SB 46

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to GEAUX-TIGRES' comment:

    Babe. You have to get a close up of where the ball is, and it's obvious he would have to be Wilt to catch it. Please Google. Neither Welk nor Samuel have catchable balls. These dead horses have been beaten so badly, the buzzards won't come near them.




    DEAD WRONG. Both balls were easily catchable hitting both guys right in both their mitts. The hardest part was jumping for the ball which they both accomplished. People make catches like that every game. High school kids make those catches.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 

     



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

     

     



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 

     

     




    So what you are saying is IF Welker caught that ball - despite it not being in the endzone - we still lose that game? I'm just trying to clarify, because that drop (at least to me) was along the lines of Bill Buckner, in terms of effect. This wasn't some meaningless dropped 2nd and ten throw in the first quarter, this is something that people are talking about two years later...and with good reason.

     

     




    Yeah, you, me and the rest of the world, but apparently not AZ, realize that catch would have pretty much sealed the game. AT THE LEAST we would have likely (assuming no Ghost choke) gotten a FG making it 20-15 and likely leaving the Giants with less than 2 minutes and no timeouts. Then even if the Giants did score their TD in the less time we would have only needed a FG to win not a TD if there was any time left.

     

    What you going to do. If somebody can't see that Welker catching that VASTLY improves our chances to win then you just can't help them. They clearly have an agenda that could care less about the facts and common sense.

     



    I like playing this What If Game....  What if they converted the drive into a FG for a 20-15 lead. The Giants had all 3 TO's left (ah, those pesky TO's), which they would have probably/more than likely used at least 2 of them, plus the 2 minute warning, to leave them some decent time on the game clock for when they got the ball back. Their winning TD drive went 9 plays for 88 yds. If they were at or under the 2 minute mark, it would have been all passes against a Pats defense that couldn't stop a fly stuck on flypaper. Each pass on that drive went for avg 15 yds. Now, if the Pats couldn't stop the drive that really/actually happened, what makes you so convinced that they could have, or would have stopped a similar drive with a slightly larger lead, knowing a TD beats them? Before answering, remember, in your scenario, the Pats never would have seen the ball again, instead of the as in final 57 seconds, when the vaunted Brady led offense "drove" 29 yards in 9 plays, a brilliant ans stellar 3 YPP.

     

    This ought to be interesting.....  




    What makes you so sure the Pats would never have seen the ball again?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to GEAUX-TIGRES' comment:

     

    I believe he said '99/100', but who's counting. I truly believe that when TB saw the safety going to cover, primarily because of the blown coverage by the up man who went to cover Hernandes instead of Welk who was running free and wide open. That forced Tom to throw to his left shoulder, which in turn, had WW to contort his body and compromised his ability to make the catch. Of course he'll say that he should have caught it. He's a proud and disappointed professional and a good guy to boot. The blown coverage and the Gents fortunate abililty to have a safety surveying the field and probably watching TB's eyes made that play much more difficult to execute than people think. My 2 sense.

     




    Funny how people pick and choose what quotes are really meant by a player and those  that aren't. LMAO

     

     

    Welker dropped the Lombardi. Just live with it. Brady placed the ball perfectly between 3 defenders and Wes simply...

     

    http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/patriots1-articleLarge.jpg

     

    http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/the-huddle/2012/02/07/welkerx-large.jpg

     




     

     

    Why cant people admit that Welkers hands has always failed him in the clutch?  He is a chest catcher who clamps on to the ball and he catches 80 % of his balls this way, only when he cant jump high enough to catch with his chest, does he drop these balls with his suspect hands but the proof is there. Go watch a highlight reel and you will see almost no catches with his hands. He is like the kid in the BK commercial who couldnt eat the whopper cuz his hands were too small. God love him but the guy is limited.



    OK, I'll bite.... so just what is Brady doing throwing him a HIGH ball that he has absolutely no possibly way, even with a jump off a loading platform, of getting his chest in front of? Wishful thinking? And, if he's a limited as you say he is, wouldn't you kind of think that Brady and BB would have, like, made sure his passes were chest him, all the time? But thanks for the info/opinion. This gets Welker off the hook for knowingly being limited, adn had absolutely n o possibility of catching that ball. Babe appreciates it too.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Why the f are people still talking about this game?  Jesus christ it was 2 years ago.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    Personally, I can't believe we're watching this same kind of finesse, lacking offense 5 years removed from its failures in SB 42.

     

     

     


    You can't believe BB the greatest genius of all-time could allow this travesty to happen for half a decade junior?

     

     




    The "travesty" of getting Brady the toys he wants, only to  have Brady underperform in January or February?  That travesty?  Sure sounds like a spoiled child whining he can't have more toys to me.

     

    Hmm.

    Gee, Brady has the best OL coach arguably in NFL history coaching his O Lines in front of him, too.

    Brady has been underperforming in the postseason for half a decade, that's a fact.  It started in the AFC title game in 2007 with 3 INTs, one in the end zone.

    Wake the board when Brady has a good, consistent postseason again.

     

     




    Oh. That's right junior. I forgot....

     

    BB couldn't control OB and Brady...

    Then he couldn't control McD and Brady...

    And Brady dictates to BB what players BB will get...

     

    Exactly what the hell do we need this greatest genius of all-time for if everybody else controls the team but him junior?

    LMAO@U - CLOWN.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:



    OK, I'll bite.... so just what is Brady doing throwing him a HIGH ball that he has absolutely no possibly way, even with a jump off a loading platform, of getting his chest in front of?

     

     

    Oh really? Balls have to be chest high in the NFL to be catchable? Who knew?

    Is right in his face good enough?

     

    http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/patriots1-articleLarge.jpg

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 

     



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

     

     



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 

     

     




    So what you are saying is IF Welker caught that ball - despite it not being in the endzone - we still lose that game? I'm just trying to clarify, because that drop (at least to me) was along the lines of Bill Buckner, in terms of effect. This wasn't some meaningless dropped 2nd and ten throw in the first quarter, this is something that people are talking about two years later...and with good reason.

     

     



    Not saying the play wasn't pivotal, but there is no possible way to assure that a TD would have been scored. There are 60 minutes in a game, and you've got to make every play count, especially in a SB. They way they were playing, a turnover was possible, or another FG, or a turn over on downs. The offense up to that point was not on automatic mode. And, yes, as the game turned out, if that play happened in the 1st Qtr, it would have been just as brutally mentioned and blamed for a 3 point loss, because it eliminated the POSSIBILTY of scoring points of any kind.

     

    Interesting to note that, after that play, Brady tossed one into Branch's ankles when he had at least 10 open yards in front of him. Yet, no discussion on that play. Or his severely underthrown ball to Gronk that was an INT. Seems to me if you run the play for your TE, AND he draws a LB in coverage, AND he's got him beat by 5 steps, you put the ball where only 1 player can possibly made the catch, not making him come back to defend the pass thrown to him. Before getting all huffy, you DON'T call that play with a TE on a bad wheel unless you think the play will work, so save the injury excuse. Gronk flat out had the LB beat like a cheap rug. Severely underthrowing the ball isn't a good thing. Yet, crickets on both throws....

     




    Well not crickets, in fact both have been discussed. The throw to Gronk was a broken play - hard to believe they thought it was going to work or drew it up that way. Brady avoided an inside rush - he spun left and then curled back around to the right, where he would be flushed out of the pocket in that direction and upfield a bit. The large debate was weather he should of just continued running, and maybe he should of - I can't see him getting more than a few yards, but hey at least it wouldn't of been picked. Truth is he should of been sacked and lost 7 yards on the play, instead he was spinning around like a top and at the last second probably saw Gronk break free and ended up not getting his feet set well enough to heave the throw over the defender's head. Essentially it had the effect of a punt, but we wasted precious minutes and an oppurtunity to score some sort of points.

     

    The pass to Branch should of been caught, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Don't get me wrong, the throw could of been better, but it hit him in the hands. Don't recievers have to make those catches? I just watched Flacco's recievers make catches with defenders draped all over them. I watched them catch balls that were under thrown, over thrown and thrown a million miles an hour from three feet away...yet they still caught them...all of them.

     



    First off, there is ABSOLUTELY no way that play to Gronk was a broken play. Your TE with a bad wheel is NOT the guy to run down field with a LB on a broken play. If you think that, then you have no grasp on the game. Receivers run to an open spot, or come back to help their QB under duress. Yet, here's Gronk running down the middle of the field, with a LB in single coverage. He was on his way downfield while Brady was doing a Houdini, as there is absolutely no way Gronk, on a short route, was going to get 50+ yards downfield as Brady avoided a rush, on a bad wheel. That's what your WR's are for. Sorry, the Giants put a big rush on Brady and he had to escape it before that throw. It was a play that worked, except for the rush and poor throw. Caught the Giants completely by surprise. 

     

    Loved the "throw could have been better" excuse. Brach was a yard off the line, entirely by himself, on the strong side of the field, perfect WR screen set up, and the throw "could" have been better? My! How magnaminous of you! Button up that shirt before the old ticker falls out! Would you say that same thing ("could have been better") if the ball was on the 10 yd line? Don't answer that, I think you would. And I'd take all the Ravens WR's over the Pats WR's. They are bigger, faster, more physical, and, as you point out, have better hands. Now, careful! Gronk is a TE. I'd still take Gronk. So, don't try and put the Pats WR corps in the same category as the Ravens' WR's. You're not making any point for the Pats WR's when yiou make this comparrison.  




    Why yes! You're right! That play by Brady and Gronk must of been by design. See Josh McDanials must of said (as a consultant)...let's let the Giant's rush break through the center of our line, that way our 34 year old quarterback can run for his life out of it!. Yeah, here's what we'll do guys, we'll let a defensive tackle and end come crashing in right at hand off. Then as soon as  our quarterback (who has never ran faster than anyone in his) knows what is coming, he will have to spin like a top. Then we will make him run left, then right, then left, then right...before finally running five feet upfield where he will try to hit our tightend who has an ankle holding on by a guitar string!! Brilliant! We will confuse everyone!

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

    OK, I'll bite.... so just what is Brady doing throwing him a HIGH ball that he has absolutely no possibly way, even with a jump off a loading platform, of getting his chest in front of?

     




    PS. I know catching footballs that are not chest high is possible. I've personally done it. Can anybody else be a witness to that?

    zbellino, you played in college. Did you EVER see a guy catch a pass that wasn't chest high?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Just saying. I have nothing to gripe about here, I'm a freakin' Giants fan. Just being objective as usual. That is all. I played and coached the game so I can in turn tell you to learn the game. I just can't believe why people can't let go to something they can't undo. Move on. You have enough of Rusty to quibber with. Don't get me involved.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Who gives a fiotch? Your attempt to always be right reminds me of someone.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Hilarious.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to GEAUX-TIGRES' comment:

    Just saying. I have nothing to gripe about here, I'm a freakin' Giants fan. Just being objective as usual. That is all. I played and coached the game so I can in turn tell you to learn the game. I just can't believe why people can't let go to something they can't undo. Move on. You have enough of Rusty to quibber with. Don't get me involved.




    Giants fan? Oh I see. That explains EVERYTHING. Thanks for clearing up your agenda. Well, I guess not all opposing fans are as objective as jints.

    Have a nice day.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to GEAUX-TIGRES' comment:

    Who gives a fiotch? Your attempt to always be right reminds me of someone.




    I do try to be right all the time. It's not hard really. Just accept reality and discard the agenda. Works every time. Try it.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to GEAUX-TIGRES' comment:

    Hilarious.




    Hey. Grats on your SB victories. You earned them. You guys made the plays and we didn't. The better team makes the plays. Feel better now binky?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    Giants fan? Oh I see. That explains EVERYTHING. Thanks for clearing up your agenda. Well, I guess not all opposing fans are as objective as jints.

     

    Have a nice day.




    Jints is a useless troll.  The vast majority of his posts consist of reminding us that the Pats didn't win those SBs or trolling Rusty.  He is about as objective as UD6.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Have to agree with you again Rust. 'Stats are for losers', as coined by BB I believe. Who cares about records if they're either personal or don't benefit the team?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    Asante gets one mitt on it and he's fully extended. It's physically impossible. If Welk's catch is so mundane, maybe you could the football world how you'd make that catch. You couldn't and neither could he. You lost a SB, fiotching move on. Our teams may never see one again. I accept that, so should you.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    I noticed that you and your geriatric nemesis are perpetually at it. Sometimes annoying, but extremely entertaining at times. Now he has turned on me for being honest and objective. A dose of Prozac may diminish is obsession with the extreme need to be right. He's like John Hancock, 'the man who slept'.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    I don't get too warm and fuzzy about winning a game. The euphoria usually lasts about an hour unless it was our high school team which is for the good of the community. And I don't rub those SB wins in anyone's face. So you're wrong again. Did the care taker forget to give you your meds today? Sounds it. Bitter, p eeved off and a grandiose feeling of righteousness. Are you wet behind the ears? Depends, doesn't it?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: SB 46

    PCM, I've been pressing to relate that point.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from LHNYJ. Show LHNYJ's posts

    Re: SB 46

    I agree -High and outside...a terrible pass from an aging QB.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    OK, I'll bite.... so just what is Brady doing throwing him a HIGH ball that he has absolutely no possibly way, even with a jump off a loading platform, of getting his chest in front of?

     

     




     

    PS. I know catching footballs that are not chest high is possible. I've personally done it. Can anybody else be a witness to that?

    zbellino, you played in college. Did you EVER see a guy catch a pass that wasn't chest high?



    I played CB and SS in college and I saved my own a-ss many times catching jump balls. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: SB 46

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to AZPAT's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    "Ball was high and to the outside. It turned him to the outside." - Analyst, Scott Zolak

     

     



     

     



    ROFLMFAO!!!   STILL!!!!!

     

    Babe, this play was NOT in the end zone. Yet, you keep devining that IF he caught the ball they WOULD have scored a TD. Just admitt that teh GMen played teh entire 60 minutes BETTER than the Pats did, AGAIN. But, if this Welker "drop" issue is true, then we'll put blame on the SF loss right where it needs to be... Vern Davis. Do you recall the wide pass he dropped inside the 30 yd line? Most assuredly, THAT drive would have ended up as a TD and the ultimate game winner, lights out or not.  And, the timing of the play in regards to the game clock is inconsequential, could be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Qtr, or in the final minute of play. A drop is a drop, is a drop.....

    Just let it go...... 

     



    Well let's say he catches the thing - it's a first down around the 20? 30? I can't remember. Now let's say we get the ball at the 25 and drive down to the 5 before not getting in (could happen, I know), but what definetely would of happened at that point is we would of taken more time off the clock. The Giants ended up getting the ball back on their twelve yard line with 3:46 and one timeout. Now let's say they get the ball at the twenty yard line with 1:46 seconds and no timeouts...do they still beat us? With our defense the answer is probably, but I like our chances a little better with less time and less timeouts. And who's to say that we don't score when WE get into that redzone after Welker catches the ball (that he dropped)? 

     

     



    Ah, if only wishes were fishes, we'd be up to our arses in haddock. Sorry, can't devine a "possibility" of what COULD have happened. Facts is before and after that drive, only twice did they score TD's on drives. Look at official stats. You'll find "points for" and "points against", but no "Gee, if this hadn't of happened..." category. Why stop with what you'd PROBABKY think the Pats would have done, and add if the Giants defense all got leg cramps withina  3 play sequence,a nd they ended up with their punter playing DB? Or, if a lineman, two LB's, and a safety blew out their knees on the same play? You know, as long as we're playing that Could Possibly Happen Game. Who's to say that Brady was NOT going to toss an INT on an ill conceived pass into strong coverage? or a tipped ball? or a pass the bounced off a receiver? What about a good catch, a step, and then a fumble by the receiver? Where does that figure into your dream like wish?  Naw! That would NEVER happen! Impossible! Couldn't! Right? 

     

     




    So what you are saying is IF Welker caught that ball - despite it not being in the endzone - we still lose that game? I'm just trying to clarify, because that drop (at least to me) was along the lines of Bill Buckner, in terms of effect. This wasn't some meaningless dropped 2nd and ten throw in the first quarter, this is something that people are talking about two years later...and with good reason.

     

     




    Yeah, you, me and the rest of the world, but apparently not AZ, realize that catch would have pretty much sealed the game. AT THE LEAST we would have likely (assuming no Ghost choke) gotten a FG making it 20-15 and likely leaving the Giants with less than 2 minutes and no timeouts. Then even if the Giants did score their TD in the less time we would have only needed a FG to win not a TD if there was any time left.

     

    What you going to do. If somebody can't see that Welker catching that VASTLY improves our chances to win then you just can't help them. They clearly have an agenda that could care less about the facts and common sense.

     



    I like playing this What If Game....  What if they converted the drive into a FG for a 20-15 lead. The Giants had all 3 TO's left (ah, those pesky TO's), which they would have probably/more than likely used at least 2 of them, plus the 2 minute warning, to leave them some decent time on the game clock for when they got the ball back. Their winning TD drive went 9 plays for 88 yds. If they were at or under the 2 minute mark, it would have been all passes against a Pats defense that couldn't stop a fly stuck on flypaper. Each pass on that drive went for avg 15 yds. Now, if the Pats couldn't stop the drive that really/actually happened, what makes you so convinced that they could have, or would have stopped a similar drive with a slightly larger lead, knowing a TD beats them? Before answering, remember, in your scenario, the Pats never would have seen the ball again, instead of the as in final 57 seconds, when the vaunted Brady led offense "drove" 29 yards in 9 plays, a brilliant ans stellar 3 YPP.

     

    This ought to be interesting.....  

     




    What makes you so sure the Pats would never have seen the ball again?

     



    This is getting WAY too easy, but I'll continue your education, using YOUR Dream Like scenario. 
    Pats get the FG, after the Giants use two TO, plus the 2 minute warning, to hold them, and go up 20-15. Let's put the time remaining at 1:30, approx 30 seconds longer than after they scored in  reality. Pats kick off, the ball is on the 20 (I'm conceeding that they do not get a decent run back, or get to their 26, which was the avg field position after Pats KO's (punts not included). 80 yards to go, 1:30 left, and a TO. Six (6) passing plays averaging 15 yads/catch scores the TD. Seeing that we all know that Manning isn't nearly as good as Brady, except for Super Bowls, we'll throw in a couple of incompleted passes, just for an arguement. Let's say that the routes are all out routes, good for, say 11 seconds for the snap, throw, catch, and possible nominal yards after catch before the receiver goes OOB. That's just under a minute (5 X 11 seconds) right there. Knowing the afore mentioned Pats defense, they play to keep the ball in the middle of the field. But there's a breakdown, and Manning springs a play for 25-30 yards over the middle, taking up, say 20-25 seconds, and score on the next play. That gives teh Pats less than 10 possible seconds, adn we know how they ground our 29 yards on 9 plays with a full minute to play with.

    This is, unless, you can convince the free world that the Pats would intentionally allow the Giants to score a TD in less than 5 plays, to go ahead in the game, just so they get the ball last. Now, THAT is funny. 

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share