National Football League

Page 38 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
How do you think the Dutch feel about the '74 WC?:eek:

I took one look at Madonna, made a mental note that the stage was very impressive, and left the room. I couldn't listen to that sh!te.

Here's a page with lots of the ads we missed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/super-bowl-ads-2012-liveblogging-the-games-best-commercials/2012/02/05/gIQABkjTsQ_blog.html
Can´t even remember Madonna. :D
We discussed trou-out the halftime.

Yeah 74 must have been bad, same as 78. Wasn´t 78 more tough? I mean germany deserved 74. :D
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Can´t even remember Madonna. :D
We discussed trou-out the halftime.

Yeah 74 must have been bad, same as 78. Wasn´t 78 more tough? I mean germany deserved 74. :D
I'm sure we can agree that you don't always get what you 'deserve', and that the best team doesn't always win. The Dutch thought (and so did many others) that they played the best football both in '74 and '78, and that they therefore should have won. But we're straying well off topic.;)

Why don't you come and have a look at Dim's new place? Plenty of fun there to keep you going till April.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
I'm sure we can agree that you don't always get what you 'deserve', and that the best team doesn't always win. The Dutch thought (and so did many others) that they played the best football both in '74 and '78, and that they therefore should have won. But we're straying well off topic.;)

Why don't you come and have a look at Dim's new place? Plenty of fun there to keep you going till April.
So we need to bring the word football in here, to not get deleted. ;)

Poll:
What was the most disapointing event on the sports weekend?
a.) Armstrong cleared
b.) Contador banned
c.) NE losing
d.) me winning the Giants bet (i think it´s around 65 € net, havn´t checked yet, b/c still feeling a little drunk and depressed)

What´s the Dim´s place?
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
So we need to bring the word football in here, to not get deleted. ;)

Poll:
What was the most disapointing event on the sports weekend?
a.) Armstrong cleared
b.) Contador banned
c.) NE losing
d.) me winning the Giants bet (i think it´s around 65 € net, havn´t checked yet, b/c still feeling a little drunk and depressed)

What´s the Dim´s place?
edit - Dim = TSF

http://velorooms.com/index.php

In the overall scheme of things and even including the world of football, option a. is probably the 'biggest', but I'll go for b. because of the ridiculous way it was handled and mainly because of how long it took to get to today.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
edit - Dim = TSF

http://velorooms.com/index.php

In the overall scheme of things and even including the world of football, option a. is probably the 'biggest', but I'll go for b. because of the ridiculous way it was handled and mainly because of how long it took to get to today.
What i don´t get here is that Ulle and Contador are sacrificed, while the guy with at least 7 positives is still allowed to milk money out of people he brainwashed. So after all i say a.), NE comes in as a close 2nd.

Edit: I took a look at the link. Nice pics over there.:D
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
What i don´t get here is that Ulle and Contador are sacrificed, while the guy with at least 7 positives is still allowed to milk money out of people he brainwashed. So after all i say a.), NE comes in as a close 2nd.

Edit: I took a look at the link. Nice pics over there.:D
Was wondering how you would take the Suprebowl loss.

Imagine all what you suffered and then add Ireland losing in rugby at the weekend and my Gaelic football team losing the first meaningful game of the season.

That was the last four days in my sporting life. Definitely not a good one.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
What i don´t get here is that Ulle and Contador are sacrificed, while the guy with at least 7 positives is still allowed to milk money out of people he brainwashed. So after all i say a.), NE comes in as a close 2nd.

Edit: I took a look at the link. Nice pics over there.:D
Yes indeed!:cool: Please, jump right in, plenty of familiar faces, almost entirely the good ones.;)
 
Amsterhammer said:
How do you think the Dutch feel about the '74 WC?:eek:

I took one look at Madonna, made a mental note that the stage was very impressive, and left the room. I couldn't listen to that sh!te.
my boyfriend was so disgusted with her that he put on a replay of Prince's half-time SB show to clean out our ears of all that muck :D
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
pmcg76 said:
Was wondering how you would take the Suprebowl loss.

Imagine all what you suffered and then add Ireland losing in rugby at the weekend and my Gaelic football team losing the first meaningful game of the season.

That was the last four days in my sporting life. Definitely not a good one.
It seems yours was worse than mine. I´ll never forget this weekend like i never forget the summer of 06. :eek:

Amsterhammer said:
Yes indeed!:cool: Please, jump right in, plenty of familiar faces, almost entirely the good ones.;)
Yeah i can see. Many familar good names over there. Think i´ll join this week, when the dust from the weekend has settled. Looking forward one great cycling season with JB leading AS to the best TdF ever. :eek:
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
It seems yours was worse than mine. I´ll never forget this weekend like i never forget the summer of 06. :eek:



Yeah i can see. Many familar good names over there. Think i´ll join this week, when the dust from the weekend has settled. Looking forward one great cycling season with JB leading AS to the best TdF ever. :eek:
Oh yeah, and Man Utd who I hate came from 3 down to snatch a draw against Chelsea. Not that I care for Chelsea but I really hate Utd.

About the only result that wasnt too bad for me over the weekend was that my soccer team Birmingham didnt lose, they managed a draw at home.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Well I'm Happy!:D

Giants were the better team (Again).

Giants overcame huge injury issues before the season began and then during the season itself. If they had any luck it was in having all their bad luck before the play offs injury wise. (Although they lost Two tight ends during the game of course). Won a division including America's team and the dream team:rolleyes: and then beat GB and SF on the road to get to the SB.

Eli Manning, who wasn't even in the top 100 players or top 12 quarterbacks before the season showed that he is a top notch QB and that 07 wasn't a fluke.
(Perhaps they should ask Brady if he considers himself to be in Eli's class after 3 straight defeats!:D:p)

I'm also really pleased for Tom Coughlan. Love his style. A Decent man staying true to his principles amid all the hype and media scrutiny. Belichick is a dead cert HoF coach no question so to beat him twice in the big one..... Again, no fluke. TC is a top class coach no question.

The annoying part? The Media and some sections of the fan base. The only other forum I visit is the NYG one and the amount of sh*t thown at Eli, TC and Kevin Gilbride over the last few years is extrordinary from both outside the fanbase and in. Thankfully the Maras aren't like many other owners and have been loyal. I just don't like it when the same writers and papers that ripped them to shreds are now fawning over them again!
 
scullster46 said:
One of my friends brought this up last night, and I thought it was fairly interesting. What do you guys think about the too many men play at the end of the game. Idk whether it was done on purpose or not, and I'm not trying to insinuate that it was(although if it was done on purpose, it was a brilliant call in terms of bending the rules to your advantage). Being a Pats fan, I think it was unfair, and the Giants benefited way more from the time taken off the clock than the Pats did from the extra yardage. I think the league should take a good look at resetting the clock after each penalty, as it makes situations like this more fair, while at the same time it discourages taking penalties.
I don't think it was on purpose. The reason I say that is it's common for defenses to substitute 4 or more players if the situation calls for it. It would be very easy for a lapse of communication to occur such that one of the 4 players who should exit doesn't get the message and doesn't leave the field. Or for an extra person to come on who should not have. You can see one of those actually, or nearly, happen in some games. You can tell the confusion on the part of certain players because they will come on, stop, turn around to leave, then go back on, or vice versa.

I also don't think putting time back on the clock does the game any good. If the officials put time back on the clock for that play, then how about putting time back on the clock for all the other penalties that a team choses to accept? But that's just my opinion.

good question tho
 
Jun 18, 2011
195
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
I don't think it was on purpose. The reason I say that is it's common for defenses to substitute 4 or more players if the situation calls for it. It would be very easy for a lapse of communication to occur such that one of the 4 players who should exit doesn't get the message and doesn't leave the field. Or for an extra person to come on who should not have. You can see one of those actually, or nearly, happen in some games. You can tell the confusion on the part of certain players because they will come on, stop, turn around to leave, then go back on, or vice versa.

I also don't think putting time back on the clock does the game any good. If the officials put time back on the clock for that play, then how about putting time back on the clock for all the other penalties that a team choses to accept? But that's just my opinion.

good question tho

That's what I'm suggesting though, that from now on penalties also put the clock back. This would discourage penalties, lengthen games, and increase offense. Also, the only reason my friend thought about it was because of the fact that the extra man was covering the pass, rather than rushing the qb
 
Amsterhammer said:
The draft's not till April, huh?:confused:
Yeup... late Arpil, so just less than 3 months off. The spring classics are going to get priority tho.


FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I think next year i skip the regular season. Maybe i only watch the SB...
Well, come back next season anyway. This thread could use the extra traction you provide. And before the season is over you'll get to reinstate your MoJo avatar (McMahon).
 
Good post SirLes. That's one reason I don't like the Giants. But I do like Pops Coughlin, and think the better team won yesterday. Sure, NE Made mistakes, but the Giants didn't, and in the end that was the difference.

Amsterhammer said:
I wish you would stop manoevring the Pats into being some hard done by, quiet, good guys. I was delighted because they lost in the same way that they beat the Ravens ...I wonder what would have happened if Welker hadn't dropped that catch.
Agree on the Ravens thing. I can only imagine they sat at home wondering "what if..?"

Had Welker caught the ball, the Pats would have had 1st and 10 at around the Giants 45, with just over 3:00 left to go. Even if they ran three run plays and not gotten into FG range, the Giants only had 1 TO and would have gotten the ball back with about 50 seconds to go, and had to have driven between 80-90 yards in that time. However, had the Patriots gone for it on 4th down (after Welker's drop) and gotten it, the Pats would have been able to run the ball down to almost nothing. Even if they went for it on 4th and not gotten it, the odds are had the Giants scored, the Pats would have gotten the ball back with maybe another minute more than they did. Anyway, Monday morning QB here, but it was a huge blunder by Belicheck to not keep the ball in Brady's hands, and rely on his defense.

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Poll:
What was the most disapointing event on the sports weekend?
a.) Armstrong cleared
b.) Contador banned
c.) NE losing
d.) me winning the Giants bet.
b) Contador banned. Mostly the fact it took forever. That was absurd. I have a feeling Armstrong's not in the clear. USADA and WADA will be after him forever, there's a real chance the GJ docs will get out (a la Barry Bonds?), and I can handle NE losing.

I thought Madonna was pretty good! Didn't like her new song, but I liked the rest of it. I thought her outfit was hot, the stage was awesome, she had Cirque du Soliel dancers, and I like the song Vogue. And she was much more alive than the Stones, Tom Petty, Paul, or the Who (I love them, but they mailed in their performance) who all seemed too old and stale. Paul was okay I guess. Last year's Black Eye'd Peas were blase too. The best halftime shows in recent years were Prince and Springsteen (the wardrobe malfunction was a whole nuther thing!). Wait, the stupidest halftime show was when the SB was in Detroit, and instead of getting any number of Motown guests, anyone from Stevie Wonder to Aretha Franlkin to a hundred other artists, they got the Stones. An old, white, British band. Just stupid.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Well, come back next season anyway. This thread could use the extra traction you provide. And before the season is over you'll get to reinstate your MoJo avatar (McMahon).
Yeah i come back, what else should be done in depressing cold winters. I think the avatar is no sure thing. I guess i´ll find a way to lose another bet to you.;)

My early SB-Pick for next year: TB Bucs going 7-9 with minus 100 in point differential, qualifiying as 6th seed WC. LOL.

Alpe d'Huez said:
I have a feeling Armstrong's not in the clear. USADA and WADA will be after him forever, there's a real chance the GJ docs will get out (a la Barry Bonds?), and I can handle NE losing.
Yes the Giants were the better team in this game. The surprise thing was that not the defense let NE down, but the offense by not scoring in the last 25 minutes of the game.

I wish you are right here. Just i have a different feeling. Teflon Pharmstrong survived the 99 positives, the back dated cortisone, Floyd and Tyler. That´s the absurd thing: They take away the best (doped) riders like Ulle and Contador, but let Armstrong go on for years. Sick. Either you ban them all or no one.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
I like seeing NE lose another bowl. I just don't like their coach. It was a very entertaining second half though. What bugs me is what happens after the game. The players sacrifice everything for the championship and the trophy is handed to the team president, complete with predictable interview, then to the coach, more boring and routine questions (what did you say at half time?), and only then do the players get to touch their trophy. Give it to them at the 50 yard line and let them run around with it. I'm revealing my bias towards hockey here, but one tradition that I love is handing the trophy to the team captain and letting the players lap the rink with it above their heads. Every championship team should get to do that.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
North American Pro Sports "Hall of Fame" ;)

To put the Giants win in perspective:

Here is the complete list of teams with a negative point differential in the regular season;

1. US Major Pro Outdoor Football (135 seasons)
2011 Giants (-6 points) 9-7 regular season (.563 winning percentage)
Note: Yes it´s the only champ of 135 to have a negative point differential.
Only one team had a worse regular season winning percentage: The 1997-Barcelona Dragons going 5-5 (.500) but with +27 point differential.

2. NBA/ABA Basketball (74 seasons)
No champion had a negative point differential during the regular season.

Note: Only 2 teams had the same or worse winning percentage as the 2011-NYG:
1977-Washington Bulls (+76, 44-38 = .537)
1971-Indiana Pacers (+ 221, 47-37 = .560)

3. US Major Pro Baseball Leagues since 1871 (156 seasons)
Only the 1987 Minnesota Twins had a negative differential (- 20 runs) 85-77 regular season (.525).

Note: Just 9 teams had the same or worse winning percentage:
The mentioned Twins and...
2011 SL Cardinals (+ 70, 90-72 = .556)
2006 SL Cardinals (+ 19, 83-78 = .516)
2003 Florida Marlins (+ 59, 91-71 = .562)
2000 NY Yankees (+ 57, 87-74 = .540)
1990 Cincinnati Reds (+ 96, 91-71 = .562)
1985 KC Royals (+ 48, 91-71 = .562)
1980 Phil. Phillies (+ 89, 91-71 = .562)
1974 Oakland A´s (+ 138, 90-72 = .556)

4. NHL/WHA Hockey (100 seasons)
4 teams with a negative differential:
1966 Toronto Maple Leafs (- 7, 32-27-11 = .536)
1948 Toronto Maple Leafs (- 14, 22-25-13 = .475)
1937 Chicago Black Hawks (- 42, 14-25-9 = .385)
1917 Toronto Arenas (- 1, 13-9 = .591)

Note: Hockey in total is worse than the 2011-NFL-Season (actually the regular seasons are almost meaningless), since 22 of 100 champs had the same or a worse winning percentage than the 2011-NYG. Most recently the 2010-Boston Bruins (+ 51, 46-36 = .561)

5. CFL football modern era (since 1954, 58 seasons)
4 teams had a negative point differential:
2000 BC Lions (- 16, 8-10 = .444)
1989 Saskatchewan (- 20, 9-9 = .500)
1988 Winnipeg (- 51, 9-9 = .500)
1970 Montreal (- 33, 7-6-1 = .536)

Note: 6 teams had same or worse percentage than the NYG. Next to the above mentioned...
2001 Calgary (+ 2, 8-10 = .444)
1986 Hamilton (+ 39, 9-8-1 = .528)
Too many undeserved lucky winners. We are better off with the NFL (except 2011).

6. Major Pro Outdoor Soccer (34 seasons)
Surprise, surprise: Only two champs were outscored during the regular season
2005 LA Galaxy (- 1, 13-13-6 = .500)
1970 Rochester Lancers (- 4, 9-9-6 = .500)

But a total 7 of 34 champs had worse or same percentage as the 2011-NYG.
The two mentioned plus...
2009 Real Salt Lake (+ 8, 11-12-7 = .483)
2006 Houston Dynamo (+ 4, 11-8-13 = .547)
2004 DC United (+ 1, 11-10-9 = .517)
1996 DC United (+ 6, 16-16 = .500)
1984 Chicago Sting (+ 1, 13-11 = .542)

The bottom line is: The 2011 NY Giants are one of just 12 teams (from 557 major champions) who were outscored during the regular season. They join an "elite group" of 2,15 percent. That means only 2 champs in 100 years are outscored!
It looks a little bit better when looking at the regular season record. 48 teams (8,6 % of all teams) had the same or worse winning percentage. That means less than every 10 years a champ with a .563 or less record wins championships. If we take out the National Luck League (NHL/WHA), it looks worse. Just 26 of 457 (5,7 %) teams had the same or worse record than the NYG. That´s approx. 1 out of 20 champions.

I finally can announce the 2011 NYG as the 2nd worst pro american football champion ever. They are the Maple Leafs of the NFL (we shall not forget their upset wins vs. wayyy superior teams in 1934 and 2007). And with just 9 wins during the regular season, those Giants join an "Exclusive 9% club" of the least winning teams. Nothing to be proud of, no need to brag around.
 
pedaling squares said:
bugs me is what happens after the game. The players sacrifice everything for the championship and the trophy is handed to the team president, complete with predictable interview, then to the coach, more boring and routine questions (what did you say at half time?), and only then do the players get to touch their trophy. Give it to them at the 50 yard line and let them run around with it. I'm revealing my bias towards hockey here, but one tradition that I love is handing the trophy to the team captain and letting the players lap the rink with it above their heads. Every championship team should get to do that.
I fully agree.
At first I thought it's because it's a US sport, with the owner being more important etc., but as you say they can do it the proper way in hockey (although, strictly speaking, that's a Canadian sport ;) ).
How is this handled in MLB and NBA (I honestly don't know)?
 
pedaling squares said:
What bugs me is what happens after the game...
Excellent post. I've always hated post game shows and never been able to completely put my finger on it, but you did, you hit it. That's it exactly, and it's worst in the NFL. At least in the MLB we see the players showering each other with champagne and partying, all very happy, and a lot of them do pass the trophy around. In the NFL it seems to corporate.

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
North American Pro Sports "Hall of Fame" To put the Giants win in perspective.
That's a pretty compelling list there. Obviously I didn't care as much as you did about who won the game, but I agree with your assessment, and why after what seemed like a pretty good season, the playoffs were a dud, with NO, GB, PITT, and BALT (and sure, SF too) losing the way they did. I'm going to think about writing to Roger Goddell and bring some of this up. And possible rule changes. As I said about 10 posts ago, I think it's inevitable at some point that at the rate things are going, we'll see a team with an 8-8, or even 7-9 record win the Superbowl. The Seahawks almost got there last year, beating defending champ NO, and almost beating Chicago. It kind of leaves a sour taste in your mouth (and I'm somewhat of a Seahawks fan).

USA Today ran an article saying both NE and the NYG should be very good next year and we could see both in the SB again. Because the Giants missed a few guys due to injuries during the season, and NE has extra draft picks. That's the dumbest reasoning I think I've ever heard. I can think of maybe one or two teams that took extra draft picks and turned them into instant success. Maybe the 1991 Cowboys (thanks Herschel!). And the Packers had many defensive injuries last season and won the SB. This year everyone was healthy, and their defense was much weaker. If anything, the psychological impact is going to make it very difficult for both teams to get this far again. Just look at recent history.
 
Sep 1, 2010
907
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
../..The bottom line is: The 2011 NY Giants are one of just 12 teams (from 557 major champions) who were outscored during the regular season. They join an "elite group" of 2,15 percent. That means only 2 champs in 100 years are outscored!../..I finally can announce the 2011 NYG as the 2nd worst pro american football champion ever.
Nothing new in the Giants doing things the hard way, makes success that much sweeter!

Truly is a fantastic thing though, to have the regular season we had including defeats by Green Bay / San Fran and then going on to beat the Packers at Lambeau Field and the 49ers at Candlestick Park in the playoffs, really would have been a travesty to lose the SB to a team we knew we had the beating of.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
To put the Giants win in perspective:
It's pretty hard to compare winning percentages from different sports across different eras. In the NHL, for example, 16 teams make the playoffs and there are no bye rounds. That is a huge difference from football and baseball insofar as a team's chance to win the trophy even before any games are played. A hockey team has to win 4 series and it takes 4 games to win a series. You need 16 wins and have to play as many as 28 games to do so. It's well beyond fluke, it is a war of attrition where teams play every second night for two months. And the regular season is 82 games in a sport with a lot of parity among teams. You just don't see winning percentages in the .700+ range and I hope we never will. I note that none of the examples you listed occurred in our lifetime, so the game may see more dominant teams winning more often these days.

In the NBA, a possession sport more than transition, the skill of one player can make much more of a difference. I won't even start with preferential treatment of the most marketable players by the officials. Teams with a couple of star players often have ridiculous winning percentages, largely due to the nature of the sport where you can isolate players and match your skills to theirs.

Bottom line is, the NY Giants won the games when they had to win them, and that is one true sign of a champion. I don't think there are flukes at that level, unless a dominant team is wiped out by injury, paving the way for a lesser team to win.
 
Sure, stats don't determine champions, games do. But one could argue though that they benefited from the way the league is set-up with it's playoff system. Hence, they won their division, but because there are only four teams in a division, they got to play at home against a team with a superior record (Atlanta). Had this gone by conference, the way the NBA does, they would not have. They actually would have been the #6 seed, instead of #4, and headed straight to New Orleans, instead of playing at home against Atlanta.

Then there's the luck factor. Sure, winners make their own luck, much of the time, but think about this: Green Bay, who had the second best turnover ratio all year, fumbles three times, and Aaron Rodgers who throws 45 TD's and 6 int's all year goes 2-1, and their very experienced receivers drop 10 balls, plus the hail mary pass by Eli that bounced just right... Add the fact the Giants didn't have to play New Orleans (again) who demolished them earlier in the year, because of the way the Saints turned the ball over against SF... Add the fact against the 49ers Eli threw two balls right to 49er defenders, who dropped them - one in the 4th quarter that could have been a back breaker, plus the fact the 49ers only good receiver and kick returner Ted Ginn got hurt early and his backup muffed two punts for the 49ers, one at the worst possible time... Then they get to play the Patriots, who they know how to beat, instead of having to face Baltimore, because the Ravens kicker missed an easy FG. And this has nothing to do with Welker's dropping the ball at the worst time in the SB. Yes, the Giants are the champions, but you start looking at the big picture, and not from a fan of the team's eyes (and I'm no Patriots fan, at all), at some point it's not just skill, it's luck, a fair amount of luck.

But as the old saying goes, I'd rather be lucky than good.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
I don't get the luck bit really. If an incorrect call is made by the officials that benefits a side you could argue that's lucky. If a team plays badly at the crucial tine of the season that's just playing badly!
If teams play their best when it's do or die that's good!

In 08 the Giants were awesome for much of the season then Plax shot himself and the team started playing poorly. Despite getting the number 1 seed a bye and home field advantage they played badly against the Eagles: a team with a much worse record who didn't win the division and only got in as a wild card. Were the Eagles luck? No the Giants played badly when they needed to be at their best and got what they deserved. Frustrating, yes , but you can't blame anyone else.
That's why play off wins mean so much more than regular season wins when evaluating a player. Romo and Dallas being perfect examples.
The only alternative is a regular season league where everyone plays everyone else home and away and a separate knockout cup. Under the current situation you can have a side (NE) that is number one seed but only played two teams with a winning record during the regular season and lost to both!

If Bolt wins every race prior to the Olympics but loses the final after running his slowest time of the year then tough!

I like the current set up and not just because the Giants won. GB deserved the SB last year and I wanted Arizona to win in 08.(actually they were unlucky as photos show that the last touchdown which won the game for the Steelers shouldn't have been awarded!)

I've played team sports almost all my life and had some great wins and bitter defeats. Sometimes you out play the opposition but still lose. It sucks but as rule 5.2 says "the team that scores the most goals is the winner" (it used to be 11e and said "The team that scores the greater number of goals shall be deemed the winner" which I prefer!
If you want to be considered the best team you have to win when it counts
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Then there's the luck factor.
No question, when you lay it all out like that you really see the incredible fortune that played to NYG's favour. I suppose you would have to break it down, play by play, and see what the Giants may have done to influence their own fortune. Did so many players miss throws and drop catchable balls of their own accord, or did the Giants apply just the right amount of pressure? The Ravens field goal though, now that was good fortune for the Giants. It's one of those debates that can never be won, part of the joy of sport.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY