Re: The real question: How will the Giants O-Line protect Eli against the Pats Pass r
The Giants defense held the best offense in NFL history to 14 points.
The Patriots defense held a medicore offense to 17, and allowed back to back 80+ yard TD drives on the last 2 drives of the game.
If you don't think the Giant front 4 was the difference in that game, go back and watch it and count how many times Brady had a wide open receiver and got hit while throwing to send the ball off target, then count how many yards were lost because of it. When you get to over a dozen times and 200 yards, it will be OK to stop there, the point will be clear.
I understand your point, although I think you're giving maybe a bit too much credit to one side and not enough to the other.
The Patriots offense may have been the greatest in the NFL history that season(arguable, honestly, as I feel this offense is even harder to stop and that one was heavily dependent on one guy, Moss), but on that day, I'm not sure how much of their failure can be credited to the Giants D and how much you can also credit to the Patriots offense itself. Just the play calling on the first two plays alone on the final drive was insane looking back at it. No different a situation then the Pats first Super Bowl, needing a FG to tie this time, but they had time outs and plenty of time. They dug themselves in a hole against that D because their intent on going deep(or did they have no other options) and got caught without short yardage options.
Likewise, considering that final offensive drive by the Giants, not sure how "mediocre" they were that game. I think it had more to do with how little respect the Giants offense and Eli got that year. The Giants offense had 6 4th quarter comebacks that year and 3 of them came in the playoffs. That's usually sign of a very good offense that doesn't quit until the end. It's more of a sign of a "mediocre" defense. When the only way your team can win their games is by the offense having the ball last, and they actually do it, that's not an indication of a bad offense. That's a dangerous offense.
Maybe we just don't want to accept that yes, by the end of that season, the Giants actually had the better offense. Even if you want to call them mediocre, then the facts say NE's defense was #1, allowing
exactly 17.0 ppg to an
average offense. That's exactly what they allowed in the Super Bowl, isn't it? Just look at the facts and use a bit of common sense.
-The Giants were a
slightly above average offense(14th), scoring 22.9 ppg against an
average defense, but against the #1 defense they only put up 17. Makes perfect sense to me. That's
exactly what the #1 defense was
supposed to do. Is it not?
-The #1 offense, NE Patriots put up 34.5 ppg against an
average defense but could only muster up 14 against the Giants defense, whatever you consider them to be.
Simple common sense tells you even if the Giants had the best defense in the league, and we had them all wrong, during that Super Bowl, a #1 offense
should at least be able to put up
average points(22) on a #1 defense. They didn't. They only put up 14. Which was equivalent to being the 31st worst offense in the league.
A #1 defense can't make a #1 offense look last all on their own. They need a little help, from that team's own offense. The only way to make them look that bad, is if that offense also falls flat on their face.
Just ask yourself, how many points did the other top offenses put on them that year? GB, the #4 offense, put up 35, Dallas, the number 3 offense managed 45 and 31 points in the regular season. Heck the Pats put up 38 in week 17. And then even in the playoffs, GB managed 20 points even in their playoff loss 2 weeks before they faced the Pats in the Super Bowl. Dallas managed 17 in their loss 3 weeks before. The only other offense who scored 14 points against the Giants D during the playoffs was Tampa Bay, and they were the 19th ranked offense that year in points scored.
The Patriots offense failed in the 2007 Super Bowl. Not the Patriots defense. Their over reliance on Moss was their undoing and them being forced to go deep and thinking Moss could beat everyone is what created a lot of sacks. And the Giants defense certainly didn't do anything amazing. The shut down the run game, and forced Brady to hold on to the ball in the pocket so they could get to him. You can either continue to believe the Giants average defense improved astronomically in the playoffs, above and beyond what even a #1 defense can do, or simply believe the Patriots offense performed poorly and the Giants offense was the better offense in the game. Which one makes more sense?
