Are the Giants Overrated?

[IllegalContact]

one thing is obvious.....while the giants players are talking tough about brady and edelman, I don't hear anyone over there saying boo about wilfork......bunch of ****ies

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

one thing is obvious.....while the giants players are talking tough about brady and edelman, I don't hear anyone over there saying boo about wilfork......bunch of ****ies

Besides. Edelman brings the wood when he tackles. I wouldn't call him out.

He's not a Keystone Cop like the Packers secondary.

 

[IllegalContact]

Besides. Edelman brings the wood when he tackles. I wouldn't call him out.

He's not a Keystone Cop like the Packers secondary.

pop nicks in the shoulder..........render him useless

 

[The Brandon Five]

Besides. Edelman brings the wood when he tackles. I wouldn't call him out.

He's not a Keystone Cop like the Packers secondary.

Just ask LT.

 

[giants4sb]

And quoting any article from a website that is written and run by fans is comical at best.

The Bleacher Report is not even actual journalism, and they make no effort to even pretend to be.

You are obviously a very un-informed football follower, and that is not name calling. That is fact.

Please learn what Spygate/Cameragate really represented, and what the issue really was before thinking that something that happened 5-6 yrs ago would possibly bother any of us.

If the team had suddenly gone irrlevant, then maybe you'd have a slight case; but winning 80% of your games since then proves quite a lot.

Right, and how many championships have you won since Spygate? Thats what I thought, each year since 2007 you guys choked in the playoffs. Only this year you have made it this far, because of the luck factor I described earlier.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Right, and how many championships have you won since Spygate? Thats what I thought, each year since 2007 you guys choked in the playoffs. Only this year you have made it this far, because of the luck factor I described earlier.

Giants chocked in the playoffs in 2008.
They were a mediocre team in 2009 and 2010.

Silly troll.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Right, and how many championships have you won since Spygate? Thats what I thought, each year since 2007 you guys choked in the playoffs. Only this year you have made it this far, because of the luck factor I described earlier.

Oh. And you were 1 loss away from being a 8-8 team and not making the playoffs. Just because you get on a hot streak doesn't make you a good team.

Look at the Jets in 09 and 10.

 

[PatsFan24]

Let's compare their performance over the entire regular season versus their last five games. I'm wondering if their last five games represents their true level or if they're just playing way above their heads. (RS=regular season; LF=last five)

PPG
- RS: 24.6
- LF: 28.2

YPG
- RS: 385.0
- LF: 396.6

PPGA
- RS: 25.0
- LF: 13.4

YPGA
- RS: 376.4
- LF: 318.8

Turnovers
- RS: +7 (0.44/g)
- LF: +9 (1.80/g)

Scoring Margin
- RS: -0.4/g
- LF: +14.8/g

So here's how much better the Giants are playing over their last five than they did the entire regular season (which includes the first two games in their "last five" hot streak):

Each number is compared to their regular season number *per game*:
Scoring Margin: +15.2
Points Scored: +3.6
Points Allowed: +11.6 (they've given up 11.6 fewer points per game)
Yards gained: +11.6
Yards allowed: +57.6 (they've given up 57.6 fewer yards per game)
Yardage Margin: +69.2
Turnover Margin: +1.36


Now I ask you: is this team really that much better than their regular season team? Is there an example of a team playing so mediocre in the regular season and so dominant in the postseason? Even the 2007 Giants didn't have such a disparity. Here were their numbers in 2007 - same thing: regular season and then their last 5 prior to the Super Bowl:

PPG
- RS: 23.3
- LF: 28.2

YPG
- RS: 331.4
- LF: 316.6

PPGA
- RS: 21.9
- LF: 22.0

YPGA
- RS: 305.0
- LF: 301.0

Turnovers
- RS: +9 (0.56/g)
- LF: +4 (0.80/g)

Scoring Margin
- RS: +1.4/g
- LF: +6.2/g

So they improved during their last 5 games prior to the Super Bowl, and they played great against the Patriots, but even their game against the Patriots was way better than what they had done their previous five games, so that was the stunner of all stunners, really. CHFF says it was the biggest true upset in SB history, and they're probably right.

Here is their 2011 team compared with their 2007 team. 2011 team numbers are first, with 2007 team numbers following:

Scoring Margin: +15.2; +4.8
Points Scored: +3.6; +4.9
Points Allowed: +11.6; -0.1
Yards gained: +11.6; +14.8
Yards allowed: +57.6; +4.0
Yardage Margin: +69.2; +18.8
Turnover Margin: +1.36; +0.24

So the 2007 playoff team was essentially not a whole lot different from their regular season team. Improved, for sure, which is to be expected, since they were on a pretty nice run to end the year. But it wasn't an insane difference.

But this Giants team is playing SO far above their season numbers it really makes you wonder. Is this their true level?

If it is, what is the difference between them now and them during the regular season? I see two keys:

(1) Their defensive line is fully healthy. Umenyiora missed 7 games during the season, specifically their first 3 and then games 12-15. He returned for their 16th game and has been healthy and playing well since then (5.5 sacks over his last 5 games). Other guys were playing a bit banged up, but Umenyiora is the key. Here are the games played for their D-line:

Umenyiora: 9 (already went over his situation)
Tuck: 12 (missed games 1, 4, 5, 6)
Pierre-Paul: 16
Canty: 16
Joseph: 16
Bernard: 16
Tollefson: 16

Really, the only DL that they can say is now healthy and making a difference is Umenyiora, who, admittedly, has been tremendous since returning in week 17. Guy is a great, great player when healthy, which is now is. But it is a bit of a myth that the Giants were all beat up all year long. Other than Umenyiora, the other key defensive guys that have missed a lot of games are:

Blackburn: 5 games played (missed games 1-11)
Amukamara: 7 games played (missed games 1-9)

That's it. So really, is Umenyiora *that* much of a difference-maker? Remember, we're talking about a HUGE improvement by the Giants across the board in their last five games. Can Osi's presence be responsible for that?

(2) Turnovers. This, really, is the biggest thing. Look at their turnover margin. They are nearly +2 per game during their hot streak. Turnover differential is the single most important factor in winning games (which makes it so amazing that the Pats won despite being -2 in the turnover department last week). The Giants are making big plays...they did it to NE during the regular season too (where they were +2 that day too).

The problem is that the Pats - especially Brady - have been turnover prone during the playoffs in recent years (I've detailed this in other posts). So a team that's getting a lot of turnovers vs. a team that's been turning it over a lot in the postseason probably is not an ideal matchup for us.

But consider this: the Giants were +2 in turnovers vs. the Pats during the regular season and needed a last-second score to win. The Ravens were +2 in turnovers vs. the Pats in the playoffs and lost. The Broncos were +1 in turnovers vs. the Pats in the playoffs and lost by 35. The Giants were +2 in turnovers to SF and needed every one of them to win by 3 in overtime.

In other words, the Patriots have survived some games where they have been in the negative in terms of turnover margin. I think they can survive being -1 in the Super Bowl, but not -2 or more.

Here's my conclusion: the Giants are playing WAY over their heads lately. There is no way this team is as good as their recent streak indicates, or else they'd be an historically great team. They are good, but they're so far outperforming their regular season stats with really not a lot of changes to their team (basically Umenyiora) that it seems unlikely that they'll keep that up in the Super Bowl. The key is turnovers. If the Pats can stay even in the turnover battle, they stand a very good chance of winning.

Since they are in the Super Bowl I would say no.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Giants actually have a decent fan base, but we're getting nothing but the clueless trolls. Why does that team keep sending us its worst fans?

 

[PatsFan24]

The Giants actually have a decent fan base, but we're getting nothing but the clueless trolls. Why does that team keep sending us its worst fans?

Got the same thing from the Ravens fans. Not sure. Maybe the good fans tend to say on their own forum.

 

[ivanvamp]

Since they are in the Super Bowl I would say no.

You can be in the Super Bowl and be overrated. Imagine if all the "experts" had predicted that the 1986 Patriots would beat the Bears. Would the Pats have been "overrated"? Pretty clearly, yes.

The question isn't whether the Giants are good. Obviously they are. They are very good. The question is whether the level they've played at their last 5 weeks represents their true level. I don't think it is, because this would make them, by far, the best team in football with nobody even close to them.

Just because I think they're not really *that* good doesn't mean I don't think they can win the game. I do think they can, and quite possibly (probably?) will. But all that can be true and the Giants can still be "overrated".

 

[PatsFan24]

You can be in the Super Bowl and be overrated. Imagine if all the "experts" had predicted that the 1986 Patriots would beat the Bears. Would the Pats have been "overrated"? Pretty clearly, yes.

The question isn't whether the Giants are good. Obviously they are. They are very good. The question is whether the level they've played at their last 5 weeks represents their true level. I don't think it is, because this would make them, by far, the best team in football with nobody even close to them.

Just because I think they're not really *that* good doesn't mean I don't think they can win the game. I do think they can, and quite possibly (probably?) will. But all that can be true and the Giants can still be "overrated".

So they are overrated even though they are really and can still win the game. Right.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Right, and how many championships have you won since Spygate? Thats what I thought, each year since 2007 you guys choked in the playoffs. Only this year you have made it this far, because of the luck factor I described earlier.

You do realize the 2009/2010 playoff occurred without your participation?

Did you watch the dismantling the Eagles inflicted in 2008?

You do realize that the Giants have won playoff games in two of the past eleven years?

2007 does prove even a blind squirrel can find a nut every once in awhile.

 

[ivanvamp]

So they are overrated even though they are really and can still win the game.

Yes. It's pretty straightforward actually.

 

[PatsFan24]

Right, and how many championships have you won since Spygate? Thats what I thought, each year since 2007 you guys choked in the playoffs. Only this year you have made it this far, because of the luck factor I described earlier.

Shut up troll.

 

[PatsFan24]

Yes. It's pretty straightforward actually.

It's actually pretty silly if you think about it. I would bet you that not one coach or player on the Patriots team would agree that they are overrated.

 

[ivanvamp]

It's actually pretty silly if you think about it. I would bet you that not one coach or player on the Patriots team would agree that they are overrated.

They are stupid if they prepare as if the Giants are anything other than the reincarnation of the 85 Bears. That's how you get beat - by underestimating your opponent.

We as fans, however, aren't preparing for the game. We're preparing to *watch* the game. And the data shows pretty clearly that the Giants are not, overall, as good as people think they are. They are good, very good, certainly able to win this game. But they are not as good as they've been playing.

Unless, of course, you think this team really is 11-2 turnover ratio good, is 17 points better than Green Bay good, etc.

I don't.

 

[giants4sb]

Oh. And you were 1 loss away from being a 8-8 team and not making the playoffs. Just because you get on a hot streak doesn't make you a good team.

Look at the Jets in 09 and 10.

Lol am I hearing this correctly? Just because we got on a hot streak and are in the SB doesn't make us a good team? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Man got to love these "knowledgeable" Patriots fan who blindly support an organization who cheats. So according to your logic; just because the 2010 Packers, 2007 Giants, and 2005 Steelers got on a hot streak at the end of the season and won the SB they still are bad because they saved their best football for the postseason? Man those 2007 Giants sucked soo bad, I mean really them vs the 18-0 "mighty" Patriots would absolutely have no chance. Tom Brady definitely would have lit them up, no way he would be limited to 14 points in that game. No way a guy named Eli Manning, living in brother Peyton's shadow, could lead one of the GREATEST CLUTCH SB drives of all-time. Don't worry however Pats fan I'm just a mindless troll anyways; everything I say is false, never will happen, and has no intellectual merit to it whatsoever.

 

[pwes]

They are stupid if they prepare as if the Giants are anything other than the reincarnation of the 85 Bears. That's how you get beat - by underestimating your opponent.

We as fans, however, aren't preparing for the game. We're preparing to *watch* the game. And the data shows pretty clearly that the Giants are not, overall, as good as people think they are. They are good, very good, certainly able to win this game. But they are not as good as they've been playing.

Unless, of course, you think this team really is 11-2 turnover ratio good, is 17 points better than Green Bay good, etc.


I don't.

If they win the game then how are they not as good as they have been playing?

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Lol am I hearing this correctly? Just because we got on a hot streak and are in the SB doesn't make us a good team? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Man got to love these "knowledgeable" Patriots fan who blindly support an organization who cheats. So according to your logic; just because the 2010 Packers, 2007 Giants, and 2005 Steelers got on a hot streak at the end of the season and won the SB they still are bad because they saved their best football for the postseason? Man those 2007 Giants sucked soo bad, I mean really them vs the 18-0 "mighty" Patriots would absolutely have no chance. Tom Brady definitely would have lit them up, no way he would be limited to 14 points in that game. No way a guy named Eli Manning, living in brother Peyton's shadow, could lead one of the GREATEST CLUTCH SB drives of all-time. Don't worry however Pats fan I'm just a mindless troll anyways, everything I say is false, never will happen, and has no intellectual merit to it whatsoever.

Derpity herpa derp derp. Derp derp.