isn`t it amazing how many great qb`s falter if their complimentary back goes down.....ravens offense absolutely abysmal without jamal lewis....culpepper looked mediocre without robert smith....colts offense was still good,but how much did peyton manning`s game suffer without edgerrin james?favre`success linked with dosey levens and now ahman green....garrison hearst comes back strong and look how much better jeff garcia looks.maybe antowain smith`s excellent season has a little more to do with pats success than we realize....marino always put up great stats but never won the big one(and never really had a great complimentary back).....we`ve seen numerous super bowl teams win with mediocre qb`s but for the most part,they`ve all had very profficient running games.doug williams,mark rypien,trent dilfer and many other instances of mediocre qb`s making a run with good rb`s as the main focus.not dismissing the defenses involved,just think that the rams emergence and great passing game may have one helluva lot more to do with marshall faulk than warner.i really think rams could have made the super bowl with a decent qb,but don`t think they would have made had faulk gone down early ala e. james.trung(fumble)canidate was ok for a few games but for a whole season?i don`t think so....just think great running games have more to do with great passing stats(not vice-versa). my point is,the pats must stop faulk.in the first game they were right in the game despite 400+ passing yards for warner(pats fumbled on ram one yard line or this would have been even closer)...gotta think belichick knows this.let your solid corners play physical with smallish ram receivers,pressure warner if you can,but you must stop faulk.
