Fresh Prince Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Bears lost to the Eagles due to a missed field goal. Eagles lost to the Saints due to a Interception. Saints lost to the Rams due to a missed pass interference call. Rams lose to the Patriots due to facing a GOAT. Math checks out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfournier103 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 In an alternate corner of the Multiverse there’s a thread on this forum asking the question; “what if the Patriots didn’t move to St. Louis 25 years ago?” The NFL would be very different today if Bob Kraft doesn’t save the Patriots from being moved... Thank God he wrote that check! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 52 minutes ago, Fresh Prince said: Bears lost to the Eagles due to a missed field goal. Eagles lost to the Saints due to a Interception. Saints lost to the Rams due to a missed pass interference call. Rams lose to the Patriots due to facing a GOAT. Math checks out. The Saints didnt lose due to a missed pass interference call. Had that call been correctly made, all it wouldve did was increase the Saints chance of winning. There was no lock the Saints win. As we've seen so many times, there are no locks to win. The Falcons had the same chance to win the Superbowl up 28-3 as the Saints wouldve had if that call wouldve been made. The Falcons lost. Im sure the Saints chances to beat the Vikings were just as high as well but then the Minnesota Miracle happened and the Saints lost. Early in the season when the Ravens were an XP away from tying the Saints, Im sure the chances of Tucker making that kick was extremely high but he missed. The truth is people want to believe that Saints automatically win had the call been made to cover up the fact they did nothing after that call. They still lead 23-20 in their home stadium and choked. Not to mention people gloss over the fact the refs missed a face mask penalty that happened on Goff the previous drive. Had that call been made it sets up the Rams 1st and Goal on the 1yd line with a chance for the Rams to go up 24-20. Then it would force the Saints to need a touchdown instead of a field goal. Now the Saints entire possession is different. We all know the Saints 2/4 in the redzone all game long in converting tds. So thats 50% chance the Saints score a td. I think you see where Im going. So again you can want to believe the Saints lost because of that no call but its not a lock they win had that call been made. Nothing is 100% and we've seen even in Saints history not just league history where just when you think the Saints got things locked up, they still lose. Remember in 2003 against the Jaguars where the Saints some how got a miracle td at the end and was one John Carney XP away from tying. Well he missed it and the Saints lost. So again nothing is a lock with the Saints so no that missed pass interference call didnt cost the Saints the game because it wasnt certain they would win if the correct call wouldve been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay z Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 dread it... run from it... Brady still arrives and now he's here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Prince Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 2 hours ago, stl4life07 said: The Saints didnt lose due to a missed pass interference call. Had that call been correctly made, all it wouldve did was increase the Saints chance of winning. There was no lock the Saints win. As we've seen so many times, there are no locks to win. The Falcons had the same chance to win the Superbowl up 28-3 as the Saints wouldve had if that call wouldve been made. The Falcons lost. Im sure the Saints chances to beat the Vikings were just as high as well but then the Minnesota Miracle happened and the Saints lost. Early in the season when the Ravens were an XP away from tying the Saints, Im sure the chances of Tucker making that kick was extremely high but he missed. The truth is people want to believe that Saints automatically win had the call been made to cover up the fact they did nothing after that call. They still lead 23-20 in their home stadium and choked. Not to mention people gloss over the fact the refs missed a face mask penalty that happened on Goff the previous drive. Had that call been made it sets up the Rams 1st and Goal on the 1yd line with a chance for the Rams to go up 24-20. Then it would force the Saints to need a touchdown instead of a field goal. Now the Saints entire possession is different. We all know the Saints 2/4 in the redzone all game long in converting tds. So thats 50% chance the Saints score a td. I think you see where Im going. So again you can want to believe the Saints lost because of that no call but its not a lock they win had that call been made. Nothing is 100% and we've seen even in Saints history not just league history where just when you think the Saints got things locked up, they still lose. Remember in 2003 against the Jaguars where the Saints some how got a miracle td at the end and was one John Carney XP away from tying. Well he missed it and the Saints lost. So again nothing is a lock with the Saints so no that missed pass interference call didnt cost the Saints the game because it wasnt certain they would win if the correct call wouldve been made. I was joking when I made this but thanks for the long post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartica4Real Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 2 hours ago, stl4life07 said: The Saints didnt lose due to a missed pass interference call. Had that call been correctly made, all it wouldve did was increase the Saints chance of winning. There was no lock the Saints win. As we've seen so many times, there are no locks to win. The Falcons had the same chance to win the Superbowl up 28-3 as the Saints wouldve had if that call wouldve been made. The Falcons lost. Im sure the Saints chances to beat the Vikings were just as high as well but then the Minnesota Miracle happened and the Saints lost. Early in the season when the Ravens were an XP away from tying the Saints, Im sure the chances of Tucker making that kick was extremely high but he missed. The truth is people want to believe that Saints automatically win had the call been made to cover up the fact they did nothing after that call. They still lead 23-20 in their home stadium and choked. Not to mention people gloss over the fact the refs missed a face mask penalty that happened on Goff the previous drive. Had that call been made it sets up the Rams 1st and Goal on the 1yd line with a chance for the Rams to go up 24-20. Then it would force the Saints to need a touchdown instead of a field goal. Now the Saints entire possession is different. We all know the Saints 2/4 in the redzone all game long in converting tds. So thats 50% chance the Saints score a td. I think you see where Im going. So again you can want to believe the Saints lost because of that no call but its not a lock they win had that call been made. Nothing is 100% and we've seen even in Saints history not just league history where just when you think the Saints got things locked up, they still lose. Remember in 2003 against the Jaguars where the Saints some how got a miracle td at the end and was one John Carney XP away from tying. Well he missed it and the Saints lost. So again nothing is a lock with the Saints so no that missed pass interference call didnt cost the Saints the game because it wasnt certain they would win if the correct call wouldve been made. You care way too much about this. You benefited from a fortunate call, enjoy it. You don't have to keep posting long wind explanations every time someone says the Saints got hosed with your "aCtuAlLy ThEy LoST tHe GaMe DuE tO oTheR mIsTaKeS" routine. You were even doing it in our own subforum. Also, yes it is reasonable to assume we win if the call is made considering Lutz made the kick right after. Just move on man, your team won and you don't have to try and justify it every time someone says something about the call. It doesn't mean the Rams played badly or something, it just means they benefited from a call. So why feel the need to defend the refs and your team every chance you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 33 minutes ago, Spartica4Real said: You care way too much about this. You benefited from a fortunate call, enjoy it. You don't have to keep posting long wind explanations every time someone says the Saints got hosed with your "aCtuAlLy ThEy LoST tHe GaMe DuE tO oTheR mIsTaKeS" routine. You were even doing it in our own subforum. Also, yes it is reasonable to assume we win if the call is made considering Lutz made the kick right after. Just move on man, your team won and you don't have to try and justify it every time someone says something about the call. It doesn't mean the Rams played badly or something, it just means they benefited from a call. So why feel the need to defend the refs and your team every chance you get? Im not defending the refs. I dont know why people are shocked the refs missed that call. They were missing calls left and right all game long. So Ill stop talking the second people stop acting like the Rams didnt deserve to win that game. The Saints didnt get hosed. They had a chance to overcome that call last time I checked. Ill tell you what hosed was. 2006 Week 6 Seahawks at Rams. Rams were up 28-27 the Seahawks completed a big play with seconds left on the clock. They had no timeouts so they ran down the field to spike the ball and stop the clock. Refs threw the flag for illegal formation. The game shouldve been over due to no time left on the clock. That didnt happened. The refs gave the Seahawks an untimed down with no time left. They kicked the field goal and won 30-28. Guess what? The Rams missed the playoffs by 1 game. But Im not going to look back at that game and say thats the reason the Rams missed the playoffs that year. The Rams had chances after that game to win and ended up losing 6 out of their next 7. They basically choked. I dont know if they didnt recover from that game because they started the season 4-1 before that Seahawks game happened. The Saints basically did the same. They choked after that bad call. They had their chances to win before and after that bad call and they didnt. So Ill stop talking about it as soon as people stop acting like the Rams didnt deserve to win that game. Not everyone feels that way but seems like alot of people do. Plus I guess I feel strongly about this than most because I live in Louisiana and in 2009 I believed the Vikings was going to the Superbowl that season. When they got beat in New Orleans in the NFCCG in the manner that they did I couldnt even bring up the fact that I felt the Vikings had alot of calls go against them without Saints fans being offended by it. I never said the Vikings didnt have their chances either. When you fumble 6 times and throw 2 ints you should lose. So Ive been consistent even then. I never said the Saints didnt deserve to win then. I just pointed out there were alot of calls that went the Saints way. I even said had that game been in Minnesota the Vikings wouldve won and my best friend who is a diehard Saints fan totally agreed with me on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showtime Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 I'm going to say this. That DB from the Patriots - his last name is Jackson. That guy is beyond garbage. If he's playing, the Rams need to attack him every single time no matter who he's covering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay z Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 17 minutes ago, showtime said: I'm going to say this. That DB from the Patriots - his last name is Jackson. That guy is beyond garbage. If he's playing, the Rams need to attack him every single time no matter who he's covering. JC Jackson has actually been pretty good this year, pennywise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenos Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/01/21/super-bowl-53-preview-rams-patriots-belichick-mcvay Quote Old-school Belichick plan for new Rams juggernaut Andy Benoit 4-5 minutes The Patriots’ dynasty started with Bill Belichick stymieing a juggernaut Rams offense—2001’s “The Greatest Show on Turf”—in Super Bowl XXXVI. Eighteen years later, Belichick faces another prolific Rams offense, led by wunderkind architect Sean McVay. The second-year head coach’s system is defined by condensed formations. The Rams don’t have wide receivers so much as “tight” receivers, with Brandin Cooks, Robert Woods and Josh Reynolds almost always aligning just a few yards outside the offensive tackles. This has several benefits. One is that it puts receivers close to one another, where their routes easily crisscross and intertwine, creating traffic for man-to-man defenders and poor leverage for zone defenders. Another: A receiver aligned tightly inside, uninhibited by the sideline, always has a two-way go. And crossing patterns, which are huge for L.A., are deeper since there’s less ground to cover horizontally. But perhaps most importantly, a tightly aligned receiver is better positioned to block on run plays. A receivers’ run-blocking is almost as crucial as his pass-catching in McVay’s scheme, which is predicated on plays that start out looking the same but are different. Most of those plays hinge on the outside-zone run designs that Mike Shanahan’s Denver Broncos made famous in the 1990s. Behind this outside-zone-running approach, the Rams’ boast a lethal play-action game. Receivers are immensely detailed in their spacing and timing here, which has enabled third-year QB Jared Goff to become one of football’s best anticipation passers. Can New England could disrupt that spacing and timing? In that first Super Bowl, Belichick realized that much of the Rams’ aerial assault hinged on flex tailback Marshall Faulk. To eliminate Faulk, Belichick revealed a never-before-featured “bullseye” tactic, with defensive ends and outside linebackers jamming Faulk whenever he ran a route. The Patriots could renew this approach in Super Bowl LIII, only with those edge defenders jamming L.A’s tightly aligned receivers. Those jams could wreck L.A.’s aerial timing and also congest the edges against the run. Yes, this would sacrifice New England’s pass rush, which has come to life this postseason. But that pass rush would be mostly neutralized by L.A.’s play-action designs anyway. Disrupting L.A.’s outside zone designs could make McVay an impatient play-caller. So could the Patriots’ ability to control time of possession with their own ground game. With an interior O-line that has dominated this postseason, and the rising inside running tandem of lead-blocking fullback James Develin and rookie tailback Sony Michel, the Patriots have one of football’s best power rushing attacks. They featured it heavily in the AFC championship against a Chiefs defense that allowed 5.0 yards per rush this season. The only D that allowed more yards per rush was the Rams (5.1). As we were reminded of in the AFC championship, Tom Brady can still throw. Rams defensive coordinator Wade Phillips beat Brady in their last postseason matchup, the 2015 AFC title game in Denver. But that Denver defense had better edge rushers and more physical cover corners than this 2018 Rams D. The Patriots should have no trouble moving the ball. If they can keep the Rams offense below 30, they’ll win title No. 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showtime Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 34 minutes ago, Kay z said: JC Jackson has actually been pretty good this year, pennywise He sucked vs KC. I don't care what he did in the regular season. Only the best teams are playing right now. So him playing well in the regular season when so many teams are bad doesn't really matter to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocky_rams Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 36 minutes ago, Kay z said: JC Jackson has actually been pretty good this year, pennywise Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinSting Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Heh, pick-6 for the Pats vs the Rams back then. That was a fun Super Bowl, most everyone was rooting for the massive underdog Patriots. Times have likely changed... My memory of that game is after it was over, at some point the camera hit on BB as he walked around the field with a Corona beer in his hand. I was thinking 'damn I like this guy.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 7 minutes ago, showtime said: He sucked vs KC. I don't care what he did in the regular season. Only the best teams are playing right now. So him playing well in the regular season when so many teams are bad doesn't really matter to me. Chris Simms called him elite in today’s podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Xenos said: https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/01/21/super-bowl-53-preview-rams-patriots-belichick-mcvay The Patriots’ dynasty started with Bill Belichick stymieing a juggernaut Rams offense—2001’s “The Greatest Show on Turf”—in Super Bowl XXXVI. Eighteen years later, Belichick faces another prolific Rams offense, led by wunderkind architect Sean McVay. The second-year head coach’s system is defined by condensed formations. The Rams don’t have wide receivers so much as “tight” receivers, with Brandin Cooks, Robert Woods and Josh Reynolds almost always aligning just a few yards outside the offensive tackles. This has several benefits. One is that it puts receivers close to one another, where their routes easily crisscross and intertwine, creating traffic for man-to-man defenders and poor leverage for zone defenders. Another: A receiver aligned tightly inside, uninhibited by the sideline, always has a two-way go. And crossing patterns, which are huge for L.A., are deeper since there’s less ground to cover horizontally. But perhaps most importantly, a tightly aligned receiver is better positioned to block on run plays. A receivers’ run-blocking is almost as crucial as his pass-catching in McVay’s scheme, which is predicated on plays that start out looking the same but are different. Most of those plays hinge on the outside-zone run designs that Mike Shanahan’s Denver Broncos made famous in the 1990s. Behind this outside-zone-running approach, the Rams’ boast a lethal play-action game. Receivers are immensely detailed in their spacing and timing here, which has enabled third-year QB Jared Goff to become one of football’s best anticipation passers. Can New England could disrupt that spacing and timing? In that first Super Bowl, Belichick realized that much of the Rams’ aerial assault hinged on flex tailback Marshall Faulk. To eliminate Faulk, Belichick revealed a never-before-featured “bullseye” tactic, with defensive ends and outside linebackers jamming Faulk whenever he ran a route. The Patriots could renew this approach in Super Bowl LIII, only with those edge defenders jamming L.A’s tightly aligned receivers. Those jams could wreck L.A.’s aerial timing and also congest the edges against the run. Yes, this would sacrifice New England’s pass rush, which has come to life this postseason. But that pass rush would be mostly neutralized by L.A.’s play-action designs anyway. Disrupting L.A.’s outside zone designs could make McVay an impatient play-caller. So could the Patriots’ ability to control time of possession with their own ground game. With an interior O-line that has dominated this postseason, and the rising inside running tandem of lead-blocking fullback James Develin and rookie tailback Sony Michel, the Patriots have one of football’s best power rushing attacks. They featured it heavily in the AFC championship against a Chiefs defense that allowed 5.0 yards per rush this season. The only D that allowed more yards per rush was the Rams (5.1). As we were reminded of in the AFC championship, Tom Brady can still throw. Rams defensive coordinator Wade Phillips beat Brady in their last postseason matchup, the 2015 AFC title game in Denver. But that Denver defense had better edge rushers and more physical cover corners than this 2018 Rams D. The Patriots should have no trouble moving the ball. If they can keep the Rams offense below 30, they’ll win title No. 6. It's weird how people like Benoit like to play ignorant when it comes to the Rams. He notes that the Patriots' pass rush has come alive in the playoffs. Yet, he falls back on the Rams' regular season stats for run defense. Despite facing the Cowboys and the Saints, two of the NFL's top 10 rushing attacks, the Rams are giving up 49 rushing yards per game and 2.3 yards per carry in the playoffs. Seems like something worth noting. Also, he focuses a lot on the outside-zone, but we aren't a pure outside-zone team. Kromer is well known for his inside-zone scheme, and our rushing attack is quite potent when using that scheme. EDIT: And I should mention that the inside-zone game that he conveniently forgets is a great way to counter the Patriots using an EDGE to jam a WR. That's why other teams haven't done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.