21 replies to this topic

[The Heretic]

A wonderful season comes to a glorious end, a revenge match-up of Super Bowl 42. Same coaches, same quarterbacks, same favorite/underdogs. Will the Pats exact their pound of flesh, or will the Giants continue to upset would-be world-beaters? However, not many players remain from that classic game from 4 years ago, which makes the revenge factor irrelevant.

Giants @ Pats

Much will be made of the Pats' terrific duo at TE and the Giants' ferocious DL, the two biggest edges of each team. However, they will indirectly impact one another.

The Giants' DL is effective because they allow the rest of the defense to worry about coverage without requiring a blitzing player to bring pressure. They will have a consistent edge over the Pats' OL, and force Brady to hurry his throws. The Pats' TE is nearly uncoverable by any LB/S/CB, due to freakish size and speed, but only if they are allowed to run their routes. The Giants' safeties are too aggressive, and their LB are too slow. However, if the Giants' pass-rush becomes too much for the OL, Belichick has to keep one of the TE as extra blocker to protect Brady. See their Week 9 matchup where the Pats used 6 or 7 blockers. Moreover, Gronkowski will not be at full strength, given his ankle and lack of practice time.

I have a feeling that these key matchups will not dictate the Super Bowl - but how WR Victor Cruz performs. It seems he will victimize the Patriots' shabby secondary, and moreover, he has the hottest QB in the game throwing to him. Once the Giants get a lead, they'll mix in runs with RB Jacob & Bradshaw (if he can go) and keep the Pats' D off-balance. Brady is hungry and hasn't won in 8 years, but he doesn't have enough to beat the Giants.

Giants, 35-31



Additionally: I'm not confident in the Patriots' chances. Their schedule in 2011 was a fairly weak one (opponents won 45.3%) while the Giants faced a stronger one (54.7%). Moreover, the Madden simulation predicted a Giants victory.

[muraii]

I concur. I'm picking the Giants in a close game for very similar reasons. Unlike Pittsburgh's defense, which relies on blitzing to overcome weakness on the DL, the Giants can bring pressure with their four up-front. (Of course, a 3-4 should differ from a 4-3 in this regard, to a degree.)

[Godot]

That was a surprisingly low scoring game! We were having diner with the in-laws, but I was able to watch most of the game with the sound off. We left just after the Giants scored. I haven't watched any of the post-game stuff; is there any explanation available for what Bradshaw was doing there at the goal line with falling backwards into the end zone? I mean, it looked like he was trying to stop short in order to keep the clock running and maybe kick the field goal. Any other thoguhts?

Edited by Godot, 06 February 2012 - 04:32 AM.

[The Heretic]

Godot, on 06 February 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

That was a surprisingly low scoring game! We were having diner with the in-laws, but I was able to watch most of the game with the sound off. We left just after the Giants scored. I haven't watched any of the post-game stuff; is there any explanation available for what Bradshaw was doing there at the goal line with falling backwards into the end zone? I mean, it looked like he was trying to stop short in order to keep the clock running and maybe kick the field goal. Any other thoguhts?

There was too much time left on the clock for Brady to drive down the field and win the game. About a minute left  is enough for the great Brady.

That's why the Giants also went for a 2 point play, with a running play, anything to shave time off the clock.

[Michael S. Pearl]

The Heretic, on 06 February 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

That's why the Giants also went for a 2 point play, with a running play, anything to shave time off the clock.

Actually, the only reason to go for two in that situation was to get six points ahead so that if the Pats did score a touchdown the Giants could still hope for a missed extra-point kick and still have a chance in overtime.

All that aside, the question now is: Who should the NFL schedule against the Giants for the Thursday night game that will open the 2012 season? The 49ers? The Packers? The Saints? Or, whatever AFC team won the division against which the Giants play next year (and that is NOT the AFC East)?

The Saints have been in so many season-opening games recently that they will probably not be picked for this year, and I do not think the AFC team would be as interesting as a rematch against either the 49ers or the Packers.

My guess: It will be the Packers, since that can also be billed as a game between the last two Super Bowl champs.

[The Heretic]

Michael S. Pearl, on 06 February 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Actually, the only reason to go for two in that situation was to get six points ahead so that if the Pats did score a touchdown the Giants could still hope for a missed extra-point kick and still have a chance in overtime.

I worded that poorly.

The Giants wanted to shave off as much time off the clock -- that is why Bradshaw tried to stop at the 1 yard line. He had too much momentum.

Plus on the two point play the Giants could've called a pass play. They chose to run, shave off seconds.

Aye the first game ofthe year is often the marquee match-up determined by the best rivalry or most contentious game from the previous playoffs: I would go with Pats-Ravens or Giants-49ers.

[muraii]

Quote

Plus on the two point play the Giants could've called a pass play. They chose to run, shave off seconds.

Extra-point and two-point-conversions don't use game time.

Quote

Aye the first game ofthe year is often the marquee match-up determined by the best rivalry or most contentious game from the previous playoffs: I would go with Pats-Ravens or Giants-49ers.

Or the matchup I was hoping for (albeit only marginally more than any of the other matchups going into Conference Championship Weekend): 49ers-Ravens.

I wasn't sure who to root for. I could feel the Pats' revenge working nicely, but identified just as much with another thrilling Giants win. Eventually I decided I wanted the latter, because the Giants were down at the half.

Edited by muraii, 08 February 2012 - 01:13 AM.

[Hugo Holbling]

I'm still disappointed with the result but the Pats didn't deserve to win. Not only did they not control the game enough to have the majority of the clock, mistakes like the Safety and the dropped catches at the end cost them dear. Moreover, I know that Gronk was calling for the ball but both he and Brady should have known better with the injury and the coverage. Still, you can't detract from how calm Eli was all game (and throughout the post-season) and it sure looks unlikely that his brother will equal his ring count now.

Any thoughts on the draft? Everyone is talking about Luck and RG3 but Blackmon is the pick for me.

[Godot]

I've never followed the draft, so I can't speak to that with any intelligence. However, I did catch a discussion on SportsCenter where the talking heads (Steve Young, Ron Jaworsi, Trent Dilfer, and random non-football guy) were all in agreement that Peyton would not be back in Indy next season, irrespective of whom Indy takes in the draft.

[Michael S. Pearl]

Hugo Holbling, on 11 February 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Any thoughts on the draft? Everyone is talking about Luck and RG3 but Blackmon is the pick for me.

With the first pick in the draft, the Colts absolutely have to pick a QB. Given their current situation, it makes no sense for the Colts to take Blackmon. The Rams, on the other hand, have the second pick, and, since they seem intent on sticking with Bradford at QB and since they are sorely lacking in receivers, it makes sense for them to seriously consider drafting Blackmon. If the Colts go with Andrew Luck for their pick, that leaves the Vikings in a good position for taking Griffin for their QB, because Ponder will most likely end up being a very good back-up (at best).

[Michael S. Pearl]

Here is a mock draft which has the Rams trading down and still getting Blackmon.

This mock draft has offensive tackles going in the 2nd and 3rd picks.

And this one has Luck going first to the Colts, Blackmon going next to the Rams, and then the Vikings sticking with Ponder and tacking an OT.

[Scotty]

Llama for the draft!
-Scott

 llama_attack.jpg   115.65K   8 downloads

[davidm]

Uh, oh, Saints put bounties on opposing players to  have them deliberately injured! Front page of the NY Times.

[The Heretic]

davidm, on 03 March 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

Uh, oh, Saints put bounties on opposing players to  have them deliberately injured! Front page of the NY Times.

My take:

Every team has some sort of reward system like bounty hunting. Buddy Ryan had something similar in the mid-80s with the Bears.

The Saints just got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and the commish will come down hard on them. Goddell is fanatical about player safety, and even more so about public perception (scandal).

[davidm]

Yep, that's what players are saying, and it's not that surprising, but it should be noted it's explicitly against the rules.

The ex-defensive coordinator admitted running it. He is now the Rams' defensive coordinator. Apparently they have them dead to rights with extensive documentation.

The highest pay for was for actual knockouts, less for players carted off the field.

The year they won the Super Bowl, the total bounty reached $50,000 during the playoffs (bounty payouts were doubled and tripled for the playoffs) and in the championship game against Green Bay, a $10,000 bounty was put on Brett Favre's head. He was injured in the game, as it turns out, but managed to stay in to the end.

More: the coach and general manager knew about it, and did nothing to stop it, even when they became aware of a league investigation.  When the team owner found out, he ordered the bounties to stop, and the payers and coaches ignored him.

ETA: Next year, Drew Brees will have to play with a brown paper bag over his head and big sign plastered across the front of his shirt: "I am not Drew Brees. Please don't hit me too hard."

Edited by davidm, 03 March 2012 - 06:10 AM.

[The Heretic]

Are you trolling in order to get a rise out of Michael, Davidm?

[davidm]

The Heretic, on 03 March 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

Are you trolling in order to get a rise out of Michael, Davidm?

  

[Michael S. Pearl]

Eh, all this is just further confirmation that Greg Williams is not the brightest light. He put his obstinate unimaginativeness out there for all to see with the 49ers game, but let's just charitably consider the bounty system to have been some sort of crude psychological tool employed by Williams when he joined the Saints in 2009 to get the defense to be more active. Then, whazzup with the past two seasons? That psychological tool - if it ever actually did have any effect - clearly had quit working, and, yet, it appears that Williams stuck with it because he is obstinately unimaginative owing to the fact that he is not the brightest light.

[davidm]

Saints coach suspended for the season, former defensive coordinator suspended "indefinitely," Saints GM suspended for eight games ... developing.

[davidm]

Link.

[Michael S. Pearl]

They just don't want to Saints to play in the Super Bowl on their home field!!! Yeah, that's it! HehHeh.

[The Heretic]

More interesting- QB Drew Brees has yet to sign a new contract w the team. The team and Brees were pretty far apart in negotiations. Now Coach Payton isn't there...