OT: Super Bowl Predictions?

[BR0D1E86]

Either Pittsburgh/NE vs Seattle/Giants. Denver ain't winning another SB with Manning. I see St Louis making some noise with a top 3 defense.

I don't expect anything out of the Rams with their offense, and I expect the Giants to win 6 or 7 games. Don't see the Steelers as a legitimate contender either.

[DRoseCantStop]

Joke pick: Giants over the Patriots. Why not complete the trilogy?

Nobody has repeated as Champs since the Patriots in the mid 2000s. The last time two teams played each other in back-to-back Super Bowls was 93-94 Dallas/Buffalo, I will venture a guess that Denver/Seattle will not break this trend. No NFC team has made it to back to back SB since GB in 97-98. My longwinded guess would be: Cincinnati .v. New Orleans with Saints winning.

Since the Patriots repeated do you know how many combined playoff wins the defending superbowl champions have the following season? There are 8 of them.

The answer is 0.

I think the Seahawks will break that. They are very well capable of repeating this season.

[Jayme96]

Either Pittsburgh/NE vs Seattle/Giants. Denver ain't winning another SB with Manning. I see St Louis making some noise with a top 3 defense.

Rams have no QB. They aren't going anywhere, no matter how good their D is, unless Shaun Hill explodes, which is highly highly highly unlikely.

Oh the Rams are going somewhere..defense rules period

If you have no offense, your D will be wore out late in games, and it takes points to win. They have nothing on O, unless as I said, their career backup starting QB explodes which is very unlikely. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it goes, but my money is on my take and not yours.

[bearadonisdna]

Um not the Bears . Do i win? lol
And dont flame me please, look at my name.

[da pmp]

Rams have no QB. They aren't going anywhere, no matter how good their D is, unless Shaun Hill explodes, which is highly highly highly unlikely.

Oh the Rams are going somewhere..defense rules period

If you have no offense, your D will be wore out late in games, and it takes points to win. They have nothing on O, unless as I said, their career backup starting QB explodes which is very unlikely. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it goes, but my money is on my take and not yours.

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

[Trm3]

Oh the Rams are going somewhere..defense rules period

If you have no offense, your D will be wore out late in games, and it takes points to win. They have nothing on O, unless as I said, their career backup starting QB explodes which is very unlikely. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it goes, but my money is on my take and not yours.

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

Ur probably a Rams fan but seriously don't get ur hopes up..even when the Rams did have Bradford, they still had no QB.

[GRADEN]

What is this....

"i am so happy to write that about 15 years ago I stopped watching, reading about, and paying any sort of attention at all to Baseball, football, soccer, Golf, the olympics save when a major national story breaks out. No fantasy football...nothing.

I only watch basketball. I spend all that time of NOT watching all these other sports doing more productive things instead like working out, doing work around the house, volunteering, helping friends out...my life got sooooo much better when i stopped watching...only NBA basketball for me and basically only the bulls"

U clicked on an OT nfl post... So u just read about the nfl... And therefore did not save anyone, make ur kids love u more, and nurse a small animal back to life in that time it took to read this..... Shame on u for wasting your time... Which to everyone else is very very precious and worth our time hearing about.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[GRADEN]

Rams had a 9-10 win team with Sam (whom I believe in).. Now with hill I think 6-8 wins is more likely.... The defense is fantastic and really exciting though so u never know. Fwiw I think msam played great and earned at least a ps spot... They simply are too deep at the position. He has shown he is only a DE and not a 3-4 rush LB and therefor his outlook in the nfl is slim given his measurables... Would be a terrific addition in the cfl - no shame in that either


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[Jayme96]

Oh the Rams are going somewhere..defense rules period

If you have no offense, your D will be wore out late in games, and it takes points to win. They have nothing on O, unless as I said, their career backup starting QB explodes which is very unlikely. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it goes, but my money is on my take and not yours.

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

Did you watch any preseason games, or pay attention to the rule changes? Seattle's defense won't get away with mugging receivers anymore, so their strength is gone. Their O was pretty mediocre as well, with Russell not impressing me much at all in most games I saw. The rules are tweaked to help the O, so therefore your O should win if you have the horses to make it run. I watched the Steelers and Vikings, for years, with elite defenses and no QBs, field good teams but not enough to win SBs. Steelers get Big Ben? SB, SB, SB. Would've been 4 or more if not for Spygate. Vikings get Favre, and they're a few bad calls away from a SB. They get Ponder, who is similar to Shaun Hill, and they suck....maybe they squeaked into the playoffs due to their run game and D, but couldn't win when it mattered.

The other thing I don't get here, is when all of a sudden the Rams got this amazing defense? They are nothing special on D, at all. Last year's rankings:

#15 in yards per game (#19 in passing, #9 in rushing)
#13 in ppg, giving up 21.8 ppg - yep stellar!
3rd in sacks
20th in INTs

So aside from sacks, they were average. Yet they're going to dominate and win without a QB, because they have this mythical defense. Ok......Just for good measure I looked up their offensive rankings too. #19 in Yards per carry and rushing yards per game, so their rushing attack isn't about to carry the load like an Adrian Peterson can either.

[da pmp]

If you have no offense, your D will be wore out late in games, and it takes points to win. They have nothing on O, unless as I said, their career backup starting QB explodes which is very unlikely. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it goes, but my money is on my take and not yours.

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

Did you watch any preseason games, or pay attention to the rule changes? Seattle's defense won't get away with mugging receivers anymore, so their strength is gone. Their O was pretty mediocre as well, with Russell not impressing me much at all in most games I saw. The rules are tweaked to help the O, so therefore your O should win if you have the horses to make it run. I watched the Steelers and Vikings, for years, with elite defenses and no QBs, field good teams but not enough to win SBs. Steelers get Big Ben? SB, SB, SB. Would've been 4 or more if not for Spygate. Vikings get Favre, and they're a few bad calls away from a SB. They get Ponder, who is similar to Shaun Hill, and they suck....maybe they squeaked into the playoffs due to their run game and D, but couldn't win when it mattered.

The other thing I don't get here, is when all of a sudden the Rams got this amazing defense? They are nothing special on D, at all. Last year's rankings:

#15 in yards per game (#19 in passing, #9 in rushing)
#13 in ppg, giving up 21.8 ppg - yep stellar!
3rd in sacks
20th in INTs

So aside from sacks, they were average. Yet they're going to dominate and win without a QB, because they have this mythical defense. Ok......Just for good measure I looked up their offensive rankings too. #19 in Yards per carry and rushing yards per game, so their rushing attack isn't about to carry the load like an Adrian Peterson can either.

For someone who claims to watch a lot of past historical teams, you should be smart enough to know pre season means squat. Besides, I was talking about last years Seattle team- not this year. They will still be tough because they are pretty young. I was referring to the rams as a sleeper pick for the playoffs - you don't need a very good Qb for that. Secondly, the rams are going to be even better on defense. Since when does last's years rankings mean anything for this year?

[da pmp]

Either Pittsburgh/NE vs Seattle/Giants. Denver ain't winning another SB with Manning. I see St Louis making some noise with a top 3 defense.

I don't expect anything out of the Rams with their offense, and I expect the Giants to win 6 or 7 games. Don't see the Steelers as a legitimate contender either.

The steelers are legit.

[Jayme96]

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

Did you watch any preseason games, or pay attention to the rule changes? Seattle's defense won't get away with mugging receivers anymore, so their strength is gone. Their O was pretty mediocre as well, with Russell not impressing me much at all in most games I saw. The rules are tweaked to help the O, so therefore your O should win if you have the horses to make it run. I watched the Steelers and Vikings, for years, with elite defenses and no QBs, field good teams but not enough to win SBs. Steelers get Big Ben? SB, SB, SB. Would've been 4 or more if not for Spygate. Vikings get Favre, and they're a few bad calls away from a SB. They get Ponder, who is similar to Shaun Hill, and they suck....maybe they squeaked into the playoffs due to their run game and D, but couldn't win when it mattered.

The other thing I don't get here, is when all of a sudden the Rams got this amazing defense? They are nothing special on D, at all. Last year's rankings:

#15 in yards per game (#19 in passing, #9 in rushing)
#13 in ppg, giving up 21.8 ppg - yep stellar!
3rd in sacks
20th in INTs

So aside from sacks, they were average. Yet they're going to dominate and win without a QB, because they have this mythical defense. Ok......Just for good measure I looked up their offensive rankings too. #19 in Yards per carry and rushing yards per game, so their rushing attack isn't about to carry the load like an Adrian Peterson can either.

For someone who claims to watch a lot of past historical teams, you should be smart enough to know pre season means squat. Besides, I was talking about last years Seattle team- not this year. They will still be tough because they are pretty young. I was referring to the rams as a sleeper pick for the playoffs - you don't need a very good Qb for that. Secondly, the rams are going to be even better on defense. Since when does last's years rankings mean anything for this year?

I was talking about how the refs were calling the game, due to the NEW RULES! The new rules where a DB breathes on a WR and he is flagged. They implemented that rule, or rather enforcing their existing rules more, to combat the mugging the Seattle DBs did. Same thing happened in the 70s due to Mel Blount (this was before my time, but I have read about it many times). Blount was the prototypical huge, physical DB that mauled WRs, when it was legal to do so. The rules currently in place are due to his dominance. After they won 2 SBs prior to the rules changing, based on the strength of their defense, they switched gears and took advantage of the rules favoring their WRs and won 2 more SBs for good measure based on the strength of their HOF QB and TWO HOF WRs. Rule changes = focus changes. Just because something worked before, doesn't mean it will continue to work. If you don't believe me on that with the Steelers, go do some research. I've seen it right from Mel Blount's mouth himself in an interview.

The whole point here, is if you had watched preseason games, you'd see that they are calling the game differently now, and they're saying it's going to continue into the regular season. Thus, the thugs like Sherman who maul WRs, or like Al Harris used to do with the Fudge-Packers, won't be able to do that anymore, and they will be rendered useless if they can't adapt. As rules change, what worked before will change too.

Since you bring up last year, that's what I was talking about with the Rams. Those rankings are last year's. Mediocre in everything but sacks. Yet you brag them up as an elite, dominant defense that will compensate for a lack of a QB. The 13th ranked defense, with a 19th ranked rushing attack, isn't going to go anywhere with no passing game. Last time I checked, past performance is the only way to judge future performance, unless major variables changed. The only big variables I can see are an undersized DT that got stoned constantly in the games I watched, and a runt safety/CB. I know some think Donald will be a star, but I see him as a situational pass rusher, who replicates their strengths and does nothing to help their weakness (remember last year #3 in sacks, #19 or w/e in rush defense....he might get sacks, but won't hold up against the run at all). You can say all you want that someone will be better, but that remains to be seen. I've seen teams implode, as prior-year's SB winners tend to. As for the Rams being a sleeper pick, ok. Either you didn't specify that, or I misunderstood earlier, because I thought you were touting them as the SB pick, not a playoff sleeper. If I misunderstood, my bad.

[Jayme96]

Either Pittsburgh/NE vs Seattle/Giants. Denver ain't winning another SB with Manning. I see St Louis making some noise with a top 3 defense.

I don't expect anything out of the Rams with their offense, and I expect the Giants to win 6 or 7 games. Don't see the Steelers as a legitimate contender either.

The steelers are legit.

I don't know about that. I didn't like what I saw in preseason, but that is usually how it goes with them since their defense is predicated on scheming, and you don't do that in preseason. Their O should be nasty, if Ben gets protected. They have blazers all over the place in Brown, Wheaton and Archer, plus you have really solid, talented players moving the chains in Bell and Miller. Great weapons, at least in theory since Wheaton and Archer aren't proven yet. Great QB and DC too. Bad OL, horrible HC, and that D leaves a lot to be desired with Polamalu and Taylor losing a step. Shazier looks outstanding though, and I can imagine a 4.37 speed LB for Dick LeBeau tearing things up in that scheme.

[JimmyBuckets89]

Denver over New Orleans
Peyton goes out a winner

[Trm3]

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

Did you watch any preseason games, or pay attention to the rule changes? Seattle's defense won't get away with mugging receivers anymore, so their strength is gone. Their O was pretty mediocre as well, with Russell not impressing me much at all in most games I saw. The rules are tweaked to help the O, so therefore your O should win if you have the horses to make it run. I watched the Steelers and Vikings, for years, with elite defenses and no QBs, field good teams but not enough to win SBs. Steelers get Big Ben? SB, SB, SB. Would've been 4 or more if not for Spygate. Vikings get Favre, and they're a few bad calls away from a SB. They get Ponder, who is similar to Shaun Hill, and they suck....maybe they squeaked into the playoffs due to their run game and D, but couldn't win when it mattered.

The other thing I don't get here, is when all of a sudden the Rams got this amazing defense? They are nothing special on D, at all. Last year's rankings:

#15 in yards per game (#19 in passing, #9 in rushing)
#13 in ppg, giving up 21.8 ppg - yep stellar!
3rd in sacks
20th in INTs

So aside from sacks, they were average. Yet they're going to dominate and win without a QB, because they have this mythical defense. Ok......Just for good measure I looked up their offensive rankings too. #19 in Yards per carry and rushing yards per game, so their rushing attack isn't about to carry the load like an Adrian Peterson can either.

For someone who claims to watch a lot of past historical teams, you should be smart enough to know pre season means squat. Besides, I was talking about last years Seattle team- not this year. They will still be tough because they are pretty young. I was referring to the rams as a sleeper pick for the playoffs - you don't need a very good Qb for that. Secondly, the rams are going to be even better on defense. Since when does last's years rankings mean anything for this year?

The Rams are in the wrong division..they're not better than the Seahawks, 49ers, or Cardinals (to whom all have better defenses). If they were in the NFC East then they'd have chance but they wouldn't be better than the Eagles.

[organix85]

Oh the Rams are going somewhere..defense rules period

If you have no offense, your D will be wore out late in games, and it takes points to win. They have nothing on O, unless as I said, their career backup starting QB explodes which is very unlikely. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it goes, but my money is on my take and not yours.

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

Bears were top 3 in points against a couple years ago and didn't even make the playoffs. Oh, and the Seahawks could score points.

[FecesOfDeath]

Seahawks' chances of repeating hinge on the continued health of Lynch. Lynch is their Jerome Bettis; their Jamal Lewis. As long as Lynch stays healthy, his power-running game and Wilson's elusiveness will help the 'Hawks dominate time of possession by converting third downs, which will keep their dominant defense fresh, which will help the 'Hawks out-grind their opponents.

[da pmp]

If you have no offense, your D will be wore out late in games, and it takes points to win. They have nothing on O, unless as I said, their career backup starting QB explodes which is very unlikely. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it goes, but my money is on my take and not yours.

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

Bears were top 3 in points against a couple years ago and didn't even make the playoffs. Oh, and the Seahawks could score points.

Point is Seattle's defense won them the SB

[da pmp]

Did you watch any preseason games, or pay attention to the rule changes? Seattle's defense won't get away with mugging receivers anymore, so their strength is gone. Their O was pretty mediocre as well, with Russell not impressing me much at all in most games I saw. The rules are tweaked to help the O, so therefore your O should win if you have the horses to make it run. I watched the Steelers and Vikings, for years, with elite defenses and no QBs, field good teams but not enough to win SBs. Steelers get Big Ben? SB, SB, SB. Would've been 4 or more if not for Spygate. Vikings get Favre, and they're a few bad calls away from a SB. They get Ponder, who is similar to Shaun Hill, and they suck....maybe they squeaked into the playoffs due to their run game and D, but couldn't win when it mattered.

The other thing I don't get here, is when all of a sudden the Rams got this amazing defense? They are nothing special on D, at all. Last year's rankings:

#15 in yards per game (#19 in passing, #9 in rushing)
#13 in ppg, giving up 21.8 ppg - yep stellar!
3rd in sacks
20th in INTs

So aside from sacks, they were average. Yet they're going to dominate and win without a QB, because they have this mythical defense. Ok......Just for good measure I looked up their offensive rankings too. #19 in Yards per carry and rushing yards per game, so their rushing attack isn't about to carry the load like an Adrian Peterson can either.

For someone who claims to watch a lot of past historical teams, you should be smart enough to know pre season means squat. Besides, I was talking about last years Seattle team- not this year. They will still be tough because they are pretty young. I was referring to the rams as a sleeper pick for the playoffs - you don't need a very good Qb for that. Secondly, the rams are going to be even better on defense. Since when does last's years rankings mean anything for this year?

The Rams are in the wrong division..they're not better than the Seahawks, 49ers, or Cardinals (to whom all have better defenses). If they were in the NFC East then they'd have chance but they wouldn't be better than the Eagles.

No, only Seattle has a better defense. We are talking about this year - not last year. I don't think Cardinals will be better. The Rams will probably go 3-3 against the rest of the division.

[organix85]

Who cares about offense? Seattle's offense wasn't exactly stellar but it was enough. When did a team with an elite defense ever have losing record? Please do tell

Bears were top 3 in points against a couple years ago and didn't even make the playoffs. Oh, and the Seahawks could score points.

Point is Seattle's defense won them the SB

There's no denying that the elite defense did them very well... but you can't just be a top defense. You need balance.