The Official NFL Thread

I can't believe some of the throws Favre tried to make in that game. Throwing into triple coverage in a tie game in the fourth quarter isn't generally a good move. I think he was trying to hard to go for the jugular.

And what happened to the running game? From 209 to 29? The Giants have a good defense, but that's still pretty disappointing for the Pack after they abused the Seahawks.

The superbowl will be interesting, esp. in terms of the two teams' gameplans. Might see a lot more blitzing early on by the Pats and maybe more of the 3 TE sets that worked well against the Chargers. I think the Giants will be airing it out a lot (similar to Chargers) and the favorable weather should be conducive to an aerial matchup. I'm thinking 24-13 Pats as my early (and meaningless) prediction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

How so?

In classic fanboyism fashion, you went on about "one of the best groups of recievers in the league", the greatness of GB's run and pass blocking, a resurgent Brett Favre, and the strength of the running game (Grant).
One would be left with the impression from YOUR words that it was the Pack... not the Pats who broke a bunch of records this year.

And one area of particular interest to me was the difference in the running games... Grant had like what... 28 yeards rushing?!? You oversold... not me...

Compare that with my words...



All on the Pack's home turf mind you...

It's not even like I disagreed with your *entire* assessment of GB... just that you completely oversold them.



That I can agree with.

---

My assessment was how they matched up against the Pats...which would not have been played in a meat locker. It was too cold for weather to be an advantage for the Packers. The Packers played one of their worst games of the year and lost by 3. I didn't figure the weather would cause the Packers to not throw more than 2 of their signature slants pattern variations either. You can't take much out of games played in extreme conditions like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harbinger

I can't believe some of the throws Favre tried to make in that game. Throwing into triple coverage in a tie game in the fourth quarter isn't generally a good move. I think he was trying to hard to go for the jugular.

And what happened to the running game? From 209 to 29? The Giants have a good defense, but that's still pretty disappointing for the Pack after they abused the Seahawks.

The superbowl will be interesting, esp. in terms of the two teams' gameplans. Might see a lot more blitzing early on by the Pats and maybe more of the 3 TE sets that worked well against the Chargers. I think the Giants will be airing it out a lot (similar to Chargers) and the favorable weather should be conducive to an aerial matchup. I'm thinking 24-13 Pats as my early (and meaningless) prediction.

---

I agree, I think he just felt the offense wasn't doing anything and he HAD to win the game sooner rather than later. The pass I wonder about was the overtime pass, he threw inside on a quick out...just a really poor throw. As for the running game, when it's that cold it really doesn't help cutback runners as the footing is pretty bad. Yesterday was a day for north south running.

Now comes the worst part of the season...the 2 weeks of bullship and hype leading up to the game. JUST PLAY IT!

its going to be a good game.It will be less than 10 points difference at the end but we all know whos going to win...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [PinPals]Apu

Sore Cowboys fan?

Well were all just gonna have to wait till the SB to see who eats their words :cool:

But Im tellin ya, the Pack have been surprising everyone all year, and I think they have 1 suprise left...

---

as long as jerry jones is at the helm cowboys will contine to be snakebit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2630Goon

as long as jerry jones is at the helm cowboys will contine to be snakebit.

---

You think he's bad, try having Al Davis as your owner...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steppy76

I agree, I think he just felt the offense wasn't doing anything and he HAD to win the game sooner rather than later. The pass I wonder about was the overtime pass, he threw inside on a quick out...just a really poor throw. As for the running game, when it's that cold it really doesn't help cutback runners as the footing is pretty bad. Yesterday was a day for north south running.

---

Bradshaw is a cut back runner and he tore it up. If it wasnt for the that ******** holding call he would had 100yds and two tds. waaaaaaa waaaaaa

Quote:

---

They didn't play all that well. Plain and simple. In weather conditions like this, extending that TD drive twice on 3rd down because of penalties is just plain stupid.

---

Nobody plays well in -4 degree weather. Everybody thought it was just going to be a running game with brett farve the deciding factor. The fact they played so good is amazing. dude, dont sit hear and cry about penalties one team handled the cold and the other got handled. Stop crying.

Quote:

---

Hopefully the Giants can knock off the Pats. I have to say though, with the way you worded that you'd have thunk the Giants won by 30, not 3.

---

Who cares what they won by the giants lost a by a field goal the last time they played the pats, oooh wow a field you know what they lost and nobody cared. Stop crying.

Quote:

---

The Giants didn't run all that great either...they just did better than GB. 20 points in those conditions isn't too bad. We got outplayed, hats off to the giants.

---

*** are you talking about they didnt run great? they had 134 rushing yds between them and two tds. Dude, get your self some tissues

Quote:

---

It's a classic case of the team that plays better wins, not always the best team.

---

Sorry man, i know you need some comfort but you aint gonna get it. Your "best team" was considerd better for two reasons. Those physical corners that got abused last night and brett farves ability to play in the cold. Best team my ***.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steppy76

My assessment was how they matched up against the Pats...which would not have been played in a meat locker. It was too cold for weather to be an advantage for the Packers. The Packers played one of their worst games of the year and lost by 3. I didn't figure the weather would cause the Packers to not throw more than 2 of their signature slants pattern variations either. You can't take much out of games played in extreme conditions like this.

---

Well... I'm not trying to pick on you or anything.

But in reading your one post... you made the Pack sound unbeatable. Which in my experience usually is a result of team bias.

(And my team being the 'Phins... I know exactly how bad they suck... at least your team is good)

If either team had an advantage in that cold... I would think that it'd be the Pack. Not that the Giants never play in cold weather or anything... just that the Pack should be used to it.

And the Giants ran pretty well in the cold (i.e. Bradshaw... cutback runner)... the Pack didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weedkiller420

Bradshaw is a cut back runner and he tore it up. If it wasnt for the that ******** holding call he would had 100yds and two tds. waaaaaaa waaaaaa


Nobody plays well in -4 degree weather. Everybody thought it was just going to be a running game with brett farve the deciding factor. The fact they played so good is amazing. dude, dont sit hear and cry about penalties one team handled the cold and the other got handled. Stop crying.


Who cares what they won by the giants lost a by a field goal the last time they played the pats, oooh wow a field you know what they lost and nobody cared. Stop crying.


*** are you talking about they didnt run great? they had 134 rushing yds between them and two tds. Dude, get your self some tissues


Sorry man, i know you need some comfort but you aint gonna get it. Your "best team" was considerd better for two reasons. Those physical corners that got abused last night and brett farves ability to play in the cold. Best team my ***.

---

1. 134 yards rushing isn't "tearing it up".
2. I said the Giants handled the cold better, no crying involved...Again, a 3 point win is not getting "handled". Hopefully the Giants can beat the Pats. I'll be rooting for them. The Giants deserved to win, and I don't believe I ever made any statement to the contrary.
3. I wasn't crying about penalties. In a low scoring game you can't extend drives on 3rd down. I didn't say they were bad calls/cheap calls, nor did I use it as an excuse. It was GB's defenses fault. It was a big factor and to act like it wasn't would be the signs of a very unknowledgable football fan. Learn what "crying" is dude.
4. 134 yards between 2 backs is ok, not great. GB ran bad, NY ran OK.
5. Harris got beat, Woodson didn't. Harris had pretty good coverage alot of times, and burris just made great plays and catches, which is what NY had to do to win and they did. Coughlin had a great gameplan.
6. My "better" team was considered better because they had a better record, had a better offense, had a more well rounded defense, and was at home. Any given sunday is a saying for a reason. You played a better game and won. The fact that you decided to say next to nothing until after the game speaks volumes about your confidence factor.

I think I showed plenty of graciousness in defeat and didn't hide from this thread...maybe you should learn a little bit of humility in victory. I don't need consolation. I can accept getting beat when it happens fair and square. No whining about bad calls (which you managed to do in victory), no excuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

Well... I'm not trying to pick on you or anything.

But in reading your one post... you made the Pack sound unbeatable. Which in my experience usually is a result of team bias.

(And my team being the 'Phins... I know exactly how bad they suck... at least your team is good)

If either team had an advantage in that cold... I would think that it'd be the Pack. Not that the Giants never play in cold weather or anything... just that the Pack should be used to it.

And the Giants ran pretty well in the cold (i.e. Bradshaw... cutback runner)... the Pack didn't.

---

My assessment was with how they match up against the Pats...nothing more nothing less. GB's strengths play directly against NE's weaknesses, using that assesment for any other purposes has a large effect on its tone. It was also in response to somebody who said they had NO chance of beating the Pats.

When it gets THAT cold, there is no getting used to it. 30* isn't too bad, 15* is where it just is freezing and starts to become an advantage for nobody. I've lived here all my life and it was colder than what I can stand. Ball control was a HUGE factor. Sitting on the bench makes you colder than moving around.

Bradshaw and Jacobs both averaged less than 4 yards a carry, once again ok but not great. Bradshaw also got his carries in the 4th quarter against a D that had been out there for 40 minutes. Eli being clutch on 3rd down won this game, not the running backs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steppy76

My assessment was with how they match up against the Pats...nothing more nothing less. GB's strengths play directly against NE's weaknesses, using that assesment for any other purposes has a large effect on its tone. It was also in response to somebody who said they had NO chance of beating the Pats.

---

True.

But in the same token... I think that GB would match up even better against the Giants than the Pats. The ONLY exception that comes to mind being GB's run stopping vs. the Giants power running with Jacobs. And even then... with what we saw of Maloney yesterday against a tough Chargers 'D... New England isn't exactly a slouch in that category either.

If I was to bet who GB would do better against... I would have though at home vs. the Giants than a neutral site vs. the Pats.

Its always tough after a game assessing "why". Some would say that the Pack played bad. Some would say that the Giants played well. Most objective people would say that it was a combination of the two. Trully though... "Any given Sunday".

But the game surprised me... and if we have any data to go off... it's basically that last game. We'll never know how the Pack would have fared against the Pats... but based off what I saw that last game... Not good...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steppy76

When it gets THAT cold, there is no getting used to it. 30* isn't too bad, 15* is where it just is freezing and starts to become an advantage for nobody.

---

Well, players for both teams ARE human. They are both affected by the elements.

At the same time however... there still is an advantage to be had. There is a reason why teams generally suffer playing down in Miami in September. And why teams like the 'Phins struggle historically playing somewhere like Lambeau field in December. Players DO get accustomed to it better than teams from other places.

To use an extreme example... how would eskimos fare physically in a humid jungle? How would a jungle tribe fare in Northern Alaska in th winter (assuming proper clothing still)?

It's why the players in Denver... at that high altitude have an advantage...

The environment DOES favour one team slightly more (at least) than the other.

Quote:

---

Sitting on the bench makes you colder than moving around.

---

Actually, have a hard time believing this... the benches are supposed to be warmed. And they can throw a jacket on too.

There was recently a hockey game played outdoors in frigid Buffalo. One of the players... George Laraque made a funny comment about the similar game that he played outdoors in Edmonton. Said that most the time that players complained about the time on ice that the coaches gave them... as in never enough ice time. But for the 1st time in his career... that the players complained about getting too little bench time (they were heated too).

I'm pretty sure yesterday that I heard something about the benches being heated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steppy76

Bradshaw and Jacobs both averaged less than 4 yards a carry, once again ok but not great. Bradshaw also got his carries in the 4th quarter against a D that had been out there for 40 minutes. Eli being clutch on 3rd down won this game, not the running backs.

---

I agree... and disagree.

After all the nay sayers this year saying how badly Eli sucked... and was a bust... he has been playing very well under pressure in the playoffs. Not amazing stats... but not glaring mistakes either... just making enough plays to win. I am no Giants fan... or Eli Manning fan... but I have felt that he has been under unfair criticism... and has been compared directly to his brother under different cicumstances.

He did make a difference in the game.

But also... I think that you under emphasize the importance in the Giants running game as well. Even at under 4 yards per carry... the Giants running game still resulted in 1st downs and ball control. The Giants running game contributed to their success... Green Bay's didn't.

I wouldn't pin any single factor to the Giants win yesterday. Be it the Giants running game... nor Eli's 3rd down conversions.

If I was to point out any single player... it would have been Plexico Burress. He had a whale of a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPnyc

Now comes the worst part of the season...the 2 weeks of bullship and hype leading up to the game. JUST PLAY IT!

---

At least it's a break from the presidential race and the never ending shenanigans of Brittany!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard

True.

But in the same token... I think that GB would match up even better against the Giants than the Pats. The ONLY exception that comes to mind being GB's run stopping vs. the Giants power running with Jacobs. And even then... with what we saw of Maloney yesterday against a tough Chargers 'D... New England isn't exactly a slouch in that category either.

If I was to bet who GB would do better against... I would have though at home vs. the Giants than a neutral site vs. the Pats.

Its always tough after a game assessing "why". Some would say that the Pack played bad. Some would say that the Giants played well. Most objective people would say that it was a combination of the two. Trully though... "Any given Sunday".

But the game surprised me... and if we have any data to go off... it's basically that last game. We'll never know how the Pack would have fared against the Pats... but based off what I saw that last game... Not good...



Well, players for both teams ARE human. They are both affected by the elements.

At the same time however... there still is an advantage to be had. There is a reason why teams generally suffer playing down in Miami in September. And why teams like the 'Phins struggle historically playing somewhere like Lambeau field in December. Players DO get accustomed to it better than teams from other places.

To use an extreme example... how would eskimos fare physically in a humid jungle? How would a jungle tribe fare in Northern Alaska in th winter (assuming proper clothing still)?

It's why the players in Denver... at that high altitude have an advantage...

The environment DOES favour one team slightly more (at least) than the other.



Actually, have a hard time believing this... the benches are supposed to be warmed. And they can throw a jacket on too.

There was recently a hockey game played outdoors in frigid Buffalo. One of the players... George Laraque made a funny comment about the similar game that he played outdoors in Edmonton. Said that most the time that players complained about the time on ice that the coaches gave them... as in never enough ice time. But for the 1st time in his career... that the players complained about getting too little bench time (they were heated too).

I'm pretty sure yesterday that I heard something about the benches being heated.



I agree... and disagree.

After all the nay sayers this year saying how badly Eli sucked... and was a bust... he has been playing very well under pressure in the playoffs. Not amazing stats... but not glaring mistakes either... just making enough plays to win. I am no Giants fan... or Eli Manning fan... but I have felt that he has been under unfair criticism... and has been compared directly to his brother under different cicumstances.

He did make a difference in the game.

But also... I think that you under emphasize the importance in the Giants running game as well. Even at under 4 yards per carry... the Giants running game still resulted in 1st downs and ball control. The Giants running game contributed to their success... Green Bay's didn't.

I wouldn't pin any single factor to the Giants win yesterday. Be it the Giants running game... nor Eli's 3rd down conversions.

If I was to point out any single player... it would have been Plexico Burress. He had a whale of a game.

---

I see you're from California...ever lived anywhere cold? Believe me, unless those benches warmed things up to 90 degrees, it was worse being on the bench than on the field. When you aren't moving you stiffen up, and you really don't warm up. Cold like that chills you to the bone and you don't warm up. I'm colder sitting outside for 5 minutes with more clothing on, then I am shoveling snow with less on. The Giants weren't a warm weather team, so even mildly cold conditions wouldn't have been much of an advantage for GB, though still an advantage. At the temps we're talking about, there is no getting used to it. I lived in the stuff forever and it was too cold for me. There's a threshold where cold is just cold. You being from California would probably be in a winter coat during weather where I'd be wearing a T-shirt, but with temps like yesterday we'd both be bundled up and just as miserable.

You can't translate yesterday's game to a game played in warm weather, you simply can't do things in bitter cold you do in normal weather. You're right, we'll never know how the Pack would have matched up, but you can't draw a single conclusion about it from yesterday's game. Anyone who's ever been in elements like that will back me up on that point.

Denver's advantage is a physical one, not just a mental one. Your blood thins and there are physical changes in your body that take place allowing your body to function normally at altitude. Visitors bodies literally don't function properly at altitude like denvers who's body have changed to function normally at altitude. Altitude and cold are completely different. One's more of a mental challenge and the other is a physical challenge.

Pats 56 - Gmen 14

You heard it here first.