Peters Sean payton revenge game!!!

 

Go Rams

[stl4life07]

1 hour ago, Jlowe22 said:

Yes the media is indeed silly.  And it’s a silly thing to do to take them seriously.  Nobody is gonna talk about what Kellerman says because nobody cares what Kellerman says.

Yes the Saints/Rams have a history.  But it has no bearing on the present.  These are completely different teams.  Whoever wins is whoever is the best team on that given day.

I agree in general but we have to put things into context. So when someone says, the Pats have never won the Superbowl in the Belichick/Brady era from the 3 seed, it gives you something to think about. You dont have to think its serious and if you think its silly then ok but its out there. People believed strongly the Vikings was going to win the Superbowl, but history has said no team that had changed QB and OC during the offseason has ever won the Superbowl that season. Again you dont have to take that seriously but its something to think about or else you dont have anything to go off of. 

I told my friend who bet on the Cowboys straight up that he made a mistake. I told him that before the game. The reason was, the Cowboys havent won a Divisional Round playoff game since the early to 1990s. Is that a silly comment? You could say that if you want too. Its something to think about though. I can go in game where its said if you win the turnover battle +2 you win like 80% of the time. Again you can think its a silly comment if you want to but its something to think about. Its something to keep your eye on if your team is +2 or -2 in a current game. It doesnt automatically mean your team will win if they are +2 in the turnover battle. All Im doing is giving context and something to think about. Take it for what its worth. 

[Raves]

13 hours ago, El ramster said:

They only have one good corner. The rest are cheeks. 

Apple is good and although he looked poor for parts of the game against the Rams the first time, he also made some good plays and it was his first game with the Saints.  Overall he's been a huge improvement at the #2 CB than what Crawley was doing and has continued to improve since that game, though still makes some mistakes.

12 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

I hope the Rams have 12 of their players placed on IR between  now and next Sunday. Both Donald and Gurley end up slipping on McDonald's wrappers while desperately looking for Sean Mcvay and Rammy in the Bermuda Triangle.

Go Saints 😎

I thought McVey told CJA he couldn't eat in the locker room anymore, so no chance for Donald and Gurley to get hurt.

[Jlowe22]

Just now, stl4life07 said:

I agree in general but we have to put things into context. Sports are history until the game is played. So when someone says, the Pats have never won the Superbowl in the Belichick/Brady era from the 3 seed, it gives you something to think about. You dont have to think its serious and if you think its silly then ok but its out there. People believed strongly the Vikings was going to win the Superbowl, but history has said no team that had changed QB and OC during the offseason has ever won the Superbowl that season. Again you dont have to take that seriously but its something to think about or else you dont have anything to go off of. 

I told my friend who bet on the Cowboys straight up that he made a mistake. I told him that before the game. The reason was, the Cowboys havent won a Divisional Round playoff game since the early to 1990s. Is that a silly comment? You could say that if you want too. Its something to think about though. I can go in game where its said if you win the turnover battle +2 you win like 80% of the time. Again you can think its a silly comment if you want to but its something to think about. Its something to keep your eye on if your team is +2 or -2. All Im doing is giving context and something to think about. Take it for what its worth. 

Some things do have an effect.  Winning super bowls from the 3 seed means you play an extra playoff game, and potentially 2 road games.  Changing coaches in the off-season means those coaches have less time to install their system.  Winning the turnover battle directly affects your chances of winning the game.

That a team with a completely different roster with the same name beat another team with a completely different roster with the same name doesn’t mean anything.  There’s nothing magical about it.  

[Spartica4Real]

1 hour ago, stl4life07 said:

It’s not a silly reason but since I mentioned it it’s silly. I guess if the media mentioned it then it’s not silly. They mention stuff like that all the time.

They mention Saints were 5-0 at home in the playoffs heading into these playoffs which had nothing to do with these playoffs. They mentioned the only team to beat Foles in the playoffs was the Saints in 2013 which had nothing to do with these playoffs. They mentioned when the Saints won the Superbowl in 2009 the three teams they lost to was the Cowboys, Bucs, and Panthers (same teams they lost to this season) but it has nothing to do with this season. So if little old me mention something like that it’s silly but if the media mention something like that nobody comes on here and say “did you hear what Max Kellerman said, what a silly comment”. 

But I’ll just say this following the Rams and Saints history closely from when I started really following football closely in 2000, they have a great history even before then. I’ll go back to even two years ago when the Rams stopped the Saints 8 game winning streak. This season the Saints stopped the Rams 8 game winning streak. The Rams in 2000 beat the Saints Week 17 to get into the playoffs and still had a shot to defend their championship from the 1999 season. They played the Saints again the following week in the Wildcard round and the Saints beat them and actually got their first playoff victory in franchise history. So we aren’t talking about two random teams. These teams have a long history that’s now even better because both teams are great. 

But all those things are silly.

They are less silly though, considering that's at least our home record under Payton/Brees, who we still have, unlike those old Rams teams being nothing like the current one. Yeah it's Payton/Brees' records vs the Rams, but I don't think it's relevant when the other party is completely different. 

You are right that we have a long history though, all the way back to the NFC West days. I feel like the Saints/Rams have a bit of a healthy rivalry, nothing crazy but a little something something. Not comparable to the hatred of real rivalries like us and the Falcons, but something's there. 

[jrry32]

8 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Rams looked good against Dallas but it was still an 8 point game. Goff is still very much off.

This is going to be a great game, I think. Whoever has the ball last will win.

I'm not sold Goff is as off as people believe. There are a few things that worked against him in the Dallas game. First, Goff takes some time for his "sharpness" to return after sitting. Second, our receivers failed to haul in some very catchable balls. Cooks had a TD throw punched out. He then failed to get his feet in bounds on the next play. And Higbee had a gorgeous TD throw go right through his hands. Goff missed a handful of throws, but as I said, he's never at his sharpest coming off sitting. Third, Goff is a rhythm passer, and we never needed to establish a rhythm due to the running game.

If the Saints force us to put the ball in Goff's hands, I have all the confidence in the world in him. If we don't have to put it in Goff's hands, that bodes well for us with the way our rushing attack is playing right now.

[MookieMonstah]

9 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I'm not sold Goff is as off as people believe. There are a few things that worked against him in the Dallas game. First, Goff takes some time for his "sharpness" to return after sitting. Second, our receivers failed to haul in some very catchable balls. Cooks had a TD throw punched out. He then failed to get his feet in bounds on the next play. And Higbee had a gorgeous TD throw go right through his hands. Goff missed a handful of throws, but as I said, he's never at his sharpest coming off sitting. Third, Goff is a rhythm passer, and we never needed to establish a rhythm due to the running game.

If the Saints force us to put the ball in Goff's hands, I have all the confidence in the world in him. If we don't have to put it in Goff's hands, that bodes well for us with the way our rushing attack is playing right now.

Goff has definitely been off. A lot of these guys have had to try and tip toe the sidelines because Goff is a little bit off. 

Regardless, I expect both teams to "figure it out" in this game.

[SBLIII]

4 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Goff has definitely been off. A lot of these guys have had to try and tip toe the sidelines because Goff is a little bit off. 

Regardless, I expect both teams to "figure it out" in this game.

Goff since bye week: 6 TD 6 INT 59% completion percentage.

 

He definitely has been off.

[stl4life07]

16 minutes ago, Spartica4Real said:

But all those things are silly.

They are less silly though, considering that's at least our home record under Payton/Brees, who we still have, unlike those old Rams teams being nothing like the current one. Yeah it's Payton/Brees' records vs the Rams, but I don't think it's relevant when the other party is completely different. 

You are right that we have a long history though, all the way back to the NFC West days. I feel like the Saints/Rams have a bit of a healthy rivalry, nothing crazy but a little something something. Not comparable to the hatred of real rivalries like us and the Falcons, but something's there. 

Yeah I actually enjoy the Rams/Saints rivalry more. It goes beyond just the game because I remember when they both would swap coaches and players. Not actually trading with each other but like a coach would leave the Saints and join the Rams or vice versa. Heck even last offseason McVay wanted to trade for Cooks but didnt have the 1st round pick the Saints wanted. Its reported they offered Tru Johnson straight up for Cooks but it didnt happen. Again its going to be another game in the Rams/Saints history books. Like you said not a hated rivalry but an interesting one. 

[stl4life07]

21 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I'm not sold Goff is as off as people believe. There are a few things that worked against him in the Dallas game. First, Goff takes some time for his "sharpness" to return after sitting. Second, our receivers failed to haul in some very catchable balls. Cooks had a TD throw punched out. He then failed to get his feet in bounds on the next play. And Higbee had a gorgeous TD throw go right through his hands. Goff missed a handful of throws, but as I said, he's never at his sharpest coming off sitting. Third, Goff is a rhythm passer, and we never needed to establish a rhythm due to the running game.

If the Saints force us to put the ball in Goff's hands, I have all the confidence in the world in him. If we don't have to put it in Goff's hands, that bodes well for us with the way our rushing attack is playing right now.

Plus as Shannon Sharpe pointed out, its hard to completely get things going when you had the ball off 5 times in a row then ask to throw the ball randomly on a 3rd down play. Goff made some big time throws in this game that will be overlooked because of all the running the Rams did. Shannon Sharpe pointed out two throws in particular. One was where Goff had to throw it over the linebacker who was stretching out to try to tip the ball and right in front of the safety. I forgot the other play Sharpe was talking about. If Im not mistaken that first one I mentioned was on 3rd down. 

[jrry32]

15 minutes ago, SBLIII said:

Goff since bye week: 6 TD 6 INT 59% completion percentage.

 

He definitely has been off.

Drew Brees over the same period: 5 TDs 4 INTs 70.2% completion percentage 6.8 YPA

 

I guess he has been off too. Difference is that Goff's numbers change dramatically when you remove the Bears game.

[Jlowe22]

6 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Drew Brees over the same period: 5 TDs 4 INTs 70.2% completion percentage 6.8 YPA

 

I guess he has been off too. Difference is that Goff's numbers change dramatically when you remove the Bears game.

Brees has played well the last two games he played.  Against the Steelers he was very good, and against the Eagles he was good minus two bad deep balls which isn’t abnormal for noodle arm Brees.

 

[indifference]

57 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Brees has played well the last two games he played.  Against the Steelers he was very good, and against the Eagles he was good minus two bad deep balls which isn’t abnormal for noodle arm Brees.

 

Peters cant wait to enjoy some gumbo after the game.

[jrry32]

58 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Brees has played well the last two games he played.  Against the Steelers he was very good, and against the Eagles he was good minus two bad deep balls which isn’t abnormal for noodle arm Brees.

 

Goff has 5 TDs to 0 Ints over his last three starts.

[Jlowe22]

2 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Goff has 5 TDs to 0 Ints over his last three starts.

Then what’s the problem?