2011 NFL Season - A New Game
- Thread starter SmoothieX
- Start date
- Status
I may not even watch the game. Might go to the movies instead.
Not to rub salt in old wounds Smoothie, but if Eli's O-line gives him the protection, you might see them resorting to what happened in the Steelers/Pats match-up..and we know who won that one...
Ok, Steelers won a regular-season game (and recall it being close). How many times did the Pats knock the Steelers out of the playoffs? In your home stadium? Or could just remind you that you lost to TEBOW, who the Pats then demolished. How's that salt?
And instead of trying to imagine a scenario for the Giants' O-line, how about just saying that if their O-line protects Eli as well as it did last game, he's likely to die on the field? They couldn't stop a rush from ME, much less a defensive lineman last week.
Then again, the Giants only barely qualified as a team over .500.
And a hell of a don't ice the kicker move from Lord Belichick. And Sterling Brown.
If you were hot all year, just squeaked into the playoffs, dodged the injury bug, or got lucky at a few key moments, it doesn't matter at this point.
Maybe the Pats will blow the doors off the place, maybe the Giants will rattle Brady again and take advantage of their suspect D, maybe it will come down to a kick or penalty late. Should be a great game with lots of interesting story lines.
Aww fuck it, I hope the Pats win 38-0 and the Giants bus breaks down.
Based on final rankings, can't argue that fact. Suppose could argue that most of the teams that finished .500 or under were OVER .500 when we beat them, but don't suppose you're really looking at the statistic as meaningful, just a way to try and downplay the Pats. Several of those teams were winning teams when we played them, or on hot streaks tha we stopped. Didn't make the schedule, it is what it is.
Other point to argue there is that the Pats didn't choke and lose to teams that were bad, they won the games they should have won, and only losses were to other winning teams. And of the losses, seem to recall all 3 being tight games, and coming down to the wire.
Funny how those kind of stats only matter when putting down one team, shouldn't be applied to the other, or hand-waved away.
Ok, Pats didn't beat teams with winning records, outside of Baltimore in the playoffs. What does that tell you? Not a ton.
Giants LOST to:
Washington (5-11)
Seattle (7-9)
Philly (8-8)
Washington again (so 2 of those 5 wins were against the Giants)
Plus lost to 3 teams with over .500 records (Green Bay, Saints, 49ers)
So, Giants lost to 3 teams over .500 as well, and ALSO threw in 4 losses to teams UNDER .500, games they should have won. Isn't that statistic more telling than the one being brought against the Pats?
Not saying it has much bearing on Sunday, just saying that it's dumb to try and trot that out against the Pats without realizing the same numbers make the Giants look even worse.
Not to rub salt in old wounds Smoothie, but if Eli's O-line gives him the protection, you might see them resorting to what happened in the Steelers/Pats match-up..and we know who won that one...
Ok, Steelers won a regular-season game (and recall it being close). How many times did the Pats knock the Steelers out of the playoffs? In your home stadium? Or could just remind you that you lost to TEBOW, who the Pats then demolished. How's that salt?
And instead of trying to imagine a scenario for the Giants' O-line, how about just saying that if their O-line protects Eli as well as it did last game, he's likely to die on the field? They couldn't stop a rush from ME, much less a defensive lineman last week.
WOW! Must have struck a nerve there!!
That's kinda what I meant. I mean, they played the Jets twice (losing record), but the jets were 2-2 and 5-3 (coming off a 3-win run) the two times they beat them.
Bills were 2-0 our first game (bills won), and were 5-2 before the wheels came off.
Chargers were 1-0, and aside from losing to the Pats, were on an early-season run. 4-1 (pats), then fell apart for a while.
Oakland was 2-1. One of 4 or 5 of the .500 teams the Pats beat, although doesn't count as 'above', which is why the stat is being used like that.
Denver finished 8-8, but crapped themselves the last couple games. 8-5 when we played them.
Anyway, not arguing for extra credit for getting the wins they were SUPPOSED to win, but just arguing that trying to diminish those wins by calling all their opponents crappy sub-.500 teams doesn't really reflect the reality of the opponents at the time the games were played.
I mean, if the Colts had had Peyton for game 1, and the Pats had lost to them, and then Peyton had gotten hurt and the Colts lost the next 15, saying they lost to a 1-15 team would be accurate, but doesn't really tell the story, does it?
Bills were 2-0 our first game (bills won), and were 5-2 before the wheels came off.
Chargers were 1-0, and aside from losing to the Pats, were on an early-season run. 4-1 (pats), then fell apart for a while.
Oakland was 2-1. One of 4 or 5 of the .500 teams the Pats beat, although doesn't count as 'above', which is why the stat is being used like that.
Denver finished 8-8, but crapped themselves the last couple games. 8-5 when we played them.
Anyway, not arguing for extra credit for getting the wins they were SUPPOSED to win, but just arguing that trying to diminish those wins by calling all their opponents crappy sub-.500 teams doesn't really reflect the reality of the opponents at the time the games were played.
I mean, if the Colts had had Peyton for game 1, and the Pats had lost to them, and then Peyton had gotten hurt and the Colts lost the next 15, saying they lost to a 1-15 team would be accurate, but doesn't really tell the story, does it?
WOW! Must have struck a nerve there!!
Just thought I'd interrupt your attempted dig at the Pats fans with a little reminder that the Steelers got Tebow'ed this year in the first round, and that most of the Steelers' recent 'old wound' involve the Patriots inflicting them. In Pittsburgh
Not sure why you think you said something innocent and are shocked anyone responded though, you STARTED the post by admitting you were going to rub salt in a wound... That, and pointing out that the thing you were predicting to be most likely (Giants O-line keeping Eli upright) was by FAR the thing the Giants failed at the most spectacularly a week ago. Eli was beaten like he owed the 49ers money all game. To his credit, he took his beatings and managed to still throw the ball and pick himself out of the mud pretty well. Best player in the AFC championship was Wilfork, hoping he can keep that stat going...
Last edited:
Scout101;5736238 Best player in the AFC championship was Wilfork said:
Offensively, you're referring to the 2 picks that San Fran would have had, could the DBs stop crashing into each other? If on even ONE of those two, one guy doesn't clean out the guy making the easy pick, you're not talking about the Giants at all right now.
Just pointing out with the Wilfork thing that the best thing the Pats have going right now happens to play into the giants' weakness. The Giants O-line kinda sucks...
Just pointing out with the Wilfork thing that the best thing the Pats have going right now happens to play into the giants' weakness. The Giants O-line kinda sucks...
Not really a fair argument, because I would have EASILY picked the 49ers over the Patriots. The fact that NYG was able to go into both Green Bay and San Fran and beat both of those very very very good teams hopefully says something about the NYG.
If Baltimore scores in the AFC Championship game with less than 19 seconds on the clock, we wouldn't be talking about the Patriots right now, either.
If Baltimore scores in the AFC Championship game with less than 19 seconds on the clock, we wouldn't be talking about the Patriots right now, either.
And if Kyle Williams doesn't fuck up multiple times, we probably aren't talking about the Giants in the Superbowl either.
It goes both ways, but for some reason the only thing anyone ever talks about is the breaks the Patriots got, but the Giants got there because of how great of a 9-7 team they are.
Uh, duh. I was responding to Scout101, where he outlines several "breaks" the Giants got to win that game. That's why my post says if it weren't for mistakes, we wouldn't be talking about the Patriots, either.
But I wasn't the one trying to point out one side and ignore the other. I was countering a point about Eli having tons of time in the pocket and playing great lately...
Outside games like the Pats/Denver beatdown, MOST games come down to a couple plays here or there. One goes the other way, could be the game. For example, if Eli had been called for the sack when he was stood up in 2007, or the pretty bad holding on that play by the o-line, or if Rodney had tried to knock the ball loose rather than beat Tyree into the ground and get him to drop it that way, or if Samuel had caught the ball that was a friggin' easy lob into his hands; this game Sunday might have a different tone. Despite how the memory of that event is the Giants mandhandling the Pats, it was about a minute from being a Pats win anyway, and they had a dozen things not go their way in that last minute. Any one of them would have won them the game.
Any Given Sunday, and all that.
Outside games like the Pats/Denver beatdown, MOST games come down to a couple plays here or there. One goes the other way, could be the game. For example, if Eli had been called for the sack when he was stood up in 2007, or the pretty bad holding on that play by the o-line, or if Rodney had tried to knock the ball loose rather than beat Tyree into the ground and get him to drop it that way, or if Samuel had caught the ball that was a friggin' easy lob into his hands; this game Sunday might have a different tone. Despite how the memory of that event is the Giants mandhandling the Pats, it was about a minute from being a Pats win anyway, and they had a dozen things not go their way in that last minute. Any one of them would have won them the game.
Any Given Sunday, and all that.
And the Patriots have a similar history of close wins that are regarded as dominating performances:
Super Bowl XXVI: Patriots beat the Greatest Show on Turf by a field goal on a last second kick from 48 yards. It took the "Tuck Rule" to even advance to that game in the first place.
Super Bowl XXVII: Patritos beat the fucking Carolina Panthers by a field goal on a last second kick from 41 yards.
Super Bowl XXXIX: Patriots win AGAIN by only 3 points, but this time because McNabb is absolutely inept as a quaterback in the 4th quarter. I hate the Eagles almost as much as I hate the Patriots, so this was a tough game for me to watch.
I've decided to just root for my board numbers. Unfortunately I have a 5 or a 9 on nearly every board and pull ticket I put money on. The odds of winning back some of the $540 I put in looks pretty slim.
I'm just happy that it's going to suck to be a JETS fan no matter what this weekend. Either your hated division rival wins, or they have to realize yet again that they are the redheaded stepchild of NYC, and that the city loves the Giants more. And can't even walk around to cool off, everyone's partying if they win.
So, at least there's that no matter what.
So, at least there's that no matter what.
- Status