Bold prediction: Giants contain Brady but Pats rush for 200+ on Sunday

JMC00 said:

Oh if BB and McDaniels decides this is a game to feed Blount, he could punish them. I know people are wondering about the OL but I like an OL of Kline, Stork, Andrews, Mason and Fleming with Gronk and Williams chipping in the run game. Especially with the Giants now without their best DT.

Click to expand...

I think Blount plays himself into Corey Dillon lore the rest of this season and into playoffs.

Deus Irae said:

No...

It, objectively, did not make the difference in the earlier game. Speculatively, it might have made the difference in the SB.

Click to expand...

One of the definitions of objectively is "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices," so yeah, it fits. It's speculative too, of course.

sb1 said:

I think the fact the Pats were even in the Super Bowl in 2011 says more about the AFC than it does about NE.

Almost 1200 yards passing allowed to the pro bowl trio of Dan Orlovsky, Vince Young and Chad Henne.... Nuff said.

Click to expand...

LOL, a lot of people on this forum defended that defense just as they would defend their mother's honor that year. All we heard is "POINTZ!!1" as people openly tried to convince themselves that that pass defense was any good. Then 30-40 in the Super Bowl happened and the Patriots ran out of time.

aluminum seats said:

One of the definitions of objectively is "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices," so yeah, it fits. It's speculative too, of course.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't fit. You are clearly influenced by emotions and personal prejudices. Again, having Gronk OBJECTIVELY did not make the difference in the first game.

Deus Irae said:

No, it doesn't fit. You are clearly influenced by emotions and personal prejudices. Again, having Gronk OBJECTIVELY did not make the difference in the first game.

Click to expand...

So that means nobody here ever has an objective opinion. Not sure I agree with that, but OK.

aluminum seats said:

So that means nobody here ever has an objective opinion. Not sure I agree with that, but OK.

Click to expand...

I mean, technically, every opinion is inherently subjective.

tombonneau said:

I mean, technically, every opinion is inherently subjective.

Click to expand...

exactly

aluminum seats said:

So that means nobody here ever has an objective opinion. Not sure I agree with that, but OK.

Click to expand...

No, it means that OBJECTIVELY, Gronk didn't make the difference before. You have nothing to say definitively that OBJECTIVELY, he would make the difference in the SB game, when he couldn't do so in the earlier game. Therefore, you are left with your emotional take.

That's fine. It's just not OBJECTIVE.

tombonneau said:

I think Blount plays himself into Corey Dillon lore the rest of this season and into playoffs.

Click to expand...

I do think he might have a 1000 yard season and hit about 200 carries.

It all comes down to the line's ability to block for more than 2 seconds and receivers getting open off the line.

Deus Irae said:

No, it means that OBJECTIVELY, Gronk didn't make the difference before. You have nothing to say definitively that OBJECTIVELY, he would make the difference in the SB game, when he couldn't do so in the earlier game. Therefore, you are left with your emotional take.

That's fine. It's just not OBJECTIVE.

Click to expand...

The sentence was, "Gronk being healthy in 2011 would have, objectively I think, made all the difference." It was in the context of a point about how fans will always play the "shoulda woulda coulda" game, but in this case, I said that "I think" that even a non-fan--that is, someone who didn't bring emotion into the equation--would feel that Gronk being healthy would have made the difference. I think the point of the word was pretty clear in that context. One could, naturally, make the point that opinions can never be objective, because they are by definition opinions. I think correcting my usage in that context was sort of picayune, but that's just my opinion.

No need to go all caps every time on "objective," by the way, the word is visible in regular case.

KontradictioN said:

On paper, the Pats should blow the doors off of this team. The Giants, on defense, haven't been able to stop a JV squad all year long - let alone an NFL caliber offense. You can run and throw on them. They have exactly one reliable pass rusher and Amukumara is going to be missing his fifth straight game. If the Pats don't win this by multiple scores, it will be because they're turning the ball over.

Click to expand...

If they don't win it's because the giants are in their heads.

Here's a bold prediction. The Patriots will go over 600 yards of total offense against the Giants. The Giants D is pathetic. This should be a blowout.

You're not gonna contain brady with this.

I'm shocked at how big of ****ies people are being over this game. Justin tuck, osi and strahan ain't walking through that door. We have a healthy gronk. You people realize mccourty and mayo are the only defensive holdovers from our team back then till now. For Christ sakes Brandon meriweather is one of their starting safties. The guy who couldn't even make our roster when we had awful d backs. This is going to be a blow out. Have a spine for me one time

aluminum seats said:

The sentence was, "Gronk being healthy in 2011 would have, objectively I think, made all the difference." It was in the context of a point about how fans will always play the "shoulda woulda coulda" game, but in this case, I said that "I think" that even a non-fan--that is, someone who didn't bring emotion into the equation--would feel that Gronk being healthy would have made the difference. I think the point of the word was pretty clear in that context. One could, naturally, make the point that opinions can never be objective, because they are by definition opinions. I think correcting my usage in that context was sort of picayune, but that's just my opinion.

No need to go all caps every time on "objective," by the way, the word is visible in regular case.

Click to expand...

Not worth continuing, particularly given other events of the evening.

Deus Irae said:

You couldn't seem to grasp the actual meaning of the word, so I put it in all caps. I was hoping you'd figure it out if it was focused upon.

It was a pipe dream on my part, apparently, since you're still trying to argue it, and repeatedly misstating my position here in the process.

Click to expand...

But what we really want to know is your opinion of the Jamie Collins draft selection? We really need some more arrogant finger wagging.

tombonneau said:

I think Blount plays himself into Corey Dillon lore the rest of this season and into playoffs.

Click to expand...

LeGarrette Blount's next rushing TD will tie Kevin Faulk and Tom Brady on the Patriots career leaders list.

KontradictioN said:

Aye. Winning the turnover battle is often essential to getting the W.

Click to expand...

So the game pivots on which QB shows up Sunday, the Blizzard of Picks Goober or the Horseshoe Up His Ass Eli.

PatsWickedPissah said:

So the game pivots on which QB shows up Sunday, the Blizzard of Picks Goober or the Horseshoe Up His Ass Eli.

Click to expand...

We never get bad Eli. I'm not expecting him on Sunday.

If we rush for 200 yards that means Brady was not contained. It means we didn't even bother trying to throw.