What does this Super Bowl teach us?

[Patler]

1. Defense still wins Championships.
2. Defensive line play is crucial to overall success.
3. You don't need a HOF quarterback to win the Super Bowl, a steady performer will do.

From that one can conclude (if they so chose):
A. TT's emphasis on the defense is well placed.
B. TT's more specific emphasis on the DL is well placed.
C. The Packers chances don't have to go out the window when Favre retires.

[BF4MVP]

I agree 100%, Patler. Nice post.

I like Ted's philosophy, and I like that he's putting an emphasis on acquiring talent on defense (but actually put together a supremely talented offense in the process).

I truely believe that this team can be very successful with Rodgers at the helm. I still hope Brett comes back, though.

[MJZiggy]

I thought it taught us that you can break your butt when you fall that far that fast...

And you're right. We're set up to be a strong team for quite some time.

[Patler]

I agree 100%, Patler. Nice post.

I like Ted's philosophy, and I like that he's putting an emphasis on acquiring talent on defense (but actually put together a supremely talented offense in the process).

I truely believe that this team can be very successful with Rodgers at the helm. I still hope Brett comes back, though.

I don't know if Rodgers will be the guy or not, he has to prove that he is. But we need not give up all hope when Favre announces his retirement some time within the next five years, or so. Obviously, great QBs help in winning Super Bowls, but they are not absolutely essential.

[fan4life]

It teaches us that championships are won by a team effort. By every single player playing his best game...

NY's defense was great, but NY wasn't going to win that game unless NY found a way to get into the end zone. NYs offense finally did that.

Defense doesn't win championships. But it is an important part of the formula that results in scoring more points than you let your opponent score.

[Patler]

It teaches us that championships are won by a team effort. By every single player playing his best game...

NY's defense was great, but NY wasn't going to win that game unless NY found a way to get into the end zone. NYs offense finally did that.

Defense doesn't win championships. But it is an important part of the formula that results in scoring more points than you let your opponent score.

Obviously you have to have some offense, or points on special teams, etc. Everyone has to contribute. But mostly everyone on both teams does, so that is more or less a wash.

However, when a defense holds a team to 14 points, you should have an excellent chance to win. And when the team held to 14 points is one that scored 589 points during the regular season, over 130 more points than the team with the second most points scored; I am comfortable with saying the Giants defense was THE key to this victory.

We saw a very good defense against a prolific offense, and the defense won.

The Giants had a decent offense, but not one that would have beaten, in order the #2 scoring offense, the #4 scoring offense and the #1 scoring offense without outstanding defensive play. And to hold the best offenses in the league to 17 points, 20 points and 14 points while winning by 4, 3 and 3 points in those games further emphasizes the value of a defense that is playing very well.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I agree 100%, Patler. Nice post.

I like Ted's philosophy, and I like that he's putting an emphasis on acquiring talent on defense (but actually put together a supremely talented offense in the process).

I truely believe that this team can be very successful with Rodgers at the helm. I still hope Brett comes back, though.

I don't know if Rodgers will be the guy or not, he has to prove that he is. But we need not give up all hope when Favre announces his retirement some time within the next five years, or so. Obviously, great QBs help in winning Super Bowls, but they are not absolutely essential.

I disagree about the QB thing. I think you do need a very very good QB to win the super bowl; well at least if you want to multiple ones. Manning may not be a HOF QB, but his play in the playoff this year was better than Brady (future HOFer), other Manning, Favre, and was even as good as Joe Montana when he used to play. Did you see the play when he escaped the sack and completed that pass down field with only a minute left? Not many average QB's make that play. I think we have just seen Manning grow up and I think people are underestimating how good this is.

Last night both Brady and Manning proved why you need a QB to come up big when it counts. They both scored TD's on their last drives and put the team on their shoulders. Was this to much for us to expect from Favre in OT? I think not.

Point is you need a very good QB and VERY GOOD QB PLAY if you to win super bowl in this day in age. Without the heroics of Manning in that last drive the Giants would not be super bowl champs.

[Patler]

I agree 100%, Patler. Nice post.

I like Ted's philosophy, and I like that he's putting an emphasis on acquiring talent on defense (but actually put together a supremely talented offense in the process).

I truely believe that this team can be very successful with Rodgers at the helm. I still hope Brett comes back, though.

I don't know if Rodgers will be the guy or not, he has to prove that he is. But we need not give up all hope when Favre announces his retirement some time within the next five years, or so. Obviously, great QBs help in winning Super Bowls, but they are not absolutely essential.

I disagree about the QB thing. I think you do need a very very good QB to win the super bowl; well at least if you want to multiple ones. Manning may not be a HOF QB, but his play in the playoff this year was better than Brady (future HOFer), other Manning, Favre, and was even as good as Joe Montana when he used to play. Did you see the play when he escaped the sack and completed that pass down field with only a minute left? Not many average QB's make that play. I think we have just seen Manning grow up and I think people are underestimating how good this is.

Last night both Brady and Manning proved why you need a QB to come up big when it counts. They both scored TD's on their last drives and put the team on their shoulders. Was this to much for us to expect from Favre in OT? I think not.

Point is you need a very good QB and VERY GOOD QB PLAY if you to win super bowl in this day in age. Without the heroics of Manning in that last drive the Giants would not be super bowl champs.

You need a QB who is playing well. Heck, to win it you need your whole team playing well. But my point is that a performance like that can come from a QB who has been less than stellar in his career to date.

There seems to be a feeling among many Packer fans that when Favre leaves all hope of a Super Bowl will be gone, and that simply is not the case.

As for Mannings "great" play, there was as much greatness on the receiving end of it as on the throwing end, and a bit of good fortune too, I suspect, as well as on the interception dropped on the sidelines. Until he makes those kinds of plays with some frequency, it is merely good fortune. Until now, when he tried to do too much as on the recpetion, they generally resulted in interceptions. Eluding the rush as he did was very good, I agree; but the throw and catch was more fortuitous than planned, I think.

I will refrain from calling him great, as good as Brady and Montana, etc, until he shows it was more than just a few game run of good fortune.

To be honest, I feel much the same way about Tony Romo. Both are good QBs, but greatness is earned over time.

[Scott Campbell]

NY's defense was great, but NY wasn't going to win that game unless NY found a way to get into the end zone.


I don't really agree. The only chance to beat the highest scoring offense in league history was with a heroic defensive effort. They got that. And they got a decent though not stellar performance from the Giant offense.

[pbmax]

Hold on a minute. Montana destroyed defenses at his best. Manning had two long drives and a bunch of good, tough 3rd down completions. Very much like the QB play that beat the Packers.

He still could be scatter armed when forced to move and overthrew several passes. His receivers did not have the same dropsies they had in Green Bay.

The defense he beat has seen better days. They looked every single year of their veteran status last night and I don't think Seymour is healthy. Every hole they displayed at the end of the season was display, including slow linebacker play, run D and trouble covering 3rd and fourth receivers.

He did not have a killer turnover, he was patient in the pocket. But he wasn't Montana.


I disagree about the QB thing. I think you do need a very very good QB to win the super bowl; well at least if you want to multiple ones. Manning may not be a HOF QB, but his play in the playoff this year was better than Brady (future HOFer), other Manning, Favre, and was even as good as Joe Montana when he used to play. Did you see the play when he escaped the sack and completed that pass down field with only a minute left? Not many average QB's make that play. I think we have just seen Manning grow up and I think people are underestimating how good this is.

[pbmax]

I would only add something about O Line play. The Giants pass blocked well all night, even when the Pats brought the kitchen sink in the 4th quarter.

Did you expect the Packer's O Line to out pass block the Patriots this post-season? I didn't. I tended to discount their numbers because of Favre's quick trigger, willingness to throw early and his pass pro reads. But they clearly can hold their own.


1. Defense still wins Championships.
2. Defensive line play is crucial to overall success.
3. You don't need a HOF quarterback to win the Super Bowl, a steady performer will do.

From that one can conclude (if they so chose):
A. TT's emphasis on the defense is well placed.
B. TT's more specific emphasis on the DL is well placed.
C. The Packers chances don't have to go out the window when Favre retires.

[Harlan Huckleby]

2. Defensive line play is crucial to overall success.

What offense the Giants had was largely due to their offensive line. Manning had good protection against a good defense.

I agree tht the Giants defensive line is their forte, but don't overlook the white guys. sorry, that came out wrong.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I would only add something about O Line play. The Giants pass blocked well all night, even when the Pats brought the kitchen sink in the 4th quarter.

Did you expect the Packer's O Line to out pass block the Patriots this post-season? I didn't. I tended to discount their numbers because of Favre's quick trigger, willingness to throw early and his pass pro reads. But they clearly can hold their own.

whups, sorry for duplicate post.

[twoseven]

My question then, is our DL good enough at this point to lead the way next year, and can they be as good as the NYG played in the playoffs? If not, what can we do about it before next season?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bring back Gilbert Brown! :D

[b bulldog]

hell no and what this shows me is what most already know, a passrush is key in today's pass happy NFL where the rules help the WR's and kill the DB's.

[twoseven]

hell no and what this shows me is what most already know, a passrush is key in today's pass happy NFL where the rules help the WR's and kill the DB's.
Yep, and I shared that sentiment before I typed the post to begin with. We need more from the DL besides making excuses for why they fell off as the year went on. If all we are going to do is hope like hell that Jolly and Jenkins stay healthy (and maybe Harrel explodes from nowhere) for our interior pass rush to be solid, I find it hard to believe DL dominance is headed our way any time soon. I know I'm gonna get trashed for saying it, but I think we need more.

[woodbuck27]

1. Defense still wins Championships.
2. Defensive line play is crucial to overall success.
3. You don't need a HOF quarterback to win the Super Bowl, a steady performer will do.

From that one can conclude (if they so chose):
A. TT's emphasis on the defense is well placed.
B. TT's more specific emphasis on the DL is well placed.
C. The Packers chances don't have to go out the window when Favre retires.


I'd have to add that both lines need to be solid. The DL and OL as well.

PLUS:

How about the factor called believing or having heart as a team.

Talent plus heart ( believing ) plus proper preperation and the luck or good fortune to deal with adversity all works. I began to sense about three - four weeks ago, that the GIANTS were for real, based on something I read on how together the entire team was then.

They simply got that other factor caled momentum going for them as well. The Green Bay Packers never in my heart got to that same sense or feel for me. The Packers won a lot but something was missing.

[HarveyWallbangers]

hell no and what this shows me is what most already know, a passrush is key in today's pass happy NFL where the rules help the WR's and kill the DB's.
Yep, and I shared that sentiment before I typed the post to begin with. We need more from the DL besides making excuses for why they fell off as the year went on. If all we are going to do is hope like hell that Jolly and Jenkins stay healthy (and maybe Harrel explodes from nowhere) for our interior pass rush to be solid, I find it hard to believe DL dominance is headed our way any time soon. I know I'm gonna get trashed for saying it, but I think we need more.

Who is out there to bolster the pass rush? We likely won't get a stud rookie drafting as late as we are. The good ones aren't going to become available in FA. You can bet Jared Allen will be tagged. We better hope the guys you mentioned improve or stay healthy--because there's likely not much else we can do. Albert Haynesworth may be available, but he's a headcase that could be anywhere from awful to great. It's a great unknown. We are going to need the young DL on our roster to improve. I won't say that can't happen. I'm also not ready to write off Jenkins.

[Erock]

What I took away from this Super Bowl and from watching the Giants play against the Cowboys, Packers and Patriots was that they imposed their will on the other team!

They lined up and beat up the other teams and congratulations to them and their fans, they showed up and went to work!

Toughness can win championships!

[Deputy Nutz]

NY's defense was great, but NY wasn't going to win that game unless NY found a way to get into the end zone.


I don't really agree. The only chance to beat the highest scoring offense in league history was with a heroic defensive effort. They got that. And they got a decent though not stellar performance from the Giant offense.

I agree I expect the Giants to at least score 17 points, on the other hand I expected the Patriots score at least 30 points. The defense did its job holding the most dynamic offense in league history to 14 points.

The Patriots' overconfidence on all levels can certainly contribute to their loss. They didn't change a thing to accommodate the pressure put on Brady, they tried some screens and some roll outs, but no three step drops, and what was silly they kept doing that quick flanker screen that worked once or twice but then the Giants shut that down just like they did to Green Bay. The Pats really didn't try any draws, shut down their running game. The Patriots had 30 seconds to go 40 yard to tie the game, they firmly believed they could hit Randy Moss down the sideline for a touchdown instead of going over the middle with him, moving the football down the field, and using time outs. The other thing although I didn't think it was quite as big a deal at the time as Bretsky, but the Pats go for it on 4-13 instead of trying a 49 yard fieldgoal. Above anything else that was overconfidence, hell they were doing it all year, why not in the Super Bowl?

Anyways...

[woodbuck27]

What I took away from this Super Bowl and from watching the Giants play against the Cowboys, Packers and Patriots was that they imposed their will on the other team!

They lined up and beat up the other teams and congratulations to them and their fans, they showed up and went to work!

Toughness can win championships!

Certainly.

Any Championship team I've been associated with in my life as a Player, Coach or Manager. It has been just that, or a strong will or toughness against losing that's taken my teams over the top.

There has to be no part or place on a team RE: LOSING. It comes down a lot to positive Kharma in sports and life in general. Winners are usually only those who believe they will win.

Losers are well. . .just losers! The sad part is that losers even make excuses or go to negative emotions to counter even winning. So often losers are only just losers.

There is never an excuse for losing. Losing is inexcusable or unacceptable to winners.
:D

[twoseven]

hell no and what this shows me is what most already know, a passrush is key in today's pass happy NFL where the rules help the WR's and kill the DB's.
Yep, and I shared that sentiment before I typed the post to begin with. We need more from the DL besides making excuses for why they fell off as the year went on. If all we are going to do is hope like hell that Jolly and Jenkins stay healthy (and maybe Harrel explodes from nowhere) for our interior pass rush to be solid, I find it hard to believe DL dominance is headed our way any time soon. I know I'm gonna get trashed for saying it, but I think we need more.

Who is out there to bolster the pass rush? We likely won't get a stud rookie drafting as late as we are. The good ones aren't going to become available in FA. You can bet Jared Allen will be tagged. We better hope the guys you mentioned improve or stay healthy--because there's likely not much else we can do. Albert Haynesworth may be available, but he's a headcase that could be anywhere from awful to great. It's a great unknown. We are going to need the young DL on our roster to improve. I won't say that can't happen. I'm also not ready to write off Jenkins.
Notice that my stance is that I do not think they are good enogh as is, I didn't say that we could easily upgrade or upgrade at all for that matter. I don't have an answer, but I get the impression that some feel we're right where we need to be and I disagree. That's just my opinion.

Personally, I think I'd like to see them take a chance on Hayensworth, or maybe Sean Rodgers. Each brings their own negatives (money needed and potential performance), but I also think both have much greater upsides than Jolly and Jenkins. I guess it comes down to the odds that you'll get those upsides VS where you are cap wise if they do not perform at peak. Then again, do we need their best to improve our DT position. Like I said, I don't have the answers, I'm just thinking aloud.

[Scott Campbell]

Any Championship team I'vge been associated with in my life as a Player, Coach or Manager. It has been just that or a strong will or toughness against losing that's taken my teams over the top.



Shuffleboard, curling and bingo don't count.

:lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Woody's game is checkers.

http://www.photius.com/images/am01_05a.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

The other thing although I didn't think it was quite as big a deal at the time as Bretsky, but the Pats go for it on 4-13 instead of trying a 49 yard fieldgoal.


I thought that was a huge blunder. 49 yards indoor is makeable with a decent completion percentage. You can bet they're kicking the crap out of BB up in Boston today on that call.

[FritzDontBlitz]

What I learned from the Super Bowl is that the way to beat a good QB is to constantly harass him with pressure. Super Bowl XLII also showed how successful a defense can be when it does more than just rush its down lineman. Green Bay needs to learn how to apply defensive pressure instead of expecting it to come from just the defensive line.

Spagnolo called a masterful game, some of those blitzes by Kavika Mitchell were works of art.

[FritzDontBlitz]

The other thing although I didn't think it was quite as big a deal at the time as Bretsky, but the Pats go for it on 4-13 instead of trying a 49 yard fieldgoal.


I thought that was a huge blunder. 49 yards indoor is makeable with a decent completion percentage. You can bet they're kicking the crap out of BB up in Boston today on that call.

I couldnt understand that either.

[woodbuck27]

Any Championship team I'vge been associated with in my life as a Player, Coach or Manager. It has been just that or a strong will or toughness against losing that's taken my teams over the top.



Shuffleboard, curling and bingo don't count.

:lol:

Hey Scott:

Yesd I've won in Curling and there several times and believe this.You have to have it bet. the easrs and be physically strong to win at curling. That game is so often underestimated as a game not demanding the physical.

WRONG!!

Shuffleboard. Yup pretty good at that but stink at Bingo.

Won a few pool tornaments but the biggies for me arn't individual honors but the effort I contribute and appreciate for other's benefits Re: Team Sport wins.

Sports such as Ice and Ball Hockey,Baseball and Fastball, Candlepin Bowling, Basketball, Boxing and Martial Arts (individual) and Cross Country Running (individual and Team) and Road Racing (individual and Team) and Car Rallying (Team).

Anything I get involved in I only expect to win Scott. What's left?

[Patler]

Hey Scott:

Yesd I've won in Curling and there several times and believe this.You have to have it bet. the easrs and be physically strong to win at curling. That game is so often underestimated as a game not demanding the physical.

WRONG!!


Woody;

Not to change the subject, but do you agree that curling lost some of its charm with the development of the push "brooms" as opposed to the conventional looking brooms that our mothers and grandmothers used in the kitchen? :(

[woodbuck27]

Hey Scott:

Yesd I've won in Curling and there several times and believe this.You have to have it bet. the easrs and be physically strong to win at curling. That game is so often underestimated as a game not demanding the physical.

WRONG!!


Woody;

Not to change the subject, but do you agree that curling lost some of its charm with the development of the push "brooms" as opposed to the conventional looking brooms that our mothers and grandmothers used in the kitchen? :(

Patler:

It may have lost some of the color but it's certainly a lot easier on the hands and body.

I swang a Black Jack for about two decades (and made a lot of noise power sweeping. After weekend of 5-7- even 9 games in Provincial playdowns to try for the BRIAR I was nearly ready to die come the last couple of games. :)

Curling back then was very physical if you played competitively.

[RashanGary]

NIce post, Patler. I agree with a lot of what you said. I like watching Favre. It's been fun, but I'm ready to see him go for a couple of reasons.


My favorite sports writer so far in my short sports follwing career is Cliff Christl. I love his big picture approach to viewing sports. He takes a couple key concepts that he learned while talking to successfull NFL GM's, coaches and owners and tries to tie details of what is happening today back to the big picture. The big picture is "playmakers" in the absence of weak links and that the QB is the most important piece by a long shot. He claims you need a HOFer and maybe you do, but maybe he's a HOFer because he was the QB of a multi champion team and not the team was multi champion because he was QB. What caused what? I tend to lean toward team victory, not QB victory although a good QB is a necessity. I just don't think it has to be a stud.

A big reason I look forward to Favre retiring is because I want to see how much of a drop off it really is. I don't believe Cliff Christl that the Packers will fall apart, but I don't know that they won't. It will be interesting to see.


I tend to agree with your assessment, Patler. Great defense, lead by great pass rushing, very good ST's and a complete surrounding cast along with a game managing QB is enough to win. We'll see how it goes. It's going to be a fun time when #4 hangs them up. Lots of unknown. Lots of hypothosis' to test.

[RashanGary]

Some of you are are more seasoned in your football watching and so your opinions are grounded in more information. I'm still forming opinions so seeing a HOF QB hang them up gives me a good chance to see the effect of top tier QB play on a team. I think Ted Thompson has a very solid approach and will have a good support cast when Favre hangs them up. How badly will they flounder? If the QB is everything, it will be bad. If not, they'll be competitive well into the Rodgers (or whoever else ends up being the next guy) era.

[b bulldog]

I wouldn't mind seeing brett leave just so we could see what ARod has but brett is still better at the QB position and should be our starter.

[RashanGary]

I wouldn't mind seeing brett leave just so we could see what ARod has but brett is still better at the QB position and should be our starter.

yeah, that's how I see it too. If Brett comes back, he should start. If he leaves it will be fun to see what happens.

[twoseven]

Only problem with Brett moving on so we can find out what we have in Rodgers, there's no going back once BF is gone. That Brett is still playing better than almost every other QB in the league, save for a few, should be more than enough assurance that we are probably NOT better off with AR at this point. It might not be so fun if we are getting our butts kicked and have no other options but to deal with it, think pre-Brett Favre led Packers of the Infante and Gregg days. :(

[pbmax]

Superior skill wins even more often.


What I took away from this Super Bowl and from watching the Giants play against the Cowboys, Packers and Patriots was that they imposed their will on the other team!

They lined up and beat up the other teams and congratulations to them and their fans, they showed up and went to work!

Toughness can win championships!

[b bulldog]

Playmakers on both side of the ball are needed also, this game did show me this.

[RashanGary]

Playmakers on both side of the ball are needed also, this game did show me this.

I thought the Patritots defense did their job holding the Giants to 17.

14 on offense isn't enough. Did the Vikings ever score under 14 in the Moss era? I'd be curious to see how many times that happened. I'm guessing 2 or 3 in 50 games.

[b bulldog]

Did the Vikes ever make the SB?

[RashanGary]

Did the Vikes ever make the SB?

did they ever have the #2 defense and mistake free ST's?

[b bulldog]

No and they never had a QB that is a first ballot HOFer :lol: Brady's big screw up was leaving too much time on the clock last evening.

[Noodle]

It's an interesting debate with no real answer. SBs have been won by teams that were defense only (Baltimore). They have been won by teams that were purely offense (St. Louis). But they have most commonly been won by balanced teams (San Francisco, old Steelers, old and 96 Packers).

I think the Giants are more of a balance team. Yes, the Big Blue D was all man, but the O was very impressive. That 10 minute opening drive was a statement, as was the 19 to 10 time of possession advantage in the first half. The O, by converting 3rd downs, kept the Pats off the field, which made the job of the D much easier and kept the Pats from getting their mojo going.

And in the end, that Giant O drove the field and scored a TD on a great hot read by Manning to beat a blitz that left Plaixco in single coverage for about the only time all night. That was a great play under tremendous pressure and would not have been made by an average QB.

So yes, TT's emphasis on D line makes sense, and I think there will be life after Favre. But I don't think you can say that all you need is a stout D and an average QB and all will be good.

[b bulldog]

I'm not going down this road again so you can make an ass out of yourself like last evening. This stupid comments show you are very green football wise or you want to get a rise out of me, hopefully the latter

[RashanGary]

I'll agree with you that it's tough to win SB's when you depend on the deep ball. At some point in the playoffs, you're going to run into a monster defense that takes away the deep ball and passing game. Seems like teams that are balances on offense, have great defense and very good to great ST's get it done more than offense heavy teams.


The Pats have always been defense/ST's first with an offense that just sort of managed the game. As their defense aged and their ST's became less special, the Pats evolved into a pass happy team. The Colts lost when they were pass happy and won with defense, ST's and a game management offense. Packers won that way. Broncos won that way. Patriots won that way. Steelers. Ravens. Buccaneers. . . .


I'll agree that teams that have the great WR's and big pass game as their strength tend to run into trouble, but it's no excuse. Big game Brady is the man. He wins becuase he's so good, not because of his team. Sheesh, of all people, you should know this :)

[b bulldog]

Agree but history does show that if you have a stout D ,a time and ball controlling O and a QB that is just efficient, you'll be in good shape.

[b bulldog]

Nick, once again as probably posted too many times to count, your a moron!

[b bulldog]

yOUR THINKING THAT 99 is worth what you think he is further proves this point.

[RashanGary]

Agree but history does show that if you have a stout D ,a time and ball controlling O and a QB that is just efficient, you'll be in good shape.

Yep. Brady is a damn fine QB, bulldog. I shouldn't even be giving him shit but the level of greatness bestowed upon him seems to be too high IMO. I think the wins the Patriots have had over the years had a lot to do with their team, not just their QB, not even mostly their QB.

Brady, Aikman, Bradshaw, ect. . . All mulitple winners. All HOF players, maybe because they are just so damn great, but maybe because they had great defenses, great ST's and great Olines to go with them for many years.

I just don't think it's right or accurate to crown players solely on wins that were achieved by 53 guys and a bunch of coaches, not 1 player. His numbers the last three years were the most impressive of his career but the better he's played the more he's lost big games. Then, the years he won were the years he did the least (his first 4 years in the league). Go figure. The year Manning won was the year he was asked to do the least. There is something to not asking your QB to do too much that results in championships and with that "not hanging it on the QB" winning recipe, I don't know why people crown the QB after the win.

[Freak Out]

The other thing although I didn't think it was quite as big a deal at the time as Bretsky, but the Pats go for it on 4-13 instead of trying a 49 yard fieldgoal.


I thought that was a huge blunder. 49 yards indoor is makeable with a decent completion percentage. You can bet they're kicking the crap out of BB up in Boston today on that call.

After what the G-men had been doing to Brady all day you have to take those 3 points....that was to big a gamble to take. BB outsmarted himself there.

Obviously it was a big mistake to go away from what had kept Plastico in check all day and leave him singled up in that situation at the end of the game.

[Kiwon]

I learned that the football pundits are never wrong. Always listen to the professional experts :wink:

[RashanGary]

Well, it was two years ago when Brady threw the pick against Denver that I said "let's see how many more championships he wins" to you at JS. You were all pissy and said he'll keep racking him up. Remember that?


I assumed the numbers would come down on the Pats earlier, but the cap jumped two years ago and they extended it a little. Even with the fortunate surrounding events that favored the Pats, they still havn't won in three years and now that little gift they got with the salary boost is about to catch up to them and I think they'll start to crumble.


I see Brady spending the last 12 years of his career with no championships. We'll just keep having this conversation every year. We had it two years ago. We had it last year. We're having it now and if you still browse the sites, we'll have it next year and the year after and the year after and you get the point. Every time it will become more apparent that Brady was a part of some great teams and benefited greatly from the surrouding circumstances.

Coming off the moss year, you think I'm stupid or crazy. That's fine. YOu have a right to misread the situation and act arrogant about it. Noboyd can stop you.

My opinion is that he was a part of a great team that was extended longer with the cap increase right through the prime of his career (during which time he couldn't capitolize) and then it will crumble. If he really is the best QB every, surely he'll win at least one more SB from years 5-18 or 19. If I don't die in some strange crash, I'll make sure to stop by ever year to remind you how little he means to his team and how much more the surroundign cast meant to those victories and every year I'll look more right and you'll look more wrong untill you finially shut up. Mark it down :) His legacy will be that of Troy Aikman. Largely forgotten.

[Rastak]

Hey Scott:

Yesd I've won in Curling and there several times and believe this.You have to have it bet. the easrs and be physically strong to win at curling. That game is so often underestimated as a game not demanding the physical.

WRONG!!


Woody;

Not to change the subject, but do you agree that curling lost some of its charm with the development of the push "brooms" as opposed to the conventional looking brooms that our mothers and grandmothers used in the kitchen? :(

Patler:

It may have lost some of the color but it's certainly a lot easier on the hands and body.

I swang a Black Jack for about two decades (and made a lot of noise power sweeping. After weekend of 5-7- even 9 games in Provincial playdowns to try for the BRIAR I was nearly ready to die come the last couple of games. :)

Curling back then was very physical if you played competitively.


Woody, when I was a kid I used to go watch my dad play basketball in a city league and once a week throw the stone at the Saint Paul Curling Club. I was told I saw my grandfather curl once but I was 3 and he died shortly afterword so I don't recall that. I later met an old fellow who claimed to have curled with my grandfather many times and knew him well.....back in the early 60's.

[Rastak]

Did the Vikes ever make the SB?


Does a Bear shit in the woods?

[packrat]

As big as defense was, the Giants running game contributed to the defense. It kept the Pats offense off the field. Establishing a good running game that is CONSISTENT is key to the Pack improving and the key to that is more about the OL than it is about the running backs. It sure would be nice to be able to run the screen, too, which is also an OL and running back thing.

[Lurker64]

Did the Vikes ever make the SB?


Does a Bear shit in the woods?

Four times, but he doesn't get much out of it. ;P

[Iron Mike]

Did the Vikes ever make the SB?


Does a Bear shit in the woods?

Speaking of shit:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_lztJB_QxZ6I/R6aNqCjjNTI/AAAAAAAAAQE/xQmjKhAXNKk/s400/pats.jpg

[b bulldog]

Nick if you weren't smoking dope in your earlier years you may be able to comprehend certain things and articles written by people or groups of people and I assure that from what I've been reading, brady is already considered a top 3-6 QB of alltime so your alreaDY WRONG AND if arrogamnce is what you call it, fine but the facts or should I say results are on my side. They got beat this year in the SB, last seaon in the AFc Championship game and he hasn't done anything...moron!

[b bulldog]

One more thing, he doesn't have to do anything more, he won a MVP, been the MVP in two SB's and has been a part of 3 winning SB teams. He did lose the big game now and he will never be able to change that.

[Partial]

Two lessons were learned:

We need to keep building our trenches. Winning that battle week in and week out will take us far.

Randy Moss or Terrell Owens have never done better than second place. Woody, its time for you to eat some crow!

[b bulldog]

Maybe a carma lesson can be taught also

[The Shadow]

Well, it teaches us that we are not far away from having a team good enough to win one.
After all, we beat the Super Bowl champ during the regular season!

[b bulldog]

I hope your right.

[Bretsky]

I learned that if we wouldn't have played like horseshit against NY and NE didn't bring their A game maybe GB might have hada shot to win it all

[Harlan Huckleby]

if we wouldn't have played like horseshit against NY and NE didn't bring their A game

Man, you aren't gonna give the Giants any credit.

[Bretsky]

if we wouldn't have played like horseshit against NY and NE didn't bring their A game

Man, you aren't gonna give the Giants any credit.


OK, I learned it's great when a solid unit with an outstanding defensive coordinator gels at the right time and overachieves in bringing their fans a title

[GrnBay007]

I learned that if we wouldn't have played like horseshit against NY and NE didn't bring their A game maybe GB might have hada shot to win it all

That's all I could think about today :cry: ....at work. :P

[Harlan Huckleby]

gels at the right time and overachieves

their defense overachieved in 4 straight playoff games? They overachieved in winning 10 straight road games? Look at the talent on their D line.

They didn't overachieve, the analysists underachieved in evaluating the Giants.

[twoseven]

Did the Vikes ever make the SB?


Does a Bear shit in the woods?
Yeah, but that bear hasn't taken a shit for 31 years.

[FavreChild]

Lesson learned: Do NOT rest all your starters in game 16, even if you cannot possibly improve your playoff seeding!!

Case #1: Dallas Cowboys. Rolled over for the 'Skins, even though the 'Skins were still contending for the #6 seed in the NFC. 'Skins needed a win or a Viking loss (they got both).

Result: Dallas loses first playoff game. At home.

Case #2: Indianapolis Colts. Rolled over for the Titans, allowing them to steal the #6 seed in the AFC away from the Browns.

Result: Indy loses home playoff game to Chargers in divisional round.

Case #3: NYG and NE. Play each other in game 16. Play all their starters the entire game. Fantastically competitive game in which New England barely escapes with win #16.

Result: Both teams make it to the Super Bowl.

Coincidence???

You be the judge...

[MJZiggy]

:cry: Case #3: Packers play their starters in the final game winning convincingly and wind up losing to the stupid Giants.

[FavreChild]

Actually, it's more like this:

Case #4: Green Bay Packers. Green Bay plays SOME of its starters, and plays them long enough to take a convincing lead against Detroit.

Result: Green Bay WINS first playoff game, but loses to NYG at home.


Am I saying we should have played all of our starters or played them longer, NO - I am not. That is not the reason we lost.

I am saying that the Giants were rewarded. Their secondary was totally banged up in the playoffs and they still won. The lesson is - play every game competitively!! (The Packers did do this, in my opinion, although our 16th game against the Lions did not turn out to be competitive at all.)

[MJZiggy]

The lesson is - play every game competitively!! (The Packers did do this, in my opinion, although our 16th game against the Lions did not turn out to be competitive at all.)

That's because the Lions suck (just thought I'd get that in there).

[twoseven]

The Giants were picked by many to go to the SB at the beginning of the year, they did. They aren't the little engine that could that came from nowhere, they're a great team that only lost 6 games (2 to DAL, 1 to GB, 1 to the Pats). They weren't handed anything because they're nice guys, because they were valiant in week 16, because of karma or any other supernatural forces, or (and I'm sorry) because they played out some end of the year formula the right way. They won because they are a greeat team that outplayed their opponents for 11 weeks in a row on the road. They didn't hammer DAL, they didn't kick our ass either winning by 3 in OT, they played the game of their life against NE and still only won by 3 with 37 secs left in the game. But they did do just enough in each game to win, that's the ONLY thing that matters.

Anyone can say they made the right decision to play it out wk 16, it really didn't cost them anything but some bumps and bruises that were arguably already there. Good for them, they gave it hell to try and take down the Pats, and they weren't hurt by this decision. But, a severe injury to any of their key players (Manning, Buress, Strahan, Umenyiora) in week 16 that could have kept them from advancing in the playoffs and we are then debating how stupid their decision to play full strength was. If there was one best way to handle things at the end of the year my guess is every coach would follow suit. NY beat us because they were the better team that night. To me it's that simple, to search for some complicated explanation is disrespecting how good they really are. Just my opinion.