Is anyone still worried about the Bills?

[GreenCow]

This clown never answered my question about watching the game. I don't think he did watch the game. Might be a clueless millennial.
No knowledgeable football fan,regardless
of who they support, would post the asinine sh.it he's posting if they saw the game. That includes Rams fans, many of whom I interacted with online back in 2002 after that SB.

Yes, I watched the game.

I watched the 3 point victory where the Rams had more first downs, yards, third downs, time in opponents territory etc.

It wasn’t a crap beating.

It was a close game that literally came down to the last few seconds.

 

[GreenCow]

I think the better term is physically dominated them, which is absolutely and unequivocally true. You need to go back and rewatch it (or watch it at all, because it sort of sounds like you're basing all of this off of conjecture) because the receivers weren't getting free releases and this was back prior to the rule changes, which is when defenses were allowed to do so. They didn't let up the whole game. And Faulk was beaten up by everyone all game long, which is well-documented.

The discussion should have ended right at "turnovers is the reason you won" because that's about the only statement that is accurate. The rest (the fact New England was physical all game and made it incredibly hard on them to do much of anything) is why the Rams didn't score enough points, which, again, is why New England won.

Wow, someone who gets what i’m trying to convey.

Yes, the Pats were the much more physical team.

And as Ian stated, Turnovers is the reason they won. Which i’ve said over and over.

But that is much different than the game being a crap beating.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Millennials are in their 30s, sometimes even 40s.

Yep.

My cutoff is they have to have remembered watching Larry Bird play.

If they haven't- Millennial (nothing against Millennials)

 

[GreenCow]

We outplayed them physically and mentally.

You use your stats and i'll use mine and what Rams players said after the game.

Moving on.

Let me be clear, because I think we might be arguing two different things based on how we are both interpreting the words “beat the crap out of them”.

What I am saying is that the game was never a blowout. The patriots never dominated the Rams or stopped them from moving the ball. The Rams moved the ball for nearly 450 yards for goodness sake and were a missed field goal away from forcing OT.

It’s an outright lie to pretend like the Patriots D just shut down the Rams. They didn’t. The Rams weren’t far off from double the yards the Patriots had.

The Rams did just fine.

I do agree, however, that the Patriots were a much more physical team.

But that does not, to me, equate to the Patriots “beating the crap out of them”.

When I think of a team beating the crap out of another team, I think of a game that’s 35 to 3 and the team winning has more yards, more first downs, more third-down conversions, more sacks etc. That’s a crap beating.

if the way you think of “beating the crap out of a team“ is barely winning the game but you were the more physical team, then yes I suppose the patriots beat the crap out of the Rams.

 

[Ian]

This clown never answered my question about watching the game. I don't think he did watch the game. Might be a clueless millennial.
No knowledgeable football fan,regardless
of who they support, would post the asinine sh.it he's posting if they saw the game. That includes Rams fans, many of whom I interacted with online back in 2002 after that SB.

He's 33 - he's too young. Would have been 13-ish.

 

[Ian]

But that does not, to me, equate to the Patriots “beating the crap out of them”.

Then you're missing the context. They won because they "beat the crap out of them". If they didn't, the Rams would have run all over the field and they would have lost.

 

[GreenCow]

Then you're missing the context. They won because they "beat the crap out of them". If they didn't, the Rams would have run all over the field and they would have lost.

The Rams had almost 450 yards.

How much more running all over the field could they do? 1,000 yards?

 

[Wax Frog]

Then you're missing the context. They won because they "beat the crap out of them". If they didn't, the Rams would have run all over the field and they would have lost.

Semi-OT - context matters so much and is so often missed or outright ignored. I'd build a shrine to Context if I could.

 

[Ian]

The Rams had almost 450 yards.

How much more running all over the field could they do? 1,000 yards?

You can put up a lot of yards and still lose. Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but the Rams were only in the red zone once in that game. That's not an accident. Again, I know you were too young to really catch all the little nuances surrounding that game, so I'd suggest rewatching it if you're going to keep going down this road.

 

[moosekill]

I think the better term is physically dominated them, which is absolutely and unequivocally true. You need to go back and rewatch it (or watch it at all, because it sort of sounds like you're basing all of this off of conjecture) because the receivers weren't getting free releases and this was back prior to the rule changes, which is when defenses were allowed to do so. They didn't let up the whole game. And Faulk was beaten up by everyone all game long, which is well-documented.

The discussion should have ended right at "turnovers is the reason you won" because that's about the only statement that is accurate. The rest (the fact New England was physical all game and made it incredibly hard on them to do much of anything) is why the Rams didn't score enough points, which, again, is why New England won.

He could go watch all the BIlls super bowl wins at the same time.

 

[moosekill]

It was a redzone penalty away from being a blow out. But penalties are part of the game, so it ended up being a very close patriots win. Just like when the Giants beat the Jills.

 

[Ian]

He could go watch all the BIlls super bowl wins at the same time.

I didn't want to go there. I feel bad Jim Kelly and those guys didn't win at least one... can't imagine going through that as a fan. But, he was too young for those too, so it is what it is

 

[Joker]

Hey..Green Sow...yards don't win football games...get a clue...or get lost

 

[Ian]

The Rams had almost 450 yards.

How much more running all over the field could they do? 1,000 yards?

Here's the story I wrote right after that game - that I watched live - which at least tells you a little about how it played out:

Patriots Beat the Rams 20-17, Win Superbowl XXXVI

They were underdogs throughout the playoffs, now they can say they are world champions.

www.patsfans.com

 

[ausbacker]

Did you watch the game? I hope not for your sake because if you did you know NOTHING about football.
You need to just stop.
Youre showing yourself to be a moron

Easier to put the fool on ignore as he only reads boxscores and doesn't watch games.

 

[moosekill]

The bills have won 2 playoff games since 1996 and they were last year. I do feel kind of bad for them and I never really disliked the Bills. But first he comes and compares the Bills to the Manning Colts teams then he starts trying to degrade the Pats Super Bowl WINS, something Bills fans know nothing about.

 

[Ian]

The Rams had almost 450 yards.

How much more running all over the field could they do? 1,000 yards?

Here's another I wrote a few days before the Super Bowl, which also mentions some of the details from their earlier meeting that season - which I watched live - and has some of what happened:

Patriots May Be Underdogs, But Rams Are Beatable

The Patriots need a repeat performance of their November 18th match-up with St. Louis, only better.

www.patsfans.com

And here's the one I wrote right after the first match-up, which the Rams won primarily because of turnovers:

Turnovers Cause Patriots Problems in Tough Loss to Rams, 24-17

he Patriots kept the game close despite three costly turnovers, but it would be the St. Louis Rams who will head home with a 24-17 victory.

www.patsfans.com

Appreciate the trip down memory lane, but I think those of us who experienced that entire season live know what went down a bit better

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

The Rams had almost 450 yards.

How much more running all over the field could they do? 1,000 yards?

The 2001 patriots defense were ranked 24th in yards given up that year, thats one of the worst in the league in that category. So going purely off yards one would think most of the teams ‘ran all over us’ despite us winning 14 of 19 games ( and all playoff games). They were the classic bend but don’t break defense, give you some yards but make you pay for them.

 

[Ian]

The Rams had almost 450 yards.

How much more running all over the field could they do? 1,000 yards?

Also, this game against the Bills that season better explains "beating the crap" out of a team, which is what the Patriots did that day in Buffalo:

Patriots Beat Bills 21-11

Sometimes winning isn't everything, but it certainly helped make up for a poor performance by the Patriots on Sunday.

www.patsfans.com

 

[Ian]

The 2001 patriots defense were ranked 24th in yards given up that year, thats one of the worst in the league in that category. So going purely off yards one would think most of the teams ‘ran all over us’ despite us winning 14 of 19 games ( and all playoff games). They were the classic bend but don’t break defense, give you some yards but make you pay for them.

That was the worst part - the Rams kept trying for the big play and granted, they made a few, but only one red zone trip the entire contest remains a crazy stat, especially, against that team.