Superbowl XLVI

adrian522 · 26-01-2012 07:31PM

Matt Santos wrote: »

Giants-
Beat Dallas in a what might as well been a play-off game.
Smashed up Atlanta who were well fancied to go deep.
Went to the prohibitive favs Holy ground. The top offensive team in Football and beat them up lie nobody had for 18 months!
Went to the defensive giant that had not given up a rushing score until Christmas Eve and beat them convincingly.

Patriots-
Secured the No.1 seed and home draws throughout with a solid regular season.
Stepped on the paper thin dream that was the Denver Broncos!
Can consider themselves lucky to have Evans TD knocked out in the endzone and watched Cundiff kick a regular FG wide left.

I have no idea why the Patriots are favs in this tie!

Now I know I'm just a bitter 49er fan, but winning in OT courtesy of a fumbled punt does not equal a convincing win in my book.

Another way of looking at it might be Pats 13-3 team, Giants 9-7 team, hence the pat's are fav's.

SantryRed · 26-01-2012 08:28PM

New England Patriots

Matt Santos wrote: »

Giants-
Beat Dallas in a what might as well been a play-off game.
Smashed up Atlanta who were well fancied to go deep.
Went to the prohibitive favs Holy ground. The top offensive team in Football and beat them up lie nobody had for 18 months!
Went to the defensive giant that had not given up a rushing score until Christmas Eve and beat them convincingly.

Patriots-
Secured the No.1 seed and home draws throughout with a solid regular season.
Stepped on the paper thin dream that was the Denver Broncos!
Can consider themselves lucky to have Evans TD knocked out in the endzone and watched Cundiff kick a regular FG wide left.

I have no idea why the Patriots are favs in this tie!

M

:pac:

So Pats are lucky to win by a missed FG to end to game but the Giants were convincing in a kicked FG to win the game?

ok :pac:

matthew8 · 26-01-2012 08:51PM

New England Patriots

Neither of the teams won convincingly. Infact for both teams, it wasn't that they won, but that the other teams completely blew it.

tallaghtoutlaws · 26-01-2012 09:03PM

matthew8 wrote: »

Neither of the teams won convincingly. Infact for both teams, it wasn't that they won, but that the other teams completely blew it.

As much as the Pats got lucky that field goal was bringing them to Overtime. So it would have been the toss of a coin that decided that game.

As side from many people keep banging on about how lucky the Pats got with the catch in the end zone. Lets get one thing straight the WR didnt get two feet down before the ball got batted out by Moore.

Both the Pats and the Ravens had a chance to put that game to bed and they both blew it. People also forget that after Flacco threw that last Int the Pats could have done the smart thing and ran the clock and tried to put the game at a 2 score gap only for Brady to make a bad decision and throw deep and get it picked off giving the Ravens a second chance.

Clareman · 26-01-2012 09:34PM

I think the Pats have this 1, but I'd love for the Giants to win so I could witness their homecoming, anyone have any idea what day they would be doing the whole Canyon of Heros thing down Manhatten?

Clareman · 26-01-2012 09:39PM

Looks like Tuesday is the day. I can't wait for the trip now, couldn't have planned it better, Mrs. Clareman isn't going to be happy that her surprise trip will involve her husband being a blithering mess for a few days

Syferus · 26-01-2012 10:34PM

New England Patriots

This game is a hard one to label either team as favourites.

It's a testament to how little there was between so many teams this year that neither of these two were particularly fancied throughout the year, both having glaring weaknesses (both teams' run games, the entire Patriots' defense and the Giants' secondary). I'm disappointed not to see a fresher face on the big stage, but then who knew Ted Ginn Jr. would be the difference between a team making the Superbowl and not?

Still, the 2008 Superbowl was the game that got me interested in the NFL so it's hard to complain about these two going at it again.

matthew8 · 26-01-2012 10:48PM

New England Patriots

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

As much as the Pats got lucky that field goal was bringing them to Overtime. So it would have been the toss of a coin that decided that game.

As side from many people keep banging on about how lucky the Pats got with the catch in the end zone. Lets get one thing straight the WR didnt get two feet down before the ball got batted out by Moore.

Both the Pats and the Ravens had a chance to put that game to bed and they both blew it. People also forget that after Flacco threw that last Int the Pats could have done the smart thing and ran the clock and tried to put the game at a 2 score gap only for Brady to make a bad decision and throw deep and get it picked off giving the Ravens a second chance.

Indeed, had the Ravens won it would have been because Tom Brady made a lot of stupid decisions, and in some cases, shocking throws. Ravens also blew a Leach TD from 10 yards out or so. So many missed opportunities.

As for how the SB will go, tough one, but I think the Pats O-line is good enough to let the Patriots score a lot, enough to win.

bryangiggsy · 27-01-2012 01:22PM

Pats all the way.

Brady will be fired up after admitting sucking against Baltimore

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

MHK

They will be well up for this game

Morrisseeee · 28-01-2012 08:44AM

New England Patriots

Well I hope the scoring on the night is as close as the poll :pac:
..........and it should be. I think the Giants are a more balanced team, probably stronger as an overall unit compared to the Pats, but the Pats have a better Offense, and if they get it going on the night then we should be in for a shootout, yeehaaa ! We've had 2 "Defensive games" in the Championship finals, as while that was interesting & exciting, lets now have an Offensive shootout

mikemac1 · 28-01-2012 09:04AM

New England Patriots

Wilfork was incredible against the Ravens, unstoppable

But the G-men will get it done

JPP, two sacks and a forced fumble :cool:

kmart6 · 28-01-2012 09:18PM

Ochocinco has made his biggest contribution of the season....

Patriots WR @Ochocinco bought 70 Beats by Dre headphones to give out to each teammate for Sunday's flight to Indianapolis for Super Bowl.

And since I included a picture of the Pat's SB jersey during the week, here's a Giants/Eli's for parity....

Red Crow · 29-01-2012 01:38AM

New England Patriots

adrian522 wrote: »

Now I know I'm just a bitter 49er fan, but winning in OT courtesy of a fumbled punt does not equal a convincing win in my book.

Another way of looking at it might be Pats 13-3 team, Giants 9-7 team, hence the pat's are fav's.

So using the regular season win/loss total is more convincing?

Especially since the AFC was much weaker this year.

Equally as stupid.

adrian522 · 29-01-2012 01:54AM

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Who would you have as favourites and why?

He was trying to make out that the giants had easily beaten the 49ers when he said they had a "convincing" win.

I was pointing out that they didn't as it was a win they only secured in OT after a fumbled punt return.

He was using that as reason to question why the patriots were favourites for the superbowl as he thinks they have were lucky to beat the ravens.

I merely pointed out that maybe the pats consistency and 13 wins might have more to do with them being favourites, especially considering they are playing a 9-7 team.

If I was setting odds the various teams records would certainly play into my thinking when trying to pick a favourite.

Don't see what's so stupid about that.

Syferus · 29-01-2012 02:11AM

New England Patriots

The Patriots had both an easier schedule and a very consistent defense, it just happened to be consistently bad. Their defense needs to keep improving over the last few weeks if the Patriots are going to win because the Giants have the weapons to out-gun Brady, let alone with a gimpy Gronkowski.

The Giants are in better form the last two months and that matters alot more than 13-3 or 9-7.

Red Crow · 29-01-2012 02:16AM

New England Patriots

adrian522 wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

The fact that you're counter argument was the Pats regular seasons results.

Who would you have as favourites and why?

I think we have the more balanced team, but The Pat's O scares me. I'm not ready to call it just yet.

He was trying to make out that the giants had easily beaten the 49ers when he said they had a "convincing" win.

True, it wasn't what you would call convincing. But nobody has really beaten them convincingly and Smith was battered against the Ravens.

I was pointing out that they didn't as it was a win they only secured in OT after a fumbled punt return.

See above.

He was using that as reason to question why the patriots were favourites for the superbowl as he thinks they have were lucky to beat the ravens.

Both have had completely different routes so comparisons can always be picked at.

I merely pointed out that maybe the pats consistency and 13 wins might have more to do with them being favourites, especially considering they are playing a 9-7 team.

Opposition being completely different and we have already beaten NE this year. Regular season results don't mean a whole lot now.

If I was setting odds the various teams records would certainly play into my thinking when trying to pick a favourite.

Not so sure about that, you are missing the huge factor that our D has been messed up by injury all year, Nicks is only back fully fit for maybe the last 4 games of regular season. It's all well and good at pointing out figures but statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

I don't mind that you think the Pats are favourites what irritates me is using regular season results as the sole reason for picking the Pats as favourites which you appeared to suggest. When the Giants regular season was a mess.

matthew8 · 29-01-2012 02:16AM

New England Patriots

Syferus wrote: »

The Patriots had both an easier schedule and a very consistent defense, it just happened to be consistently bad. Their defense needs to keep improving over the last few weeks if the Patriots are going to in, the Giants have the weapons to out-gun Brady, especially with a gimpy Gronkowski.

The Giants are in better form the last two months and that matters alot more than 13-3 or 9-7.

The Giants would be 13-3 if they beat the Redskins twice (who went 5-11, with 2 of those wins coming against the Giants), the Eagles (at home, and they had lost 2 in a row) and the Seahawks (at home). The only reason the Giants are in "better form" (despite the fact that the Patriots are on a bigger winning streak) is because they made it harder for themselves.

matthew8 · 29-01-2012 02:21AM

New England Patriots

Eli Manning wrote: »

True, it wasn't what you would call convincing. But nobody has really beaten them convincingly and Smith was battered against the Ravens.

The Ravens win was very convincing. So convincing I went to sleep at halftime because the 49ers offense was absolutely crushed by the Ravens.

Syferus · 29-01-2012 02:22AM

New England Patriots

matthew8 wrote: »

The Giants would be 13-3 if they beat the Redskins twice (who went 5-11, with 2 of those wins coming against the Giants), the Eagles (at home, and they had lost 2 in a row) and the Seahawks (at home). The only reason the Giants are in "better form" (despite the fact that the Patriots are on a bigger winning streak) is because they made it harder for themselves.

None of which changes the fact they've ran themselves through more challenging tests and found their best form when it really mattered.

However you do it.

Red Crow · 29-01-2012 02:24AM

New England Patriots

matthew8 wrote: »

The Ravens win was very convincing. So convincing I went to sleep at halftime because the 49ers offense was absolutely crushed by the Ravens.

That's why I mentioned the Ravens and why Smith was being battered

One team. Pretty obvious I would of thought.

matthew8 · 29-01-2012 02:25AM

New England Patriots

Syferus wrote: »

None of which changes the fact they've ran themselves through more challenging tests and found their best form when it really mattered.

However you do it.

The Patriots found their form when it really mattered too.

matthew8 · 29-01-2012 02:28AM

New England Patriots

Eli Manning wrote: »

That's why I mentioned the Ravens and why Smith was being battered

One team. Pretty obvious I would of thought.

I don't get this. Are you ignoring the Ravens game because Smith was sacked 9 times or what?

Red Crow · 29-01-2012 02:31AM

New England Patriots

matthew8 wrote: »

I don't get this. Are you ignoring the Ravens game because Smith was sacked 9 times or what?

What the hell dude. Seriously, I'm saying that the Ravens are the only ones who convincingly beat the 49'ers.

Sand. Vagina. Remove.

matthew8 · 29-01-2012 02:32AM

New England Patriots

Eli Manning wrote: »

What the hell dude. Seriously, I'm saying that the Ravens are the only ones who convincingly beat the 49'ers.

Sand. Vagina. Remove.

But you said no one has really beaten them convincingly.

adrian522 · 29-01-2012 02:34AM

Eli Manning wrote: »

The fact that you're counter argument was the Pats regular seasons results.

It's not my argument it's just what I think the bookies are basing their odds on.

Eli Manning wrote: »

Regular season results don't mean a whole lot now.

Well they won't mean a lot during the game, but if you are trying to make a prediction on how the game will go, the records of both teams will absolutely factor into that decision.

Eli Manning wrote: »

I don't mind that you think the Pats are favourites what irritates me is using regular season results as the sole reason for picking the Pats as favourites which you appeared to suggest. When the Giants regular season was a mess.

Not my sole reason at all, their top notch head coach and their HOF QB also play into it. The bookies may also feel that the Pat's will get a lot of support from the general public and may want to encourage more money for the giants by making them slight underdogs.

My main point was that the poster I was responding to couldn't understand how the patriots were favourites, I was just pointing out that there are very good reasons to favour them, that's not to say that they will definitly win but I think it makes sense to make them slight favourites.

matthew8 wrote: »

The Giants would be 13-3 if they beat the Redskins twice (who went 5-11, with 2 of those wins coming against the Giants), the Eagles (at home, and they had lost 2 in a row) and the Seahawks (at home).

By that reasoning they'd be 16-0 if they won all their games but they didn't.

Red Crow · 29-01-2012 02:35AM

New England Patriots

matthew8 wrote: »

Eli Manning wrote: »

What the hell dude. Seriously, I'm saying that the Ravens are the only ones who convincingly beat the 49'ers.

Sand. Vagina. Remove.

But you said no one has really beaten them convincingly.

I thought the last bit to that sentance made an exception to my statement.

matthew8 · 29-01-2012 02:37AM

New England Patriots

adrian522 wrote: »

By that reasoning they'd be 16-0 if they won all their games but they didn't.

The argument was that the Patriots got their nice record because they beat up on the bad teams. My counter-argument was the Giants could've had as good a record if they were able to beat up on the bad teams (and in some cases, the very same bad teams).

adrian522 · 29-01-2012 02:39AM

matthew8 wrote: »

The argument was that the Patriots got their nice record because they beat up on the bad teams. My counter-argument was the Giants could've had as good a record if they were able to beat up on the bad teams (and in some cases, the very same bad teams).

Fair enough, mis-understood your post

matthew8 · 29-01-2012 02:41AM

New England Patriots

Eli Manning wrote: »

I thought the last bit to that sentance made an exception to my statement.

Very poor use of conjunctions (should've used but or except). Have a listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODGA7ssL-6g

Red Crow · 29-01-2012 02:43AM

New England Patriots

adrian522 wrote: »

It's not my argument it's just what I think the bookies are basing their odds on.

Well they won't mean a lot during the game, but if you are trying to make a prediction on how the game will go, the records of both teams will absolutely factor into that decision.

Not my sole reason at all, their top notch head coach and their HOF QB also play into it. The bookies may also feel that the Pat's will get a lot of support from the general public and may want to encourage more money for the giants by making them slight underdogs.

My main point was that the poster I was responding to couldn't understand how the patriots were favourites, I was just pointing out that there are very good reasons to favour them, that's not to say that they will definitly win but I think it makes sense to make them slight favourites.

By that reasoning they'd be 16-0 if they won all their games but they didn't.

Too tired to break up your post but I'm not arguing with you for picking the Pats as favourites because probably the majority will have the Pats as favourites. What I was saying was that you can't just take the regular season as sole reasoning for picking the Pats which was what I picked up from your post. Obviously you didn't mean it like that. We beat NE in Foxborough in the regular season. I'm not going to be counting on that a whole lot. Regardless, I think it's going to be a toss up on the day.

Superbowl XLVI

Comments