1066 replies to this topic

[bowiac]

And that's what should happen at this point in the season when you get to conference championship games because all the teams are pretty damn good. These conference championship games looked shitty because you had strong offensive teams matched up against strong defensive teams. Strength against strength and weakness against weakness will lead to what looks like sloppy games but in reality are teams struggling against one another.

Yeah maybe, except muffed punts are (more or less) unforced errors. I'd put Brady's pick into double coverage as a largely unforced error. So was overthrowing Gronkowski on that second drive. Alex Smith throwing at the feet of open receivers without being under huge pressure is an unforced error.

There's sloppy play that's the result of strength vs. strength, and then there's sloppy play. My sense is what we saw on Sunday was more sloppy play than normal, insofar as I noticed more "oh no" plays that didn't seem to be forced by the other team than usual.

[mikeot]

An appreciative piece on the Pats D in today's NY Times.

[dcmissle]

I think FO's numbers are mostly garbage, but what's so crazy about the Patriots having a 61% chance of winning the Super Bowl? That's more or less in line with where the Vegas spread opened. (It's since been bet down to about a 56% chance).

I haven't bet on the Patriots in over a year (last year vs. the Steelers), but if the action keeps coming in at 60% on the Giants and pushes this line down below 3, I may have to.

Does 61% really translate to 3.5? You know more about this than I.

That would be interesting. FO's entry yesterday, which I linked to above, was much about addressing a pretty giant chasm between the way they see the game -- 61% based on Adjusted DVOA -- and how the public sees the game, which I would assume is reflected in the 3.5 spead.

That's why FO went to the trouble of calculating odds based on the "hot streak", which is not a metric they ordinarily would use, and which yields a much closer matchup than 61%.

Why do I think 61% is unreasonable? Because I believe that implies that if these teams were to face off 100 times, the Pats would win 61 of them. I think that's overly optimistic (from my standpoint) by a good margin. I think the teams are pretty evenly matched and the game will be close -- though, as with the Ravens game, I can conceive of blowout scenarios going in each direction.

Put differently, do I think the Giants' shitshow regular season performances that are still reflected in Adjusted DVOA are pretty much irrelevant now? Yup. Thankfully, I feel the same way about the Pats' horrorshow performances in the first halves of weeks 16 and 17, at home against Mia and Buff, with the #1 seed on the line.

Edited by dcmissle, 24 January 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Alternate34]

Yeah maybe, except muffed punts are (more or less) unforced errors. I'd put Brady's pick into double coverage as a largely unforced error. So was overthrowing Gronkowski on that second drive. Alex Smith throwing at the feet of open receivers without being under huge pressure is an unforced error.

There's sloppy play that's the result of strength vs. strength, and then there's sloppy play. My sense is what we saw on Sunday was more sloppy play than normal, insofar as I noticed more "oh no" plays that didn't seem to be forced by the other team than usual.

I'll agree with you there. However, on the larger point of the Ravens being the only team that didn't look like shit, I'd say some of their errors were also unforced. There's the obvious missed field goal, but there is also the less obvious stuff. Flacco's INT was pretty bad. His overthrow of a way wide open receiver also pretty bad considering his strength should be on the long throws. Ehn, probably not really a point that needs to be explored considering we're in general agreement.

[dcmissle]

I'll agree with you there. However, on the larger point of the Ravens being the only team that didn't look like shit, I'd say some of their errors were also unforced. There's the obvious missed field goal, but there is also the less obvious stuff. Flacco's INT was pretty bad. His overthrow of a way wide open receiver also pretty bad considering his strength should be on the long throws. Ehn, probably not really a point that needs to be explored considering we're in general agreement.

Horrible, rather predictable when he plies the middle of the field, and -- but for a Charlie Weisian flight of fancy on Brady's part -- a likely game clincher.

Also, if there were ever an unforcer error -- the chaos prevailing among coaches on the Ravens' sideline certainly fits the description.

[bowiac]

Does 61% really translate to 3.5? You know more about this than I.

With a straight 3.5 point spread, you normally have a moneyline of -175/+155, which translates to a 61%-64% range (with the range being the Vegas vig). At point spread of 3, that range is 57-61%. The current line is a little lower than that even (you need to bet $125 to win $100 on the Giants, as opposed to $100 to win $105 on the Patriots). At that spread, the moneyline being offered is 135/+115, which is a 54%-57% range being offered.

The line is holding steady at 3 so far, but with the juice Vegas is currently asking on the Giants, it's effectively actually somewhere between 2 and 2.5. I don't know why they haven't pushed the line down to 2.5 yet, but I expect they will do so soon. Presumably early volume is just to low to worry about it.

[Super Nomario]

Does 61% really translate to 3.5? You know more about this than I.

Advanced NFL stats (http://community.adv...fferential.html) calculates a 3-3.5 spread as about equivalent to 60% chance of winning.

That would be interesting. FO's entry yesterday, which I linked to above, was much about addressing a pretty giant chasm between the way they see the game -- 61% based on Adjusted DVOA -- and how the public sees the game, which I would assume is reflected in the 3.5 spead.

That's why FO went to the trouble of calculating odds based on the "hot streak", which is not a metric they ordinarily would use, and which yields a much closer matchup than 61%.

Why do I think 61% is unreasonable? Because I believe that implies that if these teams were to face off 100 times, the Pats would win 61 of them. I think that's overly optimistic (from my standpoint) by a good margin. I think the teams are pretty evenly matched and the game will be close -- though, as with the Ravens game, I can conceive of blowout scenarios going in each direction.

Put differently, do I think the Giants' shitshow regular season performances that are still reflected in Adjusted DVOA are pretty much irrelevant now? Yup. Thankfully, I feel the same way about the Pats' horrorshow performances in the first halves of weeks 16 and 17, at home against Mia and Buff, with the #1 seed on the line.

Are you 100% sure that that those poor performances are 100% irrelevant? If those percentages are less than 100%, doesn't it make sense to adjust what looks like a pick-'em game based on the last five weeks with a bump for the Pats' superiority over the bulk of the season?

[Stitch01]

I think FO's numbers are mostly garbage, but what's so crazy about the Patriots having a 61% chance of winning the Super Bowl? That's more or less in line with where the Vegas spread opened. (It's since been bet down to about a 56% chance).

I haven't bet on the Patriots in over a year (last year vs. the Steelers), but if the action keeps coming in at 60% on the Giants and pushes this line down below 3, I may have to.

Completely agree. The Patriots could absolutely lose this game, and there are matchups that favor the Giants, but I think the Pats win this most of the time and dont think its going to take some Herculean game plan or effort to have a shot. If both teams play their best the Pats win this.

The calcuator I found has -3.5 as 64% on the money line, -3 as 59%

Edited by Stitch01, 24 January 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[bowiac]

I have a spreadsheet with every NFL game and point spread since 1978 actually. Even easier to test, which gets rid of the vig range. A 3.5 home favorite wins 61.2% of the time, while the road favorites win 61.4% of the time (remarkably consistent actually). The 3 point favorites win 59.2% and 56.2% of the time respectively (which is an interesting difference actually).

[dcmissle]

Advanced NFL stats (http://community.adv...fferential.html) calculates a 3-3.5 spread as about equivalent to 60% chance of winning.


Are you 100% sure that that those poor performances are 100% irrelevant? If those percentages are less than 100%, doesn't it make sense to adjust what looks like a pick-'em game based on the last five weeks with a bump for the Pats' superiority over the bulk of the season?

I'm 100% sure about nothing. Let's face it, there will be several widely accepted narratives going into this game -- "if the Pats do this, the Giants do that, they'll win" -- that will in all likelihood prove to be inaccuate. Unlike almost all of the 80s and much of the 90s -- pre relatively free player movement and salary cap -- these games tend to be close. You can take very little to the bank and the teams tend to be evenly matched.

In the Giants' case, I'm discounting very heavily. As FO acknowleged yesterday, there has been substantial, late season improvement in their defense (unlike "07, when the late gains came on the other side of the ball). And if you follow some NYG posters in here, you'll note that one or two of them believe that has been fueled by D-line health; yeah, guys might have been active on paper, but they really weren't healthy. I would not expect FO to be down on the nitty gritty of that; knowledgeable fans, yes.

Beyond that, in the case of the Giants, we've seen this movie before: the team plays like crap, needs a stroke of lightning to qualify for the playoffs, but rallies hard and plays well. Hell, we saw it pre-Coughlin, under Fassell. Why? Beats me, but it seems part of their DNA (along with the annual ritual of "Coughlin must be fired.").

Finally, I'm now (finally) persuaded that Eli is elite. Add that to weapons that right now appear uncoverable (except by SF) and I just can't get to the 61%.

[Super Nomario]

I'm 100% sure about nothing. Let's face it, there will be several widely accepted narratives going into this game -- "if the Pats do this, the Giants do that, they'll win" -- that will in all likelihood prove to be inaccuate. Unlike almost all of the 80s and much of the 90s -- pre relatively free player movement and salary cap -- these games tend to be close. You can take very little to the bank and the teams tend to be evenly matched.

In the Giants' case, I'm discounting very heavily. As FO acknowleged yesterday, there has been substantial, late season improvement in their defense (unlike "07, when the late gains came on the other side of the ball). And if you follow some NYG posters in here, you'll note that one or two of them believe that has been fueled by D-line health; yeah, guys might have been active on paper, but they really weren't healthy. I would not expect FO to be down on the nitty gritty of that; knowledgeable fans, yes.

If you read the whole FO NFCCG preview (http://www.footballo...ionship-preview), they tested whether the Giants' performance over the past few weeks can be explained by the improvement in pass rush. The evidence is inconclusive. Even if you think the discrepancy can be 100% explained by the D-line return to health, I think you have to ask why the pass defense was so bad in the regular season, even though the Giants were still #3 in the league in sacks, and whether there's something there that can be exploited by the Pats.

Beyond that, in the case of the Giants, we've seen this movie before: the team plays like crap, needs a stroke of lightning to qualify for the playoffs, but rallies hard and plays well. Hell, we saw it pre-Coughlin, under Fassell. Why? Beats me, but it seems part of their DNA (along with the annual ritual of "Coughlin must be fired.").

Wait, what? Under Fassel? Like 2002 under Fassel? Are you suggesting magic is involved here? I don't think any of the players are the same, they play in a different stadium, etc.

You say "we've seen this movie before." It's not like this is a pattern. They did it once, in 2007. The plural of anecdote is not data, and neither is the singular.

[bowiac]

I think the Jim Fassel stuff clouds the issue. On the one hand, there's a legitimate case that because of health, the Giants are a better team now than they have been over the previous 18 weeks. I take issue with some of that (that we should only use the last 5 weeks, rather than just weighting them more heavily).

But then there's also "this feels a lot like 2007" and "history rhymes" nonsense going on too. That makes it hard to parse the actual case that the Giants should be favored from voodoo.

[dcmissle]

It's not a vodoo thing for me. It's a team playing up to its capabilities thing, which is quite different. And some teams, for whatever reason, don't always do that during the season.

We heard a lot of this stuff about the Ravens -- horrible road team that plays down to the level of its competition and lost to the likes of JAX/SEA/Tenn and so forth. Quite true in the regular season. That was the template for the 30-something to 10 Pats' blowout. Very accurate in the regular season. Irrelevant in two playoff games.

[bowiac]

On a similar note, I was similarly pretty skeptical a few weeks back when people were claiming the Patriots defense was totally different with Spikes and Chung back, but why isn't that as strong a factor in boosting the Patriots defense? Here's Pats Pulpit with a look at what Spikes has correlated to. They're allowing a prorated 13.6 points per game with him there since week 5.

[ragnarok725]

It's not a vodoo thing for me. It's a team playing up to its capabilities thing, which is quite different. And some teams, for whatever reason, don't always do that during the season.

This is narrative, not analysis. It's post-hoc saying that these are their actual capabilities, and they're now playing up to them. These cases look especially good because the teams that show flashes but fail are labelled as inconsistent, but the teams that show flashes and win are living up to their talent level.

We heard a lot of this stuff about the Ravens -- horrible road team that plays down to the level of its competition and lost to the likes of JAX/SEA/Tenn and so forth. Quite true in the regular season. That was the template for the 30-something to 10 Pats' blowout. Very accurate in the regular season. Irrelevant in two playoff games.

How do we know which of these pieces of information is relevant vs. irrelevant? It's as much a narrative as "the Giants d-line is healthy and dominating now".

The off-hand dismissal of advanced stats in this thread would make the main board blush.

[SMU_Sox]

But then there's also "this feels a lot like 2007" and "history rhymes" nonsense going on too. That makes it hard to parse the actual case that the Giants should be favored from voodoo.

There is a difference between seeing similarities between the past and the present and commenting on some of those similarities and being a complete idiot. It's pretty obvious the teams are quite different then they were in 2007. But there are some familiar elements to the matchup. Is it really that bad to reminisce on those similarities as long as you can differentiate between relevant and irrelevant? As far as I know BB has not contacted his mystic yet. I'll be sure to PM you when I can break that news.

FTR there isn't all that much relevant from that matchup I can think of. Is any matchup going to be the exact same? I don't think so. The Giants still have a pass rush - albeit with different players. Justin Tuck is still a force to be reckoned with. Can Solder or Vollmer contain him? Who knows - I doubt it. They will have to find a way to help block him.

Edited by johnlimberakis, 24 January 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[bowiac]

It's not a vodoo thing for me. It's a team playing up to its capabilities thing, which is quite different. And some teams, for whatever reason, don't always do that during the season.

We heard a lot of this stuff about the Ravens -- horrible road team that plays down to the level of its competition and lost to the likes of JAX/SEA/Tenn and so forth. Quite true in the regular season. That was the template for the 30-something to 10 Pats' blowout. Very accurate in the regular season. Irrelevant in two playoff games.

I don't really know what it means for a team to play to its capabilities. If the Patriots play to their capabilities they could win this game by 50. Unless of course then Giants play to their capabilities too, in which they could win close, or lose outright. In other words - unless we know the Giants are going to play to their capabilities, and the Patriots aren't, I'm not sure what that moniker really means.

Do you think the Giants are more likely to play to their capabilities than the Patriots are?

[bowiac]

There is a difference between seeing similarities between the past and the present and commenting on some of those similarities and being a complete idiot. It's pretty obvious the teams are quite different then they were in 2007. But there are some familiar elements to the matchup. Is it really that bad to reminisce on those similarities as long as you can differentiate between relevant and irrelevant? As far as I know BB has not contacted his mystic yet. I'll be sure to PM you when I can break that news.

What I'm commenting on is not people reminiscing about those similarities - that's fine. There are a lot of cute storylines out there, and they're fun. What I'm commenting on is people saying that those prior similarities have predictive value.

In other words - I think a tremendous amount of the analysis of this game has failed to differentiate between the relevant and irrelevant.

[SMU_Sox]

I love cute story lines as a fan. But I agree with you they have absolutely 0 predictive value. And as I said earlier I cannot think of a single matchup that will be the same.

[Hendu for Kutch]

I don't really know what it means for a team to play to its capabilities. If the Patriots play to their capabilities they could win this game by 50. Unless of course then Giants play to their capabilities too, in which they could win close, or lose outright. In other words - unless we know the Giants are going to play to their capabilities, and the Patriots aren't, I'm not sure what that moniker really means.

Do you think the Giants are more likely to play to their capabilities than the Patriots are?

This is the biggest problem I see in people trying to predict this game. They act as if the opponent's performance is set in stone, while only their team's performance has real variability. It's just not the case and it's way too simplistic.

[dcmissle]

I don't really know what it means for a team to play to its capabilities. If the Patriots play to their capabilities they could win this game by 50. Unless of course then Giants play to their capabilities too, in which they could win close, or lose outright. In other words - unless we know the Giants are going to play to their capabilities, and the Patriots aren't, I'm not sure what that moniker really means.

Do you think the Giants are more likely to play to their capabilities than the Patriots are?

No.

It's not terribly complicated. The Giants defense, recently, has played much better than it performed during the great bulk of the season, as noted yesterday by FO:

The dramatic turnaround this year has been the defense. Through Week 15, the Giants' defense ranked 22nd in DVOA. Since then, as noted in the table above, they've played at a level that would have made them one of the top defenses in the league during the regular season.

So which version do you suppose will be showing up? I'd bet on the better version.

Does this mean the Pats' can't meet the challenge and come out on top? Of course not. But it's foolish to ignore that a team, or units of a team, can markedly improve or insist that performance from early in the year is likely to be indicative of how they will play.

That's akin to pretending that Chung and Spikes didn't return and play effectively.

Edited by dcmissle, 24 January 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[bowiac]

But it's foolish to ignore that a team, or units of a team, can markedly improve or insist that performance from early in the year is likely to be indicative of how they will play.

That's where I disagree. I think the performance through Week 15 has relevance, and it's reactionary to solely pay attention to weeks 16-20 in evaluating a team when there's more data available. I agree that the last five weeks are more important than the first five weeks. I don't know if they're more important than the first 15 (I tend to doubt it). I don't know what the right blend is of the first 15 weeks (20%, 50%, 70%?), but I'm pretty confident it's not zero.

Vegas seems pretty confident it's not zero too.

[Shelterdog]

So which version do you suppose will be showing up? I'd bet on the better version.

Why, other than your perpetual insistence that the Pats suck and are doomed?

[dcmissle]

Why, other than your perpetual insistence that the Pats suck and are doomed?

No, because that's the way they've played the past 2 weeks -- against the Packers on the road, no less -- and it's usually wise to expect the other team's best.

EDIT -- Your characterization is off. You'll find posts from me here, before the playoffs began, expressing optimism about how things would turn out if the Pats could nail the #1 seed, and esp if they could avoid Pitts/Bal back to back. I ranked our toughest potential challengers as those two teams and the NYG.

Haven't offered a prediction on this game but I obviously stand with the above.

Edited by dcmissle, 24 January 2012 - 03:50 PM.

[Shelterdog]

No, because that's the way they've played the past 2 weeks -- against the Packers on the road, no less -- and it's usually wise to expect the other team's best.

Well of course the team should prepare for the other team's best but is that we should predict as basement dwelling armchair analysts and prognosticators? The Giants played a lot of good passing offenses in the second half of the season, when they had a pretty healthy squad.

To put it differently, do you think the Pats' defense is going to be the one we've seen the past two weeks that's only giving up 15 points a game? I sure as shit don't.

[Alternate34]

No, because that's the way they've played the past 2 weeks -- against the Packers on the road, no less -- and it's usually wise to expect the other team's best.

EDIT -- Your characterization is off. You'll find posts from me here, before the playoffs began, expressing optimism about how things would turn out if the Pats could nail the #1 seed, and esp if they could avoid Pitts/Bal back to back. I ranked our toughest potential challengers as those two teams and the NYG.

Haven't offered a prediction on this game but I obviously stand with the above.

They sucked against the 49ers. I'll gladly take that Giants team. The defensive line wasn't fantastic. They were blocked adequately most of the time. they did great against the Packers but not against the 49ers.

[jsinger121]

[dcmissle]

To put it differently, do you think the Pats' defense is going to be the one we've seen the past two weeks that's only giving up 15 points a game? I sure as shit don't.

Pointwise, no. But demonstrating improvement -- perhaps even more progress during this 2-week hiatus? Yes, albeit against a much more formidable offense than they have played recently. So the PA may well be higher -- perhaps a lot higher -- but nonetheless reflective of a solid defensive effort.

[Mr Weebles]

I have a spreadsheet with every NFL game and point spread since 1978 actually.

Have you ever actually seen a vagina?

[Stitch01]

I dont know, I dont think teams progressions are that linear and I think there is a ton of variability game to game. I can buy the Giants are healthier than they have been on average this season, therefore should play better.I definitely am not comfortable, for example, drawing a bright line after the Redskins game and saying everything after that is the real Giants team and we should throw out everything before it.

One of the things that makes it tough, IMO, is the vast majority of us dont really have the ability to break down schemes and the adjustments and counteradjustments teams make over the course of a season. Maybe there is something the Redskins did in their game that the Packers or Jets or whoever couldnt do because of scheme, personnel, etc that the Patriots can do. Maybe the Giants recognized something after that game, made some adjustments, and whatever scheme Washington used wont work again.

Given the inherent uncertainty, I would err on the side of taking more data rather than less.

[LESDL]

they did great against the Packers but not against the 49ers.

Aaron Rogers was off after sitting for three weeks. The Packers' receivers dropped a lot of passes they would normally catch in their sleep. If even half of those are caught, different game.

[Zomp]

They won by 17 and the Packers were gifted 14 points. If the refs made the correct calls, different game...bigger blowout.

[Montana Fan]

Anyone speaking about the 49ers and the Pats in the same breath is nuts. The Giants went into Green Bay and beat them at their own game and then went into San Fran and squeaked out a victory there against the toughest team in the league. The comparison for the Patriots is the Packers, they are nothing like the Niners.

This is not to say that the Pats can't win, just that they play like the Saints or Packers.

I think the Giants are 60-40 to win this game. They have a better defense, are a push at ST and have a close to equal offense to the Pats. I'd also give them the coaching edge. Coughlin is very good at halftime and he seems to know Belichick's mind well enough to have outcoached him a few times. And I say that as a Belichick lover.

Mother fucker this Acer Iconia tablet is tough to use when posting on SoSH.

Last point, the Giants have been on 3 very good runs in the last 4 years. The first was the end of the 2007 season, second was during the 2008 season when they beat the final 4 playoff teams in a 6 week stretch and this is the third. However, if they come out flat I could see the Pats jumping all pver them. If the Giants are healthy and play well it is gonna be a tough game for the Pats to win. The Giants are the more talented team.

Edited by Montana Fan, 24 January 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[Mugthis]

They have a better defense, are a push at ST and have a close to equal offense to the Pats.

Yes. No. No.

[Stitch01]

Yeah, the Pats offense is clearly better and the Pats are the more talented team.

Wish I could bet th Pats as underdogs somewhere.

[Super Nomario]

Last point, the Giants have been on 3 very good runs in the last 4 years. The first was the end of the 2007 season, second was during the 2008 season when they beat the final 4 playoff teams in a 6 week stretch and this is the third.

But in 2008, they followed that up by losing four of their last five, including a home playoff loss to the Eagles. That suggests to me that while the Giants may be hot now, that can shift at any time.

[Mystic Merlin]

Push at ST? That's outrageous. That's the kind of shit people say when they either don't know or think it's a distant third in importance to offense and defense.

Pats were 5th per FO; Giants 16th.

Edited by Mystic Merlin, 24 January 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[abty]

But in 2008, they followed that up by losing four of their last five, including a home playoff loss to the Eagles. That suggests to me that while the Giants may be hot now, that can shift at any time.

Esp. when your leading receiver shoots himself in the leg.

Edited by abty, 24 January 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[Adrian's Dome]

And to say Coughlin has a coaching advantage over Belichick is equally as ridiculous.

The Giants have two parts that are superior to NE's: the front four on D, and the WR corps. That's it. Maybe the secondary...if you're feeling generous. Will those two better units be able to overpower the Pats' advantages? Who knows.

[amarshal2]

I'd also give them (NYG) the coaching edge.

There is not a sane non-Giants fan in the world who would agree with you.

[Shelterdog]

There is not a sane non-Giants fan in the world who would agree with you.

I do think we overrate BB. He had been outcoached and he will be outcoached again-it's not like his performance level is static. Coughlin could outcoach him. I doubt it but it could easily happen.

If the Giants are more talented and have a better coach, why where the Pats 13-3 and the Giants 9-7?

[Super Nomario]

Esp. when your leading receiver shoots himself in the leg.

Do you really think that's the difference between winning seven in a row and losing four out of five? One receiver (and one who had done basically nothing in the five weeks previous)?

[amarshal2]

I do think we overrate BB. He had been outcoached and he will be outcoached again-it's not like his performance level is static. Coughlin could outcoach him. I doubt it but it could easily happen.

If the Giants are more talented and have a better coach, why where the Pats 13-3 and the Giants 9-7?

Yes, BB could be out-coached. It's far from impossible and not at all my point.

But he's the better head coach and deserves the advantage in any H2H match-up. Period.

If Coughlin is so good, how come his teams rarely win more than 10 regular season games? How come there was talk about him losing his job 6 weeks ago? BB wins 11 regular season games when the reigning MVP of the league goes down in the first game of the season. I don't need to recite the rest of his record.

[Montana Fan]

Look, I am a Belichick guy and couldn't be more disappointed that the Giants let him get away after the 1990 Super Bowl. I was stroking you guys regarding Coughlin v Belichick but do think that Coughlin has more insight into Belichick's strategy and tendencies than the average coach. Yes, it was 20 years ago when they worked together but they worked together and that provides some insight.

Merlin, I haven't seen all of the Pats or Giants games but do know fersure that the Giant's ST is a ton better than they were last year and in the playoffs have been very good.

Lastly, the matchup is good for the Giants but whoever said that the Giant's run could well be over is sure right. But they are healthy and have been playing well.

See you all in the Jimmy Fund thread.

PS - switched from Chrome to Firefox since last post. Maybe it wasn't the tablet that was a POS.

Edited by Montana Fan, 24 January 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[Mystic Merlin]

BTW, I do want to say that Coughlin should once and for all get some Goddamn slack from the NY media and fans. IMO, he's been one of the best head coaches in football since he took over; despite this, and despite the fact he has already won a Super Bowl, his job security comes under scrutiny seemingly every season, and definitely each of the past three (and in '07 - '08 was an exception).

As a BC guy I've always liked/respected him, and it astonishes me he's so undervalued in his own city.

[dcmissle]

BTW, I do want to say that Coughlin should once and for all get some Goddamn slack from the NY media and fans. IMO, he's been one of the best head coaches in football since he took over; despite this, and despite the fact he has already won a Super Bowl, his job security comes under scrutiny seemingly every season, and definitely each of the past three (and in '07 - '08 was an exception).

As a BC guy I've always liked/respected him, and it astonishes me he's so undervalued in his own city.

That's how they roll in NYC, calling for his head at some point almost every season. Happened to Torre as well, though not to this extent.

A fair criticism is that it took some good ol' fashioned Cowboy dysfunction to keep them off the couch watching these playoffs on tv like most everybody else. But you don't fire the guy for this.

[Tony C]

I think this is one of the funnier parts of this whole "Giants are rolling" meme. They looked pretty terrible in that game to me. Eli miraculously avoided three interceptions, the Giants recovered two muffed punts, had a tuck rule-esque escape on the Bradshaw forward progress fumble, and still barely won. That's football, and the Pats looked equally bad, but it's a funny little part of all this for me.

The only team that didn't look like shit on Sunday was the Ravens.

I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. I thought the Giants did a good job slowing down Gore (though I don't understand why Harbaugh didn't run more, all the same), but there were open receivers a plenty for teh Niners, just not a QB who could get the ball to them. And it's no dishonor to be stuffed by the Niners defense, but stuffed they were all the same -- the offense did very little even after the Niners lost a starting CB.

And, yeah, the Ravens looked like the best team in the NFL last Sunday.

BTW, I do want to say that Coughlin should once and for all get some Goddamn slack from the NY media and fans. IMO, he's been one of the best head coaches in football since he took over; despite this, and despite the fact he has already won a Super Bowl, his job security comes under scrutiny seemingly every season, and definitely each of the past three (and in '07 - '08 was an exception).

As a BC guy I've always liked/respected him, and it astonishes me he's so undervalued in his own city.

The irony is that Rex has been so overrated in the same town -- shows what gets respected in NYC. As much as I hate the Giants for the 2007 win, I respect the team and the coach, one helluva lot.

[Super Nomario]

BTW, I do want to say that Coughlin should once and for all get some Goddamn slack from the NY media and fans. IMO, he's been one of the best head coaches in football since he took over; despite this, and despite the fact he has already won a Super Bowl, his job security comes under scrutiny seemingly every season, and definitely each of the past three (and in '07 - '08 was an exception).

As a BC guy I've always liked/respected him, and it astonishes me he's so undervalued in his own city.

I think Coughlin's a great coach, too, but the scrutiny comes from how the Giants have tended to finish years.

'06 - started 6-2, then lost 7 of their last 9 (including playoffs)
'07 - started 6-2, then went 4-4 down the stretch (though got hot in the playoffs)
'08 - started 11-1, then lost 4 of their last 5 (including a first-round home playoff loss)
'09 - started 5-0, then went 3-8 the rest of the year and missed the playoffs
'10 - started 6-2, then went 4-4 down the stretch to miss the playoffs
'11 - started 6-2, then lost 5 of 6 ...

I'm not saying that's Coughlin's fault, necessarily, but I can appreciate how New Yorkers might have been calling for his head if the Giants hadn't righted the ship week 16.

[bowiac]

Other than better 4th down decision making, I'm not sure Belichick is an especially good in game coach.

I give him more credit for being an excellent architect of the team (which positions to invest in, draft pick trading, new ways to exploit defenses). The complaint towards him in this regard is actually evaluating the personnel, but I tend to think talent evaluation is a bit of a crapshoot.

[Shelterdog]

I think Coughlin's a great coach, too, but the scrutiny comes from how the Giants have tended to finish years.

'06 - started 6-2, then lost 7 of their last 9 (including playoffs)
'07 - started 6-2, then went 4-4 down the stretch (though got hot in the playoffs)
'08 - started 11-1, then lost 4 of their last 5 (including a first-round home playoff loss)
'09 - started 5-0, then went 3-8 the rest of the year and missed the playoffs
'10 - started 6-2, then went 4-4 down the stretch to miss the playoffs
'11 - started 6-2, then lost 5 of 6 ...

I'm not saying that's Coughlin's fault, necessarily, but I can appreciate how New Yorkers might have been calling for his head if the Giants hadn't righted the ship week 16.

There are also two media driven problems in New York:

1.) The media brutalizes anyone who doesn't give access. I think Rex or Tanny give good access, lots of stuff on background or anonymously, and they give good quotes. Tom Coughlin don't care. Tom Coughlin don't give a shit.

2.) The New York media-even more than most-really pumps up how good players are. JPP and Manning and Nicks are all elite but you hear people say things like Bradshaw is a top five back or Bradshaw and Jacobs are the best running back tandem in the league. Every freaking fifth round rookie gets a huge fawning write up in training camp about how awesome they are. If the fans think your average or slightly above average team is the most talented in the NFL and you end up 9-7, who's fault is that? (Answer: the coach who snarls at reporters who don't follow his stupid five minute early rules).

EDIT: Bowiac, any examples of why you are unsure if BB is a good in-game coach? Is it that you don't feel qualified to judge (which is fair, none of us have the all-22 or the knowledge to really judge him independently) or do you have something concrete in mind?

Edited by Shelterdog, 25 January 2012 - 10:07 AM.