Super Bowl Prediction Thread

I did not see any bad calls or even no calls for or against the Giants. The interferance call that set up a pats td was in fact a bad play by the defense. The only call that made me go huh? was the challange to the non call of 12 men on the field. I did not think you could challange non calls. That went against the giants, but the guy was still on the field, in the air but on the field of play.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of an accomplishment. If it is winning a ball game or a business deal going through or your kid making the honor roll.

Both teams played great smash mouth football, in the end though the NEW YORK GIANTS were in fact the better team with the better coach that day. The Pats were out played and out coached, and IMHO out classed.

 

The Giants made things happen and the Patriots made things happen. My point is that nothing that happened in that game was by chance. What other influences are you talking about?

What other circumstances are you talking about? The Giants were a better team on Sunday. What's so hard about admitting this?

I hate comments like this because you're assuming that I lack the perspective to know why games are played. I suppose your next comment is going to be something as equally useful as "sports aren't as important as {insert issue here}."

Of course "we" don't play it. Thank you for the oh-so-useless reminder that I'm not a professional football player.

Again, what circumstances? And, again, how hard is it to say that the Giants were the better team on Sunday?

What more can you attribute the Giants win to than the fact that they were a superior team on Sunday?

Again, a comment that, while true, adds nothing to this discussion.

Completely irrelevant. Shockey wasn't on the field, so why would he be considered any kind of factor?

Brady's ankle wasn't an issue.

The dome was closed so that weather wouldn't be an issue like it was in last year's Super Bowl.

They always measure when it's that close.

[/quote]... to try to disrupt the Pat's rhythm to the usual questionable calls), etc. It takes a lot more than simply "being better" to win a close ball game.[/quote]

So, now the referees were complicit in disrupting the Patriots offense so the Giants would win? If this is what you're saying, then you have lost any credibility you might have had.

Debateable? How? Both feet were in-bounds. He landed on one and drug the other. Debate over.

What are you basing this on, the yellow line we see on TV? Are you saying that the Giants only had to go 9 yards for that particular first down? And the Patriots didn't have a problem with this?

A defensive player grabbing the QB's jersey and/or having his hands on the QB's jersey does not constitute "in the grasp". It never has.

Repeat after me. The Giants were the better team on Sunday.

 

I had almost forgotten I posted that on Jan. 22 :thumbs: .

 

Some of the influences are listed in the post and you made comments on them. Much that happened in the game, as in every game, was by "chance."

The giants plus the outside circumstances led to victory. I don't like either team, so I have no real care who won. Why is it so hard for you to admit outside factors influence every game?

I am awed by your skill with sarcasm.

How hard it is to say this is irrelevant. I don't care about either team. I do care about shutting up the Dolphins. Hearing the Giants gloat after people rooted for them because they were tired of hearing Pats gloat is ironic. Either way, there will be gloating.

Some of these have already been listed and you gave your opinion. No more are needed as we will not be agreeing on this issue.

Well, if you feel it adds nothing, it must be true! By all means, lets drop this subject.

I didn't say he was a factor. I said he would have been a factor if he'd been expected to play. His injury is an example of outside influence on the game.

There is no way to know how much of an issue it was. He was in pain; he's admitted that. How much that changed the way he played and what plays were called, or not called, is unknown. He did not, for example, practice for 1.5 of the 2 week break.

Yes, and that changes the dynamics of the game, however subtly.

No they don't. They measure when it is close enough for the refs to be unsure of the call, or, as in this case, when one team specifically requests it. This one was not even close and the refs had made the call and signaled for the play to continue when the Giants requested the measurement for a short breather for the players and break in the rhythm.

The refs were used in this instance, perhaps others. And I have no doubt the Pats attempted similar manipulation. Please don't scare me with threats that you won't see me as credible! Oh nooooo! Fortunately, this is a discussion of pro football among amateur fans; credibility is not an issue.

You apparently saw both feet in bounds. Many other saw one foot, the dragging foot, dragging air, not turf. Again, without video review, we will never know, and probably not agree even if we did.

"In the grasp" is always a judgment call by the refs. When a player has a hand on the QB so as to control his body play is often stopped to avoid injury. The line is often subjective, and some people have felt this play went on longer than normal.

I wouldn't know who the better team was. It's not enough for some fans and players to say "the giants won"; some want to attach conclusions like "we are better," or "God was on our side" or "we have more talent."

I offer a draw and an end to this meaningless bickering.

 

Yeah, it was outlandish. I picked the Giants, though I thought the Pats would pull it out, but by less than 12.5-13.5. That's a lot to give away between two teams with decent defenses.

 

I never said they didn't. You're implying that the outside factors influenced the game more than the teams that actually played the game.

Re: the comment about God controlling men and how I said it was irrelevant.

Huh? You're comment makes no sense.

Re: Jeremy Shockey

His injury had no impact on the game whatsoever. I still don't know why you even brought him up.

Re: The dome being closed.

And both teams would have had to play in the same weather.

Re: measuring for distance

Ok, so the Giants got a break and so did the Patriots. It's not like the Patriots were forced to do pushups while the Giants got to lounge around and drink Gatorade.

It's up to you whether you want to be taken seriously around here.

I saw the video. Fox replayed it several times. Both feet were inbounds.

And you have your answer. The defensive player didn't have control of his body.

I know who the better team was. It was the Giants.

I'm not the "some fans" you're referring to. I didn't say that God was on their side and I didn't say that they had more talent. I said that the Giants were the better team in Super Bowl XLII.

You are a part of the "some fans" you're referring to. You want to attach conclusions about outside factors that affected the game in some way, but are either irrelevant, non-factors at all, or factors that impacted both teams.

Fine by me.

 

Is it too late to predict the NY Giants will win Super Bowl XLII?
>
>
>
>
OK, two serious and relatively easy predictions. I predict, in advance, that the same two teams will not be playing one another in Super Bowl XLIII. One may well make it back next year and has 18 times, but not both. That has only happened once in the 40+ year history of the Super Bowl, in Super Bowls XXVII and XXVIII with Buffalo and Dallas, with Dallas winning back-to-back titles. Back-to-back Super Bowl titles have happened eight times.

And I predict that with the continued talk of what might have or have not been, had the NE Patriots managed to win the Super bowl and thus go undefeated, and untied for a "perfect season", this past year, the Cleveland Browns will become even more overlooked for their already, now almost-forgotten "perfect season" of 1948, the year I was born, when they went 15-0 in the AAFC, meaning they, not the Miami Dolphins of 1972, were the first pro football team to have an undefeated season.

Ed

 

Hey Ed, you are like the original baby boomer.:laugh:

'72 Dolphins rule. They had the number 1 offense and the number one defense that year. Plus what is not told is that they won their opener in September of '73, giving them a record of 18-0. They lost the next week which matches the win loss record of the best teams in history.

 

FTR, My father was 46 yr., 8 mos. plus and my mother was 38 yrs., 7 mos. plus when I was born. I was the first born, my mother lost a second child during pregnancy, after me, and I had a younger brother who died at 50 four years ago, who was almost 4 yr. 4 mos. younger than me. So I might be classified as a "baby boomer" due to my chronological age, but surely an unusual one, I'd say. :laugh:

And what does "'72 Dolphins rule." have to do with my comment about the 1948 Cleveland Browns? If one wants to go that route, the 1947 Browns won their last straight 3 games, including the AAFC championship, then followed with the perfect 15-0 season of 1948, so also won 18 straight. However, where the Browns are/were unmatched is in their total of 29 games between losses, although they did have two ties, in those days, for both the 1972 Dolphins and the 2007 Patriots have losses at either end of their 18 game streak. The Browns did not lose, but were only tied, at either end of their 18 game win streak.

I just did a bit of looking at the Browns when Otto Graham was the quarterback for his ten years as a pro. The Browns overall W/L record, with him as QB in the AAFC from 1946-1949 and the NFL from 1950-1955, after the merger of the two leagues, for that 10 year period was 114W - 20L - 4T, in 138 games.

Not too shabby, I'd say, :thumbs: and I'd guess, without doing much research, that winning percentage of over 85% (Ties were not counted in percentage), is probably not even close to being matched by any other pro QB in pro football history.

BTW, I lived in Miami going to school there, in 1972, during the "perfect season", although I never got to attend any of the games, but was certainly, as most So. Florida residents were, a fan of the Dolphins. And I had also been a long time fan of the Browns, until they were spirited away to Baltimore, by Art Modell. No matter how hard I try, neither the Baltimore Ravens or the 'new' Cleveland Browns, is the same team I used to root for for 35 years.

Ed

 

Ed, I would guess that the reason we never hear about the '48 Browns is that the perception of the AAFC is that the competition wasn't as tough as it was in the NFL.

 

Ok, since you wish to continue...

The degree of influence has not come up. You have denied that outside factors have any influence and stated the Giants were simply "better." I am only stating that outside influence did and always does take place.

My answer is referring to your arrogant assumption that you know what does or does not add to this discussion. Ironic, since a discussion of the arrogance of the two Super Bowl teams is what led to this bickering.

You seem to be having trouble with this. The statement was listed among examples of outside influences that affected the game. His injury, or that of any key starter, affects how both teams plan and play the game. The Giants had plenty of time to evaluate the abilities over their backup TE, while the Pats had no such chance. Outside influence.

Although I don't doubt the Pats got at least one break somewhere in the game, you seem to accept this as given when we have not discussed it. When did the Pats get a break?

It may come as a surprise, but you do not decide who is seen as credible or taken seriously for others on this board. They will decide this for themselves.

Congratulations on your opinion; however, whether it is correct or not is not the issue. Others saw the replay as many times as you and came to different conclusions. Thus, this play was debatable, whichever side of the debate you fall on.

Once again, congratulation on your opinion. Another example of a play being debated by those who hold different opinions than you.

Good for you, and let's hope this completes the trifecta of your opinions on the game.

I don't remember saying you were among the "some fans" I was referring to, but your desire to not be included in them is noted.

I am not a fan so I doubt I am part of the "some fans."

I have not come to conclusions; you have--the main one being that the Giants were/are the better team, and another that no outside influences affected the outcome of the game. Since I've not made this conclusion, I'm more than open to debate and discussion on the issue. You do not accept alternative ideas on what may have influenced the outcome of the game. It seems you prefer to think of one team as simply "better," and that the "better" team always wins, with no deeper discussion. Good for you! Whatever floats your boat.

We do not agree on what is irrelevant, nor what is a non-factor. Hence, my offer to end this debate.

 

What part of "Fine by me" means that I wanted to continue? I said my peace and I was done. But, by all means, let's continue.

Do you even read what I write or do you just assume that you know what I'm going to say and respond accordingly?

I said:

The factors you brought up were either irrelevant to the game (such as a player who wasn't even on the field), a non-factor (the break while they measured for a first down that apparently favored one team over the other), or it affected both teams (both teams played in a domed stadium and the roof was closed).

Okay, educate me oh wise one. How does saying "God controls men" impact this discussion in any way? What is the influence? Use small words if you please, since you're obviously so much smarter than I am.

It really helps if you explain what you meant. The Patriots had 4 games worth of game film to study what Kevin Boss could do. I doubt that Belichick and his coaches were surprised about anything that Kevin Boss could do. The big play from Manning to Boss was an improvised play that the Patriots had never seen from the Giants (this was written about by either Peter King in his MMQB column, or by Paul Zimmerman in his post-Super Bowl column), but this was due to what Eli Manning did, not what Kevin Boss did. The Patriots may have been surprised by what Boss was capable of, but I have serious doubts about it.

If the Giants got a break from play during the measurement, what did the Patriots get during that measurement time? Didn't they get a break also?

Obviously. I wouldn't dream of telling anybody around here what to think, and even if I tried, I guarantee you they wouldn't do it. But, if you come on here and imply that the referees were doing something to benefit the Giants, or the Patriots, as if they wanted a certain team to win, then I feel pretty safe in saying that the other guys that visit the Sports forum will be of the same opinion that I am about somebody that espouses conspiracy theories in regards to sporting events.

Looks like you implied it.

Since I'm one of the fans that says the Giants were the better team, what other conclusion should I be drawing?

Why are you even on the Sports forum then? I mean, besides the fact that this is a free board, free country, and you can respond to anything you want to.

I don't believe this for a minute.

The Giants are the better team because they proved it on the field. I never said that outside influence don't affect the outcome.

Here, let me repeat what I said.

Yes, I'm so closed to debate that I've written at least 3 long pieces debating the topic.

I've made my conclusion about alternative ideas on what may have influenced the game. The outside factors that you've brought up didn't affect the game in any significant way. The Giants outplayed the Patriots and were the better team and won the game.

You've brought up outside factors that I don't think affected the game in any significant way. What kind of "deeper discussion" is there to be made? In the Super Bowl in Miami last year, the rain was an outside factor. But, both teams played in the same conditions, so it was essentially a non-factor. In this Super Bowl, any outside factors were either irrelevant (such as a player who wasn't even on the field), wasn't a factor (the so-called break during measuring that somehow magically favored one team over the other), or affected both teams equally (they both played in a domed stadium where the roof was closed).

Don't patronize me.

I took the offer the last time. Are you going to live up to ending the debate this time?

 

Yep!! Probably not very much competetion!

I guess that the 'tough competetion of the NFL' is why the Browns managed to win their conference every year for their first six years in the NFL, with Otto Graham as the QB (and three titles to go along with the four they won in the AAFC), for a total of seven titles in ten years. Oh yeah, they managed to beat the powerful Philadelphia Eagles in Philadelphia, the two-time defending champions of the NFL, in the first game of the 1950 season (that game was given a special name, that I canot recall, BTW), by barely scratching out a win over the Eagles with a score of 35-10. Guess that that 'tough competetion' almost did 'em in! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Thanks for defending my Browns :laugh:

I don't understand when dynasties are spoken of, the Browns of the '50's and '60's are never mentioned. Who cares if the championship game was not coined "Super Bowl". It's like that is the only thing that matters today..."the Browns have never played in a Super Bowl".:BangHead:

 

Why do I feel as if I'm being laughed at? I agree with you. The Browns of the 40's were great and I don't think they should be disregarded. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

 

What makes you think it was the "fine by me" that convinced me you wanted to continue? Isn't it obvious it was your long list of points and counterpoints? You started this debate, you will be the one that ends it, unless a mod or God steps in.

Have I predicted what you were going to say? Of option a) I read what you say or b) I predict and respond to what you are going to say, I believe a) is closer to the truth. Do you believe otherwise? What is the point of this leading question?

We've noted over and over this is your opinion. Why are you stating it again? Again, my point is not that I believe any of these things changed the game, but that these are examples of things that were outside influences, a group of factors which could potentially be influences on the game's outcome, and therefore subject to debate. I have not argued my opinion on any of these issues, only that some people, some fans, whatever you want to call the group, feel this way.

More sarcasm? Surely you have more tools to express your vehemence.

God's will is often done on earth through or in spite of men. When men struggle against God's will in big things or small, God may step in and affect the outcome of the issue. Whether God had a will for the outcome of this game is unknown to me, but probable considering His attention to detail and concern with every part of our lives. Whether God affected the outcome of this game is also unknown to me, though it is also probable considering he is our source of strength, ability, power, talent, life, everything we are able to do. So in what way, if any, did God affect the outcome of this game? Unknown to me, but an interesting subject of discussion, imo, and open to disagreement and debate. If you would rather stamp the game "over and won by the 'better' team" you certainly have that right; I'm more interested in discussing the possibilities of chance, circumstance, and God's will.

All points that could be made for your side of the argument in a conversation about possible outside influence on the game caused by Shockey's injury. Good job.

The main point was the break in the Pat's rhythm, but yes, I'd assume both sides got to catch their breath, too.

You certainly have the right to distinguish your opinions and stances from any group of fans as you wish. When you feel you are incorrectly grouped with others, it should help with overall understanding to state your position relative to whatever group you have been included with. Some fans feel there was no outside influence on the game, while others feel there was--and always is--outside influence. You have made it clear you do not agree with the latter, but I am not sure of your position on the former; from my perspective, it seems you deny there is any influence, then deny your denial.

I don't think it is unreasonable for someone who is not a Giants or Pats fan, or even a Super Bowl or NFL fan, to be here. But to answer your question, I'm here because I am interested in NFL football, pro sports psychology, the psychology of competition/conflict as a whole, and the spiritual implications of all of the above.

The Giants won the Super Bowl, won 11 straight road games, have great talent all around, and maintained a strong emotional drive throughout the playoffs. The Pats had the better record, the longer winning streak, the tougher schedule, beat the giants earlier in the year, have great talent all around, and had the highest-scoring offense in history. Take your pick. While normally I'd enjoy a conversation about which team is better, and why, I think this debate is beyond that stage.

You said,

and

Plenty happened by "chance." Whether or not you feel these factors were enough to determine the course of the game, they are subject to debate and discussion.

Did I say you weren't open to debate? I said you have made your conclusions, not that you are closed to debate. We have not been debating these topics, but whether these topics are subject to debate. You have maintained that they are not, that nothing happened by chance in the game. However, due to the tone of this discussion, I won't be giving my opinions on the specific influences I feel affected the game.

As you said,

Those seem to sum up your conclusions. I believe that outside factors warrant a discussion whether you feel they are open to debate or not, whether you feel they affected the game or not.

Proving that certain forces influenced the game and in what way was not my goal. Bringing up factors that were subject to debate, interpretation, and discussion was.

This was answered above, but includes, among many things, injuries and their extended affects, the Giants remarkable emotional high that lasted through the playoffs, the subject of prayer by players and coaches, questions like "does God favor underdogs?" You name it; all kinds of topics could lead to deeper discussions than "The Giants were better. End of story."

Again, I make no claim that these things changed the result of the game, but I do believe they affected the game (even "magically" to use your word).

When you come down off your horse, understand that my comments were meant to cheer on your devotion to your own positions and express that others can and do have different ones that don't, or shouldn't, threaten yours.

Several of the commentators on the Fox pregame show picked the Giants, but calling them experts (even though several of them are former players and coaches) is well....your choice.

Your attacks; your call.

 

What's missing in this here debate?

• a parking lot full of pickup trucks with lift kits
• the smell of stale beer and cigarette smoke
• Toby Keith singing I Love This Bar
• Some idiot in a '72 Dolphins jersey yelling, "We're #1!"

Y'all can speculate until it's milking time but the facts are the New Jersey Giants beat the New England Patriots. What if... and If only... ain't going to change the outcome. Shoot, if only I was a bit better looking and had a few million dollars I'd be handsome and rich.

Y'all go back to fussing now.

 

I see no point in continuing this.

 

Stupid double post!

 

No one has bothered to address a couple of my predictions, including the one that the two teams would not be the same ones there next year.

Wonder why that is not addressed?

BTW, ccrobinson, I was not making fun of you (or anyone else) in my posts, but merely reacting to the posts, as they appeared.

Ed