Lot of people picking the pats reason -tom brady
and everyone picking the giants seems to giving legitimate football reasons.
With all due respect, I believe you have been brainwashed by the entertainers masquerading as analysts.
What "legitimate football reasons" have been given, because every single one I have heard can be easily punctured and shown to be anything but legitimate.
For example:
The front four will pressure Brady just like in 2007
- The team is completely different; 60% of the o-line has changed, for the better.
Julian Edelman will get burnt
- He's not covering anybody one one one; he's the dime back
The Giants won before, plus they have players back that weren't there in week 9.
- The Giants won primarily due to poor play of backups that were on the field for the Pats in week 9 (White, Brown, Adams); why are the players the Pats were missing not discussed as well?
The Pats were lucky (missed FG, Evans drop)
- It was a Moore strip more than an Evans drop. Lucky? How about the two SF gift fumbles? The non-fumble call on Bradshaw?
The Giants are more battle-tested against tougher competition
- Didn't we go through how meaningless that stat was last week before the Ravens game?
SF defense is better than the Pats defense, therefore Giants win easily.
- So you're saying the 49ers offense is as good as the Pats offense?
Pats haven't faced a defense this good
- I think the Ravens defense is better than the one that ranked 25th in points allowed
Pats defense is horrible
- Then how do you describe the Giants defense, that ranked ten places lower than the Pats in points allowed?
Giants are hot
- How is five straight wins hotter than ten straight wins?
I'm sure I left a few out, but I have yet to see any "true legitimate football reasons" as to why the Giants will win that at the very least have a counterpoint that make this a tossup, if not favor the Pats to win.
