tombonneau

I keep reading everywhere -- here, on other boards, and in the media -- that once upon a time the 2001 Pats were -14 pt dogs to the Greatest Show on Turf. So the Pats better watch out! Now, I'm not saying NYG can't make it a game; they can. But it has nothing to do with the 2001 Pats or 2001 Rams.

1. No one knew the 2001 Pats had a HOF QB & Coach
This is the biggest difference here. Had Brady & BB been who they are now then, the Pats would have not been nearly the underdog they were. Not so with the 2007 Giants. We pretty much know who Coughlin & Eli are. A good not great combo.

2. Rams were overconfident & arrogant; Pats are confident & focused
You could boil this down to the Martz Philosophy vs. the Belichick philosophy. No one on this Pats team will be screaming into the camera "Tonight a dynasty is born!" on the sideline.

3. Pats were "overachieving perennial doormat that caught lightning in a bottle"; Giants are winning franchise that got hot at the right time.
Another big difference. It was easy for the media & Rams to overlook the Pats. They were a cute story, no more. The Giants are a team that has been consistently good and playing sound football. Hell, they just played a great football game vs. NE less than a month ago. They won't be overlooked.

Anyway, just three quick points I wanted to make as to why there really should be no comparison between the 2001 SB and the 2007 SB.

The only similarity IMO is the point spread.

eom

yeah, if we were actually playing the 2001 pats I'd be a little more worried.
giants, not so much.

BoTown

Bump-worthy

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

sanvara

2001 Pats would be killed by 2007 Pats. "The players are so much bigger now."

TheGodInAGreyHoodie

I keep reading everywhere -- here, on other boards, and in the media -- that once upon a time the 2001 Pats were -14 pt dogs to the Greatest Show on Turf. So the Pats better watch out! Now, I'm not saying NYG can't make it a game; they can. But it has nothing to do with the 2001 Pats or 2001 Rams.

1. No one knew the 2001 Pats had a HOF QB & Coach
This is the biggest difference here. Had Brady & BB been who they are now then, the Pats would have not been nearly the underdog they were. Not so with the 2007 Giants. We pretty much know who Coughlin & Eli are. A good not great combo.

Nobody knows if Eli or Coughlin will or will not make the HOF, Eli could turn out to be a great QB who took a little time to get his feet.

2. Rams were overconfident & arrogant; Pats are confident & focused
You could boil this down to the Martz Philosophy vs. the Belichick philosophy. No one on this Pats team will be screaming into the camera "Tonight a dynasty is born!" on the sideline.

Some Patriots fans bring overconfident & arrogant to a whole new level.

3. Pats were "overachieving perennial doormat that caught lightning in a bottle"; Giants are winning franchise that got hot at the right time.
Another big difference. It was easy for the media & Rams to overlook the Pats. They were a cute story, no more. The Giants are a team that has been consistently good and playing sound football. Hell, they just played a great football game vs. NE less than a month ago. They won't be overlooked.

Giants came very close to ending the the run for perfection once, one play difference and they could do pull it off in the next game.

Anyway, just three quick points I wanted to make as to why there really should be no comparison between the 2001 SB and the 2007 SB.

The only similarity IMO is the point spread.

I am a Patriots. And I expect them to win. But the Giants are a solid team that is more than capable of winning.

__________________
Citing the Bible as proof of God is like citing comic books to prove the existence of Superman.

JoeSixPat

That type of arrogance would ensure that we would lose. But we'd win too so I guess it would be ok!

The one thing I would say is that being a 14 point favorite means NOTHING.

The point spread is about betting - its not completely meaningless as many people who know football are putting their hard earned (or not earned) money on a team - but the point spread is just designed to keep near equal money on both teams.

Each team starts at 0-0 come next Sunday and both teams have a fair chance to win.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

snafu

You have to admit that he got that right.

He just got his teams mixed up

tombonneau

Right. I agree. Giants could easily win this game. I think if this game were played in a vacuum and handicappers were designing a neural site point spread based on what they think the final outcome would be (i.e. not set a line with intention of getting 50/50 action on each side) it would probably be Pats -7 or so.

My point is anytime it is brought up that the Pats will win big by someone (a legit point that someone could intelligently argue) almost immediately someone says "yeah well the 2001 Pats were 14 pt underdogs so ..." which is a downright fatuous counter.

Also, re: point #1 above, Eli *could* develop into a HOFer, but what I was really trying to say is right now Eli & Coughlin are more of a known commodity than were BB & Brady.

Brady to Brown

The weather is a big factor in 2007.

The Giants defense has stepped it up over the past 6 weeks. While this cannot be over looked one must remember....

The Patriots offense like all "cold weather" offenses have slowed down over the past 6 weeks.

This game will be a warm weather game. I see at least 40 points for the Pats.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie

The 2001 analogy is not perfect, but works as well as some other famous underdogs such as:

Some ragtag colonists known as the 1776 Patriots vs. the British Empire
David vs. Goliath
'80 US Olympic Hockey team vs. USSR
1948 Israelis vs. the entire Arab world
Seabisket
Ewoks vs. Imperial Stormtroopers

But unlike the others 2001 Patriots as underdogs is the same sport.

__________________
Citing the Bible as proof of God is like citing comic books to prove the existence of Superman.