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

[Watson's IQ]

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

My points aren't at all irrelevant just because you think they are. I concede that no team has ever won without a scoring offense or a scoring defense in the top 10, but that doesn't prove anything without looking at the teams closer, I'm sorry.

If a team is playing well at the end of the season (for any number of reasons), they are a more dangerous foe heading into the postseason, even if that success is NOT reflected in their overall season numbers. This is plainly the case with the Giants, who as I said were a very streaky team this season, but is currently on a hot streak (which there is no denying).

Furthermore, offensive and defensive points allowed (particularly over a whole season) are far from the most telling statistics when it comes to team quality.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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

thanks for your analysis and wouldn't it be lovely if we could all just enjoy the drinks and grub from the second quarter on. my only issue with what you say is that it doesn't take into account how a team performed in the latter part of the season, where the giants did quite well.

 

[Cramden]

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.

The 77 Broncos lost to the Cowboys 14-6 in week 14 and 27-10 in the Super Bowl

 

[Cramden]

The 77 Broncos lost to the Cowboys 14-6 in week 14 and 27-10 in the Super Bowl

Never mind. For some reason the 7 points or less didn't register with me.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The 2001 Patriots ranked 10th in offense and 17th in defense,They should have been included among the 8 teams unless that defense offense stats regards more than the scoring aspects which could explain why they were not included.

 

[NEPatriot]

knowing your opponent is only 1/2 and Giants doesn't have another half to finish it.

 

[Watson's IQ]

thanks for your analysis and wouldn't it be lovely if we could all just enjoy the drinks and grub from the second quarter on. my only issue with what you say is that it doesn't take into account how a team performed in the latter part of the season, where the giants did quite well.

This is the point I'm trying to make with him. The Giants were a better second half team, and are playing their best ball of the season NOW. Scoring statistics for the whole season can't even begin to quantify that, so they're basically useless in prognostication for the Super Bowl.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

My points aren't at all irrelevant just because you think they are. I concede that no team has ever won without a scoring offense or a scoring defense in the top 10, but that doesn't prove anything without looking at the teams closer, I'm sorry.

If a team is playing well at the end of the season (for any number of reasons), they are a more dangerous foe heading into the postseason, even if that success is NOT reflected in their overall season numbers. This is plainly the case with the Giants, who as I said were a very streaky team this season, but is currently on a hot streak (which there is no denying).

Furthermore, offensive and defensive points allowed (particularly over a whole season) are far from the most telling statistics when it comes to team quality.

While the Giants were indeed playing well in the latter part of the season so was the Chargers with 10 in a row until they ran into a buzzsaw in Foxboro,Same will be for the Giants fate but with the exception of the stadium

 

[denverpatsfan]

The Giants should have lost by 10. The last TD was in garbage time.

I look at the comparison between the 85 Pats regular season game against the Bears and the Super Bowl. Pats lost 20-7. I guess that isn't within 10 points close but it's closer than the SB was.

 

[SavioKid]

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

On a flip side, as with any probability, you can give more weight to the recent years stats. And this shows that 4 out of the last 7 SB winners did beat those odds (non top 10 in both categories):
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

so, it could say that odds are not unlikely that a team like NYG could win it.

Plus the playoff field has expanded to allow more of the chance that a team without a top 10 ranking making it in the dance since 1998. Why 1990? Because that was the 1st year expanding to the current 12 team system. So maybe comparing the last 16 SB winners is more realistic for the odds of NYG which would decrease significantly...

 

[JR4]

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:

wow .. do you really think you can predict the outcome of a single game
using stats like this?

Please , don't go and mortgage your house for a bet based on this analysis. :nono:

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

On a flip side, as with any probability, you can give more weight to the recent years stats. And this shows that 4 out of the last 7 SB winners did beat those odds (non top 10 in both categories):
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

so, it could say that odds are not unlikely that a team like NYG could win it.

Plus the playoff field has expanded to allow more of the chance that a team without a top 10 ranking making it in the dance since 1998. Why 1990? Because that was the 1st year expanding to the current 12 team system. So maybe comparing the last 16 SB winners is more realistic for the odds of NYG which would decrease significantly...

I am not comprehending what you are saying here,You say those 4 teams beat the odds but where do you see that any of those 4 teams ranked higher than 10th in BOTH catagories,I see only 1 of 2 where those teams ranked under 10th best in O or D

 

[Watson's IQ]

While the Giants were indeed playing well in the latter part of the season so was the Chargers with 10 in a row until they ran into a buzzsaw in Foxboro,Same will be for the Giants fate but with the exception of the stadium

I agree with you that the Patriots are going to win. My point is that it has absolutely nothing to do with these statistics you've presented, it has to do with the fact that they're the better team.

I'm more than overjoyed to get into a statistical discussion, I love that side of the game, but I'd prefer to use ones that are actually germane to the upcoming game. If you really wanted to use scoring stats as a telling indicator, you would have to go through and dissect the trend over the season, normalize it for opposition, weather, any number of things until it would finally be a really useful statistic.

The smaller and more recent a sample you use in comparing the teams statistically, the more relevant it's going to be to the Super Bowl. I assure you that the Giants 35-13 loss to Green Bay on September 16th is not going to play a big factor next week, yet it's weighted just as heavily in your stats as the close game the Giants gave to the Pats 1 month ago. Do you see my point?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

wow .. do you really think you can predict the outcome of a single game
using stats like this?

Please , don't go and mortgage your house for a bet based on this analysis. :nono:

Well at least I like it and thinks is a very worthy stat and as a Patriots fan maybe I like it even more so

 

[Watson's IQ]

Well at least I like it and thinks is a very worthy stat and as a Patriots fan maybe I like it even more so

I laud your effort, and I'm not going to look down on anyone who wants to look deeper into the game using stats. If you'll read some of the responses, I think you'll see why it's really not a useful stat for this particular game, even if it is somewhat interesting as a historical trend.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

If a team is playing well at the end of the season (for any number of reasons), they are a more dangerous foe heading into the postseason, even if that success is NOT reflected in their overall season numbers. This is plainly the case with the Giants, who as I said were a very streaky team this season, but is currently on a hot streak (which there is no denying).

Dude, by definition EVERY team that makes it to the Superbowl is playing well at the end of the season or they wouldn;t have gotten there. The '85 Pats were on such a HOT streak having beaten the Jets, Raiders, and Fins (in MIA where IIRC the Patriots had NEVER won before). They got blown out by the Bears--arguably the single season greatest team of all time. Congrats to the Giants. They got through the NFC when nobody expected them to, they're on a roll, and they're a likable underdog. But they didn't draw the '85 Patriots in the SB, or the '05 Seahawks, or the '06 Bears. Unfortunately they drew the equivalent of the '85 Bears. This is a team for the ages.

 

[SavioKid]

On a flip side, as with any probability, you can give more weight to the recent years stats. And this shows that 4 out of the last 7 SB winners did beat those odds (non top 10 in both categories):
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

so, it could say that odds are not unlikely that a team like NYG could win it.

Plus the playoff field has expanded to allow more of the chance that a team without a top 10 ranking making it in the dance since 1998. Why 1990? Because that was the 1st year expanding to the current 12 team system. So maybe comparing the last 16 SB winners is more realistic for the odds of NYG which would decrease significantly...

Ignore that sh*t above - I forgot to realize that NYG are not in either top 10 category (Offense or Defense)! So nevermind all that!

Yes, the NYG would be the 1st team ever to win it without being a top 10 Offense or Defense. But I have to agree with most posters here that its how the teams are performing in the 2nd half of the season & more importantly the playoffs as a more measuring stick....
so there always has to be a first team to do it but this stat does stick out as wow! It's just funny how stats can end up like this huh! Even if this has less relevance than believed, I still believe the PATS wipe the NYG buts when it is done due to the matchups / planning / personnel / etc..

Interesting stuff PatsFanInPhilly!

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I agree with you that the Patriots are going to win. My point is that it has absolutely nothing to do with these statistics you've presented, it has to do with the fact that they're the better team.

I'm more than overjoyed to get into a statistical discussion, I love that side of the game, but I'd prefer to use ones that are actually germane to the upcoming game. If you really wanted to use scoring stats as a telling indicator, you would have to go through and dissect the trend over the season, normalize it for opposition, weather, any number of things until it would finally be a really useful statistic.

The smaller and more recent a sample you use in comparing the teams statistically, the more relevant it's going to be to the Super Bowl. I assure you that the Giants 35-13 loss to Green Bay on September 16th is not going to play a big factor next week, yet it's weighted just as heavily in your stats as the close game the Giants gave to the Pats 1 month ago. Do you see my point?

I understand you dude but regardless of anything my point is thats its in stone that when a team DOES NOT rank in the top 10 by the end of the regular season in at least 1 offense or defensive catagory there has never been a Super Bowl winning team with poor stats regarding scoring on offense and allowing points on defense - it does not matter whe it comes to what they are doing in the postseason,These are facts and that is all they are.

In other words itsin stone,at least right now that for the last 37 years any team that has exceeded a ranking higher than 10th both O and D catagories has NOT won a Championship,Thats all I am saying here.

 

[alamo]

The Giants should have lost by 10. The last TD was in garbage time.

No TD is in garbage time when recovering the onsides kick could easily lead to a FG to tie or a TD to lose.

 

[Ring 6]

Why arent the 2001 Patriots on this list?
They were in the 20s on d, and I doubt they were top 10 in O, but they may have been.
Is this whole argument based on wrong data to begin with?