Peter King says Bills/Rams Super Bowl

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Buffalo Boy said:

   I have to agree and add: The Rams and Goff looked like they were playing their first preseason game in that SB. 
   It’s always interesting to me how narratives work. You have a coach like McVay, who has been granted Darling status, and he gets nothing but passes. He has to work his way out of being a genius. He’s a very good coach but he’s fallible.

    Maybe Stafford is the missing link, maybe McVay suffers from Hubris in blaming a SB loss on steam and QB who looked utterly unprepared.

 

Their offensive regression was about 2/3s scheme worked out and about 1/3 Goff's limitations IMO.

 

When the Rams went to the Lions in week 13 of 2018 Matt Patricia played a bear front against them pretty much all game and told his defense to ignore the jet motion and the sweeps. Basically ignore pre-snap, play post-snap. The Rams still scored 30 points and won the game after their defense forced a couple of turnovers but the blueprint on stopping McVay's offense was out. The next week the Rams went to the Bears with more talent on the defensive side and Vic Fangio rolled out the Patricia plan and held the Rams to 6 points. Belichick used it in that year's Superbowl and held them to 3. 

 

Including that week 13 game in 2018 the Rams had averaged 31.3 points per game in Sean McVay's 29 games as Head Coach. They played seven more games that season, including playoffs, and in those seven averaged just 23.8 points per game. Indeed if you take the points per game average of all 41 games McVay has coached since the day in Detroit the average points per game is 23.9 points. Maybe Jared Goff suddenly turned into a pumpkin that day.... but the numbers seem to suggest different in my opinion. They seem to suggest that since Patricia put the blueprint out there McVay has struggled to find a counter. 

 

[Coach Tuesday]

7 hours ago, Rico said:

I think Stafford is a chump who will put up big numbers but will fold at the most inopportune times.

Did you know that Stafford is tied with John Elway for the seventh-most fourth quarter comebacks of all time?

 

His problem is that he folds early, not late.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Coach Tuesday

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Did you know that Stafford is tied with John Elway for the seventh-most fourth quarter comebacks of all time?

 

His problem is that he folds early, not late.

 

Agree, the idea Stafford is bad in crunch time is a nonsense. The fair criticism on Stafford is he struggles against the best opposition. He is 8-67 in his career against teams that finished the season with a winning record. Not helped by the fact Detroit have been pretty bad for most of his time there, but at the same time for a QB of his talent that is a concerning stat. And I am a Stafford fan. I think he is at absolute worst a top 12 Quarterback. 

[Punching Bag]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I question the Rams pick too. I think too many people have bought the McVay spin that he is a genius and the problem was all Goff. Do I think Stafford is an upgrade on Goff? Yep. But do I think Goff was the whole problem and the scheme is fine as is? Nope. Also they have lost some pieces on defense - Troy Hill and John Johnson to the Browns for a start - and they lost Brandon Staley who did a great job in his one year as coordinator. I think they will be a playoff team again but I am not sure I really see them as Superbowl calibre. 

 

McVay was calling plays fine for Goff talking Goff thru snap up to point radio turned off but defenses realized that Goff was not able to adjust and would change plays after radio turned off.  This caused offense performance to plummet.   Stafford can adjust to defenses and has a decent arm but I question whether offense can get in sync fast enough.  Peter King was judging upon training camp performances however so I suppose he saw something he liked.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Limeaid said:

 

McVay was calling plays fine for Goff talking Goff thru snap up to point radio turned off but defenses realized that Goff was not able to adjust and would change plays after radio turned off.  This caused offense performance to plummet.   Stafford can adjust to defenses and has a decent arm but I question whether offense can get in sync fast enough.  Peter King was judging upon training camp performances however so I suppose he saw something he liked.

 

The McVay in the earphones thing was way overblown. Let's just say it was true.... but would the Rams not just snap the ball with 15 seconds left on the play clock all the time so the radio was still live? Wasn't that the supposed magic? It stopped defences adjust late because Goff had McVay basically right up to the snap? If it was as simple a problem as defences shifting after the radio shut off that is a really easy fix. It wasn't that. That was never the magic. The magic was the smoke and mirrors in the scheme and once those smoke and mirrors were worked out and the blueprint was out McVay has struggled to find an answer. Might a better Quarterback - and Stafford is definitely a better Quarterback than Goff - overcome the scheme issues? Sure, talent always matters most, but the numbers are pretty clear. That Bears game the week after Patricia put out the blueprint was the turning point. 

[Coach Tuesday]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The McVay in the earphones thing was way overblown. Let's just say it was true.... but would the Rams not just snap the ball with 15 seconds left on the play clock all the time so the radio was still live? Wasn't that the supposed magic? It stopped defences adjust late because Goff had McVay basically right up to the snap? If it was as simple a problem as defences shifting after the radio shut off that is a really easy fix. It wasn't that. That was never the magic. The magic was the smoke and mirrors in the scheme and once those smoke and mirrors were worked out and the blueprint was out McVay has struggled to find an answer. Might a better Quarterback - and Stafford is definitely a better Quarterback than Goff - overcome the scheme issues? Sure, talent always matters most, but the numbers are pretty clear. That Bears game the week after Patricia put out the blueprint was the turning point. 

Not so much the headphones as the talent - Goff simply lacks the arm and leg talent to overcome the play call.  Stafford is far more talented and mobile.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

Not so much the headphones as the talent - Goff simply lacks the arm and leg talent to overcome the play call.  Stafford is far more talented and mobile.

 

Agree with that totally. But I still think there is an underlying scheme issue there. Maybe a superior QB talent masks it better, but at some point McVay has to able to adjust. 

[Rico]

47 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Did you know that Stafford is tied with John Elway for the seventh-most fourth quarter comebacks of all time?

 

His problem is that he folds early, not late.

I just know that I’ve never been too impressed with him the times that I have seen him play, which was Lions prime time games since I do not go out of my way to watch Lions games zzzzzzz.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.turfshowtimes.com/platform/amp/2021/7/22/22588268/matthew-stafford-rams-schedule-lions-primetime

 

Maybe not step up when it counts is more accurate than fold at inopportune times.

[Coach Tuesday]

14 minutes ago, Rico said:

I just know that I’ve never been too impressed with him the times that I have seen him play, which was Lions prime time games since I do not go out of my way to watch Lions games zzzzzzz.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.turfshowtimes.com/platform/amp/2021/7/22/22588268/matthew-stafford-rams-schedule-lions-primetime

 

Maybe not step up when it counts is more accurate than fold at inopportune times.

 

He definitely has games where he's just completely disengaged from the action on the field, and/or plays completely out of the gamplan.  That said, (i) he's never really had to play in a game that mattered; and (ii) the gameplans have almost always been awful.  This is really "put up or shut up" time for his legacy, he'll be playing in games that matter for a coach who can gameplan for the modern NFL.  The jury is out, but I can totally see him having a monster year.

[GunnerBill]

I can see Stafford having a good year. I just am not as willing to trust McVay as a lot of others. I think if the offense still struggles with Stafford that isn't a sign that Stafford sucks... to me it is a sign that McVay's offense is pretty fundamentally broken.  

[dave mcbride]

I believe SF is going to win that division. Seattle will be tough too. We shall see. If the Rams do make the SB, though, I have a hard time seeing them lose, even to the Bills. It’s a home game for them. That’s tough to overcome.

[BADOLBILZ]

 

In the spring/summer of 1992 Peter King preposterously predicted.....with absolute certainty........that the Cowboys would win the NFC and Super Bowl XXVII.

 

In a conference that included the 49ers and the unbelievably dominant Redskins of the season prior........and of course the Bills in the AFC.

 

Ever since then his picks have had my attention.

[Doc]

22 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

In the spring/summer of 1992 Peter King preposterously predicted.....with absolute certainty........that the Cowboys would win the NFC and Super Bowl XXVII.

 

In a conference that included the 49ers and the unbelievably dominant Redskins of the season prior........and of course the Bills in the AFC.

 

Ever since then his picks have had my attention.

Not a real stretch. The transition from Montana had begun for the 49ers, they split with the Redskins the season before, barely losing to them, and they were coming off of an 11-5 season and had all those extra picks, including trading one to get Charles Haley.

[Kelly the Dog]

Frankly, I don’t like when the national guys are high on the Bills and I don’t like when the national guys aren’t high on the Bills. 

[NickelCity]

8 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Frankly, I don’t like when the national guys are high on the Bills and I don’t like when the national guys aren’t high on the Bills. 

 

Exactly. 🤌

[Lofton80]

Stafford always put a few balls a game up for grabs coupled in with his eye popping throws. I think the  SB winner is coming out of the AFC.  

[The Dean]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Not a real stretch. The transition from Montana had begun for the 49ers, they split with the Redskins the season before, barely losing to them, and they were coming off of an 11-5 season and had all those extra picks, including trading one to get Charles Haley.

 

Actually, since the transition was to Steve Young, that was a positive move, IMO. At that stage Young was superior to Montana.

 

2 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Frankly, I don’t like when the national guys are high on the Bills and I don’t like when the national guys aren’t high on the Bills. 

 

 

I just prefer they ignore the Bills, for the most part. I know most others don't agree.

[Beast]

I don't see how the Bills lose the SB since I have them going 23-0 this season.

[gomper]

I like King's work but his insistence of detailing his first class travel schedule is a bit pretentious. Hey Pete, there's a pandemic still raging and plenty of people have had their finances crushed.  Read the room pal.

 

As far as predictions go, he seems to get one team right a year for the SB so full credit to him. It's the week to week predictions that some writers make that are ludicrous. One never knows what each week will bring.  That's a big reason why we love it.

[dave mcbride]

3 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

I think Seattle’s in for a down year. .500 or so, IMO.

They have the qb and the weapons. I think they’re good for 10 wins.

[PatsFanNH]

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Odds are against it no matter how invincible they seem as a Super Bowl rematch happened only once in its 55 year history.  I won't dignify the NFC team who won both games by naming them.  I'd love a Bills vs. Packers Super Bowl.  Two small markets showcased in the stadium that represents everything wrong with the NFL.

Mahomes has only lost 2 times in the playoffs. Both times by Tom Brady.  Basically he been to 2SB and 1 AFCCG in 3 years as a starter. Claiming they will go back isn’t hard to predict especially after they improved their O line.

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

Mahomes has only lost 2 times in the playoffs. Both times by Tom Brady.  Basically he been to 2SB and 1 AFCCG in 3 years as a starter. Claiming they will go back isn’t hard to predict especially after they improved their O line.

The most logical pick is a rematch of last year's Super Bowl because both teams have maintained the majority of their roster.  The same went for a Chiefs/49ers rematch prediction last year at this time.  However, there are so many variables that can derail a team and injuries took out the 49ers last year.  Other variables this season could be strength of schedule that impacts playoff seeding, Covid, a team getting "hot" going into the playoffs, and maybe just the Bucs or Chiefs having one really bad game in the playoffs.  It's possible but unlikely both teams will be back.  

[RobbRiddick]

Don't know if this has already been posted, not read the whole thread, but the analysts on NFL.com have made their picks. Quite a few pick us to lose in the SB and 3 have us winning it

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/super-bowl-lvi-predictions-chiefs-vs-49ers-in-l-a

[Doc]

2 hours ago, The Dean said:

Actually, since the transition was to Steve Young, that was a positive move, IMO. At that stage Young was superior to Montana.

 

Yeah but Steve Young was largely unknown at the time and went 5-5 that (1991) season, splitting time with Steve Bono.  And the Cowboys made the playoffs whereas the 49'ers didn't.

[GunnerBill]

54 minutes ago, RobbRiddick said:

Don't know if this has already been posted, not read the whole thread, but the analysts on NFL.com have made their picks. Quite a few pick us to lose in the SB and 3 have us winning it

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/super-bowl-lvi-predictions-chiefs-vs-49ers-in-l-a

 

Cute that David Carr picks his lil bro every year.

[RobbRiddick]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Cute that David Carr picks his lil bro every year.

 

Yeah that made me laugh, though he didn't mention him in the write up. The scenarios where we lose the super bowl makes me feel sick at the idea of being 0-5 in the big game. I can still feel the pain of those losses

[Rico]

2 hours ago, The Dean said:

 

Actually, since the transition was to Steve Young, that was a positive move, IMO. At that stage Young was superior to Montana.

 

 

 

I just prefer they ignore the Bills, for the most part. I know most others don't agree.

Maybe in the regular season, but certainly not in the post-season. Joe was $, while Young had 1 good year. They should've kept Joe & let him retire as a 49er.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Rico

[HOUSE]

Peter King must have gone back to school, seems smarter this year

[The Dean]

42 minutes ago, Rico said:

Maybe in the regular season, but certainly not in the post-season. Joe was $, while Young had 1 good year. They should've kept Joe & let him retire as a 49er.

 

 

I must have  missed Joe's SB wins in KC. Let me go look...

[The Dean]

I'll help you out. KC, under Montana's leadership, was 2-2 in the playoffs,. ZERO SB appearances.

 

SF, under Steve Young those two years:  4-1 Two SB appearances and one SB Victory.   

 

So, what's all this about playoff performance AT THAT STAGE OF THEIR CAREERS?

 

If you add the year before, when Steve was starting, they were 6-2 in the playoffs with two SB appearances and one SB Win. That's a TERRIBLE playoff performance,. 

 

Edit: Corrected a bad stat

Edited September 6, 2021 by The Dean

[BADOLBILZ]

6 hours ago, Doc said:

Not a real stretch. The transition from Montana had begun for the 49ers, they split with the Redskins the season before, barely losing to them, and they were coming off of an 11-5 season and had all those extra picks, including trading one to get Charles Haley.

 

 

The 1991 Redskins had a point differential of +261.........the 1991 Cowboys were just +32 and had only the 17th ranked defense in the league.    The disparity was MASSIVE and it was still pre-widespread free agency where rookies weren't expected to be huge contributors.

 

Close games within the division were expected and seen as less of a barometer then than even today (and you might recall the eventual 7-9 Patriots had the 13-3 Bills on the ropes at home last season). 

 

The Niners were considered a co-favorite in 1992.........they had a relatively down year(10-6) in 1991 but were +154 and loaded with established talent and were so unconcerned with the Cowboys that they traded them said Charles Haley.

 

The Cowboys were seen as more in the mix with the Lions and Bears than the top of the NFC at that point.

 

It was a bold take by King and was featured on SI promo's for months before camp.......so preceding the Haley acquisition..........even if you are taking a very retrospective angle.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by BADOLBILZ

[Rico]

48 minutes ago, The Dean said:

I'll help you out. KC, under Montana's leadership, was 2-2 in the playoffs,. ZERO SB appearances.

 

SF, under Steve Young those two years:  4-1 Two SB appearances and one SB Victory.   

 

So, what's all this about playoff performance AT THAT STAGE OF THEIR CAREERS?

 

If you add the year before, when Steve was starting, they were 6-2 in the playoffs with two SB appearances and one SB Win. That's a TERRIBLE playoff performance,. 

 

Edit: Corrected a bad stat

Young only took them to one SB, not 2, and I did give him credit for that 1 good year in 1994. The main story of that SB was he finally got the monkey off his back and got the job done. Outside of that year though, you would NOT want him to be your QB in a big game since (unlike Joe) he would never rise to the occasion ... well, he did beat the Packers that one game later on thanks to TO. A great regular season QB much like Marino , though at least he did get a ring. Joe would've also won with the 49ers in 1994 and then retired with 5 rings.

[The Dean]

1 minute ago, Rico said:

Young only took them to one SB, not 2, and I did give him credit for that 1 good year in 1994. The main story of that SB was he finally got the monkey off his back and got the job done. Outside of that year though, you would NOT want him to be your QB in a big game since (unlike Joe) he would never rise to the occasion ... well, he did beat the Packers that one game later on thanks to TO. A great regular season QB much like Marino , though at least he did get a ring. Joe would've also won with the 49ers in 1994 and then retired with 5 rings.

 

 

EVERY playoff game is a BIG game. 

 

And EVERY one of Joe's rings were in the PAST. He was mostly done by then. Young was in his prime.

[Doc]

29 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

The 1991 Redskins had a point differential of +261.........the 1991 Cowboys were just +32 and had only the 17th ranked defense in the league.    The disparity was MASSIVE and it was still pre-widespread free agency where rookies weren't expected to be huge contributors.

 

Close games within the division were expected and seen as less of a barometer then than even today (and you might recall the eventual 7-9 Patriots had the 13-3 Bills on the ropes at home last season). 

 

The Niners were considered a co-favorite in 1992.........they had a relatively down year(10-6) in 1991 but were +154 and loaded with established talent and were so unconcerned with the Cowboys that they traded them said Charles Haley.

 

The Cowboys were seen as more in the mix with the Lions and Bears than the top of the NFC at that point.

 

It was a bold take by King and was featured on SI promo's for months before camp.......so preceding the Haley acquisition..........even if you are taking a very retrospective angle.

 

True, divisional games tend to be close.  The point being the Cowboys showed they could at least split with the Redskins, and they had a slew of 1st and 2nd round picks developing, plus, again, adding Charles Haley to beef-up the defense (Haley was a problem for the 49'ers off-the-field so they had to move him and no one else was offering a 1st rounder).  The Redskins were also believed to have come out of nowhere and just as likely to retreat to nowhere, and that's exactly what happened.

 

The 49'ers weren't viewed that highly because, again, Steve Young didn't show what he would become that season, averaging about 228 YPG and relying on a strong rushing attack and defense.

 

The Lions and Bears were considered flukes and consequently fell off a cliff the following seasons.  I remember those teams well.

 

A bold take would have been predicting the Lions winning the SB.  The Cowboys OTOH were a team loaded with high round talent thanks to the Vikings trade.  The question wasn't whether they'd win a SB: it was whether they could manage to screw it up.