So it begins.....Dr. Z picks the Giants

[richpats]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/01/22/superbowlxlii/index.html

He makes a strong case - only points out the Giants' strengths and potential Patriot flaws. Maybe he should retitle his column "Wishful Thinking with Paul Z".

Oh, BTW, he picked the Giants to LOSE in Green Bay last week:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/01/14/playoffs/2.html

Journalism 101 - it doesn't matter if it makes sense, as long as someone is reading it.

 

[stonel86]

This guy always picks against the Giants too. weird.

 

[primetime]

I don't remember any of Dr. Z's previous picks besides the 1993 (I believe) Super Bowl matchup between the Bills and Cowboys.

He picked the Bills to win.

Remember how that went?

 

[cblesz]

Strap yourselves in fellas...it is gonna be like this for the next two weeks...

 

[richpats]

Strap yourselves in fellas...it is gonna be like this for the next two weeks...

I'm loving it already.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Dr. Z is usually pretty cogent, but I won't read this one.

Here's the problem with people who want to pick against the Patriots. They only want to dissect the ways in which the Giants can exploit some weakness the Pats have, because that makes for more interesting copy. "Blueprint", "exposed", whatever, sell more and get more clicks. None of them want to discuss the ways in which the Pats create SERIOUS matchup problems for the opposition. In this game, that's the weak Giants secondary. We saw the EXACT same line of thinking for the Jags game, and even with a perfect game plan and perfect execution, they couldn't win.

The Chargers were BY FAR the toughest matchup for the Pats of any of the 11 other playoff teams, and we survived that one.

Next.

 

[Stop Being A Jerk]

When was the last time Dr. Z was relevant? 1972?

 

[primetime]

The Chargers were BY FAR the toughest matchup for the Pats of any of the 11 other playoff teams, and we survived that one.

I don't agree with this. The Colts were, and the Jaguars played the best game out of any of the teams. The Chargers were tough as well. All three of those teams were better than the Giants.

Didn't we hear the toughness shtick before with the Jags?

 

[cblesz]

When was the last time Dr. Z was relevant? 1972?

Um, never...

 

[BelichickFan]

As long the "the foot" is OK, I have no concerns about this game.

 

[PatsRI]

I always go back to him picking the Fins to make the Super Bowl in 06':eat2:

 

[Watson's IQ]

I don't agree with this. The Colts were, and the Jaguars played the best game out of any of the teams. The Chargers were tough as well. All three of those teams were better than the Giants.

Didn't we hear the toughness shtick before with the Jags?

Agree to disagree? If you're talking about the quality of the other teams, than I agree that the Colts and Jags were both better than the Chargers. However, I think a team which would hypothetically beat the Pats really needs to have a strong (and deep) secondary. The Chargers had that, and the Jags certainly didn't, which was ultimately their undoing. Sure, Brady was shaky against SD, but their corners in particular played a great game, which is why the score was as close as it was.

To beat the Pats, you have to not only score on them (run the ball well, be able to pick apart their secondary), but STOP them from scoring. The Jags defense, IMO, was not suited to do this, and they only managed to keep the score down because they were efficient on offense and sustained drives.

The Chargers, from a defensive perspective, do the two things you need to do to keep the Pats offense from running wild: 1) Have quality cover corners, 2) Get pressure off the edge.

The Giants can do the second, but not the first. You'd really need both to have a serious shot against the Pats.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/01/22/superbowlxlii/index.html

He makes a strong case - only points out the Giants' strengths and potential Patriot flaws. Maybe he should retitle his column "Wishful Thinking with Paul Z".

Oh, BTW, he picked the Giants to LOSE in Green Bay last week:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dr_z/01/14/playoffs/2.html

Journalism 101 - it doesn't matter if it makes sense, as long as someone is reading it.

Based on confidence alone, Dr Z mustve picked the 85 Pats over the Bears too....afterall, Pats the Wilcard team gained SOOOOOOOOOOOO much confidence beating Jets, Raiders and Mighty Marino led Dolphins on the road to SB.

Then what happened in SB ? I mean come on. If all he has to go by is confidence, what the eff are Brady and Pats, chopped liver ? Pats don;t have grit ?

6 weeks ago in NY they were ready to hang Eli and Coughlin, now they've suddenly found the holy grail.

Another Azzclown. Make your case on fact boZo and you will have some credibility. Trying to bring todd Christensen and Joe Namath into a discussion shows us your brain is 30 yrs past its prime.

 

[Ootball]

"And so it begins..."

Yeah - I'm sure it will be 2 long weeks of the Pats getting no respect & people giving them no chance to win....

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Based on confidence alone, Dr Z mustve picked the 85 Pats over the Bears too....afterall, Pats the Wilcard team gained SOOOOOOOOOOOO much confidence beating Jets, Raiders and Mighty Marino led Dolphins on the road to SB.

Then what happened in SB ? I mean come on. If all he has to go by is confidence, what the eff are Brady and Pats, chopped liver ? Pats don;t have grit ?

6 weeks ago in NY they were ready to hang Eli and Coughlin, now they've suddenly found the holy grail.

Another Azzclown. Make your case on fact boZo and you will have some credibility. Trying to bring todd Christensen and Joe Namath into a discussion shows us your brain is 30 yrs past its prime.

You beat me to this. Per Todd Christensen:

"Having been on a team that won the Super Bowl, from a wild card spot," said Todd Christensen, the All-Pro tight end who was on the 1980 champion Raiders, "the ongoing confidence gained by continuing to win at other people's houses cannot be stressed strongly enough."

Yeah, tell that to the '85 Pats.

Regards,
Chris

 

[bradmahn]

And that's one of the reasons I like New York a week from Sunday. The ongoing confidence. They're on the rise; the Patriots no longer wrap games up in the third quarter, as they used to. San Diego, with its collection of crippled stars, shoved them around for a while. New England isn't peaking right now. They look human, tough, to be sure, but beatable.

Until the Patriots completely dominated them in the second half.

I love how "tough resiliency" can serve as a reason why the Giants can win this game ("The Giants clearly were the better team, tougher, more resilient, harder hitting," and "[t]hey didn't win their 10 [sic] straight on the road against stiffs. Five of the teams were favored over New York, including Dallas and Green Bay, the conference's top two, which fell in successive weekends. The Giants had to come from behind in eight of the 10 games, including Green Bay, in Lambeau, in the frigid temperature before all those screaming fans.") and yet be perceived as a flaw in the Patriots.

Brady's interest seems to be elsewhere, mainly because Moss isn't getting free.

Last week, maybe, but what about the week prior when he completed an NFL record percentage of passes and threw three TDs?

The team has relied on Maroney, who, very quietly, has rushed for more than 100 yards in four of the last five games. Who's the one opponent who held him under the century? The Giants in their Dec. 29 meeting (46 yards and a 2.4 average).

Conveniently forget to mention who won that game, or the fact that Maroney scored two TDs and a converted on a two point attempt. And, of course, when he discusses the Giants' running game he ignores the fact that the Patriots held them to 79 yards rushing (with 13 coming from Eli Manning) or that the Patriots have been... uh... "pretty" good against the run the last several weeks.

Maybe if "Dr." Z spent more time "analyzing" the matchups and game instead of complaining about the hype that will ensue he wouldn't fall victim to that same group of thinking.

 

[BadMoFo]

Once again Patriot homers being overly sensitive. Look, we are going to see a lot of experts picking the Giants, get used to it.

The Giants are hot and gave us a game a month ago that we easily could have lost. Maybe we should go back to that gameday thread and pull out some of the quotes from fans who had already given up.

 

[bradmahn]

Once again Patriot homers being overly sensitive. Look, we are going to see a lot of experts picking the Giants, get used to it.

The Giants are hot and gave us a game a month ago that we easily could have lost. Maybe we should go back to that gameday thread and pull out some of the quotes from fans who had already given up.

Before jumping on people as being "sensitive homers," kindly read my post. I don't care if someone picks the Giants, I'd just like some rational reasoning.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Fanbase Alert: Act like you've been there, because you have.

By the time XXXVIII and XXXIX rolled around the Eagles and Panthers poised to take away our lunch money. Give any mediot a little time and a little rope and they will get so tied up in knots they either don't know what to think or they will boldly hang themselves. They are impressed by the last thing they saw - and they fail (or perhaps refuse) to acknowledge what it really entailed.

The Giants beat 3 NFC teams. One who won it's division by default and rested for 3 weeks prior to falling flat on their face in front of it's transient home crowd (for which they will possibly be rewarded with a European home game this season...). One mismanaged team who also rested a struggling unit down the stretch. And a team who backed into HFA throughout by thrashing a perpetually fraudulent Seattle team only to have their all time INTS leader tire of film study and revert to careless, selfish gunslinging form and flat out refuse to win a championship game against a QB who managed not to throw a pick but didn't manage a TD passing all day...

I credit the Giants for being the toughest, most focused team in the NFC down the stretch. That's it though. They got to Arizona because they didn't make mistakes in a game they were under no pressure not to because Brett Freakin' Favre IS who we thought he is. The mainstream mediots will never, ever admit this. So the only alternative is, how 'bout those Giants...


And PS - it still beats 14 solid days and nights of Favre ballwashing...

 

[upstater1]

He seems like he's sick of media hype and wants to move on to another profession. He can start by asking his bosses at SI to fire some of the hypesters that work there.