Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

First off...Happy Fourth, Everyone!!

As for this very post...StL Rams would have to, again, play at Giants; who Rams slaughtered at the Measowlands during regular season.

Eagles would have been at Vikings in the divisional while G-men would have to avert losing again at home to defending-SB-champs!

Rams’ D quite weaker this time around. No Vermeil either. How far they go??

Are Ravens quite that grateful that StL went one-and-out?

74_75_78_79_ wrote:First off...Happy Fourth, Everyone!!

As for this very post...StL Rams would have to, again, play at Giants; who Rams slaughtered at the Measowlands during regular season.

Eagles would have been at Vikings in the divisional while G-men would have to avert losing again at home to defending-SB-champs!

Rams’ D quite weaker this time around. No Vermeil either. How far they go??

Are Ravens quite that grateful that StL went one-and-out?

Happy belated fourth to you as well.

Not only did the Rams beat the Giants in the regular season that year, they beat the Vikings (40-29 at home in Week 15).

You are right about the lack of D, but the NFC in 2000 seemed to not have great defenses amongst the playoff teams (except in Tampa).

I see a Rams-Vikings rematch for the NFC Title, with the Rams winning (the Vikes played terrible that day against the Giants in reality. I don't see the Rams winning 41-0, but I see them winning 38-24).

Then, in Tampa, we get SB 35: A major contrast in styles.

In these types of SB matchups, the team with the awesome defense has usually won. And, the Ravens had a good O-line and RB to control the clock with (against a weak Rams D). I see the Ravens winning 27-10.

At the time, I thought with a healthy Kurt Warner the Rams were still the team to beat in the NFC that year. They didn't play well against the Saints in the postseason, but when the defense forced the Saints to punt one last time you figured the Rams were going to win. Az-Hakim could have fair caught that punt on his own 1-yard line...the Rams offense just needed to take the field and victory was assured. Az-Hakim muffed the punt.

It's not even historically significant now, but the Vikings were actually favored on the road against the Giants in that NFC Championship game. It was preposterous that they lost 41-0. That has to be one of the lamest postseason performances in NFL history, as the Giants weren't anything close to a dominant team. I think that it was similar to 1998...everyone wanted to see Minnesota's offense versus Baltimore's defense, just like everyone wanted the Vikings-Broncos matchup in 98.

I think the Rams could have blown through the NFC playoffs, and at least they would have been a better matchup against the Ravens than the Giants. The Ravens D was dominant in the postseason, but they didn't face a QB anywhere near the caliber of Warner (Frerotte, McNair, Hoying, Collins). To answer your question, I think the Ravens were very happy to be facing the Giants as opposed to the Rams (or even the Vikings).

The 2000 Rams were betrayed by the deterioration of their defense from 1999. The passing defense especially, was horrid. Like other lopsided playoff teams from the past, St. Louis couldn't overcome the imbalance.

Bryan wrote:At the time, I thought with a healthy Kurt Warner the Rams were still the team to beat in the NFC that year. They didn't play well against the Saints in the postseason, but when the defense forced the Saints to punt one last time you figured the Rams were going to win. Az-Hakim could have fair caught that punt on his own 1-yard line...the Rams offense just needed to take the field and victory was assured. Az-Hakim muffed the punt.

It's not even historically significant now, but the Vikings were actually favored on the road against the Giants in that NFC Championship game. It was preposterous that they lost 41-0. That has to be one of the lamest postseason performances in NFL history, as the Giants weren't anything close to a dominant team. I think that it was similar to 1998...everyone wanted to see Minnesota's offense versus Baltimore's defense, just like everyone wanted the Vikings-Broncos matchup in 98.

I think the Rams could have blown through the NFC playoffs, and at least they would have been a better matchup against the Ravens than the Giants. The Ravens D was dominant in the postseason, but they didn't face a QB anywhere near the caliber of Warner (Frerotte, McNair, Hoying, Collins). To answer your question, I think the Ravens were very happy to be facing the Giants as opposed to the Rams (or even the Vikings).

The way the Ravens defense was playing at the end of the 2000 season, it wouldn't have mattered who they played in the Super Bowl, they would have shut them down, just like they shut down the Raiders and Broncos (number 2 and 3 in points scored in the 2000 regular season) in the playoffs. Both Denver and Oakland scored three points against Baltimore, and for Oakland it was in the Black Hole. If it weren't for the kickoff return, the Ravens would have shut out the Giants in the Super Bowl. I think the Greatest Show on Turf would have been lucky to have scored more than seven points against the Ravens in Super Bowl XXXV. It would have been 27-7 or so.

I've always felt the two greatest single season defenses since the 1985 Bears were the 2000 Ravens and the 2000 Titans, and I felt at the time that Divisional playoff game between the Ravens and Titans, the 24-10 game where the Ravens broke it open in the fourth quarter on the blocked FG return and the Ray Lewis pick six, whoever won that game was going to win the Super Bowl. It was one of those times where the two best teams happened to meet in the divisional round. Had it been a Super Bowl rematch of Tennessee-St. Louis or Tennessee-Giants or Tennessee-Vikings, the Titans defense would have tore them up and it would have been a 20-7 contest.

I felt the same way in 1997 with the Denver-KC Divisional game, that after analyzing all the possible matchups, I concluded that they were the two strongest teams and whoever won that game was going to run the table. Having analyzed all postseasons, I don't think that has happened any other time since they went to seeding in 1975.

Rupert Patrick wrote:
The way the Ravens defense was playing at the end of the 2000 season, it wouldn't have mattered who they played in the Super Bowl, they would have shut them down, just like they shut down the Raiders and Broncos (number 2 and 3 in points scored in the 2000 regular season) in the playoffs. Both Denver and Oakland scored three points against Baltimore, and for Oakland it was in the Black Hole. If it weren't for the kickoff return, the Ravens would have shut out the Giants in the Super Bowl. I think the Greatest Show on Turf would have been lucky to have scored more than seven points against the Ravens in Super Bowl XXXV. It would have been 27-7 or so.
I

Well, that's a reach. Rams played them in 1999 and Ravens couldn't stop them. Rams offense was better in 2000 than in 1999. Rams issue, as was pointed out was a terrible defense and a habit of special team turnovers in bad times. Ravens defense had one thing they didn't do great—pass rush. Without that, it would have been hard to hold Rams to 7 points.

Now, if Warner would fumble and throw 3-4 picks, sure...but Warner was healthy and things were clicking at the end of season like they were at beginning of season, moving the ball, scoring and not stopping anyone of defense.

Had they met, best guess for me is a game like the Rams-Titans Super Bowl, could go either way...

Gannon did get injured early in the ’00 AFCC. Maybe Ravens shut Raiders down anyway but it’s still worth noting. You can only play who’s on your schedule but, as already said, Ravens’ D didn’t face any real threatening QB play in the 2000 campaign. Rams would have been quite dangerous for any potential opponent had they escaped NO. In the NFC, I think the team that could played them the toughest/match-up better would have been Tampa Bay. But the Bucs weren’t escaping the 1st Rd/Philly themselves. It all turned out the way it should have for StL. They simply dropped off hard at D. Now next year a different story. ’01 an even better team than ’99, but no Vermeil cost them that extra Lombardi; unless Vermeil would have also made the same mistake in underutilizing Faulk, that is.

Some notes on both sides of the argument.
Regarding Baltimore's dominance at the end of the 2000 season. The Ravens gave up 481 passing yards and 20 points to Vinny Testaverde and the Jets in the season finale. They did force 6 turnovers. I absolutely could see Kurt Warner and the Rams lighting up the Ravens defense. It was only a matter of how often do they turn the ball over.

Regarding the Ravens not facing quality QB's in the postseason: they faced the AP All Pro QB, Rich Gannon. (Warner certainly would have beaten him out if he hadn't been injured.) It doesn't get much tougher then that. Gannon had the worst statistical game of his Raiders career. 11 of 21 for 80 yards, two interceptions and one lost fumble. The argument could be made "Gannon wasn't himself; he played the second half with a dislocated left shoulder." But Gannon's injury came about a third of the way into the game. And in that time period, the Raiders had as many turnovers as they had first downs (1 each.) Gannon was stymied as badly as he was against Tampa Bay two years later. (And he eventually managed to burn the Bucs for a couple touchdown passes.)

conace21 wrote:Regarding the Ravens not facing quality QB's in the postseason: they faced the AP All Pro QB, Rich Gannon. (Warner certainly would have beaten him out if he hadn't been injured.) It doesn't get much tougher then that. Gannon had the worst statistical game of his Raiders career. 11 of 21 for 80 yards, two interceptions and one lost fumble. The argument could be made "Gannon wasn't himself; he played the second half with a dislocated left shoulder." But Gannon's injury came about a third of the way into the game. And in that time period, the Raiders had as many turnovers as they had first downs (1 each.) Gannon was stymied as badly as he was against Tampa Bay two years later. (And he eventually managed to burn the Bucs for a couple touchdown passes.)

True, we should give credit to the Ravens for shutting down the high-scoring Raiders offense, but Gannon's success was predicated on the success of the running game. The 2000 Raiders were 1st in the NFL in rushing, and only 25th in pass attempts. The Raiders averaged 154 yards rushing in the regular season, and had 24 yards in 17 attempts against the Ravens. Even if Tony Siragusa didn't "Pennywell" Gannon early in the game, its not like Gannon was going to win the game with his passing. Gannon had 10 games where he threw for less than 200 yards. He had only 2 300-yard games. His All Pro selection must have been a "feel good story", because his rating was 10 points less than Brian Griese, and poor Peyton Manning had a better rating than Gannon and threw for 1000 more yards!

Ravens D was perhaps the best 'point of attack' defense in modern history. You couldn't run on them. They made you one dimensional and they could cover your receivers with their base 4-3 even without a great pass rush. But the stars kind of aligned for the Ravens' 2000 playoff run. If an injured Rich Gannon is the best QB you face, then I think Kurt Warner would have provided a tougher test.