Which NFC Team has the best chance of beating the Patriots ?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

13 minutes ago, RuralBill said:

Yes, they bite the dust... to other experienced playoff teams. You had to go back 36 years to find your second inexperienced team (your first is almost 20 years ago). That's not convincing anyone.

I don't know what your criteria for experience is though. That is going to change depending on who you ask. I just picked two at random from the top of my head. I would consider the 2001 Patriots another one. 2000 Ravens is another one. 

How many examples do you need anyways? The fact that it's happened more than once is enough to convince me that it's not that big of a deal. Marvin Lewis' Bengals have had plenty of playoff appearances to garner experience. Didn't do **** for them. 

[iknowcool]

3 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I've never really bought into experience being a big deal. 1999 Rams weren't experienced at all. Or the 1981 49ers. Didn't matter. Plenty of experienced teams bite the dust when they get to the playoffs. 

'99 Rams fielded an historically dominant offense.  

I don't think it is the end of the world to be lacking in experience.  Teams like the aforementioned 49ers and '01 Patriots overcame it for sure.  Rams will be a tough out regardless.  But it is something that could make a difference when they play the Panthers (even moreso with them since most of the guys are still here from the 2015 team) or Saints.  

[TecmoSuperJoe]

4 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

'99 Rams fielded an historically dominant offense.  

I don't think it is the end of the world to be lacking in experience.  Teams like the aforementioned 49ers and '01 Patriots overcame it for sure.  Rams will be a tough out regardless.  But it is something that could make a difference when they play the Panthers (even moreso with them since most of the guys are still here from the 2015 team) or Saints.  

Doesn't matter. They didn't have experience. It didn't effect them. That was the point. 

1998 Vikings had plenty of playoff experience. And a record setting offense. They still flopped, against an Atlanta Falcons team that came out of nowhere. 

[Spartica4Real]

Any of them could beat the Pats, except maybe the Eagles (pending on how Foles plays, he played well last week so we'll see if he can keep it up. If so then yeah I think all 6 NFC playoff teams COULD beat the Pats). At the risk of being a homer I'll say we'd have the best chance though. Saints have a young, swagger filled defense playing REALLY well right now. On offense we can beat you in any way which is important vs BB because he'll game plan to take away your best option and you need to beat him with other players. Even if he takes away Kamara and makes him a non-factor, then Brees can still sling it and Ingram is a very good RB. Brees is one of the few QBs who could go toe to toe with Brady and match him punch for punch. If not the Saints then I'd say the Vikings have the next best chance, they don't have a Brees at QB but they have a truly elite defense which would keep them in the game and I think Keenum could do enough to lead them to a win, as he has been doing during the regular season.

[iknowcool]

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

Didn't matter. They didn't have experience. It didn't effect them. That was the point. 

And my point was that team was an anomaly.  That does not prove lack of experience doesn't matter and it isn't like they had a tough road in the playoffs.  Vikings were 10-6 and not as good as they were the year before, meanwhile they only scored 11 points against the Bucs.  

I'm not saying lack of experience automatically gives a team no chance at winning the Super Bowl.  But they definitely are more than likely to feel the pressure easier than teams with recent playoff appearances or a Super Bowl appearance.  Rams aren't '99 Rams good enough to discount that inexperience.

I mean, I could tell you that the '15 Broncos won the Super Bowl with scrub Peyton.  Or that the '00 Ravens won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer.  Does that mean having a good QB isn't more likely than not imperative to winning a Super Bowl?  That is all I'm saying.  You can win without experience just like you can win with below average QB play, but it is still a hindrance.  

[TecmoSuperJoe]

24 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

And my point was that team was an anomaly.  That does not prove lack of experience doesn't matter and it isn't like they had a tough road in the playoffs.  Vikings were 10-6 and not as good as they were the year before, meanwhile they only scored 11 points against the Bucs.  

I'm not saying lack of experience automatically gives a team no chance at winning the Super Bowl.  But they definitely are more than likely to feel the pressure easier than teams with recent playoff appearances or a Super Bowl appearance.  Rams aren't '99 Rams good enough to discount that inexperience.

I mean, I could tell you that the '15 Broncos won the Super Bowl with scrub Peyton.  Or that the '00 Ravens won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer.  Does that mean having a good QB isn't more likely than not imperative to winning a Super Bowl?  That is all I'm saying.  You can win without experience just like you can win with below average QB play, but it is still a hindrance.  

I understand what you are saying. I just don't necessarily agree with your point about playoff experience being as big a deal. There are a lot of examples of perennial playoff participants having fallen to upstart playoff participants. And I think it really depends on how you look at it. I would would think a team with a lot of playoff experience that hasn't won a Super Bowl would feel a ton of pressure to get the job done. Like the 90's Vikings or Andy Reid's Eagles. Or the early 90's Bills. 

[Apparition]

The two keys for beating the Pats: 

-generating pressure with a 4-man rush (particularly pressure up the middle)

-running the ball effectively and sticking with it.

 

With that in mind:

1. Rams
2. Panthers
3. Vikings
4. Saints

I think any of those four could do it but the Rams, with Wade Phillips helming their defense, could give Brady a lot of trouble. The Panthers already beat them once this year and Cam always plays very well against them so I put them second. The Vikings have the defense to slow down the Pats considerably but I'm not fully sold on their offense. The Saints have a great running game but I'm not sold on them having the horses along the DL to rattle Brady.

[jrry32]

2 hours ago, iknowcool said:

1. Saints

2. Panthers

3. Rams

Not necessarily how I rank the teams, but Panthers/Saints have good defenses and experienced QBs. 

I like the Rams a lot, but the lack of experience concerns me.  I’ve seen Rams fans criticize McVay for clock management. Something like that would kill them against the Patriots. 

Eagles and Vikings have the defense and running game to stay in it, but I don’t trust either of their offenses.

McVay's clock management is usually good. He's had a couple lapses at times. What can be frustrating with him are his aggression and his tendency to go away from Gurley. He's a bit Martzian in terms of his aggression. He doesn't like sitting on 4th quarter leads. He continues to go for the throat. That's good in some situations and frustrating in others.

The good news is that he's not the type of coach who would take his foot off the gas with a lead in the 4th. He's going to keep trying to score.

[jrry32]

2 hours ago, iknowcool said:

'99 Rams fielded an historically dominant offense.  

I don't think it is the end of the world to be lacking in experience.  Teams like the aforementioned 49ers and '01 Patriots overcame it for sure.  Rams will be a tough out regardless.  But it is something that could make a difference when they play the Panthers (even moreso with them since most of the guys are still here from the 2015 team) or Saints.  

I might end up eating my words, but I think mismatches will end up negating experience against the Panthers.

[Spartica4Real]

10 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I might end up eating my words, but I think mismatches will end up negating experience against the Panthers.

Panthers won't even get a chance to play the Rams considering their season ends in the Super Dome on Wild Card weekend.  

[bigbadbuff23835]

I loooooove this Rams team. I’ll say them. Everything about them is what I wish the Bills were. Such a fun team to watch.

[Uncle Buck]

18 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

I'm not confident we even get to the AFCCG this year.  The team had flaws, and since then they've gotten worse due to injuries.  

Given the guys we project to be here in the playoffs, if at 100% I think we scrape by out of the conference and just got to pray that in a SB environment, it's too much for a new young team like the Rams, Saints, Eagles or Vikings.

I think we're dead in the water against the Vikings though.  Rams we can win a shoot out.  Saints I think are too young and overrated defensively.  Eagles have Foles and a mediocre corners we can pick on.  Vikings have the balanced team and homefield that would be tough to beat.

6

As a Vikings fan, that is very good to hear because the Patriots are the one team from the AFC that really scares me.  Trying to get off the 4 loss Super Bowl schnide by beating Belichick and Brady (the all-time kings on this stage) would be quite a task.  It could be done, but fans in Minnesota are all going to be extremely nervous, no matter how confident they try to sound.  We would obviously have to even get there first, but if we could get to the big game, it would sure be exciting.

[Nabbs4u]

I Have to admit. I actually like the fact the Eagles are now considered "Underdogs" with Nick Foles rather then the "Favorites" with all the Pressure! People acting as though they aren't a complete team in all 3 phases? As though playing at the Linc where they're 12-2 is some kind a cake walk?

I understand lowered expectations for the Eagles with Wentz being out but people ignoring the facts they are still the Highest Scoring Offense in the league, 6th in Pts Against, top 10 ST, top 5 Rush Offense and Defense is amusing.

Guess we'll see!

 

 

 

[stl4life07]

Thinking about it, the Rams have to be the number one team that could beat the Patriots.

1) They have Wade Phillips. He normally gives Brady and the Pats offense problems. Give him guys like Donald, Brockers, Quinn and Judy and overall athletic and restlessness defense it could cause Brady and the Pats problems once again.

2) What killed the Pats defense in Week 1 was a dual threat back (Hunt) and explosive plays by Hill. The Rams have that back in Gurley and they lead the NFL in explosive plays in both the run and pass. They have guys like Watkins, Woods, Kupp, Reynolds, Gurley, Everett who can get chunk yards and even score on one play anywhere on the field. Plus Tavon runs that misdirection jet sweep sorta like Hill does on designs.

3) The Rams can win in low scoring games as well as shootouts. Plus the irony of a where BB really started his legacy by beating the Rams in 2001 in the SB. McVay could do the same thing against the Patriots. 

The thing is, can the Rams get through the tough NFC to do so? It’s gonna be wide open in the NFC but I have no doubt that the Rams, Saints, Panthers, and Vikings could all beat any team in the AFC in the SB. The AFC has been weak and the Pats feasted off it. If the Pats played the Saints later in the season I think it would’ve been a different story. The Pats lost to the Panthers and barely beat the Bucs.  No reasoning about the Falcons because the Falcons haven’t been looking great all year.

[vikingsrule]

5 hours ago, iknowcool said:

1. Saints

2. Panthers

3. Rams

Not necessarily how I rank the teams, but Panthers/Saints have good defenses and experienced QBs. 

I like the Rams a lot, but the lack of experience concerns me.  I’ve seen Rams fans criticize McVay for clock management. Something like that would kill them against the Patriots. 

Eagles and Vikings have the defense and running game to stay in it, but I don’t trust either of their offenses.

Vikes have been fielding a top 10 offense. Given that the game would be played at home, I think the Pats would have a hard time with Keenum. He's very mobile and his receivers work so much better away from the elements.