Are the Giants Overrated?

[guardplay320]

He's played well this season and gives them a chance to win a week from now. That's all that really matters. Elite and even great are terms that get used far too often, can you suddenly become a great player in your 8th season? It's all semantics, I guess.

We'll find out next season I'm sure. If Eli repeats this years performance, yes. I am shocked myself at the strides he took this offseason.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Your problem is that you are comparing a very good QB to a GOAT candidate. Eli has played at an elite level THIS season. Part of being elite though, to me, is consistency. If he performs this way next season, I will call him elite. But if you want to go on a season by season basis, yes, Eli is Elite, and he is playing VERY good football right now, which is what 'elite' quarterbacks are expected to do in January and February.

But again, putting Eli side-by-side with Brady simply isn't fair, especially when you are using several career numbers to judge. Like I said, one QB is potentially the greatest to ever play the game when all is said and done, and the other is a very good QB at this point in time.

You're all over the map on this, especially the first paragraph.

As far as your second paragraph you're saying that it's not fair to compare Brady and Eli while trying to say they're on the same level (elite status) Can't have it both ways.

 

[zoostation]

Yes the Giants are overrated....but I'm okay with that. Unlike the media whores that also play in the swamps of New Jersey (coach and fans), I love the fact that the Pats are getting less of the sexy stories and ink. This feels like 2001 all over again.

Note..I'm responding to this post without reading one thread as I'm sure the Giant trolls are on this like maggots on a carcass.

 

[upstater1]

Eli throws up way too many ducks to be elite at anything.

He throws up interception after interception.

The 2008 game was an abomination. Patriots win that game 19 times out of 20.

This year, the two teams are close, but I don't think any of us were expecting Super Bowl this year. So this isn't exactly a top notch Patriot team. We all know that.

I think Eli is good but count me among the doubters even if he wins.

 

[strngplyr]

You're all over the map on this, especially the first paragraph.

As far as your second paragraph you're saying that it's not fair to compare Brady and Eli while trying to say they're on the same level (elite status) Can't have it both ways.

I said Eli is playing at an elite level, but for me to call him elite, I believe he has to do it for another season at least. Look at Vick last year, he played at an 'elite' level and was an MVP candidate up until the final few games, but nobody is calling him 'elite' anymore. That doesn't make his season last year any less impressive. It was an 'elite' season, but he is not an elite player because of one year. Eli fits in that category right now, he had an elite season, but until he shows he can back it up with another I won't call him elite. That doesn't make the level he is playing at at this point in time any less impressive.

As for my second paragraph, I meant YOU aren't being fair as you compare them. They are both playing at similar levels this year but you are half comparing careers and half comparing their 2011 season. I'm not the one all over the map, your comparison is.

It is hardly fair to compare Eli's career to Brady's career as a case against Eli whether Eli is elite or not. Brady's career has him in line to be called the greatest QB, maybe player, to ever play the game. Not every elite QB of an era is going to be in that conversation.

 

[ivanvamp]

Honestly, what do the Pats injuries have anything to do with the Giants? The thread is asking if the Giants are overrated, not whose injuries hurt them more.

No kidding. I'm the one who started the thread. If you followed the thread you will see that, as is usually the case, it kind of meandered here and there a little.

And even though Boley only missed 2 1/2 games, he was not fully back and healthy until late in the year. Tuck was playing hurt all year. And yes, Osi did make that much of a difference. You can choose not to believe that, but it's true. Once Osi was back and healthy, the pressure from their defense was night and day.

Osi is indeed a great player, as I've noted already. During the regular season he had 9 sacks in 9 games. In the playoffs he has 3.5 sacks in 3 games. So he's right on pace for what he normally does.

Now, here's the impact of Osi Umenyiora. (Osi's stats are in parenthesis)

Games 1-3 (without Osi):
at Was (L, 28-14): 4 sacks, 6 TFL, 7 QB hits
vs Stl (W, 28-16): 2 sacks, 6 TFL, 9 QB hits
at Phi (W, 29-16): 2 sacks, 8 TFL, 5 QB hits
TOT: 2-1, 20.0 ppga, 10 sacks (3.3/g), 20 TFL (6.7/g), 21 QB hits (7.0/g)

Games 4-11 (with Osi):
at Ari (W, 31-27): 4 sacks (2), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (1)
vs Sea (L, 36-25): 6 sacks (2), 7 TFL (2), 8 QB hits (2)
vs Buf (W, 27-24): 3 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (2)
vs Mia (W, 20-17): 5 sacks (1), 7 TFL (1), 7 QB hits (1)
at NE (W, 24-20): 2 sacks (0), 2 TFL (0), 3 QB hits (1)
at SF (L, 27-20): 2 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (1)
vs Phi (L, 17-10): 1 sack (0), 7 TFL (0), 1 QB hit (0)
at NO (L, 49-24): 0 sacks (0), 1 TFL (0), 6 QB hits (1)
TOT: 4-4, 27.1 ppga, 23 sacks (Osi: 7) (2.9/g), 29 TFL (Osi: 6) (3.6/g), 37 QB hits (Osi: 9) (4.6/g)

Games 12-15 (without Osi):
vs GB (L, 38-35): 2 sacks, 8 TFL, 6 QB hits
at Dal (W, 37-34): 3 sacks, 3 TFL, 4 QB hits
vs Was (L, 23-10): 1 sack, 4 TFL, 8 QB hits
at NYJ (W, 29-14): 5 sacks, 7 TFL, 6 QB hits
TOT: 2-2, 27.3 ppga, 11 sacks (2.8/g), 22 TFL (5.5/g), 24 QB hits (6.0/g)

Games 16-19 (with Osi):
vs Dal (W, 31-14): 6 sacks (2), 7 TFL (2), 7 QB hits (2)
vs Atl (W, 26-2): 2 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 7 QB hits (2)
at GB (W, 37-20): 4 sacks (2), 8 TFL (1), 5 QB hits (2)
at SF (W, 20-17): 3 sacks (0.5), 5 TFL (1), 6 QB hits (1)
TOT: 4-0, 13.3 ppga, 15 sacks (5.5) (3.8/g), 25 TFL (5) (6.3/g), 25 QB hits (7) (6.3/g)

TOTALS WITHOUT OSI:
4-3, 24.1 ppga, 21 sack (3.0/g), 42 TFL (6.0/g), 45 QB hits (6.4/g)

TOTALS WITH OSI:
8-4, 22.5 ppga, 38 sacks (3.2/g), 54 TFL (4.5/g), 62 QB hits (5.2/g)
- Osi: 12.5 sacks (1.0/g), 11 TFL (0.9/g), 16 QB hits (1.3/g)

It is clear, when you factor in tackles for loss and QB hits, that the Giants have gotten *LESS* pressure on the quarterback this year with Osi in the lineup!!

Season Totals:
12-7, 23.1 ppga, 59 sacks (3.1/g), 96 TFL (5.1/g), 107 QB hits (5.6/g)

Last 4 with Osi:
4-0, 13.3 ppga, 15 sacks (3.8/g), 25 TFL (6.3/g), 25 QB hits (6.3/g)

So they are getting a little more pressure in their last 4 games with Osi than they averaged during the season, but the defense as a whole is playing *lights out* - just 13.3 ppga as opposed to 23.1 ppga overall. It's remarkable.

Bottom line: I don't think the Giants' massive improvement can be attributed simply to Osi. If we saw the Giants' stats spike upward in terms of pressure with Osi in the lineup, then yes, we could attribute it to him. And adding a sack-per-game guy to the lineup obviously helps. But the only two numbers really spiking for the Giants during this run are points per game allowed and turnovers created....not sacks or tackles for loss or QB hits or any other measurement of pressure.

 

[strngplyr]

No kidding. I'm the one who started the thread. If you followed the thread you will see that, as is usually the case, it kind of meandered here and there a little.



Osi is indeed a great player, as I've noted already. During the regular season he had 9 sacks in 9 games. In the playoffs he has 3.5 sacks in 3 games. So he's right on pace for what he normally does.

Now, here's the impact of Osi Umenyiora. (Osi's stats are in parenthesis)

Games 1-3 (without Osi):
at Was (L, 28-14): 4 sacks, 6 TFL, 7 QB hits
vs Stl (W, 28-16): 2 sacks, 6 TFL, 9 QB hits
at Phi (W, 29-16): 2 sacks, 8 TFL, 5 QB hits
TOT: 2-1, 20.0 ppga, 10 sacks (3.3/g), 20 TFL (6.7/g), 21 QB hits (7.0/g)

Games 4-11 (with Osi):
at Ari (W, 31-27): 4 sacks (2), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (1)
vs Sea (L, 36-25): 6 sacks (2), 7 TFL (2), 8 QB hits (2)
vs Buf (W, 27-24): 3 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (2)
vs Mia (W, 20-17): 5 sacks (1), 7 TFL (1), 7 QB hits (1)
at NE (W, 24-20): 2 sacks (0), 2 TFL (0), 3 QB hits (1)
at SF (L, 27-20): 2 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (1)
vs Phi (L, 17-10): 1 sack (0), 7 TFL (0), 1 QB hit (0)
at NO (L, 49-24): 0 sacks (0), 1 TFL (0), 6 QB hits (1)
TOT: 4-4, 27.1 ppga, 23 sacks (Osi: 7) (2.9/g), 29 TFL (Osi: 6) (3.6/g), 37 QB hits (Osi: 9) (4.6/g)

Games 12-15 (without Osi):
vs GB (L, 38-35): 2 sacks, 8 TFL, 6 QB hits
at Dal (W, 37-34): 3 sacks, 3 TFL, 4 QB hits
vs Was (L, 23-10): 1 sack, 4 TFL, 8 QB hits
at NYJ (W, 29-14): 5 sacks, 7 TFL, 6 QB hits
TOT: 2-2, 27.3 ppga, 11 sacks (2.8/g), 22 TFL (5.5/g), 24 QB hits (6.0/g)

Games 16-19 (with Osi):
vs Dal (W, 31-14): 6 sacks (2), 7 TFL (2), 7 QB hits (2)
vs Atl (W, 26-2): 2 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 7 QB hits (2)
at GB (W, 37-20): 4 sacks (2), 8 TFL (1), 5 QB hits (2)
at SF (W, 20-17): 3 sacks (0.5), 5 TFL (1), 6 QB hits (1)
TOT: 4-0, 13.3 ppga, 15 sacks (5.5) (3.8/g), 25 TFL (5) (6.3/g), 25 QB hits (7) (6.3/g)

TOTALS WITHOUT OSI:
4-3, 24.1 ppga, 21 sack (3.0/g), 42 TFL (6.0/g), 45 QB hits (6.4/g)

TOTALS WITH OSI:
8-4, 22.5 ppga, 38 sacks (3.2/g), 54 TFL (4.5/g), 62 QB hits (5.2/g)
- Osi: 12.5 sacks (1.0/g), 11 TFL (0.9/g), 16 QB hits (1.3/g)

It is clear, when you factor in tackles for loss and QB hits, that the Giants have gotten *LESS* pressure on the quarterback this year with Osi in the lineup!!

Season Totals:
12-7, 23.1 ppga, 59 sacks (3.1/g), 96 TFL (5.1/g), 107 QB hits (5.6/g)

Last 4 with Osi:
4-0, 13.3 ppga, 15 sacks (3.8/g), 25 TFL (6.3/g), 25 QB hits (6.3/g)

So they are getting a little more pressure in their last 4 games with Osi than they averaged during the season, but the defense as a whole is playing *lights out* - just 13.3 ppga as opposed to 23.1 ppga overall. It's remarkable.

Bottom line: I don't think the Giants' massive improvement can be attributed simply to Osi. If we saw the Giants' stats spike upward in terms of pressure with Osi in the lineup, then yes, we could attribute it to him. And adding a sack-per-game guy to the lineup obviously helps. But the only two numbers really spiking for the Giants during this run are points per game allowed and turnovers created....not sacks or tackles for loss or QB hits or any other measurement of pressure.

That's actually pretty interesting, and while unrelated to the thread topic, I have noticed a similar trend since Carter was injured, but a long with Carters injury came a defensive scheme change that might just be that much more superior.

We had a solid pass rush with Carter, better than last season, but since his injury I feel like we've been spending a lot more time in opponents backfields, especially in the playoffs.

 

[guardplay320]

No kidding. I'm the one who started the thread. If you followed the thread you will see that, as is usually the case, it kind of meandered here and there a little.



Osi is indeed a great player, as I've noted already. During the regular season he had 9 sacks in 9 games. In the playoffs he has 3.5 sacks in 3 games. So he's right on pace for what he normally does.

Now, here's the impact of Osi Umenyiora. (Osi's stats are in parenthesis)

Games 1-3 (without Osi):
at Was (L, 28-14): 4 sacks, 6 TFL, 7 QB hits
vs Stl (W, 28-16): 2 sacks, 6 TFL, 9 QB hits
at Phi (W, 29-16): 2 sacks, 8 TFL, 5 QB hits
TOT: 2-1, 20.0 ppga, 10 sacks (3.3/g), 20 TFL (6.7/g), 21 QB hits (7.0/g)

Games 4-11 (with Osi):
at Ari (W, 31-27): 4 sacks (2), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (1)
vs Sea (L, 36-25): 6 sacks (2), 7 TFL (2), 8 QB hits (2)
vs Buf (W, 27-24): 3 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (2)
vs Mia (W, 20-17): 5 sacks (1), 7 TFL (1), 7 QB hits (1)
at NE (W, 24-20): 2 sacks (0), 2 TFL (0), 3 QB hits (1)
at SF (L, 27-20): 2 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 4 QB hits (1)
vs Phi (L, 17-10): 1 sack (0), 7 TFL (0), 1 QB hit (0)
at NO (L, 49-24): 0 sacks (0), 1 TFL (0), 6 QB hits (1)
TOT: 4-4, 27.1 ppga, 23 sacks (Osi: 7) (2.9/g), 29 TFL (Osi: 6) (3.6/g), 37 QB hits (Osi: 9) (4.6/g)

Games 12-15 (without Osi):
vs GB (L, 38-35): 2 sacks, 8 TFL, 6 QB hits
at Dal (W, 37-34): 3 sacks, 3 TFL, 4 QB hits
vs Was (L, 23-10): 1 sack, 4 TFL, 8 QB hits
at NYJ (W, 29-14): 5 sacks, 7 TFL, 6 QB hits
TOT: 2-2, 27.3 ppga, 11 sacks (2.8/g), 22 TFL (5.5/g), 24 QB hits (6.0/g)

Games 16-19 (with Osi):
vs Dal (W, 31-14): 6 sacks (2), 7 TFL (2), 7 QB hits (2)
vs Atl (W, 26-2): 2 sacks (1), 5 TFL (1), 7 QB hits (2)
at GB (W, 37-20): 4 sacks (2), 8 TFL (1), 5 QB hits (2)
at SF (W, 20-17): 3 sacks (0.5), 5 TFL (1), 6 QB hits (1)
TOT: 4-0, 13.3 ppga, 15 sacks (5.5) (3.8/g), 25 TFL (5) (6.3/g), 25 QB hits (7) (6.3/g)

TOTALS WITHOUT OSI:
4-3, 24.1 ppga, 21 sack (3.0/g), 42 TFL (6.0/g), 45 QB hits (6.4/g)

TOTALS WITH OSI:
8-4, 22.5 ppga, 38 sacks (3.2/g), 54 TFL (4.5/g), 62 QB hits (5.2/g)
- Osi: 12.5 sacks (1.0/g), 11 TFL (0.9/g), 16 QB hits (1.3/g)

It is clear, when you factor in tackles for loss and QB hits, that the Giants have gotten *LESS* pressure on the quarterback this year with Osi in the lineup!!

Season Totals:
12-7, 23.1 ppga, 59 sacks (3.1/g), 96 TFL (5.1/g), 107 QB hits (5.6/g)

Last 4 with Osi:
4-0, 13.3 ppga, 15 sacks (3.8/g), 25 TFL (6.3/g), 25 QB hits (6.3/g)

So they are getting a little more pressure in their last 4 games with Osi than they averaged during the season, but the defense as a whole is playing *lights out* - just 13.3 ppga as opposed to 23.1 ppga overall. It's remarkable.

Bottom line: I don't think the Giants' massive improvement can be attributed simply to Osi. If we saw the Giants' stats spike upward in terms of pressure with Osi in the lineup, then yes, we could attribute it to him. And adding a sack-per-game guy to the lineup obviously helps. But the only two numbers really spiking for the Giants during this run are points per game allowed and turnovers created....not sacks or tackles for loss or QB hits or any other measurement of pressure.

Only one flaw with your post: in the lineup doesn't mean healthy. Osi was not himself the entire season. He was completely off his game in the beginning of the season due to his holdout and has never been truly back from his injury until about week 16.Not only that, these last 4 games are basically the only time all year Osi and Tuck have been anywhere close to 100% and JPP wasn't anywhere close in his development until close to halfway through the season. In other words, the Giants haven't had this level of strength from these 3 all year until now, thus the crazy good performance. Couple that with a healthy Boley and this team is whole finally (minus the major preseason injuries - Terrell Thomas namely). Pretty similar to why the Pats have improved defensively as well. A healthy defense goes a long way.

 

[ivanvamp]

Only one flaw with your post: in the lineup doesn't mean healthy. Osi was not himself the entire season. He was completely off his game in the beginning of the season due to his holdout and has never been truly back from his injury until about week 16.Not only that, these last 4 games are basically the only time all year Osi and Tuck have been anywhere close to 100% and JPP wasn't anywhere close in his development until close to halfway through the season. In other words, the Giants haven't had this level of strength from these 3 all year until now, thus the crazy good performance. Couple that with a healthy Boley and this team is whole finally (minus the major preseason injuries - Terrell Thomas namely). Pretty similar to why the Pats have improved defensively as well. A healthy defense goes a long way.

I understand what you are saying, but the stats tell a different story when it comes to Osi. Go back and look at the numbers again. You say that Osi was "completely off his game in the beginning of the season...." He was out the first three games of the year, but once he returned to the lineup, he was a house of fire. His first 4 games played of the season generated 6 sacks, 5 tackles for losses, and 6 QB hits. He was playing dominating football the moment he stepped onto the field this season.

And with a healthy Boley, JPP, Osi, Tuck, et al, the Giants' *PRESSURE* hasn't been dramatically different. Again, what they've done better the past handful of games is get turnovers, which has been their key to keeping the opponent off the scoreboard. Now, it just so happens that generating turnovers is the #1 correlation with winning, so that's the primary explanation for why they're doing so well. But generating turnovers is also a bit of a "live by it...die by it" kind of thing. Last year the Pats were #1 in the league in turnover ratio, but they lost the turnover battle against the Jets and lost the game. This year they've been VERY fortunate to win both games despite losing the turnover battle.

The Giants very well may win the turnover battle in the Super Bowl, but if they don't, there's a very good chance they'll lose the game.

 

[guardplay320]

I understand what you are saying, but the stats tell a different story when it comes to Osi. Go back and look at the numbers again. You say that Osi was "completely off his game in the beginning of the season...." He was out the first three games of the year, but once he returned to the lineup, he was a house of fire. His first 4 games played of the season generated 6 sacks, 5 tackles for losses, and 6 QB hits. He was playing dominating football the moment he stepped onto the field this season.

And with a healthy Boley, JPP, Osi, Tuck, et al, the Giants' *PRESSURE* hasn't been dramatically different. Again, what they've done better the past handful of games is get turnovers, which has been their key to keeping the opponent off the scoreboard. Now, it just so happens that generating turnovers is the #1 correlation with winning, so that's the primary explanation for why they're doing so well. But generating turnovers is also a bit of a "live by it...die by it" kind of thing. Last year the Pats were #1 in the league in turnover ratio, but they lost the turnover battle against the Jets and lost the game. This year they've been VERY fortunate to win both games despite losing the turnover battle.

The Giants very well may win the turnover battle in the Super Bowl, but if they don't, there's a very good chance they'll lose the game.

Well if that isn't stating the obvious, I don't know what is? As for the other stuff, it might not look dramatically different on paper, but the eye test tells a different story. Watch the games and look at the quality of offenses if you doubt me. The turnovers are a result of the quality of the pressure.

 

[ivanvamp]

Well if that isn't stating the obvious, I don't know what is? As for the other stuff, it might not look dramatically different on paper, but the eye test tells a different story. Watch the games and look at the quality of offenses if you doubt me. The turnovers are a result of the quality of the pressure.

The two turnovers SF had were on punt returns, one of which was completely unforced.

Of the four Packer turnovers, one was a fumble by Ryan Grant after a 10 yard gain, and another was a fumble by John Kuhn after a 2-yard run. In neither case was "pressure" (i.e., penetration by the defense into the offensive backfield) the cause. The Rodgers INT late in the game was not caused by pressure. So of the six turnovers in the GB and SF games, only one of them was caused by "pressure".

They all count, of course, but you can't credit the Giants' pressure with but one of them. You can credit excellent defense, but not pressure.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

I said Eli is playing at an elite level, but for me to call him elite, I believe he has to do it for another season at least. Look at Vick last year, he played at an 'elite' level and was an MVP candidate up until the final few games, but nobody is calling him 'elite' anymore. That doesn't make his season last year any less impressive. It was an 'elite' season, but he is not an elite player because of one year. Eli fits in that category right now, he had an elite season, but until he shows he can back it up with another I won't call him elite. That doesn't make the level he is playing at at this point in time any less impressive.

As for my second paragraph, I meant YOU aren't being fair as you compare them. They are both playing at similar levels this year but you are half comparing careers and half comparing their 2011 season. I'm not the one all over the map, your comparison is.

It is hardly fair to compare Eli's career to Brady's career as a case against Eli whether Eli is elite or not. Brady's career has him in line to be called the greatest QB, maybe player, to ever play the game. Not every elite QB of an era is going to be in that conversation.

Fair, what does fair have to do with it? Of course it's not fair, Brady's accomplishments dwarf Eli's, that's why he's elite. You need to do more than string a few good games together to be considered elite.

 

[strngplyr]

Fair, what does fair have to do with it? Of course it's not fair, Brady's accomplishments dwarf Eli's, that's why he's elite. You need to do more than string a few good games together to be considered elite.

Brady's accomplishments make him a candidate for the greatest of all time. Using that as a yardstick isn't fair, there would be one elite QB per generation if that is how you judged it. Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers are all called elite, but you need to combine all 3 of their careers to equal Brady's accomplishments, I never see any arguments against them being elite.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Brady's accomplishments make him a candidate for the greatest of all time. Using that as a yardstick isn't fair, there would be one elite QB per generation if that is how you judged it. Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers are all called elite, but you need to combine all 3 of their careers to equal Brady's accomplishments, I never see any arguments against them being elite.

They've all played at a higher level for a longer time than Eli.

 

[PierrePain]

Admittedly I only went through half the thread but I'm pretty surprised no one mentioned LB Michael Boley


Besides Tuck being banged up and ineffective, Osi missing a good part of the year---Boley is by FAR the key reason why the Giants defense is playing like night and day compared to the reg season. He calls all the plays and the defense has had there good share of problems playing out of position.

A healthy Boley and the addition of Blackburn have made a world of a difference. The Giants D hasn't given up many big plays since then.

On the offensive side, Nicks and Manningham (Manningham being key IMO) are finally healthy, Cruz has done nothing but improve every week, the O-line has improved, and Eli has raised his game to another level.

 

[ALP]

the falcons game was an anomaly

it should not be used in these types of exercises because it will simply not happen again

id like to see those numbers excluding that game (the giants D best performance of the year, if you want to be fair, exclude their worst performance as well)

 

[Ron Sellers]

Honestly, what do the Pats injuries have anything to do with the Giants? The thread is asking if the Giants are overrated, not whose injuries hurt them more.

I guess you and I view this completely differently, because to me the Patriots (and their injuries) have everything to do with the question of whether or not the Giants are overrated. The two teams are playing each other in a week! Are people overrating the Giants in this game? How can you answer that question without considering who their opponent is?


My biggest issue (and I think that of many others) can be summed up in an example of an espn segment that aired this evening. A reporter (Jeremy Schatz?) talked about how the Giants not only won in week nine, but listed four Giants that did not play in that game. The implication was quite clear: the Giants are now much better; the Pats are the same.

What he failed to mention was that the Pats defense included Philip Adams at CB, Sergio Brown at S and Tracy White at LB in that game. All were involved in key plays that went the Giants way in week 9, and none will be seeing the field against the NYG offense next week.

Why is there no corresponding mention of the late season improvement of the Pats defense, or the return of Spikes, Chung, Fletcher and addition of Moore? Is it shoddy research? Or maybe it's simply the OMG! type of journalism that appeals to casual fans.


People in the media shouldn't talk about the Giants injuries if they aren't going to do the same for the Patriots.
People in the media shouldn't say the regular season record means nothing and then point to the game in week nine as if it is significant.
People in the media shouldn't say the Giants are hot while ignoring the team with the ten game winning streak.
People in the media shouldn't say the Giants beating the Pats early in the season is an indicator of what will happen in the playoffs while ignoring the first meeting between the Giants and Packers, and the 49ers.



The Giants are a good team, and it would not surprise me at all if they won. But there is a whole lot of meaningless noise out there right now, and the majority of that is in my opinion over estimating the Giants chances of winning while underestimating the Pats chances. So in that regards I would say that yes, right now the Giants are a bit overrated.

 

[supafly]

I don't believe that the NYG are over rated, but I certainly do believe that the NEP are underrated..

That is the 100% reason why many see the Giants as a clear cut winner. No one really believes in this team outside of the fanbase. Even those who respect BB, Brady, and the Patriot way still only see the game as "anyone's guess."

There are not many who are picking this team in this game.

 

[Harry Yelreh]

No-one is saying they aren't but Eli isn't the 8 TD/1 INT QB he has been in the playoffs. If we get no INT we have a serious, serious problem. His history says we'll get a couple if we play the ball and catch the ball.

Not to take a thing away from him or his team - when you get momentum, you get momentum, and it often happens in a lot of different ways - but he also has had some serious luck, too. He had at least two passes against San Fran that should have been surefire INTs. In fact they were such surefire INTs that on both occasions, two defenders were right there for the easy pick - and on both occasions the two defenders ran right into each other and knocked each other away from the ball.

Conversely, what happened on Brady's two INTs against Baltimore? Both were phenomenal plays by the defense, especially the one that was tipped from one DB to the other.

These are just the breaks that happen in football, and when two great teams play, such breaks are often the difference. Really, as mentioned, it's incredible that the Patriots lost the turnover battle like they did and STILL beat Baltimore. Patriots are going to have to be more sound against the Giants, and that's going to be tough. The Giants are very mentally tough, and that's an intangible but key part of their success: feeding off the uncharacteristic mistakes of their opponents. If the Patriots can just play their best ball - pick off INTs when they present themselves, not fumble or throw INTs in terrible situations and not have the stupid ball bounce of their knees when trying to return punts - they should be in great shape. Easier said than done, though.

I'm not dissing the Giants at all: they've been playing incredibly tough and clutch - frankly, in a way that reminds me of the New England teams of '01, '03, and '04.

 

[patsfan-1982]

they are playing in the SB if that is overrated ill take it