The Legend of the Giants roll vs. the pats playing poorly - New England Patriots Forums

Marko · 01-30-2008, 11:22 PM

Here's another example of complete bias and ignorance by the NY driven media. The Giants are on a roll and they're hot because they beat Tampa by 10, the Cowboys by 4 and the Packers by 3. Contrast this to the Pats who are reported to have been playing poorly or almost beaten(JT Lebrick's words) by the Jags who they beat by 11, and the Chargers by 9(could have been more). In two games the Pats outscored their opponents by 20 while the Giants outscored their opponents by 17 in 3 games. Only a NY loving media could construe these results into the Pats playing poorly and the Giants being so hot.

fnordcircle · 01-30-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marko

Here's another example of complete bias and ignorance by the NY driven media. The Giants are on a roll and they're hot because they beat Tampa by 10, the Cowboys by 4 and the Packers by 3. Contrast this to the Pats who are reported to have been playing poorly or almost beaten(JT Lebrick's words) by the Jags who they beat by 11, and the Chargers by 9(could have been more). In two games the Pats outscored their opponents by 20 while the Giants outscored their opponents by 17 in 3 games. Only a NY loving media could construe these results into the Pats playing poorly and the Giants being so hot.

Everything said about the Patriots playing poorly should be understood to be relative to how they were playing for the first part of this year. It's not that they are playing poorly, they merely look human. They are still the consensus best team in the league.

Beyond that you're missing the larger picture - EVERY MEDIA OUTLET IS GOING TO TRY TO BUILD UP THE GIANTS. Why? Because the Giants are the clear underdog and everyone in the media benefits if the public perception is that the Giants have a shot to win because if most fans don't think the Giants have a shot to win they won't pay attention to any of the pregame hype.

It's all about the ratings. Try not to take it personally.

Marko · 01-30-2008, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shula_guy

Im falling off my chair at the OP. Why wouldnt you expect a ny media outlet to be supportive of thier hometown team? Please dont tell me you have a chip on your shoulder over a newyork media outlet supporting a new york based team.

Wow, I'm falling of my chair that you completely missed the point

, which is that their premise is flawed and it renders their argument invalid. They can be as biased as they want but don't tell me that they should base their argument on something that stupid and illegitimate. And fnordcircle, i completely agree with what you say that our expectations are higher, but it still doesn't mean that because the Giants are playing better than they did and the Pats aren't killing people like they did that Giants >Pats. BTW Shula can take the cork from his champagne and stick it.

Marko · 01-30-2008, 11:58 PM

See Dr' Z's prediction giving the Pats the edge in more categories but picking Giants, if you're going to make a pick on sentimentality or a hunch say so but don't used flawed logic to do so.

Ethan 55 · 01-31-2008, 12:02 AM

The oversimplification stems from the fact that each team, relative to their first half performance, has either improved or declined. The Patriots have declined from their first half while the Giants have improved. Therefore, a simple mind thinks that the Giants will win simply because they're on the way up and the Patriots are on the way down. I believe Dr. Z said he always favors the team on the way up.

However, this neglects the starting point of each team. The Patriots started on Mount Everest while the the Giants started at sea level. Even if we've descended 10,000 feet and they've ascended 10,000 feet, we're still 10,000 feet higher than they are right now.

Marko · 01-31-2008, 12:07 AM

ding, ding, ding we have a winner! Based on their logic the 49ers are probably the best team right now because they came from absolute dreck to lower mediocrity befor the end of the season.

DNR · 01-31-2008, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fnordcircle

Everything said about the Patriots playing poorly should be understood to be relative to how they were playing for the first part of this year. It's not that they are playing poorly, they merely look human. They are still the consensus best team in the league.

Beyond that you're missing the larger picture - EVERY MEDIA OUTLET IS GOING TO TRY TO BUILD UP THE GIANTS. Why? Because the Giants are the clear underdog and everyone in the media benefits if the public perception is that the Giants have a shot to win because if most fans don't think the Giants have a shot to win they won't pay attention to any of the pregame hype.

It's all about the ratings. Try not to take it personally.

Finally, the voice of reason from someone who actually "Gets It"

Well said my friend......

***PatsDeb*** · 01-31-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marko

Here's another example of complete bias and ignorance by the NY driven media. The Giants are on a roll and they're hot because they beat Tampa by 10, the Cowboys by 4 and the Packers by 3. Contrast this to the Pats who are reported to have been playing poorly or almost beaten(JT Lebrick's words) by the Jags who they beat by 11, and the Chargers by 9(could have been more). In two games the Pats outscored their opponents by 20 while the Giants outscored their opponents by 17 in 3 games. Only a NY loving media could construe these results into the Pats playing poorly and the Giants being so hot.

Not just the NY media. Dr. Z is trumpeting the Giants on a roll and the Pats as "sinking." (although he may be NY too - isn't he from NJ?) What a joke.

I also don't agree that the Pats have descended as the season went on. When the weather got cold and it was obvious that slinging the ball around for 60 mins. wasn't going to work, they morphed into a more traditional run/pass offense. You don't score as many points, but the result (a "W") is still the same.

DarrylStingley · 01-31-2008, 06:53 AM

I disagree with the ratings comment. That would make sense for those who benefit from high ratings, like Fox and advertisers.

I think it's more about being a contrarian. It's boring to say what most people really think -- the Pats will win big. No one looks smart or insightful if they say that.

One looks like he knows something unique if he predicts a close game or a Giants win. Afterward, if either happens, those prognosticators will look smart.

But Vegas doesn't screw around. 12 is an indication of the prevaling view on this game. And that view is that the Pats will win easy. Always follow the money.

Sicilian · 01-31-2008, 08:57 AM

It comes down to three things to me:

1) The majority of the country doesn't like the Patriots for various reasons. It's the same with A-Rod and the Yankees. We don't like the Yankees, so A-Rod is a bum, despite the numbers, who we'd NEVER want on our team

2) Hype. Ads cost multiple millions of dollars during the Super Bowl because so many people watched LAST YEAR, so they presented a certain number of "eyeballs" to clients this year, saying "This is how many people will watch! Give us cash!" The more who watch, the more they can charge next Super Bowl. They want casual fans to watch, and they're not going to (outside of NE and NY) if they think it's going to be a 21 point blowout.

3) The disappearing prediction phenomenon. If an analyst picks the Pats, and is right, big deal. If he/she picks the Giants, and is right, WOW, they have GREAT football insight! If they're wrong... well, no one ever seems to bring it up. Win win.