Is anyone still worried about the Bills?

[jimnance]

No you didn’t beat the crap out of them.

They beat you in literally every statistic except for turnovers (which is obviously big).

Rams we’re in Patriots territory 3 times in the first quarter alone. They missed a field goal too.

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

 

[GreenCow]

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

Explain to me how a team can beat the crap out of another while losing:

- Time of Possession
- First Downs
- Yards
- Third down %
- Completions

The ONLY thing the Patriots beat them in is score (by 1 FG and the Rams missed one), and turnovers.

 

[RobertWeathers]

No you didn’t beat the crap out of them.

They beat you in literally every statistic except for turnovers (which is obviously big).

Rams we’re in Patriots territory 3 times in the first quarter alone. They missed a field goal too.

We physically destroyed the Rams. They admit it.

You were watching the wrong game.

Have you been watching the Patriots the last 20 years?

If wins were based on yards we'd be an 8-8 team.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yards, First Downs, Completions, Sacks, 3rd Down Conversions, Time Of Possesion…

The Rams literally owned every stat there is except for turnovers.

That’s what changed the game.

Have you all forgotten since it’s been almost 20 years? lol

Or maybe you all convinced yourself of this over time? Oofta.

No.

So score doesn't matter?

Yards? WTF cares about yards?

You are wrong on sacks.

You forgot about turnovers.

It was 14-3 at the 1/2 and 17-10 after 3.

Super Bowl XXXVI - St. Louis Rams vs. New England Patriots - February 3rd, 2002 | Pro-Football-Reference.com

St. Louis Rams 17 vs. New England Patriots 20 on February 3rd, 2002 - Full team and player stats and box score

www.pro-football-reference.com

You were watching the wrong game.

Forget after 20 years?

 

[GreenCow]

We physically destroyed the Rams. They admit it.

You were watching the wrong game.

Have you been watching the Patriots the last 20 years?

If wins were based on yards we'd be an 8-8 team.

Explain to me how a team can beat the crap out of another while losing:

- Time of Possession
- First Downs
- Yards
- Third down %
- Completions

The ONLY thing the Patriots beat them in is score (by 1 FG and the Rams missed one), and turnovers.

I realize you guys just keep ignoring these statistics because it doesn’t work in your favor, but come on.

 

[GreenCow]

No.

So score doesn't matter?

Yards? WTF cares about yards?

You are wrong on sacks.

You forgot about turnovers.

It was 14-3 at the 1/2 and 17-10 after 3.

Super Bowl XXXVI - St. Louis Rams vs. New England Patriots - February 3rd, 2002 | Pro-Football-Reference.com

St. Louis Rams 17 vs. New England Patriots 20 on February 3rd, 2002 - Full team and player stats and box score

www.pro-football-reference.com

You were watching the wrong game.

Forget after 20 years?

I did not forget about turnovers.

I’ve said multiple times that that is the ONLY statistic you won in.

 

[Vindicate]

Belichick teams have a history of stopping offensively tight teams in bad weather. He coaches them well into making receivers have a hard time even catching balls that would otherwise be easy catches. 2019 Dallas Cowboys come to mind, and we have a defense that's similarly stout (albeit in different fashion). Held the #1 offense to 9 pts (and we only scored 13 lol)

Browns that year was similar. Made them fumble and turnover a lot. Held Chubb and co. to 13 pts.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I did not forget about turnovers.

I’ve said multiple times that that is the ONLY statistic you won in.

I don't care how many times you've said it. You don't understand it.

Dismissing the ability to force turnovers and categorizing them as casual accidents is a joke.

That is a major part of the game and outplaying your opponent mentally and physically.

 

[GreenCow]

I don't care how many times you've said it.

Dismissing the ability to force turnovers and categorizing them as casual accidents is a joke.

I did not dismiss it.

I said numerous times that turnovers is the reason you won.

It’s not my fault you aren’t actually reading my posts and instead assuming what I am writing.

What ignited this whole debate, is that I said the turnovers is why you guys won.

you did not beat up the Rams in any way, shape, or form.

You very close, tight game. Do you want by three points, and the Rams missed a field goal. The difference was the turnovers.

You won, but you did not beat the crap out of them. By any means.

 

[Dingleberry]

Explain to me how a team can beat the crap out of another while losing:

- Time of Possession
- First Downs
- Yards
- Third down %
- Completions

The ONLY thing the Patriots beat them in is score (by 1 FG and the Rams missed one), and turnovers.

I realize you guys just keep ignoring these statistics because it doesn’t work in your favor, but come on.

Beat the crap out of...as in physically abused a finesse team. That resulted in winning the game, which is the whole point.

The Rams won the fantasy football game that day, as you point out. Yay!

 

[RobertWeathers]

I did not dismiss it.

I said numerous times that turnovers is the reason you won.

It’s not my fault you aren’t actually reading my posts and instead assuming what I am writing.

What ignited this whole debate, is that I said the turnovers is why you guys won.

you did not beat up the Rams in any way, shape, or form.

You very close, tight game. Do you want by three points, and the Rams missed a field goal. The difference was the turnovers.

You won, but you did not beat the crap out of them. By any means.

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.

 

[Wax Frog]

Explain to me how a team can beat the crap out of another while losing:

- Time of Possession
- First Downs
- Yards
- Third down %
- Completions

The ONLY thing the Patriots beat them in is score (by 1 FG and the Rams missed one), and turnovers.

I realize you guys just keep ignoring these statistics because it doesn’t work in your favor, but come on.

Hey, Steve Jaros! How've you been buddy? J/K

@PatsWickedPissah

 

[Ian]

I did not dismiss it.

I said numerous times that turnovers is the reason you won.

It’s not my fault you aren’t actually reading my posts and instead assuming what I am writing.

What ignited this whole debate, is that I said the turnovers is why you guys won.

you did not beat up the Rams in any way, shape, or form.

You very close, tight game. Do you want by three points, and the Rams missed a field goal. The difference was the turnovers.

You won, but you did not beat the crap out of them. By any means.

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.

 

[jimnance]

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.

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.

 

[jah]

I did not dismiss it.

I said numerous times that turnovers is the reason you won.

It’s not my fault you aren’t actually reading my posts and instead assuming what I am writing.

What ignited this whole debate, is that I said the turnovers is why you guys won.

you did not beat up the Rams in any way, shape, or form.

You very close, tight game. Do you want by three points, and the Rams missed a field goal. The difference was the turnovers.

You won, but you did not beat the crap out of them. By any means.

How many more pages are you going to spend nitpicking one of 6 rings the Patriots have gotten in the past 20 years? I see you're laying the groundwork for potentially using the same excuse on Tuesday.

 

[jah]

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.

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

 

[jimnance]

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

That makes it even worse for him/her.
If he really saw that game theres only 2 possible conclusions:
1. He /she/it knows nothing about football. OR
2. He/she/it is trolling

 

[jimnance]

That makes it even worse for him/her.
If he really saw that game theres only 2 possible conclusions:
1. He /she/it knows nothing about football. OR
2. He/she/it is trolling

Either way green cow has no credibility and will be ignored by me henceforth

 

[Dingleberry]

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 can't answer. It's the fantasy football culture. The Rams "dominated" when looking at the box score.

As has already been pointed out by several others, watching the game makes it painfully obvious that the Pats D beat the crap out of them all game.

A "Greatest Show on Turf" type team is generally going to win the stat game. Beating the hell out of them allowed the Patriots to win the game.

And those lucky turnovers that allowed them to win? The 2 INT's were directly related to knocking Marshall Faulk on his ass all game, and hitting Warner constantly.

Watch the damn game!

 

[GreenCow]

How many more pages are you going to spend nitpicking one of 6 rings the Patriots have gotten in the past 20 years? I see you're laying the groundwork for potentially using the same excuse on Tuesday.

I am not nitpicking the ring. It happened. I’m simply saying it wasn’t a “crap beating”.