Are the Giants Overrated?

[supafly]

Not trolling just offering up my opinion. First of all no need to look at your last two years, just look at this year. I am just echoing what you guys thought this midseason, was that you'd be lucky to make it anywhere with your defense. I would not have brought this up at all, accept I just felt like I had to make a point in a thread titled " Are the Giants Overrated?" which you guys were calling us lucky. I really am just surprised that your trying to shrug off playing Tim Tebow as completely fine and not lucky at all. And like I said earlier we were pretty evenly matched with both the 49ers and the Packers going off close regular season games that could have went both teams ways. Also why would the Steelers not deserve to their 3 SB appearances just because they didn't play you? Look I'm a secondary Steelers fan( dads from Pittsburgh), and they never played a qb as inept as Tebow in their playoff run or get really lucky in a guy missing a chip shot FG. They easily could have beaten you guys if you would have met, but thats not the point. I don't think you guys really deserve to be in the SB this year.

Why would I consider the Steelers lucky to have avoided us??

Ummm, maybe it's due to the recent dominance, especially during the postseason.

When your starting QB was 6-1 (now 6-2) against them, and they've failed against us miserably 3-4 times in the postseason, I would say they were lucky. They didn't beat the best to get there, that could very well be argued.

Especially when you are just the 2nd team out of 53 other teams who have made the playoffs at 11-5 to NOT make the playoffs.

You think that Pittsburgh wasn't happy and feeling a bit "lucky" last yr, when they HOSTED the AFCCG against the 6th seed, rather than go on the road to Foxborough vs the #1?

Did DEN get lucky when the guy from CLE fumbled on the goal line while going into the endzone to win the AFCCG on their way to the SB?

Give me a break dude. You can try and spin this all you want. Most SB teams have gotten lucky to some extent. That's ridiculous.

I don't see how you have the balls to call a team who is now 15-3 on the year, beat out all of the other 3 teams they were facing (PIT, BAL, HOU) for the #1 seed, and took care of business.

The same argument could be said for your team in many ways, but I do not believe that for one second. The system is not flawed, the last 2 teams are at the end and they are where they should be.

 

[supafly]

And they look like idiots for saying that. There was a massive thread, and I can't find it now, started by some blathering idiot who stated that the Giants didn't belong and he felt the NFL was cheating him in teh SB. The Pats fans here jumped on him pretty harshly.

To be fair, we did have a tougher road, sure. It was expected, as we were a #4 seed, and I think the NFC was up this year and the AFC was down. And yeah, we got some lucky breaks, but who hasn't. You make your own luck. You put yourself in position to be lucky. I think reasonable fans here respect Big blue, and know that they could be miserable next Sunday at 11pm.

Sorry for jumping on you like that. I just looked at the last page, and saw a bunch of trolling going around.

Yeah, just like you said---there are always idiots in every fanbase.

The thread you are referring to was locked up and moved, due to its sheer ignorance.

His argument wasn't even so much against the NYG personally, but against teams like GB last yr etc that went 10-6/9-7. I suppose he was arguing vs the Giants this yr for the same reason, he didn't think they had a good enough record in the reg season etc.

I think that out of any teams, both are right where they should be.

I will agree that they got there in somewhat different fashions, but both won when it was time to. N.England used the regular season/home field advantage more, whereas the NYG used the playoffs to get hot at the right time. Of course both teams have significant winning streaks, and that's how it should be.

I wouldn't do a thing to change the system. He's just a radical of sorts, and that's why the thread was moved.

 

[giants4sb]

Why would I consider the Steelers lucky to have avoided us??

Ummm, maybe it's due to the recent dominance, especially during the postseason.

When your starting QB was 6-1 (now 6-2) against them, and they've failed against us miserably 3-4 times in the postseason, I would say they were lucky. They didn't beat the best to get there, that could very well be argued.

Especially when you are just the 2nd team out of 53 other teams who have made the playoffs at 11-5 to NOT make the playoffs.

You think that Pittsburgh wasn't happy and feeling a bit "lucky" last yr, when they HOSTED the AFCCG against the 6th seed, rather than go on the road to Foxborough vs the #1?

Did DEN get lucky when the guy from CLE fumbled on the goal line while going into the endzone to win the AFCCG on their way to the SB?

Give me a break dude. You can try and spin this all you want. Most SB teams have gotten lucky to some extent. That's ridiculous.

I don't see how you have the balls to call a team who is now 15-3 on the year, beat out all of the other 3 teams they were facing (PIT, BAL, HOU) for the #1 seed, and took care of business.

The same argument could be said for your team in many ways, but I do not believe that for one second. The system is not flawed, the last 2 teams are at the end and they are where they should be.

Yeah, but like I said any given Sunday you could beat someone. The Steelers proved this year they could beat Tom Brady, so why couldn't they beat him in the playoffs when it mattered most? Off course you could of beat them, but they also could have beat you. Also, it is very possible cheating might have been involved in some of those playoff defeats, but thats a different topic( I posted a good article on it.) And of course teams get lucky each year with a SB run, a lot of things have to come together. You have to be healthy(except for Packers last year), and you have be playing your best football at the best time. Except that I think your team is significantly more lucky to be in the SB from all the reasons I have listed before. That is all, and the points really do hold valid.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Gladly...

Did Spygate Really Give the Patriots an Advantage? | Bleacher Report

There was a recent article by fellow Steelers writer David Klingler, stating that the Patriots are the team of the decade, regardless of what happens this year. In the comments, once again, the Patriots and Steelers fans are debating on who it really is.

Steelers fans claim that because of spygate, the Patriots don't deserve it.

Patriots fans are quick to dismiss any notion of this because spygate was not really important. As Patriots fans say, "every team" does it.

What the real question is, to me at least, did spygate really give the Patriots an unfair advantage?

Lets actually look at a couple of games and decide if spygate should even be talked about any more.

In 2001, the Patriots were coming off a fifth place finish in the AFC East. They were not expected to be Super Bowl contenders.

In the second game of the season, Drew Bledsoe was lost to injury, and in comes second-year player Tom Brady.

A kid from Michigan that was taken in the sixth round, and did not look anything like the part of a Hall of Fame player. He was skinny, looked out of shape, and no NFL team thought that he was worthy of being drafted in the first five rounds.

The Patriots turn things around, and qualify as the second seed for the playoffs.

Is it possible that a second year player, drafted in the sixth round, with no game experience, could lead his team, on his own, to the second seed from one of the worst?

Could knowing the defensive signals have had any input in his progression?

The Patriots hosted the Oakland Raiders in a snow storm. The game was won on an overtime field goal, sending the Patriots to Pittsburgh to play the Steelers.

I am not going to say, for one second, anything negative about the call that resulted in the tuck rule. It is a rule that is on the books, and the call that was made was correct.

But, knowing the defensive signals, would the game have gone into overtime if they didn't? Does anyone else find it funny that ALL of the Patriots points were scored in the second half of the game. After halftime adjustments were made?

Had the Patriots not won that game, they obviously would not have won that Super Bowl.

Part of the spygate issue was the video taping of the Rams' walkthrough practice prior to the Super Bowl.

After much speculation, the man that was in charge of videotaping for the Patriots, Matt Walsh, told the NFL that there was no videotaping that happened, but that himself, and other members of the Patriots staff, did witness the walkthrough of the Rams.

Did they take notes? What were they watching? Why were they watching?

Halfway through the second quarter, Ty Law intercepted a pass from Kurt Warner and returned it for the games first touchdown.

At the end of the first half, Tom Brady led the Patriots on a 60-yard scoring drive, that gave the Pats a 14-3 lead at half time.

Because of the formation, did Ty Law have some idea what play was being run? Was that information known from what was watched by Mr. Walsh?

Did the Patriots have some idea of what the Rams were doing that made Brady be able to drive the field, when he had not been able to prior to that?

New England won by three.

Since it has been admitted that there was taping, then if any of the above mentioned plays were the result of "spying" then the Patriots would not have been the Super Bowl Champions.

2002 the Patriots do not make the playoffs.



Super Bowl XXXVIII.

The New England Patriots were playing the Carolina Panthers. With just under four minutes to go in the third quarter, the Patriots took over and had an eight play, 71 yard drive that led in a score.

In the last 1:08 of the game, Tom Brady went 5-5, not counting the offensive pass interference call, that led the Patriots to the victory.

Was it possible that any of the plays at that crucial drive Brady knew what the defense was doing?



2004

New England took a 21-game winning streak into Pittsburgh to take on Big Ben Roethlisberger and the Steelers in week seven.

The rookie and the Steelers took the Patriots apart, 34-20. The Steelers defense held the Patriots to 3-9 on third downs. The Patriots were held to 248 yards of total offense, and only five rushing yards.

In the AFC Championship game, also in Pittsburgh, things were quite different.

The Patriots picked the Steelers defense apart, to the tune of 41 points. Forget the fact that Pittsburgh was the No. 1 defense in the NFL that year—No. 4 against the pass, and No. 1 against the run.

Could it be that the Patriots were just so much better that day? Or could they have know what Pittsburgh was doing?

With all the speculation over what happened in the first part of this decade, if Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl this year, both the Steelers and the Patriots will be tied with three Super Bowls each.

After really looking at the situations, is it not only possible, but probably, that had New England not cheated, that they may not have even won ONE Super Bowl? Had the Patriots not cheated, Pittsburgh may have had four right now.

The fact is, the NFL has punished the Patriots not only a first round pick, but Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and Robert Kraft was fined an additional $250,000.

These punishments are the most severe penalties ever leveled against a team, or a coach ever.

The NFL acknowledges that this happened, and that they destroyed the evidence so that a class action suite that was going to be filed by New York Jets fans could go no further.

What the New England Patriots have done is make a joke out of the game. I wrote a slide show declaring New England as the best team of the decade. After doing this research, I have changed my mind.

the bleacher report ? some made up bs. you do realize that the pats didn't get fined for taping DEFENSIVE signals. they got fined for taping from an undesignated area that every other team knew about. the reason the tapes were destroyed was because 1) the person that was in charge, goodell, saw them and deemed the pats got no competitive advantage. even showed herm edwards waving to the camera. and 2) they showed other teams doing the same thing. why would goodell, an ex jet employee, do the pats a favor. also , explain to me why , if those tapes were so important to the patriots success, their record is better after they stopped recording from the undesignated area. if matt walsh saw the walk thru and the walk thru was so important, why didn't the rams just kick him out. sounds like a ram problem, not a pats problem. the taping is a crutch for other teams fans to cling to because the patriots are just better. vcr's don't win football games, players do. now, if a player is ramped up on coke before every game, that's a problem.

how come, since the story broke, we've seen no exposes on how the pats would use those tapes to cheat ? hmmmm!!! interesting.

 

[supafly]

Yeah, but like I said any given Sunday you could beat someone. The Steelers proved this year they could beat Tom Brady, so why couldn't they beat him in the playoffs when it mattered most? Off course you could of beat them, but they also could have beat you. Also, it is very possible cheating might have been involved in some of those playoff defeats, but thats a different topic( I posted a good article on it.) And of course teams get lucky each year with a SB run, a lot of things have to come together. You have to be healthy(except for Packers last year), and you have be playing your best football at the best time. Except that I think your team is significantly more lucky to be in the SB from all the reasons I have listed before. That is all, and the points really do hold valid.

Your suggestion of "cheating" doesn't hold an ounce of water due to the fact that it wasn't even a rule in those games.

The Patriots were penalized for not following a league wide spread memo in the beginning of the 2007 season, and were quickly and promptly punished for it, within weeks. The only real "cheating" that could have gone on was during the first 2 quarters of the 2007 opener against the NYJ, and since they did not review the tapes until after the games or when they would scout the opponent again, that game had no bearing whatsoever.

Now the rule is that you must wear an orange vest when taping, and that is can only be done in designated areas.

There's also the fact the the Steelers coach at the time, Bill Cowher, has said that it had no bearing whatsoever (even though it was not a rule at the time) on numerous occasions in multiple interviews.

There's also the fact that the offense has produced way more pts on average since the questionable taping of defensive signals, as they went from approx. 20 pts a game during the span of 2001-2004 to what has become 31-33 pts a game now. How do you even begin to explain that fact?

They also have the NFL's best record since the beginning of the 07 season--and it isn't really even close. By winning almost 80% of all their games since the Spygate factor, I think they more than proved that they did not have to try and save time by taping the tendencies, as they could have simply used what other teams do, which is a pen and paper. Also, what team doesn't change their signals on a regular basis? Even the mighty Ben Roethlisberger has said that their system was "cheat-proof" since the Steelers use arm bands to relay and call their defensive formations.

There's also the fact that N.England is 2-1 in games where Brady has played the Steelers since, with the only loss coming this yr, when PIT finally caught them off guard and changed their scheme.

Now you're really just trolling, and all respect goes out the window.

 

[supafly]

And quoting any article from a website that is written and run by fans is comical at best.

The Bleacher Report is not even actual journalism, and they make no effort to even pretend to be.

You are obviously a very un-informed football follower, and that is not name calling. That is fact.

Please learn what Spygate/Cameragate really represented, and what the issue really was before thinking that something that happened 5-6 yrs ago would possibly bother any of us.

If the team had suddenly gone irrlevant, then maybe you'd have a slight case; but winning 80% of your games since then proves quite a lot.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

There's a reason the Giants were 9-7. It's not because they suck, it's because they're wildly inconsistent. Should people be predicting horrible bashings in their favor? Probably not, but they certainly deserve to be there. It's pretty ironic that our NFC opponents were the teams in the NFC East, and a Giants fan is playing the weak schedule card against us.

Oh, and for the guy who swears he's not trolling but throws the spygate thing around every time he's been had:

SpyGate: The Most 'Overblown' Story of the Decade

They quote two pretty good coaches in Cowher and Jimmie Johnson in that article, and Johnson came out multiple times in the 2007 season and told everyone that it's a part of the game, but what does he know? In November of 2006, a jets employee was caught doing the same thing, except Belichick just gave him the boot and didn't get big brother involved. But don't let logic get in your way.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Yeah, but like I said any given Sunday you could beat someone. The Steelers proved this year they could beat Tom Brady, so why couldn't they beat him in the playoffs when it mattered most? Off course you could of beat them, but they also could have beat you. Also, it is very possible cheating might have been involved in some of those playoff defeats, but thats a different topic( I posted a good article on it.) And of course teams get lucky each year with a SB run, a lot of things have to come together. You have to be healthy(except for Packers last year), and you have be playing your best football at the best time. Except that I think your team is significantly more lucky to be in the SB from all the reasons I have listed before. That is all, and the points really do hold valid.

bleacher report?

Hey Ian, what happened to standards around here?

Considering the fact the the Packers and 49er's gave you the games, ya might want learn the definition of luck.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

And they look like idiots for saying that. There was a massive thread, and I can't find it now, started by some blathering idiot who stated that the Giants didn't belong and he felt the NFL was cheating him in teh SB. The Pats fans here jumped on him pretty harshly.

To be fair, we did have a tougher road, sure. It was expected, as we were a #4 seed, and I think the NFC was up this year and the AFC was down. And yeah, we got some lucky breaks, but who hasn't. You make your own luck. You put yourself in position to be lucky. I think reasonable fans here respect Big blue, and know that they could be miserable next Sunday at 11pm.

Sorry for jumping on you like that. I just looked at the last page, and saw a bunch of trolling going around.

Watch the game in Green Bay two weeks ago.

With their level of execution, the Packers would have been stomped by the Colts.

"Harder road"?....ahhh....no.

Ginormous amounts of unforced turnovers is the ultimate definition of lucky.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

I understand that we've got two weeks to kill here so I get that all kinds of topics are on the table and that's fine.
It doesn't matter if the Giants are overrated or the Patriots are overrated.
What this game is going to come down to is not turning the ball over and making the big play when it's there to be made, i.e. make the catch when it's there, make the tackle at a critical moment...etc.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Look I'm a secondary Steelers fan( dads from Pittsburgh), and they never played a qb as inept as Tebow in their playoff run or get really lucky in a guy missing a chip shot FG. They easily could have beaten you guys if you would have met, but thats not the point. I don't think you guys really deserve to be in the SB this year.

No.
a) we own the Steelers
b)Game was going to be at home
c) Our loss came from a perfect game plan on the defense from the Steelers. For decades, they were a zone and zone blitzing team. They never ran a cover 1 D for the entire game ever before. It shocked us and we weren't ready for it.
Last year, the Jets pulled a overload the middle scheme and it shocked us. What did we do when they tried it again? we Ran the ball and we swept their pathetic team.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Gladly...

Did Spygate Really Give the Patriots an Advantage? | Bleacher Report

There was a recent article by fellow Steelers writer David Klingler, stating that the Patriots are the team of the decade, regardless of what happens this year. In the comments, once again, the Patriots and Steelers fans are debating on who it really is.

Steelers fans claim that because of spygate, the Patriots don't deserve it.

Patriots fans are quick to dismiss any notion of this because spygate was not really important. As Patriots fans say, "every team" does it.

What the real question is, to me at least, did spygate really give the Patriots an unfair advantage?

Lets actually look at a couple of games and decide if spygate should even be talked about any more.

In 2001, the Patriots were coming off a fifth place finish in the AFC East. They were not expected to be Super Bowl contenders.

In the second game of the season, Drew Bledsoe was lost to injury, and in comes second-year player Tom Brady.

A kid from Michigan that was taken in the sixth round, and did not look anything like the part of a Hall of Fame player. He was skinny, looked out of shape, and no NFL team thought that he was worthy of being drafted in the first five rounds.

The Patriots turn things around, and qualify as the second seed for the playoffs.

Is it possible that a second year player, drafted in the sixth round, with no game experience, could lead his team, on his own, to the second seed from one of the worst?

Could knowing the defensive signals have had any input in his progression?

The Patriots hosted the Oakland Raiders in a snow storm. The game was won on an overtime field goal, sending the Patriots to Pittsburgh to play the Steelers.

I am not going to say, for one second, anything negative about the call that resulted in the tuck rule. It is a rule that is on the books, and the call that was made was correct.

But, knowing the defensive signals, would the game have gone into overtime if they didn't? Does anyone else find it funny that ALL of the Patriots points were scored in the second half of the game. After halftime adjustments were made?

Had the Patriots not won that game, they obviously would not have won that Super Bowl.

Part of the spygate issue was the video taping of the Rams' walkthrough practice prior to the Super Bowl.

After much speculation, the man that was in charge of videotaping for the Patriots, Matt Walsh, told the NFL that there was no videotaping that happened, but that himself, and other members of the Patriots staff, did witness the walkthrough of the Rams.

Did they take notes? What were they watching? Why were they watching?

Halfway through the second quarter, Ty Law intercepted a pass from Kurt Warner and returned it for the games first touchdown.

At the end of the first half, Tom Brady led the Patriots on a 60-yard scoring drive, that gave the Pats a 14-3 lead at half time.

Because of the formation, did Ty Law have some idea what play was being run? Was that information known from what was watched by Mr. Walsh?

Did the Patriots have some idea of what the Rams were doing that made Brady be able to drive the field, when he had not been able to prior to that?

New England won by three.

Since it has been admitted that there was taping, then if any of the above mentioned plays were the result of "spying" then the Patriots would not have been the Super Bowl Champions.

2002 the Patriots do not make the playoffs.



Super Bowl XXXVIII.

The New England Patriots were playing the Carolina Panthers. With just under four minutes to go in the third quarter, the Patriots took over and had an eight play, 71 yard drive that led in a score.

In the last 1:08 of the game, Tom Brady went 5-5, not counting the offensive pass interference call, that led the Patriots to the victory.

Was it possible that any of the plays at that crucial drive Brady knew what the defense was doing?



2004

New England took a 21-game winning streak into Pittsburgh to take on Big Ben Roethlisberger and the Steelers in week seven.

The rookie and the Steelers took the Patriots apart, 34-20. The Steelers defense held the Patriots to 3-9 on third downs. The Patriots were held to 248 yards of total offense, and only five rushing yards.

In the AFC Championship game, also in Pittsburgh, things were quite different.

The Patriots picked the Steelers defense apart, to the tune of 41 points. Forget the fact that Pittsburgh was the No. 1 defense in the NFL that year—No. 4 against the pass, and No. 1 against the run.

Could it be that the Patriots were just so much better that day? Or could they have know what Pittsburgh was doing?

With all the speculation over what happened in the first part of this decade, if Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl this year, both the Steelers and the Patriots will be tied with three Super Bowls each.

After really looking at the situations, is it not only possible, but probably, that had New England not cheated, that they may not have even won ONE Super Bowl? Had the Patriots not cheated, Pittsburgh may have had four right now.

The fact is, the NFL has punished the Patriots not only a first round pick, but Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and Robert Kraft was fined an additional $250,000.

These punishments are the most severe penalties ever leveled against a team, or a coach ever.

The NFL acknowledges that this happened, and that they destroyed the evidence so that a class action suite that was going to be filed by New York Jets fans could go no further.

What the New England Patriots have done is make a joke out of the game. I wrote a slide show declaring New England as the best team of the decade. After doing this research, I have changed my mind.

HEY Dumbass,

Filming from the spot we did in 2007, wasn't illegal prior to the 2006 season when Ray Anderson passed a memo to the 32 teams saying it was not legal anymore.

And if you think Bill Parcells didn't tape during his tenture, you must be smoking crack.
Jimmy Johnson did it while he was the HC of the Cowboys and Bill Cowher didn't give a crap about taping either.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Look I'm a secondary Steelers fan( dads from Pittsburgh), and they never played a qb as inept as Tebow ...

Umm, the reason we played Tebow in playoffs is because he threw an 80-yard TD against the Steelers.

 

[upstater1]

Gladly...

Did Spygate Really Give the Patriots an Advantage? | Bleacher Report

There was a recent article by fellow Steelers writer David Klingler, stating that the Patriots are the team of the decade, regardless of what happens this year. In the comments, once again, the Patriots and Steelers fans are debating on who it really is.

Steelers fans claim that because of spygate, the Patriots don't deserve it.

Patriots fans are quick to dismiss any notion of this because spygate was not really important. As Patriots fans say, "every team" does it.

What the real question is, to me at least, did spygate really give the Patriots an unfair advantage?

Lets actually look at a couple of games and decide if spygate should even be talked about any more.

In 2001, the Patriots were coming off a fifth place finish in the AFC East. They were not expected to be Super Bowl contenders.

In the second game of the season, Drew Bledsoe was lost to injury, and in comes second-year player Tom Brady.

A kid from Michigan that was taken in the sixth round, and did not look anything like the part of a Hall of Fame player. He was skinny, looked out of shape, and no NFL team thought that he was worthy of being drafted in the first five rounds.

The Patriots turn things around, and qualify as the second seed for the playoffs.

Is it possible that a second year player, drafted in the sixth round, with no game experience, could lead his team, on his own, to the second seed from one of the worst?

Could knowing the defensive signals have had any input in his progression?

The Patriots hosted the Oakland Raiders in a snow storm. The game was won on an overtime field goal, sending the Patriots to Pittsburgh to play the Steelers.

I am not going to say, for one second, anything negative about the call that resulted in the tuck rule. It is a rule that is on the books, and the call that was made was correct.

But, knowing the defensive signals, would the game have gone into overtime if they didn't? Does anyone else find it funny that ALL of the Patriots points were scored in the second half of the game. After halftime adjustments were made?

Had the Patriots not won that game, they obviously would not have won that Super Bowl.

Part of the spygate issue was the video taping of the Rams' walkthrough practice prior to the Super Bowl.

After much speculation, the man that was in charge of videotaping for the Patriots, Matt Walsh, told the NFL that there was no videotaping that happened, but that himself, and other members of the Patriots staff, did witness the walkthrough of the Rams.

Did they take notes? What were they watching? Why were they watching?

Halfway through the second quarter, Ty Law intercepted a pass from Kurt Warner and returned it for the games first touchdown.

At the end of the first half, Tom Brady led the Patriots on a 60-yard scoring drive, that gave the Pats a 14-3 lead at half time.

Because of the formation, did Ty Law have some idea what play was being run? Was that information known from what was watched by Mr. Walsh?

Did the Patriots have some idea of what the Rams were doing that made Brady be able to drive the field, when he had not been able to prior to that?

New England won by three.

Since it has been admitted that there was taping, then if any of the above mentioned plays were the result of "spying" then the Patriots would not have been the Super Bowl Champions.

2002 the Patriots do not make the playoffs.



Super Bowl XXXVIII.

The New England Patriots were playing the Carolina Panthers. With just under four minutes to go in the third quarter, the Patriots took over and had an eight play, 71 yard drive that led in a score.

In the last 1:08 of the game, Tom Brady went 5-5, not counting the offensive pass interference call, that led the Patriots to the victory.

Was it possible that any of the plays at that crucial drive Brady knew what the defense was doing?



2004

New England took a 21-game winning streak into Pittsburgh to take on Big Ben Roethlisberger and the Steelers in week seven.

The rookie and the Steelers took the Patriots apart, 34-20. The Steelers defense held the Patriots to 3-9 on third downs. The Patriots were held to 248 yards of total offense, and only five rushing yards.

In the AFC Championship game, also in Pittsburgh, things were quite different.

The Patriots picked the Steelers defense apart, to the tune of 41 points. Forget the fact that Pittsburgh was the No. 1 defense in the NFL that year—No. 4 against the pass, and No. 1 against the run.

Could it be that the Patriots were just so much better that day? Or could they have know what Pittsburgh was doing?

With all the speculation over what happened in the first part of this decade, if Pittsburgh wins the Super Bowl this year, both the Steelers and the Patriots will be tied with three Super Bowls each.

After really looking at the situations, is it not only possible, but probably, that had New England not cheated, that they may not have even won ONE Super Bowl? Had the Patriots not cheated, Pittsburgh may have had four right now.

The fact is, the NFL has punished the Patriots not only a first round pick, but Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and Robert Kraft was fined an additional $250,000.

These punishments are the most severe penalties ever leveled against a team, or a coach ever.

The NFL acknowledges that this happened, and that they destroyed the evidence so that a class action suite that was going to be filed by New York Jets fans could go no further.

What the New England Patriots have done is make a joke out of the game. I wrote a slide show declaring New England as the best team of the decade. After doing this research, I have changed my mind.

Here are some things you don't seem to understand about Spygate.

1. You have to play a team to steal their signals. The Patriots only played one of the teams they faced in the Super Bowl in the seasons prior to the game. How can you "cheat" (a bogus term for it since it's legal to steal signals from certain parts of the stadium) when you haven't even played the team?

2. The signal stealing only helps the offense, not the defense. For obvious reasons. The QB gets signals from his radio. Duh.

3. The Jets videotaped the Patriots the prior year and even claimed they had permission: Jets videotaped Patriots last season in Foxborough - NFL - ESPN

4. I guarantee you the Giants were filming for their Super Bowls under Parcells. I guarantee you the Colts were filming too, according to Jimmy Johnson who said the master filmer in the NFL was the Colts Ass't Coach Mudd.

5. The Rams may have spied on the Patriots prior to the Super Bowl: PRO FOOTBALL - NOTEBOOK - PRO FOOTBALL - NOTEBOOK - Brady Says Ankle Is Fine - NYTimes.com

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

What exactly is the point of having Giants fans here?

Shouldn't they be planning their parade?

Shouldn't they be scheming more Hail Mary's, rookies fumbling punts, RB's fumbling handoffs, Brady over throwing wide open TD's without any Giants in the same time zone?

Interesting......

 

[upstater1]

Lol anybody with half a brain knows that the Giants defense is far and away better than the Patriots with a lot more talent. Don't even argue that, its just that the level of qb play in the NFC is significantly better than that of the AFC.

New England played the NFC East this year and went 3-1.

It wasn't any more formidable than the AFC, if you ask me, and you guys played 6 games against 3 teams the Patriots beat.

GB was really good, but they lost to a horrid AFC team that the Patriots beat.

 

[PatsSox363804]

HEY Dumbass,

Filming from the spot we did in 2007, wasn't illegal prior to the 2006 season when Ray Anderson passed a memo to the 32 teams saying it was not legal anymore.

And if you think Bill Parcells didn't tape during his tenture, you must be smoking crack.
Jimmy Johnson did it while he was the HC of the Cowboys and Bill Cowher didn't give a crap about taping either.

No kidding, does this guy think Belichick made it up? When Giants fans call Belichick a cheater they may as well say their first 2 Superbowls don't count.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Right, because it is impossible for a flawed wildcard 9-7 10-6 team to win the SB.

It is not impossible but it has never happened. No 9-7 has ever won the Super Bowl.

I am not sure if any team that allowed more points than it scored has ever won a Super Bowl either.

 

[IllegalContact]

yes and no

the giants are full of holes.......they are not as good as the 07 team, and got to the SB on some real lucky circumstances as did the pats this year.

their passing defense is worse than the pats and if it wasn't for all the work they put in along the DL, this team would give up 50 points a game

the potential for the pats short passing game is going to force the giants to play big nickle just like the ravens, except they're not the ravens. the bigger problem is the giants DL rotation and the fact that they like to switch DL (they go 7 deep) frequently. if you can keep the same group on the field more than a couple of plays, they become ineffective. most importanly, gassing canty and joseph and then calling running plays out of the no huddle will march thepats down the field as the giant LB's suck (kiwanuka might be a decent DE, but he sucks as an LB) outside of joseph, they're all lean and lanky.....wind 'em and then use leverage on them

 

[The Brandon Five]

Nice mature response, so how am I not right? Thats what I thought.

How much time do you have?

Honestly, looking at both teams your team is probably the luckiest to get into this game. You guys said it yourself that you are surprised to be in the SB. To say the Pats have been fortunate is an understatement. You guys get Tim Tebow at home in your 1st round, and perennial chokers in the Ravens in the 2nd round. You may say that we are not the best team from the NFC to show up in the SB, but I am certain you guys are not the best AFC team. The Steelers were the most complete team in that conference, but they had too many injuries and were way too overconfident versing the Broncos.

Umm, a lack of depth is exposed by injuries to starters. Hard to call that a sign that they are more "complete".

Point being that is why football is great. "Any given Sunday." Maybe the Packers would have beaten us on any other day, or the 49ers for the matter as well, but it doesn't matter. Maybe you guys get the Steelers in the divisional round which would have been a greater challenge for you, or what if Lee Evans doesn't drop a TD pass or if Billy Cundiff doesn't have one of the worse playoff chokes off all time?

So your wins that came largely due to errors and turnovers by the opponent don't "matter", but our win against the Ravens due to a missed FG is a sign that we are lucky?

Look, to put it frankly the reason why everybody is picking the Giants is because they are a better team( no I'm not just being a blind fan.) Looking at the match ups, we've always had the formula to beat Brady which is why we own him. Sure that can change, but I just don't see it. The Giants will take care of Hernandaz, Gronkowski will be a non-factor, and you guys are thin at receiver behind Welker.

Please explain how the Giants are going to "take care" of Hernandez and why a tight end coming off the greatest season in the history of the NFL will be a non-factor. Welker was the top receiver in catches and yards in the NFL this year. Even if we are "thin" behind him, how are you going to counter him? Are you dismissing him because you expect him not to play? BTW, the thinness you are referring to includes a former Super Bowl MVP (Deion Branch).

Add in our pass rush, and trust me your offense will have your hands full.

To what am I adding the pass rush here? You didn't explain anything about how you were going to handle the skill players above. Oh, and you are forgetting about the run game.

And by the way your defense still sucks, and it will be exposed in the SB. Its just that you guys had the benefit of the doubt of facing less than stellar QB play in the AFC and really subpar competition.

Umm, we shut down the best running game in the NFL. How is that subpar?

You guys are a classic example of taking advantage of lesser competition.

A trend that we expect to continue this coming Sunday.

Tell me one signature win( that you completely deserved to win) against a quality opponent this season. You say AFC championship, wrong Balt choked, you say divisional round, you got Tim Tebow. How about the regular season the best teams and qbs you faced were us and the Steelers which both were losses for you. I am just confused how you guys say were overrated and fortunate, when your the ones that really are. People realize this, realize you have one of the worse defenses in the NFL,

So if I understand the reasoning, your team is awesome now because everyone is healthy and you are peaking so regular season performance is irrelevant, but our regular season performance defines us and the health of our players does not factor into the discussion. Makes perfect sense.

realize you are now going to be limited offensively because of losing Gronkowski,

I am surprised to learn that the Patriots team doctor is a Giants fan.

and realize the last time you won something was multiple years ago in the middle of a cheating scandal.

Spygate was in February 2005?

So don't be upset, I'm sure Super Bowl 42's loss will still be a lot worse than if you guys lost this one( I'd enjoy both SB wins equally as much.) Oh, and btw, two amazing SB runs would make Eli ELIte and probably a HOF QB.

No need to state the patently obvious, the merely obvious will suffice.