Quote:
Originally Posted by jbergey22
I dont even know what that is suppose to mean. Should the Pats have lost 3-4 of them games making the 8 win teams become 9 win teams which could add some "substance" to their schedule?
USATODAY.com
Pats were 8-3 vs top 16 teams while the Giants were 10-4. Giants were 5-4 vs top 10 teams. Patriots were 2-3. This is including the playoffs.
Your point would be better made this way. Records without anything else doesnt really say much.
Patriots did play a very weak schedule and the Giants did lose some regular season games to some good teams. Pats did however play some 8-8 teams and beat them convincingly.
Its done and over with the Giants beat 4 top 10 teams in 5 weeks and deserve to be called the best. They like to save their best for the end of the season apparently. |
Cut it any way you want, the Patsies beat only one team with a winning record on their way to the Super Bowl. That's never happened before. Ultimately, they were overrated and weren't battle tested, both of which showed up on Sunday in the 2nd half of the game. There's something to be said for a difficult schedule - either teams crumble or get better when they play better competition. The Patriots didn't have that opportunity and either that enabled them to sneak into the Super Bowl or held them back once they got there. Personally, I think it's the former, but that's just my opinion.
FYI, there were 10 teams other than the Patriots with winning records. The Patsies went 1-3 against those teams, not 2-3.
02-09-2012, 12:39 PM
