:-/
― J0rdan S., Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:33 (twelve years ago) link
right, I think they played well enough to win! looking at the stats, the only thing they really dominated w/ was time of possession, otherwise the game was v. even. but they didn't do much w/ the ball considering how much they had it, and that margin is mostly due to the 1st quarter safety. xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:34 (twelve years ago) link
parity
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:34 (twelve years ago) link
scoring is only one of the desirable things you can do when you have the ball, and sometimes not even the most desirable (eg the bradshaw td). NY made the game shorter and improved their field position on every single drive. those were critical factors in why they won.
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:40 (twelve years ago) link
yet scoring was an even more critical factor and they mostly failed on that front!
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:41 (twelve years ago) link
tho they ultimately failed at scoring less than ne failed at scoring
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
your glass is half empty
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
scoring was not necessarily more critical - if they had scored often fast instead of scoring less often but slowly, they probably would have lost that more expansive game. you are oversimplifying a complex business
the slow consistent possessions were the obvious strategy versus the patriots, the key weakness exploited and the key strength to nullified, and the giants did just that. i really think they were excellent in that game.
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:44 (twelve years ago) link
if u rly think about it pats won the game in a way
discus
― am0n, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:44 (twelve years ago) link
I mean really, if they replayed the playoffs, id think that every team sans denver would have a roughly similar chance at it
― Xerox of Fate, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:33 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
^^ this
i mean, in order to really judge who was "better" or over/underplayed we'd have to run the same game a bunch of times.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:45 (twelve years ago) link
sports are about ~the unknowability of events as they emerge through time~ man
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:46 (twelve years ago) link
they ran at a slightly higher rate than the pats but this was still a game w/ 40 manning attempts. they had the ball more due to the safety + brady int more than any real strategy imo. I never buy the 'we're going to keep the ball but *not score a td* as a strategy'. they wanted to score tds and they failed at scoring tds.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:48 (twelve years ago) link
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:44 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
pats dfensive game plan also fostered this, playing like zero 1-on-1 man coverage so there'd be no big plays downfield...
idk, i give the pats secondary some real credit. they played above their reputation, at least. eli fit the ball into some v tight spaces & there were a lot of v hard hits delivered by pats dbs
― johnny crunch, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:48 (twelve years ago) link
the fact that the giants needed a last minute td drive was a culmination of their previous failures, not some grand strategy
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:50 (twelve years ago) link
for some reason thinking about this game is much more interesting than actually watching it was
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:53 (twelve years ago) link
yet scoring was an even more critical factor and they mostly failed on that front!― iatee, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:41 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalinktho they ultimately failed at scoring less than ne failed at scoring― iatee, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:42 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― iatee, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:41 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― iatee, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:42 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
these two posts are cracking me the fuck up
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:33 (twelve years ago) link
new england is pretty lucky that brady managed to complete a couple of passes over JPP's paws at crucial times, tbh the game wasn't as close as it looked, giants dominated them, probably should have been 57-3
― omar little, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:41 (twelve years ago) link
you guys are nuts
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:44 (twelve years ago) link
rex grossman beat the giants twice and *almost* beat the patriots, so he really should have been super bowl mvp
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:46 (twelve years ago) link
hahaha
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:49 (twelve years ago) link
guys, guys. at the end of the day, didn't we all win?
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:50 (twelve years ago) link
you guys are nuts --horseshoe
soup to nuts
― am0n, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:55 (twelve years ago) link
I just don't see where this comes from
http://i.imgur.com/AOnW4.jpg
halfway through the 4th q and the giants are in a pretty shitty spot and the game is effectively out of eli's hands. pats offensive deserves credit for fucking this up, but if we're looking at the game at that point the story def isn't 'everything's going by plan for the giants'. and as much as the next two drives defined the end result, if you've only got half a q left and the game is essentially out of your hands that's not a game you 'played well' imo.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:11 (twelve years ago) link
oh shit a chart
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:17 (twelve years ago) link
I'm right...scientifically
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:18 (twelve years ago) link
the giants didn't completely dominate the game so how can they have played well? i have seen teams score over 50 points loads of times and they didn't get half that many!
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:18 (twelve years ago) link
context is nothing, chart is everything
― Roberto Spiralli, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:19 (twelve years ago) link
the chart is the context! I'm not saying the giants 'didn't play well' or even that they played worse than the pats. they played fairly competently, their offense didn't do a v. good job at getting points on the board, which does matter and put them in a pretty shitty spot in the 4th q. pats also played competently, which is why one or two catches would have turned the game.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:23 (twelve years ago) link
(takes out calculator and nerd glasses, goes and plays madden)
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:25 (twelve years ago) link
iatee OTM
― Moodles, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:34 (twelve years ago) link
I'm not saying the giants 'didn't play well'that's not a game you 'played well' imo.
lol
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:37 (twelve years ago) link
probably should have been 57-3
this was a joke
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:40 (twelve years ago) link
SANCHEZ
― Aerosol, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:56 (twelve years ago) link
serious "pythagorean expectation" answer: giants should have won 37-0.
― omar little, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:02 (twelve years ago) link
safety would have been a brady pick returned for a TD, 7-0. cruz td catch, 14-0. gotkowski FG blocked, returned for TD. 21-0. back and forth for awhile, brady marches downfield and passes towards woodhead, blocked by JPP. halftime: 21-0. hernandez drops easy td pass in 3rd quarter, 21-0 still. 2 FGs from tynes, 27-0. bradshaw TD run, 34-0. brady fumbles on opening play of subsequent drive, recovered by giants, tynes FG as time expires, 37-0.
― omar little, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:06 (twelve years ago) link
Adding fuel to the fire:http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/features/2011/nfl_2011/super_bowl/giants_patriots_super_bowl_math_says_if_wes_welker_catches_that_ball_the_patriots_win_.html
― Moodles, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:38 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/draft_lens5758742module44658582photo_1246966406blackholes.gif
― am0n, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:40 (twelve years ago) link
according to my math, if the Patriots had scored more points than the Giants, then the Patriots would have won
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:44 (twelve years ago) link
^^^crazytalk
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:01 (twelve years ago) link
that seems to be in line with the controversial 'scoring is important' narrative that I've been attempting to sell
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:01 (twelve years ago) link
i thought the whole point of super bowls was to have really good teams play against each other? meaning the statistical certainties get whittled down to hazy 50/50s? which is what happened?
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:22 (twelve years ago) link
i'm kind of losing track of what this argument even is
the argument = "ILXers wish Superbowl had lasted forever, attempt to simulate it via opinions; also, lol @ Patritos"
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:27 (twelve years ago) link
two really good teams playing each other doesn't always lead to 50/50 games, but this one did. I guess my only argument is that if the giants played better they did by a v. tiny margin really but, yeah, that was enough. this was a margin of error game and not at all a victory that demonstrated that the giants were 'better'.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:29 (twelve years ago) link
well sure, cue angry swigging
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:31 (twelve years ago) link
i guess my point is trying to argue what a team like the giants or the patritos "should be" able to do "on average" is sorta pointless. it's not average! they're playing each other!
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:32 (twelve years ago) link
well... the Giants were better at turning their drives into points; considering that both teams scored two touchdowns and a field goal, the Giants had an unanswered field goal which won them the game even without the lol saftey
― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:34 (twelve years ago) link
well I am not trying to argue that the giants did not win that game, statistically they did win that game 100% of the time iirc, this is about 'who played better' and 'what did that game reveal about the two teams'.
― iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:36 (twelve years ago) link
the browns beat the Patriots two years ago and last season if the ball would've bounced the right way they were super bowl shoe-ins so ergo
― brownie, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:42 (twelve years ago) link
i can't do this