-
[quote]Originally posted by opiate:
<strong>
Not likley! Hahah, at least your trying to be funny.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not likley? I am serious. As Cobra pointed out, and by loolking at both the Steelers and Rams record they've both been beat twice, anyone can win in the NFL now. The Niners just shut out Miami and seem to be back on track. Their defense is playing solid. As for the Raiders, yeah their run defense is horrible, but they redeemed themselves with a good outing against San Diego's Tomlinson, who despite SD's record is a great R-back. But who will really cares if say in a Raiders-Steelers playoff game Bettis runs up 300 yards on the ground but the Raiders pull the win. Sure it sucks, but the W is all that counts. I watched a game in the 80s. Danver vs Packers. Not sure what stadium, but it was snowing like mad! You couldn't see the grass and you could barely make out any yard markers. Despite the Pack running up around 400+ yards of offense, Denver got the win with two touchdowns. It was a sloppy game on both team's part, but I guarantee the Pack would have given 200 of those yards if it meant the game. The only stats I think any team should wory about is Red Zone offense/defense.
If you look at the Raiders schedule, the most a team has scored in their three losses is 34 points with the Raiders with in at least a touchdown. The Rams had a pretty bad defense in 2000 but they managed to win the Super Bowl. Why can't the Raiders with a solid, if not spectacular defense.
I'm not saying the Raiders are the best, hell, of the top 4 teams, of which the Raiders are, I'd rank them behind Pitt, Rams, then the 49ers.
But a win is a win is a win.
-
[quote]Originally posted by Dr.J:
<strong>
Note: I don't know where the top 10 thing came from? This is the NFL you are either All Pro or not! Either the Best or one of the Best!
Either Jerry Rice (the Best ever) or (one of the best ever) Paul Warfield, Lynn Swan,
Fred Blidnacaugh, Lance Alworth, Gene Washington,
ECT.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
so I guess by that equation Torry Holt (since he probably won't make the pro bowl this year and garner the title of ALL-PRO) is of the same wide reciever stock as Karl Hankton who is a back up wide reciever for the carolina panther and like Holt will not make the pro bowl this year and recieve the title of ALL-PRO. If it were that easy teams wouldn't even need GM's because you'd either have and ALL-PRO or a NON-ALL PRO and there would be no difference between any of the players in their respective levels.
The bottom line is this: At almost all the key positions the Rams have Top Tier premier players that have been top tier for several years. (am I allowed to make that distinction) Not all top tier players make it to the pro bowl and are named ALL-PRO every year. (you can only take so many) The Rams have more Top Tier talent than any other team out there.
If it's my team, I think I'll take Torry Holt, Grant Winstrom, and Orlando Pace, over some 3rd string scrub despite the fact these guys may not be named "ALL-PRO" this year.
-
[quote]Originally posted by Lycia:
<strong>...I'm not saying the Raiders are the best, hell, of the top 4 teams, of which the Raiders are, I'd rank them behind Pitt, Rams, then the 49ers.
But a win is a win is a win.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just thought of something. Wouldn't that be kinda funny if none of these top 4 teams even went to the championship series? What if all the underdogs ended up going. LOL. Like maybe Chicago knocks off the Rams. And maybe Philly knocks out the Niners. Then maybe on the AFC side, say maybe Miami and New England end up facing off? I don't even want to think about that! :)
-
[quote]Originally posted by WebHead:
<strong>
I just thought of something. Wouldn't that be kinda funny if none of these top 4 teams even went to the championship series? What if all the underdogs ended up going. LOL. Like maybe Chicago knocks off the Rams. And maybe Philly knocks out the Niners. Then maybe on the AFC side, say maybe Miami and New England end up facing off? I don't even want to think about that! :) </strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly what I mean. Any team in the NFL now has a chance. New England and Chicago are prime example. Atlanta and Rams and Ravens are early examples. I want the Raiders to go, and I even want the Niners to go. But I have a feeling it's going to be the Pats and Bears again...
-
Well, seeing as the Superbowl is rare to never a meeting between the 2 teams with the best records in the conferences, it's not only possible, it's very likely. Of course, I'm hoping that the Steelers crush their opposition while the Rams get knocked off by the 49ers, Bears or Packers if that's the case. :D
But I still WANT Steelers vs. Rams in the Bowl. At the first half of the season, that was my dream. The top defense in the NFL vs. the top offense. But now, as the season is drawing to a close, we see that the Rams have a pretty good defense, and the Steelers offense has been a sleeping giant that only wakes up when it has to. Faulk is good, but Bettis is (arguably) better. Stewart is good, but Warner is (unquestionably) better. Both have top notch receivers (props to Hines Ward & Plax for stepping up in a big way this year). The Steelers are like a Bizarro World version of the Rams. They're just as powerful, but in different areas.
I wouldn't care if the Steelers went and got their @$$ handed to them. I just want to see how they'd line up.
-
[quote]Originally posted by opiate:
<strong>
I'm not a die hard Rams fan that's for sure but I do like them mainly because their from my state of Missouri. Besides the Rams are a completely different team since Cleveland.
We have 2 NFL and 2 MLB teams here in my state. I'll support them to the end. KC Royals and KC Chiefs I would shed blood for and I've been a fan forever. STL Cardinals and STL Rams I've always liked too. Not just because they are the best team in the NFL but because I can and that's the way it is.
So you’re telling me that if a new team moves to my state then I can't support them?
..And No, I don't remember 79 I was only 2! Don't hate the Rams because they stopped on the Niner’s! The Westside needs to adapt to the Heartland instead of hating on the fait of the Rams... :D </strong><hr></blockquote>
Opiate,
I just wanted to know if you where a life time Ram Fan is all, I Sat at the 79 SuperBowl in the Rose Bowl and watched the Steelers beat the Rams in the second half.
-
[quote]Originally posted by kato2274:
<strong>
so I guess by that equation Torry Holt (since he probably won't make the pro bowl this year and garner the title of ALL-PRO) is of the same wide reciever stock as Karl Hankton who is a back up wide reciever for the carolina panther and like Holt will not make the pro bowl this year and recieve the title of ALL-PRO. If it were that easy teams wouldn't even need GM's because you'd either have and ALL-PRO or a NON-ALL PRO and there would be no difference between any of the players in their respective levels.
The bottom line is this: At almost all the key positions the Rams have Top Tier premier players that have been top tier for several years. (am I allowed to make that distinction) Not all top tier players make it to the pro bowl and are named ALL-PRO every year. (you can only take so many) The Rams have more Top Tier talent than any other team out there.
If it's my team, I think I'll take Torry Holt, Grant Winstrom, and Orlando Pace, over some 3rd string scrub despite the fact these guys may not be named "ALL-PRO" this year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think you mis read my intent all I am trying to say is most teams have one or two of the Best Players in the game at there position this year but next year they may not be near being as good the Rams have some great talent this year, But can the same players maintain that level over say the next 5 or 6 seasons??? Maybe just maybe a few like Warner, Faulk, and some of there Defense.
But there is alot of fresh talent in the league
and it's bigger, faster, smarter, and younger every year.
-
You raise a good point, Jimmr. I remember a couple of months ago (I THINK it was the Steelers vs. Titans Monday night game), and they were talking about how Eddy George and how he was a shadow of his former self this season. They made the interesting observation that that's been happening a lot to a quite a few players, they have a phenomonal season one year, then are totally worn out and are just never the same afterwards - running backs especially.
-
I heard that on average, NFL players only last about 5 years in the league. Then there's players like Jerry Rice who is playing his 17th season this year. But that's rare.
But yeah, definately running backs take a beating. They might be in the league for years and years, but most usually only have about maybe 2-3 good seasons in their career before they become useless. Ricky Watters comes to mind.
BTW, Jerome Bettis was on David Letterman a couple of nights ago. I like that guy's attitude. I didn't really like him that much before, but he seems like a good guy. Sucks about that groin injury he got. I hope he's good to play at 100% by the playoffs. Steelers will need to be running at close to 100% when they face the Raiders who seem to be relatively healthy. I'm just glad the Niners got their spot in the playoffs now so that they can try and take some time to get healthy too over the next few weeks (Garcia and Owens are a little beaten up right now.)
-
[quote]Originally posted by WebHead:
<strong>"But yeah, definately running backs take a beating. They might be in the league for years and years, but most usually only have about maybe 2-3 good seasons in their career before they become useless. Ricky Watters comes to mind."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not trying to be smart, but in what way does Ricky come to mind. For the past few years he's been the most durable back. In 9 years he's had 7 1000+ yard rushing seasons, 1992,1995-2000. Plus he averaged about 400 yards receiving each year. From 1994-2000 he started all 16 games. How is he useless? I don't personally like Ricky "running" Watters, but don't slight the man becuase the team he plays for sucks, he does everything they ask and more...
[quote]<strong>"the Raiders who seem to be relatively healthy." </strong><hr></blockquote>
If only that were true. Most of their Ofensive line is banged up. I think Steve Wiznewski is the only healthy starter on the O-line from the beginging of the season. Wheatly was banged up. Woodson is playing with Turf toe. Grady Jackson on D-line is hurt..however this is no excuse for the defense's poor tackling...
-
[quote]Originally posted by Dr.J:
<strong>
Opiate,
I just wanted to know if you where a life time Ram Fan is all, I Sat at the 79 SuperBowl in the Rose Bowl and watched the Steelers beat the Rams in the second half.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But all that means is that you're old!!! :D :D :D
-
[quote]Originally posted by Lycia:
<strong>Not trying to be smart, but in what way does Ricky come to mind. For the past few years he's been the most durable back. In 9 years he's had 7 1000+ yard rushing seasons, 1992,1995-2000. Plus he averaged about 400 yards receiving each year. From 1994-2000 he started all 16 games. How is he useless? I don't personally like Ricky "running" Watters, but don't slight the man becuase the team he plays for sucks, he does everything they ask and more...</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. Point taken. I should've probably looked at his stats first before saying that, I just couldn't think of anyone else at the time. And yeah, I agree, he's not useless. I definately chose the wrong word. I guess what I was trying to say by that, is that he had a few outstanding years back in SF, but then after that, he's just been an average RB. True, he's getting the 1000 yard seasons, but that's actually about average for a RB to get in a season. It's just a tough job, and nobody could possibly be expected to get more than 1 or 2 1500-2000 yard seasons in a career. And by saying all this, I'm just trying to point out what a tough job a RB has, and how hard it is on the body and how the body just can't do the job exceptionally year after year after year.
-
[quote]Originally posted by Lycia:
<strong>
The only stats I think any team should wory about is Red Zone offense/defense.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, the only stat that means anything is the score. And the key to winning any game, regardless of what anybody says, is scoring more points than your opponent.
end transmission.
-
[quote]Originally posted by Sowulo:
<strong>
But all that means is that you're old!!! :D :D :D </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well Curt I am The Old Hippie! as in the only
Original UC Berkeley 1960's Hippie Here!
and as I remember your not that much younger
then I, Ole Timer. :D :D :D
-
[quote]Originally posted by grover:
<strong>
Actually, the only stat that means anything is the score. And the key to winning any game, regardless of what anybody says, is scoring more points than your opponent.
end transmission.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually your right (God I'm agreeing w/ Grover?)
But as it stands right now:
NFC
Da Bears
The Rams
The 49er's
AFC
The Steelers
The Raiders
Have clinched Playoff births no matter what!
Note: all are Central or West teams!
Stats from NFL.com
The rest of the teams need to win and or tie
plus have another team loose or tie to get in
to the playoffs.
