This is Patriots' Super Bowl to lose.

[SoonerPatriot]

Let me explain a couple of facts:

The more efficient offense is 10-0 the playoffs so far. The 10 more efficient offenses won all 10 games!
Teams who win the turnover battle are 8-2 in the playoffs. The Patriots are the ones who have that second stat.
The average offense, against an average defense, scores an average of 3.5 points when they get the ball at midfield.

Even though the Giants faced a good defense, winning by 3 points despite a +2 turnover margin, which gave them the ball in the opponents territory, not midfield, shows they are very weak offensively.

There is only one team in this playoffs that has managed to win 2 games with a turnover margin which says more than anything else you can possibly throw at it. The Patriots. In addition, this is the ONLY team that can go up against a defense like the Ravens, and an offense as efficient as the Ravens #6 in the NFL, and come out with a positive efficiency rating despite 4 turnovers and a -2 turnover margin.

Good offenses are supposed to come out with positive efficiency ratings when they are + in the turnover margin.
Even great offenses are supposed to come out with poor efficiency ratings when they are - in turnover margin.

The Giants came out with a piss poor offensive efficiency rating despite a +2 turnover margin. That means their opponents beat themselves.

The Giants, despite a +2 turnover margin, came out with a 17.2 efficiency rating.
The Patriots, despite a -2 turnover margin came out with 14.2 efficiency rating.

17.2 is good enough to be ranked 27th in the NFL
14.2 is good enough to be ranked 8th in the NFL

Now, at an even turnover margin, you would expect an average offense to be ranked about 27th against a #1 defense. At a -2 turnover margin you would expect a #1 offense to be ranked about 27th.

What you DON'T expect is what is listed above. A team with a +2 turnover margin to be ranked nearly last in efficiency, and a team with a -2 to be ranked in the top 10. If you can't do better than 27th with a +2, you have major, major issues.

And when offensive efficiency is 10-0 so far in the playoffs, why would you even consider for a moment the Giants to be the slightest of threat?

It's 10-0! The Giants didn't win because of LUCK. They won because of that.

You wanna bet against that? Be my guest. Vegas and people who know about this will continue to make a fortune. Just like they did in the Broncos-Pittsburgh game. Pittsburgh, btw, finished the season 27th in the league in offensive efficiency. The Giants were the equivalent of Ben on a hobbled foot today and most of this year.

I don't care about your 3rd and 8 stats. I don't care about your yards stats. I am going by one that supersedes all that, measures the entire team, and is 10-0.

Oh and in this same stat the Patriots D is #2. Only the 49ers had a more efficient defense. They're gone now. Patriots have the best defense left. They will cover Cruz and anyone else the Giants have just fine.

You can throw whatever you want out there but seeing will be believing. My bet is your pooper will be puckered tight enough to make diamonds by the end of the 3rd quarter, just like everyone else here.

 

[ausbacker]

This is a 50/50 game. It's pointless pointing out strengths and weaknesses given it will come down to who executes better on the day and grasps the opportunities when they arise.

 

[PatriotSeven]

You can throw whatever you want out there but seeing will be believing. My bet is your pooper will be puckered tight enough to make diamonds by the end of the 3rd quarter, just like everyone else here.

You saw it today and still don't believe it. Nothing can possibly change blind ignorance. The teams who WON did that and you still don't believe it.

The point is there is NO real logical, evidence to back up the fact the Giants are any sort of a threat, because in the stats that are most important, they are ranked far lower on all 3 sides, and proved it today again.

They sucked in efficiency despite a +2 margin. Pats rocked despite a -2.

Anything can happen on any given Sunday, but you don't bet against solid facts. Simple as that. It's not overconfidence. It's just facts. Though I am sure there are a bunch of Giants fans right now that are overconfident.

Let me put it in perspective. The Patriots D are every bit as good as 49ers defense, but better down the stretch, and better in pass defense. Giants won't have Alex Smith and an inexperienced team across though. They will have Brady one of the best offenses in the league and guys who don't make boneheaded mistakes.

Honestly, this doesn't point to a close game. It points to the Patriots winning by about 10.

 

[supafly]

You saw it today and still don't believe it. Nothing can possibly change blind ignorance. The teams who WON did that and you still don't believe it.

The point is there is NO real logical, evidence to back up the fact the Giants are any sort of a threat, because in the stats that are most important, they are ranked far lower on all 3 sides, and proved it today again.

They sucked in efficiency despite a +2 margin. Pats rocked despite a -2.

Anything can happen on any given Sunday, but you don't bet against solid facts. Simple as that. It's not overconfidence. It's just facts. Though I am sure there are a bunch of Giants fans right now that are overconfident.

Let me put it in perspective. The Patriots D are every bit as good as 49ers defense, but better down the stretch, and better in pass defense. Giants won't have Alex Smith and an inexperienced team across though. They will have Brady one of the best offenses in the league and guys who don't make boneheaded mistakes.

Honestly, this doesn't point to a close game. It points to the Patriots winning by about 10.

Let's hope you're right, but I don't think many here will buy what you're selling. Just a fact. The Pats did some things pretty well at times today, but they also got lucky in some areas too. We're appreciative that happened, and deserve some 'luck,' but you don't want to hang your hat on that--especially against a strong offense (and balanced in general) like the NYG.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

You saw it today and still don't believe it. Nothing can possibly change blind ignorance. The teams who WON did that and you still don't believe it.

The point is there is NO real logical, evidence to back up the fact the Giants are any sort of a threat, because in the stats that are most important, they are ranked far lower on all 3 sides, and proved it today again.

They sucked in efficiency despite a +2 margin. Pats rocked despite a -2.

Anything can happen on any given Sunday, but you don't bet against solid facts. Simple as that. It's not overconfidence. It's just facts. Though I am sure there are a bunch of Giants fans right now that are overconfident.

Let me put it in perspective. The Patriots D are every bit as good as 49ers defense, but better down the stretch, and better in pass defense. Giants won't have Alex Smith and an inexperienced team across though. They will have Brady one of the best offenses in the league and guys who don't make boneheaded mistakes.

Honestly, this doesn't point to a close game. It points to the Patriots winning by about 10.

Hope you are right. I just see a tight game won on a play or two here or there, probably late.

 

[Deus Irae]

...The point is there is NO real logical, evidence to back up the fact the Giants are any sort of a threat, because in the stats that are most important, they are ranked far lower on all 3 sides, and proved it today again....

The two teams met once already this year, and it was a home game for the Patriots. The Giants won the game.

That's real, logical, evidence to back up the 'fact' that the Giants are a threat. Dismissing them would be about as stupid as it gets.

 

[whoartthou]

You saw it today and still don't believe it. Nothing can possibly change blind ignorance. The teams who WON did that and you still don't believe it.

The point is there is NO real logical, evidence to back up the fact the Giants are any sort of a threat, because in the stats that are most important, they are ranked far lower on all 3 sides, and proved it today again.

They sucked in efficiency despite a +2 margin. Pats rocked despite a -2.

Anything can happen on any given Sunday, but you don't bet against solid facts. Simple as that. It's not overconfidence. It's just facts. Though I am sure there are a bunch of Giants fans right now that are overconfident.

Let me put it in perspective. The Patriots D are every bit as good as 49ers defense, but better down the stretch, and better in pass defense. Giants won't have Alex Smith and an inexperienced team across though. They will have Brady one of the best offenses in the league and guys who don't make boneheaded mistakes.

Honestly, this doesn't point to a close game. It points to the Patriots winning by about 10.

I don't buy this. We sure made some bone-headed mistakes today (brady's int, woodheads drop)

 

[ausbacker]

The two teams met once already this year, and it was a home game for the Patriots. The Giants won the game.

That's real, logical, evidence to back up the 'fact' that the Giants are a threat. Dismissing them would be about as stupid as it gets.

Not to mention that the Giants wiped the floor with Atlanta and Green Bay before beating out a very good San Francisco team away.

They're dangerous and a challenge for the Patriots.

 

[VJCPatriot]

All the negativity here tonight is mind-boggling. Yes, the Giants are a great team. Yes, they should be favored. Yes, they beat us earlier this year. But god damn it, we are in the Super Bowl, we have the best QB of all-time and the best coach of all-time. We can do this.

Absolutely. The Pats are completely capable of winning the Superbowl.
I don't agree with the premise that it is ours to lose though.
Pats will have to play a complete game and for 60 minutes.

I'd love to see a breeze, blowout win for our team but it likely won't be that way. But this year's team is VERY mentally tough. And we can win ugly. So I have a lot of confidence in our guys. Every one of them is a fighter! I'm waiting to see an awesome superbowl, and hopefully, it's a big win for the GOOD GUYS! That means the Pats! Yeaaah!

 

[supafly]

I'm waiting to see an awesome superbowl, and hopefully, it's a big win for the GOOD GUYS! That means the Pats! Yeaaah!

Another SB matchup with the whole world rooting for the Giants.

I suppose we should all be used to it at this point.

I don't care what the pointspread in Vegas is, I see the majority of the NFL and the fans around the world in general favoring the Giants.

 

[PatriotSeven]

The two teams met once already this year, and it was a home game for the Patriots. The Giants won the game.

That's real, logical, evidence to back up the 'fact' that the Giants are a threat. Dismissing them would be about as stupid as it gets.

No they didn't. The Patriots beat the Patriots. Because the Patriots did what? LOST the turnover batter. Were the less efficient offense. They were -2.

Why is that so hard to understand ? 4 turnovers. How often do teams lose with a +2 turnover margin when the opponent has 4 turnovers? Once a year? Maybe?

What's impressive is to be -2 and win an AFC Championship game. ESPN just mentioned it. Only 2 teams in the NFL have done it before.

1974 steelers and 85 SF 49ers. Both had the #1 defense in the NFL at the times. Both teams won the SuperBowl. This team and this defense joins those and will join those in the Super Bowl win category too.

Enough of being worried. There is nothing wrong with being confident. This team is that damn good. Ravens were a good reason to be worried. Giants are not. It's not disrespect, and they are a good team and have a good offense. But they just are not on the same level. Green Bay would have been tougher and they are the only ones I would have been worried about.

 

[supafly]

No they didn't. The Patriots beat the Patriots. Because the Patriots did what? LOST the turnover batter. Were the less efficient offense. They were -2.

Why is that so hard to understand ? 4 turnovers. How often do teams lose with a +2 turnover margin when the opponent has 4 turnovers? Once a year? Maybe?

What's impressive is to be -2 and win an AFC Championship game. ESPN just mentioned it. Only 2 teams in the NFL have done it before.

1974 steelers and 85 SF 49ers. Both had the #1 defense in the NFL at the times. Both teams won the SuperBowl. This team and this defense joins those and will join those in the Super Bowl win category too.

Enough of being worried. There is nothing wrong with being confident. This team is that damn good. Ravens were a good reason to be worried. Giants are not. It's not disrespect, and they are a good team and have a good offense. But they just are not on the same level. Green Bay would have been tougher and they are the only ones I would have been worried about.

It was the '82 49'ers, it hadn't been done in the playoffs in 30 yrs.

The 1985 bears were easily the best defense that yr, and maybe of all time.

 

[Deus Irae]

No they didn't. The Patriots beat the Patriots. Because the Patriots did what? LOST the turnover batter. Were the less efficient offense. They were -2.

Why is that so hard to understand ? 4 turnovers. How often do teams lose with a +2 turnover margin when the opponent has 4 turnovers? Once a year? Maybe?

What's impressive is to be -2 and win an AFC Championship game. ESPN just mentioned it. Only 2 teams in the NFL have done it before.

1974 steelers and 85 SF 49ers. Both had the #1 defense in the NFL at the times. Both teams won the SuperBowl. This team and this defense joins those and will join those in the Super Bowl win category too.

Enough of being worried. There is nothing wrong with being confident. This team is that damn good. Ravens were a good reason to be worried. Giants are not. It's not disrespect, and they are a good team and have a good offense. But they just are not on the same level. Green Bay would have been tougher and they are the only ones I would have been worried about.

No, it was the Giants that beat the Patriots. You can play all the games you want. They won't make you right. This week's games were decided by special teams gaffes, not by offensive efficiency. The Patriots lost to the Giants in the regular season.

That's just reality.


You're posting nonsense.

 

[supafly]

No they didn't. The Patriots beat the Patriots. Because the Patriots did what? LOST the turnover batter. Were the less efficient offense. They were -2.

Why is that so hard to understand ? 4 turnovers. How often do teams lose with a +2 turnover margin when the opponent has 4 turnovers? Once a year? Maybe?

What's impressive is to be -2 and win an AFC Championship game. ESPN just mentioned it. Only 2 teams in the NFL have done it before.

1974 steelers and 85 SF 49ers. Both had the #1 defense in the NFL at the times. Both teams won the SuperBowl. This team and this defense joins those and will join those in the Super Bowl win category too.

Enough of being worried. There is nothing wrong with being confident. This team is that damn good. Ravens were a good reason to be worried. Giants are not. It's not disrespect, and they are a good team and have a good offense. But they just are not on the same level. Green Bay would have been tougher and they are the only ones I would have been worried about.

I am more "concerned" (not worried) about the Giants due to their offense and balance.

The ravens were relatively one-dimensional. We pretty much ALL thought that if we shut down Rice, we've have a chance. No one really counted on Flacco to have that kind of game.

If Flacco can have that kind of game, then what makes you think Manning and his weapons (who are much better) can't?

I'm not saying they can't win, actually far from it. But many are questioning why you see it as such a mismatch?

 

[robbomango]

I hope The G-men and their fan base drowned in a tsunami of their own SB42 greatness. Trying to shrug that image off should be frustrating at the very least.

2 past victories over the patriots with Coughlin and Eli at the helm have more weight than Media speculation of TB's fourth Ring revenge possibility, imo.

As much as I'll hate the next 2 weeks of rehashing the past I'll enjoy the irony of it.

 

[PatriotSeven]

I don't buy this. We sure made some bone-headed mistakes today (brady's int, woodheads drop)

The one that bounced of his receiver's hands or the long bomb down field? That wasn't a boneheaded interception in the least. Perfectly good call. The only thing that was bad was the coverage after it got picked off.

Just cause you don't understand the logic behind it doesn't mean it was a bad move. It makes stats look bad, but like with anything else COUNT stats suck. That includes turnovers.

When you have the lead, you get a turnover at midfield and you take a shot down field, and it gets picked off in the endzone, you lost the ball, but won the field position battle. It's like punting and pinning someone at the 1 yard line.

You lost nothing. They didn't have to move upfield to get those 50 yards. They were gifted those yards in the first place. It was a "free" shot and a "free" possession. Nothing to lose at that point and everything to gain.


Here. The Patriots probability of winning before the interception 83%.
The Patriots probability of wining AFTER the interception was 61%

Advanced NFL Stats Win Probability - Current Games

When the pass was intercepted, they were still the ones favored to win the game because of where the defender caught it and they still had the lead. Whenever you throw an interception and it gets picked off in the endzone or their 1 yard line you have just as great a chance of being the next team to score as the one with the ball.

There were only 4 times that gave the Ravens the probability of winning and momentum, and that interception was not one of them. And they held it for about 5 minutes the entire game.

 

[supafly]

When you have the lead, you get a turnover at midfield and you take a shot down field, and it gets picked off in the endzone, you lost the ball, but won the field position battle. It's like punting and pinning someone at the 1 yard line.

You lost nothing. They didn't have to move upfield to get those 50 yards. They were gifted those yards in the first place. It was a "free" shot and a "free" possession. Nothing to lose at that point and everything to gain.

Okay, now you're getting borderline weird.

Gaining a potentially game saving/game changing INT with a 3 pt lead and half a quarter left, only to throw out Matthew Slater (ya think they saw that one coming?) on the field and throw it into triple coverage is hands-down the single handed dumbest move of the year.

There was ONE other time they threw that to Slater, who does not "ever" line up at WR. The Ravens read that one the whole entire time, and probably saw it on film this week.

As soon as they saw Slater trot out, they probably immediately knew what was coming---especially since it just came off a turnover.

Brady and co. could have just as easily worked the clock, and at the very least forced the Ravens to have to score a TD with about 3:30--4:00 remaining, by kicking an easy FG. They needed about 15-20 yards.

Or, in a better case scenario, they could have scored a TD from great field position and put the game away.

Not only do I strongly disagree with you, that move almost cost them the entire game (and potential season obviously).

And most importantly--they didn't "win" the field position game with the INT. It was returned to about the 40 yd line.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Okay, now you're getting borderline weird.

Gaining a potentially game saving/game changing INT with a 3 pt lead and half a quarter left, only to throw out Matthew Slater (ya think they saw that one coming?) on the field and throw it into triple coverage is hands-down the single handed dumbest move of the year.

There was ONE other time they threw that to Slater, who does not "ever" line up at WR. The Ravens read that one the whole entire time, and probably saw it on film this week.

As soon as they saw Slater trot out, they probably immediately knew what was coming---especially since it just came off a turnover.

Brady and co. could have just as easily worked the clock, and at the very least forced the Ravens to have to score a TD with about 3:30--4:00 remaining, by kicking an easy FG. They needed about 15-20 yards.

Or, in a better case scenario, they could have scored a TD from great field position and put the game away.

Not only do I strongly disagree with you, that move almost cost them the entire game (and potential season obviously).

And most importantly--they didn't "win" the field position game with the INT. It was returned to about the 40 yd line.

It's all a bunch of gambling hooey.

 

[supafly]

It's all a bunch of gambling hooey.

I know you say this tongue in cheek (at least partially), I wouldn't have expected any kind of gamble this bad coming from a team this smart, with this kind of conservative approach on most days.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

I know you say this tongue in cheek (at least partially), I wouldn't have expected any kind of gamble this bad coming from a team this smart, with this kind of conservative approach on most days.

I'm talking about the OP vomiting statistics all over the place.