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

[Patriot_in_NY]

I think there are a good number of reasons the Patriots should win, and I believe they will, but this is not one of them.

This factors in games early in the season, which may or may not be completely meaningless when it comes Super Bowl time. Do an analysis of how teams were playing coming down the stretch (including the playoffs) and then present that. I think there is something to the adage "hot at the right time", however I do do also believe superior talent should win out (see 2007 World Series)

One of the most telling stats that will be come quite apparent and favorable for NE's is that the Patriots have outscored opponants 303-147 in games played when the weather is above 50 degrees (9 games), and averages 33.6 PPG.

Giants,,,,,, ummmmmm, not that good.

 

[Watson's IQ]

However, if you are looking at just two teams, you aren't "ranking" them, you are seeing if they allowed/scored more or less points; you are just trying to determine which team is better. If you have ever read my points for/against material, you will know that I don't really bother excluding defensive/STs scores because the team that scored deserves credit and the team that allowed it deserves to be downgraded.

I concede this point. I think they are definitely a telling statistic in determining which team is better, but I'm not sure they're the best ones.

I know, of course, when it comes down to it that scoring points (and not allowing them) is the ultimate and final measure of winning football teams, but it's also a statistic which encompasses so much that it can get difficult to really use it effectively. Which is why I'd certainly argue for using more specific stats when trying to project out a game like this.

 

[Metaphors]

When using points scored, special teams are factored in by default.

But those points get diluted/hidden over the course of a season. The Bears scored 34 TDs this season. Not great, but not a disaster. But 6 of those TDs (18%) came on returns. Meaning the Chicago offense WAS a disaster and their special teams were dynamite.

My point is that in the playoffs, special teams can make the big plays that can keep a weaker team in the game or even put them over the top. The Giants' special teams look pretty average, but I still would be hesitant to give them too many good looks at a game-changing return.

 

[Oswlek]

But those points get diluted/hidden over the course of a season. The Bears scored 34 TDs this season. Not great, but not a disaster. But 6 of those TDs (18%) came on returns. Meaning the Chicago offense WAS a disaster and their special teams were dynamite.

My point is that in the playoffs, special teams can make the big plays that can keep a weaker team in the game or even put them over the top. The Giants' special teams look pretty average, but I still would be hesitant to give them too many good looks at a game-changing return.

It doesn't matter. We aren't trying to determine who has the best offense of defense, we are trying to determine who has the best chance to score or stop scoring. As long as the Bears are allowed to bring their STs into the game along with their offense, there is no reason to exclude it.

 

[Watson's IQ]

But those points get diluted/hidden over the course of a season. The Bears scored 34 TDs this season. Not great, but not a disaster. But 6 of those TDs (18%) came on returns. Meaning the Chicago offense WAS a disaster and their special teams were dynamite.

My point is that in the playoffs, special teams can make the big plays that can keep a weaker team in the game or even put them over the top. The Giants' special teams look pretty average, but I still would be hesitant to give them too many good looks at a game-changing return.

The Giants special teams are decidedly worse than average, actually. They rank well behind the Patriots. Their punt returning, in particular, was near the bottom of the league. Tynes was also only about league average this year. Feagles is an ace at coffin corners, but somewhat diminished on long punts.

The Giants special teams are no more likely to be a factor than the Patriots special teams are.

Oh, and I'd be happy to give them plenty of looks on kickoff returns, since that means we've been scoring some points.

 

[Metaphors]

It doesn't matter. We aren't trying to determine who has the best offense of defense, we are trying to determine who has the best chance to score or stop scoring. As long as the Bears are allowed to bring their STs into the game along with their offense, there is no reason to exclude it.

Too simplistic for my taste. If the Pats were facing the Bears, I would guarantee you that Hester would never touch a punt and would never see a deep kickoff down the middle. That may cost field position, but I don't believe the Bears' offense can score enough to make a difference.

Football is about situations (I think I heard that once or twice). Points without context removes those situations and turns it into a game of dice. To each his own I guess...

 

[Metaphors]

The Giants special teams are decidedly worth than average, actually.

I was being kind since I've only seen a handful of their games.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I was being kind since I've only seen a handful of their games.

I'm just going by statistics as well, but also anecdotally RW McQuarters is one of the worst punt returners in the league. See his season stats below.

ATT YDS FC AVG LNG TD
42 318 18 7.6 27 0

 

[jscout]

Whew, I can't believe I made it through this thread. I think I can sum it all up by saying what the OP pointed out was a trend. But that's all it is. It's like going to the roulette table and noticing that there have been 37 straight hits on black. But to the counter posters point, that doesn't guarantee that the next spin will be black. In fact, it's quite possible it could be red (or green in roulette terms). But since it's a trend, it's one that cannot be overlooked. So let's hope the Pats ride this trend.

BTW, back few pages, it wasn't a Chinese general, but a scholar named Sun Tzu in his Art of War that said all battles are won before they are fought. BB is the Sun Tzu of pro football.

 

[Oswlek]

Whew, I can't believe I made it through this thread. I think I can sum it all up by saying what the OP pointed out was a trend. But that's all it is. It's like going to the roulette table and noticing that there have been 37 straight hits on black. But to the counter posters point, that doesn't guarantee that the next spin will be black. In fact, it's quite possible it could be red (or green in roulette terms). But since it's a trend, it's one that cannot be overlooked. So let's hope the Pats ride this trend.

BTW, back few pages, it wasn't a Chinese general, but a scholar named Sun Tzu in his Art of War that said all battles are won before they are fought. BB is the Sun Tzu of pro football.

Dice or roulette are poor examples because there is clearly no causal influence and we already know what the odds of the next spin/roll are regardless of prior circumstance.

While there is no obvious causation in this stat, there is plenty of reason to believe that some of the factors that comprise it do, in fact, influence the game.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Whew, I can't believe I made it through this thread. I think I can sum it all up by saying what the OP pointed out was a trend. But that's all it is. It's like going to the roulette table and noticing that there have been 37 straight hits on black. But to the counter posters point, that doesn't guarantee that the next spin will be black. In fact, it's quite possible it could be red (or green in roulette terms). But since it's a trend, it's one that cannot be overlooked. So let's hope the Pats ride this trend.

Yeah but the roulette analogy is a trend based solely on chance where this trend is based on the actual strength of the participant teams. Is it really logical to expect teams ranked outside of the top ten in both Offense and Defense to be winning SB's against superior opposition?

 

[Oswlek]

Too simplistic for my taste. If the Pats were facing the Bears, I would guarantee you that Hester would never touch a punt and would never see a deep kickoff down the middle. That may cost field position, but I don't believe the Bears' offense can score enough to make a difference.

Football is about situations (I think I heard that once or twice). Points without context removes those situations and turns it into a game of dice. To each his own I guess...

Of course. But then you have to disregard every single number-based point that exists. There isn't a single statistic that ever existed that wasn't influenced by situations.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Whew, I can't believe I made it through this thread. I think I can sum it all up by saying what the OP pointed out was a trend. But that's all it is. It's like going to the roulette table and noticing that there have been 37 straight hits on black. But to the counter posters point, that doesn't guarantee that the next spin will be black. In fact, it's quite possible it could be red (or green in roulette terms). But since it's a trend, it's one that cannot be overlooked. So let's hope the Pats ride this trend.

BTW, back few pages, it wasn't a Chinese general, but a scholar named Sun Tzu in his Art of War that said all battles are won before they are fought. BB is the Sun Tzu of pro football.

It's a doozy, huh? But it's nice to see some good natured intellectual discussion rising above some of the usual tripe.

I'm not sure your roulette analogy is a good one, since that's based on odds we know in advance, which are fixed. I don't think I or anyone else who has disagreed with the OP had wanted to disregard the trend, but just arguing as to its relevance to this one particular game in comparison to all of the other factors which come into play.

I'm the last one to make the "any given sunday" argument, since I think it's the most tired cliche in football, but there are plenty of other reasons why the Patriots ought win which I think are more demonstrative.

 

[karran_s]

Too simplistic for my taste. If the Pats were facing the Bears, I would guarantee you that Hester would never touch a punt and would never see a deep kickoff down the middle. That may cost field position, but I don't believe the Bears' offense can score enough to make a difference.

Football is about situations (I think I heard that once or twice). Points without context removes those situations and turns it into a game of dice. To each his own I guess...

Would agree... Ultimately, it's one team playing another. Whoever has the best game plan and shows up for 60 minutes on offense, defense and stms will win the game. I think the Pats have a superior game plan, superior offense, smarter defense and good special teams (Our FG kicker is definitely better than Tynes - don't tell anyone, he's on a roll)..

 

[JaredOfNazareth]

1979 Los Angeles Rams
Scored 323 points (20.2/g), 15th of 28 in the NFL.
Allowed 309 points (19.3/g), 11th.

That's it. That's the only time, other than SB XLII, that a team has even played in a SB when ranked lower than 10th in both offense and defense with regard to scoring since the merger. These Giants are the 2nd team to meet the OP's criteria. There is no 0-37 because it's only happened once, not 37 times.

If, before the playoffs started, someone had said the Giants have virtually no shot to make it to the Super Bowl. Then there would be a correlation here.

 

[Metaphors]

Of course. But then you have to disregard every single number-based point that exists. There isn't a single statistic that ever existed that wasn't influenced by situations.

Not disregard, just use it in context. The Pats should win because:

• Their offensey should be able to score more against the Giants defense than the Giants offense can score against the Pats defense
• The ST production should be at worst a draw for the Pats (but I wouldn't take this for granted)
• Big play potential (sacks, turnovers, returns off turnovers, blocks, etc.) favors the Pats as well.

The stats you describe just reinforce these observations...but it doesn't matter how these teams do at home, in the cold/snow/rain, on short rest, against the Dolphins, on Mondays, etc. because none of those situations will occur a week from Sunday.

The Pats are 18-0 this year, but only played one game on grass. The Giants are 13-5 this year, but are 6-0 on grass. Is that relevant? Don't know. Could do the same thing for weather, time of day, after a bye, etc. I don't care that the Bolts were supposedly playing better than the Pats over the last several weeks...the situations (road, turf, cold, travel, injuries, etc.) just weren't in their favor on Sunday.

That being said, I believe the situational match for the SB looks very favorable for the Pats.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

It's a doozy, huh? But it's nice to see some good natured intellectual discussion rising above some of the usual tripe.

I'm not sure your roulette analogy is a good one, since that's based on odds we know in advance, which are fixed. I don't think I or anyone else who has disagreed with the OP had wanted to disregard the trend, but just arguing as to its relevance to this one particular game in comparison to all of the other factors which come into play.

I'm the last one to make the "any given sunday" argument, since I think it's the most tired cliche in football, but there are plenty of other reasons why the Patriots ought win which I think are more demonstrative.

Football games are won by scoring points on offense and stopping your opponent from scoring points on defense. I'll concede that past performance (where scoring and allowing points is concerned) is no guarantee of future results (or in this case-results in one particular game). But do you really believe past performance is not a pretty good indicator?

 

[SavioKid]

It's a doozy, huh? But it's nice to see some good natured intellectual discussion rising above some of the usual tripe.

I'm not sure your roulette analogy is a good one, since that's based on odds we know in advance, which are fixed. I don't think I or anyone else who has disagreed with the OP had wanted to disregard the trend, but just arguing as to its relevance to this one particular game in comparison to all of the other factors which come into play.

I'm the last one to make the "any given sunday" argument, since I think it's the most tired cliche in football, but there are plenty of other reasons why the Patriots ought win which I think are more demonstrative.

Good sum of the thread: a trend that sticks out but is definitely not the relevant factor to determine why the PATS should be the victor. In fact there are probably 100's of combination/permutation of factors that exist but difficult to find the 'smoking gun'!
Note: probably the most unpredictable factor, in my opinion, for any game is the referees. As objective (sh*t! doesn't that seem to be an oxymoron word to describe the history of referees!) as they can be in interpreting plays, there is always (almost) 2 ways to call a play (actually holding ,etc.) that will definitely affect the game. ... but as we saw, SD Chargers overcame that against the Colts ( a rarity to me).

 

[Metaphors]

Football games are won by scoring points on offense and stopping your opponent from scoring points on defense. I'll concede that past performance (where scoring and allowing points is concerned) is no guarantee of future results (or in this case-results in one particular game). But do you really believe past performance is not a pretty good indicator?

When evaluated over a period of time, the formula is very solid:

Big Positive Point Differential = Good
Small (or negative) Point Differential = Bad
Good > Bad

It just doesn't take into account everything that makes up a single game situation. If it did, the best team in the NFL would have a great chance of going undefeated. I've heard that doesn't happen very often.

 

[Metaphors]

Note: probably the most unpredictable factor, in my opinion, for any game is the referees.

Great. Now I have repeating images of bogus Moss OPI calls running through my head.

I hate you.

Seriously, that is a good point.