Giants didn't have Hakeem Nicks or Ahmad Bradshaw for the first game.
And the Pats had Tracy White, Phillip Adams, and Sergio Brown on the field on defense, and all three had critical plays that they failed to defend at the end of the game. For whatever reason the media has mentioned the absence of Nicks and Bradshaw quite a bit, but hasn't said a peep about the Pats injuries.
Differences in the Giants' favor for the SB from the Week 9 game:
First off - It will be played on a neutral field instead of Pats home field.
So instead of being favored by six the Pats are favored by three.
Offense:
#1 WR Hakeem Nicks, #1 RB Ahmad Bradshaw, starting center David Baas, starting fullback Henry Hynoski, all back in the lineup
See reply to bigblue420 above.
For the Patriots, Carter/Haynesworth gone (both wrecked a lot of havoc in that game, Carter alone had 8 pressures in that game)
Negligible dropoff from Carter to Anderson.
But you're saying the Pats are worse off without Albert Haynesworth?
Bwaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
There was a play where a Giant should have been flagged for a hold on Haynesworth, but it didn't happen. Haynesworth sulked and got knocked on his butt on each of the next three plays, as if he wasn't even trying. He got yanked and was gone. Haynesworth played so poorly he was not only benched, he was cut. The only havoc he wrecked was on the Pats sidelines about being pulled from the game.
Defense:
Chase Blackburn at MLB (defense much better with him in both run and pass).
JPP starting over Osi, Osi becomes situational pass rusher on 3rd downs. In week 9, Osi was the starter. Giants defense is a lot better when JPP starts over Osi, cause he plays the run wayyyyy better. Pats can forget about running the ball at JPP.
I'm not doubting the Giants are better with Blackburn, even though statistically there's not much of any evidence to back that up.
If the Giants beat the Pats on their own turf (with the Pats coming off a loss, and they never lose back to back games) without all those things I just mentioned above....how can they possibly lose now after all these new additions in their favor? The positive difference is enormous for the Giants. They will win this game, and it won't be that close either.
Teams have bad games and bad stretches. One thing not mentioned was that the week 9 game was in the midst of a stretch where Brady was battling tendinitis in his throwing elbow (remember that sleeve he was wearing on his arm?), resulting in a drop in accuracy with his throws.
The Patriots have given up more than 27 points just once this year, back in week 3; their defense is vastly improved since then. The Giants have scored 34 point three times all year; twice against a porous packers defense, and once against the Cowboys. Conversely the Pats are averaging 35 point per game over the last ten games, but they're only going to score 21? I'm not following the logic.
Ahmad Bradshaw is an enormous improvement, especially vs. the Pats.
The Pats have no problem with big bruisers who run up the middle like Jacobs due to Wilfork's presence. They struggle with shifty, agile, slippery RBs like Bradshaw, a guy who makes violent cuts.
The weakness of the Pats run defense is on the edges, as well as in space, and Bradshaw will exploit that, because that is exactly where Bradshaw excels.
If the Pats come out and play a nickle Cover 2 defense, Giants can use the shotgun draw to Bradshaw to find space underneath for big, explosive runs. If this does happen, Pats will be forced to play the run - which will lead to big plays in the passing game.
I heard something similar from the Ravens fans two weeks ago, and Rice is superior to Bradshaw. The week before that McGahee was going to do the same. Before that Reggie Bush, fresh off his 200-yard game was going to run wild. Why am I supposed to believe this prediction will be more true than all those others were?
"Keep dreaming....... Pats held the Giants to 10 points in that game until the last 3 minutes...... "
------------------
Find me an offense in this league that wouldn't take a huge hit when playing without their best receiver (one who requires double coverage nonetheless) , best running back, starting center, and starting fullback.
Your defensive performance for the majority of that game was a mirage due to facing a badly depleted offense......and yet you STILL couldn't stop them when it really mattered.
So go ahead, keep clinging onto that.....you'll be in for a rude awakening come Sunday.
See the points above. Three starters were out, plus the Pats defense has vastly improved its overall play since the beginning of the season. You can't bring up one team's injuries if you aren't going to do the same for the opponent - though I don't blame you for not realizing that was the case because you're just repeating the same thing the media has been saying for the last two weeks.
And out of everything I listed, that doesn't even include Gronkowski being injured and not 100% - the biggest factor of all.
In Week 9, with a healthy Gronk and healthy offense basically, you put up just 20 points, with the final 7 points coming on a do-or-die 4th and 8 where Gronk clearly pushed off on Boley. On top of that, you had 3 turnovers.
If you struggled this badly on offense with Gronk at 100%....what will happen now with Gronk at, say, 70%? What about 60%? 50%? He's only your best weapon and the main guy who draws the attention on offense
If the Giants realize after a few series that Gronk isn't his normal self and they can cover Gronk 1-on-1 (with Kenny Phillips most likely), and can then rush 4 and double-team/eliminate both Welker and Hernandez, how will your offense move the ball then? Brady will get man coverage on Branch and an injured Gronk. It'll be do or die with those 2. Good luck lol
News flash: Gronkowski is not the entire offense, and good luck if they don't put a second defender on him, even with a bad ankle. Earlier in the season BJGE couldn't go because of a bad turf toe; he's ready now. Steven Ridley was not yet incorporated into the offense. Kevin Faulk was on pup. All year long I've read from opposing fans how they'll match up defenders against Welker, Hernandez and Gronkowski, and not yet have they been able to neutralize all three.
"I think that our offense can scorch your mediocre defense, as long as Brady is protected and he avoids costly picks. We shot ourselves in the foot the last time we played, by playing sloppy ball through 2 3/4 quarters. Out of 9 drives, we has 2 Ints, 1 fumble, and 1 missed FG. Generally, if you do that during a game, you get blown out. We barely lost in the last 30 seconds of that game."
-----------------
Your missed FG is cancelled out by our fumble on the punt return handing you the ball in our own territory for a gift FG
The Giants D finished in the Top 5 in forcing turnovers this year (so them forcing turnovers in that game is not really flukish) , they're probably in Brady's head by now, and Brady threw a couple picks vs. the Ravens, it's not unlikely that Brady turns the ball over some in this game. Especially with the fast turf benefitting the Giants pass rushers. You better believe Brady will feel Osi coming around that edge on that turf.
Interesting that you bring up turnovers because the Giants turn the ball over more often than the Pats do, and the Pats force more turnovers than the Giants do.
That's a GOOD thing for the Giants.
It means you are due for a loss. You have won 10 straight, which means the streak is bound to end, and end soon. Law of averages in the NFL.
The worst possible time to face the Pats is actually when they're coming off a loss, like in Week 9. The Pats almost never lose back to back games. But they did that day, which says a lot.
When you can beat the Pats to put them on a losing streak....that is a very alarming sign because of how difficult that is to do.
So when somebody counters the oft-repeated 'Giants are the hot team' with facts on who has the longer winning streak, now it gets turned around to that team being due for a loss? Nice wishful thinking masquerading as pretzel logic.
