Did the Giants have the mos difficult Playoff schedule of all time? (1 Viewer)

[KoolKat]

The championship run made by the Giants is truly unbelievable. Looking at the teams they beat to win it all, I have to think they had the hardest road to ever win a Super Bowl. They beat the Buccaneers, Cowboys, and Packers in their respective houses. Although the Bucs were nhot world beaters, they were a division winning team at home with double digit wins. The Cowboys, Packers, and Pats were all considered in the Top 5 if not Top 3 teams in the league. The teams they beat to make it happen makes the run even more remarkable.

sorry if honda

 

[kevinray]

The championship run made by the Giants is truly unbelievable. Looking at the teams they beat to win it all, I have to think they had the hardest road to ever win a Super Bowl. They beat the Buccaneers, Cowboys, and Packers in their respective houses. Although the Bucs were nhot world beaters, they were a division winning team at home with double digit wins. The Cowboys, Packers, and Pats were all considered in the Top 5 if not Top 3 teams in the league. The teams they beat to make it happen makes the run even more remarkable.sorry if honda

The Steelers did a similar feat for Super bowl XL. As a 6 seed they beat the 123 seeds in the AFC and the 1 seed in the NFC. The Giants were the 5 seed in the NFC, but if I was to compare the two I'd say the Giants had the harder road.

 

[crowe1130]

The Steelers did a similar feat for Super bowl XL. As a 6 seed they beat the 123 seeds in the AFC and the 1 seed in the NFC. The Giants were the 5 seed in the NFC, but if I was to compare the two I'd say the Giants had the harder road.

I think the Steelers had a tougher road leading up to the Super Bowl, as Indy, Cincy, and Denver were solid that year. The Colts, in particular, were the unstoppable force, playing at home, and huge favorites. But Pittsburgh didn't have to face an 18-0 team at the end of it, so I'm willing to give the Giants the nod.

 

[thesurfshop19]

I'm trying to think here, and I think to be in the "mix" you have to be a team that wasn't a chalk pick, so they'd have beaten at least 2 teams that were "considered better" entering the playoffs.

I think the contenders of the last several years might be:

2005 Steelers -- beat Bengals, Colts, Broncos, Seahawks

2001 Patriots -- beat Raiders, Steelers, Rams

1997 Broncos -- beat Jaguars, Chiefs, Steelers, Packers

I think there's a big gap before 1997 where the NFC was so dominant that a top 2 NFC team was always the chalk pick and they always won the Super Bowl.

So if we're ranking the schedules of those three teams + this year's Giants, I might rank something like:

1. 2007 Giants

2. 2001 Patriots

3. 2005 Steelers

4. 1997 Broncos

The 1997 Broncos had a tough "on paper" route, but they had a better record than 2 of the teams they beat and won against the Chiefs possibly because they started Elvis Grbac and not Rich Gannon.

The 2005 Steelers had a lot of road games, but you could argue that they were better than both the Bengals and the Broncos in 2005 and would have been the #2 seed if not for Big Ben getting hurt. And the Seahawks, bad calls and all, were a poor Super Bowl opponent.

The 2001 Patriots benefitted from having to play only 3 games, and while they did beat two heavily-favored playoff opponents, one of them was QBd by Kordell Stewart who, while in my opinion is underrated on the whole, simply wasn't a great big game QB.

So I think you could make the case that these Giants, in knocking off the top 2 NFC contenders + the undefeated AFC team, just played the toughest playoff schedule in the last couple of decades.

 

[Mr. Peterson]

Do you really want to call them the 3 best teams in the NFL?

 

[PsychoMan]

Colts, Jags, Chargers would all give Dallas & Green Bay a good run for their money. Before the playoffs, I'd probably rank them:

1 - Pats*

2 - Colts

3 - Cowboys

4 - Jags

5 - Chargers

6 - Packers

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

The championship run made by the Giants is truly unbelievable. Looking at the teams they beat to win it all, I have to think they had the hardest road to ever win a Super Bowl. They beat the Buccaneers, Cowboys, and Packers in their respective houses. Although the Bucs were nhot world beaters, they were a division winning team at home with double digit wins. The Cowboys, Packers, and Pats were all considered in the Top 5 if not Top 3 teams in the league. The teams they beat to make it happen makes the run even more remarkable.sorry if honda

The Steelers did a similar feat for Super bowl XL. As a 6 seed they beat the 123 seeds in the AFC and the 1 seed in the NFC. The Giants were the 5 seed in the NFC, but if I was to compare the two I'd say the Giants had the harder road.

Steelers also beat the #2 NFC seed (Chicago) in week 14.

 

[kevinray]

The championship run made by the Giants is truly unbelievable. Looking at the teams they beat to win it all, I have to think they had the hardest road to ever win a Super Bowl. They beat the Buccaneers, Cowboys, and Packers in their respective houses. Although the Bucs were nhot world beaters, they were a division winning team at home with double digit wins. The Cowboys, Packers, and Pats were all considered in the Top 5 if not Top 3 teams in the league. The teams they beat to make it happen makes the run even more remarkable.sorry if honda

The Steelers did a similar feat for Super bowl XL. As a 6 seed they beat the 123 seeds in the AFC and the 1 seed in the NFC. The Giants were the 5 seed in the NFC, but if I was to compare the two I'd say the Giants had the harder road.

Steelers also beat the #2 NFC seed (Chicago) in week 14.

The Steelers did have a hard road to make the playoffs but so did the Giants. Both were the only wild card teams to win it so it was definitely tough for both. It’s hard to pick really. As a Steeler fan I really only thought they’d lose the Indy game. The rest I was confident that if they played a good game they’d win. I didn’t follow the Giants that well and picked against them each week so that plays a role in my ranking them ahead.

 

[Despyzer]

Do you really want to call them the 3 best teams in the NFL?

Even after yesterday's game, there are four teams in the AFC that are better than any team in the NFC.

 

[bryhamm]

The championship run made by the Giants is truly unbelievable. Looking at the teams they beat to win it all, I have to think they had the hardest road to ever win a Super Bowl. They beat the Buccaneers, Cowboys, and Packers in their respective houses. Although the Bucs were nhot world beaters, they were a division winning team at home with double digit wins. The Cowboys, Packers, and Pats were all considered in the Top 5 if not Top 3 teams in the league. The teams they beat to make it happen makes the run even more remarkable.

sorry if honda

The Steelers did a similar feat for Super bowl XL. As a 6 seed they beat the 123 seeds in the AFC and the 1 seed in the NFC. The Giants were the 5 seed in the NFC, but if I was to compare the two I'd say the Giants had the harder road.

Steelers also beat the #2 NFC seed (Chicago) in week 14.

The Steelers did have a hard road to make the playoffs but so did the Giants. Both were the only wild card teams to win it so it was definitely tough for both. It’s hard to pick really. As a Steeler fan I really only thought they’d lose the Indy game. The rest I was confident that if they played a good game they’d win. I didn’t follow the Giants that well and picked against them each week so that plays a role in my ranking them ahead.

The Giants are the first NFC wild card team to win, but I thought I heard that 4 AFC wild card teams have won it. I don't recall who besides PIT, but I think OAK was one.

 

[videoguy505]

I don't know if this has ever happend before, but:

Jeff Garcia, Tony Romo, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady were all selected to go to the Pro Bowl.

... and the Giants beat them all on the road.

I know that the Giants sending only 1 man to the Pro Bowl is the first time that's ever happened for a Super Bowl champ.

 

[kevinray]

The championship run made by the Giants is truly unbelievable. Looking at the teams they beat to win it all, I have to think they had the hardest road to ever win a Super Bowl. They beat the Buccaneers, Cowboys, and Packers in their respective houses. Although the Bucs were nhot world beaters, they were a division winning team at home with double digit wins. The Cowboys, Packers, and Pats were all considered in the Top 5 if not Top 3 teams in the league. The teams they beat to make it happen makes the run even more remarkable.

sorry if honda

The Steelers did a similar feat for Super bowl XL. As a 6 seed they beat the 123 seeds in the AFC and the 1 seed in the NFC. The Giants were the 5 seed in the NFC, but if I was to compare the two I'd say the Giants had the harder road.

Steelers also beat the #2 NFC seed (Chicago) in week 14.

The Steelers did have a hard road to make the playoffs but so did the Giants. Both were the only wild card teams to win it so it was definitely tough for both. It’s hard to pick really. As a Steeler fan I really only thought they’d lose the Indy game. The rest I was confident that if they played a good game they’d win. I didn’t follow the Giants that well and picked against them each week so that plays a role in my ranking them ahead.

The Giants are the first NFC wild card team to win, but I thought I heard that 4 AFC wild card teams have won it. I don't recall who besides PIT, but I think OAK was one.

you're right. Mixed up the first 6th seed stat with the first wild cardThe Pittsburgh Steelers became the fourth wild card team, and third in nine years, to win the Super Bowl.

 

[tikitime]

Do you really want to call them the 3 best teams in the NFL?

Even after yesterday's game, there are four teams in the AFC that are better than any team in the NFC.

So the Giants, who just physically manhandled an 18-0 team, are a lesser team than the Jags and Chargers presumably (forgetting about the Colts and Pats)?

 

[Despyzer]

So the Giants, who just physically manhandled an 18-0 team, are a lesser team than the Jags and Chargers presumably (forgetting about the Colts and Pats)?

So you base all your decisions on a solitary, close game?

 

[Black]

So the Giants, who just physically manhandled an 18-0 team, are a lesser team than the Jags and Chargers presumably (forgetting about the Colts and Pats)?

So you base all your decisions on a solitary, close game?

That's how they play the games...one team wins, one loses. Hard to judge otherwise.

 

[Despyzer]

So the Giants, who just physically manhandled an 18-0 team, are a lesser team than the Jags and Chargers presumably (forgetting about the Colts and Pats)?

So you base all your decisions on a solitary, close game?

That's how they play the games...one team wins, one loses. Hard to judge otherwise.

Plural... not singular. By tikitime's reasoning, we could easily say that the Chiefs are better than the Giants as well, seeing the Giants lost to Minnesota who then lost to Kansas City. There's a pretty obvious reason that we don't do this.

 

[pillowpants]

Do you really want to call them the 3 best teams in the NFL?

Even after yesterday's game, there are four teams in the AFC that are better than any team in the NFC.

I'd rank them:1. Giants2. Patriots3. Cowboys4. Chargers5. Colts6. Jacksonville7. PackersThe record of the teams the Giants beat to win the SB was something like 54-17 (including playoffs). 4 of those losses came to the Giants in this playoff run. The Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were 42-6 in the regular season. I'd say that makes their run pretty impressive

 

[rick6668]

Do you really want to call them the 3 best teams in the NFL?

Even after yesterday's game, there are four teams in the AFC that are better than any team in the NFC.

I'd rank them:1. Giants

2. Patriots

3. Cowboys

4. Chargers

5. Colts

6. Jacksonville

7. Packers

The record of the teams the Giants beat to win the SB was something like 54-17 (including playoffs). 4 of those losses came to the Giants in this playoff run. The Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were 42-6 in the regular season. I'd say that makes their run pretty impressive

2 of those losses are because these teams played each other in the regular season. Even more impressive.

 

[Despyzer]

I'd rank them:1. Giants2. Patriots3. Cowboys4. Chargers5. Colts6. Jacksonville7. PackersThe record of the teams the Giants beat to win the SB was something like 54-17 (including playoffs). 4 of those losses came to the Giants in this playoff run. The Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were 42-6 in the regular season. I'd say that makes their run pretty impressive

So you feel that win/loss records are the most important factor to consider and then rank a 14-6 team above a 18-1 team on account of one very narrow victory?

 

[Despyzer]

Do you really want to call them the 3 best teams in the NFL?

Even after yesterday's game, there are four teams in the AFC that are better than any team in the NFC.

I'd rank them:1. Giants

2. Patriots

3. Cowboys

4. Chargers

5. Colts

6. Jacksonville

7. Packers

The record of the teams the Giants beat to win the SB was something like 54-17 (including playoffs). 4 of those losses came to the Giants in this playoff run. The Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were 42-6 in the regular season. I'd say that makes their run pretty impressive

2 of those losses are because these teams played each other in the regular season. Even more impressive.

And 4 of those regular season wins were the result of playing the Giants.

 

[gman8343]

I don't know if this has ever happend before, but:Jeff Garcia, Tony Romo, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady were all selected to go to the Pro Bowl. ... and the Giants beat them all on the road.

That is pretty cool.

 

[Despyzer]

I don't know if this has ever happend before, but:Jeff Garcia, Tony Romo, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady were all selected to go to the Pro Bowl. ... and the Giants beat them all on the road.

That is pretty cool.

I agree completely.I think what the Giants did was EXTREMELY impressive. Heck, heading into week 16 I was certain that the Giants weren't even going to make the playoffs because it didn't look like they could beat Buffalo or New England. To finish up the way they did and then to beat New England in the Super Bowl completely blew me away. Their playoff run deserves mention as one of the toughest in history. I think that Pittsburgh's from a couple years ago was a little tougher, but I won't argue with you too much if you disagree.

 

[David Yudkin]

Based only on regular season records, here were the winning percentages of opponents in teams' post-season runs. Not all teams played the same number of teams 9anywhere from 2 to 4). IMO, winning 4 games is probably more impressive (including 3 road games) than the percentages the teams added up to.

86 NYG 33-14-1 .698

68 NYJ 25-3 .893

05 NEP 40-8 .833

69 KCC 34-7-1 .821

67 GBP 33-7-2 .810

07 NYG 51-13 .797

05 PIT 51-13 .797

90 NYG 38-10 .792

66 GBP 21-5-2 .786

76 OAK 32-9-1 .774

01 NEP 37-11 .771

00 BAL 37-11 .771

97 DEN 37-11 .771

72 MIA 32-10 .762

98 DEN 36-12 .750

92 DAL 36-12 .750

73 MIA 31-10-1 .750

75 PIT 31-11 .738

73 PIT 31-11 .738

06 IND 47-17 .734

03 NEP 35-13 .729

96 GBP 35-13 .729

91 WAS 35-13 .729

88 SFO 35-13 .729

71 DAL 30-11-1 .726

77 DAL 30-12 .714

99 STL 24-14 .708

80 OAK 45-19 .703

86 NYG 33-14-1 .698

02 TBB 33-15 .688

84 SFO 33-15 .688

83 RAI 33-15 .688

81 SFO 33-15 .688

95 DAL 32-16 .667

94 SFO 32-16 .667

89 SFO 32-16 .667

85 CHI 32-16 .667

78 PIT 32-16 .667

93 DAL 31-17 .646

70 BAL 26-14-2 .643

79 PIT 30-18 .625

82 WAS 22-14 .611

87 WAS 26-18-1 .589

 

[Warpig]

The 1996 Jaguars ( ). I do believe they were the 6 seed and they had to go to Buffalo and win their still one of the toughest places to get a road win at the time with Jim Kelly, Reed, and Thomas as well as that defense they had. Then after they won there they had to go to Denver and pull off a huge win at Mile High with Elway. But they ended up losing to the Pats in the conference championship game.

Week Opp Tm Opp

WildCard W @ Buffalo Bills 30 27

Division W @ Denver Broncos 30 27

ConfChamp L @ New England Patriots 6 20

 

[Bri]

Based only on regular season records, here were the winning percentages of opponents in teams' post-season runs. Not all teams played the same number of teams 9anywhere from 2 to 4). IMO, winning 4 games is probably more impressive (including 3 road games) than the percentages the teams added up to.86 NYG 33-14-1 .69868 NYJ 25-3 .89305 NEP 40-8 .83369 KCC 34-7-1 .82167 GBP 33-7-2 .81007 NYG 51-13 .797 05 PIT 51-13 .79790 NYG 38-10 .79266 GBP 21-5-2 .78676 OAK 32-9-1 .77401 NEP 37-11 .77100 BAL 37-11 .77197 DEN 37-11 .77172 MIA 32-10 .76298 DEN 36-12 .75092 DAL 36-12 .75073 MIA 31-10-1 .75075 PIT 31-11 .73873 PIT 31-11 .73806 IND 47-17 .73403 NEP 35-13 .72996 GBP 35-13 .72991 WAS 35-13 .72988 SFO 35-13 .72971 DAL 30-11-1 .72677 DAL 30-12 .71499 STL 24-14 .70880 OAK 45-19 .70386 NYG 33-14-1 .69802 TBB 33-15 .68884 SFO 33-15 .68883 RAI 33-15 .68881 SFO 33-15 .68895 DAL 32-16 .66794 SFO 32-16 .66789 SFO 32-16 .66785 CHI 32-16 .66778 PIT 32-16 .66793 DAL 31-17 .64670 BAL 26-14-2 .64379 PIT 30-18 .62582 WAS 22-14 .61187 WAS 26-18-1 .589

I was gonna say NFC in the 80s. There's a bunch in there. Some all time great teams beating up on each other

 

[KoolKat]

According to most people, it comes down to Steelers V. NYG. Let's evaluate.

Bengals > Buccaneers

If the line was even, I would take that Bengal team every time. Granted they did not have the D of the Bucs, but their O was operating on all cylinders. The fact that Palmer went down in this game, could make the argument that the Bucs are the more difficult team to beat. They were both division champs, with homefield advantage. Even without Palmer, I'd take the Bengals but by less of a margin.

Colts > Cowboys

Everybody knew that the Colts were the team to beat that year. They flirted with an undefeated season for a while, and Manning was as dominate as he had ever been. The Cowboys were no slouches either. 13-3, with Romo being MVP almost any year but this one. However, I think it is obvious the Colts are the more difficult team to beat in this case. Both were Division Winners at home.

Broncos = Packers

Both of these teams were very solid, and had excellent home field advantages. I think it is too close to call this one. The fact that the Broncos had Jake Plummer and the Pack had Brett Favre could be a determining factor for some. Maybe I'm just a homer, and the Pack are clearly the better team?

Seahawks <<<< Patriots

I think this is the determining factor. Although the Steelers had the most difficult road to the Super Bowl, the Giants surpassed them by beating what would have been considered by most as the greatest team of all time had they won. I actually thought the Steelers should be the favorite (don't remember if they were?). Even people who thought the Giants would win could not logically have believed they should be favored. The difference in talent of the teams involved in the games leading up to the Super Bowl is not enough to offset the difference in talent level between the Seahawks and Pats in my opinion.

My conclusion is that although the Steelers had a more difficult road to the Super Bowl, the disparity between the Pats and Seahawks make the Giants run more remarkable.

 

[Despyzer]

According to most people, it comes down to Steelers V. NYG. Let's evaluate.

Bengals > Buccaneers

If the line was even, I would take that Bengal team every time. Granted they did not have the D of the Bucs, but their O was operating on all cylinders. The fact that Palmer went down in this game, could make the argument that the Bucs are the more difficult team to beat. They were both division champs, with homefield advantage. Even without Palmer, I'd take the Bengals but by less of a margin.

Colts > Cowboys

Everybody knew that the Colts were the team to beat that year. They flirted with an undefeated season for a while, and Manning was as dominate as he had ever been. The Cowboys were no slouches either. 13-3, with Romo being MVP almost any year but this one. However, I think it is obvious the Colts are the more difficult team to beat in this case. Both were Division Winners at home.

Broncos = Packers

Both of these teams were very solid, and had excellent home field advantages. I think it is too close to call this one. The fact that the Broncos had Jake Plummer and the Pack had Brett Favre could be a determining factor for some. Maybe I'm just a homer, and the Pack are clearly the better team?

Seahawks <<<< Patriots

I think this is the determining factor. Although the Steelers had the most difficult road to the Super Bowl, the Giants surpassed them by beating what would have been considered by most as the greatest team of all time had they won. I actually thought the Steelers should be the favorite (don't remember if they were?). Even people who thought the Giants would win could not logically have believed they should be favored. The difference in talent of the teams involved in the games leading up to the Super Bowl is not enough to offset the difference in talent level between the Seahawks and Pats in my opinion.

My conclusion is that although the Steelers had a more difficult road to the Super Bowl, the disparity between the Pats and Seahawks make the Giants run more remarkable.

I did something similar when we had this same thread a week ago:

Wild Card round - Adv. Steelers

Even though Carson got hurt in that game, he was still in for a quarter and a half. And Kitna had a lot of success running that offense in the past, so it's not like they were facing... I dunno... a hobbled Jeff Garcia.

Divisional round - Adv. Steelers

That Broncos team might have been good enough to go on and win the Super Bowl that year if they hadn't been caught off-guard by the Steelers. Remember, they had just clobbered the Patriots the previous week and the Chargers the week before that. They had the third highest scoring differential in the league that year, especially impressive when you consider that all but four of their games were against the vastly superior AFC. They were also second in takeaway/giveaway differential.

Conference round - Adv. Steelers

I think it would be very difficult to argue that this year's Packers were better than the Colts from two years ago. Come on, pretty much the exact same team actually did win the Super Bowl the next year.

Super Bowl - Adv. Giants

First off, we have to assume that the Giants will win this, which I find hard to believe. We also have no idea how they will beat them if they did. However they did it, I can't imagine anyone saying beating the Patriots was easier than beating the '05 Seahawks.

The question is whether or not the difference between the '07 Patriots and the '05 Hawks is greater than the difference between the '05 Bengals/Broncos/Colts and the '07 Bucs/Boys/Packers.

You could also ask yourself: In any given year in recent memory, would you rather play the NFC's #4, #1, and #2 and the AFC's #1 or the AFC's #3, 2, and 1 and the NFC's #1?

 

[Koya]

I havent looked up records and all, but my gut tells me that when you had teams dealing with the 70's dolphins and the 70's steelers, the 80's Giants, Bears, Niners... when you think about how before the cap era you had two or three DOMINANT teams often in the same conference - with a large gap between those top few and the rest of the league - I would think that a tougher run happened back in the day.

There seems to be a far more equal distribution of talent now, so your great teams arent that much better than the average team and you are lucky to even have a great team in a season. When teams could stockpile great talent you could have those 3 teams in a conference that would possibly be better than any team we have seen in the last decade.

 

[pillowpants]

I'd rank them:1. Giants2. Patriots3. Cowboys4. Chargers5. Colts6. Jacksonville7. PackersThe record of the teams the Giants beat to win the SB was something like 54-17 (including playoffs). 4 of those losses came to the Giants in this playoff run. The Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were 42-6 in the regular season. I'd say that makes their run pretty impressive

So you feel that win/loss records are the most important factor to consider and then rank a 14-6 team above a 18-1 team on account of one very narrow victory?

Um, yeah. They have the Lombardi trophy. That is awarded to the BEST team through elimination rounds and the Super Bowl itself. Are you still hurting that Eli has a ring before Rivers?

 

[Chaka]

I'd rank them:1. Giants2. Patriots3. Cowboys4. Chargers5. Colts6. Jacksonville7. PackersThe record of the teams the Giants beat to win the SB was something like 54-17 (including playoffs). 4 of those losses came to the Giants in this playoff run. The Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were 42-6 in the regular season. I'd say that makes their run pretty impressive

So you feel that win/loss records are the most important factor to consider and then rank a 14-6 team above a 18-1 team on account of one very narrow victory?

Um, yeah. They have the Lombardi trophy. That is awarded to the BEST team through elimination rounds and the Super Bowl itself. Are you still hurting that Eli has a ring before Rivers?

I am going to have to side with pillowpants on this one Despyzer, your method for determining that four AFC teams are better than the Giants is more arbitrary than the fact that the Giants beat the unquestioned best team in the AFC.

 

[ElectricShockey]

In 1997 The Arizona Wildcats beat 3 number one seeds to win the NCAA Basketball Championship.

THREE .... NUMBER ONE SEEDS!

 

[KoolKat]

I havent looked up records and all, but my gut tells me that when you had teams dealing with the 70's dolphins and the 70's steelers, the 80's Giants, Bears, Niners... when you think about how before the cap era you had two or three DOMINANT teams often in the same conference - with a large gap between those top few and the rest of the league - I would think that a tougher run happened back in the day.There seems to be a far more equal distribution of talent now, so your great teams arent that much better than the average team and you are lucky to even have a great team in a season. When teams could stockpile great talent you could have those 3 teams in a conference that would possibly be better than any team we have seen in the last decade.

But they had to win fewer games.

 

[Despyzer]

Are you still hurting that Eli has a ring before Rivers?

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Despyzer]

I am going to have to side with pillowpants on this one Despyzer, your method for determining that four AFC teams are better than the Giants is more arbitrary than the fact that the Giants beat the unquestioned best team in the AFC.

Go back to my earlier example. If you base all of your decisions on which is the better team on solitary head-to-head match matchups, don't you have to come to the conclusion that the Chiefs are better than the Giants seeing the Giants lost to Minnesota who then lost to Kansas City? The more rational viewpoint is making a decision based on as much information as we have, not narrowing our perspective to as little data (like a single game that was decided by one play) as possible.

 

[pecorino]

steelers homer here. i figured that no team could overcome more than the steelers in 2005, considering they needed to beat the 1,2,3 seeds in the AFC on the road and then the 1 seed from the NFC. however, the superbowl was practically a home game for the steelers (one aspect to make their run easier) and Seattle was a far cry from the 18-0 Pats of this year. i give the edge, and a clear one IMO, to the Giants.

 

[Chaka]

I am going to have to side with pillowpants on this one Despyzer, your method for determining that four AFC teams are better than the Giants is more arbitrary than the fact that the Giants beat the unquestioned best team in the AFC.

Go back to my earlier example. If you base all of your decisions on which is the better team on solitary head-to-head match matchups, don't you have to come to the conclusion that the Chiefs are better than the Giants seeing the Giants lost to Minnesota who then lost to Kansas City? The more rational viewpoint is making a decision based on as much information as we have, not narrowing our perspective to as little data (like a single game that was decided by one play) as possible.

No. And using that logic, which is flawed, you can also support the Giants because the Pats beat the Colts, Chargers, Steelers & Jags (I think those are the four teams you suggest are better than the Giants).What criteria are you using, that is empirically more valid, to determine that four AFC teams are better than the Giants? What larger data set of information is being applied to make your determination?

 

[Despyzer]

What larger data set of information is being applied to make your determination?

More than just a single game - a whole season and, to some extent, recent seasons. I'm not sure why this is so difficult.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

steelers homer here. i figured that no team could overcome more than the steelers in 2005, considering they needed to beat the 1,2,3 seeds in the AFC on the road and then the 1 seed from the NFC. however, the superbowl was practically a home game for the steelers (one aspect to make their run easier) and Seattle was a far cry from the 18-0 Pats of this year. i give the edge, and a clear one IMO, to the Giants.

I agree with this logic.The Steelers won the SB playing their "c+" game, which tells you something about their opponent. The Giants played their "A++" game and beat a team that would have beaten the 05 Seahawks by 30. I don't think that's an exaggeration.The Steelers run (W/C beating the top 3 AFC seeds and the NFC #1 Seed) will never be topped, kinda like going undefeated, but I think the Giants run was more impressive.BIG SHOUT OUT TO THE GIANTS and their FANS!HOLLA!You deserve a big

 

[Chaka]

What larger data set of information is being applied to make your determination?

More than just a single game - a whole season and, to some extent, recent seasons. I'm not sure why this is so difficult.

It is diffucult because it demonstrates nothing to support your claim.Basing it upon the entire season the Giants started slow, recovered, became dominant on the road, beat what were believed to be the two best teams in the NFC (as well as the Bucs) all on the road and the best team in the AFC on a neutral site.In many ways the Giants season mirrors the Chargers, except the Chargers couldn't win on the road in a hostile environment.Let me help you out with some numbers to support your case: The Steelers, Colts and Jags played the toughest schedules this season (opponent winning % .598, .594 & .559) the Giants were tied for 15th (.520). So that goes towards your suggestion that the other teams may be better than the Giants because they all won the same or more games against tougher competition.I could also use these numbers to demonstrate that the Pats were not, in fact, the best team in the NFL because they had the easiest schedule in the league by a wide margin (.387). The Chargers were 31st (.422).Are you prepared to make an argument that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC?(ETA: There is too much off season turnover to support using previous seasons to support an argument).

 

[Despyzer]

Are you prepared to make an argument that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC?

Maybe. Could you remind me what their overall record was?

 

[Chaka]

Are you prepared to make an argument that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC?

Maybe. Could you remind me what their overall record was?

18-1.

 

[Despyzer]

Are you prepared to make an argument that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC?

Maybe. Could you remind me what their overall record was?

18-1.

So the only loss they took was to a 14-6 team in a game that was decided by a single play. Is there another team out there with a better resume that I might be overlooking? Please don't point me to that 6-loss team because then we have to start looking at all the teams that beat them and all the teams that beat them and so on. We've already agreed that using that logic is flawed.

 

[Chaka]

Are you prepared to make an argument that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC?

Maybe. Could you remind me what their overall record was?

18-1.

So the only loss they took was to a 14-6 team in a game that was decided by a single play. Is there another team out there with a better resume that I might be overlooking? Please don't point me to that 6-loss team because then we have to start looking at all the teams that beat them and all the teams that beat them and so on. We've already agreed that using that logic is flawed.

Using your "Whole Season" theory we must also acknowledge that the Patriots faced vastly inferior competition. The easiest schedule in the league, by far.So clearly they cannot be the best team in the NFL.What a connundrum.

 

[David Yudkin]

Are you prepared to make an argument that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC?

Maybe. Could you remind me what their overall record was?

18-1.

So the only loss they took was to a 14-6 team in a game that was decided by a single play. Is there another team out there with a better resume that I might be overlooking? Please don't point me to that 6-loss team because then we have to start looking at all the teams that beat them and all the teams that beat them and so on. We've already agreed that using that logic is flawed.

But using your "Whole Season" theory we must also acknowledge that the Patriots faced vastly inferior competition. The easiest schedule in the league, by far.So clearly they cannot be the best team in the NFL.What a connundrum.

Sorry . . . I'm not buying this.Sure, the AFC East games were a joke, but the Pats also beat:- The SB Champs- The #2 seed in the AFC- The #3 seed in the AFC twice- The #4 seed in the AFC- The #5 seed in the AFC- The #1 seed in the NFC- The #6 seed in the NFC- A 10 win CLE teamLight years away from the easiest schedule in the league by far.

 

[Chaka]

Are you prepared to make an argument that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC?

Maybe. Could you remind me what their overall record was?

18-1.

So the only loss they took was to a 14-6 team in a game that was decided by a single play. Is there another team out there with a better resume that I might be overlooking? Please don't point me to that 6-loss team because then we have to start looking at all the teams that beat them and all the teams that beat them and so on. We've already agreed that using that logic is flawed.

But using your "Whole Season" theory we must also acknowledge that the Patriots faced vastly inferior competition. The easiest schedule in the league, by far.So clearly they cannot be the best team in the NFL.What a connundrum.

Sorry . . . I'm not buying this.Sure, the AFC East games were a joke, but the Pats also beat:- The SB Champs- The #2 seed in the AFC- The #3 seed in the AFC twice- The #4 seed in the AFC- The #5 seed in the AFC- The #1 seed in the NFC- The #6 seed in the NFC- A 10 win CLE teamLight years away from the easiest schedule in the league by far.

Agreed and I am not sincerely arguing that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC but I am trying to find some compelling argument that there are four teams in the AFC that are better than the Giants.

 

[Despyzer]

Agreed and I am not sincerely arguing that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC but I am trying to find some compelling argument that there are four teams in the AFC that are better than the Giants.

Look at win/loss records, look at their competition, look at the way they won and/or loss. For me, I'll take the Patriots, Colts, Chargers, and Jags along with a couple NFC teams over the Giants. I applaud the Giants for one heck of a run. They got hot at the right time, and that's what counts. But I am not willing to evaluate how good or bad a team is based on only one game. If I'm alone in that reasoning, I'm okay with that.

 

[Chaka]

Agreed and I am not sincerely arguing that the Pats were not the best team in the AFC but I am trying to find some compelling argument that there are four teams in the AFC that are better than the Giants.

Look at win/loss records, look at their competition, look at the way they won and/or loss. For me, I'll take the Patriots, Colts, Chargers, and Jags along with a couple NFC teams over the Giants. I applaud the Giants for one heck of a run. They got hot at the right time, and that's what counts. But I am not willing to evaluate how good or bad a team is based on only one game. If I'm alone in that reasoning, I'm okay with that.

To an extent I agree with you but I am not willing to discount the possibility that the Giants we saw on Sunday are the real Giants and it simply took them this long to find that identity. They were breaking in a new defensive coordinator and lost their most explosive offensive weapon, it might take some time to adjus to that.And it wasn't only one game it was four consecutive well played games (on top of their 10 regular season victories), against top caliber opposition, in hostile environments.

 

[Despyzer]

To an extent I agree with you but I am not willing to discount the possibility that the Giants we saw on Sunday are the real Giants and it simply took them this long to find that identity. They were breaking in a new defensive coordinator and lost their most explosive offensive weapon, it might take some time to adjus to that.And it wasn't only one game it was four consecutive well played games (on top of their 10 regular season victories), against top caliber opposition, in hostile environments.

Fair enough. You could be right.

 

[Koya]

I can say this - the KEY to the Giants next year might (once again) be Plaxico. Guy has to stay healthy. If he does, they will be tough to stop. If Plax gets hurt again, could be a long season