Stego Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Brady definitely was the worst statistically on the field yesterday, but he also played against a very good defense. Not that this is an excuse... but the Ravens D came to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That being said, I'm not sure how playing defense well against Joe Flacco and Baltimore is a good indicator of anything. They were highly variable and highly odd during the season and their offense was never particulary reliable, especially when the running game didn't get going.A week ago it was, "The Pats haven't proved anything, wait till they play Baltimore." And now with another victory the song remains the same. Not that I expected it to be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I didn't watch the game that carefully, but the Giants put up 20 points and Eli had two dropped interceptions, one of which was caused by two 49ers players colliding. That's true, though they ended up punting in both of those situations and in both cases it was a long pass. An interception there wouldn't have hurt them significantly. They played the best rushing team in the league and the 10th best rushing team (with statistically the 2nd best back). They managed to shut both down while not getting torched in the passing game as a result. That's a success.It is, but it's not a surprise. Denver's rushing ability was forged against a lot of meh defenses. They did better against the Pats the first time, but really only for the first quarter; the next 7 quarters they had a total of something like 120 yards of rushing. Shutting down Baltimore is a bit more impressive but it was clear that was their gameplan from the getgo - kill the run, force Flacco to beat you and wait. And it worked. The problem is that the Giants aren't hugely run-reliant and the Packers suck on pass D. That Brady can be contained but the team still win is good news for the Patriots because they'll be facing a defense similar to that of the Ravens in two weeks.They're not really similar at all. The Giants don't have a world-class safety. They don't have stellar LB play. What they have is a very good set of DLinemen (the Ravens have basically Suggs as far as rushing the QB), a secondary that can cover receivers well and very creative blitzes. This isn't at all what the Ravens have been. Most notably, the Ravens have a harder time putting pressure on QBs without blitzing than the Giants do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 A week ago it was, "The Pats haven't proved anything, wait till they play Baltimore." And now with another victory the song remains the same. Not that I expected it to be different. Do you really think that that particular game the Pats proved anything? Was there something that was particularly truthy in a 23-20 win that required a kicker to miss a 32 yard field goal? It didn't seem that way to me. While I think that the Pats were the better team, I also think that they didn't do themselves any favors and that if Lee Evans is at all a competent receiver that Pats fans are crying this morning.I don't think the Pats DEFENSE has proven anything. I think their offense is as good as ever. Which...is basically what the story of the season has been. I just didn't see that much of a change from then until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I didn't watch the game that carefully, but the Giants put up 20 points and Eli had two dropped interceptions, one of which was caused by two 49ers players colliding.Both the Niners interceptions were dropped because there were two defensive players going for the ball and didn't see the other. With the number of errant passes Eli put up, the Giants were quite fortunate not to have any interceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinsdale! Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I think he is in Canton; however, with his relationship with the New York media and for also rubbing some of his players and fans the wrong way, if they struggle he will be on the hot seat again. I wonder if he would retire if he wins, so he goes out on top. Eh, I think he has much better job security than the NY media would lead you to believe. The Giants are not the Jets. Mara and Tisch stick with their guys and Coughlin is their guy. They probably would have fired Fewell if the Giants hadn't made the playoffs.Mr. Eunuchsbane:Tom Coughlin's career didn't start with Giants. The work he did with BC and the Jags was pretty impressive.And he's not retiring. If he retired, he'd just be another angry old man. Also:http://peteprisco.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6315047/34537754 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 They're not really similar at all. The Giants don't have a world-class safety. They don't have stellar LB play. What they have is a very good set of DLinemen (the Ravens have basically Suggs as far as rushing the QB), a secondary that can cover receivers well and very creative blitzes. This isn't at all what the Ravens have been. Most notably, the Ravens have a harder time putting pressure on QBs without blitzing than the Giants do. That's arguably a better matchup for the Patriots, assuming that they can control the pass rush. Brady's primary targets are Welker, a slot reciever, and two tight ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinsdale! Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's true, though they ended up punting in both of those situations and in both cases it was a long pass. An interception there wouldn't have hurt them significantly. It is, but it's not a surprise. Denver's rushing ability was forged against a lot of meh defenses. They did better against the Pats the first time, but really only for the first quarter; the next 7 quarters they had a total of something like 120 yards of rushing.Shutting down Baltimore is a bit more impressive but it was clear that was their gameplan from the getgo - kill the run, force Flacco to beat you and wait. And it worked. The problem is that the Giants aren't hugely run-reliant and the Packers suck on pass D. They're not really similar at all. The Giants don't have a world-class safety. They don't have stellar LB play. What they have is a very good set of DLinemen (the Ravens have basically Suggs as far as rushing the QB), a secondary that can cover receivers well and very creative blitzes. This isn't at all what the Ravens have been. Most notably, the Ravens have a harder time putting pressure on QBs without blitzing than the Giants do. I don't think the Giants secondary is actually very good. When the four man pass rush is working, they can just afford to put a lot of bodies back there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Mr. Eunuchsbane:Tom Coughlin's career didn't start with Giants. The work he did with BC and the Jags was pretty impressive. Okay and Harbaugh has had one season in the league. Again, nothing but time is going to prove either Stego or myself right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 On the Superbowl: I'm picking the GIants. Here's why:You should put money on 'em. Those reasons are good and you get 3 points to boot.I think they're pretty evenly matched, but I'm taking the Pats. For a few reasons:1) The revenge factor will be huge. Giants have nothing to prove, they already beat the Pats in a Superbowl. For the Pats, this is what they've been dreaming about for the last 4 years, including and especially figuring out they would stop that front four if they had another chance. Knowing some of the personalities on the Giants (*cough* Antrel Rolle) could easily see them coming into this one overconfident. I'd be shocked if the Pats aren't hyperfocused these next two weeks.2) Sure the Pats have no answer for Cruz, but it's not like the Giants have an answer for Gronk and Hernandez. Look what VD did to them and that's without any other receivers to divert attention from him.3) Brady is still > E. Manning regardless of what we're going to be inundated with over the next two weeks about Eli now being elite and potentially better than his brother. Just a heads up, it's going to get ridiculous. Eli's made himself awesome...but he still ain't at that highest tier. Brady is and he's also acutely aware of his football mortality. From all the quotes I've seen, he's gonna be at an Elway in '97 desire to win this game. 4) The Pats defense will do just enough to win. They're definitely not the reason to pick the Pats. It's more: they won't be so bad they blow it for Brady who I believe is going to go out and take it.But who fucking knows. This one's as close to a pick 'em as we've had in a Superbowl in years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I didn't watch the game that carefully, but the Giants put up 20 points and Eli had two dropped interceptions, one of which was caused by two 49ers players colliding. And ten of those points came off of a muffed punt and a fumble each of which put them in the red zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's arguably a better matchup for the Patriots, assuming that they can control the pass rush. Brady's primary targets are Welker, a slot reciever, and two tight ends. That's a pretty crazy assumption to make; no one has been able to control the NYG pass rush in the last 5 weeks. I do agree that the intriguing matchup to me is how the fairly meh LBs and safeties of NYG deal with Hernandez and Gronk, but I also think that the best way to deal with Brady is not by covering receivers, it's by pressuring Brady. Welker and the TE party is simply too hard to cover reliably when they're clicking.I don't think the Giants secondary is actually very good. When the four man pass rush is working, they can just afford to put a lot of bodies back there.They were very, very good against Rodgers and GB. Even when not pressuring, Rodgers had just no one to throw to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Brady is still > E. Manning regardless of what we're going to be inundated with over the next two weeks about Eli now being elite and potentially better than his brother. Just a heads up, it's going to get ridiculous. Eli's made himself awesome...but he still ain't at that highest tier. Brady is and he's also acutely aware of his football mortality. From all the quotes I've seen, he's gonna be at an Elway in '97 desire to win this game. I agree with all of that. If they were both playing against the Patriot defense I'd give the edge to Brady. But they're not. The key to me is that the Giants D vs. the Pats O is a strength vs. strength matchup. The Giants O vs. the Pats D is a strength vs. weakness matchup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'd like to thank the Niners defense for two of the best Elisha GIFs ever... http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z33/tcastro2416/silly%20crap/ElishaSackLunch.gif http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z33/tcastro2416/silly%20crap/ElishaTimeout.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I am with Jaime pretty much. Just a little bit said that our matchup ("Evil" vs. "Kinda Annoying") isn't as compelling as it would have been with a more likeable team in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Do you really think that that particular game the Pats proved anything? Was there something that was particularly truthy in a 23-20 win that required a kicker to miss a 32 yard field goal? It didn't seem that way to me. While I think that the Pats were the better team, I also think that they didn't do themselves any favors and that if Lee Evans is at all a competent receiver that Pats fans are crying this morning. I don't think the Pats DEFENSE has proven anything. I think their offense is as good as ever. Which...is basically what the story of the season has been. I just didn't see that much of a change from then until now.I've said above, it proved that the Pats can win a game against an excellent team even when Brady fucks up. You want to play the what-if game? If Woodhead holds on to the ball on his return, or if Brady doesn't decide to throw to Matthew Slater in double coverage after Flacco's pick, then it doesn't come down to Lee Evans or Billy Cundiff. Yay, what-ifs are fun!But it's cool. If the Pats manage to beat the Giants in two weeks I'm sure we'll see another post about how that didn't prove anything either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I've said above, it proved that the Pats can win a game against an excellent team even when Brady fucks up. You want to play the what-if game? If Woodhead holds on to the ball on his return, or if Brady doesn't decide to throw to Matthew Slater in double coverage after Flacco's pick, then it doesn't come down to Lee Evans or Billy Cundiff. Yay, what-ifs are fun!There's a bit more to it than "Brady fucks up". Specifically, a kicker missing a 32 yarder not caused by a block or pressure is a fair cry different than a fumble caused by an opposing player.But fine - if you like please get a big happy about how the Pats decisively beat the Ravens and how that shows that they can beat the Giants. I just don't read it that way. I read it as what happened in XLII - that some times, good teams get beat by not as good teams because they weren't as lucky. Or (in this case) sometimes two good teams play and it comes down to really small things.But it's cool. If the Pats manage to beat the Giants in two weeks I'm sure we'll see another post about how that didn't prove anything either. If the Pats manage to beat the Giants Brady will have proven himself as the best QB of all time without any question, and the Pats dynasty the strongest dynasty ever.I don't see why you're arguing so much with me; I thought the Pats would win and said as much. The game went mostly as I expected save that I didn't think Brady would play quite so badly; I figured that the Pats would win but not cover just because it's the Ravens. I didn't expect it to be quite so close, which makes me revise some of my estimates of the Pats. Before that game I would have thought that the Pats would win the superbowl regardless of opponent (though the 49ers would be a better one, given that they're very similar to the Ravens as far as matchups go). Now I give the edge to the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'm not sure why I'm arguing so much with you either Kal, as we're not too far apart on most points. There's just something about your predictably tedious bloody-mindedness in NFL threads that compels me to respond.ETA: Let me add a ;) so Kal knows the real intent here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Well, that makes it all better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Mission accomplished then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.