Alpe d'Huez said:
1.)
I actually think the 49ers were better than Foxxy gives them credit for. They had an excellent defense. Sure, they were more like a 10-6 team than a 13-3 team, but they were pretty good.
2.)
As to the other game, sure the Ravens should have won, but they didn't. Yeah, Cundit missed an easy FG, and Flacco played much better than most people thought.
3.)
Here is why: I think the Pats defense isn't very good, despite the last two games.
4.)
I just don't think it will be enough, and it's NE's character to throw the ball 50+ times a game with Brady, so I'm taking the Giants in a 31-27 game.
5.)
Or one turnover, period.
1.)
I don´t mean SF was bad. But more like ATL in 2010, so i totally agree with you, they are more of an 10-6 team.
2.)
I think Beli-Cheat at his best here.
Strongly recommend this read:
http://deadspin.com/5878655/billy-c...-the-gillette-stadium-scoreboard?popular=true
3.)
That´s what gives me ulcers.
I am fully aware of this weak spot. As i said in my playoff preview, Brady (& Brees, Rodgers) can´t afford to have a bad game b/c of their defenses. Well it happened already to all of them: May one too much Int by Brees, Rodgers receivers spoiled his day completely, Brady had a nervous game but just came away with it. Among other things, i was shocked when he missed a wide open Gronk (?) for an easy TD.
4.)
I think you are not right here. Bill Belichick is genius. He´ll do what´s necessary to prevail (outside of this questionable game plans in the SB 2007, and last year vs. NYJ). He´s playing to the strenghts of his teams. And if he sees running the ball 50 times can make it, he´ll do.
5.)
The other reason for getting ulcers. Totally agree, one turnover more than the opp. will be the decisive factor.
SirLes said:
1.)
You can't get lucky and if any of the teams that made the playoffs and then won the next three or four games against the remaining teams have deserved it no question.
2.)
You dismiss SF as one of the top sides and don't consider Baltimore or the Steelers. I suspect because they haven't won big during the season. Personally a win is a win in my book. Yes, if points are level at the end of the season points/goals difference can count but wins and losses are the main thing.
1.)
I can´t agree on this. All those teams who are on a hot streak qualify for what it actually is: A hot streak. Some teams have it to start the regular season (they´ll be forgotten). Some win as wildcards on nail biters (those sometimes win the SB as non near the best teams, most recently the 2007-NYG).
In my opinion and of many europeans, the best teams are those who were excellent the
whole season.
2.)
Wasn´t intentionally (PIT, BAL).
I just used your examples. Clearly the Steelers and may the Ravens were better than the Giants too. But on SF you are right. I explained that lenghtly.
SirLes said:
1.)
An alternative reading was that they had been given clear instructions that on a wet field it was better to go to ground and avoid the risk of a fumble than fight for extra yards.
2.)
I actually think the problems that the Giants had to sort out during the season, notably injuries and run defence has left them in a stronger position now.
1.)
That would be a great tactic by Coughlin. It sounds reasonable.
2.)
... well, the run D is even worse in the playoffs (5,0 Y/R allowed; might be due to small sample size) than during the RS (4,5 Y/R allowed). Anyway, here lays may big hope for NE.
Alpe d'Huez said:
A couple of years ago there were complaints that the league rigged the schedule to favor some teams, I believe the Patriots, Giants and Bears were mentioned. But none of them got very far in the playoffs.
There have also been other teams that have had "missing rings" simply because they had a bad day at the wrong time, just like the Saints and Packers this year. Remember he 15-1 Vikings team with Cunningham? The 14-2 Chargers that lost to the Patriots. The 12-4 Chargers with Fouts, Joiner, Winslow, etc. The 2006 Colts who blew their game with the Steelers, and of course the unbeaten Patriots. It leaves a sour taste in your mouth, but it's also the way the game goes sometimes.
The schedule might be the only thing that can´t be fixed. They have strict formulas there since somehow forever. No manipulation possible here (elsewhere, of course).
Yeah one game can spoil the whole season. I still don´t like it, agree with you. Here´s the biggest upset ever, and guess what? The Giants won
: (scroll down to No. 1)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...twelve-greatest-upsets-in-nfl-playoff-history
Amsterhammer said:
Can one of you explain this 'bonus' of 26m or so that Peyton is meant to be due in March? What does it depend on? Does he get some, most, or all of that even if he leaves the club?
He simply needs to make the 80-Men-Roster in march... and boom he´s 26 million dollar richer. But it seems Irsay don´t care about money. He showed it, and said it between the lines many times. He could built schools for thousands and thousands in africa. I hate decadence...
on3m@n@rmy said:
@Amster: I don't know about Peyton's contract, but often players will get a bonus payment later in their contract years.
Yes, yes, the good old roster bonus. It´s an automatic unless you are released prior to the off season. They do this, b/c they are prorated like signing bonuses. All cap arithmetic.
Alpe d'Huez said:
Well, they're not going to release him, no way.
I think they will, b/c nobody wants (ok, maybe Hue Jackson... ahh no he´s gone
) to pay him 26 mio unsure if he makes it to the pre season.