tombonneau
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,541
- Reaction score
- 377
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.
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.