Do any other fans feel cheated by the playoffs and this Giants rematch?

[Ring 6]

Because that's actually a true playoff system. And you don't allow losing teams to keep playing. You just allow everyone to play 3 games. The losing teams would get weeded out just the same.

What makes it any more 'true' than the system already in place?

But if you have 3 games you wouldn't be 2-2. And even if it came down to that, you would use tie breakers the same way we do now. You continue single elimination right after the group stage.

You are going to eliminate teams from the playoffs on a tiebreaker? Thats crazy.
How is this any different really? The Giants just went 3-0 in the playoffs.

When you get past the group stage that's when you are one and done.

Then just reduce the number of playoff teams.
This doesn't solve you supposed afront of a team getting knocked out by playing a bad game.

It doesn't prevent great teams from advancing. It doesn't stop good underdogs from advancing. It prevents one great team being completely knocked out because of one crappy game out of the 16 they played all year. Or because of one bad call by a referee.

No it doesn't, because you still have win or go home, you are just having an added round to reduce the number of teams in the real playoffs.

 

[Bella*chick]

Giants match up well with Green Bay. Perhaps you are not remembering that they took them to the wire the first time they played and soundly best them the second time they played. They are better than the Packers, they just don't have a better record. The NFL is about matchups, plain and simple.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Patriotseven, why are you having such a difficult time understanding this: It isn't about who has the best record, it's about who can win the games come January and February. NO coach or player agree's with your view point. The game is PLAYED the way it's structured. Just get in the playoffs and then it's a new season, any given sunday. That's whats fun. I DONT want the best teams always winning because then whats the f8cking point. Why not just skip all the games and hand the trophy to what ever team looks the best on paper come September 1st. Jesus....

To me it's about the best. It's about being THE BEST. This system falls short of providing that.

I wanna know who the best team in football is in 2011. In the NFC, it's not the Giants. Just because they are in the Super Bowl, they are not the best. We're going to rip their heads off.

 

[strngplyr]

To me it's about the best. It's about being THE BEST. This system falls short of providing that.

I wanna know who the best team in football is in 2011. In the NFC, it's not the Giants. Just because they are in the Super Bowl, they are not the best. We're going to rip their heads off.

GB beat us by 4 without their #1 WR or RB. It's going to be a close game once again, I don't know why you think they have no chance because their record says 9-7.

 

[Bella*chick]

GB beat us by 4 without their #1 WR or RB. It's going to be a close game once again, I don't know why you think they have no chance because their record says 9-7.

Seriously. By that logic we should have ripped ther heads off in the Game That Shall Not Be Named.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't agree with that. You can't convince me the 9-7 Giants are a better team than the 15-1 GB this year no matter how many Super Bowl wins they get. They beat them once, GB beat them once.

Of course they are because they are 3-0 in the playoffs and the Packers are 0-1.

But GB won 15 freaking games. They beat 15 different opponents, including the ones that beat them. There is no way in hell you can convince me the Giants are better just because they won a freaking playoff game on a day when GB forgot who they were.

The regular season is simply a means of seeding the postseason.
The reality of best team is not who can win more regular season games, but who can win when everything is on the line.
If there were any shred of doubt in that defition they would award regular season Championships and post season Championships.
By the rules of the sport, the Packers were not better than the Giants.

That's like trying to convince me Muhamad Ali really sucked as a boxer because he lost a few matches at the end of his career when his head wasn't all there.

When he lost them he sucked.

Point blank? The Giants suck and they're going down! Pats have a bigger purpose now. This team has stolen the thunders of one too many teams that busted their ass to get there. It's the Patriots duty to absolutely demolish them and send them back into the crap hole that is currently the NFC West never to return again until they can figure out how to put together a string of 13 wins.

rah rah rah

Bunch of freaking underachievers. I don't wanna hear anymore about the artificial greatness of the stinky Giants.

If we would have beaten them at home they wouldn't even be in the playoffs.
Perhaps you should consider that the Packers are the overachievers because they were not a good enough enough team to beat the Giants after a bye week, playing at home, and 15 freaking wins.
I think the team that wins when it matters is not the fluke, but the one that won when it mattered less and couldn't win when it all mattered is the fluke.

By the way, your argument that the game shouldn't count because the Packers 'werent themselves' severely weakens the ability of anyone to take your opinions seriously.

 

[Satchboogie3]

To me it's about the best. It's about being THE BEST. This system falls short of providing that.

I wanna know who the best team in football is in 2011. In the NFC, it's not the Giants. Just because they are in the Super Bowl, they are not the best. We're going to rip their heads off.

FAIL. Show me one team that was the best team week 1 all the way through the superbowl. IT DOESN"T HAPPEN!!!! It's called parity and matchups. Greenbay had an EASY schedule and peaked WAY too early. It wasn't that they just had a bad day, they were getting exposed and failing to the pressure. New Orleans had a ton of holes as well, mainly on that defense. There's no such thing as a perfect team. Teams right now play/are coached to get in the playoffs any way they can and try to play their best ball then. It's a LONG season, it's how you FINISH, not how you start.

Just look at those early decade Colts teams. Consistently winning 12-14 games a season then getting creamed in the playoffs. They simply didn't have what it took to win tough elimination games against good teams. The regular season is not the same beast as the playoffs. Just because you win a lot in the regular season doesn't mean you deserve anything beyond a playoff spot.

And really, how is that any different from real life? While first impressions are generally important, it's how you finish that really sets you apart. Anyone can start something, but can they follow all the way through and finish it? It's life and football does a good job following it.

 

[Ring 6]

To me it's about the best. It's about being THE BEST. This system falls short of providing that.

I wanna know who the best team in football is in 2011. In the NFC, it's not the Giants. Just because they are in the Super Bowl, they are not the best. We're going to rip their heads off.

The rules of the sport say THE BEST is the team that does not lose once te luxury of losing and surviving is over.
I think your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstand of what the definiton of best team is.

 

[PatriotSeven]

GB beat us by 4 without their #1 WR or RB. It's going to be a close game once again, I don't know why you think they have no chance because their record says 9-7.

Because the Washington Redskins, one of the worst teams in football, blew them out twice, and kept that offense to 10 points. 10 points. Twice.

They have a chance alright. They have chance if the Patriots do what GB and the 49ers do: beat themselves. That's NOT going to happen.

It's time to put your foot down Pat fans and take a stand. Not AFTER the win. Before. This is what separates the man from the boys. If the mayor is willing to make freaking bets, on this Patriots team, what kind of a weak Patriots fan are you, if you have this little faith in this team against these stinky, underachieving Giants who weasel their way into Super Bowls. This whole Giants have our numbers. Eli's got Tom Brady. All this nonsense about them having a better defense or offense ends on Feb 5th.

Enough!

 

[VJCPatriot]

In the end NO ONE remembers how a team got to the SB, just that they won the Super Bowl. I don't care how we got here or how the Giants got here, or if there were teams with better records that are sitting at home. I just care if WE win the Super Bowl, and i don't care if we beat a team with a 9-7 record in the regular season. For what ever reason those other teams (the ones with the great regular season records) didn't make it, they weren't prepared, luck went against them. etc.etc.etc. All i care about is seeing TB, BB, and Mr Kraft holding the Super Bowl trophy over their heads

Exactly bottom line that's what counts. How did you perform in the BIG GAMES? I don't care that the Giants regular season record was 9-7 and the Pats was 13-3. They have a legit shot of beating us. We have to take care of business and take home Lombardi #4! Go Pats!!

 

[strngplyr]

Because the Washington Redskins, one of the worst teams in football, blew them out twice, and kept that offense to 10 points. 10 points. Twice.

They have a chance alright. They have chance if the Patriots do what GB and the 49ers do: beat themselves. That's NOT going to happen.

It's time to put your foot down Pat fans and take a stand. Not AFTER the win. Before. This is what separates the man from the boys. If the mayor is willing to make freaking bets, on this Patriots team, what kind of a weak Patriots fan are you, if you have this little faith in this team against these stinky, underachieving Giants who weasel their way into Super Bowls. This whole Giants have our numbers. Eli's got Tom Brady. All this nonsense about them having a better defense or offense ends on Feb 5th.

Enough!

The Giants weasled their way into the playoffs, I'll give you that, after getting in, they brute forced their way into the SB, holding the Falcons to 0 offensive points, Green Bay to 20, and SF to 17.

They are far from underachievers, they are actually massively overachieving right now based on your description of them, the way you talk about them you'd think they were 6-10.

By the way, New England lost to the Bills, one of the worst teams in the NFL.

 

[NSPF]

Well, the purpose isn't to determine who the best is. The purpose is to make as exciting of a playoff system as they can. Honestly, it succeeds pretty well at it. Face it, if we knew the Patriots would beat the Giants because of a better regular season record, we wouldn't be this excited and nervous about the Super Bowl.

 

[PatriotSeven]

The rules of the sport say THE BEST is the team that does not lose once te luxury of losing and surviving is over.
I think your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstand of what the definiton of best team is.

And I don't think you understand the fact that sometimes in the NFL playoffs, football teams win football games because their opponents do happen to suck on every given Sunday too. Not because they actually really put on a good show and beat them.

And I am CONVINCED that's what happened. Beating up on a team who turned ******ed for one day doesn't make you the best either!

It means you got by. And people have the audacity to say the Patriots "got by" the Ravens? They missed a tying FG, not a winning one! Scoreboard operators? Why is it that Patriots fans have to deal with this kind of crap before the Super Bowl?

A team who needs 5 possessions and a fumble by a punter returner to score a FG gets by.
A team who needs their opponents defense to act like they forgot how to play defense gets by.
A team who needs the other team's OC to lose his son so they can beat them gets by.

Winning like that doesn't make you the best. That's not even winning. That's being handed a win. You don't get to be called a surviver just because the competition is a bunch of Do-Do birds who commit suicide, leaving you the only one alive by default.

You got saved and left alive. You didn't survive. Big difference. And it's the damn truth, like it or not.

 

[Satchboogie3]

And I don't think you understand the fact that sometimes in the NFL playoffs, football teams win football games because their opponents do happen to suck on every given Sunday too. Not because they actually really put on a good show and beat them.

And I am CONVINCED that's what happened. Beating up on a team who turned ******ed for one day doesn't make you the best either!

It means you got by. And people have the audacity to say the Patriots "got by" the Ravens? They missed a tying FG, not a winning one! Scoreboard operators? Why is it that Patriots fans have to deal with this kind of crap before the Super Bowl?

A team who needs 5 possessions and a fumble by a punter returner to score a FG gets by.
A team who needs their opponents defense to act like they forgot how to play defense gets by.
A team who needs the other team's OC to lose his son so they can beat them gets by.

Winning like that doesn't make you the best. That's not even winning. That's being handed a win. You don't get to be called a surviver just because the competition is a bunch of Do-Do birds who commit suicide, leaving you the only one alive by default.

You got saved and left alive. You didn't survive. Big difference. And it's the damn truth, like it or not.

Giants made the plays, the 49ers, Packers, and Flacons didn't. End of story. You DON"T BACK INTO THE SUPERBOWL. Christ. Whats wrong with you.

I still don't understand how you continue to say it's alright for a "great" team to lay an egg in the playoffs while it's not alright for another team to reel off tough wins on the road. The great teams execute when it matters, not fall apart and have a bad day. You criticize the Ravens for making excuses for losing yet what you are doing is even worse. You are making excuses for why teams, of which you aren't a part of, do and don't deserve to be where they are. I have news for you, you don't have that right. Agree or disagree, fine. But you can't claim they don't deserve it.

The fact that you have the nerve to claim a team doesn't deserve to achieve what they have when you are sitting on your COUCH pisses the f8ck out of me. You have NO place to say what you are saying. You aren't playing or coaching in the league, so sh8t the f8ck up with your pretentiousness. The best 2 teams are in the Superbowl. End of story.

 

[Bella*chick]

It is terribly irritating that thanks to this thread, we all sound like a bunch of Giants fans.

Thanks, OP.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Of course they are because they are 3-0 in the playoffs and the Packers are 0-1.



The regular season is simply a means of seeding the postseason.
The reality of best team is not who can win more regular season games, but who can win when everything is on the line.
If there were any shred of doubt in that defition they would award regular season Championships and post season Championships.
By the rules of the sport, the Packers were not better than the Giants.


When he lost them he sucked.


rah rah rah


If we would have beaten them at home they wouldn't even be in the playoffs.
Perhaps you should consider that the Packers are the overachievers because they were not a good enough enough team to beat the Giants after a bye week, playing at home, and 15 freaking wins.
I think the team that wins when it matters is not the fluke, but the one that won when it mattered less and couldn't win when it all mattered is the fluke.

By the way, your argument that the game shouldn't count because the Packers 'werent themselves' severely weakens the ability of anyone to take your opinions seriously.

You make good points and you have a right to your opinion. But here's what I say to all that....fluuuuuuuuuuuuke!!!

They beat teams who crapped their pants. I can best express my opinions and recap the Super Bowl participants playoff wins by using pictures:

Giants win over Atlanta

Giants win over Green Bay

Giants win over 49ers

Patriots win over Broncos

Patriots win over Ravens

 

[Yehoodi]

The rules of the sport say THE BEST is the team that does not lose once te luxury of losing and surviving is over. I think your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstand of what the definiton of best team is.

Andy, you and I went over this before in a thread last week . . . to me there is difference between "who do you think is the best in league" and "who won the SB" more often than not there are one in the same in the argument, and partly due to the fact that they won the SB . . . and typically say if one of the top 3 seeds wins the SB most would argue there are there best even tho the argument involves 6 teams (top 3 seeds from each conference) . . .

So now i have a question to ask and ask you to use your bolded std above, that is "the best is the one does not lose once the luxury of losing and surviving is over"

So the question is "who is the most valuable player in the league" Mind you I am not asking you who do you think the AP voters with vote for, but your opinion as who is the MVP of the league and why . . . and do we need to wait to decide this a week from Monday

And I have one more question when you are done with the above. . . do you think the AP award is flawed and not an accurate respentative of the MVP of the league?

 

[Ring 6]

And I don't think you understand the fact that sometimes in the NFL playoffs, football teams win football games because their opponents do happen to suck on every given Sunday too. Not because they actually really put on a good show and beat them.

First of all, that is simply an excuse.
But even so, you still fail to understand the defition of best. Its not really debatable, the league sets its entire existence up based upon it, which is that the teams that win when its win or go home are the best.

And I am CONVINCED that's what happened. Beating up on a team who turned ******ed for one day doesn't make you the best either!

Thats just sour grapes. The team you think is better lost, so they need an excuse.

It means you got by. And people have the audacity to say the Patriots "got by" the Ravens? They missed a tying FG, not a winning one! Scoreboard operators? Why is it that Patriots fans have to deal with this kind of crap before the Super Bowl?

You are all over the place now. Why aren't you arguing the Ravens are better and just sucked that day. They had a game winning TD in their hands. They beat 7 teams with winning records and the Patriots beat none. Your logic can easily be applied to say the Pats are phonies and the Ravens clearly are better, they just sucked that day.

A team who needs 5 possessions and a fumble by a punter returner to score a FG gets by./

That wouldn't have mattered if they didn't play great defense.

A team who needs their opponents defense to act like they forgot how to play defense gets by.

So you get to decide that what happened on the field doesn't count because you think they are supposed to play better, so you write it off that they forgot how to play defense? If you are talking about the Packers, here is a newsflash they blow on defense.

A team who needs the other team's OC to lose his son so they can beat them gets by.

Thats a lame excuse.
What about a team that needs a player to have a ball knocked out his hands one millisecond before its a game winning TD, or one that needs a 32 yard FG miss?
Or lets do it your way.
They needed
Ray Rice to forget how to run against thier crappy run D
Lee Evans to forget how to catch a football
Terrell Suggs to forget how to rush the passer
The coach forgetting how to call a TO
The kicker forgetting how to make 98% shot
See, excuses are for losers.

Winning like that doesn't make you the best. That's not even winning. That's being handed a win. You don't get to be called a surviver just because the competition is a bunch of Do-Do birds who commit suicide, leaving you the only one alive by default.

You just described reasons why those other teams couldn't be considered the best.

You got saved and left alive. You didn't survive. Big difference. And it's the damn truth, like it or not.

So let me get this straight. A win is only a win if you say so?
Who was the last team that deserved their win? Clearly not the Patriots.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, you and I went over this before in a thread last week . . . to me there is difference between "who do you think is the best in league" and "who won the SB" more often than not there are one in the same in the argument, and partly due to the fact that they won the SB . . . and typically say if one of the top 3 seeds wins the SB most would argue there are there best even tho the argument involves 6 teams (top 3 seeds from each conference) . . .

So now i have a question to ask and ask you to use your bolded std above, that is "the best is the one does not lose once the luxury of losing and surviving is over"

So the question is "who is the most valuable player in the league" Mind you I am not asking you who do you think the AP voters with vote for, but your opinion as who is the MVP of the league and why . . . and do we need to wait to decide this a week from Monday

And I have one more question when you are done with the above. . . do you think the AP award is flawed and not an accurate respentative of the MVP of the league?

The MVP absolutely should not be chosen without the SB taken into consideration.
But the MVP is a regular season award. Based upon the regular season, it should be Aaron Rodgers. Based upon the WHOLE season, and assuming how the winning team will win, it should either be Tom Brady or Eli Manning.

By the way, I don't think 'best' is debatable and whether its a 3 seed or higher, because there is an accepted process that determines who is best. Everything that leads up to the playoffs is only to determine the seeding and structure of the playoffs (note that teams with no seeding to gain normally rest players and dont care about winning) where the best is decided by who does not lose.
You can create whatever definition you want of best, but the NFL has unequivically defined it and all of the players,coaches, owners, etc understand that.

 

[Ring 6]

You make good points and you have a right to your opinion. But here's what I say to all that....fluuuuuuuuuuuuke!!!

They beat teams who crapped their pants. I can best express my opinions and recap the Super Bowl participants playoff wins by using pictures:

You have to realize that an argument that says the team you think is worse only won because the better team just played bad and is really better than they played is silly. I can argue against anything with that approach.

In any event how does a team that in your words 'crapped their pants' in the most important game they played, get considered the best under any circumstances?