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.