why the rams should cheer for the seahawks

*general counsel* · #1 (**permalink**) -24-01-2006

Its a lot harder to stay at the top than get to the top. I think there is a greater risk of implosion on the seahawks, and therefore a better shot for the rams next year, if the hawks win it all now. If they win, they will all want more money and are more lazy to get complacent in the off season. Everyone will be taking the shot at them next year. IF they lose, i would hate to see them come back even more driven and focused. Of course, it didnt work out that way for the eagles this year and we certainly had the mother of all hangovers after losing sb 36, although that was a bit differenent given that we were big favorites.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*DanS761* · #2 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

so is that what happened to the rams after they won the SB?

**HUbison** · #3 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanS761

so is that what happened to the rams after they won the SB?

Yes, that's exactly what happened...on the defense side of the ball anyway. Fortunately, after 2000, Martz blew it up and got us back in 2001.

*general counsel* · #4 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

Kevin Carter wasnt the same after 1999. He was a shadow of himself in 2000 and was constantly whining about money. Todd lyght was never the same either. This is common in my opinion. When teams win it all, everyone wants "their propers" True in business as well and discontent often follows. People all have their own view of who were the critical players to win it all and for sure, many guys will feel underappreciated when some are rewarded with new contracts and some arent.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

**AvengerRam** · #5 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

On the other hand, there's been a trend of Super Bowl losers failing to make the playoffs the next year. I think that has been the case for the last 5 seasons.

**HUbison** · #6 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

On the other hand, there's been a trend of Super Bowl losers failing to make the playoffs the next year. I think that has been the case for the last 5 seasons.

SB loser ---- their next season record
2004 Eagles ---- 6-10
2003 Panthers ---- 7-9
2002 Raiders ---- 4-12
2001 Rams ---- 7-9
2000 Giants ---- 7-9

*general counsel* · #7 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

good data guys, what about records for super bowl winners over the last few year. Maybe we will be in good shape either way! I just hope that the seahawks let hutchinson hit the open market. that is a guy i would pay up big time for.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

**HUbison** · #8 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

good data guys, what about records for super bowl winners over the last few year. Maybe we will be in good shape either way! I just hope that the seahawks let hutchinson hit the open market. that is a guy i would pay up big time for.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

Super Bowl winner ---- next season record
2004 Pats ---- 10-6
2003 Pats ---- 14-2
2002 Bucs ---- 7-9
2001 Pats ---- 9-7
2000 Ravens ---- 10-6
1999 Rams ---- 10-6
1998 Broncos ---- 6-10
1997 Broncos ---- 14-2
1996 Packers ---- 13-3

*OrlandoPaceIsMyHero* · #9 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

Plus is the Hawks win it we have to listen to their fans for at least a while talking about how they have won as many superbowls as we have in a much shorter franchise lifetime.

Screw that!

Go STEELERS!

OPIMH

*DanS761* · #10 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrlandoPaceIsMyHero

Plus is the Hawks win it we have to listen to their fans for at least a while talking about how they have won as many superbowls as we have in a much shorter franchise lifetime.

Screw that!

Go STEELERS!

OPIMH

i'm sure it couldnt be as annoying as hearing "we beat you 3 times" for a whole offseason.

*general counsel* · #11 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

The evidence speaks for itself and i stand corrected. statistically at least, they are more likely to have a lousy year if they lose.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

**HUbison** · #12 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanS761

i'm sure it couldnt be as annoying as hearing "we beat you 3 times" for a whole offseason.

Yea, that must've sucked! Good thing we foiled your plan by keeping ourselves out of the playoffs. So now, you only beat us twice! Just the way we planned it.....bwahahahahaha!!!

OK, all joking aside. I think you guys are going all the way with this one. I'm not sure what the media sees in the Steelers. You guys have been dominant all year.

*ramsbruce* · #13 (**permalink**) -26-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

I think you guys are going all the way with this one. I'm not sure what the media sees in the Steelers. You guys have been dominant all year.

Dominant in an extremely weak NFC, that plays a factor in it also. The Steelers beat better playoff teams and have peaked at the right time. I just hope it's a good game, no garbage like we saw on Championship weekend.

*Goldenfleece* · #14 (**permalink**) -27-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramsbruce

Dominant in an extremely weak NFC, that plays a factor in it also.

On that note, I'd actually like to see the 'Hawks playing competitively next year. If the Rams are going to be back in the play-offs next year, we don't want them getting complacent against weak opponents only to get bowled over when we face the top teams. I think having a strong division gets your players used to performing at a higher level.

I'd still like to see the Steelers win it.

*r8rh8rmike* · #15 (**permalink**) -27-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramsbruce

Dominant in an extremely weak NFC, that plays a factor in it also. The Steelers beat better playoff teams and have peaked at the right time.

You could also make the case that HOW you've won is a factor. Seattle can't control who they play, and making the assertion that they are inferior because they have not played "better" teams is relative and has no real bearing on the strength of the Seahawks. Seattle made a huge statement by beating Washington without Alexander, continuing a trend of winning all season in the face of adversity that IMO, makes them tougher and more confident going into Detroit.

So while you say Pittsburgh is stronger because of who they beat, I say Seattle is stronger because of what they have fought through to win. I guess we'll see.