The best Rams team ever

[Loyal]

And the 01 Rams turned into a turnover factory when they played the not so good 7-9 Saints and 9-7 Bucs.

There were no terrifying juggernauts in the 1999 NFL the Rams lucked out of playing that could've inhibited their success.
They were the best team in the league, without qualification.

Playing lesser teams doesn't make you a lesser team.

2001 Rams didn't do anything the 1999 Rams couldn't or wouldn't have done.

Part of it was that sports broadcasters who were former NFL defensive players, portrayed GSOT as being soft, finesse, etc... Tom Jackson at ESPN (I believe) had his "All Jacked Up" segments showing brutal hits on a weekly basis snd he was a Rams doubter. He was a minority voice in 2001, until after the loss to the Patriots.

 

[PhillyRam]

Yes, it could be said the 99 imploded in 2000. Defensively. The offense was actually better statistically, except for the picks. Can we determine what happened to the defense, that made them so bad in 2000? Did they lose a lot of players? No. They lost a coach by the name of Bunting, who was co-DC with Peter Giunta. And then Giunta was scape goated and Lovie Smith was hired.

The bottom line is this. The 99 team did have an easier schedule than the 2001 team (or 2000 team for that matter). But once the playoffs arrived that goes out the window. They put up 49 on Minnesota, with their first postseason snap in a decade going 77 yards for a TD. They beat the snot-popping Bucs 11-6 in the defensively battled CCG. Then they beat the Titans in the SB after blowing a 16 point lead, the first play (again) after Tennessee tied the game went 73 yards for a TD. They got the job done. Period. People can put any disclaimers on it such as easier schedule, great catches, etc. etc. but the bottom line is, they brought home the trophy.

The 2001 team, while talented and vs a tougher schedule, didn't bring it home. Disclaimers can be put on their performance too. Such as, they were lucky the Eagles took care of Tampa and the Saints didn't make the postseason, because Martz, with any version of the Rams couldn't beat the Saints (2-4) or Bucs (1-3). They got Green Bay and Favre, who threw 6 picks in the game. Always the gunslinger, his response to being down was throw it up for grabs. The next game (Philly) they squeaked by, thanks to a McNabb fumbled snap to start things off on their first series, just like he started things off on their first series in week 1. And then they faced the Patriots, who were introduced as a 'team' while the GSOT were introduced individually all the way up to Ricky Proehl looking into the camera and saying, "a dynasty is born tonight". How fucking prophetic!!!!

When you look at the list of Superbowl Champions the 2001 team is nowhere to be found and the 1999 team doesn't have an asterisk that indicates an easy schedule. In fact, the 99 team is remembered for being one of the most amazing teams in history. Cinderella QB, Marshall, Marshall, Marshall, Ike and that rookie, TGSOT, an opportunistic defense, unequalled special teams with Money, Az and Tony Horne led by a head coach who kept it all together. Hollywood loved them!

The defense imploded in 2000 because too many leaders on the defensive side were bitching because they didn't get paid. Kevin Carter pretty much quit. Todd Lyght wasn't happy and DeMarco Farr blew out his knee week 1. Plus Todd Collins got hurt ( a very underrated plsyer in 99') and it appeared that Mike Jones hit a wall age wise.

Anyway, I will always feel the 01' team was a better team. A young aggressive defense, and a polished veteran offense that was ridiculous despite teams having 3 years to study that offense and they still couldn't be stopped.... unless you filmed their practice.

That team only stopped themselves with turnovers. So yeah that was an issue, but to me 14-2 against a much tougher schedule seals it for me.

 

[RecklessRams]

NOT the best ever season yet maybe the or one of the greatest comebacks ever never gets old re-watching.


View: https://youtu.be/iKLhKSQbn-w?si=jp-OGxVEQ7Yx-dFD

 

[Classic Rams]

All though I loved the GSOT and Stafford's SB win I'll go old school here.

The 1979 Rams with a Cromwell pick-6 and Jack Youngblood with an unbroken leg beats the Steelers in the Super Bowl and ends their dynasty.

 

[PARAM]

The defense imploded in 2000 because too many leaders on the defensive side were bitching because they didn't get paid. Kevin Carter pretty much quit. Todd Lyght wasn't happy and DeMarco Farr blew out his knee week 1. Plus Todd Collins got hurt ( a very underrated plsyer in 99') and it appeared that Mike Jones hit a wall age wise.

Anyway, I will always feel the 01' team was a better team. A young aggressive defense, and a polished veteran offense that was ridiculous despite teams having 3 years to study that offense and they still couldn't be stopped.... unless you filmed their practice.

That team only stopped themselves with turnovers. So yeah that was an issue, but to me 14-2 against a much tougher schedule seals it for me.

Sound reasoning, even if based mostly on perception. For one, it does ignore the decisions Martz made upon becoming head coach pertaining to the defense. Letting John Bunting go was a huge mistake.

On the perception Kevin Carter "quit", he did have 10.5 sacks. That was down for the 17 he had in 99 but Wistrom increased his sack total from 6.5 to 11 so it was basically a wash. Todd Lyght being unhappy doesn't mean he didn't play hard. He wasn't the #1 CB anyway. McCleon was and he had a great year in 2000.....19 PDs, 8 Int (double his 99 total). The decline in Lyght's numbers was more than made up for by McCleon.

The biggest change from 99 to 2000 was Martz as head coach, Bunting gone and Warner giving the ball away more. In 5 less games, he had 5 more picks. How does that affect the defensive performance?

The 99 team should not be judged by the performance in 2000, just as the 2001 team should not be judged by the decline from 2002 on. It can be settled one way. Results. And ultimately the 2001 team lacked the optimum results. Cheating? No, I can't cosign that. That's a loser's excuse. IIRC the part of Rams practice confirmed being taped was their red zone practice. That doesn't excuse their performance between the 20's. Truthfully, after winning the Super Bowl in 99 the team became cocky, over confident and careless. I attribute that to one guy. He was certainly a reason for TGSOT's success but he was also the reason they didn't win it all again.

 

[Faceplant]

There are no wrong answers here, and I love the discussion as it is all about GOOD Rams football, haha.

As others have said in this thread, and I have been saying since 2002.....no team NOT named the Patriots was going to win that Superbowl. Period. We all know why.

Have you all forgotten how bad they beat up our skill players (beyond 5 yards) all game? The Rams were a rhythm and timing offense, and the Putriots held and blasted our WRs off ball the entire game. The refs couldn't be bothered to call a fucking thing!!!

The NFL competition committee enacted the "Ty Law rule" 2 years later to crackdown on that bullshit after the Colts cried fowl over the same thing. The Patriots cheated more than any team I have ever seen, and the league gifted them at least 3 titles for it.

Played fairly, Superbowl, 36 is a boat race that the Rams win comfortably. That is why Vegas had the largest line ever on a SB that night. That is also why the 2001 team gets my vote.

 

[RamWoodie]

Many good Rams teams!!! In my mind it has to be "The Greatest Show on Turf"!!! They were instant excitement!!

I liked the "ground and pound" Rams of the mid 60's on through to Chuck Knox too! They had GREAT OLines back then. You'd watch the Pro Bowl and there was always at least 3 Ram Oliners that were All Pro!

 

[PhillyRam]

Sound reasoning, even if based mostly on perception. For one, it does ignore the decisions Martz made upon becoming head coach pertaining to the defense. Letting John Bunting go was a huge mistake.

On the perception Kevin Carter "quit", he did have 10.5 sacks. That was down for the 17 he had in 99 but Wistrom increased his sack total from 6.5 to 11 so it was basically a wash. Todd Lyght being unhappy doesn't mean he didn't play hard. He wasn't the #1 CB anyway. McCleon was and he had a great year in 2000.....19 PDs, 8 Int (double his 99 total). The decline in Lyght's numbers was more than made up for by McCleon.

The biggest change from 99 to 2000 was Martz as head coach, Bunting gone and Warner giving the ball away more. In 5 less games, he had 5 more picks. How does that affect the defensive performance?

The 99 team should not be judged by the performance in 2000, just as the 2001 team should not be judged by the decline from 2002 on. It can be settled one way. Results. And ultimately the 2001 team lacked the optimum results. Cheating? No, I can't cosign that. That's a loser's excuse. IIRC the part of Rams practice confirmed being taped was their red zone practice. That doesn't excuse their performance between the 20's. Truthfully, after winning the Super Bowl in 99 the team became cocky, over confident and careless. I attribute that to one guy. He was certainly a reason for TGSOT's success but he was also the reason they didn't win it all again.

The Defense was an All-time awful defense and Carter was very vocal about his unhappiness to the point that they traded him in the offseason.

That defense fell off cliff and it wasnt all about coaching. Much of the staff did stay.

 

[PARAM]

The Defense was an All-time awful defense and Carter was very vocal about his unhappiness to the point that they traded him in the offseason.

That defense fell off cliff and it wasnt all about coaching. Much of the staff did stay.

Sure. The 2000 team went downhill. So 1999 vs 2001 it is.

The 2001 team had a problem that developed progressively from 99 to 01. Turnovers. Almost 21% of their drives ended by giving the ball away (15.4% in 99; 16.7% in 00). And what happened in SB36? 3 turnovers to 0 takeaways. That was not created by filming practice. The 99 Rams lost the turnover battle 5 times in 19 games. The 2001 Rams lost the turnover battle 8 times in 19 games. That's not the important thing because they were 1-4 in 99 when losing that battle, while the 2001 Rams were 5-3. The important thing was the 99 Rams won the turnover battle 10 times while the 2001 Rams won it just 6 times. And losing that battle in the SB cost them. Dearly.

There were other things too. While Az was still around and had a slightly better PR avg than 99 (9.3 to 9.0), Tony Horne was gone and Trung C. was no Tony Horne. 20.8 avg vs 29.7 (99) and 24.2 (00) for Horne. Also the coverage teams were worse. PR coverage in 99 was 6.4 but in 2001 it was 9.8. KR coverage was 24.9 to 25.5.

The 2001 team had a tougher schedule and a better record. But they weren't the TEAM the 99 Rams were.

 

[AZRams]

1978 team should have made it to the Super Bowl. Defense was frickin' absurd but the offense on a bad Pat Haden day wasn't enough.

 

[Antonius]

No love for the ‘51 Rams? They need to be apart of a top 5 list at least. Van Brocklin had a 554 yard passing game. He was also splitting time with Waterfield with 26 touchdowns between them. “Crazy Legs” had 1400 yards receiving in 12 games.

 

[RecklessRams]

Rams make the playoffs are going the win the Superbowl

 

[RecklessRams]

It might be 2024&2025 mother fuckers. You never know!

 

[thirteen28]

That's not the important thing because they were 1-4 in 99 when losing that battle, while the 2001 Rams were 5-3.

Not to nitpick, but the 99 Rams only lost 3 games. 13-3 regular season, and, obviously, 3-0 in the postseason.

 

[PARAM]

Not to nitpick, but the 99 Rams only lost 3 games. 13-3 regular season, and, obviously, 3-0 in the postseason.

Right. They were 1-3 in games they lost the turnover battle. In reality, they lost the turnover battle 5 times (once in the postseason to Tampa), so they were 2-3.