The Pats broke the record for most pts in an NFL season held by the '98 Vikings and beat out the Rams who are 3rd in the list. I would have to say that the Rams offense was the most explosve offense i have seen even better than the Vikings. I think their offense was even better than this years Pats team.
They had MVP Kurt Warner with Marshall Faulk who keep getting 15+ yard screen catches. And then you had Issac Bruce, Torry Holt, Ricky Proehl and AZ Hakim who also returned punts.
Their defense was also pretty solid that year giving up 15 pts a game. They were the most fun to watch.
How would they fair with this year's Patriots? If they played in the Superbowl, what would the line be? Who would you think would win? I know most probaly say Pats easy but that 99 Rams team offense was just too much.
I say Rams would win 38-31
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
The Pats broke the record for most pts in an NFL season held by the '98 Vikings and beat out the Rams who are 3rd in the list. I would have to say that the Rams offense was the most explosve offense i have seen even better than the Vikings. I think their offense was even better than this years Pats team.
They had MVP Kurt Warner with Marshall Faulk who keep getting 15+ yard screen catches. And then you had Issac Bruce, Torry Holt, Ricky Proehl and AZ Hakim who also returned punts.
Their defense was also pretty solid that year giving up 15 pts a game. They were the most fun to watch.
How would they fair with this year's Patriots? If they played in the Superbowl, what would the line be? Who would you think would win? I know most probaly say Pats easy but that 99 Rams team offense was just too much.
The Rams played their home games indoors, and were also in the NFC West. Patriots still had weather as an issue and STILL scored more points. I don't know how in God's name you can say with a straight face that that Rams offense, as good as it was, was better than the 07 Patriots.
To be honest, the 2004 Patriots would beat the 1999 Rams as well. I mean, godforbid, the 2001 Patriots beat the 2001 Rams. And it's arguable that the 01 Rams were better than the 99 Rams. And if they were, it certainly wasn't by much.
And since this is a better forum -- if this game was played at a neutral site, it'd open at 9.5 at least.
0
The Rams played their home games indoors, and were also in the NFC West. Patriots still had weather as an issue and STILL scored more points. I don't know how in God's name you can say with a straight face that that Rams offense, as good as it was, was better than the 07 Patriots.
To be honest, the 2004 Patriots would beat the 1999 Rams as well. I mean, godforbid, the 2001 Patriots beat the 2001 Rams. And it's arguable that the 01 Rams were better than the 99 Rams. And if they were, it certainly wasn't by much.
And since this is a better forum -- if this game was played at a neutral site, it'd open at 9.5 at least.
You are a joke on this site and everyone knows that!!!!
I haven't been on that long but I know you, my illiterate friend, are the biggest joke on this site. I'm still laughing at your assessment that Jim McMahon is a top 10 QB of all time.
Keep posting man, you're good for some laughs! payton and Mcmahon
0
Quote Originally Posted by 34paytonplace:
You are a joke on this site and everyone knows that!!!!
I haven't been on that long but I know you, my illiterate friend, are the biggest joke on this site. I'm still laughing at your assessment that Jim McMahon is a top 10 QB of all time.
Keep posting man, you're good for some laughs! payton and Mcmahon
To get this out of the way:the Pats did not beat the Rams in 1999. They beat them in 2001. They held our receivers all day and got away with numerous calls. With ruleslike they are now there is no way they would have won. The Rams heldthemto 180 yards or so of offense!
In 1999 the Rams lost to the Titans and Lions in the regular season, then to the Eaglesin a meaningless game where they rested their starters.
---
To the OP: Cool question. I moved to St.Louis in 1999. Didn't like sports at all, but then I caught some Rams games. Have been a huge fan of football and the team ever since.
I like watching this Pats offense this season but it is not nearly as exciting. If wewere the Greatest Show on Turf, a good name for them would be Systematic. They hardly ever mess up on O. We would go deep a lotmore but they never miss on that underneath stuff. They arelessexciting but more consistent.
I do like the Rams' O in 99 more though, because of Faulk, who I consider the greatest all around running back of all time. The difference between our third receiver and theirs symbolizes the contrast of the two teams. Hakim ("Wizard of Az") was super-explosive but also gave up some turnovers; Welker is nowhere nearexplosive but almost never turns it over.
I think this is a toss up. I like the 99 Rams' O better but theirs has far less turnovers. All I know is whatever the over under on that game is, bet the over. I think if either team was a heavy underdog that they would most likely win, just like I think if the 2001 Rams were the underdogs and thus had the chip on THEIR shoulder, that they would have won in 2001!
Cool topic. I certainly do not think any of the other SB winners I've seen since watching in 1999 could hang with this Patriots team.
0
To get this out of the way:the Pats did not beat the Rams in 1999. They beat them in 2001. They held our receivers all day and got away with numerous calls. With ruleslike they are now there is no way they would have won. The Rams heldthemto 180 yards or so of offense!
In 1999 the Rams lost to the Titans and Lions in the regular season, then to the Eaglesin a meaningless game where they rested their starters.
---
To the OP: Cool question. I moved to St.Louis in 1999. Didn't like sports at all, but then I caught some Rams games. Have been a huge fan of football and the team ever since.
I like watching this Pats offense this season but it is not nearly as exciting. If wewere the Greatest Show on Turf, a good name for them would be Systematic. They hardly ever mess up on O. We would go deep a lotmore but they never miss on that underneath stuff. They arelessexciting but more consistent.
I do like the Rams' O in 99 more though, because of Faulk, who I consider the greatest all around running back of all time. The difference between our third receiver and theirs symbolizes the contrast of the two teams. Hakim ("Wizard of Az") was super-explosive but also gave up some turnovers; Welker is nowhere nearexplosive but almost never turns it over.
I think this is a toss up. I like the 99 Rams' O better but theirs has far less turnovers. All I know is whatever the over under on that game is, bet the over. I think if either team was a heavy underdog that they would most likely win, just like I think if the 2001 Rams were the underdogs and thus had the chip on THEIR shoulder, that they would have won in 2001!
Cool topic. I certainly do not think any of the other SB winners I've seen since watching in 1999 could hang with this Patriots team.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
.
payton and Mcmahon
Hot Forum Topics
