Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just don’t believe in Goff. We will see if he makes me eat my words. Rams do have a better defense but will it make up for Goff not being as good as Mahomes?
Yah the Rams have a better defense, but Mahomes is the better QB. I wish the Chiefs would "loan" Mahomes to the Rams for a day. If the Rams have Mahomes as a QB they win easily; if the Chiefs have the Rams D instead, they win easily last weekend.
Not sure that the Rams defense is better than the Pats defense. Rankings of the defenses:
Points allowed: Rams 20th; Pats 7th
Yards allowed: Rams 19th; Pats 21st
Average drive yards: Rams 21st; Pats 11th
Average drive points: Rams 21st; Pats 7th
I'm not sure there will be another dynasty in the NFL, although up until now across the decades in NFL history there have been dynasties in each decade. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees - never part of a dynasty, nor Andy Reid or Mike Tomlin. Successful in their own rights, but all the pieces never seem to have fit into place for them. And when this 2 decade old Patriots dynasty ends, the game has changed so much in that time that the NFL simply isn't built for a dynasty to occur unless under the rarest of circumstances. McVay looks to be a great coach, but let's talk in a decade. I think maybe if Mahomes was on the Rams then that combo could possibly smell more like Belichick/Brady and have a better chance to make a dynasty run. IMHO Goff isn't even a Brees of Manning, but Mahomes could be.
The Chiefs and the Rams are the two teams that could possibly be in the mix. But are the coach/QB's of each good enough to withstand free agency and the ever changing roster like Belichick & Brady has. I don't see it, but not to say it won't happen.
The third factor is the owner. I don't believe that the Patriots dynasty would have lasted this long without Bob and Jonathan Kraft. It is kind of a perfect storm that has to come together - coach, QB, and owner. In KC, Mahomes could be the QB and the owners are stable. Not sure about the coach...
Brady was in that fringe Top 5 area (top 4-6 QB) for 2005 and 2006, and had the playoff resume and team success while he kept improving. Then 2007 came, and he had one of the four best QB seasons ever, and became the #1 QB in one year. 2007, that was the first year that anybody even entertained that he "may" be better than Manning, 2007 was the first year Brady was an undisputed top 4 or 5 quarterback. And though he lost his first Super Bowl that year, for many people 2007 represents in their mind's eye where they started seeing Brady. I never cease to be amazed how many people who follow the game have little to no memory of pre-2007 Brady...
.
Brady was the Super Bowl MVP twice before 2007. Went to the pro bowl 3 times before 2007. Led the league in passing yards in 2005; led the league in passing TDs in 2002. I am a lifelong Pats fan so I have been following Brady since he replaced Bledsoe, so I am not really aware of how people perceived Brady back then.
The third factor is the owner. I don't believe that the Patriots dynasty would have lasted this long without Bob and Jonathan Kraft. It is kind of a perfect storm that has to come together - coach, QB, and owner. In KC, Mahomes could be the QB and the owners are stable. Not sure about the coach...
I definitely missed including the Kraft's in my post. In stark contrast to an owner like Jerry Jones, ownership of the Pats have let Belichick do his thing with what I believe is minimal interference. Sure I believe they've had their say in almost every transaction, but other than the Garoppolo thing that the media blew up (no idea how true everything is) the Pats roll with coaching and playing with very little meddling.
Brady was the Super Bowl MVP twice before 2007. Went to the pro bowl 3 times before 2007. Led the league in passing yards in 2005; led the league in passing TDs in 2002. I am a lifelong Pats fan so I have been following Brady since he replaced Bledsoe, so I am not really aware of how people perceived Brady back then.
Brady won two Super Bowl MVPs and was not regarded as the best QB. I will say that with each year of consistency, the larger perception improved about him. He had an outstanding game in SB37 versus Carolina, a game in which the other QB (Jake Delhomme) played him to a draw and would have been the MVP if his team won. SB MVP's aren't as weighty...
You gotta remember that for all or parts of Brady's forst six years or so, not only was Manning the consensus #1, but other guys were playing at extremely high levels: Favre, McNabb, Warner, Gannon, Hasselbeck, Palmer, Green, Culpepper, McNair, maybe another name or two I'm forgetting. Brady didn't pass these guys overnight, as some of these guys were former MVPs (McNair, Favre, Gannon) with established pedigree and were still playing well in Brady's early career. And we all witnessed Brady get better every year, but it its irrefutable that the early Patriots, the first three rings, were built around defense. Not around Brady...
The shock of the Brady winning so often so early in his career was separate from how good people thought he actually was, and I remember this very well. I remember in after winning SB37 and embarrassing the Colts again in 2004, en route to a third title, people were talking about if he could match Bradshaw and Montana in rings, but the talk about him being one of the best currently playing didn't begin until around 2005 season. And there was a complete shift in perception after 2007, no question about it. For my money, its THE best QB year ever, and he went from one of the best quarterbacks in the game to arguably THE best in dramatic fashion. It still took several years (early in this decade, around 2011 when Manning was hurt and Brady made his 5th Super Bowl) for people to begin moving away from Manning, towards Brady, on the All-Time list. And it wasn't until a few years ago that the masses conceded overwhelmingly in Brady's favor...
But 2007, that is a line of demarcation in his career. He was a good player before '07, but he has unquestionably been an entirely different load to handle after '07. I'm sure those of you in New England may have had different views on him, but this was the general national perception on Tommy...
I'm going with LA. This should be the "Full Circle" game since the Pats started their dynasty in my freshman year of HS, it's only fitting that a young Rams team take down and give Brady a nice L before retirement.
Patriots started their dynasty in 2002 against the Rams, I'm thinking the dynasty ends in 2019 against the Rams. As long as more than 58 points are scored, I'm good.
As long as more than 58 points are scored, I'm good.
I got Over 56.5 (bought down a full point at the time) and Pats -1.5
Now you can get the Over as low as 56 without even buying a point.
I'm thinking we will see a low scoring first half and a lot of points scored in the second half. Maybe something like a 10-14 or 10-17 first half or even 9-13.
I got Over 56.5 (bought down a full point at the time) and Pats -1.5
Now you can get the Over as low as 56 without even buying a point.
I'm thinking we will see a low scoring first half and a lot of points scored in the second half. Maybe something like a 10-14 or 10-17 first half or even 9-13.
I don't see a repeat of what we saw against the Chiefs. For some odd reason I think this is the first Super Bowl where the Patriots lead wire-to-wire and it never really feels close. That may simply be fanboy wishful thinking, but it's just how I feel right now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
