NCS's Notes - Why I'm Really, Really, Confused.

by New Century Silver on Feb 6, 2012 1:25 PM EST

Ok, this is my main Superbowl post.

I guess I'll start off by explaining where I've been for the last two weeks. Rather then be abducted by aliens or killed in a car crash, I was avoiding the football media. This was for a number of reasons, primarily that I was cautiously optimistic and didn't want to become either extremely arrogant or pessimistic because of something I read.

I also didn't watch the actual Superbowl, in what appears to be a failed attempt to re-activate the Crosby Anti-Jinx (yes, I made up the name, but the concept is real: see 1960 World Series) so I may not be totally accurate in some of these statements. If I'm not, feel free to correct me. I may or may not watch a recorded version of the SB - do you think I should?

So, I guess part of the reason I'm confused is because I really felt like we had this one -

In 2007, we were like the Packers of this year in that we got consistently less dominant from the midway point of the season on. I wouldn't say I expected us to lose, but I felt like all we needed to do was win this one game and it would be all over. It was as though I saw a loss creeping up behind us in my rear-view mirror, and only hoped it wouldn't catch us in the SB. This year, though I didn't feel like that. I felt like this was our year, our chance to not only get revenge but re-awaken the dynasty, dominance, and playoff success. It was supposed to be an end to the "dark age", not the "dark ages" starting over.
Now, the reason I felt like this was because I think you can all agree we've been getting better. In 2009, we had no mental toughness. Now, or so I thought, we did. We rebuilt the team in 2010, and had were turning things around. All that was left was to get the playoff monkey off our back - and when we did that against the Broncos in such an epic fashion, the sky seemed to be the limit.
With that said, I didn't think we would win the Superbowl this year. I though we'd lose to the Ravens, and then come back next year with everything in place for a Superbowl, or even 19-0, run. The Ravens, who I've always sort of liked, would get another SB, and Ricky Williams would finally be on a team that competed for something.
I guess you could call the win against the Ravens the start of my confusion - I tend to be right, whether it was the 4th and 2 game, overall the 2009 season, the 43-3 game against the Jets, the playoff game against the Jets, the Packers not winning a playoff game, the Pats beating the Broncos, the Jets missing the playoffs this year, the Manning interception against the Saints, etc. All of those were, if surprising, also somehow making since. The 2011 Ravens victory did not.
But, perhaps, we were just maturing faster then I expected. Like I said I expected a SB or better in 2012 - maybe I just was supposed to think 2012 SB, as opposed to 2012 season. It was as if a massive, delicious turkey dinner was sitting on my table when I came home, with no explanation of who put it there or why. Kind of odd, unexpected, but hey, its good, so why not dig in?
And then, of-coarse, that turkey dinner turns out to be poisoned. I remember saying in a comment earlier in the year the most likely scenario was we beat the Broncos and lose to the Ravens, the second most likely was that we beat the Ravens and win the SB, and the virtually impossible, not-happening situation was that we lose the SB. This was our time, time for the team to come full-circle - as in, back to winning SBs. Sticking with analogies, it was like in 2006-2007 we were pushed off our throne of greatness. During the rebuilding years of 2008, 2009, and 2010 we were climbing a ladder back up, and finally in 2011 we reached the final step - only to have someone stomp our hand, make us let go and cause us to fall all the way back down again.

So now, looking toward the future, what does this mean? You can see my other thread for more information on that, but I'll summarize here: teams that lose the SB tend to really stink it up in the following years. 2009 Colts almost went undefeated, then they lose the SB and boom they're the worst team in the league. 2008 was the last time the Cardinals competed for anything. 2007 lead to the mental weakness of 2008, 2009, etc, and was what threw us off the top of that latter in the first place. The Bears have been stuck in permanent mediocreness since 2006. The Seahawks, Panthers, Raiders, Rams, and Eagles all are the same.

And thats what really bothered me about this loss. If we're back to where we were in 2008, thats a disaster. Put aside the fact that Brady's aging and may be done by then, theres just the fact that 2008, 2009, and to a lesser extent 2010 sucked. They were painful to watch, painful to follow as a Patriots fan. Now it seems like we'll have to go over through it all again.

Or, theres the really unlikely but possible result that this triggers Angry Belichick. Theres a slim chance I was right all along about 2012, and that the Pats will come out mad as hell about this and drop 50s on everyone next year. I was wrong about everything this year, so maybe I'm wrong when I say we'll fall back into rebuilding years.

Finally, that brings us to the Giants and Eli Manning. In 2007, it was all luck. We were better, and they only won because of a catch that probably never will be repeated. In 2011, it wasn't as much luck, at least in when it came to getting to the SB. They were decent this year, I'll give you that. They earned their playoff wins, except for against the 49ers who beat themselves, and hey, the Ravens beat themselves against us. But seriously - why is it always them?

And why does America seem to like Eli? I find Eli to be everything thats wrong with football - he's inconsistent, illogical, the opposite of all things that make sense. QBs that only play one down shouldn't be successful. Eli shouldn't have more rings then Peyton. Eli shouldn't really have any rings at all. The Giants shouldn't have a 3-0 record against the Patriots since 2008. I could understand if we lost to the Saints or something - but the Giants? Thats messed up.

At least with Peyton it made since. With Eli, though, that Starwars scene with Jar Jar comes to mind - hes a bumbling idiot, and yet somehow he always manages to be in the right place at the right time. One day he'll be a pick machine whos choking it up against the Eagles, then next he'll be making us and the Packers look like chokers.

So, thats my notes on the Superbowl. Beyond the loss or the fact that Eli now has robbed us of two rings is what bothers me the most is that it seems as though some very hard times will be ahead. Or maybe not. I felt like good times were ahead, and looks like I was wrong. Its as though the the world when it relates to football has turned into some sort of wonderland in which noting make since.

The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.

Tweet Comment 54 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

just because it's happened before

doesn’t mean it will happen again. Is it possible that the Pats take a step back? Sure, nothing is impossible in football these days, as the NFL is a heavy parity league, with one or two elite teams at best each year.

That said, the Pats are in better position than most of the other teams. As I noted in the other post, the Pats have

a) Brady at the top of his game (when you consider that the top pass catching threats were mostly seam-intermediate guys, and the top runner is a ground and pound guy who won’t break off long ones consistently, it’s actually fairly remarkable how good this offense was).

b) Cap room and one “key” FA. I tend to think Welker is the only key guy, and sure, he’ll eat up cap room. BGE would be nice to bring back … at the right price. Anderson/Carter are nice guys to have, but it may depend on what sort of even front ratio that Belichick has in mind with a full off-season. Branch, Ihedigbo, Warren, Ellis are all replaceable. Slater is replaceable, though gut feeling says they bring him back. Connolly is a nice asset, but only at the right cost.

c) A moveable asset in Brian Hoyer. Flynn is going to be extremely costly, and not every team will have the assets to compete for RG3. That leaves Taneyhill, and I could see a team giving up a pick (and with the Pats, maybe the Pats decide to take a 2013 pick instead if it gets them a higher round) to try Hoyer. Tools wise, he’s not that far behind Flynn, if at all.

d) Youth at certain key areas for the type of team Belichick wants to run (Chung looks to be growing in as a solid strong safety, the insider LB’s are in their prime, Ninkovich looks good for BB, and most importantly, 2 young tackles).

e) 2 1sts and 2 2nd’s this year (although I anticipate the Pats dealing back from the Raiders spot at this early stage, as I don’t see a lot of appealing possibilities, at this early stage, in the mid-first for them).

f) A winning tradition that will lead to some veterans signing to fill key roles, like Brian Waters this past year.

Most NFL fans would trade their team’s outlook for the Pats in a heartbeat. Many of the teams you listed, including the team I’m a fan of (the Bears) were not as well run as this Patriots organization. This doesn’t mean that they will definitely be a title contender next year, but when you factor in an AFC with few top QB’s, and even if a healthy Peyton is in Miami, the Patriots should be in the playoff hunt again.

I’m not a big Eli fan, but give him some credit. He had a fairly good year, with close to 5000 yards in an offense whose receivers fit the scheme more than they are elite WR’s, IMO, and he doesn’t have a seam-stretching TE. The running game was missing much of the year.

by toonsterwu on Feb 6, 2012 1:53 PM EST reply actions

You think too much...

This team has a lot of life left in them, with gaps in the defense that were narrowing every week. The offense lacks a deep threat, as has been said many times before, and the development of Ridley and/or Vereen could help alot. If Welker, or Hernandez, or Gronkowski, or Branch had caught their respective dropped passes, or Brady hadn’t caused that safety, or either of those forced Giant fumbles had bounced toward a Patriot, you might not be writing ANY of this. None of those guys are losers—they just made solitary mistakes that added up to a loss in a close game with a worthy opponent.

Two years after the 2009 season, in which the Pats suffered truly humiliating losses to the New Orleans Saints and the Baltimore Ravens, we have a young (for the most part) team that is still just beginning to gel. With a good draft and/or a couple of free agent signings, along with another year under their belt, this team could be considerably stronger than it already is. Remember that John Elway didn’t actually WIN a Super Bowl until he was older, and his skill set had deteriorated considerably—but he had a better team around him, and his experience enabled him to make good use of them to win two rings in consecutive years. And he was NEVER the passer that Brady is.

by pminot on Feb 6, 2012 2:09 PM EST reply actions

Exactly

Build a better team around Brady. Brady isn’t the biggest problem, they just need more pieces around him. Lack of a deep threat, inconsistent defense and poor running game amoing other things all need to be addressed before we even start talking about Brady.

by lololol on Feb 6, 2012 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

And I think alot of the building is already happening.

The defense’s performance in the playoffs was FAR better than we had any right to expect, considering how they looked during the regular season.

by pminot on Feb 6, 2012 2:13 PM EST reply actions

you're definitely wrong

we’ve got plenty of draft picks and the core is very young.

On O: Woodhead, Ridley, BJGE, Welker (included because he’s still going to beast for a couple years), Cannon, Solder, Vollmer, Mankins, Connolly.
Other veterans like Light and Waters and Brady can still play one more year at a high level.

on D: Wilfork, Love, Deaderick, Anderson, Spikes, Mayo, Cunningham, Ninkovich, Fletcher, mcCourty, Chung, Moore, Arrington, Dowling

All players who are locked up long term or close to it. Add in our draft picks and we’re in good shape.

In 2007, Vrabel, Seymour, Bruschi, Harrison, Law, Seau, Thomas were all gone in a year. Randy was never the same, Brady was gone in 2008, the secondary and lb corp was completely replaced. Ty Warren got injured. The receivers Gaffney, Tate, Stallworth were gone. The TEs Watson and Baker left. We were gutted after 2007. Not this time.

In fact, I had this nagging thought in the back of my head this playoff season. This is all happening one season too early. We really need one more year to get the D to where it should be and fully replenish the WR corp. The rentals (Ocho, Haynesworth) weren’t as advertised. The corners weren’t either (Bodden, Dowling). The other WRs took a step back (Edelman, Branch). Other than BJGE and Ridley, the other RBs didn’t play well or weren’t ready (Vereen, Faulk, Woodhead).

Lakers and Patriots forever.

by D.S.T. on Feb 6, 2012 2:20 PM EST reply actions

100% agree about it being too early

I just feel like you either hold, or go all in. If you go all in too early and lose, thats a real hit to the team.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 6, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions

you know

I completely forgot about Marcus Cannon for you guys in my response above. If he’s ready to go, he could slide in for Waters, meaning the only need is a replacement for Koppen at C.

by toonsterwu on Feb 6, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions

BB Doesnt like having elite Rbs

So theres your running game. give ridley more carries. hes our most explosive running back

'You are banned from Gang Green Nation'
"You can browse the blog, but you can't participate."

"BANNED LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

by BostonBeasts on Feb 6, 2012 2:22 PM EST via Android app reply actions

Why not get an elite running back?
Look at what the Patriots did with Corey Dillion. He really helped the Patriots in their 3rd Super Bowl season. I was statistically his best season too.

Joe Montana had Roger Craig for 3 of his 4 Super Bowl seasons.
Steve Young had Ricky Watters for his 1 Super Bowl seasons.
Troy Aikman had Emmit Smith for his 3 Super Bowl seaons.
Terry Bradshaw had Franco Harris for his 4 Super Bowl seaons.
John Elway had Terrel Davis for his 2 Super Bowl seasons.

The running back is very important in winning super bowls.

I think that if we had an elite running back and a elite wide receiver, The New England Patriots would have a better chance.

The San Francisco blew out the

by raymond.n.scott on Feb 6, 2012 2:46 PM EST reply actions

The San Francisco 49ers blew out the Broncos because they truly had many weapons including the greatest wide receiver to ever play the game.

by raymond.n.scott on Feb 6, 2012 2:46 PM EST reply actions

teams that lose the SB tend to really stink it up in the following years

?? The Pats have hardly stunk it up after losing the super bowl.

2008 No Brady…………………11-5
2009 Healing Brady…………..10-6
2010 Healthy Brady………….14-2
2011 Healthy Brady…………..13-3 and back to the super bowl

Most team would die for going to the super bowl and losing then “stinking it up” like that the previous four years.

by FloridaPatsFan on Feb 6, 2012 4:02 PM EST reply actions

Or you could look at it like

2008 No Brady………………..missed playoffs
2009 Healing Brady………..1 and done
2010 Healthy Brady…………1 and done
2011 Healthy Brady………….SB loss

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 6, 2012 7:53 PM EST up reply actions

Seriously, does getting a different QB guarantee a shot at the Super Bowl?

Let’s see:
Brady 3-2 in 11 years.
Rothlisburger 2-1 in 7 years
E. Manning 2-0 in 7 years
P. Manning 1-1 in 12 years.
Brees 1-0 in 10 years.
Rodgers 1-0 in 6 years

Anyone? Anyone?

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 6, 2012 8:10 PM EST up reply actions

Ummm...?

not sure what that has to do with my post, I didn’t say anything about a different QB. Thats a separate thread, which I’d like to keep separate.

Now if your trying to make the point that you can’t win the SB ever year, yea, I understand. I feel like, though making it there and losing it is really disastrous for the franchise.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 6, 2012 8:18 PM EST up reply actions

so if making it there and losing is disastrous

are you suggesting that that is worse than … not making it there? because uh … no. I think any team would rather make it there than not.

by toonsterwu on Feb 6, 2012 11:01 PM EST up reply actions

Honestly, I'd rather have lost to the Ravens

and its not even close.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 6, 2012 11:19 PM EST up reply actions

I would rather beat the ravens and go to the superbowl.

Im pretty sure the pats organization and everyone one else would want the same thing.

I’ll take 11 players with heart on the field over 11 guys with just talent. Talent is fleeting, it goes away over time. Heart is what drives you to be better. To push yourself beyond what you think your capabilities are. To show us that when you strive, all things are possible.- SMP

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 7, 2012 12:36 AM EST up reply actions

Definitely

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 7, 2012 1:50 PM EST up reply actions

That makes zero since to me...

If you lose to the Ravens, you’re not losing to your biggest rival right now. You’re not losing to the team that already cost you the most important achievement in football. You’re not losing infront of the biggest television audience ever. You’re not hurting your franchise’s Superbowl win %. 20 years from now, nobody is going to know who won or lost the 2012 AFCCG. Most football fans that were alive, however, will probably know we lost the Superbowl.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe you mean sense?

I got a little down last year after the second one and done – especially losing to the Jets. I was on the Phinsider and asked those guys whether they thought it was better to get to the playoffs and be one and done to a team they hated or not even get your hopes up by not getting there in the first place.

To a man (or woman) they voted for get there and be one and done. You tried. You did your best, and you are in contention. Unlike the other 20 teams that watch from home.

It sucks that they lost, but I’d rather make the playoffs and go as deep as they can, yes even lose the Super Bowl, than sit there and wonder when the Pats are going to be relevant again like the other 20 teams.

I mean if you are worried about getting beat, don’t get in the ring and live a coward’s life. I’d rather get knocked on my ass and keep trying personally. Maybe everyone’s not cut from the same cloth, though.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 7, 2012 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

+1

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 7, 2012 4:00 PM EST up reply actions

I'd be more worried about whether they'll be relevent

if they lose the SB then if they lose in the playoffs.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 5:23 PM EST up reply actions

Trust the Vegas guys, then.

They don’t lose money that often and they think we have a pretty good shot (just a little behind the Packers). There are no guarantees, and worrying accomplishes nothing.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 7, 2012 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

And worrying about hether they'll be relevant or not after loosing a playoff game or superbowl is irrelevant.

How many thought the Giants would get past the Saints and packers, and go to the superbowl?

Yeah….. anything can happen. And the pats have a better chance than most at going to the superbowl anyways.

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 7, 2012 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

If you told me who they were playing

I could have definitely said they’d go to the SB. Maybe not the likeliest pick, but it certainly didn’t surprise me

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 5:46 PM EST up reply actions

of course not.

And it shouldn’t surprise you if the pats make it either.

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 7, 2012 5:56 PM EST up reply actions

2008- Brady’s mechanics were off after coming back from a year off
2009- We lost welker on the last week
2010- that was a team fail, Brady wasn’t at his best but neither was the defense and the Jets had a great game plan.

by lololol on Feb 6, 2012 8:43 PM EST up reply actions

Heres the only legit reasons why we lost

1: Unleathy Gronk.. thats equal to taking away Randy Moss in 2007. Hes our best play aside from Brady.
2: the Welker drop. Now we should have been up 30-10 at that point and would have if we had a healthy Gronk, but you can play terrible and still win, as long as you finish out the game (see Cowboys of this year)

Turovers aren’t a valid excuse imo.. the int was like a punt. Really, the only serious problem was Gronk. To fix this going into the future, I’m not sure what we can do. Gronk is the toughest receiver on the team, so if we can’t rely on him to remain healthy we can’t rely on anyone. To an extent it would help to have another receiver, which I believe we’ll address during the off-season. More importantly, though, if we knew we would be without a 100% Gronk, you’d think we would come up with ways to work around that. We had two weeks and a genus coach, after all.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 6, 2012 8:29 PM EST reply actions

Which means that

if you wanna take it that far you could say Pollard cost us one, two, or even three rings.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 6, 2012 9:00 PM EST up reply actions

I think people overrated the Welker drop.

Should he have caught it? Yes.
Would he have scored? Probably not.
Brady threw the ball a little high. Welker isn’t the tallest receiver.
If he had hit him in stride it could have been a touchdown.

If he had caught it…
It would have set the team up in great position to score, but that isn’t a given.
There were plenty more factors that went into the loss.

The Post W'Rec'ker

by Choose your screen name: on Feb 7, 2012 2:22 AM EST up reply actions

of course but that one was KEY.

If he caught that, the Giants would likely have to spend their last timeout eventually. And its a good chance that we score considering how well we have been in the redzone.

It was important. But I still love Wes.

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 7, 2012 2:59 AM EST up reply actions

I do too, but

theres a little, tiny bit of me that reminds myself he is one of the few players here for 18-1… and 4th and 2… but he wasn’t here during the SB wins..o_o… I guess its just my version of Alec’s Hank. Thank got I keep it in check.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 3:06 AM EST up reply actions

We could get those guys back from the Super Bowls.

That is if the Nursing Home will still allow it.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 7, 2012 1:54 PM EST up reply actions

It wasn’t as high as i thought looking on the replays. It wasn’t a perfect throw but it wasn’t terrible like the media is making it out to be. Wes usually catches it, but the pats blew other opportunities too. Like on the Giants drive where the defense gave up way too space and couldn’t stop the giants or at least limit them to a long FG. then on the final drive Branch misses a perfect pass at the 50 where he had room to run. That would have gotten us to the giants territory at least. Then Herendez drops a first down pass, then the next play Brady gets sacked which killed a ton of time.

by lololol on Feb 7, 2012 11:43 AM EST up reply actions

Actually, the Giants made plays when we didn't. That's why we lost.

A couple tough breaks. A few forced fumbles that bounced the wrong way, but plays could be made and they weren’t.

It sucks, but that’s the way it is. There are no guarantees in football. The weird shaped ball bounces how it will.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 7, 2012 1:53 PM EST up reply actions

Out of all the games of the year...

why is it that both this year and in 2007 we just happened to get all the bad breaks in the SB? When you play 38 games and the two that are the most important just happen also be the worst-played, you’ve got bigger problems then bouncing balls.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 3:10 PM EST up reply actions

There were plays to be made and they didn't make them. It happened. Get over it.

If any of those fumbles went our way, we’d likely have won as well. That’s all I was pointing out.

You act like the Patriots out of all 32 teams are somehow entitled to win the Super Bowl every year. That’s not realistic. All things being equal, and they’re not, there’s a 6.25% chance to even go to the big game any year. There’s a 3.125% chance of winning one. There’s a 0.01% chance of repeating. Yet somehow this franchise has been there 7 times, won three and even repeated once.

That’s because things are not equal, they are uncommonly good, and yes, sometimes uncommonly lucky (like when the Ravens kicker shanked that field goal). Other teams have good and in some cases, even better players. With the reality of the salary cap, that’s just the way it is. Those are the rules the league has, and they are for a reason. So that there is parity in the league. So that every team goes around 8-8 every damn year, and there are no super teams.

Yet here are the Patriots – still super. We’re blessed.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 7, 2012 3:35 PM EST up reply actions

I don't know where you get the idea

that I expect a Superbowl win every year. I didn’t expect one last year, the year before, or this year.

With that said, I do expect us to play well in the big games we play. Maybe not win, but you can’t be having your worst games in your biggest games.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

We did play well.

The other team played better.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
Some people can learn from the mistakes of others, while some people need to pee on the electric fence themselves.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Feb 7, 2012 5:42 PM EST up reply actions

We got plenty of bad breaks in some games in the regular season. People just emphsize it less.

by lololol on Feb 7, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions

They emphasise it less

because there are, as a fact, we scored higher or equal in every single game this year then we did in the SB. Same for 2007. That mean, out of 38 games, the two worst are the two most important. I don’t see how that can be a coincidence.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

it is*

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 5:29 PM EST up reply actions

And I guess my point is

if the two most important games are the two games in which our offense scores the least, the team must be doing something wrong when it comes to preparing for those games.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 5:30 PM EST up reply actions

Just bad breaks. they happen.

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 7, 2012 5:46 PM EST up reply actions

Not sure I believe in coincidences like that.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 7, 2012 8:28 PM EST up reply actions

Well they happen.

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 7, 2012 9:30 PM EST up reply actions

Seems impossible

and I never see it happening to other teams. When it happens once you’d think the players would do all they could to avoid it… Giants defense is good, but we’ve played and beaten better defenses by higher scores.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 8, 2012 1:29 AM EST up reply actions

I never see it happening to other teams.

Like Reche Caldwell’s dropped TD in 06? Or Tyree’s catch in 07? Perhaps the Lee Evans drop when we faced Baltimore in the AFC game this year? There are any more.

When it happens once you’d think the players would do all they could to avoid it

Sometimes things are out of your control.

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 11, 2012 1:07 AM EST up reply actions

Those are all single plays

We should have scored 30 on the Giants. We didn’t, and thats not because of any single play. More then anything its because of a weak Gronk, but I still think it was kind of pathetic considering they had two weeks to come up with a plan for winning without Gronk.

Oh my god a floor zombie! Oh wait, thats you
- Toby Turner

by New Century Silver on Feb 11, 2012 1:35 PM EST up reply actions

We should have scored 30 on the Giants. We didn’t, and thats not because of any single play. More then anything its because of a weak Gronk, but I still think it was kind of pathetic considering they had two weeks to come up with a plan for winning without Gronk.

Drew Nress and Rodgers should have scored 30 then. You need to give the Giants defense more credit. lol

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 13, 2012 6:26 PM EST up reply actions

*Brees

by Jack'sAxe on Feb 13, 2012 6:26 PM EST up reply actions

You got some breaks in 2007

The first interception should have been caught by Steve Smith (I think it was him). A fumble killed another drive because it was illegally batted forward by a Giants player. This is illegal (and yes, you could have recovered it), but if the Giant never touched it, it looked like it was easily going out of bounds.

Also, Blackburn doesn’t run off the field in time for a 12 man penalty which negates a Patriots punt (the drive ends in the 4th and 13 miss, but still).

The breaks were about even in SB XLII (Tyree catch isn’t a break, just a great, flukey play).

EVH+DLR=BFFs........ God I Hope So!!

by dmstorm22 on Feb 7, 2012 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

Underwood?

Anyone else think it was unsettling to drop Underwood just before the game? Not that he was going to play or anything, but I think we needed that option a lot more than we needed another DE why didn’t play anyway, and I think it’s psychologically unsettling to the whole team to have a roster change at the last minute, upsets the locker room chemistry, etc. I also would rather have had Faulk dressed than Ridley.

by poindexterregan on Feb 7, 2012 1:42 PM EST reply actions