Playoffs 2012

TO.

D3PO wrote: »

Ask any Colts or Falcons fans how much the regular season matters.

This argument p1sses me off. Anyone who thinks the regular season means nothing is fooking stupid in my eyes and I truly mean that. One main reason out of 46 Superbowls 37 of them featured both teams who were 1 of the top 4 teams in their conference from the regular season.

Out of the remaining Bowls you had at least 1 team who qualified for the playoffs in the wild card spot. So out of 46 Bowls only 9 of them featured a team outside the top 4 qualifiers with 5-4 split of wild card qualifier winning the Bowl. What this proves is that it pays to have a good regular season as you have a higher chance of winning a bowl statiscally. So get the fook out with your nonsense trying to convince people the regular season means nothing. Stupid argument.

walshb

I think he/she meant that the reg season means nothing IF the team cannot then win the bowl. 16-0 in 2008 I think it was and they lost to the NY Giants.

My point was that the Patriots are one of the best teams over the past 7-8 years regardless of the bowl wins. They are always there or thereabouts. Narrowly lost twice to the Giants. Nothing at all in them games.

bootybouncer

I think the playoffs should incorporate a best of 3 games series

spiralism

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

A simple ROFL should suffice.

I wish. If the regular season was worth half as much as the playoffs, Manning would have four rings or so. Regular season is all about the getting there, it's obviously important but the playoffs are a much bigger deal. I'd far rather we were 9-7 and going to Foxboro on sunday instead of what actually went down

adrian522

bootybouncer wrote: »

I think the playoffs should incorporate a best of 3 games series

How many teams would be in these playoffs?

Would you still have to play wildcard, divisional, conf, superbowl? 12 games + 16 regular season games+ preseason+bye week = 33 weeks :eek:

JaMarcus Hustle

Playoffs are just that - a one game playoff. It decides who's the better team on the day and who game planned better. That's why it's used to decided champions, and I've no problem with that.

The original debate was over whether the Patriots were the best team in the NFL over a much longer timespan. I was suggesting the Kraft-Belichick-Brady era. To me, and I imagine many more, "the best team" would be the team that regularly and consistently beat it's opposition more than anyone else, and did so with a certain flair and conviction more than anyone else. In that regard, I don't think you can look past the Patriots.

Masked Man

spiralism wrote: »

I wish. If the regular season was worth half as much as the playoffs, Manning would have four rings or so. Regular season is all about the getting there, it's obviously important but the playoffs are a much bigger deal. I'd far rather we were 9-7 and going to Foxboro on sunday instead of what actually went down

When saying the patriots have been the best team over the past 7-8 years it's perfectly reasonable to cite regular season.

This debate is seriously separating good and bad posters. Some really need to grasp the concept of luck. Regular season meaning nothing is just lol.

TO.

walshb wrote: »

I think he/she meant that the reg season means nothing IF the team cannot then win the bowl. 16-0 in 2008 I think it was and they lost to the NY Giants.

I know what he meant but my same argument holds up. People use the Pats 2007 reference as an example but in my eyes its another stupid reference to take away an achievement in itself. Sure the Pats fell down at the last hurdle to the Giants but to win that many games on the trot is still something to be proud of and to say other wise is retarded. Of course people will look back and only see the loss in the bowl.

Every single game NFL teams play counts. Every game matters. Ask any player or coach or organisation and they will tell you the same thing. Easy for fans to rubbish a whole season by using the 2007 Pats as an example or by saying Oh look a team A got to the bowl but were Average in the regular season but the fact of the matter is that so called average team still had to win games to get to the playoffs even if they scraped in.

What makes playoff games special is that every game in the playoffs could be your last and the levels of pressure and intensity are greater. For those who got in by winning a lot of games need to keep consistency to stay there and for those who scraped in need to raise their game to stay there. Game planning changes and the importance level of each game raises.

I bet you any amount of money the Giants didnt look back on the regular season and say they were glad it meant nothing. In fact a lot of what they did to the Pats in the bowl in feb 2008 was most likely down to what they saw from the Pats in the regular season especially the meeting between the two.

spiralism

Masked Man wrote: »

When saying the patriots have been the best team over the past 7-8 years it's perfectly reasonable to cite regular season.

This debate is seriously separating good and bad posters. Some really need to grasp the concept of luck. Regular season meaning nothing is just lol.

Well yeah, i'd have no bother with that. They won 3 SBs in that spell and posted a huge amount of regular season wins. Hence the distinction. Atlanta have a ****load of wins over the past five years but to say they've been the NFL's best team in that spell is just lol

D3PO

TO. wrote: »

This argument p1sses me off. Anyone who thinks the regular season means nothing is fooking stupid in my eyes and I truly mean that. One main reason out of 46 Superbowls 37 of them featured both teams who were 1 of the top 4 teams in their conference from the regular season.

Out of the remaining Bowls you had at least 1 team who qualified for the playoffs in the wild card spot. So out of 46 Bowls only 9 of them featured a team outside the top 4 qualifiers with 5-4 split of wild card qualifier winning the Bowl. What this proves is that it pays to have a good regular season as you have a higher chance of winning a bowl statiscally. So get the fook out with your nonsense trying to convince people the regular season means nothing. Stupid argument.

Get a grip. Take it as its meant and not literally. Do you really think I meant that none of the 16 games matter.

anybody that argues that the best team is the team that has the most regular season wins in a certain period is lol. I go back to my point can anybody tell me that Atlanta are the best NFC team over the last 5 years I mean they won the most regular season games in that time.



im not saying the Pats arent one of the best sides of the past decade or what not but for somebody to just say they are the best team point blank cant back that up. Thats my point you can argue that X Y or Z are the best side for the past 7 seasons citing many different things so its ludacris for somebody to just point blank say the Pats were the best.

TO.

spiralism wrote: »

Well yeah, i'd have no bother with that. They won 3 SBs in that spell and posted a huge amount of regular season wins. Hence the distinction. Atlanta have a ****load of wins over the past five years but to say they've been the NFL's best team in that spell is just lol

No one said Atlanta were one of the best teams though.

You count the teams performance in the Regular Season + Playoff performance you can come up with a better reason to say any team is the best. Atlanta have done fook all in the playoffs. What 1 NFC Championship appearance in the last 8 years?

To get a gauge on how a team perform over a season their full body of work should be included. So Regular Season + Playoffs = Full body of work in a season.

TO.

D3PO wrote: »

Get a grip TO. Take it as its meant and not literally. Do you really think I meant that none of the 16 games matter.

You said the regular season doesn't matter? I am not a mind reader to be fair and have to take what you write at face value. Given we have never discussed this before how am I to know your views? Also please use TO as I would rather my real name is not used on the board.

But I ask you if you say the regular season doesn't matter how many other ways can one take that? Either you believe that the regular season has no bearing on how good a team is or you don't.

D3PO

TO. wrote: »

You said the regular season doesn't matter? I am not a mind reader to be fair and have to take what you write at face value. Given we have never discussed this before how am I to know your views? Also please use TO as I would rather my real name is not used on the board.

But I ask you if you say the regular season doesn't matter how many other ways can one take that? Either you believe that the regular season has no bearing on how good a team is or you don't.

Fine I will put a pacman on my post in future. You knew it was tongue in cheek. You went as far as to say you knew what i meant in a different post yet still attacked what I said in a literal manner

padraig_f

JaMarcus Hustle wrote: »

The original debate was over whether the Patriots were the best team in the NFL over a much longer timespan. I was suggesting the Kraft-Belichick-Brady era. To me, and I imagine many more, "the best team" would be the team that regularly and consistently beat it's opposition more than anyone else, and did so with a certain flair and conviction more than anyone else. In that regard, I don't think you can look past the Patriots.

I think walshb's point that kicked off the argument referred specifically to the last 7-8 years, because he felt that the Patriots success in that time should've translated into Super Bowl wins, but it didn't. The idea that they 'deserved to win more'. You can have a subjective view about that one way or the other, but there's only one way to settle it, to actually win more. So to remove certain question-marks for that period, it's important for the Patriots to win again.

TO. wrote: »

What makes playoff games special is that every game in the playoffs could be your last and the levels of pressure and intensity are greater. For those who got in by winning a lot of games need to keep consistency to stay there and for those who scraped in need to raise their game to stay there. Game planning changes and the importance level of each game raises.

The biggest difference for the playoffs is that the opposition is better, playing at a point when there's most at stake. So while you get some credit for regular season success, it still needs to be validated by post-season success.

The truth is somewhere in between. Regular season success doesn't mean 'nothing', but equally you can't say a team was 'the best' in a certain period, when they failed to win the big one. You really need silverware to back that up.

TO.

D3PO wrote: »

Fine I will put a pacman on my post in future. You knew it was tongue in cheek. You went as far as to say you knew what i meant in a different post yet still attacked what I said in a literal manner

I didn't know it was tongue in cheek. When I said I know what you meant I did take you in the literal sense i.e the regular season doesn't count. As for attacking your post isn't that the point of a forum?

Utopia Parkway

It's strange alright. The Pats haven't won the SB since 04/05 but they have been by far the most consistent team year in year out. Even the teams that have won 2 SB's in that time like the Steelers and Giants haven't been able to match their sheer consistency in coming back year after year to be genuine contenders. Even with no rings recently to show for it their general level of excellence has been remarkable.

But you know Brady and Belichick won't be satisfied until they get another ring or two despite all that.

Red Crow

You can't be great and not win the ultimate prize once in the last 8 years. That's what the argument was about. The Patriots are the most consistent team over that period but they aren't the greatest.

Arguing otherwise is fanboyism at its finest. Winning the Suberbowl matters. Obviously records like 16-0 are a remarkable feat but ultimately that team didnt cross the line. It's all subjective but you can't argue under any terms that a team that couldn't win the SB in that period was the greatest team of that period. That's stupid tbh.

Morrisseeee

Dymo wrote: »

New England have been in 2 of the last 7 and won none

I saw this titbit of info the other day:

New England Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since 'Spygate'

TO.

Morrisseeee wrote: »

I saw this titbit of info the other day:

New England Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since 'Spygate'

Well that didn't take long.

Paully D

Morrisseeee wrote: »

I saw this titbit of info the other day:

eagle eye

TO. wrote: »

I expect the Pats to win the Super bowl but it has nothing to do with expecting success being a younger fan. I remember the **** times just as much as any but I still expect the Pats to play their best and win playoff games and win a bowl.

Whats the point of following a team if you don't expect that? Especially a team that has shown us they are well capable of doing so. Even when as fans of the Pats we think things are going hard for us we pull out wins and get the job done. We have been doing that for the most part since our first bowl win.

Sure someday we will probably go back to being average again and when that day comes we will accept that but until then why not ride the train of success and support it and bang that drum that says win another fooking bowl. Nothing wrong expecting the best from any team that has done it time and time again.

Let me ask you this though. When you predicted the Pats to win it all this year at the start of the season was that you expecting them to win it? Or was that a I dont really believe they will do it but I will predict my own team anyway? I rarely do predictions but my thoughts at the start of the season were that sure why cant we push for another bowl.

I expect them to win and if they fail to live up to my expectation all it means is they weren't good enough in the end to go the distance like are our last two failed attempts in 2012 and 2007.

There is a huge difference between expecting them to win it all and people who will say its a failure of a season if they don't.

I picked them because they are the logical pick. They are in the playoffs almost every year and usually with one of the best records in football. They've got Brady, Belichick and Kraft and a lot of other great players and coaches.

As I said I'm not criticising anybody off this site. I just think that people who think the season was a failure if they don't win the big one are ridiculous.

I just enjoy us being competitive and having that hope that it could happen every season.

I support the Patriots because of their location.

spiralism

TO. wrote: »

No one said Atlanta were one of the best teams though.

You count the teams performance in the Regular Season + Playoff performance you can come up with a better reason to say any team is the best. Atlanta have done fook all in the playoffs. What 1 NFC Championship appearance in the last 8 years?

To get a gauge on how a team perform over a season their full body of work should be included. So Regular Season + Playoffs = Full body of work in a season.

My point exactly, totally agree

Morrisseeee

TO. wrote: »

Well that didn't take long.

Sorry TO, welcome back, ignore my 'smack' talk

One thing I was proud of is the humility of the Bronco fans, after the initial outburst & shock was over, the first thing we did was go into the Ravens thread and wish them the best. We could have bitched for weeks on end about refereeing decisions/useless secondary/useless pass-rush/useless decisions/etc etc.

Syferus

TO. wrote: »

I didn't know it was tongue in cheek. When I said I know what you meant I did take you in the literal sense i.e the regular season doesn't count. As for attacking your post isn't that the point of a forum?

YES!

kmart6

Would be great if this thread wasn't turned into Pats fans feeling its them v everyone!

TO.

kmart6 wrote: »

Would be great if this thread wasn't turned into Pats fans feeling its them v everyone!

Im a Pats fan and I dont feel the thread has turned into that. Someone makes a point about the Pats being the greatest team in the last 7-8 years and it gets discussed and that is now somehow construed as everyone very Pats fans? Ok I will take your word for it. Most of what I typed is about the regular season being just as important as the playoffs but hey if thats how you see it fair enough.

Syferus wrote: »

YES!

You and your nonsense again. How about actually entering into a proper discussion with me rather trying to be a smart ass all the time?

Son Of A Vidic

Rochey18 wrote: »

They have been in 5 of the last 7 Super Bowls, and won 4 out of them 5.

I'm sure you know that in American Football stats are everything, there's no sport like it for statistical analysis and performance measurement.

But since you mentioned the last seven seasons, here's how the teams performed.

Patriots Win 88 : Lose 24

Steelers Win 71 : Lose 41

Giants Win 66 : Lose 46

There's one pretty dominant set of figures there that figures speak for themselves.


To simplify the point even further, let's use soccer. In the last 8 years Portsmouth and Liverpool have both won the FA cup once, Man United haven't. So does that mean Portsmouth are a better teams than Man United? Of course it doesn't. Titles or not, United remain the most dominant and consistent team in the English PL. As Ray Lewis himself said, if you want to be great and win big, you usually have to face the Patriots.

adrian522

Anyone any thoughts on the Championship games this weekend?

Ravens @ Patriots

Pats are 9 point favourites, I'd take the ravens to cover that but in all honesty its very difficult to see anything other than a New England Victory.

49ers @ Falcons

49ers are 4 point favourites.

It's hard to know what to expect from the Falcons, they looked very good early on against the Seahwaks but then let Seattle right back into it.

I think it will be a close game, but i think the 49ers secondary will hold up agianst Atlanta and I expect the 49ers to win a close one.

Paully D

adrian522 wrote: »

Anyone any thoughts on the Championship games this weekend?

Ravens @ Patriots

Pats are 9 point favourites, I'd take the ravens to cover that but in all honesty its very difficult to see anything other than a New England Victory.

49ers @ Falcons

49ers are 4 point favourites.

It's hard to know what to expect from the Falcons, they looked very good early on against the Seahwaks but then let Seattle right back into it.

I think it will be a close game, but i think the 49ers secondary will hold up agianst Atlanta and I expect the 49ers to win a close one.

Ravens to cover 9 points IMO. Hard game to call but I can't see there being 9 points in it either way at the end. I think the Patriots will pick on Lewis in pass coverage which will be the key to victory. Patriots by 3-7 points unfortunately.

49ers will win relatively comfortably in the NFC game IMO, especially if Abraham is out. I'm going to say 49ers by 10 here.

Donnielighto

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I like your pic but im mainly thanking your sig.

mongoman

kmart6 wrote: »

Would be great if this thread wasn't turned into Pats fans feeling its them v everyone!

In fairness, I read some horseshít earlier about the regular season meaning nothing. And then some more shít stirring here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82705837&postcount=2069

Pats fans are well within their rights to shoot down that kind of rubbish.

Anyway back on topic.

I predict a 49'ers Vs Patriots superbowl and my beloved Niners will win narrowly.

kryogen

Paully D wrote: »

Ravens to cover 9 points IMO. Hard game to call but I can't see there being 9 points in it either way at the end. I think the Patriots will pick on Lewis in pass coverage which will be the key to victory. Patriots by 3-7 points unfortunately.

49ers will win relatively comfortably in the NFC game IMO, especially if Abraham is out. I'm going to say 49ers by 10 here.

This

49ers to cover the spread is a super bet imho

kmart6

TO. wrote: »

Im a Pats fan and I dont feel the thread has turned into that. Someone makes a point about the Pats being the greatest team in the last 7-8 years and it gets discussed and that is now somehow construed as everyone very Pats fans? Ok I will take your word for it. Most of what I typed is about the regular season being just as important as the playoffs but hey if thats how you see it fair enough.



You and your nonsense again. How about actually entering into a proper discussion with me rather trying to be a smart ass all the time?

Dude you know exactly what I mean, too many threads around here have descended into that and trying to prevent it from happening once again!

TO.

kmart6 wrote: »

Dude you know exactly what I mean, too many threads around here have descended into that and trying to prevent it from happening once again!

I have no idea what you are talking about to be fair. You brought up something that hasn't even happened in this thread. Maybe 3 posts out of the last 4 pages come anywhere near what you are talking about. The only post really against the grain was the spygate thing but no one reacted to it that made it spiral out of control. Im sure if something actually kicked off the mods would have full control of it. Irony is your post would probably cause more fuss.

Chucky the tree

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I'm sure you know that in American Football stats are everything, there's no sport like it for statistical analysis and performance measurement.

But since you mentioned the last seven seasons, here's how the teams performed.

Patriots Win 88 : Lose 24

Steelers Win 71 : Lose 41

Giants Win 66 : Lose 46

There's one pretty dominant set of figures there that figures speak for themselves.


To simplify the point even further, let's use soccer. In the last 8 years Portsmouth and Liverpool have both won the FA cup once, Man United haven't. So does that mean Portsmouth are a better teams than Man United? Of course it doesn't. Titles or not, United remain the most dominant and consistent team in the English PL. As Ray Lewis himself said, if you want to be great and win big, you usually have to face the Patriots.

Using the FA cup and not the Premier league just makes your point terrible.

eagle eye

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Using the FA cup and not the Premier league just makes your point terrible.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. FA Cup is a knockout competition. Premier league is like the regular season.

Danger_dave1

eagle eye wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong about that. FA Cup is a knockout competition. Premier league is like the regular season.

The major teams in the premier league in recent years have started to rest key players in FA CUP ties ..

So he's not imo

Danger_dave1

The champions league would be a better comparison .

LuckyLloyd

TO. wrote: »

This argument p1sses me off. Anyone who thinks the regular season means nothing is fooking stupid in my eyes and I truly mean that. One main reason out of 46 Superbowls 37 of them featured both teams who were 1 of the top 4 teams in their conference from the regular season.

Out of the remaining Bowls you had at least 1 team who qualified for the playoffs in the wild card spot. So out of 46 Bowls only 9 of them featured a team outside the top 4 qualifiers with 5-4 split of wild card qualifier winning the Bowl. What this proves is that it pays to have a good regular season as you have a higher chance of winning a bowl statiscally. So get the fook out with your nonsense trying to convince people the regular season means nothing. Stupid argument.

Not sure who was REGULAR SEASON CHAMPION 1998 - 2003 but I could tell you won the Superbowl each of those years.

OAOB

This thread is for Playoffs 2012, any chance we could get this discussion on best teams, regular-v-post season etc moved to its own thread if people want to discuss it further, it's kind of ruining this thread

Son Of A Vidic

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Using the FA cup and not the Premier league just makes your point terrible.

Looks like I'll have to make it clearer for you. The regular season is like a league campaign. It can't be fluked, only consistency and winning gets you to the post-season. So how someone say the regular season doesn't count is totally laughable.

Now when you enter the post-season, you are entering a sudden death competition - are you getting my point now? And like ANY sudden death competition the world over, Luck and destiny can and do often play a big part of it.

The Giants are a prime example of this, barely made the play-offs last year with losing 5 of their last 8 regular season games. Worst win loss ratio ever for a SB winner. Their win loss record for the last seven years is Win 66 : Lose 46, while the The Pats are Win 88 : Lose 24. Who's the better team then? Or perhaps a more logical question would be, who do you think teams would prefer to play? Because it should be pretty obvious, but you'd need to be an idiot not to see it though.

Amazing to me how people can deny the existence of cold hard statistics. If anything, if reveals a lack of knowledge or perhaps some naivety towards the game. Because American Football is one sport where performance statistics cannot be ignored.

bruschi

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Looks like I'll have to make it clearer for you. The regular season is like a league campaign. It can't be fluked, only consistency and winning gets you to the post-season. So how someone say the regular season doesn't count is totally laughable.

Now when you enter the post-season, you are entering a sudden death competition - are you getting my point now? And like ANY sudden death competition the world over, Luck and destiny can and do often play a big part of it.

The Giants are a prime example of this, barely made the play-offs last year with losing 5 of their last 8 regular season games. Worst win loss ratio ever for a SB winner. Their win loss record for the last seven years is Win 66 : Lose 46, while the The Pats are Win 88 : Lose 24. Who's the better team then? Or perhaps a more logical question would be, who do you think teams would prefer to play? Because it should be pretty obvious, but you'd need to be an idiot not to see it though.

Amazing to me how people can deny the existence of cold hard statistics. If anything, if reveals a lack of knowledge or perhaps some naivety towards the game. Because American Football is one sport where performance statistics cannot be ignored.

think this is an argument that could go around in circles. You have to take both into consideration, I dont think one is more important than the other. On a consitant basis, over the last 7/8 years, the Patriots have been a better team than the Giants.

However, I'd prefer to have a weaker overall ranking for the last 7/8 years if it meant we had more superbowls. At the end of the day, its the overall prize that matters most.

That 16-0 banner in Foxboro has me in a bit of a quandry. yes, it was a massive achievement, and certainly one very few teams will ever match, but at the end of it all it doesnt have the same value if you dont have the Superbowl at the end of it all.

Regular season is a big factor in determining how good teams have been. Playoff records also come into the equation, and finally superbowl wins. Patriots have 2 of 3 of those requirements. They are up there amongst a few teams as being one of the best for the last 7/8 years. Probably the most consistant, but ultimatley not fulfilling the full potential that was possible.


As for this weekend, I'm fearful of the Ravens. Pre playoffs I wouldnt have been, they finished the season poorly and didnt look like they improved at all. But they seem a different animal in these playoffs. Flacco is playing well, and Lewis is certainly an influence in the defensive huddles. They scored a lot of points on a good Denver defence, and its not as if the Patriots have a top quality defence. I think we should have enough to beat them, our best offensive weapon is short slants and balls 10-20 yards over the middle, where I think they are weakest. Talib did a decent job on Johnson on Sunday, so he'll be matched against Smith. Ravens are also out for revenge on last years game, so they will be fired up. I think we can win, but I cant see it being anything near the 9 point spread being touted.

TO.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Not sure who was REGULAR SEASON CHAMPION 1998 - 2003 but I could tell you won the Superbowl each of those years.

Regular Season Champion? Yeah that's right make something up to get your point across. What a stupid thing to say. Your post really has nothing do what I said. But hey good man gave me a chuckle.

Son Of A Vidic

bruschi wrote: »

think this is an argument that could go around in circles. You have to take both into consideration, I dont think one is more important than the other.

Correct. But for some to disregard the regular season all together is just beyond ridiculous.

Red Crow

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Looks like I'll have to make it clearer for you. The regular season is like a league campaign. It can't be fluked, only consistency and winning gets you to the post-season. So how someone say the regular season doesn't count is totally laughable.

Now when you enter the post-season, you are entering a sudden death competition - are you getting my point now? And like ANY sudden death competition the world over, Luck and destiny can and do often play a big part of it.

The Giants are a prime example of this, barely made the play-offs last year with losing 5 of their last 8 regular season games. Worst win loss ratio ever for a SB winner. Their win loss record for the last seven years is Win 66 : Lose 46, while the The Pats are Win 88 : Lose 24. Who's the better team then? Or perhaps a more logical question would be, who do you think teams would prefer to play? Because it should be pretty obvious, but you'd need to be an idiot not to see it though.

Amazing to me how people can deny the existence of cold hard statistics. If anything, if reveals a lack of knowledge or perhaps some naivety towards the game. Because American Football is one sport where performance statistics cannot be ignored.

Sudden Death is the pressure cooker. It's the true test for players. Teams with generous schedules won't feel the same pressure. Everybody's schedule isn't the same, that's why the team with the best record of the regular season doesn't win anything. Teams lose form, suffer injuries etc. However the best teams make it to the play-offs (barely or not) and in order to win the winner has to beat out all these teams. It's well and good beating up teams in the regular season and then getting beat in the playoffs. Does that make a team great? No, it most certainly doesn't.

The Superbowl is the fairest judgement on deciding the best team.

Also you seem to have a big problem with the Giants win and appear to be very bitter about it. You've described it as very lucky. I'll give you a statistic. 3-1 That's how many times the 'greatest team of that period' have beaten the New York Giants over the last 8 years. Also maybe you've forgotten but that luck stricken side managed to beat the Patriots twice despite having huge injuries on defence during that period. Yes, we had some luck (SF - NFC Game), but we also had some terrible calls go against us in Green Bay where the officials did a terrible job. I'd say that luck balanced out and does balance out over the course of a year. Also we beat the Patriots twice that year.

I don't know who other teams would want to play but but your schedule last season was pretty easy and it was easier in comparison to ours this season too. I don't think the regular season should be a decided of the winning team and that's why its not.


I'll also give you a cold hard statistic: The Patriots have won ZERO Superbowls over that period.

walshb

Playoff games can be won and lost on bad luck. So many teams have lost tru maybe one error at a crucial stage. Conversely, many teams have won a playoff game by a real stroke of luck. IMO the Patriots are the most consistently great team from the past 8 years when one factors in the 16-19 games in the whole season.

walshb

BTW, those Giants wins in the two bowls were as close as can be. Patriots could be 5-2 in bowls.

Son Of A Vidic

Eli Manning wrote: »

Also you seem to have a big problem with the Giants win and appear to be very bitter about it. You've described it as very lucky.

But it was lucky and yes, I by far am not the only one to think the Giants rode a lot of luck winning the SB last year. Now that's not a critissim and how can you take it as one. Believe me, sometimes I would rather be lucky than be good.

Have a read of this article from none other than the esteemed New York Times itself, Five Moments When Luck Went the Giants’ Way

I suspect you're are only seeing something that you want to see and surely you're bigger than the usual "Oh boo hoo, your schedule is easier than ours" rubbish. I pointed out an inferior win loss record, that's all. Would I prefer a less dominant and consistent team, who win less in exhange for a Superbowl or two? Of course I would.

I have a big problem with the Giants have I? Read this then...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77771095&postcount=18

Or even read this then...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80893929#post80893929

BizzyC

Dan Marino never won a superbowl.
Does that mean he wasn't one of the best QB's of all time?
Was Trent Dilfer better because he won a ring?

When you look at great teams it has to be a long term assessment of their performance.
Over the past 10 years, Patriots have been the most consistently excellent team in the league - period.

Over the same period were the Giants a great team? No, too inconsistent.
What set them apart though is the fact that they had great players.
When it comes down to playoffs, big performances can be the difference, and the Giants had a lot of big performances last year and in 07.

So I wouldn't consider them to be one of the great teams from the past 10 years, but they definitely have had some of the great players over that period.

Utopia Parkway