Coming to peace with Eli.

[FalconHeavy]

With how the Patriots have performed in the playoffs since Bradys lady SB win, and with how they have performed against the Giants in the last 4 years, its not far fetched to think the pats would have a tough time in the NFC East.

The more I think about it, I keep coming back to Tom Coughlin. I think he is the X factor and knows BB like the back of his hand. After all they worked together for what? ~15 years

what is surprising though is that the converse is also true and BB still can't beat him in the recent years. I will probably concede that point to the talent differential in the overall team make up

 

[Tunescribe]

The more I think about it, I keep coming back to Tom Coughlin. I think he is the X factor and knows BB like the back of his hand. After all they worked together for what? ~15 years

what is surprising though is that the converse is also true and BB still can't beat him in the recent years. I will probably concede that point to the talent differential in the overall team make up

Neither coach has an advantage in Xs and Os. When these teams face off it all comes down to talent and however the ball bounces.

 

[Fair_Catch]

The more I think about it, I keep coming back to Tom Coughlin. I think he is the X factor and knows BB like the back of his hand. After all they worked together for what? ~15 years

what is surprising though is that the converse is also true and BB still can't beat him in the recent years. I will probably concede that point to the talent differential in the overall team make up

I could agree with this somewhat. Coaches and coordinators can really turn teams around in football. Basketball as well. Just look at Phil Jackson. Kobe and Shaq had no rings until he got there with his triangle offense. The same offense that made the Bulls a winner.

Talent was huge too though in Giants vs Pats. The Pats secondary and O-line were good for most of the game. Its just a shame for them that their slip ups came at the end of the game. Gotta give credit to the Giants coverage though, because Brady had time to throw on those hurries and sacks.

 

[FalconHeavy]

I could agree with this somewhat. Coaches and coordinators can really turn teams around in football. Basketball as well. Just look at Phil Jackson. Kobe and Shaq had no rings until he got there with his triangle offense. The same offense that made the Bulls a winner.

Talent was huge too though in Giants vs Pats. The Pats secondary and O-line were good for most of the game. Its just a shame for them that their slip ups came at the end of the game. Gotta give credit to the Giants coverage though, because Brady had time to throw on those hurries and sacks.

Needless to say, we also seem to struggle in the scouting department. I agree to some extent that luck factor is there while drafting talent. sometimes it pans out some times it does not..... but our success ratio in the 3rd rounders and below is a clean giveaway as to something fundementally wrong with the talent assessment.

it could be that our team is stripped clean by other teams hiring away all the scouts/position coaches or is it our GM :bricks:

 

[jnug]

Since the title of this thread suggests the Eli/Brady comparison as much as anything else I really think the interesting thing to watch going forward is still the rules changes and the impact they have had on the quarterback position.

I still think what bears watching is what appears to me to be a change in the basic elements of the quarterback position. I think that where a quarterback's game management skills, those of Brady and Payton for example were much admired I think those elements of quarterback play are less important in this era. I would still not trade Brady or even a healthy Payton for Eli and I still think Tom is the best quarterback in football.

Looking for a moment at big play capability, which everybody acknowledges is the difference in the NFL, and then overlaying quarterback play on that what do we see over time with these gradual rule changes.

If we go back to the 50's and 60's the spectacular, big plays were for the most part from the running back position followed by receiver. The quarterback was the consummate game manager.

Through the 70's and 80's running backs began to fade a bit from the perspective of big play potential and on the offensive side of the ball receivers came to the front and we had the era of big spectacular plays coming from the defense. We even had defenders vying for MVP honors.

In the late 80's and 90's spectacular plays from receivers catching the ball and defenders either making plays all over the field or defenders that could control the line of scrimmage and rush the passer where the spectacular, big play guys.

That era lasted into the mid-2000's.

Now plays by defenders out in the field are almost impossible by virtue of the rules changes. Receivers are capable of making big plays but the spectacular plays seem for the most part reserved for the quarterback position and those defenders trying to disrupt the quarterback.

A quarterback's ability to game manage, the real strength of the Tom's and Payton's is surely less vital than it once was. Instead quarterbacks have been put into position where they now have the capability to make big plays by virtue of their physicality. Some of them can make big plays with their legs taking advantage in part of how well protected they are by the rules. Some can make big spectacular plays with their arms again in part because they are so well protected by the rules and some can do both.

Look at the pass to Manningham at the end of the SB. I mentioned this earlier in a different context but that pass has become the benchmark by which passers are now rated. That is a very physically demanding pass. One that I do not think either Tom or Payton is capable of making. That pass has to be thrown about 40 yards down-field, and along the sideline and in a window about 1' square. It must be thrown with enough juice on the ball so that it does not tail off or decelerate at the end as it must lead the receiver away from both the corner and the safety trying to get over the top of the play.

Folks that have called Manningham's catch great have got it wrong in my view. Eli's pass was exceptional and in fact spectacular.

So the real question to me is that given the rules we have now, will quarterback play continue to evolve such that big physically demanding spectacular plays like those Cam Newton and Eli are capable of making become the norm for the next era of "great" quarterbacks. Seems to me that Brady and Payton are examples of the last generation of quarterbacks. Rogers, Brees and maybe Smith and Rivers sit squarely on the dividing line. Guys like Eli, Newton, Vick sit on the other side of that line. They are less consistent by and large, not as good at game management but more capable with regard to the spectacular play.

The one constant in all of this is the importance of the big, spectacular play in pro football. The difference in my view is that guys like Eli and Cam are as capable in that regard as the LT's, Prime Times, Rice and Irvin and the Gale Sayers and Jim Brown's of past generations.

Now if the game can be kept close, a whole game's worth of inconsistent quarterback play devoid of noticeable game management superiority can be completely upset by a couple of great, spectacular plays from the quarterback position.

 

[Snake Eyes]

You would think after he snaps your undefeated season, snaps your 18 game home winning streak, snaps a 20 game winning streak and a 10 game winning streak you would at least offer up something with even the slightest bit of credit, but alas. I will let you vent whatever way you see fit, good game, good luck next season.

Ok, so someone claims that they "dont see Eli as elite" and you equate that with 'not giving Eli the slightest bit of credit, yeah those two are equivilant

Also, it was Eli that did all that, the rest of his team didnt play a part?

Go home, troll.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Your post is complete garbage.

Nice try...

Your division is competitive year after year?

What are the records for the teams in your division again?

2011 AFC East: 33-31
2011 NFC East: 30-34

2010 AFC East: 36-28
2010 NFC East: 32-32

No reason to let facts get in the way of your argument. The whole "Pats win because they play in a weak division" is something that's been repeated so often by those desperately wanting to discredit the team that it is accepted as factual at this point - but there's really no evidence to back up that statement.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This guy drinks way too much coffee and/or spends way too much time watching "all sports" European.

I actually think he might have some good ideas but he ends up shooting himself in the foot one way or the other, usually by inappropriate comparisons to FIFA soccer (a game with very different economics, on-field rhythms, and fan bases than the NFL...I'm not unfamiliar with the sport, as I've spent many a Saturday morning in a sports bar, with a pint of Guinness and a big Irish breakfast watching the Premier League via satellite). He also insists on not taking the extra time needed to say in 100 or 200 words what he drones on for over 1,000 or 2,000 words to say and say and say and say...

This is his second thread in a week to get booted out of the main forum. I tried, but I've now given up attempting to give him friendly advice on how he might be better received.

 

[Fair_Catch]

^I think you are still missing the original point that Dave made.

Its not about how the NFL compares directly to the Premeirship. Its simply about scheduling.

A sport where teams play an unbalanced schedule requires a post season playoff. And a country thats large and spans many time zones, requires that teams play an uneven schedule due to scheduling and travel difficulties. Its very simple to understand. It really doesnt have anything to do with the nuances of each sport.

Basically, when a competition covers a very large area, or has a large number of competitors, playoffs will generally occur (due to uneven scheduling and divisions) so that a true champion can be crowned.

 

[Hardboiled]

The more I think about it, I keep coming back to Tom Coughlin. I think he is the X factor and knows BB like the back of his hand. After all they worked together for what? ~15 years

what is surprising though is that the converse is also true and BB still can't beat him in the recent years. I will probably concede that point to the talent differential in the overall team make up

I also think Coughlin is a key. He is the current Shanahan. Btw, Coughlin and BB worked together for 2 years.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Actually hoosier daddy, wouldn't luck would be getting to play your Colts twice last year?


All kidding aside, you wouldn't know it since you just joined the site but the 'easy schedule' has been debated here and beaten to death several weeks ago. For example a very subtle change of wording from 'record against teams with winning records' to 'record against teams that did not have a losing record' and suddenly the 0-2 record goes to 7-2 in the regular season and 9-3 overall. Another example of how silly the stat is would be that the Pats record versus teams would actually improve had they lost to the Jets ... yet it would not improve had they beaten the Giants earlier in the season!

Also from back prior to the AFCCG when the subject was being heavily debated there were links to studies that analyzed all the data over several years, and concluded that historically there was zero correlation to a team's record versus teams with a winning record during the regular season, and there likelihood of winning in the playoffs. In other words, it's an absolutely meaningless statistic.

Did you ever wonder why it is that when those strength of schedule rankings come out that the best teams have the 'easiest' schedules, while the teams with the worst record somehow got stuck with the 'hardest schedule? It's pretty simple: it's because the two face each other, the better team won. The division winners don't have to play themselves. The last place teams don't get the opportunity to play themselves. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The teams that draw a first round bye don't get there due to luck: they get there by finishing the season with the best record. It's funny how one week everyone says Tebow is a proven winner due to his clutch play in mid season and beating a twelve-win team in the playoffs, but seven days later he's worse than Ryan Leaf.

As for Evans drop, you conveniently failed to mention that Moore knocked the ball out of his hands. Almost any team that wins it all has a little luck on their side. Being the beneficiary of Kyle Williams unforced error was far more 'luck' than Moore doing what he had to do to break up the play.


The Giants made a few more plays than the Pats did. It's no different than in most football games, be they championship games or regular season games. Some fans of the team are angry and/or disappointed because the team the follow and root for lost a very close game, so they vented after the game - and in some cases they ungraciously brought up the 'luck' factor. Yes, they should have just kept that to themselves but guess what: there are indeed people out there that post knee-jerk messages on an internet message board. This fan base has a small portion of people that do just that - no different from your fan base, or any other fan base.



Lighten up, and consider the time and date that the comment was made: 3:00 am, four hours after the game ended.

Hats off to the Giants: they made a few more plays than the Patriots did, and they're the champions.