[St. Loser Fan]

I blame the 2001 Super Bowl loss on the following 3 factors:

1. The Patriots' game plan, which was likely developed, in part, through cheating.

2. Mike Martz's stubborn refusal to adjust his approach (i.e. run the ball).

3. The refs utilizing a "let them play" approach (later modified when the Patriots basically held the Colts' receivers to a point where even Peyton Manning couldn't complete passes).

You and I don't see eye to eye on a lot things: but on this I can't agree more with you.

[AvengerRam]

2001 super bowl: 3 turnovers to 0, good luck with that.

Yep. That does not help. But even with that disparity, its a 3 point game.

Looking back... I felt pride in 1979/80 when the Rams went toe to toe with a clearly superior Steelers team. I can accept that the Patriots outplayed the Rams in 2018/19. But the 2001 loss... that one still stings.

[aeneas1]

2001 was tough because the rams were such a friggn' turnover machine, they turned the ball over 2 or more times in 12 of their 16 games, and 3 or more times in half of their games, which is just plain crazy... needless to say they led the league in turnovers with a whopping 44 in 2001 - comparatively, last season the league leader in turnovers booked just 32, a dozen less.

and as most know, -3 in turnovers (as the rams were against the pats) is not a recipe for success - the 1999-2001 gsot rams were 1-6 during the regular when -3 or more in turnovers while the rest of the league was 23-175.

did the pats cheat the rams out of the 2001 lombardi? whatever lets people sleep at night i suppose, but the 2001 rams coughed the ball up a ton all season, and it caught up with them in the sb imo.

[Hacksaw]

Keep up the good work guys.

And then they beat us. I despise the Asstros

[moklerman]

2001 was tough because the rams were such a friggn' turnover machine, they turned the ball over 2 or more times in 12 of their 16 games, and 3 or more times in half of their games, which is just plain crazy... needless to say they led the league in turnovers with a whopping 44 in 2001 - comparatively, last season the league leader in turnovers booked just 32, a dozen less.

and as most know, -3 in turnovers (as the rams were against the pats) is not a recipe for success - the 1999-2001 gsot rams were 1-6 during the regular when -3 or more in turnovers while the rest of the league was 23-175.

did the pats cheat the rams out of the 2001 lombardi? whatever lets people sleep at night i suppose, but the 2001 rams coughed the ball up a ton all season, and it caught up with them in the sb imo.

But if they hadn't cheated, would they have been in a position to get the Rams to -3 turnovers. That's the point. The Rams did turn it over a lot during the season but they also cleaned things up once it was do or die. They had 1 and 0 turnovers in that postseason before facing the Patriots.

[snackdaddy]

But if they hadn't cheated, would they have been in a position to get the Rams to -3 turnovers. That's the point. The Rams did turn it over a lot during the season but they also cleaned things up once it was do or die. They had 1 and 0 turnovers in that postseason before facing the Patriots.

The pick six was clearly a penalty by Vrabel hitting Warner pretty hard on the head. A ref was looking right at it. I get that they let them play more in these games. But that one was pretty egregious.

A1 has a point though. Proehl's fumble was the biggest one IMO. That one cost the game. The Rams were the best team in scoring in the final two minutes before the half. They were on the move. That play woulda been a first down. Trailing 7-3 likely woulda been no worse than 7-6 at the half. Possibly up 10-7. Instead we're down 14-3 in a game where refs let defenders grab and hold receivers. It was amazing they actually tied the game in the 4th quarter.

[aeneas1]

unfortunately the 2001 rams were a pez dispenser, they played a couple of -3 (ore more) turnover games during the regular season and lost them both... did the pats cheating cause the rams to be -3 on the day? did the pats cause the most turnover prone team in the league to be -3 on the day? the rams turned the ball over 3 or more times in half of the regular season games they played in 2001 (just let that sink in), but it was the pats cheating that caused them to turn it over 3 times in the super bowl? again, whatever makes it easier for folks to sleep at night i suppose.

[Elvis]

3. The refs utilizing a "let them play" approach (later modified when the Patriots basically held the Colts' receivers to a point where even Peyton Manning couldn't complete passes).

This is my #1 reason right here...

[majik]

That bull crap excuse of “letting them play” is a cop out for spineless referees.

Imagine in baseball an umpire calling every pitch a strike no matter where it was because they want to let them “play the game”.

The mugging that took place in that SB was an embarrassment to the NFL.

[moklerman]

unfortunately the 2001 rams were a pez dispenser, they played a couple of -3 (ore more) turnover games during the regular season and lost them both... did the pats cheating cause the rams to be -3 on the day? did the pats cause the most turnover prone team in the league to be -3 on the day? the rams turned the ball over 3 or more times in half of the regular season games they played in 2001 (just let that sink in), but it was the pats cheating that caused them to turn it over 3 times in the super bowl? again, whatever makes it easier for folks to sleep at night i suppose.

The Rams were 16-2 regardless of how many TO's they had, so it isn't like one can just presume a loss because they had 3+ TO's. By cheating, the Patriots gained an unfair advantage. One that they needed to win the game. For example, the Rams had 3+ TO's against the Patriots earlier in the year, in New England, and still won the game.

It seems like you are the one trying to convince yourself that the Rams would have lost no matter what, so you can sleep better at night. We will never know exactly what they did but Faulk, Warner, et al, were convinced they knew which plays were coming which seemed impossible since many of them were installed just that week.

Knowing which plays are coming is a HUGE advantage. To marginalize that level of cheating by implying that the Rams should have lost anyway doesn't make sense.