Please explain this one to me

[sarge]

I asked this question of Thurston Howell who orignally made the comment in the Namath thread, but he saw fit to reply to everyone else.

I have no doubt that should he decide to post here, he will make some type of disclaimer about not seeing my question.

Let me preface by saying I certainly have a lot of respect for this Giants team, and unlike many of you feel that the Giants are capable of beating the Pats. I do think that should both teams bring there A game, the Pats would win. But any given Sunday, especially when we are talking about 1 game, anything can happen (see Superbowl 36).

With that said.

How in the world are people suggesting that thte Pats were fortunate to walk out of the first Giants game with a win?

The first point is always, "IT was a 3 point game". Sure it was. But up until just over a minute left in the game it was a 10 point game. Meaning with Less then 1:30, IT WAS A TWO SCORE GAME, and the Giants with 0 timeouts!

I think you can see how the 3 points can be fairly misleading.

7 of the Giants points came on a special teams (I understand those count too).

So let me ask you this. If the Giants were to have gotten that onside kick with one minute left and somehow managed to win, would anyone be saying the Giants were lucky to get by the Pats????

Of course not.

Pats are just held to a different standard. And that explains it all!

 

[FrontSeven]

I asked this question of Thurston Howell who orignally made the comment in the Namath thread, but he saw fit to reply to everyone else.

I have no doubt that should he decide to post here, he will make some type of disclaimer about not seeing my question.

Let me preface by saying I certainly have a lot of respect for this Giants team, and unlike many of you feel that the Giants are capable of beating the Pats. I do think that should both teams bring there A game, the Pats would win. But any given Sunday, especially when we are talking about 1 game, anything can happen (see Superbowl 36).

With that said.

How in the world are people suggesting that thte Pats were fortunate to walk out of the first Giants game with a win?

The first point is always, "IT was a 3 point game". Sure it was. But up until just over a minute left in the game it was a 10 point game. Meaning with Less then 1:30, IT WAS A TWO SCORE GAME, and the Giants with 0 timeouts!

I think you can see how the 3 points can be fairly misleading.

7 of the Giants points came on a special teams (I understand those count too).

So let me ask you this. If the Giants were to have gotten that onside kick with one minute left and somehow managed to win, would anyone be saying the Giants were lucky to get by the Pats????

Of course not.

Pats are just held to a different standard. And that explains it all!

As you said, the game was not winnable. The Moss TD closed it out. Fine, they scored again, but the game was not on the line, their egos were.

As far as their egos went it certainly did them some good. Hip hip hooray ... but the Super Bowl will be a different day.

 

[MightyFooda]

It's kinda like the Chargers game, everyone said they only one by 9 and it was a hard fought game. Well, if the Pats felt like actually finishing that 9 minute drive it would have been a 16 point game. A little more impressive.

 

[BelichickFan]

In addition to what Sarge said, the NYG were also 4/4 scoring TDs in the Red Zone; now, that's to their credit but I think we all know the chances of that happening again aren't good.

 

[jscout]

Ah, get over it. Don't let that stuff bother you. Whenever I hear mindless stuff like that I just laugh it off. You will never convince an idiot otherwise, so why bother. Real football fans know what's up.