This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Overall, I think the Greatest Show on Turf wins out. The '07 Pats sure were amazing.And yes, the '09 Saints don't even remotely belong in this discussion. That potential ended about midway through the season.So true. They would run the clock out and take a knee rather than keep scoring. They were darn near unstoppable unless they were playing the Bucs. The Bucs front 4 with Sapp and McFarland had the Rams number on a few occasions. If the Rams even had a mediocre D ( don't let the numbers fool you , because they were up so big other teams turned one dimensional ), the Rams would have won 3 SB's in a row.
Imagine if the Rams drafted Randy Moss
The 2001 defense was very good
With an even halfway decent defense, that would have been a team competing for Super Bowls those 3 years. That OL was amazing.This one is between the Rams and 2007 NE for me.Very misleading. When you are winning early, teams had to throw to catch up. This fell right into the Rams laps. They were a bend but not break type of D. Lovie's cover 2 did a good job.
The Rams defenses were very good in '99 and '01. '00 was a travesty and a shame; the first six games was possibly the most ridiculous display of offense I have ever seen an NFL team produce, but the defense was awful (yet they still started 6-0), and then Warner got hurt in the 7th game, after which the offense never really had that consistency the rest of the year, even when Warner came back, and they lost in the first round when the defense got shredded by the Saints and a furious 4th quarter comeback was halted by a Hakim fumble on a punt return with under two minutes.
I used to own Faulk, and I know they would keep him in during big leads and they would still be throwing the ball. I benefited from it but I also worried that he was going to get hurt.
Right on. It's the 2007 Pats and it's not even close. It is comical how many people just don't like the Pats though.
I disagree, I think they do belong in the discussion but at this point they are an unfinished work in progress. You mention the potential ending midway through the season even after the game against the cardinals? What changed? Health. They were mostly healthy for the Cardinals game. I think the loss of Heath Evans and Jamaal Brown in partiucular hurt this offense more than we realize and Billy Miller to some extent but not as much because Thomas has played pretty well in Billy's absence. Then there have been injuries along the way to other players- Bush, Shockey, Moore, PT and Bell. Its hard to keep up the pace when these things happen to your lineup. I'll give the Saints a few more years before they can match the Rams "greatest show on turf "output. That is my answer for now- The Rams
pretty sure brady hung 59 on the titans in a snow storm. Domes are over rated
Those were the days...
Plus, the only really bad weather game the Patriots had in '07 was the home game vs. the Jets, and the offense struggled mightily on that windy day, scoring only 13 points in a 20-10 win.
I assume you feel compelled to limit your conclusions to the last decade? Surely you can't be listing the Colts as having a more dominant team decade than the original Steel Curtain?, the Montana-Young 49ers, or even than the Aikman-Smith Cowboys? A great QB, one superbowl and that's the Best Team over 10 Years EVER?Note to self: Remember to read the thread title! With that restriction: Very good post!
Bah, the Vikings weren't even the best offense in 1998; Denver's offense was better. Yeah, the Vikings scored 55 more points, but the Broncos had a handful of games where they took their foot off the pedal because they were winning by so much; I remember them beating Philly 41-3 early in the 3rd quarter, and they probably could have scored 30 more points, but they took all of the starters out, and the final was 41-16. They could have conceivably broke the record that year had they kept their foot on the pedal the whole way.
broad widespread general rule is overrated because of single anecdotal counterexample!You realize this is basically like saying "players facing a tough defense don't score fewer points than players playing an easy defense, because one time SJax scored 50 fantasy points against a top 5 defense!", right? If you want to demonstrate that domes and turf are not more friendly to the offense than outdoor stadiums with natural field, you're going to need a heck of a lot more than one example to the contrary. Especially since it's already well established that snow favors the offense, anyway (it's the wind and rain that favor the defense).
Ghost Rider said:
Also, offenses with a higher pass:rush ratio will often score more points and gain more yards than offense with a high rush
ass ratio simply because it increases the pace of the game (i.e. they get more offensive drives) and because passes are a higher-reward play. Imagine team A scores an average of 1 point per pass attempt and an average of .5 points per rush attempt, while Team B scores .9 points per pass and .4 points per rush. Team A is clearly a better offense both passing and rushing, but if team B passes 75% of the time and team A rushes 75% of the time, team B will score more points per play. It's called Simpson's Paradox.well hard to say that the broncos took their pedal off the gas more than the vikes when the vikings not only scored more they also allowed fewer points. i concur the Broncos strung together much better drives, vikes definetly had much better quick strike force.Ghost Rider said:
what about 2009 Cards?
Because of running up the score?
What was the word? "Knock Warner out for the year"?That Rams offense was sick.
Masking coverages and putting pressure on him caused him to get "happy feet" and short circuit.Once you knew he was afraid to take hits, beating those Rams teams became easy.
Gotta go with the Rams here.
