Why the Giants have virtually no shot to win the Super Bowl

[Watson's IQ]

Dude, by definition EVERY team that makes it to the Superbowl is playing well at the end of the season or they wouldn;t have gotten there. The '85 Pats were on such a HOT streak having beaten the Jets, Raiders, and Fins (in MIA where IIRC the Patriots had NEVER won before). They got blown out by the Bears--arguably the single season greatest team of all time. Congrats to the Giants. They got through the NFC when nobody expected them to, they're on a roll, and they're a likable underdog. But they didn't draw the '85 Patriots in the SB, or the '05 Seahawks, or the '06 Bears. Unfortunately they drew the equivalent of the '85 Bears. This is a team for the ages.

Sometimes I honestly wonder if people read others posts before they respond. I never once said in this thread that I thought the Giants would win against the Patriots, I 100% don't think that. My point was, and is, that the statistics presented here aren't any use in analyzing the matchup, because they don't take into account how the team is playing now.

There are many reasons which the Patriots are overwhelmingly better than the Giants, but overall season scoring statistics are somewhere near the bottom when February 3rd comes around.

It's way too easy to throw out "team for the ages" or whatever to defend the reasons we will win. And I agree wholeheartedly that they are a team for the ages. But if they win the Super Bowl, it won't be because destiny took any snaps, and it also won't be because the Giants defense got lit up in September.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

No TD is in garbage time when recovering the onsides kick could easily lead to a FG to tie or a TD to lose.

Perhaps. But are you willing to concede that the Pats were playing a soft defense attempting to trade yards for time off the clock?

 

[Oswlek]

The 2001 Patriots ranked 10th in offense and 17th in defense,They should have been included among the 8 teams unless that defense offense stats regards more than the scoring aspects which could explain why they were not included.

The 2001 Pats were 6th in points allowed, 24th in yards allowed.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I understand you dude but regardless of anything my point is thats its in stone that when a team DOES NOT rank in the top 10 by the end of the regular season in at least 1 offense or defensive catagory there has never been a Super Bowl winning team with poor stats regarding scoring on offense and allowing points on defense - it does not matter whe it comes to what they are doing in the postseason,These are facts and that is all they are.

In other words itsin stone,at least right now that for the last 37 years any team that has exceeded a ranking higher than 10th both O and D catagories has NOT won a Championship,Thats all I am saying here.

That may be what you're trying to say, but it's not at all what you've said. The title of this thread is "Why the Giants have virtually no shot to win the Super Bowl." If it was "Season scoring statistics show that no team ranking similar to the Giants has ever won the super bowl" I would have no problem with it.

My point, which I don't think anyone has refuted, is that season scoring statistics are far from the best statistical indicator when analyzing the game. What you've pointed out is an interesting historical note, but provides absolutely no evidence of why the Giants have "No Shot" to win the Super Bowl other than saying that no team with those specific statistical qualifications has ever done so before. It's not convincing from a statistical standpoint, I'm sorry.

 

[Grogan's neck roll]

Why arent the 2001 Patriots on this list?
They were in the 20s on d, and I doubt they were top 10 in O, but they may have been.
Is this whole argument based on wrong data to begin with?

It's SCORING offense and defense. 2001 Pats D was 6th, and the O was also 6th in SCORING.

 

[Watson's IQ]

It's SCORING offense and defense. 2001 Pats D was 6th, and the O was also 6th in SCORING.

Yes, that's true. This is also not how most people measure defensive and offensive rankings throughout the year, it's traditionally done by yards (which, in itself, isn't a perfect measure either)

 

[Oswlek]

Sometimes I honestly wonder if people read others posts before they respond. I never once said in this thread that I thought the Giants would win against the Patriots, I 100% don't think that. My point was, and is, that the statistics presented here aren't any use in analyzing the matchup, because they don't take into account how the team is playing now.

There are many reasons which the Patriots are overwhelmingly better than the Giants, but overall season scoring statistics are somewhere near the bottom when February 3rd comes around.

It's way too easy to throw out "team for the ages" or whatever to defend the reasons we will win. And I agree wholeheartedly that they are a team for the ages. But if they win the Super Bowl, it won't be because destiny took any snaps, and it also won't be because the Giants defense got lit up in September.

Out of 37 times, you can be sure that numerous times a team went into the SB "on a roll" despite mediocre season-long stats and lost to a better team.

The Giants are an anamoly of sorts, but it isn't as if it is unprecedented that an average team got hot in the playoffs. They have just never won unless they met the original criteria, so people forget them.

 

[Rookie]

The reason behind the Giants getting virtually no chance to win is based on Super Bowls of the past 37 years regarding Defense allowing points and Offense scoring points as statistics show in the regular season prior to the SB

If you look at Super Bowls since the 1970 Merger there have only been 8 teams that have won the Super Bowl that have NOT had both the offense and defense BOTH ranked in the top 10 in the regualr season - It is rare when a team does not rank in the top 10 in both offense and defense and wins such as the only teams to do so since the 1970 merger as follows...

The only 8 teams 37 years to have won the Supr Bowl without being top 10 in offense and defense but has had at least 1 of offense or defense ranked in the top 10

1976 - Raiders 4th on offense 12th in defense
1982 - Redskins 12th in offense 1st in defense
1983 - Raiders 3rd in offense 13th in defense
1990 - Giants 15th in offense 1st in defense
2000 - Ravens 14th in offense 1st in defense
2002 - Bucs 18th in offense 1st in defense
2003 - Patriots 12th in offense 1st in defense
2006 - Colts 2nd in offense 23rd in defense

Now the reason why the Giants need a miracle to win based on these facts is that this year the Giants are NOT in the top 10 in offense OR defense,they are ranked 14th in offense and 17th in defense and have one of the worst combined rankings in Super Bowl history which means the Giants have to do something no other team in NFL history has done before and win with those rankings -

Thats 0-37 folks - even though its just stats and things can happen,an 0 for 37 stat does not bone well for the G-mens chances next sunday.

In fact I don't think it will be close and don't forget New England has not had a close game when the temperature was above 50 as thier last blowout was in the final week of October when the temps got a bit colder thus the games got closer.

Expect a blowout and a boring super bowl next sunday- Boring for non-patriots fans that is...:rocker:

The reason we will win this game is because of preparation.

A Famous Chinese General once said: "Battles are won before they are ever fought"

BB subscribes to this approach to battles, Proper Preparation Prior to Battle Assures Victory.

GO PATS !!!
:rocker:

 

[alamo]

You can say that stats are emaningless or stuff like that but 0 for freaking 37 is something that is hard to ignore

Its like rolling dice 37 times and not coming up once with the number you pick from 2 to 12

That's a ridiculous example, because if I choose 2 then the probability of that is 1 in 36 so it's not unusual at all to roll a dice 37 times and never see a 2!

If those are your odds, the Giants have a real shot at the win!

But the real reason it's a bad example is that you aren't rolling the dice at all when both the teams are in the top 10. You blew off Watson's IQ's question along these lines, but the point is "0 for 37" is wrong, "0 for 0" is the correct way to look for it and therefore history is no guide.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Why arent the 2001 Patriots on this list?
They were in the 20s on d, and I doubt they were top 10 in O, but they may have been.
Is this whole argument based on wrong data to begin with?

Like I said the Pats were 10th on O and 17th on D

Maybe the stats have something more than just offensive scoring and defensive points allowed to not be included among the other 8 champions

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The 2001 Pats were 6th in points allowed, 24th in yards allowed.

Is that 24th in yards or points allowed?

 

[Watson's IQ]

Out of 37 times, you can be sure that numerous times a team went into the SB "on a roll" despite mediocre season-long stats and lost to a better team.

The Giants are an anamoly of sorts, but it isn't as if it is unprecedented that an average team got hot in the playoffs. They have just never won unless they met the original criteria, so people forget them.

Sure, the 85 Pats are a perfect example of that. I guess someone would have to go through and look at all the "mediocre" teams which made the playoffs and then ran through to the Super Bowl and lost to a truly great team. I'm sure that situation has happened (like in 1986), but it's a tough thing to quantify.

I remain unconvinced that overall season scoring statistics are the best way to look at it, because I'm sure that even if you looked at more germane numbers, the better team still won most of the time, and that seems like a more logical explanation to me.

 

[Oswlek]

That's a ridiculous example, because if I choose 2 then the probability of that is 1 in 36 so it's not unusual at all to roll a dice 37 times and never see a 2!

If those are your odds, the Giants have a real shot at the win!

But the real reason it's a bad example is that you aren't rolling the dice at all when both the teams are in the top 10. You blew off Watson's IQ's question along these lines, but the point is "0 for 37" is wrong, "0 for 0" is the correct way to look for it and therefore history is no guide.

I don't get what you are saying here at all. Are you saying that each side of the die has equal probability of appearing?

The die example is completely wrong. The fact is that no team has ever won a SB unless they had a top 10 scoring D or a top 10 scoring O in lieu of that. The 37 is just the sample size to justify any conclusions drawn.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I don't get what you are saying here at all. Are you saying that each side of the die has equal probability of appearing?

The die example is completely wrong. The fact is that no team has ever won a SB unless they had a top 10 scoring D or a top 10 scoring O in lieu of that. The 37 is just the sample size to justify any conclusions drawn.

No one is refuting that statistic. But saying "it's never happened" is not, to me, a sufficient enough statistical argument to declare it has "no shot" of happening this time. It's just not.

Once someone makes a compelling case to me that looking at the season scoring rankings for teams is the most accurate predictor of results in a single game played at the end of the season, I'll change my tune. I'm highly skeptical someone will be able to, but I have an open mind.

 

[Oswlek]

Sure, the 85 Pats are a perfect example of that. I guess someone would have to go through and look at all the "mediocre" teams which made the playoffs and then ran through to the Super Bowl and lost to a truly great team. I'm sure that situation has happened (like in 1986), but it's a tough thing to quantify.

I remain unconvinced that overall season scoring statistics are the best way to look at it, because I'm sure that even if you looked at more germane numbers, the better team still won most of the time, and that seems like a more logical explanation to me.

But then you should have no issue with this, then.

The point of the original stat is just to put some parameters around it. Again, in every single example the SB was played based on how teams were playing at the end of the year and the numbers are based on the entire season. Yet it still works.

There is nothing unique about this situation.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

No one is refuting that statistic. But saying "it's never happened" is not, to me, a sufficient enough statistical argument to declare it has "no shot" of happening this time. It's just not.

You should take your own advice and read what the OP actually said. He did not say they had "no shot" he said they had "virtually no shot". Those are very different things. What kind of a shot would you give them on a scale of one to ten with one being virtually no shot and ten being virtually guaranteed?

 

[Watson's IQ]

You should take your own advice and read what the OP actually said. He did not say they had "no shot" he said they had "virtually no shot". Those are very different things. What kind of a shot would you give them on a scale of one to ten with one being virtually no shot and ten being virtually guaranteed?

Semantics. I'm unconvinced based on the statistics he presented that they have "virtually no shot" as well.

If you're asking me, off the cuff, to say how many times out of 10 I think the Giants win this game, I would probably say somewhere between 1 and 3, but I'm not basing this on anything right now other than my gut. I've spent some time, on this board and elsewhere, discussing the matchups, and I think virtually all of them favor the Pats.

If you want to define "virtually no shot" as "very unlikely" than I agree. Agree wholeheartedly. But my point is, and has been this whole thread, that the Patriots chances next weekend have little to do with how many points each team scored and allowed over a whole season relative to the rest of the league (especially considering they played in different conferences, different schedules, everything). It's an almost meaningless statistic in analyzing this one game, and I stand by that.

 

[drink]

Fact every QB that had the highest passing yds for a season never won a superbowl,42 so far,so if brady does win he will be the 1st

 

[Oswlek]

No one is refuting that statistic. But saying "it's never happened" is not, to me, a sufficient enough statistical argument to declare it has "no shot" of happening this time. It's just not.

Once someone makes a compelling case to me that looking at the season scoring rankings for teams is the most accurate predictor of results in a single game played at the end of the season, I'll change my tune. I'm highly skeptical someone will be able to, but I have an open mind.

Of course not!

There is no guarantee that the sun won't go red giant tomorrow. There is no guarantee that the Earth won't be hit by a giant meteor next week. There is no guarantee that we won't all become zombies in an hour.

And there is certainly no guarantee as to who wins a football game.

The OP may have gone a little overboard in his title, but that doesn't change the fact that it hasn't happened once in 41 seasons.

 

[Oswlek]

Fact every QB that had the highest passing yds for a season never won a superbowl,42 so far,so if brady does win he will be the 1st

Sweet. Competing non-causal statistics.

Crap, that's now two leaning in the Giants' favor with only one favoring NE.