Re: Different ideas of "Favorites" I guess

Quote
RFL
I actually don't see why the Rams MIGHT NOT win the ring. I am not saying they can't. They ARE in the conversation.

But, for me, a team needs a kind of competitive toughness that I haven't seen in them yet.

That '99 team had it right away. Those guys new how to take it onto the field and impose their will.

I didn't have that sense last year. They were improved, but too often, they seemed competitively soft.

Adding a couple of players does not necessarily change that. You say, "Imagine how good they would be ..." Well, sometimes, adding a couple players makes a big difference. Often, it doesn't.

In the end, what makes a team a championship FAVORITE instead of a contender, is a killer competitiveness through the team. I don't know if we have that yet, and until we do, we can't be favorites.

As for Vegas, well, fans forget what their goal is. They want to make money on the betting. They are not purely assessing the likelihood of a team winning. They are combining that question with the flow of the money and deciding what odds allows them to keep more than they pay out. Fan hype is always a big part of Vegas odds, and it is often wrong. Which Vegas never forgets.

I just do not believe that a team emerging from 20 years in the wilderness, having 1 good year and stumbling against the best teams, including a bad playoff loss, can possibly be favorites. It cannot have EARNED that status yet.

But remember. I am not predicting we WON'T win the ring. If we do, I will not confess that I was wrong in this post. I am simply saying we have not YET EARNED a legitimate recognition of being SB favorites.

We're probably speaking in different terms. But that's what I mean. I think "SB favorites" should be a weighty category, reluctantly applied. But that's not how many people use it, which is cool.