2001 Pats vs. 2007 Giants Comparisions **PLEASE STOP**

[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.

 

[Lansdowne]

Bump-worthy

 

[sanvara]

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

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.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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

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.

 

[snafu]

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.

You have to admit that he got that right.

He just got his teams mixed up:rocker:

 

[tombonneau]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[MrClutch]

Didn't the Rams also beat the Patriots in the regular season?

We beat the Giants.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

[jbb9s]

You have to admit that he got that right.

He just got his teams mixed up:rocker:

thats a good one

 

[Rob0729]

I think the comparisons between the 2001 Pats and 2007 Giants are fair. There are a lot of similiarities. It doesn't mean the 2007 Pats are comparable to the 2001 Rams or that the outcome will be similiar.

 

[MightyFooda]

Forgive me if someone else already posted this, but this is exactly what happened in 2003 with the Panthers. remember, they even came out as a team, all the players said they were trying to emulate the 2001 Pats. Delhomme was the new Brady.
Here's why they AREN'T (the giants that it) the 2001 Pats.
They were only in year 2 of a rebuilding plan.
Coughlin has been the coach for several years.
Unknown QB takes over.
Eli Manning, was the number one overall pick, and was known about since his dad was playing in New Orleans.
No offensive weapons that anyone respected.
The Giants have a ton of weapons, at receiver, running back and TE.
The greatest clutch kicker of all time.
Tynes kick in Greenbay, a repeat of the snow game with Vinnateri it ain't.
A defense filled with playmakere.
This one may be close, but I don't think anyone would dare compare the Giant's secondery to the Pats of 2001. Law, Milloy, Jones and O-T-I-S, they were incredible at creating turnovers and bringing em to the house.
And the main ingrediant:Bill Bellichick.
Coughlin is a good head coach, true, but no one is gonna get the 2 confused that's for sure.
So too sum up, the comparison is dumb, and the people who make it are lazy journalists who like to write headlines, not informative articles.

 

[psychoPat]

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

Me too.
But ... as sanvara points out ... that one wouldn't worry you much either.

 

[spacecrime]

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.

There are a lot of similarities.

Here are a few from an article linked in another thread:
http://www.derok.net/patriots/super-bowl-xlii.html

They began the season with most people expecting them to finish last in their division.

Their coach was a disciplinarian who had a less-than stellar track record at the time.

They lost their first two games miserably.

In their third game, the team rebounded with a win that seemed to turn the season around.

Their sudden success was a huge surprise to many, especially considering that they were playing without the superstar who had been the cornerstone of the franchise for years.

In a nationally televised game, they were pitted against a team that was unanimously considered to be the best in the league. Instead of getting crushed as many expected, the team managed to keep the game close, but eventually lost.

As the playoffs approached, their chances of doing anything significant were considered to be non-existent. It was a widely held belief that their young quarterback would not be able to handle the pressure of a big game.

While never dominating, they managed to amass playoff victories by playing tough defense and making very few mistakes.

The highlight of their post-season was an game-winning field goal in overtime, amidst horrendous winter weather conditions.

After winning their conference championship game, they were pitted against that "best team in the league" whom they had played well against earlier in the year.

When the line for the Super Bowl was set, the "best team in the league" was a two touchdown favorite, and for good reason. That formidable opponent had amassed over 500 points in the regular season and featured the reigning NFL MVP at quarterback.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost a child while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839 1838. Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1938 .

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Kennedy was shot in a car called a 'Lincoln.'

 

[patriotspride]

I think the comparisons between the 2001 Pats and 2007 Giants are fair.

there is one thing missing from this comparison. BB was the coach of the 01 pats and he doesnt coach the giants .tom coughlin does .

 

[MightyFooda]

The Giants are better then the 01 Pats

The 01 Pats were the worst team ive ever seen to win a SB

Pats fans are the only people in the world who think they didnt get more lucky then any team ive ever seen against oakland

and if mike martz decides to actually use his best player (Marshall Faulk), the Rams blow you away

Wow, you're so right. I guess it's just a coincidence that more than half that defense played in not only the 2003 and 2004 Superbowl, but the 96 one too. Ya, worst SuperBowl champs ever often turn into Dynasty's. What's the matter Nick, Boston ownage of all things NY getting to you?
Or did the Sox get loucky this fall, oh and not tom mention last weekend the Bruins sweeping the Rangers and the Celtics destroying the knicks.
Sides, I'd rather be the worst with a ring than the worst too lose in the past ten years. oh, that's be your Giants, btw.

 

[LA Pats Fan]

Simple to understand.

The 07 Patriots are better than the 07 Giants.

If an inferior team is to beat a superior team the coach has to outplay the opposition.

In 01 the Pats were the inferior team but coached by the legend.

THe Patriots still have the legend on their bench and will not be out coached.

The giants are in the same position as the 2001 Patriots - Big Under dog with a chance to win

The 2001 Patriots had the coach to pull it off. The 2007 Giants do not

 

[FrontSeven]

It doesn't matter whether the Giants are comparable to the '01 Pats.

The problem is that there are upsets in the NFL. They wouldn't be called upsets if everybody expected them.

I guarantee that the Giants will have similar confidence as the '01 Pats just because they played a great game in December against the same team. They also have a different chemistry now with Tiki and Shockey out of Eli's hair. They have changed up their offensive schemes, they have come together as a team, and their coach is better than average.

My concern, if I was a Giants fan, is whether they actually played their SB in Green Bay. That game did remind me of the Pats going into Miami in that other lifetime and putting an ass whipping on them. That was our ceiling, and I'm guessing that the Giants have similarly hit their ceiling. It's a high ceiling too. I think they did a great job, but I can't see them winning this game.