Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

The Giants almost beat the Pats in the regular season and will beat them in the Superbowl.

If you believe that you should make a quick trip to Vegas and bet the farm on the NY/GB game! Heck you can get 2 1/2 - 1 on the money line right now and it will go up if the weather is bad [:)]

Why would it go up if the weather is bad? Eli is worse than Favre and the Giants running game is premium.

I hope you bet the farm! [:)]

Yeah a bad day for the Pack
 
Giants were the better team yesterday, actually the game wasn't as close as the score would indicate.  Packers never had it together and played one of their worst games of the year.
 
I'd like to see the the Giants win the Super Bowl, but that could be tough.
 
 

Pack could not get its running game going and the Giants did - once the Giants got Brett into Gunslinger mode it was a miracle they stayed as close as they did.

The Pack played WAY over their head this year for a young team - especially on defense. They are a bookend for Kampman and a free Safety upgrade to Collins from being one of the best defenses in the league. Their LBs matured a lot and Pickett became the run stopper in the middle they needed.

On Offense its time to give the Reigns to Rogers and see how the young talent they have pans out. Jennings is the Real Deal, but I'm not sold on Koren Robinson... I like Grant and Jackson - but they need a big back to compliment them - Morency has not impressed me much.

We'll see how the off-season goes, but for a team that was 4-12 not long ago, an OT loss in the NFC Title game would have seemed a fool's desire at the start of the season!

The Pack will be Back!

Go Patriots!

The Pack didn't show much at all, which is bad news for the Giants. Seeing as it went into OT.
 
As far as " gunslinger mode" I agree completely. But,you have to put the blame straight on the coach, He calls the plays. It seems instead of going with the Packs usual short yardage pass plays he is the one who picked the long plays. It almost seems to me that the worst play for the Pack was the 90 yard TD. Somehow Mccarthy got it into his head that the Pack could do that all night. It is true that the Giants were throwing the ball, but that was for 10-15 yarders. You can't expect too many 30 yard catches with a ball that feels like a frozen brick.
 
If the Pack had played the same game plan as was usual this year, it might have been a different story. Only thing I'm a little miffed about is the lack of calls against the Giants for doing the same things. Twice Favre got flattened after he let go of the ball but they only called it agaist the Pack.
 
The really startling thing about the Patriots game was there was not a single penalty called. Giant fans beware the Pats are the darlings now and I believe if Giants play them like they did GB the Giants will end up with 10-12 pealty calls against them.
 
But anyway good luck Giants.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

The Pack didn't show much at all, which is bad news for the Giants. Seeing as it went into OT.

As far as " gunslinger mode" I agree completely. But,you have to put the blame straight on the coach, He calls the plays. It seems instead of going with the Packs usual short yardage pass plays he is the one who picked the long plays. It almost seems to me that the worst play for the Pack was the 90 yard TD. Somehow Mccarthy got it into his head that the Pack could do that all night. It is true that the Giants were throwing the ball, but that was for 10-15 yarders. You can't expect too many 30 yard catches with a ball that feels like a frozen brick.

If the Pack had played the same game plan as was usual this year, it might have been a different story. Only thing I'm a little miffed about is the lack of calls against the Giants for doing the same things. Twice Favre got flattened after he let go of the ball but they only called it agaist the Pack.

The really startling thing about the Patriots game was there was not a single penalty called. Giant fans beware the Pats are the darlings now and I believe if Giants play them like they did GB the Giants will end up with 10-12 pealty calls against them.

But anyway good luck Giants.

There were 3 penalties in the Pats game. GB did not play well because the Giants D is great up front and the secondary did not blow it. Remember the Patriots had a hard time scoring against this defense so the Pack was overmatched.

Pats are going down in the Superbowl in front of a huge audience.

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

ORIGINAL: sulla05

The Pack didn't show much at all, which is bad news for the Giants. Seeing as it went into OT.

As far as " gunslinger mode" I agree completely. But,you have to put the blame straight on the coach, He calls the plays. It seems instead of going with the Packs usual short yardage pass plays he is the one who picked the long plays. It almost seems to me that the worst play for the Pack was the 90 yard TD. Somehow Mccarthy got it into his head that the Pack could do that all night. It is true that the Giants were throwing the ball, but that was for 10-15 yarders. You can't expect too many 30 yard catches with a ball that feels like a frozen brick.

If the Pack had played the same game plan as was usual this year, it might have been a different story. Only thing I'm a little miffed about is the lack of calls against the Giants for doing the same things. Twice Favre got flattened after he let go of the ball but they only called it agaist the Pack.

The really startling thing about the Patriots game was there was not a single penalty called. Giant fans beware the Pats are the darlings now and I believe if Giants play them like they did GB the Giants will end up with 10-12 pealty calls against them.

But anyway good luck Giants.

There were 3 penalties in the Pats game. GB did not play well because the Giants D is great up front and the secondary did not blow it. Remember the Patriots had a hard time scoring against this defense so the Pack was overmatched.

Pats are going down in the Superbowl in front of a huge audience.

You might want to hedge your bets on this one. I'd only bet 1/2 the farm on that one, assuming you bet the whole thing last week on the Giants.

The team that came closest to beating the Pats were the Ravens. The lesson from that game was don't give Brady extra downs and play all 60 minutes not 59.

"Remember the Patriots had a hard time scoring against this defense so the Pack was overmatched. "
 
I believe the score was 38-35, that doesn't sound to me like the patriots had a hard time with the Giants defense. It seems to me that both offenses didn't have a rough time with the others defense. Also with terrible stats the Pack was able to stay until OT, so I wouldn't say they were overmatched.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

"Remember the Patriots had a hard time scoring against this defense so the Pack was overmatched. "

I believe the score was 38*-35, that doesn't sound to me like the patriots had a hard time with the Giants defense. It seems to me that both offenses didn't have a rough time with the others defense. Also with terrible stats the Pack was able to stay until OT, so I wouldn't say they were overmatched.

*38 points scored by offense found to be cheating by NFL. It is not known if offense has stopped cheating at this time. [:)]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

ORIGINAL: sulla05

"Remember the Patriots had a hard time scoring against this defense so the Pack was overmatched. "

I believe the score was 38*-35, that doesn't sound to me like the patriots had a hard time with the Giants defense. It seems to me that both offenses didn't have a rough time with the others defense. Also with terrible stats the Pack was able to stay until OT, so I wouldn't say they were overmatched.

*38 points scored by offense found to be cheating by NFL. It is not known if offense has stopped cheating at this time. [:)]

Cheating? You mean the tapes that were never used by the Pats? That's like getting caught with the crib sheet when you are walking in to take the exam.

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Cheating? You mean the tapes that were never used by the Pats? That's like getting caught with the crib sheet when you are walking in to take the exam.

They were not caught cheating just once. If they never looked at then why would they do it?

It is a fact that they are cheaters.

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Cheating? You mean the tapes that were never used by the Pats? That's like getting caught with the crib sheet when you are walking in to take the exam.

They were not caught cheating just once. If they never looked at then why would they do it?

It is a fact that they are cheaters.

I'm sorry, but if you truly believe that the only reason that offense piled up all those points is because 'they cheated', you're just making lame excuses.

Tom Brady is an outstanding quarterback. The offensive line is one of the best in the league. Wes Welker has been underrated for years. A motivated Randy Moss is damn near impossible to cover.

I like the front 7 of the Giants defense. Unfortunately, the secondary just doesn't look to be up to the task.

ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast
I'm sorry, but if you truly believe that the only reason that offense piled up all those points is because 'they cheated', you're just making lame excuses.

Tom Brady is an outstanding quarterback. The offensive line is one of the best in the league. Wes Welker has been underrated for years. A motivated Randy Moss is damn near impossible to cover.

I like the front 7 of the Giants defense. Unfortunately, the secondary just doesn't look to be up to the task.

Tom Brady is a really good QB behind a strong offensive line. He is not an outstanding QB. Doug Williams put in an MVP performance in Super Bowl XXII behind a very good offensive line. That does not make him an outstanding QB.

If the players were as good as you say why did they cheat?

I do agree that the O-line doesn't get the credit it's deserved for years (well, they finally seem to be getting it this season). New England has done a great job in constantly replenishing the talent along their front five, and it's paid off.

I also don't think their cheating led to much of an advantage, to be honest. You don't seem to understand that NFL coaches change all of their sideline signals (which is what they were filming), at a bare minimum, every two weeks. So, having film of a team you played 6 weeks ago (for division rivals...anyone else, you might be talking a few years) really isn't worth much of anything, because they no longer use the same signal system. Any other info you might garner about formations and what specific motion might entail, and such, is the same info EVERY OTHER TEAM already has from watching film.

As for why they cheated, it has nothing to do with onfield talent. Hell, this current Pats team would mop the floor with the one that won for the first time, the year they upset the Rams. It has everything to do with Bill Belichick being an arrogant SOB. He will do anything and everything to win, and he really doesn't care what anyone thinks of him.

Random food for thought.
 
The Patriots would win anyway cheating or not.
 
Baseball is now trying to explain why they did little or nothing substantial about the steroid scandal. [:-]
NFL could have made an important statement by disqualifying (giving losses) the Patriots for one or more games or perhaps the season.
 
Money talks, success talks, integrity pays the price.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great
NFL could have made an important statement by disqualifying (giving losses) the Patriots for one or more games or perhaps the season.

For what? For taping signals in the first half of the first game and not even looking at them? Why is over a milion dollars in fines and the loss of a first round draft pick not the correct punishment?

The argument " that they didn't get to use them" is pretty thin. Can anyone verify that they haven't been doing this for awhile? I too believe that they should have been made to forfeit the game. This has absolutely nothing to do with how good a team they are, they are great. It has to do with breaking the rules. This is a game with millions of fans and billions of dollars riding on ( I'm not talking about the betting ) how the game is perceived. Look at this thread, how many people are just as upset and now want them to lose because of this. Look at the black eye that baseball has over roids now. Cheating is Cheating whether your good at it or not.
 
 Which leads me to a little OT pet peeve of mine that fit's right in. Why does someone who is bad at murder just gets accused of attempted murder. Just because they are bad at it why should they get a break? If your intent is to do something you should be convicted of the offense whether you succeeded or not. I think this ties in perfectly with the Pats supposedly trying to cheat but never getting the chance, they cheated end of story.

"The argument " that they didn't get to use them" is pretty thin."

Thin maybe but it's the truth.

"Can anyone verify that they haven't been doing this for awhile?"

Can you prove a negative?

"I too believe that they should have been made to forfeit the game."

They were fined and lost a first round pick for trying to video tape something that their coaching staff can OBSERVE during the game from the sideline.
Seems like a fair punishment. I don't see that as forfeiture material.

There has only been 1 NFL game ever forfeitted. It was back in 1921 between Washington and Rochester.

I'm a bit confused by your answers and or logic. I reiterate, they got caught cheating or more correctly attempting to cheat. If you went into a test and a crib sheet fell from your sleeve before you could use it you would still get an F or maybe even a 0. Just because you didn't get caught doing 90 on the highway doesn't make it right.
 
As far as " Can you prove a negative? " I assume you are talking about me butchering the English language. No matter how it is put, you either believe they never did it before or you are left with a bad taste in your mouth that this might not have been the first time.
 
As far as their only being one forfeit in history so far, that does not rule out it ever being used again. As a matter of fact from a law point of view, because it has been used in the past I believe that gives it more standing toward being used again. I could be wrong on this but I believe that it could be argued that there is a precedent there to use it again.
 
But we are arguing personal opinion, and just like you know whats everyone has one.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

If you went into a test and a crib sheet fell from your sleeve before you could use it you would still get an F or maybe even a 0.

But the crib sheet, or in this case the video, would have no bearing on whether you passed the test, or won the game, as it would have been of no use. They were punished for attempting to tape and I think the punishment was fine.
Had they been found with the tape after the game was complete maybe a fortiet would be more in order but forfieting is extremely rare punishment, as the fact that only 1 game has ever been fortieted shows. And that game was forfieted due to harsh weather conditions.

ORIGINAL: sulla05
As far as " Can you prove a negative? " I assume you are talking about me butchering the English language. No matter how it is put, you either believe they never did it before or you are left with a bad taste in your mouth that this might not have been the first time.

The point is they cannot prove they never cheated before, it is impossible. The same question can be asked of EVERY team that ever played and they will have the same answer.
So just because they attempted to do it once, on the first game of the season by a new employee, doesn't mean they did it every other year. In fact it is safe to say they did not try it again this year because the punishment would have been catastrophic had they been caught doing it again.