Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

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

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    In Response to Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
    [QUOTE]Jints - I don't remember you complaining when Gostkowski missed a 26-yard field goal earlier this season, in a game in which the Patriots lost by 3 points. Was it just a coincidence that they were playing the Giants in that game? Because had Gostkowski hit that field-goal, there's a good chance that the Giants aren't in the Super Bowl, let alone the playoffs. Double-standard?
    Posted by vertigho[/QUOTE]
    Jints will not speak to things that pokes his statements full of holes!!  Jints believes what he wants and that is the Giants did not need luck to be here.  He still thinks if the Ravens hit that FG, the Pats would have lost...  I guess he forgot a FG is worth 3 points not 4!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    Records don't matter to the players when they're out playing the game.  Records, and margins of victory, matter to me because I want to guess who will win the next game.

    I've found that fairly old games are still significant predictors of a team's current strength, not quite as much as the team's very last game because injuries from that game most often affect the next game, but all games count somewhat.  Players get injured early in the season, but some of them eventually get better.  This is why even game 1 of the season has some slight predictive ability for the Super Bowl -- it picks up the phenomenon of good players getting injured and coming back.  However, I'd go with a heavier weighting on weeks 11 through 20 than I would use on weeks 1 through 10.  Numbers of players get injured permanently and don't really come back for the rest of their football careers, even if they're still playing on the field, or they land on injured reserve for the year.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    In Response to Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
    [QUOTE]Records don't matter to the players when they're out playing the game.  Records, and margins of victory, matter to me because I want to guess who will win the next game. I've found that fairly old games are still significant predictors of a team's current strength, not quite as much as the team's very last game because injuries from that game most often affect the next game, but all games count somewhat.  Players get injured early in the season, but some of them eventually get better.  This is why even game 1 of the season has some slight predictive ability for the Super Bowl -- it picks up the phenomenon of good players getting injured and coming back.  However, I'd go with a heavier weighting on weeks 11 through 20 than I would use on weeks 1 through 10.  Numbers of players get injured permanently and don't really come back for the rest of their football careers, even if they're still playing on the field, or they land on injured reserve for the year.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]
    Pats played better than the Giants in those weeks 11 through 20. I like their odds to maintain that momentum.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mar10. Show mar10's posts

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    In Response to Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it! : how about missing a chip shot FG? and evans play was a touchdown!
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    Actually it wasn't.  It SHOULD have at least been reviewed!  However I can assure you that it was not a touchdown.  Evans never even got the second foot down on the ground before that ball came out.  Granted it should have been a TD... but it wasn't.

    You make yourself look like a blue bleedin p*ssy when you cry about the Evans almost TD... Just sayin.

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

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    In Response to Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it! : Actually it wasn't.  It SHOULD have at least been reviewed!  However I can assure you that it was not a touchdown.  Evans never even got the second foot down on the ground before that ball came out.  Granted it should have been a TD... but it wasn't. You make yourself look like a blue bleedin p*ssy when you cry about the Evans almost TD... Just sayin.
    Posted by mar10[/QUOTE]
    Jints cares because the Giants stand a better chance beating the Ravens than the Pats, less of an offense to worry about!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    A few reasons:

    1 - The networks need to hype the game.  Pumping up the Giants does that because the bookies have NE as the favorite (but not by much)

    2 - These guys are headquartered in NY

    3 - The game is played in Manningville.  Great story line.

    4 - They won a big upset four years ago and how they got there is strikingly similar.

    5 - They don't bother to calculate what the records of the other teams were if you eliminated their losses to the Patriots.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from croc. Show croc's posts

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    The Globe should apply for a trademark for "12-8".  Unless the Pats fumble it away like week 9 (and the Giants "great" wins over GB and SF), the GMen will lose.  They haven't beaten any good team that didn't blow it, but they did lose earlier to GB, SF and NO when the good teams played well.

    The play to Evans was reviewed, only the review official upstairs didn't need much time to confirm the incompletion.

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

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    In Response to Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it! : To put it another way if the Jints had the Pats pansy schedule while being fully healthy and the Patsies had the Jints brutal schedule it's a good bet their season records would be reversed...and if the Jints played the Broncos and Ravens at home instead of the Packers and 49ers on the road they would have SALSA'D into the SB
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    Hey stupid, 

    Why don't you take a look at the schedule your own team had this season. Talk about a patsy schedule. A team from the indoor league could have done better than 9-7. 
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!


    Will not matter after tomorrow the Pats will be the same old hated WINNER OF THEIR 4TH SB!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from WE5NUTS. Show WE5NUTS's posts

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    Personally, I'm glad that people think the Giants will win. It just gives the Patriots more motivation to prove them wrong. Although the Giant's motivation to win is fairly strong (the Lombardi Trophy), if the Patriots win, they get the trophy and prove that 2008 was an upset. Due to this extra motivation, the Patriots will work harder and have a better chance of winning. DUH!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    In Response to Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it! : To put it another way if the Jints had the Pats pansy schedule while being fully healthy and the Patsies had the Jints brutal schedule it's a good bet their season records would be reversed...and if the Jints played the Broncos and Ravens at home instead of the Packers and 49ers on the road they would have SALSA'D into the SB
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    Oh boy . . .

    The NFC West . . .   brutal?

    Washington, Dallas and Philly -- under .500 as a group -- brutal?

    Oh, and the AFC East, which happens to be the Pats' divsion (which they dominated).

    I don't normally cut this close to the bone, Jersey Boy, but you're a f*ckin' idiot.


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

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    The Pats were hardly fully healthy.  Both teams played significant time with key starters out.  Vollmer, Chung and Spikes all missed several games in the heart of the season. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bingobilly. Show bingobilly's posts

    Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!

    The answer is simple, it's new york money controls mostly all media.  New York anything means big bucks for the money people and "New England" anything means nothing.


     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share