Super Bowl 46 GT

[chuckleslove]

I partially watched the first half while browsing the internet on my laptop, at halftime I started playing a game on my PS3, I put the game back on with about 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter when it was 17-15 because I figured if nothing else the finish is close and should be exciting.

[Newz]

I had to bet on the game to make it interesting... and I won.

I am awesome.

[paulpressey25]

Yeah. We don't need to be more physical. We weren't exactly a physical D when we won the SB. We simply need better DL and better OLBs physical or not.

Well, I don't know how you distinguish "physical" from "good" on the D-line, since by definition, "good" means physical at that position IMO.

The Giants D-line has in the end shut down both the Pat/Pack in 2007 and 2011. It isn't a coincidence. Whether you want to attribute it to speed or strength, the bottom line is the Giants D line has much more physical skills than either that Pats or the Pack.

[emunney]

I definitely envy the Giants their D-Line. All of those guys are good players, which means you can't ignore any of them, which means the best of them (JPP) get less attention than they should, which means havoc. That play where JPP shot down the line to get Green-Ellis in the backfield running off the opposite tackle was a thing of beauty. Clay can do that, but we don't have any linemen with that kind of capability.

The 4-3 is pretty awesome if you have 4 good linemen in the game at all times. I wonder what the 3-4 would look like with 4 good linebackers.

[Kerb Hohl]

Yeah. We don't need to be more physical. We weren't exactly a physical D when we won the SB. We simply need better DL and better OLBs physical or not.

Well, I don't know how you distinguish "physical" from "good" on the D-line, since by definition, "good" means physical at that position IMO.

The Giants D-line has in the end shut down both the Pat/Pack in 2007 and 2011. It isn't a coincidence. Whether you want to attribute it to speed or strength, the bottom line is the Giants D line has much more physical skills than either that Pats or the Pack.

That is definitely a Giants strength, and what eventually did us in (actually, I think if we don't fumble 50 times and play flawless turnover offense like the regular season we still have a chance to come back in the 4th quarter and win). I think the fumbling was issue #1 as well as our defense (which was known) and you can't focus on "not fumbling" all offseason. It was pretty much just a bad fluke/coincidence that all the guys choked it at that point.

The thing is, you're looking for the magic reason. Everyone needs to have a reason it seems after these. "Strength wins in the playoffs." There is no reason, in my mind. Obviously, we'd love to have some more physical d-linemen. I'd love to grab some.

I think the point we're making is that people look for this magic reason and thing to focus on in a one game elimination tournament. We lost a game. We didn't go 19-0 and nobody has. You can't focus your entire offseason and scheme on that one game when you were the best team. The NFL playoffs are relatively fair but it is a one game elimination, so sometimes the best team is going to bow out because they didn't win a game in a 3 or 4 game stretch. It happens.

The point we're making is if you're the best team and you play 4 or 5 of these things, unless there is some serious flaw in your coaching staff or mentality, you're going to win a handful of them.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't focus on improving, but I don't think there is some magic bullet playoff ingredient either. Look at the Pats. I realize they didn't win the whole thing but people are scrambling all over when they go 14-2 and lose to the Jets. They come back with relatively the same formula, just a shift in their passing game more to their playmaking TEs than Moss early in last season, but the idea remained the same -- short and efficient passing game -- weak, but playmaking defense.

Everybody is going to say "oh, the Patriots focused on this and that's what got them to the Superb Owl instead of their formula of last year where they choked." No. I'm sure they had better play out of certain guys, but it hinged on matchups, luck, and some late-game strategies/management.

That is what I am saying here I guess. Of course we should focus on DL strength, but I think people try to overthink and play radio talk show host and look for the magical ingredient. The magical ingredient is being a really good team, having good breaks in the playoffs, and getting the right matchups. If we throw this team in the playoffs for 5 straight years, I bet we win 1 or 2 more Superb Owls. If we have incredible luck, we win 3. If we have no luck, we lose a few of them and end up with 0.

If "strength" was they key, then the 49ers should have won the whole thing running away.

There is no magic bullet. Focus on the team weaknesses, get back to the playoffs, and this time don't fumble 100 times. We beat the Giants in their house in the regular season so I would have no doubts that we could beat them at home in the playoffs if given a matchup next year.

[paulpressey25]

Grendon, I think you're trying in 1,800 words to say "don't critique Ted Thompson for running a crappy D-line out there this year, we still could have won with that crappy D-Line"

And that's ok, since I don't think anyone here dislikes TT (or at least not anymore). We are simply judging him on the standard of SB championships in the same way that McGinn article from two weeks ago did. He's obviously an excellent GM.

But there is a magic bullet out there. We need a much better D-line.

Any team can beat any other team on a given day. But you need to put pressure on the QB to win consistently and win it all.

All the schemes in the world won't make up for that. And generally the most accepted way the last 75 years of the NFL to do that is to have 3 if not 4 studs up front who can have their way with the other team. Last night Brady couldn't throw over those guys and they were able to get some nice knock-downs on him as well.

I understand that Green Bay and New Orleans pulled it off without dominant D-lines in 2009 and 2010, but even the D-lines each team had in their SB years were much better than what they put up in the subsequent years they were eliminated.

This is an easy fix for Ted. It won't be "easy" to get the right players. But add JPP to the Packers plus one other big load in the middle and suddenly we no longer have the 32nd ranked defense and likely are playing in and winning that game yesterday.

[Kerb Hohl]

No, that's not what I'm saying. TT gets blame, though I guess as a casual observer I didn't think the DL was going to be as bad as it ended up being.

I'm saying focus on getting a better d-line, but there isn't some magical ingredient to winning in the playoffs or against a certain team over a few years.

I just think people get reactionary over what just happened sometimes. The Saints win and everyone is saying "it's a finesse league now." Giants win and everyone says "you need to have a dominant set of 4 d-linemen."

The overriding factor is that I think the best team with a little luck and hot streak wins. That means Thompson should focus on our weak point (defensive line) but that isn't the magic key to winning. I think if 2011/2012 was played over again but the Packers were given a clean slate against the Giants and we started over from there, Rodgers may have a Super Bowl trophy in hand right now. The Giants strength of a dominant defensive line won out that day in a single elimination tournament, so we need to come back next year, but the key in the NFL Playoffs is not "defensive line play."

I think it was obvious to everyone that the Packers need a better defensive line. That goes without saying.

[paulpressey25]

I think having an excellent QB and a great D-Line are the two most important things to winning it all.

I'll try to get those two things first and then everything else can fall into line a number of different ways after that.

[paulpressey25]

BTW--this Giselle stuff is great. And now people reconsidering Tom Brady's career, which is nonsense but comes with the territory.

Best tweet I saw was from some guy telling Bellichik he can now get rid of his ratty looking "good luck hoody" and wear something decent on the sidelines. Bill B. did look really angry last night. Thought he was going to punch someone after the gun sounded.

[MickeyDavis]

Yeah I'm surprised BB was as composed as he was in the post game interviews. That was one nasty face after the game lol

[chuckleslove]

I think having an excellent QB and a great D-Line are the two most important things to winning it all.

I'll try to get those two things first and then everything else can fall into line a number of different ways after that.

I think D-Line is third, I rank it QB, O-Line to keep said QB upright and healthy and then D-Line. Though O-Line and D-Line might be a tie I give a slight edge to the O-Line because having a great QB doesn't do you a whole lot of good if he is on his back.

[emunney]

I don't think we need a great d-line. We definitely need more good players on defense in general, but even if we don't get them, I think we've got as good a chance as anybody next year. Last year we had Matthews, Collins, Jenkins, Woodson, Williams and Raji as legitimately disruptive defensive players. We lose Jenkins to the Eagles, Collins to injury, Raji to Blue Bunny, Woodson to age and Williams never really got it together after that shoulder injury. IMO we need at least three more pro-bowlers on defense to add to Clay.

I just don't know where those guys are going to come from. Guys have to step up. Williams and Raji need to get back into form. Burnett and Shields need to use this offseason to get to the next level. Maybe we get a surprise from somebody like Lawrence Guy or So'oto. Maybe Collins can come back. Maybe we can resign Jenkins. I'm not going to mention Mike Neal, because it would seem that he's afraid of his own body.

I'm fascinated to see what TT does here. My guess is he stays the course, but I could see him being aggressive if he sees an immediate defensive starter either in the draft or undervalued in the FA market. And what about some of these vet contracts? We've been talking about Driver and Clifton as though they're already gone, and a lot of people want Hawk out, too, but what about Woodson? Should he still be making eight figures?

[El Duderino]

Yeah. We don't need to be more physical. We weren't exactly a physical D when we won the SB. We simply need better DL and better OLBs physical or not.

Well, I don't know how you distinguish "physical" from "good" on the D-line, since by definition, "good" means physical at that position IMO.

The Giants D-line has in the end shut down both the Pat/Pack in 2007 and 2011. It isn't a coincidence. Whether you want to attribute it to speed or strength, the bottom line is the Giants D line has much more physical skills than either that Pats or the Pack.

I thought the Giants were lucky to win that game. Three fumbles and they didn't lose any of them. If Welker catches that ball right in his hands, NE likely wins.

Yea, the Giants have arguably the best front four in football, but it's not like their pass rush was dominant in either the Packers or Pats game.

In the end, Welker dropped his pass and Manningham caught his.

[LUKE23]

[chuckleslove]

Yeah saw that on Facebook, hilarious and wrong all at the same time.

[BUCKnation]

Yeah saw that on Facebook, hilarious and wrong all at the same time.

+1. I felt bad laughing about it

[El Duderino]

No, that's not what I'm saying. TT gets blame, though I guess as a casual observer I didn't think the DL was going to be as bad as it ended up being.

I'm saying focus on getting a better d-line, but there isn't some magical ingredient to winning in the playoffs or against a certain team over a few years.

I just think people get reactionary over what just happened sometimes. The Saints win and everyone is saying "it's a finesse league now." Giants win and everyone says "you need to have a dominant set of 4 d-linemen."

The overriding factor is that I think the best team with a little luck and hot streak wins.

I agree

If Welker catches that pass, it's about 90-10 that NE wins that game.

We fumble three times vs the Giants and lose all three of them, all three lost fumbles played a big factor in the loss. NY fumbles three times yesterday, but got lucky in not losing any of them. We had multiple critical drops vs the Giants and so did NE yesterday.

None of that stuff had anything to do with style of play, more random luck of things that can happen on any given game day. It's not like recovering fumbles is some predictable skill, it's almost pure randomness/luck. That's why they managed to be lucky enough to land on the three Packer fumbles and then not lose any of their three fumbles yesterday.

In 2007, no question that Giants front four dominated and controlled the Super Bowl. Yet, for all the talk about their front four this year before the Packers and Patriots game, they weren't near as disruptive as the 2007 DL was. The big surprise to me was how well the Giants secondary held up through the playoffs, even when the line wasn't getting pressure.

[MetroDrugUnit]

Just popped in to say **** the Giants

[Stannis]

Just popped in to say **** the Giants

Haters gonna hate.