I'm not feeling very confident, reassure me.

Grizzafted · Jan 25, 2012

Well on a matchup level, no I'm not confident. But let's be realistic here....Eli won those last two games on last minute drives. It's not like this awe inspiring giants team walks over the patriots. They play tough games and lately its been Eli with the ball in his hands during crunch time. (God don't let that be the case with 3 mins in the 4th, please no please heed my calls).

Anyway one thing that occasionally gives me some....I don't know if confidence is the right word, maybe excitement. I think if you look at this game, the Patriots want it more. There's a kind of momentum psychologically with this team, it's so young and hungry and Brady's been trying to get over this hump for nearly a decade. I feel like this team is going to play its heart out, there's going to be nothing lackadaisical or arrogant about it. Guys are going to fly around and throw it all out on the line with complete abandon...its funny to think of the Patriots wanting success more than a team like the Giants but it really does feel that way. We might be used to this but most of the kids on that team aren't....these are a lot of players on their first contract, playing with solid veteran leadership. The Patriots are going to show up in Indianapolis...whether that's enough, we'll see, but at least I have confidence in the team coming out ready to play and wanting desperately to win. Good things come out of that some times...

PatsGirl2011 · Jan 25, 2012

Honestly, I wasn't confident in 2007...The Pats did not play well down the stretch and had to hold on to dear life just to be undefeated. I was surprised but not shocked they lost.

IcyPatriot · Jan 25, 2012

Fball said:
It's just a response to the 13-3 is better than 9-7 nonsense. The Pats had one of the easiest schedules in the league, and the Giants one of the hardest. You can't compare records, or even stats, really.

How excited are you to see our Patriots playing on your home turf ...

Lansdowne · Jan 25, 2012

Reassurance, in picture form.

Fball · Jan 25, 2012

IcyPatriot said:
How excited are you to see our Patriots playing on your home turf ...

I'm pumped. The Colts were pretty much eliminated from week 1 on, so I've just been enjoying what has ended up being a pretty enjoyable season overall.

Gints/Pats rematch? You kidding? Can't wait...

Tunescribe · Jan 25, 2012

PatsGirl2011 said:
Honestly, I wasn't confident in 2007...The Pats did not play well down the stretch and had to hold on to dear life

Sort of like this season, eh?

Blizzzard · Jan 25, 2012

BradysBunch12 said:
Great, now we have Giants trolls lol.

With a thread title like this one, what did you expect?

The good news is that he was probably attracted to this thread because he has fears and apprehensions of his own about the Giants.
Honestly, if you were on his board and saw a thread title like this one... wouldn't you click on it faster than pollard would dive at a knee?

Negativity and fear by the opposing fans is like chum in the water for Trolls.
You're just lucky this guy was civil, unlike others, who's eyes would roll back as they go into a trance and feast! lol

PatsGirl2011 · Jan 25, 2012

Tunescribe said:
Sort of like this season, eh?

Nope in 2007 they peaked around the Colts game. A lot of the games down stretch were nail biters, and in the playoffs they sucked but won on talent alone. When the SB came I knew it would be a struggle, and I was right. This team has actually gotten better as the season has gone on offensively and defensively.

Blizzzard · Jan 25, 2012

PatriotSeven said:
I think the Giants deserved that win though because the refs were clearly trying to help GB. But no one could help that team on that day.QUOTE]

This.

This is what I fear more than anything.
Not Eli
Not Cruz, Nicks and Manningham
Not the Giants front 4

I fear Refs trying to assist a team.
Call me a nutjob conspiracy theorist.... But, it does not change the fact that i've seen this happen (very obviously) many, many times.

I don't think that the refs can ALWAYS change a games outcome.. but they can change the course of a game enough to change the outcome many times.

I fully believe that orders come from the top, to "assist" particular teams. When it's good for the league when a particular team wins, or when it's good that another team doesn't win.

Believe it or not,
It was good for the League to have a team named the "Patriots" win after 9/11
It was good for the league to have the Saints win the superbowl as the region recovers from Katrina (it almost happened the season that Katrina hit)
It was good for the league to have a superbowl with 2 black head coaches (2006)... as well as getting league darling Peyton his ring.
It was good for the league when a team in the salary cap era DID NOT go undefeated in 2007. Especially after that team was raked over the coals for "Cheating" by the league, only a few months prior

The list goes on and on.. especially if you think deeper into how it benefits the league when any particular team makes it to the big game or wins it.

It could all just be coincidental.. but it is none the less interesting when you think about it, and see what sometimes happens to make it come to fruition (egregiously bad calls, etc)

I was scared as hell that the league was all too interested in a "brother against brother" superbowl this year. I think there were enough close calls (or non-calls) in both of these games to support that. I think it helped us that a Superbowl with 2 big market teams wasn't far behind in attractiveness to the leagues business minds (guaranteed to have great ratings based on population of the regions they hail from)

Think of it this way:
NE vs. NYG = Great T.V. ratings based on population of regions involved

Harbaugh vs. Harbaugh = Great T.V. Ratings based on EVERYONE else without a dog in the fight interested in watching the storyline unfold

I think that there was always a much slimmer chance of the other 2 scenerios happening.
A Superbowl 35 rematch and a TFB vs. his childhood team are interesting storylines... but MUCH less profitable and interesting than the aforementioned matchups.

Be gentle with me.. I am just putting an idea out there for discussion.

PatriotSeven · Jan 25, 2012

Satchboogie3 said:
While yes, the Pats are #2 in defensive efficiency, I wouldn't say it necessarily trumps points allowed or as a final indication of being a top 5 defense. 15th in points, 29th in yards per play (6.2), 32nd in 1st per game (23.1), 28th in 3rd down conversions (43%), 24th in TOP, 14th in sacks (40), 30th in plays per game (66.9), 27th in 1st downs per play (0.335), 27th in punts per play (0.1), 17th in punts per offensive score (1.2), etc etc

Considering the fact that Pittsburgh and the 49ers were in the top 5 in just about every one of those categories, I take the yards per point stat with a grain of salt. When only one stat say's we're great while everything else say's average or bad, I'm going to side with the body of evidence. I love yards per point stats, but they aren't the end all be all. Great predictors, but not with out any flaws.

Well first of all that's not entirely incorrect. There are many stats that show NE's defense is great, including yards, you just chose to list the ones that are bad. One big glaring stat missing from there is that they have the #2 special teams defensive unit in field position. Compare that to the 19th NY Giants ST defensive unit.

Even when it comes to yards, the true, TOTAL defense for the Pats only allow 1 extra yard per drive than NY Giants. That is a statistical wash.

You see when NE's special teams pin offenses back, the actual defense automatically is going to "allow" more yards anytime a team scores unless offenses just plain out suck and never score points. They force teams to travel the full field. But this creates the opportunity for something much more important: Stops. Takeaways.

Wouldn't you say that the category that most closely correlates to winning the football game is in fact most important?

None of those are better measurements that translate to actually winning. And that's because EVERYTHING you listed, when you add them ALL up into ONE number you get yards per point.

punts %+ 1st downs% + yards per game + points per game + special teams + turnovers + any stat you can come up with = yards per point.

Get it?

Yards per points takes all those little stats you love to break down and gives you what they all amount to. I don't really care if I'm 32nd in yards, or in 3rd downs, if I'm still 2nd OVERALL. I don't care how they accomplish it.

Yards per point also had Pittsburgh as a #1 or #2 defense, as well as the 49ers...however, it correctly had Pittsburgh's offense as 27th and correctly predicted Denver's more efficient offense would beat them....

Who else or which other stat on your list could be used that the Denver Broncos would beat the Pittsburgh Steelers 8 out of 10 times? And they would beat them again if they'd play them again.

The biggest problem with the stats you list is none of them are a measurement of your true TOTAL defense, in respect to how it works with your offense. It leaves out special teams. It leaves out turnovers. And it leaves out your offense playing defense. It leaves out how they tie with each other.

All of those are just choice bits and pieces that make up the bigger pie. The bigger pie is yards per point.

Dutchmaster617 · Jan 25, 2012

No, there is nothing to be confident about, the great Giants will dominate us with their HOF QB (meanwhile our HOF QB stands around serving Gatorade). From what I learned on TV and online today you are a little too confident to even consider us deserving this, it should be Packers/Saints vs Giants according to ESPN.

PatriotSeven · Jan 25, 2012

Dutchmaster617 said:
No, there is nothing to be confident about, the great Giants will dominate us with their HOF QB (meanwhile our HOF QB stands around serving Gatorade). From what I learned on TV and online today you are a little too confident to even consider us deserving this, it should be Packers/Saints vs Giants according to ESPN.

Exactly. The entire AFC doesn't deserve to be in the Super Bowl, including their #1 team. But the most average of NFC teams...THAT's who you gotta fear.

All these years we allowed the wrong teams to advance.

See? This is why we need a true playoff system and group playoffs in the NFL just like the World Cup. The Giants would have never made it to the NFC championship game if each playoff contender had to play each other twice before going to head-to-head match-ups.

This doesn't happen in the World Cup. If you suck, you don't make it past the quarter finals. You might get out of your group, but you get weeded out by the time the semi-finals come around. You always end up with at least 2 of the true top 4 teams in the World Cup.

Winning just one game to advance is just too damn easy for a crappy team to get through. No way would GB and the Pats not be in the Super Bowl this year, if we had a true playoffs system.

IcyPatriot · Jan 25, 2012

Fball said:
I'm pumped. The Colts were pretty much eliminated from week 1 on, so I've just been enjoying what has ended up being a pretty enjoyable season overall.

Gints/Pats rematch? You kidding? Can't wait...

Do you favor trading Manning or keep him to mentor for 1 year?

Blizzzard · Jan 26, 2012

Fball said:
It's just a response to the 13-3 is better than 9-7 nonsense. The Pats had one of the easiest schedules in the league, and the Giants one of the hardest. You can't compare records, or even stats, really.

Well, just to play devils advocate.. when you beat more teams... you end up playing more teams that lose more often... if not only by virtue of the fact that YOU beat them.
Conversely... When you lose more games, the teams you play have to be winning more games than the opponents of teams that are beating them.

A case can also be made that teams play worse after taking an emotionally demoralizing, physically painful beating.
No doubt that the Patriots definately started some cold streaks among their opponents this year.

A case can also be made that a team who only loses to good competition is better than the team that loses to poor teams.
ie. Patriots losing to the Giants, Steelers (healthy at the time) and the Bills (Healthy, undefeated, and impressive at the time)
Giants losing to Redskins twice, Seahawks.
Even their wins weren't that impressive. Rams, Cardinals, Paper thin win against the Dolphins (who were 0-6 @ the time, and still in the suck for Luck race...while we faced them in game 1 and during their late season hot streak)
They really only played 2 scary teams (other than the Supposed fraud pats...lol) in the Packers and Saints (both losses).
As a matter of fact, they played a lot of the same teams the Pats played because we played against each others divisions

Here is the Giants schedule and scores (complete with Pats results against common foes), please point out how they played a much tougher schedule than the Pats. Outside of GB, NO and NE they had a cakewalk... and routinely puked up that cake. I also find it funny that the win against the pats assists in proof that they played a tougher schedule, yet the other side of the detractors mouths is used to say the pats WEREN'T good because we played a weaker schedule.. talk about having your cake and eating it too.

NYG 2011 Schedule:
@ WSH, 28-14 LOSS (Pats results 34-27 W)
V. STL, 28-16 WIN (Give me a break)
@ PHI, 29-16 WIN (Pats results 38-20 W)
@ ARI, 31-27 WIN (slim win against horrible team)
V. SEA, 36-25 LOSS (Ummmm......yeah)
V. BUF, 27-24 WIN (Pats 34-31 L & 49-21 W..Nice Turnaround in 2nd meeting, eh Giants?

)
V. MIA, 20-17 WIN (Pats results, 38-24 W & 27-24 W)
@ NE, 24-20 WIN (this doesn't count because Pats are a bad team w/ a weak schedule

)
@ SF, 27-20 LOSS (I see a similar result last wk w/o the 2 Williams TO's)
V. PHI, 17-10 LOSS (see above Pats results)
@ NO, 49-24 LOSS (their defense did a great job holding back good offenses

)
V. GB, 38-35 LOSS (see above)
@ DAL, 37-34 WIN (Pats results 20-16 W)
V. WSH, 23-10 LOSS (See above Pats Results)
@ NYJ, 29-14 WIN (Pats Results 30-21 W & 37-16 W)
V. DAL, 31-14 WIN (See above Pats results)

This schedule speaks for itself

supafly · Jan 26, 2012

IcyPatriot said:
Do you favor trading Manning or keep him to mentor for 1 year?

Understanding that this question was not directed at me, and that you are looking for a Colts fans' response, I still believe that the Colts will keep Manning for at least 2 more yrs.

Drafting Luck is:

1. Not written in stone, as many think. They can still trade out of the spot for a boatload of other picks, or take another player.

2. Even if they do take Luck (and they probably will), throwing him to the wolves in his first yr is not the smartest bet; especially for a rookie who has been more hyped than any QB in recent memory. This NFL game is a lot faster, and more complex. Having a yr or two under his belt would not hurt, and he could still be a very successful QB there for the next 10 yrs--if he works out of course.

3. A good choice, especially with the rookie salary cap in place. They have the capacity to give the next QB of the franchise pretty much the exact same deal as if they'd take anyone else, right? No matter what, their record has forced them to deal with the fact that they will have to pay someone top 1-2-3 pick money. Since they're already locked into this, why wouldn't they simply take the QB for the future anyway, since they would pay any other player the same amount of money under the rookie slotted salary cap.

If it had been another yr without the help of the rookie cap, then I'd say giving that kind of money to 2 QB's would be hard; but I think that they have the potential to win NOW with Manning, and win LATER with Luck learning under him too.

supafly · Jan 26, 2012

Blizzzard said:
Well, just to play devils advocate.. when you beat more teams... you end up playing more teams that lose more often... if not only by virtue of the fact that YOU beat them.
Conversely... When you lose more games, the teams you play have to be winning more games than the opponents of teams that are beating them.

A case can also be made that teams play worse after taking an emotionally demoralizing, physically painful beating.
No doubt that the Patriots definately started some cold streaks among their opponents this year.

A case can also be made that a team who only loses to good competition is better than the team that loses to poor teams.
ie. Patriots losing to the Giants, Steelers (healthy at the time) and the Bills (Healthy, undefeated, and impressive at the time)
Giants losing to Redskins twice, Seahawks.
Even their wins weren't that impressive. Rams, Cardinals, Paper thin win against the Dolphins
They really only played 2 scary teams (other than the Supposed fraud pats...lol) in the Packers and Saints (both losses).
As a matter of fact, they played a lot of the same teams the Pats played because we played against each others divisions

Here is the Giants schedule and scores (complete with Pats results against similar foes), please point out how they played a much tougher schedule than the Pats. Outside of GB, NO and NE they had a cakewalk... and routinely puked up that cake. I also find it funny that the win against the pats assists in proof that they played a tougher schedule, yet the other side of the detractors mouths is used to say the pats WEREN'T good because we played a weaker schedule.. talk about having your cake and eating it too.

NYG 2011 Schedule:
@ WSH, 28-14 LOSS (Pats results 34-27 W)
V. STL, 28-16 WIN
@ PHI, 29-16 WIN (Pats results 38-20 W)
@ ARI, 31-27 WIN
V. SEA, 36-25 LOSS
V. BUF, 27-24 WIN (Pats 34-31 L & 49-21 W..Nice Turnaround, eh Giants? )
V. MIA, 20-17 WIN (Pats results, 38-24 W & 27-24 W)
@ NE, 24-20 WIN
@ SF, 27-20 LOSS (I see a similar result last wk w/o the 2 Williams TO's)
V. PHI, 17-10 LOSS (see above Pats results)
@ NO, 49-24 LOSS
V. GB, 38-35 LOSS
@ DAL, 37-34 LOSS (Pats results 20-16 W)
V. WSH, 23-10 LOSS (See above Pats Results)
@ NYJ, 29-14 WIN (Pats Results 30-21 W & 37-16 W)
V. DAL, 31-14 WIN (See above Pats results)

Interesting strategy, and good analysis.

The only problem is that you have 8 NYG losses, when they only lost 7 games.

The mistake is made in the first CBoy game, where the Giants won @ Dallas on SNF.

Otherwise, nice comparison.

PatriotSeven · Jan 26, 2012

I agree with the above post. And I'll just re-iterate how flawed this playoff system is.

You know, going 19-0, like the Pats did in 2007 is a huge freaking accomplishment. The fact that you lost the Super Bowl is one thing, but to get beat by an average team, it just sucks, not just for the Patriots, but for excellence itself and for any NFL team that tries to do something great and accomplish greatness. It wouldn't have hurt nearly as bad if they got beat by the Cowboys or Packers that year, who were much better teams.

Getting beat by the Giants basically meant going 16-0, 15-1, 14-2, 13-3 is pointless and meaningless in the NFL. Why bother trying?

It's a result of a flawed playoff system that allows average teams to get through that would have never gotten to the Super Bowl otherwise. It doesn't even allow for true underdog teams who bust their butts, like the 49ers, to get rewarded for their hard work.

It basically says, stop trying to be a winning team consistently, season after season, because it doesn't matter anyway.

No way in hell are the Giants the best NFC team this year. The best NFC teams are at home because of a crappy playoff system. One and done should be for the wild card, semi-finalists and Championship games, not the divisional round. In 2007 the Cowboys and Packers got shafted. Cost a great player his legacy, and Romo, might have a better image.

It seems insane that teams have to work so hard for a playoff spot, but then it's so easy to jump straight into the Super Bowl. Organizations spend too much money and players work too hard to make it that far just to go one and done in the wildcard and divisional rounds because of one bad Sunday, or circumstances that are out of your control, like Green Bay this year.

No doubt the death of their offensive coordinator's son had a huge impact and I don't care what anyone says but I'm not going to be all there if my son just past away two weeks ago. Back-ups would also become more important too. It really would try the best teams all around, and test out the bench too.

Championship game winners would also carry a lot more weight if we had a true playoff system. It would be much more meaningful. Divisional round should be one home, one away and Championship games should also be played on neutral grounds. Not to mention, you could draw in far more money if you got to choose the cities where Championship games would be played.

I wouldn't have to sit here and worry about "luck" and being one and done in the playoffs this year if there was a true playoff system.

Blizzzard · Jan 26, 2012

supafly said:
Interesting strategy, and good analysis.

The only problem is that you have 8 NYG losses, when they only lost 7 games.

The mistake is made in the first CBoy game, where the Giants won @ Dallas on SNF.

Otherwise, nice comparison.

oooops! Thanks, I will fix this now. Tough doing all this typing past midnight..lol. :bricks:

supafly · Jan 26, 2012

PatriotSeven said:
I agree with the above post. And I'll just re-iterate how flawed this playoff system is.

You know, going 19-0, like the Pats did in 2007 is a huge freaking accomplishment. The fact that you lost the Super Bowl is one thing, but to get beat by an average team, it just sucks, not just for the Patriots, but for excellence itself and for any NFL team that tries to do something great and accomplish greatness. It wouldn't have hurt nearly as bad if they got beat by the Cowboys or Packers that year, who were much better teams.

Getting beat by the Giants basically meant going 16-0, 15-1, 14-2, 13-3 is pointless and meaningless in the NFL. Why bother trying?

It's a result of a flawed playoff system that allows average teams to get through that would have never gotten to the Super Bowl otherwise. It doesn't even allow for true underdog teams who bust their butts, like the 49ers, to get rewarded for their hard work.

It basically says, stop trying to be a winning team consistently, season after season, because it doesn't matter anyway.

No way in hell are the Giants the best NFC team this year. The best NFC teams are at home because of a crappy playoff system. One and done should be for the wild card, semi-finalists and Championship games, not the divisional round. In 2007 the Cowboys and Packers got shafted. Cost a great player his legacy, and Romo, might have a better image.

It seems insane that teams have to work so hard for a playoff spot, but then it's so easy to jump straight into the Super Bowl. Organizations spend too much money and players work too hard to make it that far just to go one and done in the wildcard and divisional rounds because of one bad Sunday, or circumstances that are out of your control, like Green Bay this year.

No doubt the death of their offensive coordinator's son had a huge impact and I don't care what anyone says but I'm not going to be all there if my son just past away two weeks ago. Back-ups would also become more important too. It really would try the best teams all around, and test out the bench too.

Championship game winners would also carry a lot more weight if we had a true playoff system. It would be much more meaningful. Divisional round should be one home, one away and Championship games should also be played on neutral grounds. Not to mention, you could draw in far more money if you got to choose the cities where Championship games would be played.

I wouldn't have to sit here and worry about "luck" and being one and done in the playoffs this year if there was a true playoff system.

While I think you make a lot of sense on some level, the current system will likely never change.

The "reward" to going 14-2 or 13-3 in the regular season (and the reason why the regular season is still important) is due to the fact that the top 2 seeds gain the advantage of:

1. Getting the BYE week to rest their players, and plan accordingly with 2 wks of preparation.

2. Gaining the advantage of missing out on the first round of the playoffs entirely, and having the advantage of playing one less game than everyone else.

3. Gaining the reward of being able to play in your own city, in your own stadium (where most teams have a very decided advantge), in front of your own fans. We all realize that the Pats haven't had to leave Foxborough in the past SIX weeks. That's incredible, and quite a big lift in traveling and sleeping at home etc.

These 3 reasons alone are why the reg season is so important, and why the top 4 teams (1 and 2 seeds in both conferences) are rewarded.

Otherwise, the system they use is pretty much the exact same system that most other tournaments use.

The NYG were given the chance to win 3 games to get to the SB, with 2 on the road, and both were hard. They defeated the #1 seed GB Packers in Lambeau, and the #2 SF 49'ers in Candlestick. When you beat the #1 and #2 seeds in their stadium, you have earned the right to play. After all, they just beat the "best" the NFC had to offer.

I don't see much "luck" involved, to be honest with you; however, I do respect your thoughts that the system is flawed. I think that you are in the small minority that thinks so however, and I think the system will be in effect for many yrs to come. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...and that's the approach that they'll take, at least in my opinion.

supafly · Jan 26, 2012

Blizzzard said:
oooops! Thanks, I will fix this now. Tough doing all this typing past midnight..lol. :bricks:

I do it all the time man. Not meaning to nit-pick.

Otherwise, I think you make a great point.

While there is certainly reason for concern if they do not come out and play a good game, there is certainly reason to be very optimistic too.

I'm not feeling very confident, reassure me.

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

In the Starting Line-Up

Wall of Fame

In the Starting Line-Up

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

In the Starting Line-Up

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

In the Starting Line-Up

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

In the Starting Line-Up

Wall of Fame

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Eff you, Shula

Eff you, Shula

In the Starting Line-Up

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Eff you, Shula

Eff you, Shula

Similar threads