OT - Perhaps the worst sports' article ever written

[UCHuskies08]

Or 99% of UConn basketball fans think its ok to cheat.

Too soon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JaYnYcE]

The Pats being 0-2 in Super Bowls since Spy-Gate has nothing to do with anything. Also Silly.

It's just something to talk about. Its true they haven't won one since spygate but its also true they haven't won one since Obama was elected. Nothing to do with the Patriots but cool to think Karma is a female dog. I mean, to say that UConn basketball fans don't believe in karma would be silly.

See scout message board during the BE tourney and NCAA tourney.

#winning



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fishy]

EDIT:
Or 99% of UConn basketball fans on this message board who think its ok to cheat.

Oh, Joyce. You've gone off your meds again.

 

[Dave Carlson]

Brady was better than Eli, apart from the brain fart for a safety to open their possession. Yes, that cost them. But Eli had receivers who made great plays all game long. The Pats had 4-5 major drops on key plays. The other goat on offense was Mankins. Almost every time the Giants beat the Pats O-line, which wasn't often, it was Mankins that gave it up. Vollmer and Light were great, as was Waters.

Not enough risk taking on offense or defense for NE. So both teams played a shortened ball control game, which limited the Patriots possessions.

You do realize how absolutely ridiculous this post seems to a rational person, right?

 

[Fishy]

You do realize how absolutely ridiculous this post seems to a rational person, right?

If he knew, he'd be rational.

Brady played very well.

One thing that always impresses me - Brady is not the most mobile guy in terms of taking off with the ball, but he 'feels' pressure and moves away from it so, so well. It's true that he doesn't like to be hit and he might move too soon, but still, he's very good at getting himself enough space to throw.

He's just really good. But this Manning kid at times....

He's much more feast or famine, but he can make some throws that I don't think a lot of people are making. The completion to Manningham was to-the-inch perfect. (In contrast, Brady's throw to Welker was just a few inches wrong.) He did outplay Brady last night, which is saying something because I thought Brady was quite good.

 

[caw]

JMO:

That article was horrendous.

Brady and Manning were fairly even all game. There were a few differences I saw:

• Brady threw that pretty horrid deep ball to Gronkowski for the INT
• Brady threw the other deep ball to no one for the safety

Usually two mistakes like that wouldn't cost you the game, but Manning didn't make any mistakes and the Giants recovered every time they did make a mistake.
Other than that, you can argue Manning either threw slightly better "winning" passes or his receivers made slightly better "winning" plays.

• Manningham's catch was really tough and impressive, but Manning threw that ball almost perfectly.
• Welker's miss was also a tough attempt and would have been very impressive, but Brady slightly overthrew him

Play the game tomorrow and maybe the Pats win, both teams were pretty evenly matched. Maybe the ball bounces to the Pats when Bradshaw fumbles next time. Either way the Giants may not have been clearly better but they certainly were not worse than the Pats.
As to SpyGate, it is true they haven't won one since then. How much that helped is unknown as there are a ton of other factors that differ as well.

 

[Dave Carlson]

JMO:

That article was horrendous.

Brady and Manning were fairly even all game. There were a few differences I saw:

• Brady threw that pretty horrid deep ball to Gronkowski for the INT
• Brady threw the other deep ball to no one for the safety

Usually two mistakes like that wouldn't cost you the game, but Manning didn't make any mistakes and the Giants recovered every time they did make a mistake.

Other than that, you can argue Manning either threw slightly better "winning" passes or his receivers made slightly better "winning" plays.

• Manningham's catch was really tough and impressive, but Manning threw that ball almost perfectly.
• Welker's miss was also a tough attempt and would have been very impressive, but Brady slightly overthrew him

Play the game tomorrow and maybe the Pats win, both teams were pretty evenly matched. Maybe the ball bounces to the Pats when Bradshaw fumbles next time. Either way the Giants may not have been clearly better but they certainly were not worse than the Pats.

As to SpyGate, it is true they haven't won one since then. How much that helped is unknown as there are a ton of other factors that differ as well.

I find the Patriot fanbase's total mental block about not admitting the Giants were the better team unseemly.

Imagine if Brad Stevens took the podium after last year's NCAA championship game and said "I think, in this game, on this particular day, UConn certainly was not worse than we were. In the game played in a parallel universe where the plays that we didn't make out on the court today worked out perfectly and some of the plays that they did make never even happened, I think that is the game folks should focus on when determining which team is the so-called "better team". That's the game, not this game that we actually played and you just watched, which was, whatever, just some thing that we did and whatnot, which I will be the first person to admit had some tiny, little, itty-bitty, teeny-weenie element of truth to it, if you're all hung up on things like visual perception of events in the time-space continuum and all that jazz. The parallel universe game, that was the true test, and I don't want to use the phrase "total domination" lightly, but let's just say, we really, really played that game the right way."

 

[HuskyHawk]

I find the Patriot fanbase's total mental block about not admitting the Giants were the better team unseemly.

Imagine if Brad Stevens took the podium after last year's NCAA championship game and said "I think, in this game, on this particular day, UConn certainly was not worse than we were. In the game played in a parallel universe where the plays that we didn't make out on the court today worked out perfectly and some of the plays that they did make never even happened, I think that is the game folks should focus on when determining which team is the so-called "better team". That's the game, not this game that we actually played and you just watched, which was, whatever, just some thing that we did and whatnot, which I will be the first person to admit had some tiny, little, itty-bitty, teeny-weenie element of truth to it, if you're all hung up on things like visual perception of events in the time-space continuum and all that jazz. The parallel universe game, that was the true test, and I don't want to use the phrase "total domination" lightly, but let's just say, we really, really played that game the right way."

Why? The Giants were not better in 2007 either, not even close. Play that one ten times and the Pats win 9. As to last night's game, I think, and thought going in, that the Patriots were just slightly better. I saw nothing to change my opinion. But certainly in a ten game series, we're looking at nothing other than 5-5 or 6-4 for one team or the other. While the Giants had injuries, so did NE all year. I think they broke the record for most players used. Yet in the regular season the Pats were +171 in points for vs. against. The Giants were -6.

This happens all the time in sports. The 2010-11 Huskies were an example. Not the best team last year by a long shot, but the team playing the best in the tournament. That's what the Giants were. That's what the last two World Series winners were as well. I tip my hat to them for playing a very solid game. They made the critical plays and didn't make mistakes. But I think the Packers and Saints were both better than either team.

 

[caw]

I find the Patriot fanbase's total mental block about not admitting the Giants were the better team unseemly.

Imagine if Brad Stevens took the podium after last year's NCAA championship game and said "I think, in this game, on this particular day, UConn certainly was not worse than we were. In the game played in a parallel universe where the plays that we didn't make out on the court today worked out perfectly and some of the plays that they did make never even happened, I think that is the game folks should focus on when determining which team is the so-called "better team". That's the game, not this game that we actually played and you just watched, which was, whatever, just some thing that we did and whatnot, which I will be the first person to admit had some tiny, little, itty-bitty, teeny-weenie element of truth to it, if you're all hung up on things like visual perception of events in the time-space continuum and all that jazz. The parallel universe game, that was the true test, and I don't want to use the phrase "total domination" lightly, but let's just say, we really, really played that game the right way."

I'm a Giants fan and have been since my dad grew up in the NYC.

Steven's Butler team lost to UConn by more than double what the Pats lost by.

If he had said it after the Duke game in 2010 where a three point shot for the win bounced off the rim, I think that would be a more apt comparison and he would be correct considering nobody lead by more than 6 in that game.

In fact, ""We just came up a bounce short," Butler coach Brad Stevens said." - Post-2010 NC game.

 

[Dogdeacon]

To me that article was either Wilbur auditioning for the CHB role at the Globe as he's heard its time for a new turd in the punchbowl or CHB is tutoring the kid so that the CHB's efforts seem reasonable in comparison.

 

[caw]

Did you know the only team the Giants beat in the regular season with a winning record was New England? Did you also know New England only beat Baltimore (including the playoffs)? The Giants did take down four teams with winning records in the playoffs.

Denver 8-8 (1-1)
Baltimore 12-4 (0-1)

Miami (6-10)
San Diego (8-8)
Oakland (8-8)
Jets (8-8)
Dallas (8-8)
Jets (8-8)
KC (7-9)
Philly (8-8)
Indy (2-14)
Washington (5-11)
Denver (8-8)
Miami (6-10)
Buffalo (6-10)

Giants:
Atlanta 10-6 (0-1)
Green Bay 15-1 (0-1)
San Fransisco 13-3 (1-1)
New England 13-3 (2-1)

St Louis (2-14)
Philly (8-8)
Arizona (8-8)
Buffalo (6-10)
Miami (6-10)
New England (13-3)
Dallas (8-8)
Jets (8-8)
Dallas (8-8)

 

[JaYnYcE]

Who was the better team between the Patriots and the Rams during the 2001 season?

I can't wait for this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UConn990411]

Why? The Giants were not better in 2007 either, not even close. Play that one ten times and the Pats win 9. As to last night's game, I think, and thought going in, that the Patriots were just slightly better. I saw nothing to change my opinion. But certainly in a ten game series, we're looking at nothing other than 5-5 or 6-4 for one team or the other. While the Giants had injuries, so did NE all year. I think they broke the record for most players used. Yet in the regular season the Pats were +171 in points for vs. against. The Giants were -6.

This happens all the time in sports. The 2010-11 Huskies were an example. Not the best team last year by a long shot, but the team playing the best in the tournament. That's what the Giants were. That's what the last two World Series winners were as well. I tip my hat to them for playing a very solid game. They made the critical plays and didn't make mistakes. But I think the Packers and Saints were both better than either team.

Eh, I'm comfortable saying that the (healthy version of the) Giants were a better team this season. Or, at the very least, about as good.

They had a better defense, good special teams, and an offense that - now that Eli is legit - is near near the top of the league. Not a lot of holes in that team once they got healthy and started playing well.

They were definitely not the better team in 2007, but that's what makes sports such a funny thing.

edit: I think Pats fans should just ignore Jaynce - he enjoys baiting people into stupid arguments. It's kind of his schtick.

 

[Dave Carlson]

Why? The Giants were not better in 2007 either, not even close. Play that one ten times and the Pats win 9. As to last night's game, I think, and thought going in, that the Patriots were just slightly better. I saw nothing to change my opinion. But certainly in a ten game series, we're looking at nothing other than 5-5 or 6-4 for one team or the other. While the Giants had injuries, so did NE all year. I think they broke the record for most players used. Yet in the regular season the Pats were +171 in points for vs. against. The Giants were -6.

This happens all the time in sports. The 2010-11 Huskies were an example. Not the best team last year by a long shot, but the team playing the best in the tournament. That's what the Giants were. That's what the last two World Series winners were as well. I tip my hat to them for playing a very solid game. They made the critical plays and didn't make mistakes. But I think the Packers and Saints were both better than either team.

In a parallel universe where one compares two teams with each other and follows the rule that if a team beats a team twice, once at the other team's home stadium, that the winner of those games is "worse" than the losing team which is "better", I grant to you that the Giants are that worse team and the Patriots are that better team. However, on Planet Earth, where I happen to live and make my living, I don't think I'm breaking any cardinal rules of empiricism when I say that the Giants beating the Patriots twice, once in a stadium in Foxboro, Massachusetts where the Patriots have locker rooms and offices and where their fans buy and occupy most of the seats, and then in a game that both teams fully understood to be the "championship" game, is extremely compelling evidence that the Giants are, speaking completely objectively here, the better team. Some would use the phrase "demonstrable evidence" to describe the Giant's two wins over the Patriots, and I would not object to that ussage on grounds of language or logic. Now, you may want to make this an unprecedented-in-a-football-season best of five game series and hope the Patriots pull out three in a row in order to defend your counterintuitive conclusion. Or you may think that the net points the teams scored against uncommon opponents (including, I should point out, the single, solitary, lonely team with a better than .500 record that the Patriots actually managed to defeat in a "game" this season by means of a missed chip-shot field goal) is somehow dispositive of the question. But I have to point out that those metrics are evidence that you are operating under a delusion I like to call "Massachusetts Thinking".

I suggest you create an objective metric for "better team" that compares two teams in relation to each other but doesn't take into consideration how those two teams actually perform against each other in "games" and submit that metric to the NFL. In the interim, perhaps you can create a "Better Team" trophy by wrapping a football in aluminum foil and nailing said tinfoil ball to a two-by-four and invite the Patriots to accept the trophy following a ticker tape parade you will be throwing for them in your basement.

 

[Rico444]

In a parallel universe where one compares two teams with each other and follows the rule that if a team beats a team twice, once at the other team's home stadium, that the winner of those games is "worse" than the losing team which is "better",

Using your logic, the Redskins are better than the Giants? Keep in mind, the Patriots' X factor was hurt and clearly not himself.

I'm not saying the Pats were better, but sample size. Any team can beat another on any given day.

 

[BlueMAB]

Brady played an A- game, Eli played an A game.

You have to love the silliness of some Boston fans. The Giants end a 20 home game win streak for the Pats, end a 10 game win streak for the Pats on a nuetral field. And still, the Pats are the better team. WOW.

Then this from the article...
"The safety killed the Patriots. Killed them."

After the safety it was 2-0, then 9-0. According to the "journalist" the game was now decided. Which is ironic, because the Giants didn't score another point until they were losing 17-9 in the 3rd quarter. Call me crazy, but I think the Pats rebounded from that safety pretty well. Welker holds on to that pass, and the Pats win.

 

[BlueMAB]

In a parallel universe where one compares two teams with each other and follows the rule that if a team beats a team twice, once at the other team's home stadium, that the winner of those games is "worse" than the losing team which is "better",

Using your logic, the Redskins are better than the Giants? Keep in mind, the Patriots' X factor was hurt and clearly not himself.

I'm not saying the Pats were better, but sample size. Any team can beat another on any given day.

It's not just the 2-0 record vs. the Pats. The Lombardi Trophy, and everything that goes into winning it, matters too.

 

[HuskyHawk]

In a parallel universe where one compares two teams with each other and follows the rule that if a team beats a team twice, once at the other team's home stadium, that the winner of those games is "worse" than the losing team which is "better",

Using your logic, the Redskins are better than the Giants? Keep in mind, the Patriots' X factor was hurt and clearly not himself.

I'm not saying the Pats were better, but sample size. Any team can beat another on any given day.

And of course, the Patriots beat those Redskins, on the road. By the way, the teams had lots of common opponents, as the divisions played each other. Match-ups are critical. I think the Saints would have made short work of the Giants. If not for some complete gaffes, SF would have beaten them. The Giants are a tough match-up for the Pats. But that doesn't suggest how they fare against other teams.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Who was the better team between the Patriots and the Rams during the 2001 season?

I can't wait for this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Rams, absolutely.

 

[BlueMAB]

And of course, the Patriots beat those Redskins, on the road. By the way, the teams had lots of common opponents, as the divisions played each other. Match-ups are critical. I think the Saints would have made short work of the Giants. If not for some complete gaffes, SF would have beaten them. The Giants are a tough match-up for the Pats. But that doesn't suggest how they fare against other teams.

The Saints would have destroyed the Pats too.

SF did beat the Giants, but the Giants had an opportunity to win that game in the final seconds too. The Giants were not healthy most of the season.

 

[Rico444]

Brady played an A- game, Eli played an A game.

You have to love the silliness of some Boston fans. The Giants end a 20 home game win streak for the Pats, end a 10 game win streak for the Pats on a nuetral field. And still, the Pats are the better team. WOW.

Then this from the article...
"The safety killed the Patriots. Killed them."

After the safety it was 2-0, then 9-0. According to the "journalist" the game was now decided. Which is ironic, because the Giants didn't score another point until they were losing 17-9 in the 3rd quarter. Call me crazy, but I think the Pats rebounded from that safety pretty well. Welker holds on to that pass, and the Pats win.

So, if Welker holds on to that catch, the Pats are a better team?

My point is, the teams were very closely matched. Saying for sure that one is better than the other seems a little biased.

 

[nycscooby]

He has the brain of a 4-year-old - no sense in arguing with him.

Also, to the person who said this article is a Boston thing: I'm pretty sure New York is about as bad.

Actually, it's not. There is simply no animal quite like the negative Boston sportswriter anywhere. Yes, there are obnoxious twits, blowhards, egomaniacs, frighteningly unimformed and over opinionated amongst the writers here and like Boston, nothing's really of limits. But, guys like this one and Ryan and Shaughnessy who just look to all over the local heroes at every turn are really a breed apart. I can't wait for Ryan and Shaughnessy to fade away, won't read any of their stuff and haven't in years.

 

[Rico444]

^ that, I have to agree with. The Boston media loves to dump all over Red Sox legends on their way out of town.

 

[TheChamps990411]

That's a Boston thing. Remember it was a Boston writer that didn't vote for Ted Williams in his top 10 for MVP the year Teddy Ballgame hit .406

who would remember that? it was like 150 years ago.

 

[nomar]

Brady was better than Eli, apart from the brain fart for a safety to open their possession.

No. Just...no.