# [OT Super Bowl]



## Eye Tyrant (Jan 30, 2002)

Who wins the Super Bowl?

I'm taking the Rams in a blow out!


----------



## saupster (Jan 30, 2002)

While *CONVENTIONAL* thinking says that the Rams will win by a landslide, I for one would like to see the Pats pull the upset and win.

I think the more important question will be: Who starts for the Pats on Sunday? I think that if he is healthy, then you have to go with Brady over Bledsoe.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Jan 30, 2002)

I have taken the Patriots and the points.  Could be a blow out because the Patriots have really put together a great year, playing past expectations, but that same drive could push them home with a win.  Anyways, was 85' the last time they were in the Superbowl, and if so, you would think that it would be mightily embarrassing to get your tookis kicked royally in your last two S-bowls?  Go Patriots, Daddy needs to get a new book


----------



## Baron Von StarBlade (Jan 30, 2002)

CamelToe said:
			
		

> *I have taken the Patriots and the points.  Could be a blow out because the Patriots have really put together a great year, playing past expectations, but that same drive could push them home with a win.  Anyways, was 85' the last time they were in the Superbowl, and if so, you would think that it would be mightily embarrassing to get your tookis kicked royally in your last two S-bowls?  Go Patriots, Daddy needs to get a new book *




   I'm not sure on the year but I believe the Pats made it to the Superbowl in 1994. In a very similiar fashion they went into Pit  and pulled out an Upset. They went on to get throttled by the Cowboys.

   I suspect something similiar will happen since the Rams beat the Pats fairly easily in New England a month ago.


----------



## Eye Tyrant (Jan 30, 2002)

While I agree that Brady SHOULD get the start if he's healthy, I have to admit that I don't think it matters. Bledsoe and Brady are very similar QBs in my opinion and they both have what it takes to make good plays...

I also would LIKE to see the Pats win, I just don't think it will happen... Matter of fact, I bet my old man a 20 that the Rams would win... Oh yeah, I gave him 17 points too!


----------



## Claude Raines (Jan 30, 2002)

Since the Patriots beat my Steelers, they deserve to lose and to lose badly. I say the Rams are going to win in a blowout.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 30, 2002)

Patriots will make it close.  I hope they win, but they couldn't even beat the Rams at home this year.  The first two Playoff games the Rams offense didn't even play it's best.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 30, 2002)

Baron Von StarBlade said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm not sure on the year but I believe the Pats made it to the Superbowl in 1994. In a very similiar fashion they went into Pit  and pulled out an Upset. They went on to get throttled by the Cowboys.
> 
> I suspect something similiar will happen since the Rams beat the Pats fairly easily in New England a month ago. *




Ok either you or Cameltoe have GOT to get a new Avatar!  I thought Cameltoe was responding to himself (and correcting himself without acknowleding his error - I was frightened and confused - hold me!!)


----------



## Sir Hawkeye (Jan 30, 2002)

The Bears by 36. 

-Wishing good luck Pats, if only because they represent the other half of the Super Bowl XX re-creation team.

"Curse you, Donovan McNabb!"

Can you tell I'm from Chicago?


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 30, 2002)

I heard on the newsgroups that the scapler ticket prices went down after the Patriots won.

I wonder how many people other than myself would have rather seen a Rams/Steelers Super Bowl?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 30, 2002)

Rams steelers would have been good.  #1 offense verse #1 defense, and ther other side each has the offense (steelers) and defense (rams) in the top 5.  When do you see a pair up like that?


----------



## Rubeus Hagrid (Jan 30, 2002)

Ah'm jest in me cuppers tha' the Chudley Canons dinnae make the Quidditch Cup finals. <blows nose noisily>.


----------



## Black Omega (Jan 30, 2002)

Well, I'm here cheering on my Celtics to once again get the Treble this year.  Boo Rangers!

As for the Superbowl, all the teams I liked are long gone now, so I doubt I'll even watch.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 30, 2002)

The last time the Pats were in the Super Bowl, they lost to the Packers, but it was a faily close game until late.

I think the same thing happens this year. It will be faily close until midway through the third quarter. Then the Rams offense will start dropping bombs on the worn out Pats defense.


----------



## MythandLore (Jan 30, 2002)

Oh! God! Please make the Rams Lose! Please God! Please!!!


----------



## Someguy (Jan 30, 2002)

Well, patriots thrive on the underdog status, and we are going to play hard just so teams will repect us, becuase most teams do't. (probably are greatest asset, look at the steelers   )


----------



## RatPunk (Jan 30, 2002)

CamelToe said:
			
		

> *Anyways, was 85' the last time they were in the Superbowl, and if so, you would think that it would be mightily embarrassing to get your tookis kicked royally in your last two S-bowls?  Go Patriots, Daddy needs to get a new book *




Patriots last Super Bowl appearance was 1997.

And if you think losing two is bad, just think how Buffalo must feel. They've lost 4 Super Bowls. *IN A ROW!* 1991-1994.

Oh, and Rams in a blowout.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 30, 2002)

Sir Hawkeye said:
			
		

> *The Bears by 36.
> 
> -Wishing good luck Pats, if only because they represent the other half of the Super Bowl XX re-creation team.
> 
> ...




So what's your problem with Chicago native Donovan McNabb?

[Can you tell I went to high school in Syracuse?]


----------



## drothgery (Jan 30, 2002)

Eye Tyrant said:
			
		

> *While I agree that Brady SHOULD get the start if he's healthy, I have to admit that I don't think it matters. Bledsoe and Brady are very similar QBs in my opinion and they both have what it takes to make good plays... *




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.


----------



## King_Stannis (Jan 30, 2002)

my heart says pats.

my head says rams.

if anyone can slow down the rams attack, it's bill belicheck. i remember when he took an overmatched defense with the giants in 1991 (parcells was head coach, belicheck dq) and upset a superior bills team. in fact, i expect some of the same wrinkles in this game. if you remember, there were times when belichek used 9 men in coverage. that's right, he rushed only 2 guys. 

expect similar surprises to wreak havok with the rams.


----------



## Bozo (Jan 30, 2002)

*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


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jan 30, 2002)

Rams.  Easily.

I'd enjoy an upset though.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 30, 2002)

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


----------



## Eye Tyrant (Jan 30, 2002)

drothgery said:
			
		

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




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 (Jan 30, 2002)

*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 (Jan 30, 2002)

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 (Jan 30, 2002)

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


----------



## Orco42 (Jan 30, 2002)

The Rams will make the Pats run home crying like little girls. 

But I might be a little biased.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 30, 2002)

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 (Jan 30, 2002)

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 (Jan 30, 2002)

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 (Jan 30, 2002)

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 (Jan 30, 2002)

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


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 30, 2002)

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


----------



## Someguy (Jan 30, 2002)

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 (Jan 30, 2002)

Oh! God! Please make the Rams Lose! Please God! Please!!!


----------



## MythandLore (Jan 30, 2002)

Please God! Please!!! Oh! God! Please make the Rams Lose!


----------



## MythandLore (Jan 30, 2002)

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!!!


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jan 31, 2002)

How can you root for a team that doesn't even belong in the game?

Go Rams!


----------



## MythandLore (Jan 31, 2002)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *How can you root for a team that doesn't even belong in the game?*



My Enemy's Enemy is my friend.


----------



## MythandLore (Jan 31, 2002)

Please God! Please!!! Oh! God! Please make the Rams Lose!


----------



## Someguy (Jan 31, 2002)

MythandLore said:
			
		

> *Please God! Please!!! Oh! God! Please make the Rams Lose!  *





lol.....That's the spirit we need!   WAHOO!


----------



## Daredevill34 (Jan 31, 2002)

This "Rams are going to Blowout the Pats" talk is hilarious!  

I think the Steelers thought that too.

Never underestimate the opponent.  This team thrives as the "underdog" and 
the hype is simply getting them more pumped up. 

 I think these guys are getting just a little tired of of the no respect thing.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 31, 2002)

Y'know, sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the hype is accurate.

The 'Packers are going to blow out the Pats' hype was correct.
The 'Bears are going to blow out the Pats' hype was correct.
The '49ers are going to blow out the Bills' hype was correct.
The 'Cowboys are going to blow out the Bills' hype was correct.
The 'Broncos are going to blow out the Falcons' hype was correct.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 31, 2002)

Daredevill34 said:
			
		

> *This "Rams are going to Blowout the Pats" talk is hilarious!
> 
> I think the Steelers thought that too.
> 
> ...




1. The Steelers are not a real contender.  They played a weak schedule and had no quarterback capable of winning a big game. 

2. I doubt the Rams will underestimate the Pats. 

3. The Pats ranked 23rd in total D, we will move the ball at will. 

4. The Rams were 3rd in total D.  The Pats will have several 3 and out's, and have no way to keep up with the Rams on the scoreboard. 

P.S. I do respect the Pats, by beating Pitt they won me 30 bucks!


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 4, 2002)

There is a GOD! There is a GOD!


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 4, 2002)

Thank you Lord!
Thank you so much!

I have had my revenge...


----------



## Mark (Feb 4, 2002)

How about that?!?!

Well done, Pats!


----------



## Holy Bovine (Feb 4, 2002)

You said it Mark.  I'm not a fan of either team but that was a damn exciting end!

48 yd FG to win with no time on the clock!

That's 3 awesome SBs in a row now!!

They're going to make this a habit


----------



## Cyragnome (Feb 4, 2002)

I say Patriots by 3 as my poll choice


----------



## Holy Bovine (Feb 4, 2002)

Well that's it then!  Cyragnome wins the poll!

Congratulations CG - don't spend the prize money all in one place


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 4, 2002)

Cyragnome said:
			
		

> *I say Patriots by 3 as my poll choice  *



Liar, you did not Believe! ( but I noticed the -wink- so it's all good  )
Believe in the power of the Lord! Believe!

_____________________

Anyway, I think it's funny since I bumped the pole up from a few days ago with my post that someone just voted for the Pats in the pole.


----------



## Someguy (Feb 4, 2002)

Vinateri is making a habit of that stuff...


 



*PATS RULE*


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 4, 2002)

Oh look anther vote for the Pats, where were you guys a few days ago???


----------



## Left-handed Hummingbird (Feb 4, 2002)

Well *I* voted for option 4 a few days ago. 

The moderators really should close the poll.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Feb 4, 2002)

BluWolf said:
			
		

> *Pats by a field goal in regulation. *




Wow.  Good call, BluWolf!


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 4, 2002)

BluWolf said:
			
		

> *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.
> 
> ...



You the man!


----------



## Mark (Feb 4, 2002)

MythandLore said:
			
		

> *
> You the man! *




Are you still going on about that game way back then?  Geez!  It's been almost an hour or so.  Get on with your life, Man!


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 4, 2002)

Mark said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Are you still going on about that game way back then?  Geez!  It's been almost an hour or so.  Get on with your life, Man!  *



Yey!!! Wohoo!!! Pats Win!!!

BTW if anyone is watching King of the Hill right now, that's one of the episodes I worked on.


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 4, 2002)

Lame, 2 more people just voted for the pats to win by 14 or less.
Well... I guess it's more of a trivia answer now.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 4, 2002)

First time I have EVER seen a 14 point penalty.


----------



## BluWolf (Feb 4, 2002)

Yes I called it exactly correct 100%!!!


Now if I had only had the sack to anti up in Vegas.................


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 4, 2002)

BluWolf said:
			
		

> *Yes I called it exactly correct 100%!!!
> 
> 
> Now if I had only had the sack to anti up in Vegas................. *



lol


----------



## Daredevill34 (Feb 4, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 1. The Steelers are not a real contender.  They played a weak schedule and had no quarterback capable of winning a big game.
> 
> ...




What was that about moving the ball at will Flexor?

I think the Rams may have underestimated the Pats just a little.

Dynasty my ass

I think Warner is still wondering what happened!


----------



## Someguy (Feb 5, 2002)

the pats had more of a will to win I think...


----------



## drothgery (Feb 5, 2002)

Daredevill34 said:
			
		

> *What was that about moving the ball at will Flexor?
> 
> I think the Rams may have underestimated the Pats just a little.
> 
> ...




You did watch the game, right? The Rams did move the ball at will (see over 400 yards of offense, outgaining the Pats by 160 yards), and pretty much shut down the Pats' offense. I've never seen a game that the losing team dominated as much as the Rams did in Super Bowl 36.

Warner knows exactly what happened. He threw two picks which led to ten New England points. And they missed a long field goal in the first half. Ergo, instead of winning about 30-10, they lost 20-17.


----------



## Welverin (Feb 5, 2002)

drothgery said:
			
		

> *You did watch the game, right? The Rams did move the ball at will (see over 400 yards of offense, outgaining the Pats by 160 yards), and pretty much shut down the Pats' offense. I've never seen a game that the losing team dominated as much as the Rams did in Super Bowl 36.
> 
> Warner knows exactly what happened. He threw two picks which led to ten New England points. And they missed a long field goal in the first half. Ergo, instead of winning about 30-10, they lost 20-17. *




Don't forget the fumble that led to another TD. Of course the fumble and first INT were forced and credit needs to go to the Pats for making plays not blame to the Rams for making mistakes.


----------



## noretoc (Feb 6, 2002)

srry just noticed flexor hasn't said anything.  
Alright Pats!


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 7, 2022)

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.



I'm posting this purely because I wanted to do a 20 year necro, and this is an amazing one.


----------

