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

[Itlan]

I find it amusing you seem to think the Giants will get blown out because the Patriots are "CLEARLY" the better team. How do you explain losing in the regular season to the "#12 team in the league" then? Giants are 1-0 against the Patriots. Should you be allowed in the playoffs for losing to such a BAD team? Without Nicks and Bradshaw to boot? What about the fact you didn't beat a SINGLE team, not one, with a winning record? Should we add that to your ridiculous tirade?

This thread is an utter joke and I've noticed the OP has a nice trolling technique where he avoids anyone who calls him out on this facts and just continues to troll the people concerned about playoff seating. The fact is, the OP is clearly worried about losing to what he perceives to be an inferior team. As anyone can tell though, his perception of the world is very narrow and somewhat warped. I'll return to this thread on Sunday when Eli is hoisting the trophy, and we'll see how you feel.

P.S. I mean no disrespect to you Pats fans. You've actually defended the Giants and the integrity of the game. My only concern is the OP's idiocy. Plus I love Boston. Good luck on Sunday!

 

[reflexblue]

The fact is, the OP is clearly worried about losing to what he perceives to be an inferior team.

No, i think hes just an idiot

 

[oldskool138]

What about the fact you didn't beat a SINGLE team, not one, with a winning record?

The Broncos and Ravens had winning records. What are you talking about?

Oh and if I were you, I wouldn't talk too much about the regular season.

5 game losing streak. Losing twice to the *snicker* Redskins.

I like your trolling technique where you attempt to deflect any criticism and flaming by saying the equivalent of "NIBB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES! WOOO!" at the end of your post.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I have no interest in 5000 word posts explaining why you are wrong. You are. I gave you an example, you refuse to answers. That tells me you know you are wrong.

Yards per point is horrendous because:


Team A allows 450 yards and 45 points
Team B allows 100 yards and 10 points
Your metric says these defenses played equally well. If you can't get that, there is no point going further.
And I already explained that, and you ignored it.

You didn't give me any example. You constantly show your inability to understand yards per point while making terrible arguments.

So here's me doing exactly what you're doing, with yards:

Team A allows 300 yards and 60 points
Team B allows 300 yards and 14 points

This yards metric says these defenses played equally well. If you can't get why that's a terrible measurement, there is no point going further.


Fact is any NFL stat when taken out of context, or misused, can show something completely different. Which is exactly why the NE Patriot defense is misrepresented by yards in 2011. They all have flaws, and depending on how you use them, they can all show some serious flaws.

That doesn't change that in compared to all the other measurements, yards per point still comes out ahead with flying colors because it is absolutely the best predictor of execution and winning. That is of course, if you understand it. And if you can't understand the importance of execution and winning, and why that makes yards per point the most important, there really is no point going further.

In my example yards per point would correctly indicate:

Team A's defense is VASTLY inferior to Team B. And even in your example yards per point would not indicate one is better than the other. And why is that? Simply because it requires more information. Number of drives. Turnovers. Yards per point is not a vacuum stat and it shouldn't be read like one. Yards should definitely not be used like you are.

Because in real life football the only way a defense is going to keep an offense to 100 yards, is if that offense has a small number of drives or absolutely sucks. In real life football, if an offense moves 450 yards against you, chances are there were a lot of back and forth possessions in order for a team to rack up 450 yards.

Yards per point does a good job of tracking reality, not fantasy nor unrealistic situations, so try for a second to imagine what it would mean for a team to rack up only 100 yards and 10 points in a 60 minutes football game.

In the NFL that means maybe 12-15 three ands outs, and only one full field drive that results in a touchdown and perhaps another takeaway that results in a direct FG. That's the only way you could end up with giving up 10 points and only 100 yards. Now you may think that will represent a good defense. But in reality, in football, that represents the other team's TERRIBLE offense. Pull up the last game that actually happened in, and see what it shows: a great defense or an atrocious offense.

 

[Patriots Nation NY]

The Broncos and Ravens had winning records. What are you talking about?

Oh and if I were you, I wouldn't talk too much about the regular season.

5 game losing streak. Losing twice to the *snicker* Redskins.

I like your trolling technique where you attempt to deflect any criticism and flaming by saying the equivalent of "NIBB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES! WOOO!" at the end of your post.

giants lone victory against a winning team in the regular season was the patriots ... so there goes that one out the window ..:bricks:

 

[Itlan]

The Broncos and Ravens had winning records. What are you talking about?

Oh and if I were you, I wouldn't talk too much about the regular season.

5 game losing streak. Losing twice to the *snicker* Redskins.

I like your trolling technique where you attempt to deflect any criticism and flaming by saying the equivalent of "NIBB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES! WOOO!" at the end of your post.

Do you not understand his argument? The point he's making is about the regular season, not the postseason. He's crying because the Giants have won the games they needed to win to not only clinch, but advance to the Super Bowl to this point.

I could careless about a 5 game losing streak or losing twice to the Redskins. That's not the point I'm making, so I'm not sure why you're even bringing that up. I'm not the one arguing that the regular season means anything, am I? Everyone is 0-0 once the postseason starts, and the Giants and Pats are the only two left. They're the two best teams right now, and the OP is crying because he wants to see the Saints for god awful reason. Who the hell wants to see Lance Moore?

 

[Itlan]

giants lone victory against a winning team in the regular season was the patriots ... so there goes that one out the window ..:bricks:

Yes, but by the OP's logic, the Giants are 1-0 against the Pats, which means if the Pats win Sunday, they for some ******ed reason should play a third game!

P.S. Did I anywhere say the Giants were the better regular season team? That's not what I'm arguing, because in the end, it doesn't matter. Regular season ended about a month ago.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Do you not understand his argument? The point he's making is about the regular season, not the postseason. He's crying because the Giants have won the games they needed to win to not only clinch, but advance to the Super Bowl to this point.

I could careless about a 5 game losing streak or losing twice to the Redskins. That's not the point I'm making, so I'm not sure why you're even bringing that up. I'm not the one arguing that the regular season means anything, am I? Everyone is 0-0 once the postseason starts, and the Giants and Pats are the only two left. They're the two best teams right now, and the OP is crying because he wants to see the Saints for god awful reason. Who the hell wants to see Lance Moore?

And I could care less about the Giants getting past two teams with winning records when those teams played with the same level of execution as the Indianapolis Colts when you guys faced them in the playoffs.

And just about any quality stat indicates that SF, Giants and yes even the Ravens looked ******ed. And only the Patriots still looked like a quality football team. So does watching the games.

 

[Itlan]

And I could care less about the Giants getting past two teams with winning records when those teams played with the same level of execution as the Indianapolis Colts when you guys faced them in the playoffs.

And just about any quality stat indicates that SF, Giants and yes even the Ravens looked ******ed. And only the Patriots still looked like a quality football team. So does watching the games.

So let me ask you, are you going to cry when the Patriots lose? Cause I highly doubt you'll even return to this thread when the Giants win. Or, you'll come in pissing and moaning about how on paper, the Patriots are the superior team, and make up some metric statistics that somehow prove the Patriots were the better team, etc. etc.

If you honestly believe the Patriots at this point in time are the better team, you're on some drugs that I need to become aware of. The Giants are a far more talented team, along with being a more complete team. I don't see how you can even argue against this.

 

[Ring 6]

You didn't give me any example. You constantly show your inability to understand yards per point while making terrible arguments.

Then what are you calling the example I gave you, a giraffe?

So here's me doing exactly what you're doing, with yards:

Team A allows 300 yards and 60 points
Team B allows 300 yards and 14 points

This yards metric says these defenses played equally well. If you can't get why that's a terrible measurement, there is no point going further.

When have I ever said yards allowed is a good measure?
I said yards per point is a stupid stat is use to rank defenses. If the only answer you have is that raw yards isn't good, then I suppose you agree.

Fact is any NFL stat when taken out of context, or misused, can show something completely different. Which is exactly why the NE Patriot defense is misrepresented by yards in 2011. They all have flaws, and depending on how you use them, they can all show some serious flaws.

What does that have to do with using a statistic that makes a defense appear better if it allows TDs instead of FGs, or instead of stops?

That doesn't change that in compared to all the other measurements, yards per point still comes out ahead with flying colors because it is absolutely the best predictor of execution and winning.[/'quote]
Any correlation is simply by circumstance.

That is of course, if you understand it. And if you can't understand the importance of execution and winning, and why that makes yards per point the most important, there really is no point going further.

You are measuring it wrong. That is like telling me my TV is 40 inches because you measure lengthwise, when it is really 52 because the accepted measurement is diagonally, and then telling me that I don't understand what a ruler is.
Your stat is not better because you wish it meant more than it does, no matter how many times you misstate that.

In my example yards per point would correctly indicate:

Team A's defense is VASTLY inferior to Team B. And even in your example yards per point would not indicate one is better than the other. And why is that? Simply because it requires more information. Number of drives. Turnovers. Yards per point is not a vacuum stat and it shouldn't be read like one. Yards should definitely not be used like you are.

You are using it in a vaccuum when you state, as you have over and over that the Patriots were the 2nd best defense in the NFL.
If you really think you can't tell which defense played better between one that allowed 450 yards and 45 points and one that allowed 100 and 10 then you are either lying or simply lack the intellect required to have that discussion.

Because in real life football the only way a defense is going to keep an offense to 100 yards, is if that offense has a small number of drives or absolutely sucks. In real life football, if an offense moves 450 yards against you, chances are there were a lot of back and forth possessions in order for a team to rack up 450 yards.

See above. Lying or lack of intellect. Which is it?

Yards per point does a good job of tracking reality, not fantasy nor unrealistic situations, so try for a second to imagine what it would mean for a team to rack up only 100 yards and 10 points in a 60 minutes football game.

It would mean great defense.

In the NFL that means maybe 10-12 three ands outs, and one full field drive that results in a touchdown and perhaps another takeaway that results in a direct FG. That's the only way you could end up with giving up 10 points and only 100 yards. Now you may think that will represent a good defense. But in reality, in football, that represents the other team's TERRIBLE offense. Pull up the last game that actually happened in, and see what it shows: a great defense or an atrocious offense.

You are joking now right?

Look, I'm just going to stop here. There are many great posters on this board who understand football. No offense, but you should really stop posting and read and learn something.
It started out kind of funny how you seemed new to the sport and were throwing out these bizarre uninformed theories, but it has become extremely annoying that you refuse to learn what people are explaining to you and insist on racheting it up with more and more bizarre attempts to defend what you have to know is wrong.
Just to clarify. You think a defense allowing 450 yards and 45 points played equally well as one that allowed 100 and 10, because the only reason you can gather that a defense would allow 100 yards and 10 points is that it played just as bad as the one that allowed 450 and 45 but the other offense sucked.
Lets let that be your legacy on this board.

 

[Welcome 2 THE GRONK PARTY]

the two hottest teams who made the plays they had too and capitalized on miscues by their opponents are in the game. I don't feel cheated. I think it will be a great game

 

[PatriotSeven]

Then what are you calling the example I gave you, a giraffe?


When have I ever said yards allowed is a good measure?
I said yards per point is a stupid stat is use to rank defenses. If the only answer you have is that raw yards isn't good, then I suppose you agree.



What does that have to do with using a statistic that makes a defense appear better if it allows TDs instead of FGs, or instead of stops?

That doesn't change that in compared to all the other measurements, yards per point still comes out ahead with flying colors because it is absolutely the best predictor of execution and winning.
Any correlation is simply by circumstance.



You are measuring it wrong. That is like telling me my TV is 40 inches because you measure lengthwise, when it is really 52 because the accepted measurement is diagonally, and then telling me that I don't understand what a ruler is.
Your stat is not better because you wish it meant more than it does, no matter how many times you misstate that.


You are using it in a vaccuum when you state, as you have over and over that the Patriots were the 2nd best defense in the NFL.
If you really think you can't tell which defense played better between one that allowed 450 yards and 45 points and one that allowed 100 and 10 then you are either lying or simply lack the intellect required to have that discussion.


See above. Lying or lack of intellect. Which is it?


It would mean great defense.



You are joking now right?

Look, I'm just going to stop here. There are many great posters on this board who understand football. No offense, but you should really stop posting and read and learn something.
It started out kind of funny how you seemed new to the sport and were throwing out these bizarre uninformed theories, but it has become extremely annoying that you refuse to learn what people are explaining to you and insist on racheting it up with more and more bizarre attempts to defend what you have to know is wrong.
Just to clarify. You think a defense allowing 450 yards and 45 points played equally well as one that allowed 100 and 10, because the only reason you can gather that a defense would allow 100 yards and 10 points is that it played just as bad as the one that allowed 450 and 45 but the other offense sucked.
Lets let that be your legacy on this board.

You keep saying everything I say is stupid Andy. Yards per point is stupid. My arguments are wrong. Everything I say is stupid. Even after I take the time to show you evidence.

Where is your proof? What do you have to offer as an alternative?

Nothing. You just quote and yap. You have nothing to add. All you do is critique and try to find faults. So yes please stop.

PS: And no my stat is better because it ultimately does the best job in measuring winning. And to some people, who really do understand football, might just find that to be the most important result there is.

 

[Ring 6]

You keep saying everything I say is stupid Andy. Yards per point is stupid. My arguments are wrong. Everything I say is stupid. Even after I take the time to show you evidence.

Where is your proof? What do you have to offer as an alternative?

Nothing. You just quote and yap.

I did not say everything you say is stupid. I suppose there are things that you know a lot about. It just happens that football isn't one of them.
And yes, to say the team that wins on the field doesnt deserve the rewards for winning on the field is stupid, and to say a team that allowed the 2nd most yards and 15th most points is the 2nd best defense because that ratio ranks second is stupid. I can't help that you don't understand that.

 

[BaltimorePatsFan]

The Giants crushed a 10-6 team, humiliated a 15-1 team, and gutted out a victory against an extremely tough 13-3 team, all on the road. New Jersey is the best team in the NFC and deserves to be in the Super Bowl.

 

[Ring 6]

The Giants crushed a 10-6 team, humiliated a 15-1 team, and gutted out a victory against an extremely tough 13-3 team, all on the road. New Jersey is the best team in the NFC and deserves to be in the Super Bowl.

The only way to not consider them the best team in the NFC is to alter the defintion of best, which has been defined by the NFL and sought after by every player, coach and team.

 

[oldskool138]

P.S. Did I anywhere say the Giants were the better regular season team?

You're trying to make the argument that the Pats didn't beat anyone with a winning record all year...when your team had a worse regular season than the Pats did and only had one win against a team with a winning record...the Pats.

The way I see it, the Pats are 2-0 (with a bye) and the Giants are 3-0. The regular season doesn't mean much.

 

[Itlan]

You're trying to make the argument that the Pats didn't beat anyone with a winning record all year...when your team had a worse regular season than the Pats did and only had one win against a team with a winning record...the Pats.

The way I see it, the Pats are 2-0 (with a bye) and the Giants are 3-0. The regular season doesn't mean much.

But I didn't ORIGINATE this argument. It is the OP who is saying the Giants don't belong because they went 9-7 and lost to the Redskins and yadda yadda yadda. The point I'm making is if you're going to ***** and moan the Giants this, the Giants that, why don't you take a look at your own team and realize the Pats really didn't accomplish anything in the regular season and LOST to the team you're saying doesn't belong in the playoffs. If you can't beat THAT team, then what justifies the Patriots competing? It doesn't make sense, it's a circular argument.

And I agree wholeheartedly. Giants took care of their business (the Saints, 49ers, and Packers DID NOT) and the Pats took care of theirs. May the best team win Sunday. Regular season doesn't mean ****all right now.

 

[oldskool138]

But I didn't ORIGINATE this argument.

Do you not remember typing this?

Giants are 1-0 against the Patriots. Should you be allowed in the playoffs for losing to such a BAD team? Without Nicks and Bradshaw to boot? What about the fact you didn't beat a SINGLE team, not one, with a winning record? Should we add that to your ridiculous tirade?

 

[Itlan]

Do you not remember typing this?

Do you not understand what a counterargument is? Are you trolling me? You cannot possibly be this stupid.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I did not say everything you say is stupid. I suppose there are things that you know a lot about. It just happens that football isn't one of them.
And yes, to say the team that wins on the field doesnt deserve the rewards for winning on the field is stupid, and to say a team that allowed the 2nd most yards and 15th most points is the 2nd best defense because that ratio ranks second is stupid. I can't help that you don't understand that.

Clearly....but only because you constantly repeat, believe and rely on even more inaccurate measurements, in a different context(per game) to draw your propositions.

When you finally get past Disney football stats, let me know. You are so brainwashed and have been so trained and mechanized to believe what you do that you continue to rely on the most inaccurate of measurements and can't let go despite constantly going against the actual REAL LIFE RESULTS of the NE Patriots defense.

It doesn't matter to you that they have allowed less points than the 17 defenses they have faced. You're still stuck on the idea they have a bad defense because the rankings yards per game, and points per game says so.

When you finally understand that yards per point is a measurement and a ratio of the exact two stats used in the sentence you keep stating over and over and over let me know.

Nee help? What does allowing 2nd most yards and 15th most points actually mean in one number? Well in 2011 that's the 2nd most efficient defense in the NFL. That's what those two numbers amount to. But you just can't possibly wrap your head around that, and there is nothing I can do to help you.

Maybe if I try to explain to you that those numbers you keep pointing to completely strips out special teams, it measures team on a game by game basis(heavily dependent on opponent) and leave out a defense's ability from creating turnovers.

Maybe if I tried to explain that in reality the difference in yards between the NY Giants defense and Patriots defense is 1 freaking yard per drive and the difference between the best defense in the NFL and the worst defense in the NFL is roughly 10 yards per drive.

Maybe then you would understand how ******ed it is to use rankings where the difference of 1 yard can place a "defense" 10 spots away from one another.


But something tells me I'm getting my hopes up and you're going to continue to wrongly belittle and misunderstand people that just may know a little bit more about football than you simply for the fact you are out of the loop of what's being discussed.