Your 2012 Superbowl LXVI Thread

sports are about ~the unknowability of events as they emerge through time~ man

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.

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.

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, 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

the fact that the giants needed a last minute td drive was a culmination of their previous failures, not some grand strategy

for some reason thinking about this game is much more interesting than actually watching it was

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 Permalink

tho they ultimately failed at scoring less than ne failed at scoring

― iatee, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:42 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

these two posts are cracking me the fuck up

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

you guys are nuts

rex grossman beat the giants twice and *almost* beat the patriots, so he really should have been super bowl mvp

hahaha

guys, guys. at the end of the day, didn't we all win?

you guys are nuts
--horseshoe

soup to nuts

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

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.

oh shit a chart

I'm right...scientifically

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!

context is nothing, chart is everything

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.

(takes out calculator and nerd glasses, goes and plays madden)

iatee OTM

I'm not saying the giants 'didn't play well'
that's not a game you 'played well' imo.

lol

probably should have been 57-3

this was a joke

SANCHEZ

serious "pythagorean expectation" answer: giants should have won 37-0.

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.

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

http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/draft_lens5758742module44658582photo_1246966406blackholes.gif

according to my math, if the Patriots had scored more points than the Giants, then the Patriots would have won

^^^crazytalk

that seems to be in line with the controversial 'scoring is important' narrative that I've been attempting to sell

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?

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"

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'.

well sure, cue angry swigging

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!

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'.

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

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'.

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

i can't do this

hahaha

there is a ceiling on hope
and it lives in cleveland

lol wikipedia

The Game Ended With An Exciting Hail Mary Pass Thrown By Tom Brady Into The Endzone Full Of Players, But The Ball Was Dropped By Patriots Tight End Rob Gronkowski.

wikipedia otm

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz3rsiAkjO1r25uiuo1_500.png

OTM

lol

haha

looool

*golf clap*