Giant Advantages ?

[Watson's IQ]

On the play before Madison ripped his stomach muscles (missed 2 playoff games!!)... lucky it was an under throw and Moss dropped it.
The next play Moss went deep again and was wide open.

Madison will be back for this game.

Furthermore, not 24 hours ago you were arguing about how deep the Giants were at cornerback. Now suddenly w/o Sam Madison you don't have someone capable of covering Randy Moss deep? Which is it?

Again, we're coming back to the fact that the Giants cornerbacks (especially the immortal Kevin Dockery, who we discussed at length yesterday) are not nearly as good as you've imagined in your head.

There are other Giants trolls hanging around here, but I haven't seen any springing to the defense of your "logic" in what is now 25 pages of this thread. Maybe that says something, I don't know.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

It didn't go over anyone's heads. We are just disputing the ability of NY's 3rd or 4th DB to shut down Welker when no one else has. They may be in better position, but how much better? I don't care how much better he is than who NY had covering him last time, Welker against any teams 3rd or 4th DB is a matchup decidedly in NE's favor.

And won't NE returning their RG, RT and blocking TE help in pass protection, thus giving Brady and the receivers more time?

I personally think that using last game as an indicator of this one is dangerous because NE was pretty clearly surprised at NY's intensityl. NY was playing at a level they hadn't reached all season and they caught a NE team that was mildly tight due to the whole 16-0 thing. They won't be surprised this time, I can assure you.

The reason the Giants had the ball for about 24 minutes in that last regular season game is they could not get the Pats' offense off the field!

It is that simple!

The addition of Madison and Dockery is of little consequence.

As others have pointed out, the 65-yard bomb Moss caught for a TD is because the corner responsible for that zone blitzed, and Brady read it, knowing in all likelihood that zone would be vacant. The safety, trying to cover that mistake, got there too late.

Dockery on Welker might be interesting, but what are the Giants going to throw at us when Faulk lines up wide?

Even if the defensive backfield is every bit as good as leek professes (and they're not!), I strongly suspect Brady is going to abuse those linebackers in this game.

Let's take a closer look at the game from the point of 28-16, Giants. I take this point because at this point, New York is up by 12, in what should be a fairly commanding lead, and if they can run the clock down, they have a good chance to pull it out.

Remember - they have the Pats where the want them at this point, and all they have to is play the clock with time-consuming running plays and short passes (just taking what the defense will give you). Just 22:12 left in the game, and (1)you want the defense to get the pats off the field, so (2) your boy can manage this game to it's (hopefully) logical conclusion.

Now, here we see the Giants' braintrust at work.

OK, the defense allows the Pats to score, marching 73 yards in 5:12. OK, it happens, but now the Giants have the ball, and can work tis clock down.

Result? 3 possessions, 12 plays, 7 passes, 3 rushes, a fumble (which they recovered) and an interception, which gained them all of 32 yards. 5:50 was taken off the clock.

Meanwhile, due to this ineptitude, the Giants' defense must now get back on the field, without that much of a rest, and not only contain the Pats, but try and get the ball back so the offense can whittle down the clock some more.

This catastrophe (for the Giants) resulted in the Pats maintaining possession for almost 13½ minutes, moving 199 yards, and staking themselves to a 10-point lead. Not that that was bad enough, they also gave up a successful 2-point conversion.

Now the clock is no longer the friend of the Giants, and they move down the field for what is essentially a meaningless score while chewing up a most valuable 3:32 in time.

The subsequent onside kick, which was surely one of the worst ever attempted, pretty much sealed their fate.

The point here is that no matter how you cut it, the Giants' defense is going to be out there for big chunks of time, and as the game wears on, that becomes worse and worse news for the Giants.

At what point do the Giants abandon the running game in an effort to stay in the game? I think it happens some time in the first half.

And why do I think they'll abandon the running game so early? Because they'll be behind.

And why do I think they'll be behind? Because the defense won't be able to get the Pats' offense off the field. This perception is enhanced by the fact the Patriots have the entire right side of their line returning, as well as Kyle Brady.

The standard 4-man rush won't get this done, given this turn of events, leaving as a plausible strategy the blitz. Regardless of the flavor New York employs here, be it known that Tom Brady reads this stuff very, very well.

The Giants have shot, yes, but like in a prize fight, it's a puncher's chance.

Patriots, 38-13.

 

[Satchboogie3]

The point is, the Patriots are better statistically in every catagory but running the football. But even there, we have better rushing stats in playoffs than the Giants.

It really comes down to this:
The Greatest Team in Superbowl history vs the worst team in Superbowl history.

 

[Watson's IQ]

The point is, the Patriots are better statistically in every catagory but running the football. But even there, we have better rushing stats in playoffs than the Giants.

It really comes down to this:
The Greatest Team in Superbowl history vs the worst team in Superbowl history.

Shhhhh, don't tell anyone!

 

[TripleOption]

As others have pointed out, the 65-yard bomb Moss caught for a TD is because the corner responsible for that zone blitzed, and Brady read it, knowing in all likelihood that zone would be vacant. The safety, trying to cover that mistake, got there too late.

Huh? Who said that? There was no Corner Blitz.

That play, the Giants were in Cover 2, the CB got no funnel on Moss and he simply run up the field. The Safety had to chance to get over the top. The Corner left the Safety screwed by not even slowing Moss down and letting him steam up the field.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Huh? Who said that? There was no Corner Blitz.

That play, the Giants were in Cover 2, the CB got no funnel on Moss and he simply run up the field. The Safety had to chance to get over the top. The Corner left the Safety screwed by not even slowing Moss down and letting him steam up the field.

OK, I stand corrected (even thought I haven't given this another look), but I do seem to recall the the corner was showing blitz on the play.

Could be wrong, tho...

Any problem with the rest of the post?

 

[leek21]

1) Run Jacobs and Bradshaw. Jacobs is 264 pounds and 6"4. In front of Jacobs the Giants have FB Madison Hedge**** who is 6"3 and 266 pounds.

How will your old linebackers stand up to that kind of pounding ?

Clearly, Seau and Bruschi are starting inside linebackers on an undefeated team because they can't stop the run. You're an idiot.

"Incidentally, you could switch out the names and use this justification as a reason for why every" Pats player has an advantage over everybody.

Let's give it a try:

"Clearly Burress has no chance against Hobbs as the Pats are 18-0"
LOL!!! Try again!!

2) If the running game gets going it will open up the play action pass. Boss, Toomer, and Smith will be open on the short passes as your LBers will be too concerned about the running game. Can you say "play action pass" ?

Congratulations, that is football 101. You're assuming that execution will happen, though, and that's the entire point. It usually doesn't against a good defense like the Pats.

Incidentally, you could switch out the names and use this justification as a reason for why every offense will always win the game versus every defense. That should have kinda been a red flag, don't you think? I mean, anyone who wasn't an idiot would have realized that and not posted it.

It's not my fault you can't connect dots... the point prior to that explained why the Giants running could have more success... you follwed that up by agreeing and complimenting Bradshaw.

Now connect the dots... if the running gets going.... it will help with the play action pass. It's called building an argument. Whether you agree or disagree with the argument doesn't matter... there was a valid reason for stating it.


.... if you want me to respond to anything else in specific you are going to have to break it up, it's getting too long...

 

[Watson's IQ]

Now connect the dots... if the running gets going.... it will help with the play action pass. It's called building an argument. Whether you agree or disagree with the argument doesn't matter... there was a valid reason for stating it.

Building an argument, sure. But every piece you place on top of that argument, your case gets flimsier and flimsier. Why? Because in every piece of analysis you've provided, even if it isn't factually incorrect, you're assuming the best possible outcome for the Giants. This is fine when it's one factor, but when you continue to pile up the odds of the Giants overcoming their disadvantages, the overall probability of these outcomes becomes less and less likely.

Yes, the Giants could win if this, and this, and this, and this break their way.

But if the breaks even out, and both teams play to their talent levels, the Giants have virtually no shot, because they are not even close in terms of talent. You can't really, and to your credit haven't, disputed that point.

You admitted yesterday that, gun to your head, a Patriots win is more likely than a Giants win. Most around here feel that it's FAR more likely, you disagree, which is fine.. But what absolutely no one seems to disagree on is that the Patriots are a better team. Case closed for me.

 

[leek21]

So what you're saying is that Bradshaw's presence will cause the Giants to have significantly greater success in the running game... but that does not mean that he will be a game changer? Care to explain how that's even possible? Quit digging yourself deeper.

I'll explain it for the less educated football fans.

Bradshaw could help the Giants establish a better running game compared to last game. He doesn't have to be a "game changer", just help the Giants pick up more first downs via running, like he did in Green Bay.

This will force NE to focus more on the run... setting up the play action pass... wait I already explained this and BradyFTW said it was so blatantly obvious and wasn't worth mentioning. LOL!

And once again, if you think that Madison can single cover Moss, you're deluded.

I see you to suffer from the "Reading too much between the lines syndrom".
When did I purpose the Giants single cover Moss ? I said Madison was doing a good job on Moss in the first game, but he obviously had safety help.

You want to retract your 'deluded' claim now that I have cleared your confusion ?

 

[Satchboogie3]

Leek, I hope you'll still be around when the Pats have a 28-3 lead at half-time.

 

[TripleOption]

OK, I stand corrected (even thought I haven't given this another look), but I do seem to recall the the corner was showing blitz on the play.

Could be wrong, tho...

Any problem with the rest of the post?

No, that part just caught me by surprise. The CB may have had his eyes in the backfield, but he was C/2 all the way.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

What are you banking on your Super Bowl hopes? ...... your delusional analysis. Just a reminder, the Giants aren't playing at home against the Patriots this time.

Haven't you heard the Giants have a 10 game road winning streak going

 

[Watson's IQ]

Haven't you heard the Giants have a 10 game road winning streak going

Giants fan logic. The G-Men were the best road team in the NFL this year, having won 10 road games. The Patriots won ONLY 8.

 

[Oswlek]

Huh? Who said that? There was no Corner Blitz.

That play, the Giants were in Cover 2, the CB got no funnel on Moss and he simply run up the field. The Safety had to chance to get over the top. The Corner left the Safety screwed by not even slowing Moss down and letting him steam up the field.

Actually, the CB did exactly was he was supposed to do, he showed man coverage on Moss and then broke towards Welker as Brady started to throw. The play was to blitz and trick Brady into thinking his hot read was open when, in fact, he was triple covered.

The safety is the one who screwed up because he stayed to low for too long and was deep enough when the pass actually went to Moss.

 

[Nordy]

It was idiotic to leave a crap safety one on one with Moss anyways. Brady will launch that one to Randy pretty much every time. He'll catch it pretty much every time, too.

 

[Oswlek]

It was idiotic to leave a crap safety one on one with Moss anyways. Brady will launch that one to Randy pretty much every time. He'll catch it pretty much every time, too.

If you watch a replay, the Giants actually play it quite well. I would imagine that most QBs would make the mistake that they were hoping for.

 

[Nordy]

If you watch a replay, the Giants actually play it quite well. I would imagine that most QBs would make the mistake that they were hoping for.

Yeah but they're playing Tom Brady and Randy Moss here. You have to take that into account.

 

[Watson's IQ]

If you watch a replay, the Giants actually play it quite well. I would imagine that most QBs would make the mistake that they were hoping for.

I agree, I've watched the play several times. However, that is something that Tom Brady is going to recognize most times, and look to the long pass.

As you said before, it was the safety (I believe it was Butler) who ruined the play for hanging too close, allowing Moss to run by him.

 

[leek21]

Furthermore, not 24 hours ago you were arguing about how deep the Giants were at cornerback. Now suddenly w/o Sam Madison you don't have someone capable of covering Randy Moss deep? Which is it?

Again with the strawman arguments...

I mentioned 5 corners... Madison, Webster, Ross, Dockery, and McQuarters.
Dockery was out for the game, and Madison got hurt during the game.
That leaves 3 CBs... not enough to play against the Patriots.

Again, we're coming back to the fact that the Giants cornerbacks (especially the immortal Kevin Dockery, who we discussed at length yesterday) are not nearly as good as you've imagined in your head.

Your nickname fits, Mr. Strawman.
Find one sentence of mine that says Kevin Dockery is "immortal" or any implication of that meaning.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position"

 

[leek21]

Giants fan logic. The G-Men were the best road team in the NFL this year, having won 10 road games. The Patriots won ONLY 8.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.