Why the Giants have virtually no shot to win the Super Bowl

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The reason behind the Giants getting virtually no chance to win is based on Super Bowls of the past 37 years regarding Defense allowing points and Offense scoring points as statistics show in the regular season prior to the SB

If you look at Super Bowls since the 1970 Merger there have only been 8 teams that have won the Super Bowl that have NOT had both the offense and defense BOTH ranked in the top 10 in the regualr season - It is rare when a team does not rank in the top 10 in both offense and defense and wins such as the only teams to do so since the 1970 merger as follows...

The only 8 teams 37 years to have won the Supr Bowl without being top 10 in offense and defense but has had at least 1 of offense or defense ranked in the top 10

1976 - Raiders 4th on offense 12th in defense
1982 - Redskins 12th in offense 1st in defense
1983 - Raiders 3rd in offense 13th in defense
1990 - Giants 15th in offense 1st in defense
2000 - Ravens 14th in offense 1st in defense
2002 - Bucs 18th in offense 1st in defense
2003 - Patriots 12th in offense 1st in defense
2006 - Colts 2nd in offense 23rd in defense

Now the reason why the Giants need a miracle to win based on these facts is that this year the Giants are NOT in the top 10 in offense OR defense,they are ranked 14th in offense and 17th in defense and have one of the worst combined rankings in Super Bowl history which means the Giants have to do something no other team in NFL history has done before and win with those rankings -

Thats 0-37 folks - even though its just stats and things can happen,an 0 for 37 stat does not bone well for the G-mens chances next sunday.

In fact I don't think it will be close and don't forget New England has not had a close game when the temperature was above 50 as thier last blowout was in the final week of October when the temps got a bit colder thus the games got closer.

Expect a blowout and a boring super bowl next sunday- Boring for non-patriots fans that is...:rocker:

 

[SavioKid]

What are the PATS rankings this year?

 

[Watson's IQ]

I think there are a good number of reasons the Patriots should win, and I believe they will, but this is not one of them.

This factors in games early in the season, which may or may not be completely meaningless when it comes Super Bowl time. Do an analysis of how teams were playing coming down the stretch (including the playoffs) and then present that. I think there is something to the adage "hot at the right time", however I do do also believe superior talent should win out (see 2007 World Series)

 

[NEPatriot]

When you give BB 2 weeks to prepare and you have TB in your team on a beautiful and warm Sunday, you are asking for forgiveness.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The patriots rank #1 in offense and 4th in defense points allowed this season meaning they are more than qualified among the majority of SB champions

If those stats mean anything then the Giants may be one of the worst teams in terms of offense and defense to ever play in Super Bowl history

This all adds up to smell like blowout city

The Patriots with those 2 rankings are in the top 3 best ranked of all teams ever as a SB participant.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I think there are a good number of reasons the Patriots should win, and I believe they will, but this is not one of them.

This factors in games early in the season, which may or may not be completely meaningless when it comes Super Bowl time. Do an analysis of how teams were playing coming down the stretch (including the playoffs) and then present that. I think there is something to the adage "hot at the right time", however I do do also believe superior talent should win out (see 2007 World Series)

You can say that stats are emaningless or stuff like that but 0 for freaking 37 is something that is hard to ignore

Its like rolling dice 37 times and not coming up once with the number you pick from 2 to 12

 

[PonyExpress]

I believe the Pats will win the SB by a wide margin. However, when 2 teams face each other in the regular season in a game decided by 7 points or less, and then have a rematch in the SB, the team that lost the regular season game has won the SB rematch 6 out of 7 times. The only exception is the 1986 Broncos, who lost to the NYG by 3 and then lost the Sb 39-20, despite leading at halftime.

IOW, the NYG gain an advantage by having played the Pats close in the regular season. That advantage mitigates against any other statistical "rules" governing winning and losing the SB.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I believe the Pats will win the SB by a wide margin. However, when 2 teams face each other in the regular season in a game decided by 7 points or less, and then have a rematch in the SB, the team that lost the regular season game has won the SB rematch 6 out of 7 times. The only exception is the 1986 Broncos, who lost to the NYG by 3 and then lost the Sb 39-20, despite leading at halftime.

IOW, the NYG gain an advantage by having played the Pats close in the regular season. That advantage mitigates against any other statistical "rules" governing winning and losing the SB.

While that stat you posted is interesting, I will take the 0-37 streak over a 6 out of 7 anytime

 

[NEPatriot]

Everybody expected Giants to loose in the last 4 weeks and they proved everybody wrong. Eli suddenly plays better than his brother. Who would figure that.? I guess a collected phone call from his brother, PM, helped him get better.

BB and TB will remind Giants about pats.

 

[Watson's IQ]

You can say that stats are emaningless or stuff like that but 0 for freaking 37 is something that is hard to ignore

Its like rolling dice 37 times and not coming up once with the number you pick from 2 to 12

Man, that is the last thing in the world that I was saying. My point was that stats accumulated very early on in the season have little bearing on what's going to happen on the field in February.

Early in the season, the Giants were getting lit up like a Christmas tree, but their defense has substantially improved.

Early in the season, the Patriots were blowing everyone out, and as the season went on their games got closer.

I'm not saying I think the Giants are as good as the Pats, because they aren't, and I don't think it close. I'm just trying to point out that looking at rankings for the whole season are almost irrelevant when trying to analytically discuss the matchup. To say that what I said was "stats are meaningless" is the worst possible misinterpretation of my point.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Everybody expected Giants to loose in the last 4 weeks and they proved everybody wrong. Eli suddenly plays better than his brother. Who would figure that.? I guess a collected phone call from his brother, PM, helped him get better.

I think the Giants have an excellent but under the radar coaching staff,In time even the worst QBs should improve......

 

[BelichickFan]

I believe the Pats will win the SB by a wide margin. However, when 2 teams face each other in the regular season in a game decided by 7 points or less, and then have a rematch in the SB, the team that lost the regular season game has won the SB rematch 6 out of 7 times. The only exception is the 1986 Broncos, who lost to the NYG by 3 and then lost the Sb 39-20, despite leading at halftime.

IOW, the NYG gain an advantage by having played the Pats close in the regular season. That advantage mitigates against any other statistical "rules" governing winning and losing the SB.

Unless someone can give a viable, scientific explanation for that, I fail to see any "advantage" gained and consider it to be a statistical anomaly based on a small sample size.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Unless someone can give a viable, scientific explanation for that, I fail to see any "advantage" gained and consider it to be a statistical anomaly based on a small sample size.

Agreed 100%. If two teams make the Super Bowl, they are both QUALITY teams, regardless of whether they played during the regular season. 7 games is not nearly a large enough sample to say anything definitive about that, and even if you wanted to a far better case would need to be made than simply telling us who won.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Unless someone can give a viable, scientific explanation for that, I fail to see any "advantage" gained and consider it to be a statistical anomaly based on a small sample size.

I agree - I think that when a stat has a large 0 for... its to be respected as something that may be near impossible to do but when you say 6 out of 7 its been done before and is not so remarkable as an 0 for streak that has gone unbeaten for more than 3
decades

 

[Watson's IQ]

I agree - I think that when a stat has a large 0 for... its to be respected as something that may be near impossible to do but when you say 6 out of 7 its been done before and is not so remarkable as an 0 for streak that has gone unbeaten for more than 2 decades

Okay, since you're the one who brought up the research in the first place..

How many other teams which weren't in the top 10 in offense OR defense have ever PLAYED in the Super Bowl? Also, are you just measuring by OYPG and DYPG, or are you factoring in other measures as well, because there are far more efficient numbers by which to measure offensive and defensive success.

Let's see your numbers.

 

[Grogan's neck roll]

Okay, since you're the one who brought up the research in the first place..

How many other teams which weren't in the top 10 in offense OR defense have ever PLAYED in the Super Bowl? Also, are you just measuring by OYPG and DYPG, or are you factoring in other measures as well, because there are far more efficient numbers by which to measure offensive and defensive success.

Let's see your numbers.

Based on what I saw on nfl.com he was just referring to scoring offense and scoring defense.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

I am as biased as the next Pats fan but this is a pretty interesting statistic and shouldn't be discounted. Yes, anything can happen and the Giants have a chance to win but, there must be a reason why NO team has ever won a superbowl (since the merger) without ranking in the top ten in either offense or defense and that only 22% (8 of 37) have won without having had both units ranked in the top ten.

BTW PFinPA, where did the 2001 team rank? I could've sworn they were not in top ten in either category that year.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Based on what I saw on nfl.com he was just referring to scoring offense and scoring defense.

Well, that's not typically how defensive and offensive ranks are calculated, I believe the standard is by yards per game. But there are even better stats than that by which to evaluate efficiency on both sides of the ball (yards per point, for example).

If we want to have a discussion with stats, I'm MORE than open to it, my issue was that cherry picking stats to make your point is not really worth discussing. I'd be much more interested in seeing how the teams are playing NOW, rather than how they played in September.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Okay, since you're the one who brought up the research in the first place..

How many other teams which weren't in the top 10 in offense OR defense have ever PLAYED in the Super Bowl? Also, are you just measuring by OYPG and DYPG, or are you factoring in other measures as well, because there are far more efficient numbers by which to measure offensive and defensive success.

Let's see your numbers.

First off, its offensive points scored and defensive points allowed - and what does it matter what other aspects it involves? - its a stat that spans 37 years regardless of any other stuff - what more do you need and why would it make any difference?

And as far as any teams not in the top 10 getting into the Super Bowl - WHo gives a crap?

Its winning it that matters and no other team has EVER done it in NFL History whether they were in it or not.

Both of your questions are for the most part irrelevant to what was in the OP

 

[spacecrime]

I believe the Pats will win the SB by a wide margin. However, when 2 teams face each other in the regular season in a game decided by 7 points or less, and then have a rematch in the SB, the team that lost the regular season game has won the SB rematch 6 out of 7 times. The only exception is the 1986 Broncos, who lost to the NYG by 3 and then lost the Sb 39-20, despite leading at halftime.

IOW, the NYG gain an advantage by having played the Pats close in the regular season. That advantage mitigates against any other statistical "rules" governing winning and losing the SB.

So you are saying that if we had lost the last game of the season we would have won the superbowl. I wish Brady had known that. He could have thrown a pick or something. Dummy Brady, he was thinking that winning the superbowl depended on how he played in the superbowl. Rats. Well, there's always next year. We'll just have to lose to every team that might be in the superbowl so as to guarantee another Lombardi.