log in or register to remove this ad

 

[OT Super Bowl]

Who wins the Super Bowl and by how much?

  • Rams win by more then 14

    Votes: 20 30.8%
  • Rams win by less then 14

    Votes: 21 32.3%
  • Patriots win by more then 14

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Patriots win by less then 14

    Votes: 24 36.9%

  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .

Bozo

First Post
Pats of course

Contrary to earlier comments the Rams did not beat the Patriots easily..It was a ver close game up until the patriots took some chances in the last half of the fourth quarter. Pats will win this one-they have been blown out twice (Cowboys-Bears) and are due...

Go Pats ....by 10:D
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Eye Tyrant

First Post
drothgery said:


A lot of writers have said this, but I don't buy it.

Drew Bledsoe is one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL; Dan Marino is about the only one with better passing numbers after the same number of years in the league. Tom Brady is a talented 2nd-year guy who'd have to be very lucky and good for years to come close to being the quarterback Bledsoe is.

I thought Belicheck was on crack for starting Brady when Bledsoe was able to play, and I think he's insane if he thinks he can win a Super Bowl with Brady in there.

While I agree with you that Drew Bledsoe is one of the NFL's best, I still have to say that the two QBs have similar styles of play. They throw different balls, but in the end their games are much alike. True, experience and numbers go in favor of Bledsoe, but Brady got them through the entire season. That has to count for something. Brady stepped up and took the team the distance to get them where they are now. If there was more of a controversy over the skill of the players, I would say go with the best man. In this situation however, I feel that either is capable of leading the team to a win, and therefore the start should go the guy that got them there, Brady....
 

RatPunk

First Post
Amen to that!

Wormwood said:
I hope the Rams win, if only so I don't have to hear any more of this "Team of Destiny" stuff!

Oh god, I HATE that!

It ranks right up there with such stupidness as calling the Cowboys "America's Team".

They sure as heck aren't MY team.
 

Rel

Liquid Awesome
As neither of the teams involved hold any special place in my heart, I would usually pull for the underdog.

However, for reasons I have never understood, I seem to have a visceral distaste for the Patriots. I dunno why but I just don't like them.

Ergo: Go Rams!
 

Storminator

First Post
Good lord people! The Pats lost to the Packers after the '96 season (putting the game itself in 1997) and the Bears waaaay back when. Never played the Cowboys in the big game.

That said, I don't see the Pats getting blown out. Their defense is solid, and the Rams beat by 7 two months ago. I think the Rams are playing better since then, but so are the Pats.

Personally, i hope the Pats win in regulation, that way I can claim that Raiders are the 2nd best team in football (Pats beat the Steelers worse than they beat the Raiders, so Raiders must be better, right? Same logic if the Pats beat he Rams!) OK, it's a stretch, but 'til next year, that's all I got!

And if the Pats lose they start to slip into that same category as the Bills and the Vikings ... consistent losers.

PS
 


TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Storminator said:
And if the Pats lose they start to slip into that same category as the Bills and the Vikings ... consistent losers.

PS

I have to disagree there. Losing three superbowls in 17 seasons hardly puts you in the same category as the Bills of the early 90s and the Vikings of the 70s. After all, the Bills and Vikings were, more or less, the same team throughout the Super Bowl years. Same coaches, same nuclei of good players. You can't really compare the Pats of 2001 to the Pats of 1996 or the Pats of 1985, not at all. The Patriots have maybe 10 players from 5 years ago, and the head coach has changed twice since then. The team has had some bad luck in the Super Bowl, that's all. It's not like the continual choke the Bills and Vikes did.
 

Someguy

First Post
Eye Tyrant said:


While I agree with you that Drew Bledsoe is one of the NFL's best, I still have to say that the two QBs have similar styles of play. They throw different balls, but in the end their games are much alike. True, experience and numbers go in favor of Bledsoe, but Brady got them through the entire season. That has to count for something. Brady stepped up and took the team the distance to get them where they are now. If there was more of a controversy over the skill of the players, I would say go with the best man. In this situation however, I feel that either is capable of leading the team to a win, and therefore the start should go the guy that got them there, Brady....


The main difference is how they work. Brady likes the short pass, and Bledsoe likes a little bit longer. Brady also can manevuer better, so he gets sacked less than Bledsoe. Brady seems to work better with the Pats style of play. Short plays that get 1st downs in maybe two plays. I think that Brady should paly also for the reson that the palyers are used to him now, more than Bledsoe.
 

BluWolf

Explorer
Being a long time (and often suffering) Patriots fan, I am ruttin' for the Patriots!!!

Everything is set in the Rams favor but I'm hoping they over look the Pats the way the Steelers and the Raiders did.

As far as QBs go? I don't think it realyy matters. Pats are a complete team effort ball club.

My prediction? Brady starts, Bledsoe finishes.

Pats by a field goal in regulation.
 

reapersaurus

First Post
Wormwood said:
I hope the Rams win, if only so I don't have to hear any more of this "Team of Destiny" stuff!
Oh my GOD, I SO agree!!

It's rather strange to me why the heck they would have been referring to the Patriots as a "Team of Destiny" after they had simply beaten the Raiders in one game.

My wife seems to see danger in the fact that the media is calling them that, when you think about the intensely-political environment the Super Bowl may be under this year, of ALL years.

I sure hope the Patriots don't win, so I can keep my delusion that pro sports MAY not be rigged. :)
 

Storminator

First Post
TwoSix said:


I have to disagree there. Losing three superbowls in 17 seasons hardly puts you in the same category as the Bills of the early 90s and the Vikings of the 70s. After all, the Bills and Vikings were, more or less, the same team throughout the Super Bowl years. Same coaches, same nuclei of good players. You can't really compare the Pats of 2001 to the Pats of 1996 or the Pats of 1985, not at all. The Patriots have maybe 10 players from 5 years ago, and the head coach has changed twice since then. The team has had some bad luck in the Super Bowl, that's all. It's not like the continual choke the Bills and Vikes did.

Note that I said they "start to slip," not that they are branded for life. But Denver had the same label before the Shanahan era, despite the very different teams that lost. Once you rack up enough 0-fers in the Superbowl, you start to get the label. Of course no one will ever match the Bills run.

But I disagree that the Pats had bad luck in the Superbowl. They were pretty soundly beaten by Green Bay, and the Bears delivered a mindboggling pasting. No other team has benched their quarterback before he completed a pass.

PS
 


Someguy

First Post
Flexor the Mighty! said:
If Billichek is such a defensive genius why were the Pats in the low 20's in total defense? Rams in a blowout. 47-16


Teams get yards on us yes. But do they score many touchdowns?

No.
 



MythandLore

First Post
Lord Almighty!!! Please Lord!
Please make the Rams Lose!
Think of the Children!!!
Please God don't do it for me,
do it For the Children!!!
 



Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top