As anyone who has ever bet a lot knows, betting is all about public perception. So the fact that the Pats were 14 point underdogs in 2001 and the fact that the Giants are 12 point dogs now says nothing about the quality of these teams in respect to each other. All it says is that the Patriots in 2001 were perceived similarly by the betting public to how the Giants are held today. Obviously they are not building casinos in Vegas because perception is usually accurate. Ultimately,in 2001, the line was wrong. The Patriots had on their roster the greatest QB in NFL history and the greatest coach in NFL history. In 2001, no one outside of New England (and, lets be honest, many people inside NE) appreciated how powerful the Belichik Brady combination was and would be. No one really knew at that time what the Pats had. In retrospect, comparing a combo of Brady/Belichik to Martz/Warner seems laughable. Can the same be said about the Giants this year? The real question is: Is the betting public simalry wrong about Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin. I think Coughlin is an excellent coach. But to me, the odds of a young, decent quarterback (like Manning) with serious questions surrounding his decision making and mental toughness blossoming into someone who would be considered the greatest QB of all time (a la Brady) is minimal. Do the Giants have greatness hiding on their roster? I don't think so. At least not like the Patriots did. This leaves the Giants best hope for winning in one key factor that can change any football game: Luck. In particular Luck as it pertains to turnovers. Eli Manning is not going to be the next Tom Brady. In this case, I dont think the public is wrong to think the best coach and QB on the field are on the NE sideline. For the Giants to pull this off they need to get lucky in terms of turnovers. If they don't, the Pats will win easily.