What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

If Giants beat Patriots in SB XLII.... (1 Viewer)

SeniorVBDStudent

Footballguy
I also agree the Patriots beating the Rams was a bigger upset than this would be.
Is it only because we know how unbeliveably talented the Patriots are this time? I think that Rams/Patriots SB was just a case of us not truly knowing how incredibly talented Brady and Coach B were (and conversely how intensely overrated Mike Martz and Kurt Warner were).Are there any thoughts that Eli Manning will reach Tom Brady status within the next 10 years?

I'm just saying that the appearent talent disparity between the Rams and the Patriots that year was an illusion. Tom Brady really was better than Kurt Warner. No such scenario exists for this game, which is why I would make it number one on the all-time upset list.
It is because the Rams were a much better team than the Patriots were, and would have beat them probably 8 times in 10. That Patriots team was one of the weakest Super Bowl champs of all time. This Patriots team is on pace for a perfect season, but that doesn't mean they are playing at the level they were. They peaked in the middle of the year and since October they haven't been the dominant team they were early on. First 8 games, record setting. Last 8 games.... 4 wins by 3 or 4 points, including 2 against mediocre teams. Only 1 dominating performance against a good team. Playoffs not any different. Good playoff wins, but far from exceptional. They haven't come close to dominating their playoff opponents, and certainly not close to what the other teams commonly mentioned in the greatest teams of all time discussions did, who all peaked for the playoffs and destroyed every team they faced in them.The Patriots right now are not playing like the team that got everyone to start talking about them as a potential greatest of all time. They are playing like the team that only beat this same Giants team by 3 at home. The Giants are peaking now and the Patriots have regressed from where they were back in October. Or if not regressed, they have let other teams narrow the gap. Are the Pats the better team? Sure they are. Even if the Giants win the Super Bowl, the Pats are the better team, it would just mean they lost, just like the Rams were the better team than the Pats even though they lost.

But the Pats aren't nearly as far ahead of the Giants as people like to think who are treating the Pats like they are still playing at the level they did in the first half of the season. Because they haven't played that way in 2.5 months, most weeks since they've just played well enough to get by with a win.
Chargers TDs: ZEROChargers second half points: 3

Jaguars second half points: 6

Brady's completion percentage vs Jags: highest in any NFL game ever played.

In the ultimate of ironies, the team that was villified for running up the score during the regular season is now belittled for failing to do so in the post season.

You comments about the Giants peaking and Pats regressing seem to imply you're ready to put some money down on the Giants; correct?

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I also agree the Patriots beating the Rams was a bigger upset than this would be.
Is it only because we know how unbeliveably talented the Patriots are this time? I think that Rams/Patriots SB was just a case of us not truly knowing how incredibly talented Brady and Coach B were (and conversely how intensely overrated Mike Martz and Kurt Warner were).Are there any thoughts that Eli Manning will reach Tom Brady status within the next 10 years?

I'm just saying that the appearent talent disparity between the Rams and the Patriots that year was an illusion. Tom Brady really was better than Kurt Warner. No such scenario exists for this game, which is why I would make it number one on the all-time upset list.
It is because the Rams were a much better team than the Patriots were, and would have beat them probably 8 times in 10. That Patriots team was one of the weakest Super Bowl champs of all time. This Patriots team is on pace for a perfect season, but that doesn't mean they are playing at the level they were. They peaked in the middle of the year and since October they haven't been the dominant team they were early on. First 8 games, record setting. Last 8 games.... 4 wins by 3 or 4 points, including 2 against mediocre teams. Only 1 dominating performance against a good team. Playoffs not any different. Good playoff wins, but far from exceptional. They haven't come close to dominating their playoff opponents, and certainly not close to what the other teams commonly mentioned in the greatest teams of all time discussions did, who all peaked for the playoffs and destroyed every team they faced in them.

The Patriots right now are not playing like the team that got everyone to start talking about them as a potential greatest of all time. They are playing like the team that only beat this same Giants team by 3 at home. The Giants are peaking now and the Patriots have regressed from where they were back in October. Or if not regressed, they have let other teams narrow the gap. Are the Pats the better team? Sure they are. Even if the Giants win the Super Bowl, the Pats are the better team, it would just mean they lost, just like the Rams were the better team than the Pats even though they lost.

But the Pats aren't nearly as far ahead of the Giants as people like to think who are treating the Pats like they are still playing at the level they did in the first half of the season. Because they haven't played that way in 2.5 months, most weeks since they've just played well enough to get by with a win.
The Patriots went from absolutely dominating teams in the first half to soundly beating them in the second. I love how all of the sudden the Pats are painted as having barely escaped with their playoff hopes intact in the 2nd half of the season :X 2007 Patriots

Before the Bye Week

Record: 9-0
PPG: 39.4
PPG Allowed: 16.3
Differential: 23.1After the Bye Week

Record: 7-0
PPG: 33.4
PPG Allowed: 18.1
Differential: 15.3Even excluding their dominating FIRST HALF of the season, the Patiors "ONLY" won their games by an average of 15.3 points per game. Yep...winning by the skin of their teeth. For those revisionists, their 2nd half margin of victory (15.3 PPG) would be among at or near the top of league history.

And if you include their "skin tight" playoff games, the numbers look like this...

After the bye (including playoffs)

Record: 9-0
PPG: 31.8
PPG Allowed: 17.7
Differential: 14.1 :unsure: ...yep, the Giants and Patriots have been virtually the same team since October :lmao:

 

rick6668

Footballguy
You people are insane. This Giants team has absolutely no chance against this Patriots team. None. A Matt Cassell led Patriots squad would beat this Giants team.
Man, if I was that sure, I'd put my entire net worth on the ML on the Pats. You can't lose.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
Wow...after looking at SB history and the average PPG differential between the opponents, this not only would be the most surprising upset in Super Bowl history, it wouldn't even be close.

The Giants won by an average of 1.4 points per game this season, while the Patriots set an NFL record by winning their games by 19.7 points per game. Historically, PPG differential has been a very telling predictor of SB outcome (makes sense if you think about it intuitively...the better teams win by larger margins). To put a finer point on it, in the 41 Super Bowls, only 14 teams have won against teams with larger margins of victory in the regular season.

Of those teams, only three had a TD+ (7 PPG) differential disadvantage:

*** 1967 SBII Packers over the Raiders -- The Packers won, on average, by 8.8 PPG while the Raiders dominated their league, winning by a whopping 16.8 PPG. That -8.0 PPG differential is the 3rd largest in SB history

*** 2001 SBXXXVI Patriots over the Rams -- This is one of two games most people consider the "biggest upset" in SB history. The Rams were rolling to a dominant season (the Greatest Show on Turf) and outscored their opponents by a league best 14.3 PPG. The Patriots only outscored their opponents by 6.2 PPG that year; which played a large part in their being 14.5 point underdogs on the opening line. When the Pats defeated the Rams, it gave them the 2nd largest PPG differential in SB history, at -8.1.

*** 1968 SBIII Jets over Colts -- This is other of two games that most people have thrown out as "biggest upset" in SB history. Indeed it was a shocking event at the time, and largely changed the way the AFL was viewed (leading to the merger). Now, the Jets were a GOOD team. They won their games that season by an average of 9.9 points per game (quite impressive). However, they were up against a Colts team that won its games by 18.4 PPG; absolutely dominating [it was a league best until the Patriots overtook them in 2007]. The Jets victory led to THE largest PPG differential in SB history at -8.5.

So how does this compare to this Super Bowl? Well, if the Giants beat the Patriots, it will give them a PPG differential of (-18.3); MORE THAN DOUBLE ANY OUTCOME IN SUPER BOWL HISTORY.

I don't expect Giants fans of Pats haters to stop talking about what COULD happen; and certainly anything is possible. Let's remember that a few of the truly lopsided SB matchups in history came down to the wire. The Rams were enormous favorites based on PPG in 1999 against the Titans yet obviously almost lost at the very end of the game. That said, if the Giants somehow pull this off, it WILL be the biggest upset in SB history and something that even Giants haters (myself included) will have to give them crazy props for.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
Wow...after looking at SB history and the average PPG differential between the opponents, this not only would be the most surprising upset in Super Bowl history, it wouldn't even be close.

The Giants won by an average of 1.4 points per game this season, while the Patriots set an NFL record by winning their games by 19.7 points per game. Historically, PPG differential has been a very telling predictor of SB outcome (makes sense if you think about it intuitively...the better teams win by larger margins). To put a finer point on it, in the 41 Super Bowls, only 14 teams have won against teams with larger margins of victory in the regular season.

Of those teams, only three had a TD+ (7 PPG) differential disadvantage:

*** 1967 SBII Packers over the Raiders -- The Packers won, on average, by 8.8 PPG while the Raiders dominated their league, winning by a whopping 16.8 PPG. That -8.0 PPG differential is the 3rd largest in SB history

*** 2001 SBXXXVI Patriots over the Rams -- This is one of two games most people consider the "biggest upset" in SB history. The Rams were rolling to a dominant season (the Greatest Show on Turf) and outscored their opponents by a league best 14.3 PPG. The Patriots only outscored their opponents by 6.2 PPG that year; which played a large part in their being 14.5 point underdogs on the opening line. When the Pats defeated the Rams, it gave them the 2nd largest PPG differential in SB history, at -8.1.

*** 1968 SBIII Jets over Colts -- This is other of two games that most people have thrown out as "biggest upset" in SB history. Indeed it was a shocking event at the time, and largely changed the way the AFL was viewed (leading to the merger). Now, the Jets were a GOOD team. They won their games that season by an average of 9.9 points per game (quite impressive). However, they were up against a Colts team that won its games by 18.4 PPG; absolutely dominating [it was a league best until the Patriots overtook them in 2007]. The Jets victory led to THE largest PPG differential in SB history at -8.5.

So how does this compare to this Super Bowl? Well, if the Giants beat the Patriots, it will give them a PPG differential of (-18.3); MORE THAN DOUBLE ANY OUTCOME IN SUPER BOWL HISTORY.

I don't expect Giants fans of Pats haters to stop talking about what COULD happen; and certainly anything is possible. Let's remember that a few of the truly lopsided SB matchups in history came down to the wire. The Rams were enormous favorites based on PPG in 1999 against the Titans yet obviously almost lost at the very end of the game. That said, if the Giants somehow pull this off, it WILL be the biggest upset in SB history and something that even Giants haters (myself included) will have to give them crazy props for.
Your theory is fine until it tries to include SB III. You can't do it. The two teams played in two different leagues. The perception was that the NFL had a higher quality of players, coaches, schemes, everything. That's why it will always be the greatest upset in SB history. It cannot be duplicated now. If the Giants win in two weeks, it will be the greatest upset SINCE the merger, but not before it.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
Wow...after looking at SB history and the average PPG differential between the opponents, this not only would be the most surprising upset in Super Bowl history, it wouldn't even be close.

The Giants won by an average of 1.4 points per game this season, while the Patriots set an NFL record by winning their games by 19.7 points per game. Historically, PPG differential has been a very telling predictor of SB outcome (makes sense if you think about it intuitively...the better teams win by larger margins). To put a finer point on it, in the 41 Super Bowls, only 14 teams have won against teams with larger margins of victory in the regular season.

Of those teams, only three had a TD+ (7 PPG) differential disadvantage:

*** 1967 SBII Packers over the Raiders -- The Packers won, on average, by 8.8 PPG while the Raiders dominated their league, winning by a whopping 16.8 PPG. That -8.0 PPG differential is the 3rd largest in SB history

*** 2001 SBXXXVI Patriots over the Rams -- This is one of two games most people consider the "biggest upset" in SB history. The Rams were rolling to a dominant season (the Greatest Show on Turf) and outscored their opponents by a league best 14.3 PPG. The Patriots only outscored their opponents by 6.2 PPG that year; which played a large part in their being 14.5 point underdogs on the opening line. When the Pats defeated the Rams, it gave them the 2nd largest PPG differential in SB history, at -8.1.

*** 1968 SBIII Jets over Colts -- This is other of two games that most people have thrown out as "biggest upset" in SB history. Indeed it was a shocking event at the time, and largely changed the way the AFL was viewed (leading to the merger). Now, the Jets were a GOOD team. They won their games that season by an average of 9.9 points per game (quite impressive). However, they were up against a Colts team that won its games by 18.4 PPG; absolutely dominating [it was a league best until the Patriots overtook them in 2007]. The Jets victory led to THE largest PPG differential in SB history at -8.5.

So how does this compare to this Super Bowl? Well, if the Giants beat the Patriots, it will give them a PPG differential of (-18.3); MORE THAN DOUBLE ANY OUTCOME IN SUPER BOWL HISTORY.

I don't expect Giants fans of Pats haters to stop talking about what COULD happen; and certainly anything is possible. Let's remember that a few of the truly lopsided SB matchups in history came down to the wire. The Rams were enormous favorites based on PPG in 1999 against the Titans yet obviously almost lost at the very end of the game. That said, if the Giants somehow pull this off, it WILL be the biggest upset in SB history and something that even Giants haters (myself included) will have to give them crazy props for.
Your theory is fine until it tries to include SB III. You can't do it. The two teams played in two different leagues. The perception was that the NFL had a higher quality of players, coaches, schemes, everything. That's why it will always be the greatest upset in SB history. It cannot be duplicated now. If the Giants win in two weeks, it will be the greatest upset SINCE the merger, but not before it.
I'm fine with making that argument, and also fine calling this the biggest upset since the merger.
 

Bossman

Footballguy
It would be one of the biggest upsets in SB history...

right behind the Pats victory over "The Greatest Show On Turf" Rams.

 

Keepers

Footballguy
While it would be a big upset and may be one of the biggest in the last 10 years, have to wonder how old the people are who feel a Giants win would be bigger than the Jets, the Miracle on Ice, Buster Douglas, etc. Just because it didn't happen recently doesn't down play how huge those upsets were.

 

kentric

Footballguy
Wow...after looking at SB history and the average PPG differential between the opponents, this not only would be the most surprising upset in Super Bowl history, it wouldn't even be close.

The Giants won by an average of 1.4 points per game this season, while the Patriots set an NFL record by winning their games by 19.7 points per game. Historically, PPG differential has been a very telling predictor of SB outcome (makes sense if you think about it intuitively...the better teams win by larger margins). To put a finer point on it, in the 41 Super Bowls, only 14 teams have won against teams with larger margins of victory in the regular season.

Of those teams, only three had a TD+ (7 PPG) differential disadvantage:

*** 1967 SBII Packers over the Raiders -- The Packers won, on average, by 8.8 PPG while the Raiders dominated their league, winning by a whopping 16.8 PPG. That -8.0 PPG differential is the 3rd largest in SB history

*** 2001 SBXXXVI Patriots over the Rams -- This is one of two games most people consider the "biggest upset" in SB history. The Rams were rolling to a dominant season (the Greatest Show on Turf) and outscored their opponents by a league best 14.3 PPG. The Patriots only outscored their opponents by 6.2 PPG that year; which played a large part in their being 14.5 point underdogs on the opening line. When the Pats defeated the Rams, it gave them the 2nd largest PPG differential in SB history, at -8.1.

*** 1968 SBIII Jets over Colts -- This is other of two games that most people have thrown out as "biggest upset" in SB history. Indeed it was a shocking event at the time, and largely changed the way the AFL was viewed (leading to the merger). Now, the Jets were a GOOD team. They won their games that season by an average of 9.9 points per game (quite impressive). However, they were up against a Colts team that won its games by 18.4 PPG; absolutely dominating [it was a league best until the Patriots overtook them in 2007]. The Jets victory led to THE largest PPG differential in SB history at -8.5.

So how does this compare to this Super Bowl? Well, if the Giants beat the Patriots, it will give them a PPG differential of (-18.3); MORE THAN DOUBLE ANY OUTCOME IN SUPER BOWL HISTORY.

I don't expect Giants fans of Pats haters to stop talking about what COULD happen; and certainly anything is possible. Let's remember that a few of the truly lopsided SB matchups in history came down to the wire. The Rams were enormous favorites based on PPG in 1999 against the Titans yet obviously almost lost at the very end of the game. That said, if the Giants somehow pull this off, it WILL be the biggest upset in SB history and something that even Giants haters (myself included) will have to give them crazy props for.
You also need to take into account the way the Giants played NE week 17 and the Giants' performance in the playoffs. Not only that, as some others have pointed out, the NFC was considered dominant during the time and no one considered the Jets having any chance. This will be a huge upset, but by no means the biggest upset in NFL history.
 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
Wow...after looking at SB history and the average PPG differential between the opponents, this not only would be the most surprising upset in Super Bowl history, it wouldn't even be close.

The Giants won by an average of 1.4 points per game this season, while the Patriots set an NFL record by winning their games by 19.7 points per game. Historically, PPG differential has been a very telling predictor of SB outcome (makes sense if you think about it intuitively...the better teams win by larger margins). To put a finer point on it, in the 41 Super Bowls, only 14 teams have won against teams with larger margins of victory in the regular season.

Of those teams, only three had a TD+ (7 PPG) differential disadvantage:

*** 1967 SBII Packers over the Raiders -- The Packers won, on average, by 8.8 PPG while the Raiders dominated their league, winning by a whopping 16.8 PPG. That -8.0 PPG differential is the 3rd largest in SB history

*** 2001 SBXXXVI Patriots over the Rams -- This is one of two games most people consider the "biggest upset" in SB history. The Rams were rolling to a dominant season (the Greatest Show on Turf) and outscored their opponents by a league best 14.3 PPG. The Patriots only outscored their opponents by 6.2 PPG that year; which played a large part in their being 14.5 point underdogs on the opening line. When the Pats defeated the Rams, it gave them the 2nd largest PPG differential in SB history, at -8.1.

*** 1968 SBIII Jets over Colts -- This is other of two games that most people have thrown out as "biggest upset" in SB history. Indeed it was a shocking event at the time, and largely changed the way the AFL was viewed (leading to the merger). Now, the Jets were a GOOD team. They won their games that season by an average of 9.9 points per game (quite impressive). However, they were up against a Colts team that won its games by 18.4 PPG; absolutely dominating [it was a league best until the Patriots overtook them in 2007]. The Jets victory led to THE largest PPG differential in SB history at -8.5.

So how does this compare to this Super Bowl? Well, if the Giants beat the Patriots, it will give them a PPG differential of (-18.3); MORE THAN DOUBLE ANY OUTCOME IN SUPER BOWL HISTORY.

I don't expect Giants fans of Pats haters to stop talking about what COULD happen; and certainly anything is possible. Let's remember that a few of the truly lopsided SB matchups in history came down to the wire. The Rams were enormous favorites based on PPG in 1999 against the Titans yet obviously almost lost at the very end of the game. That said, if the Giants somehow pull this off, it WILL be the biggest upset in SB history and something that even Giants haters (myself included) will have to give them crazy props for.
You also need to take into account the way the Giants played NE week 17 and the Giants' performance in the playoffs. Not only that, as some others have pointed out, the NFC was considered dominant during the time and no one considered the Jets having any chance. This will be a huge upset, but by no means the biggest upset in NFL history.
It would be, at worst, the 3rd biggest upset in Super Bowl history...and to my mind 2nd.
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I also agree the Patriots beating the Rams was a bigger upset than this would be.
Is it only because we know how unbeliveably talented the Patriots are this time? I think that Rams/Patriots SB was just a case of us not truly knowing how incredibly talented Brady and Coach B were (and conversely how intensely overrated Mike Martz and Kurt Warner were).Are there any thoughts that Eli Manning will reach Tom Brady status within the next 10 years?

I'm just saying that the appearent talent disparity between the Rams and the Patriots that year was an illusion. Tom Brady really was better than Kurt Warner. No such scenario exists for this game, which is why I would make it number one on the all-time upset list.
It is because the Rams were a much better team than the Patriots were, and would have beat them probably 8 times in 10. That Patriots team was one of the weakest Super Bowl champs of all time. This Patriots team is on pace for a perfect season, but that doesn't mean they are playing at the level they were. They peaked in the middle of the year and since October they haven't been the dominant team they were early on. First 8 games, record setting. Last 8 games.... 4 wins by 3 or 4 points, including 2 against mediocre teams. Only 1 dominating performance against a good team. Playoffs not any different. Good playoff wins, but far from exceptional. They haven't come close to dominating their playoff opponents, and certainly not close to what the other teams commonly mentioned in the greatest teams of all time discussions did, who all peaked for the playoffs and destroyed every team they faced in them.

The Patriots right now are not playing like the team that got everyone to start talking about them as a potential greatest of all time. They are playing like the team that only beat this same Giants team by 3 at home. The Giants are peaking now and the Patriots have regressed from where they were back in October. Or if not regressed, they have let other teams narrow the gap. Are the Pats the better team? Sure they are. Even if the Giants win the Super Bowl, the Pats are the better team, it would just mean they lost, just like the Rams were the better team than the Pats even though they lost.

But the Pats aren't nearly as far ahead of the Giants as people like to think who are treating the Pats like they are still playing at the level they did in the first half of the season. Because they haven't played that way in 2.5 months, most weeks since they've just played well enough to get by with a win.
The Patriots went from absolutely dominating teams in the first half to soundly beating them in the second. I love how all of the sudden the Pats are painted as having barely escaped with their playoff hopes intact in the 2nd half of the season :lmao: 2007 Patriots

Before the Bye Week

Record: 9-0
PPG: 39.4
PPG Allowed: 16.3
Differential: 23.1After the Bye Week

Record: 7-0
PPG: 33.4
PPG Allowed: 18.1
Differential: 15.3Even excluding their dominating FIRST HALF of the season, the Patiors "ONLY" won their games by an average of 15.3 points per game. Yep...winning by the skin of their teeth. For those revisionists, their 2nd half margin of victory (15.3 PPG) would be among at or near the top of league history.

And if you include their "skin tight" playoff games, the numbers look like this...

After the bye (including playoffs)

Record: 9-0
PPG: 31.8
PPG Allowed: 17.7
Differential: 14.1 :lmao: ...yep, the Giants and Patriots have been virtually the same team since October :lmao:
:lmao: Since you seem so comfortable at putting words into my mouth that not only I never said, but that outright contradict what I did say about the Patriots, please feel free to continue on and just write my reply to you. It doesn't seem that my getting to choose my own words really matters in this conversation.

When you do, please ask yourself to repost your stats for the first 8 games and the 2nd 8 games as discussed (and ignored by you) in my post and not the games "before the bye week" and the "games after the bye week" since the bye week isn't the delineator of what was being discussed, and note how their margin of victory has fallen nearly in half since then.

 

Koya

Footballguy
You people are insane. This Giants team has absolutely no chance against this Patriots team. None. A Matt Cassell led Patriots squad would beat this Giants team.
Look, the Giants nearly beat them a month ago and let them off the hook. Lay off the hyperbole.
:lmao: The Patriots won 38-35 in their first meeting, and were trailing in the 4th quarter. These teams are kinda evenly matched.
:lmao: Just because the Giants almost caught lightning in a bottle in a game with no pressure on them doesnt mean the teams are evenly matched - nor is it close.

I stand behind the clarity that this would be the 2nd biggest NFL upset. You are talking about an undefeated season for the Pats... that trumps anything the Rams had back then. Only Joe Namath's guarantee over Baltimore would trump this accomplishment by the Giants. Again, not that it will happen.

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
I also agree the Patriots beating the Rams was a bigger upset than this would be.
Is it only because we know how unbeliveably talented the Patriots are this time? I think that Rams/Patriots SB was just a case of us not truly knowing how incredibly talented Brady and Coach B were (and conversely how intensely overrated Mike Martz and Kurt Warner were).Are there any thoughts that Eli Manning will reach Tom Brady status within the next 10 years?

I'm just saying that the appearent talent disparity between the Rams and the Patriots that year was an illusion. Tom Brady really was better than Kurt Warner. No such scenario exists for this game, which is why I would make it number one on the all-time upset list.
It is because the Rams were a much better team than the Patriots were, and would have beat them probably 8 times in 10. That Patriots team was one of the weakest Super Bowl champs of all time. This Patriots team is on pace for a perfect season, but that doesn't mean they are playing at the level they were. They peaked in the middle of the year and since October they haven't been the dominant team they were early on. First 8 games, record setting. Last 8 games.... 4 wins by 3 or 4 points, including 2 against mediocre teams. Only 1 dominating performance against a good team. Playoffs not any different. Good playoff wins, but far from exceptional. They haven't come close to dominating their playoff opponents, and certainly not close to what the other teams commonly mentioned in the greatest teams of all time discussions did, who all peaked for the playoffs and destroyed every team they faced in them.

The Patriots right now are not playing like the team that got everyone to start talking about them as a potential greatest of all time. They are playing like the team that only beat this same Giants team by 3 at home. The Giants are peaking now and the Patriots have regressed from where they were back in October. Or if not regressed, they have let other teams narrow the gap. Are the Pats the better team? Sure they are. Even if the Giants win the Super Bowl, the Pats are the better team, it would just mean they lost, just like the Rams were the better team than the Pats even though they lost.

But the Pats aren't nearly as far ahead of the Giants as people like to think who are treating the Pats like they are still playing at the level they did in the first half of the season. Because they haven't played that way in 2.5 months, most weeks since they've just played well enough to get by with a win.
The Patriots went from absolutely dominating teams in the first half to soundly beating them in the second. I love how all of the sudden the Pats are painted as having barely escaped with their playoff hopes intact in the 2nd half of the season :lmao: 2007 Patriots

Before the Bye Week

Record: 9-0
PPG: 39.4
PPG Allowed: 16.3
Differential: 23.1After the Bye Week

Record: 7-0
PPG: 33.4
PPG Allowed: 18.1
Differential: 15.3Even excluding their dominating FIRST HALF of the season, the Patiors "ONLY" won their games by an average of 15.3 points per game. Yep...winning by the skin of their teeth. For those revisionists, their 2nd half margin of victory (15.3 PPG) would be among at or near the top of league history.

And if you include their "skin tight" playoff games, the numbers look like this...

After the bye (including playoffs)

Record: 9-0
PPG: 31.8
PPG Allowed: 17.7
Differential: 14.1 :lmao: ...yep, the Giants and Patriots have been virtually the same team since October :lmao:
:confused: Since you seem so comfortable at putting words into my mouth that not only I never said, but that outright contradict what I did say about the Patriots, please feel free to continue on and just write my reply to you. It doesn't seem that my getting to choose my own words really matters in this conversation.

When you do, please ask yourself to repost your stats for the first 8 games and the 2nd 8 games as discussed (and ignored by you) in my post and not the games "before the bye week" and the "games after the bye week" since the bye week isn't the delineator of what was being discussed, and note how their margin of victory has fallen nearly in half since then.
GregR, wasn't quoting you...but others in this and other threads. Sorry for the confusion.
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I also agree the Patriots beating the Rams was a bigger upset than this would be.
Is it only because we know how unbeliveably talented the Patriots are this time? I think that Rams/Patriots SB was just a case of us not truly knowing how incredibly talented Brady and Coach B were (and conversely how intensely overrated Mike Martz and Kurt Warner were).Are there any thoughts that Eli Manning will reach Tom Brady status within the next 10 years?

I'm just saying that the appearent talent disparity between the Rams and the Patriots that year was an illusion. Tom Brady really was better than Kurt Warner. No such scenario exists for this game, which is why I would make it number one on the all-time upset list.
It is because the Rams were a much better team than the Patriots were, and would have beat them probably 8 times in 10. That Patriots team was one of the weakest Super Bowl champs of all time. This Patriots team is on pace for a perfect season, but that doesn't mean they are playing at the level they were. They peaked in the middle of the year and since October they haven't been the dominant team they were early on. First 8 games, record setting. Last 8 games.... 4 wins by 3 or 4 points, including 2 against mediocre teams. Only 1 dominating performance against a good team. Playoffs not any different. Good playoff wins, but far from exceptional. They haven't come close to dominating their playoff opponents, and certainly not close to what the other teams commonly mentioned in the greatest teams of all time discussions did, who all peaked for the playoffs and destroyed every team they faced in them.The Patriots right now are not playing like the team that got everyone to start talking about them as a potential greatest of all time. They are playing like the team that only beat this same Giants team by 3 at home. The Giants are peaking now and the Patriots have regressed from where they were back in October. Or if not regressed, they have let other teams narrow the gap. Are the Pats the better team? Sure they are. Even if the Giants win the Super Bowl, the Pats are the better team, it would just mean they lost, just like the Rams were the better team than the Pats even though they lost.

But the Pats aren't nearly as far ahead of the Giants as people like to think who are treating the Pats like they are still playing at the level they did in the first half of the season. Because they haven't played that way in 2.5 months, most weeks since they've just played well enough to get by with a win.
Chargers TDs: ZEROChargers second half points: 3

Jaguars second half points: 6

Brady's completion percentage vs Jags: highest in any NFL game ever played.

In the ultimate of ironies, the team that was villified for running up the score during the regular season is now belittled for failing to do so in the post season.
Yes, you're right. Saying they had good playoff wins and that the Patriots are the better team, and are the better team even if they lose the Super Bowl, is belittling them.Do you see where this annoyance with Patriot fan entitlement comes in, where someone can't even point out that they aren't playing as well as they were in the first half of the season, while still referring to their wins as good wins, without a Pats fan stepping up and calling it belittling?

And yes, they were villified for running up the score and they should have been. The difference is exactly what I'm talking about. The Patriots were consistently opening up leads, even on playoff caliber teams, where scoring more with their first string offense and going for it on 4th down was running up the score because it had no realistic chance of affecting the outcome of the game.

They went from consistently being at a point they could run up the score, to seldom reaching that point where another score would be considered running it up.

You comments about the Giants peaking and Pats regressing seem to imply you're ready to put some money down on the Giants; correct?
When you read "Are the Pats the better team? Sure they are. Even if the Giants win the Super Bowl, the Pats are the better team, it would just mean they lost, just like the Rams were the better team than the Pats even though they lost.", the interpretation that you think you should be working with is that I'm ready to put money down on the Giants?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jason Wood

Zoo York
Looking at this yet another way...

The Packers (9-4-1) in Super Bowl II beat the Raiders (13-1), and that stands to this day as the biggest differential in W/L record (3.5 games). For those who don't want to count the pre-merger era, once again we turn our attention to the Patriots/Rams. The Pats (11-5) over the Rams (14-2) is the only other time a team won the Super Bowl against an opponent 3 game better than they were in the regular season.

For those who might have forgotten, the Pats were six games better in the standings than the Giants.

Again, much like the point differential comparison, this would be not only the biggest upset in the post merger era, but 2x the previous historical precedent.

 

GregR_2

Footballguy
I also agree the Patriots beating the Rams was a bigger upset than this would be.
Is it only because we know how unbeliveably talented the Patriots are this time? I think that Rams/Patriots SB was just a case of us not truly knowing how incredibly talented Brady and Coach B were (and conversely how intensely overrated Mike Martz and Kurt Warner were).Are there any thoughts that Eli Manning will reach Tom Brady status within the next 10 years?

I'm just saying that the appearent talent disparity between the Rams and the Patriots that year was an illusion. Tom Brady really was better than Kurt Warner. No such scenario exists for this game, which is why I would make it number one on the all-time upset list.
It is because the Rams were a much better team than the Patriots were, and would have beat them probably 8 times in 10. That Patriots team was one of the weakest Super Bowl champs of all time. This Patriots team is on pace for a perfect season, but that doesn't mean they are playing at the level they were. They peaked in the middle of the year and since October they haven't been the dominant team they were early on. First 8 games, record setting. Last 8 games.... 4 wins by 3 or 4 points, including 2 against mediocre teams. Only 1 dominating performance against a good team. Playoffs not any different. Good playoff wins, but far from exceptional. They haven't come close to dominating their playoff opponents, and certainly not close to what the other teams commonly mentioned in the greatest teams of all time discussions did, who all peaked for the playoffs and destroyed every team they faced in them.

The Patriots right now are not playing like the team that got everyone to start talking about them as a potential greatest of all time. They are playing like the team that only beat this same Giants team by 3 at home. The Giants are peaking now and the Patriots have regressed from where they were back in October. Or if not regressed, they have let other teams narrow the gap. Are the Pats the better team? Sure they are. Even if the Giants win the Super Bowl, the Pats are the better team, it would just mean they lost, just like the Rams were the better team than the Pats even though they lost.

But the Pats aren't nearly as far ahead of the Giants as people like to think who are treating the Pats like they are still playing at the level they did in the first half of the season. Because they haven't played that way in 2.5 months, most weeks since they've just played well enough to get by with a win.
The Patriots went from absolutely dominating teams in the first half to soundly beating them in the second. I love how all of the sudden the Pats are painted as having barely escaped with their playoff hopes intact in the 2nd half of the season :thumbup: 2007 Patriots

Before the Bye Week

Record: 9-0
PPG: 39.4
PPG Allowed: 16.3
Differential: 23.1After the Bye Week

Record: 7-0
PPG: 33.4
PPG Allowed: 18.1
Differential: 15.3Even excluding their dominating FIRST HALF of the season, the Patiors "ONLY" won their games by an average of 15.3 points per game. Yep...winning by the skin of their teeth. For those revisionists, their 2nd half margin of victory (15.3 PPG) would be among at or near the top of league history.

And if you include their "skin tight" playoff games, the numbers look like this...

After the bye (including playoffs)

Record: 9-0
PPG: 31.8
PPG Allowed: 17.7
Differential: 14.1 :lmao: ...yep, the Giants and Patriots have been virtually the same team since October :lmao:
:confused: Since you seem so comfortable at putting words into my mouth that not only I never said, but that outright contradict what I did say about the Patriots, please feel free to continue on and just write my reply to you. It doesn't seem that my getting to choose my own words really matters in this conversation.

When you do, please ask yourself to repost your stats for the first 8 games and the 2nd 8 games as discussed (and ignored by you) in my post and not the games "before the bye week" and the "games after the bye week" since the bye week isn't the delineator of what was being discussed, and note how their margin of victory has fallen nearly in half since then.
GregR, wasn't quoting you...but others in this and other threads. Sorry for the confusion.
It's hard enough to discuss this stuff when people actually reply to what is being said. I took the time last night to try to make it clear where I'm saying there is a drop off in the Pats performance level and also to make it clear there wasn't an attack on the Pats, that they were being given exactly as much credit for the quality of their wins over the opponents they faced as any other team in the league would be given for such a win.I can't say it was going to come as a surprise if some Pats fan would choose to view anything said about the Pats that didn't discuss every game of theirs as being a "GREATEST OF ALL TIME" in blazing bolded and italics letters as automatically being an insult to them despite everything in my post to the contrary. But to have a respected poster like you just marginalize my point by lumping me in with people who don't share my view really sucks to see happen.

 

GregR_2

Footballguy
Looking at this yet another way...The Packers (9-4-1) in Super Bowl II beat the Raiders (13-1), and that stands to this day as the biggest differential in W/L record (3.5 games). For those who don't want to count the pre-merger era, once again we turn our attention to the Patriots/Rams. The Pats (11-5) over the Rams (14-2) is the only other time a team won the Super Bowl against an opponent 3 game better than they were in the regular season.For those who might have forgotten, the Pats were six games better in the standings than the Giants.Again, much like the point differential comparison, this would be not only the biggest upset in the post merger era, but 2x the previous historical precedent.
Regular season record and regular season point differential aren't by any means irrelevant in such a discussion. But don't you think how the teams are playing now is a larger factor to how big an upset is for one team to beat another?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tough As Nails

Glave Master
Biggest favorites (based on point spreads) in Super Bowl history:

1. San Fran - 18 (over SD) in Super Bowl XIX - won and covered

2. Green Bay -17 (over KC) in Super Bowl I - won and covered

2. Baltimore -17 (over NYJ)in Super Bowl III - lost game outright to Namath and the Jets (bigger upset than a Giants win would be)

4. Green Bay -14 (over NE) in Super Bowl XXXI - won and pushed on the spread

4. St. Louis -14 (over NE) in Super Bowl XXXVI - lost game outright (big upset...but the "historical" significance pales in comparison to this year and Broadway Joe)

6. Dallas -13.5 (over Pit) in Super Bowl XXX - won but did not cover

7. New England -13 (over NYG) this year...

 

HoTnickZ

Footballguy
What do you think the rate of covering, let alone an outright upset is, when an overwhelming underdog has strung together a bunch of upset wins leading up to the championship game ?

I'd like to see the numbers crunched on this one, because my guess is that it wouldn't be pretty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jason Wood

Zoo York
It's hard enough to discuss this stuff when people actually reply to what is being said. I took the time last night to try to make it clear where I'm saying there is a drop off in the Pats performance level and also to make it clear there wasn't an attack on the Pats, that they were being given exactly as much credit for the quality of their wins over the opponents they faced as any other team in the league would be given for such a win.I can't say it was going to come as a surprise if some Pats fan would choose to view anything said about the Pats that didn't discuss every game of theirs as being a "GREATEST OF ALL TIME" in blazing bolded and italics letters as automatically being an insult to them despite everything in my post to the contrary. But to have a respected poster like you just marginalize my point by lumping me in with people who don't share my view really sucks to see happen.
:goodposting: Totally my bad there GregR, didn't mean to unfairly characterize you that way. I would be equally bothered if someone did the same to me.
Wouldn't even be bigger than the Patriots beating the Rams.
Actually it would be by a great many measures, including differential of win %, differential of W/L record and point differential.
Looking at this yet another way...The Packers (9-4-1) in Super Bowl II beat the Raiders (13-1), and that stands to this day as the biggest differential in W/L record (3.5 games). For those who don't want to count the pre-merger era, once again we turn our attention to the Patriots/Rams. The Pats (11-5) over the Rams (14-2) is the only other time a team won the Super Bowl against an opponent 3 game better than they were in the regular season.For those who might have forgotten, the Pats were six games better in the standings than the Giants.Again, much like the point differential comparison, this would be not only the biggest upset in the post merger era, but 2x the previous historical precedent.
Regular season record and regular season point differential aren't by any means irrelevant in such a discussion. But don't you think how the teams are playing now is a larger factor to how big an upset is for one team to beat another?
A larger factor? No. Both teams making the Super Bowl are "on a roll", and again we're talking about a team that's won three in a row versus 18 in a row; one of which came against the team in question just a few weeks ago.
 

Dinsy Ejotuz

Footballguy
It's up there in terms of the NFL, but if 'major sports' includes Olympics and/or college this isn't close. There just can't be a big enough gap between two good pro teams for any upset to be all that surprising.

 

Just Win Baby

Footballguy
Missed this thread earlier, but posted this in another similar thread:

Frankly, it doesn't matter what the teams did over the course of most of the season. The fact is that they played in week 17... just 4 weeks ago. What we saw and learned from that game is much more important than season averages. It is perfectly clear from that game that the Giants are more than capable of beating the Pats... some would argue that they should have beaten them in that game.To me, by definition, this means that this game cannot be the biggest upset. :shrug:
 

Statorama

gangster
This upset was bigger than finding a cure for Lupus, and that was pretty big.

:they found a cure for that, didn't they?:

 

DrJ

Footballguy
For one, Jets over Colts in SB III would still be bigger.
villanova '85 ncaa over patrick ewing. cant touch it
Miracle on Ice down?
#1 in my book. Hell, the Russians beat the crap out of the Rangers earlier that year and hadn't lost in nearly 20 years and had won eight of the last 9 Olympic Gold medals.
My 2nd choice was the Jets over the Colts and 3rd, Notre Dame snapping UCLA's 88 game winning streak in 1973.
Don't forget Duke beating an undefeated UNLV team in '91... the year after the Rebels beat them by like 158 in the finals.
UNLV beat Ball St (12 seed) 69-67 on their way to the 1990 title....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top