SB Experience Pats vs. Giants - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFanSince74 · 01-22-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Scum

OK, I'm willing to concede that you Pat fans can be deservedly confident because of the mild success you've had over these last several years.

But you've seen the Giants inspired play over these past few weeks. As confident as you are in your Pats, don't you harbor some concern that this Giant team can come to AZ and snatch this game from your guys?

whoa there. my point wasn't that we are confident but that we all remember the bad days and don't take a single game, let alone a Superbowl game, for granted.

SunnyDenmark · 01-22-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Scum

.
GREAT POINT!
.
It wasn't till the third 7/11 that I knocked over before I actually got away with it.
.

Are you Superman? Maybe next time don't wear the costume and cape and then you won't get recognized and get caught!

DonBlackmon55 · 01-22-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradmahn

Those statistics mean absolutely nothing.

How much experience did the Steelers of '05 have because of the championship teams in the seventies?

Once more. READ what the response says.....

FIRST TIME SB TEAM VS. EXPERIENCED SB TEAM. 2005 Steelers Team played vs Seahawks. BOTH first timers.

2000 Giants vs 2000 Ravens ......BOTH First timers
1999 Rams vs 1999 Titans.......BOTH First timers.

get the point ?

DonBlackmon55 · 01-22-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradmahn

The aggregate W/L record is a completely misleading statistic.

This is the Giants fourth Super Bowl, second in the last eight years, yet they are inexperienced. Again, did you add the Steelers most recent win into the winning percentage? What does the experience the Broncos gained from losing in the seventies have to do with their wins in the '90s?

The Bills went to four in a row, yet the experience didn't help them. The Cowboys, Vikings, and Broncos in the seventies? All went to multiple Super Bowls and lost more than they won (including the Cowboys).

Super Bowl experience does not mean anything more than having an idea as to what to expect in the lead up and length of the game. It does not win games (and your statistics paint the picture that you believe it does).

I just saw your most recent post. Regardless of what you are arguing, the use of those "facts" is wrong. The win/loss percentage of teams that have played in more than five Super Bowls means nothing unless all of those games played occurred in some presupposed time frame that shows that more players than not were on the same Super Bowl teams. I also think that those wins and losses have way more to do with the quality of teams than it does the experience, otherwise the Broncos would have beat the Giants in '86 and the Rams would have beat the Pats in '01. You can run down the lists of Super Bowl champions who beat franchises that had already been there.

You really are clueless if you start to compare 77 Broncos vs 80's or 90's Broncos. Do you even understand what exactly is being discussed ?

EACH ERA or Teams run is being compared ! The same players who played on the Steelers of 75-79 did not show up in 1996 or 2005 Steeler SB team.

Yea this is Pats 6th SB, but do you see anyone btinging up Raymond Berry or Eason ? Geeeesh.

bradmahn · 01-22-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonBlackmon55

You really are clueless if you start to compare 77 Broncos vs 80's or 90's Broncos. Do you even understand what exactly is being discussed ?

EACH ERA or Teams run is being compared ! The same players who played on the Steelers of 75-79 did not show up in 1996 or 2005 Steeler SB team.

Yea this is Pats 6th SB, but do you see anyone btinging up Raymond Berry or Eason ? Geeeesh.

I suggest you work on reading comprehension before you attack someone else's posts.

Quote:

If you look at the eight teams that have gone to five SB's (five teams), six SB's (two teams) or eight SB's (one team), their combined record in those games is 28--17 (.622).

Those statistics represent all eras. That was my contention.

Reading is fundamental.

get the point?

***PatsRule*** · 01-22-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Scum

OK, I'm willing to concede that you Pat fans can be deservedly confident because of the mild success you've had over these last several years.

But you've seen the Giants inspired play over these past few weeks. As confident as you are in your Pats, don't you harbor some concern that this Giant team can come to AZ and snatch this game from your guys?

Mild success, 4 Superbowl appearences 3 wins and most likely 4 in 7 years.
You consider that mild,ya ok.

***PatsRule*** · 01-22-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotphin

Actually, I believe that the Pats had 9 holdovers from Superbowl XXXI. I don't know if there were any others with experience or not. I think that SB experience does play a factor in the game, but is often overrated.

The Giants have some players with SB experience.
Zack Diossie was a ball boy with New England in 2004's superbowl team.

neuronet · 01-22-2008, 10:27 PM

Why is the super bowl so long? More TV time outs?

VJCPatriot · 01-22-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neuronet

Why is the super bowl so long? More TV time outs?

Big pregrame celebration to hype it up, huge 30 minute halftime show, and yes more commercials. Very expensive commercials, which make it a very profitable event for all concerned. So yeah it's a long game.

I think the experience factor is a good thing for the Pats, but they won't count on it as giving too much of an edge. I think they will focus on doing their JOB, which is beating the Giants.