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

[Watson's IQ]

You can say that with EVERYTHING. But generally we measure and then analyze based on the data. My experience has been that the more data suggesting a particular outcome the more probable that outcome. So if the Giants shot at winning is affected only by the relative talent of the two teams, how can we best measure that talent and arrive at an opinion that is not completely subjective?

You can not possibly believe that any historical precedent actually has a causal effect on future events? Sure, we can assess the context of the the task the Giants have ahead of them using historical data, but that's it.

If there were, say, 5 teams which had similar historical scoring numbers to the Giants to have played in the Super Bowl (or even won it), that would not make it any more or less likely that the current Giants team would win against the Patriots.

The chances the Giants will beat the Pats is completely independent from what any similar team has done in past years, I promise you. We can look at historically similar teams and make a guess about what the outcome will be, but that doesn't have any actual EFFECT on the outcome. What will have an effect is the way in which the two teams have played in 2007, especially later in the season, and the relative talent between the two teams. Gameplans, coaching, execution, all that - NOT whether similarly mediocre teams have done it before.

 

[BradyToMoss]

Nice weather = Patriot blowout

 

[RayClay]

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:

They have no chance because a team not in the top ten ten years ago didn't win.

It's truly silly season, eh?

 

[jscout]

Yeah, OK, my roulette example didn't really fit. I was trying to point out that while the trend stands out and is truly worthy of notice, I wouldn't personally bank on it. I guess, like the stock market, it's no guarantee of success. The fan in me hopes this trend holds true.

 

[onegameatatime]

Sorry I did not read the whole thread, but weren't the 2001 Pats not top 10 in either category based on yards? And the first ones to win the SB despite not being in the top 10 in either?

 

[PATRIOT64]

Sorry I did not read the whole thread, but weren't the 2001 Pats not top 10 in either category based on yards? And the first ones to win the SB despite not being in the top 10 in either?

I believe the Patriots in 2001 were somewhere between 6th to 10th in total offense which would qualify them

WOW -What a thread and some intelligent responses back and forth without any or much nastiness....

Am I in the right forum?

 

[sieglo]

The reason that no team without a top ten ranking in either caegory has ever won the SB is because so few teams that match that description have made it to February.

Anything can happen in a 60 minute game.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

You can not possibly believe that any historical precedent actually has a causal effect on future events? Sure, we can assess the context of the the task the Giants have ahead of them using historical data, but that's it.

Of course not. I don't believe anyone here was trying to advocate that BECAUSE no other team ranked so low on both sides of the ball has ever won the SB, the Giants CANNOT win. What I was advocating is that those numbers suggest it is not likely to happen (mediocre teams on BOTH sides of the ball hardly ever REACH the SB let alone win it). The Pats are far and away the better team as evidenced by points scored/points allowed which IMO is a pretty important barometer of a teams relative strength.

 

[Grogan's neck roll]

Sorry I did not read the whole thread, but weren't the 2001 Pats not top 10 in either category based on yards? And the first ones to win the SB despite not being in the top 10 in either?

The whole premise is based on top 10 in scoring, both offense and defense.

 

[spacecrime]

The reason that no team without a top ten ranking in either caegory has ever won the SB is because so few teams that match that description have made it to February.

Anything can happen in a 60 minute game.

It can, but there is not a 50-50 chance of either team winning. An upset is called an upset because it is unexpected. If it is very unexpected, it is because it is unlikely to happen.

Any given Sunday victories require two things: for the lesser team to play very well, and for the better team to play badly.

The Pats would have to play very badly. It could happen. The race is not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong, but that's the way to bet them.

 

[sieglo]

It can, but there is not a 50-50 chance of either team winning. An upset is called an upset because it is unexpected. If it is very unexpected, it is because it is unlikely to happen.

Any given Sunday victories require two things: for the lesser team to play very well, and for the better team to play badly.

The Pats would have to play very badly. It could happen. The race is not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong, but that's the way to bet them.

Take a deck of cards. The chances of drawing a heart randomly is 1/4.

The chance of drawing a heart three times in a row is considerably less.

The giants just did the equivalent of drawing a heart three times in a row to get where they are now. That's very unlikely. That's why teans without a top 10 O or D rarely play in the Super Bowl.

But since the Super Bowl itself is one game, the chances of the Giants "drawing another heart" is back to 1/4. The improbability of their season to this point does not factor into future performance. All that matters is the next 60 minutes.

I agree the Pats will have to play badly for the Giants to win. I just don't agree that the Giants have "virtually no shot" to win just because they didn't have a top 10 offense or defense in the regular season.

 

[seven]

I agree the Pats will have to play badly for the Giants to win. I just don't agree that the Giants have "virtually no shot" to win just because they didn't have a top 10 offense or defense in the regular season.[/QUOTE]

It is significant though,not one of the previous winners None,Zero ... It is a worthy find,an interesting factoid.

I also question Eli's ability to control the ball,
no turnovers again?
He has been on an uncharacteristic roll on that.