I don’t know. Neither team played that great. It’s not like they played anything like the Patriots. Whenever I watch other teams, I’m always disapointed… they just don’t come close to the Pat’s powerful pursuit of perfection.
People are already saying that this will be one of the highest rated superbowls ever, mainly because of the fan base of both teams…but frankly, I foresee a bloody carnage that will be tearfully boring by the third quarter.
To be fair, the Pats didn’t exactly sparkle - or perhaps I should say Brady. To his credit, he stepped up and played a very solid 4th quarter (7 of 7 passing). Contrast this with Favre’s stinkbomb, and it’s no surprise who is and isn’t moving on to the SB.
sure it will be highly rated. do you recall the high ratings for their game a few saturday nites ago? I believe there were like 35 million viewers, and it was broadcasted on 3 channels. I just think the Giants are given too much credit for what I see as a mediocre team. It’s that damn manning factor. It’s like the media has a real hard-on for the mannings. And they don’t give Brady/Belichick the glory they deserve.
Well, come on. That’s his M.O.
I heard a guy today (disgruntled Packers’ fan, I think) saying that the Giants didn’t really excel in either the Dallas or Green Bay games. They were content to play solid, unspectacular, mostly error-free football (ignoring a couple of missed field goals) and take advantage of faltering opponents at the end of each game.
Is this valid, or just the grousing of a fan whose favored team lost?
Yes, it’s called Championship Football (I am a disgruntled Packers fan).
Awww, don’t worry…the Giants aren’t going to stomp them that badly…
Nary a comment on my beloved Chargers, who did a lot better than anyone expected 
:eek: , which makes their complete inability to deliver the goods when it counted that much more frustrating 
:smack: :smack: . The Pats are unquestionably the better team, but they didn’t beat San Diego yesterday. The Bolts beat themselves.
Ok, a comment on my ex-beloved Chargers: Philip Rivers played yesterday on a “totally gone” ACL. That’s guts.
Actually, it’s STUPID. He threw at least one interception, IIRC, that can be directly attributed to his inability to step onto that leg properly.
Frankly, they should have gone to the “other guy” in the second half. Having suffered through the stupidity that was letting Favre play several games with a broken thumb a few years back, and getting the deserved result, I am a firm believer that you don’t rely upon “stars” whose injuries demonstrably limit their ability to perform.
That can be said of some games, but not of that one.
They didn’t have the huge turnovers. The difference was that the Patriots shut them down in the red zone, and not vice-versa, and then the Partiots were able to grind away the clock to remove all doubt at the end of the game.
It’s not so much grousing as an honest assessment.
He’s not saying the Giants stunk, or that the better team lost.
GB and Dallas have each looked better this year than either game against the Giants. The Giants have looked unspectacular, but solid. That’s more than can be said of a lot of teams.
Eli Manning was 21 of 40, for a whopping 254 yards. That is hardly “accurate.” What he didn’t do is throw interceptions, which is the sole reason he was better than Favre (who was 19/35, a better percentage, for 236 yards, a better average).
And this points out that the real difference between the teams was the running games. The G-men managed 134 yards of rushing on 39 attempts; the Packers managed a measly 28 yards on their 14 attempts. This, ladies and gentlemen, represents the difference in the game. It kept the Giants offense on the field more, it sustained their drives better (the Packers, recall, managed no drives of over 40 yards (the 90-yard completion is not a “drive” just a wonderfully beautiful, but lucky and non-repeatable score ) and only one drive of more than 6 plays (which finished in a field goal)).
In short, the Packers on offense were inept and woeful, and if it hadn’t been for three fortuitous turns of events (the interception cum fumble and the long scoring pass), wouldn’t have even been in the game. And most of that blame cannot be laid on Brett Favre, who was not demonstrably worse than Eli Manning (except for that last interception). The blame goes directly to the Packer coaching staff.
Hamlet, this is in direct contrast to their game plan against Seattle. In that game, they started with a swing pass to their running back (a sweep by pass, I call it), then two straight running plays the next possession. Then the next possession, they ran on the second play of the possession. In short, against Seattle, you didn’t see deception, trickery, misdirection, etc. You saw a good, honest effort to set up a running game, utilizing a back who had demonstrated his competence for them the whole final half of the season. Where did that go against the Giants?
And Hamlet, you talk about early in the season? Here are the plays in the first possession of the game in week two against the Giants: run, run, pass, run, pass, run, pass, run, run, run. They ran 29 times that game. Yes, they only gained 83 yards, but the point is that a good passing game in the NFL usually requires that you establish the willingness to run, just to keep the defense honest about having to defend against it. It worked in week 2; again, it was ABSENT in week last-and-losing.
Packer coaching staff got beat in their heads before they ever let the team walk onto the field, deciding that they had no chance of establishing a running game. So they never tried. As a result, they were relying upon their quarterback to deliver in a playoff game played in -24 wind chill with a healthy breeze blowing. It was a stupid, fatal decision. The fact that the opponents demonstrated just how stupid and fatal it was by executing the exact game plan the Packers should have attempted only adds salt to the wounds. :mad:
What Eli’s statistics don’t reflect, in my estimation, is the number of drops the Giants had and the number of balls Eli threw away. Also, Eli did a great job putting the ball high for Burress, and putting it on the back shoulder of many receivers, as well as keeping it away from the DB. Favre, on the other hand, did none of those things. If you take away one play, his TD to Driver, Favre threw for 146 yards the whole frickin game. The statistics in this game don’t reflect much of how they played, even if you cut out the int’s.
Yes the running game, and the commitment to the running game, were huge also.
The offense’s woes go beyond just one man, of course. But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think Favre wasn’t outplayed by Manning.
I’m not sure what your problem with my post is. I pointed out that the coaching staff made mistakes by not running the ball more, and that they didn’t make any adjustments after their initial gameplan wasn’t working. They should have run the ball more. No argument. But that is nowhere near the only reason they lost. But relying heavily on your ProBowl quarterback is not a horrible starting gameplan. But refusing to adjust the gameplan after it fails repeatedly IS the problem.
Crap.
Tom Brady been spotted today limping on his right foot, which is in a walking cast.
NOOOOO!!! :eek: 