Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/3/2012 10:35 PM EST
- agcsbill
- Posts: 7458
- First: 11/6/2006
- Last: 5/15/2013
In Response to
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
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
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!
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/3/2012 10:48 PM EST
- Paul_K
- Posts: 3385
- First: 5/31/2008
- Last: 5/19/2013
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.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/3/2012 10:54 PM EST
- agcsbill
- Posts: 7458
- First: 11/6/2006
- Last: 5/15/2013
In Response to
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.
Posted by Paul_K
Pats played better than the Giants in those weeks 11 through 20. I like their odds to maintain that momentum.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/3/2012 11:41 PM EST
- mar10
- Posts: 101
- First: 2/7/2011
- Last: 8/23/2012
In Response to
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! : how about missing a chip shot FG? and evans play was a touchdown!
Posted by JintsFan
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.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/3/2012 11:44 PM EST
- agcsbill
- Posts: 7458
- First: 11/6/2006
- Last: 5/15/2013
In Response to
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! : 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
Jints cares because the Giants stand a better chance beating the Ravens than the Pats, less of an offense to worry about!
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/4/2012 7:23 AM EST
- sheldong
- Posts: 428
- First: 9/10/2008
- Last: 5/15/2013
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.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/4/2012 8:40 AM EST
- croc
- Posts: 2014
- First: 6/21/2007
- Last: 5/13/2013
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.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/4/2012 9:49 AM EST
In Response to
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
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
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.
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
This post has been removed.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/4/2012 12:02 PM EST
- gmbill
- Posts: 1127
- First: 1/7/2007
- Last: 3/6/2012
Will not matter after tomorrow the Pats will be the same old hated WINNER OF THEIR 4TH SB!!
This post has been removed.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/4/2012 12:52 PM EST
- p-mike
- Posts: 4849
- First: 1/21/2010
- Last: 4/23/2013
In Response to
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!:
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
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.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/4/2012 1:38 PM EST
- croc
- Posts: 2014
- First: 6/21/2007
- Last: 5/13/2013
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.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/4/2012 2:25 PM EST
- bingobilly
- Posts: 263
- First: 1/23/2007
- Last: 5/17/2013
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.
Re: Why the GIANTS are 12 - 7... while the Pats are 15 - 3.... and no one talks about it!
posted at 2/4/2012 9:12 PM EST
- Encinitas
- Posts: 1847
- First: 5/30/2008
- Last: 5/13/2013
In Response to
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! : Last 8 games: Saints, Patriots, 49ers, Packers, Cowboys twice, Eagles and Jets another pats genius
Posted by JintsFan
Yeah, and you lost three of four games against winning teams, and needed four turnovers, and two PI calls to squeak by vs the Pats practice squad defense.
Bottomline - if the Pats play their best, and the Gants play their best, its a Pats blowout win.
