Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

25 Jan 2008

Giants One of Worst Teams to Reach Super Bowl

Sorry to sound like a broken record about this, but I don't think people understand how weak the Giants are in comparison with past Super Bowl teams... and that includes their postseason run of greatness. One tidbit here that people probably have not heard: Out of the 10 teams that required three wins in order to make the Super Bowl, the Giants have the LOWEST average margin of victory in the playoffs.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 25 Jan 2008

107 comments, Last at 04 Feb 2008, 12:38pm by SteveNC

Comments

1
by Sergio (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 2:58pm

Oh yeah, this'll go smoothly.

2
by KSR (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:05pm

I can't say I'm sold, the fact that the statistics don't seem to have any bearing on Super Bowl success (50% win/loss) doesn't seem like a strong indicator of future performance.

3
by Dean (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:06pm

Ding! Showtime.

I'll set the over/under at 175 posts.

As someone who doesn't like either team, I'm REALLY looking forward to these comments!

4
by RickD (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:09pm

Aaron,

you've really got to get into the spirit of "pumping up the Giants" that the rest of the media is indulging. You're just not playing along! I mean, sure they're a 5-seed 10-6 team that gave up 38 points just 4 weeks ago to this Patriots team, who also have enjoyed the best regular season in history. But, but...Plaxico Burress is as good as Randy Moss! Eli Manning is as good as Tom Brady! They have a clutch kicker who never misses!

5
by Chris M (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:14pm

How is Rodney Harrison supposed to feel disrespected when you write things like this, Aaron?

6
by Paul (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:14pm

"Eli Manning is as good as Tom Brady!"

Aaron - put the pipe down!!!

7
by JCRODRIGUEZ (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:16pm

I think that even the Giants are aware of that...they are only thankful for the chance to get there, and the POSSIBILITY to pull an upset...as a neutral SB watcher I hope that it does not turn ugly...soon...

8
by John Doe (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:18pm

This seems like a childish retaliation to the negative comments Giants fans have been leaving. There is essentially no content worth reading for anyone Giants fan or not. This is the kind of content I can get on any public forum or fanblog. Where's the deep analysis and insight that brings me here? Not impressed.

9
by nat (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:20pm

Aaron, the polite thing to do would have been to pretend you didn't notice.

It's kind of like public farting in that way.

10
by speedracer (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:33pm

Aaron,

You're really dissapointing me here. You and your staff have really devolved into people with commentary no different than the hacks on ESPN or the fanboys on the AOL message board.

I'm a Broncos fan, and could care less about the Superbowl outcome - I just want a good game.

But you're really going out of your way to bash the Giants here.

11
by Independent George (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:33pm

Hey, I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet, but isn't it about time we started an Irrational Brady-Manning(Eli) debate thread?

12
by Jeffo (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:41pm

Re #7

I'm a Giants fan, and I'm going to the game, and I agree with #7's comment. I'm thrilled to be going, even though I give the Giants maybe a 10% shot to win. That's my peace offering for a Friday afternoon.

13
by nat (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:41pm

I'm a Pats fan, but Aaron's analysis has me worried.

More than 50% of the teams to reach the superbowl after having negative turnover differentials win.

More than 50% of the wildcard teams to reach the superbowl win.

The Giants are both. That should give them a 75% change of winning!

It's looking to be a good game.

14
by billsfan (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:42pm

There's only one game this (next) week. They played a month ago. One team is clearly better than the other. There are only so many ways you can spin that. Giants have momentum, Patriots have everything else. I'd also like to see the irrational Brady/(Eli)Manning thread.

15
by B (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:44pm

I think I'd rather have an irrational Brady/(Cooper) Manning debate. Maybe we can compare Cooper to one of Brady's sisters.

16
by Dan (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:49pm

AHAHAHAAHAAHAH on what planet is Eli as Good as Tom Brady? Aaron, your a fool.. hahaha 2x superbowl MVP, 3 superbowl rings.. haha ya, eli, he is just as good.. HIS BROTHER ISNT AS GOOD AS BRADY.. man.. what are u guys republicans? dont let facts get in the way of a dumb statement

17
by RickD (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 3:51pm

re: 13
The point of the tables is to show that the Giants are the worst or second worst among these two stats. It has no predictive value by itself. If you want to feel better, consider Super Bowl matchups between 14+ win teams versus 10- win teams or something like that. I bet the underdogs are almost always routed.

18
by vis (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:05pm

"The Giants don't have a specific player whose absence was responsible for their regular-season struggles."

Ah, but do they have a specific player whose absence was responsible for their post-season success?

Hmmm...

19
by Gerry (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:12pm

If it happens, it will be one of the greatest upsets ever. And if it happens, it will be very sweet.

But there is a difference between a team having had one of the worst seasons of teams to ever reach the SB (which I think is pretty obvious) and a team being one of the worst to ever reach the SB.

20
by vis (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:13pm

6, 16: I'm not seeing where Aaron compares Eli and Brady. I see RickD making a comparison, facetiously, in comment 4. This, right before describing Tynes as a clutch kicker.

?

21
by Otis Taylor 89 (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:18pm

Why is everyone saying the Pats are struggling to win playoff games this year against weak teams? They beat the two hottest teams coming into the playoffs (JAX,SD). The NYGs beat a overrated TB, a truly struggling DAL and a very good GB team that seem to be more affected by the elements than NYG. Were any of the teams NYG better than SD, JAX or IND? No.

I see this game turning out like the '91 SB, with one of the 5 best teams in the past 25 years (WASH) beating up on a very good team from an inferior conference (BUF).

22
by Frank (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:20pm

If the Giants were 18-0 and the Pats were 14-5 we'd be hearing about how the Pats don't have a chance. The Giants will be lucky if the stay with 18 points of the Pats

23
by E (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:27pm

Gerry (19) said it perfectly - the Giants may or may not be "one of the worst teams to read the Super Bowl" - these numbers don't prove that either way. They merely show that they had a relatively poor season, as Aaron has pointed out in much more sophisticated ways throughout the playoffs. As a loyal FO reader, this article really disappointed me. It seems like an arbitrary collection of data assembled to pander to ESPN's lowest common denominator. I guess that's why it was published where it was and not on the FO site.

24
by mush (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:44pm

I refuse to accept that a team just off wins *at* Tampa Bay, Dallas and Green Bay is to be casually discounted (and those efforts came on the heels of arguably the game of the year with New England in Week 17). It matters not to me how the Giants looked in September and October; it *does* matter how they're playing now (and how they've adjusted to the new defensive scheme). I almost get the idea Aaron is merely going double-or-nothing here against the Giants, given that his stance was anti-NYG for the entire playoffs. (I mean in his opinions; I'm *not* implying that he's wagering on the games, plus we know his heart is all-in on the Patriots anyway ; )

Disclaimer: I'm not an NYG fan in any way.

25
by Gerry (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:47pm

"If you want to feel better, consider Super Bowl matchups between 14+ win teams versus 10- win teams or something like that. I bet the underdogs are almost always routed."

Super Bowls with 14+ win teams vs. 10- win teams:

Hm. I think we are going to need a bigger data set. It just doesn't seem to happen very often.

How about the Super Bowls with teams that have 14+ wins:
Super Bowl VII: Miami Dolphins (AFC,14-0) defeated Washington Redskins (NFC,11-3), Score: 14-7
Super Bowl XIII: Pittsburgh Steelers (AFC,14-2) defeated Dallas Cowboys (NFC,12-4), Score: 35-31
Super Bowl XVIII: Los Angeles Raiders (AFC,12-4) defeated Washington Redskins (NFC,14-2), Score: 38-9
Super Bowl XIX: San Francisco 49ers (NFC,15-1) defeated Miami Dolphins (AFC,14-2), Score: 38-16
Super Bowl XX: Chicago Bears (NFC,15-1) defeated New England Patriots (AFC,11-5), Score: 46-10
Super Bowl XXI: New York Giants (NFC,14-2) defeated Denver Broncos (AFC,11-5), Score: 39-20
Super Bowl XXIV: San Francisco 49ers (NFC,14-2) defeated Denver Broncos (AFC,11-5), Score: 55-10
Super Bowl XXVI: Washington Redskins (NFC,14-2) defeated Buffalo Bills (AFC,13-3), Score: 37-24
Super Bowl XXXIII: Denver Broncos (AFC,14-2) defeated Atlanta Falcons (NFC,14-2), Score: 34-19
Super Bowl XXXVI: New England Patriots (AFC,11-5) defeated St. Louis Rams (NFC,14-2), Score: 20-17
Super Bowl XXXVIII: New England Patriots (AFC,14-2) defeated Carolina Panthers (NFC,11-5), Score: 32-29
Super Bowl XXXIX: New England Patriots (AFC,14-2) defeated Philadelphia Eagles (NFC,13-3), Score: 24-21

Leaving out the two times both teams were in that category, it looks like 14+ win teams triumph in 80% of the Super Bowls they are in against teams with 13- wins.

That is pretty darned impressive. If the Pats win, it will likely be because the Pats are great.

10 or fewer wins in the SB (starting with the expansion to 16 games, strike year 1982 not included):
Super Bowl XIV: Pittsburgh Steelers (AFC,12-4) defeated Los Angeles Rams (NFC,9-7), Score: 31-19
Super Bowl XXII: Washington Redskins (NFC,11-4) defeated Denver Broncos (AFC,10-4-1), Score: 42-10
Super Bowl XXIII: San Francisco 49ers (NFC,10-6) defeated Cincinnati Bengals (AFC,12-4), Score: 20-16

Just 1 in three won, but that's a smaller sample size (and one of those cases was again in a strike season, and as such might not have even been in this data set had they played 16 games).

Other things pulled from the various other threads of late-- yes, the Giants were outscored. But they gave up, I believe, 55 points where the defense did not even give up a first down. Cutting back on turnovers would have changed that outlook markedly (and, amazingly enough, it would have changed the outlook of the turnover differential). It is easier for teams to learn to protect the football than it is to learn to run faster or be stronger.

Second, as Aaron pointed out in another thread, the Giants have now put up two streaks of 4 games with 40+% DVOA in the last two years, playoffs included. While of these teams, they had the lowest average DVOA during these games, the list is full of teams that had good success:

2007 Pats (Current juggernaut, made SB after perfect 16-0 regular season).
1999 Rams (13-3, won SB).
2002 Bucs (12-4, won SB).
2007 Colts (13-3, lost in divisionals).
1997 Chiefs (13-3, lost in divisionals to eventual SB champs).
2004 Eagles (13-3, lost in SB).
2004 Colts (12-4, lost in divisionals to eventual SB winner Pats).
2003 Pack (10-6, lost in divisionals).
2002 Raiders (11-5, lost in SB to Bucs).
1997 Pack (13-3, lost in SB).

And then the Giants of the last two years. What do all of these teams have in common? They were all *good* teams. Some, but not all, were great. The Giants are not a bad team-- they are a team that is capable of a very high level of play for extended periods that has a pronounced tendency to also play like crap for extended periods.

Should we have seen them coming before the playoffs? At this point, I do not see how. However, based on the following, I think we should at this point have long ago moved past the idea that they are the worst anything (other than, perhaps, having had the worst regular season of any SB team):

1) They have produced streaks that bad teams simply do not produce.
2) The base of the team has been of playoff caliber for three straight years.
3) While they squeaked into the playoffs at 8-8 last season, this was despite losing their entire linebacking corps and key linemen on both sides of the ball for extended periods of time.
4) The things that were holding their performance down, such as the poor turnover differential and the myriad of dropped passes, were correctable.

Will they win? Probably not, but that is because they are facing a team unique in history. No need to try to tear the Giants down-- the focus should rightfully be on how good the Pats are.

26
by mmm... sacrilicious (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:53pm

#16: Well played, sir.

27
by Gerry (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:56pm

One more thing that sticks in my craw:

"Out of the 10 teams that required three wins in order to make the Super Bowl, the Giants have the LOWEST average margin of victory in the playoffs."

Perhaps. However, they have had over 40% DVOA in each of their playoff victories. I know you don't have DVOA numbers for all 10 of the teams that required three wins to make the SB, but you do have some. What was their average three game DVOA? Why the sudden return to using conventional stats when they are saying something different than the advanced stats?

28
by Marxist (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 4:57pm

I think Al Davis has some quote like "If we're the worst team ever to win the superbowl, I'll engrave it on the trophy." Just from watching the two teams play it seems like it should be a close game, but the numbers definitely help keep things in perspective. Good analysis.

29
by mawbrew (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 5:00pm

Re: 25 "Cutting back on turnovers would have changed that outlook markedly..."

This is the thing that has obviously improved in their last four games. A Giants team that doesn't turn the ball over is (it seems to me) a damn good team. A Giants team that turns it over like they did for the first 16 weeks is only average.

You can wonder if their current tightness with turnovers is sustainable, but the reality is it doesn't have to be - there's just one game left. If they don't turn the ball over (and I've been waiting for Eli to throw the killer pick for the last two games), I think it will be a very good game.

30
by Cyrus (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 5:05pm

I think the people above me have made a couple of strong points, especially about turning the ball over.

My biggest complaint with the article is that while it explained why the Giants were one of the worst regular season teams to make the Super Bowl, a lot of the tables show that 50% of the teams won or lost the SB.

That isn't very meaningful, to me... that means that the regular season has absolutely no bearing on Super Bowl success.

Now, as someone else pointed out, a team with 14+ wins has a great chance at winning the Super Bowl.

31
by Andrew (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 5:39pm

Gerry #25:

Or look at the totality of 13+ win teams. Since 1978, there have been 49 of them up to this year. 15 won the Super Bowl. 9 lost the Super Bowl, but just 3 choked, losing to a team with at least 2 fewer wins, the 1983 Redskins, 2001 Rams, and 2005 Seahawks.

I'd put it as 3 chokes vs. 15 wins. That's a bigger sample size.

OTOH, look at 11- win teams. There have been 266 of them since 1978. Many of course lost early on or didn't even make the playoffs. 14 did make the Super Bowl, and 4 won it.

So the one historical record says the Pats have a 5 in 6 chance of winning, while the other says the Giants have a 2 in 7 chance. Averaging that says the Giants have a 1 in 9 shot of winning. That sounds about right.

32
by Michael Walsh (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 5:46pm

This paragraph near the end of the article:

First, each of those teams struggled in the regular season because of a specific injury to a player who was in the lineup for the playoffs (Bob Sanders for the Colts, Ben Roethlisberger for the Steelers). The Giants don't have a specific player whose absence was responsible for their regular-season struggles.

is too narrowly defined. The Giants had Jeremy Shockey, whose presence was somewhat responsible for their regular-season struggles.

33
by mawbrew (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 5:46pm

I think you might need to recheck your math. 1/6 = 17%. 2/7 = 28%. Averaging those gets you 22-23% chance for the Giants (roughly 2/9).

34
by Gerry (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 5:49pm

Andrew--

As one of the primary posters here the last few days championing the opinion that the Giants are good, let me just say---

I put our chances of winning much lower than 10%.

But not because I think the Giants are that bad. I just happen to think the Pats are that good.

35
by NewsToTom (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 5:58pm

Teams that are undefeated in the regular season have a losing record in NFL Championship games (1-2).

But, really, aside from the Pats going undefeated, what the Giants should do is fire Tom Coughlin and hire a minority head coach. Minority head coaches against non-minority head coaches have a perfect record in the Super Bowl (2-0).

With ironclad statistical analysis like this and the Anti-Special Sauce, how can the Giants possibly lose if they have Tom Coughlin and Jerry Reese change jobs for the next 2 weeks?

36
by glen (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 6:01pm

Aaron,
When you post an article on ESPN, you should let every one there know your a Big Patriot Homer. I guess when the Giants win you will have to say my stats were right but it was an historically odd year. I love your guys work but Football is a lot different than Baseball, shorter season , more emotion to get a true grasp of what may happen. Besides someone besides a Patriot fan should write these articles.

37
by Theo, Holland (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 6:04pm

Then again, the Giants have the best pass rush of the last deacade.

38
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 6:19pm

I read the headline and thought that finally FO had printed an original contribution by Raiderjoe.

39
by Matt (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 6:29pm

The Giants are no match for the Patriots - but we all knew this. Really. In all probability next Sunday is just a coronation ceremony. Who outside of Plaxico Burress believes otherwise?

40
by Herm? (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 7:08pm

holy backhanded headline, Shatz-man!

and remember, folks: you are = you're
when insulting Aaron, poor grammar invalidates your argument.
Except Raiderjoe. You go, Joe!

41
by CA (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 7:16pm

Aaron, thanks for refusing to participate in the charade.

Gerry, as one of the primary posters here the last few days championing the opinion that the Giants are mediocre, let me just say that I put the Giants' chances of winning at higher than 10%. That's not because I think that the Giants are good (as you well know, I don't think that). Nor is it because I don't think that the Patriots are great (they're easily the best team that I've ever seen). It's because I recognize the enormous role that chance plays in the game.

42
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 7:19pm

Oh, goodness, I think the Giants have at least a 10% chance to win. If Manning plays well, I'd give them at least a 30% chance, and probably more. Of course, if Manning plays like he did against the Vikings, the Pats will win 77-0.

How well will Manning play? Got me, but I'd guess his chances of being as bad as he was against the Vikings are about 10%, and his chances of being as good as he was against the Packers are about 33%. That leaves a whole lot of room between the two performances. How the hell do I know what is going to happen? I guess, if you put a gun to my head, I'd take the points, assuming they are about 14 or so.

43
by starzero (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 7:19pm

shouldn't the bears be in this superbowl, so the pats can reverse history? {crap, i feel dirty just thinking such things.}

44
by B (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 7:25pm

43: That's why I wanted the Packers.

45
by Jordy (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 8:24pm

Referring to Aaron as a Patriots homer isn't really considered an insult, is it? If so, someone needs to lighten up and/or write a bunch more disclaimers, rules, and regulations for the site.

46
by admin :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 8:40pm

Comment 27 offers an interesting question. Would people like to know the answer? If people think this qualifies as "answering reader mail," I'm happy to go look up the answer. If people think this qualifies as "being defensive," I'll find something else to do with my time. I'll check back tomorrow and see what you folks think.

And no, referring to me as a "Patriots homer" is not something that would get a comment deleted. We're just trying to get away from the recent trend where discussion threads devolve into readers attacking each other and calling each other names. Notice the new rules don't ask you to refrain from ad hominem attacks on the FO staff.

47
by Gerry (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 8:43pm

Aaron--

My vote is that it would not be defensive, because although I phrased it as "sticks in my craw", I did not intend it to be attacking.

Gerry

48
by vis (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 8:52pm

Aaron- I'd like to see what comes of it. More data & more analysis is always good, that's why we all (or most?) come here.

49
by remiel (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 8:57pm

Anyone else think that the number ranting/aggressive/alternatively intelligent people turning up on the site lately is a direct result of how many articles FO's pumping out onto teh web these days? I rather suspect they follow the links here, see the comments threads and assume the site's just another Fox/ESPN clone and babble accordingly.

50
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 9:29pm

#46: Yeah, I'd say I'd like to see that. Like I said elsewhere: the fact that the Giants have played at the Patriots level for the past four games just amazes me.

A better way to describe the Giants, though, isn't by saying "one of the worst teams." If they're capable of consistently playing at a 40% DVOA level now, they're not one of the worst teams to have reached the Super Bowl.

What the Giants are is a team who has had one of the worst seasons and made it to the Super Bowl.

I mean, that's strictly true. They outscored their opponents by only 22 points over the whole season combined.

How much meaning that has on the game itself depends on how much you think a team can actually improve within the season.

51
by Matt (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 9:58pm

While it's generally accepted that a team can improve over a season, the extent of this improvement is incredible and rather sudden - somewhere around halftime of the Bills game, by most accounts, is where the switch flipped.

I guess what would be worth knowing, then is:

1. How often have teams posted DVOA scores so far at odds with their season performance for an extended period? The Patriots and Rams posted long 40%+ streaks, but that was fairly close to their "normal" level.

2. Likelihood this carries into the Super Bowl? This one is probably the most difficult based on few data points for such runs and fewer still for the Patriots.

3. Likelihood that even some of this leaks into a more permanent improvement over seasons to come? I'm sure the FO cottage industry of Eli Manning comparables scores would help, too - the Eli Hot Streak factor is more or less the motor running this team and all the excitement is...well, we've seen the guy for years, but this is the longest he's kept his "turning the corner" act going.

3a. More a job for the "Every Play Counts" type of analysis - but is he really playing better or lucking out with his bad decisions (as it was suggested happened for David Garrard)?

52
by Paul Casassa (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 10:03pm

Forget about DVOA for a moment and chew on this:

When NE beat NY in the last regular season game, they did so with the right side of their O line de-activated due to injury (Steven Neal, Nick Kaczur), same with Kyle Brady. NE was playing to win, but was equally focused on setting 2 records for Brady/Moss. And the NY kick return run back occurred with NE kicking from their own 15 yard line.

As the game wore on and NE was down 28 - 16, they kicked it in and scored points and won.

Given the magnitude of this game insofar as capping off the Patriots "perfect" season, and that a loss now would mean all their work was for naught......

Does anyone REALLY think, I mean SERIOUSLY, that this team of "all stars" is going to lose?

It would be one of the biggest sports upsets of all time. And the odds of that have to be pretty small.

53
by Boston Bulldog (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 10:15pm

10 or fewer wins in the SB (starting with the expansion to 16 games, strike year 1982 not included):
Super Bowl XIV: Pittsburgh Steelers (AFC,12-4) defeated Los Angeles Rams (NFC,9-7), Score: 31-19
Super Bowl XXII: Washington Redskins (NFC,11-4) defeated Denver Broncos (AFC,10-4-1), Score: 42-10
Super Bowl XXIII: San Francisco 49ers (NFC,10-6) defeated Cincinnati Bengals (AFC,12-4), Score: 20-16

A couple of notes on these "weak" teams:

Los Angeles 1979 (SB XIV): this team was 9-7 and only made the playoffs by winning their weak division. (10-6 Washington missed out.) They did have a better record both the year before (12-4) and the year after (11-5) but no deep playoff runs.

Denver 1987 (SB XXII): this team was "only" 10-4-1 but was also the Top Seed in the AFC. All W-L records from this season are suspect as each team really only played 12 games, with 3 additional "random" results added from the scab teams that played in their place during the strike. They also had lost the SB the previous year.

SF 1988 (SB XXIII): This team was "only" 10-6 but was also the #2 seed. It was an odd year in the NFC. The two best records were in the Central as were three teams with 11 or more losses. The other two divisions had five 10-6 teams. SF won all the tie-breakers for #2 seed, and then whipped the two Central teams to get to the SB. And also won the SB the next year.

54
by Boston Bulldog (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 10:22pm

Forgot to mention that SF had had the best record in football the previous season.

The overall point is that these other 3 teams might have had "weak" records that year, but they also had some prior record of excellence in their favor, indicating that they might have been better than their record of that season.

55
by Tim (not verified) :: Fri, 01/25/2008 - 10:27pm

Really, it doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is, all that matters is what happens on the field. These statistics might provide a little bit of insight (or not) but I would much rather win a superbowl than be declared the greatest team of all time by a bunch of hacks. Obviously the Patriots are huge favorites, but this Giant team has shown tremendous perseverance and fighting spirit, and I'm sure they would love nothing more than ruining the perfect season, just like they ruined Green Bay and Dallas's storylines.

56
by Alex (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 12:23am

Does anyone REALLY think, I mean SERIOUSLY, that this team of “all stars” is going to lose?

Well, the Rams in 2001 were 1st in Offense and 5th in Defense, and had a DVOA of 38.5%. That team of "all stars," featuring a high-flying passing attack and an excellent defense, lost to a mediocre team that barely even made it to the Super Bowl (a team that they had beaten in the regular season, no less).

So, it's possible. You might even say it would be appropriate, in a karmic justice sort of way. I don't think it's going to happen, but if it does, the schadenfreude will have me laughing hysterically for the rest of the winter...also probably spring...maybe through the summer, too, although the novelty might wear off before then.

Actually, I'm probably best off not thinking about it, lest I get my hopes up. The Giants aren't going to win. They got blown out by freakin' Minnesota! They've lost 5 games by double digit scores! 5! No team has ever won a Super Bowl after losing even 3 games by double digit scores.

Why bother, I know the Patriots are going to win. Might as well just accept it, and move on. This entire football season, both college and NFL, has been an unbelievably ridiculous and somewhat depressing experience, for me anyway.

Oh well, at least Favre had a great year, that was fun to watch. Palmer and Ocho Cinco are still playing well, and their defense is only a couple good LBs away from decency. And McNabb and Westbrook had some amazing performances, especially that game in the throwback jerseys. I'm thinking the Eagles should just wear them every week. I could get used to the crazy colors if the offense kept scoring 50+ points a game. All right, now I'm just rambling, sorry. It's just...it really sucks to root for two teams that just barely fell short of winning records despite top-10 offenses. Seeing the Patriots go 19-0 in the same season isn't exactly helping matters either, but some things can't be helped.

57
by Kurt (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 12:47am

Unlike Belichick, Coughlan has some class, and doesn't need to run up the score on overmatched opponents.

58
by Duff Soviet Union (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 2:26am

Re #31 Andrew. One of those was not even a "choke". The 2005 Steelers ranked ahead of the 13-3 Seahawks by DVOA because Seattle had a creampuff schedule.
#57 Kurt. Do not start on that crap. Do not even start.

59
by JoshuaPerry (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 6:23am

Seriously, I think the Broncs were the worst team in SB history. Everyone broke records against them.

60
by Tom (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 12:07pm

@ aaron, I am interested in your answer.

I also think Margin of victory is just a weird thing to look at because a small margin of victory would seem to also point towards teams with a better defense, and teams with better running games. i mean, winning 7-6 is a much bigger differential than winning 42-41....

61
by Julio (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 12:10pm

The Giants have already proven they can hang with the Patriots, so whether or not the Giants had a great season overall is irrelevant. The individual matchups, and whether or not the Pats defense can stop playing like a goose with **** flowing through it for the first half of games, will probably be the deciding factors. And don't forget the Ewing theory!

62
by Felton (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 12:31pm

The argument regarding turnover differential seems a little backward. If a team has success in spite of a negative turnover differential, with turnovers being somewhat arbitrary (luck), then the team is possibly better then the record would indicate. Generally, I would expect a team with -10 turnover differential would be a strong candidate to improve the next season - unless it's the Saints, of course. I'm just glad there was never a column headline of "2006 Saints worst team to ever make Conference Final" - the fur would fly then!

63
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 1:23pm

I would prefer the Patriots to win this game, and as much as I prefer competitive Super Bowls, part of me hopes that Belichik & Brady, LLC for Satan, win 77-0, with 28 points coming in the fourth quarter, off of onsides kicks, flea flickers, and by turning the entire field into four down territory, just so Anti-Pats Nation has a collective conniption fit.

Yeah, a lot of Pats fans are obnoxious as hell, but I find the Pats-o-phobics to be worse, especially with their ahistoricism regarding alleged "class" demonstrated by coaches other than Belichik when they supposedly refused to run up scores. Does throwing a 38 yard td pass midway through the third quarter, while ahead 48-7, count? Mind you, I don't have a problem with Coughlin having his team throwing long passes in the 2nd half, while up by 41 points, so I'd have no problem if Belichik did as well.

64
by PW (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 2:03pm

The Giants should lose we all know this. On this very site it was listed that the Bucs-Giants was the biggest mismatch of round 1.

The regular season Giants were a mediocre inconsistent team that won ugly games.

However if they pull the upset I will not be that surprised. This Giants team is a talented bunch that underachieved this season.

I also wont be suprised if they get blown out.

I think if the Giants win I'll take being the fan of the worst team to ever play in a Super Bowl anyday over 18-1.

65
by Goathead (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 4:05pm

No question the Giants are one of the worst teams to reach the SB, and I say this as a Giants fan. The team has had glaring weaknesses in coverage all year, and have found a way to compensate based on their superior D-Line. In the 1st matchup with the pats, the pats had O-line injuries, this time around the G's only chance is if Brady genuinely has problems with his ankle.

The Giants are prone to boneheaded mistakes (see: McQuarters - 2 fumbles), I'm still amazed that the Pack didn't capitalize on them.

But in all honesty, the 91 Giants SB winners were as overmatched as the current team is, as were the 01 pats, in one game anything can happen. But the reality is its going to take a lot of luck for the Giants to win, and they don't seem to be the type of team that creates luck

66
by Scott de B. (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 4:24pm

Well, the Rams in 2001 were 1st in Offense and 5th in Defense, and had a DVOA of 38.5%. That team of “all stars,” featuring a high-flying passing attack and an excellent defense, lost to a mediocre team that barely even made it to the Super Bowl (a team that they had beaten in the regular season, no less).

The difference between the 2001 Patriots and the 2007 Giants is that the Patriots were really only blown out in one game that season (losing 30-10 to Miami). They played smart, conservative, and disciplined. Plus, Brady was growing into the starting job. Those factors are why I doubted the Rams would win by 14, as the line had it.

This Giants team, however, has been much more up and down, which is why I give them a lower chance to win, after factoring in the 'total collapse' probability

67
by Alex (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 4:43pm

Yeah, a lot of Pats fans are obnoxious as hell, but I find the Pats-o-phobics to be worse, especially with their ahistoricism regarding alleged “class” demonstrated by coaches other than Belichik when they supposedly refused to run up scores.

Hey, not all Patriots-Haters use ridiculously stupid arguments about "class" or "running up the score" to attack Bill Belichick. I've even defended Belichick from such allegations repeatedly over the last two years. In fact, I hope that Coughlin "runs up the score" in the Super Bowl, just so people have to shut up about how "classless" Bill Belichick is. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but hey, as long as we're hoping for miracles, why not?

This Giants team, however, has been much more up and down, which is why I give them a lower chance to win, after factoring in the ‘total collapse’ probability

Exactly, which is why you might have noticed me completely giving up hope later in my post. I noted that the Giants have been blown out far more than any other team that's ever won the Super Bowl, and for that, and other reasons, decided to just accept that the Patriots would win.

68
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 5:29pm

Alex, this would be a game in which I would normally be inclined to root for the underdogs, but the anti-Patriots contingent has convinced me to do otherwise. Mind you, if the Packers had made it, I'd be rooting for them, but if the Cowboys had, I'd be hoping that the Patriots won 140-0, just to see Jerry Jones sour, surgery- tightened mug as it happened. I guess I root against whomever I dislike most, and the anti-Patriots crowd, or at least a subset of it, has convinced me. It also helps that I get tired of how New York teams tend to get attention out of proportion to their quality. I always remember how the '86 Mets had the sort of quantity of books written about them that would lead one to believe that that they were a historically great team. If the Giants win this game, the rest of the country will never hear the end of it, even if they don't win another Super Bowl in 20 years; at least the Patriots have won multiple titles on the way to getting the attention they do.

69
by CA (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 6:25pm

Re: 65 But in all honesty, the 91 Giants SB winners were as overmatched as the current team is, as were the 01 pats, in one game anything can happen.

I disagree. As good as the 2001 Rams were, they weren’t even close to as good by the standards of their day as the 2007 Patriots have been, and, as unimpressive as the 2001 Patriots were, they weren’t as mediocre as the 2007 Giants. (Caution: Overly simplistic use of DVOA ahead). Regular season DVOA shows a 32.3 percentage point gap between the 2001 Rams and the 2001 Patriots but a 52.4 percentage point gap between the 2007 Patriots and the 2007 Giants. That 20.1 percentage point DVOA gap difference is quite substantial. The 1990 Giants were facing a Bills team with the same regular season record, and they were mere seven point underdogs (which is not large by recent Super Bowl standards). In fact, the 2007 Giants are quite a bit more overmatched on paper than the other teams you cite. Make no mistake: If the Giants win the Super Bowl, it will be a monumental upset.

70
by Tom D (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 7:05pm

re 68:

if the Giants win this game, the rest of the country will never hear the end of it, even if they don’t win another Super Bowl in 20 years

I would think that would be deserved for handing an unbeaten team it's only loss. No one forgets about the Dolphins beating the Bears in 85, and neither of those teams have anything to do with New York.

71
by resident jenius (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 7:07pm

Approvingly @ 68. Booing at the rest.

I too hope for a competitive Super Bowl. However, as much as it pains this Panthers fan to do it, I’m pulling for the Patriots. The Patriots have played football this season the way it’s supposed to be played. The Patriots have played to win. To characterize this quest for success as any sort of “classlessness” (a la #57) is only a glorification of the sort of frail, “playing to not lose,” philosophy that has become prevalent in the NFL today.

When I watch the football I want to see an offenses score and defenses hold, (and maybe even score themselves.) The best football games I watched this season pitted the Patriots against teams that temporarily adopted the Patriots own “play to win” philosophy. If you can honestly tell me that you weren’t fascinated watching the Patriots play the Colts, Eagles, Ravens, Giants, or Jaguars then I have no choice but to question your fanhood.

Personally, I cheer for the success of the Patriots style of play. I shed no tears for the proverbial “whiny millionaire” that didn’t try hard enough. If it takes several direct acts of Satan for the “perfect” Patriots to overcome the Ravens (who would in two weeks time lose to the lowly Dolphins) then any team with enough heart and courage should be able to beat the Patriots. As the wise man said, “Any given Sunday.”

In conclusion, the 2007 Patriots ultimate success would be an emulation of their style of play. In 2008 I hope every team comes out to play like the Ravens v. Patriots or Bills v. Cowboys. That would be football worth watching.

\ I also have to end because I’m out of football clichés.
\\ At least we’ll still have “Manning Face”

72
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 7:16pm

Nobody calls the '85 Dolphins a great team. Trust me, if the Giants win, there will be endless New York-driven media hype about this team being great, even if they go 8-8 next year.

73
by Conor (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 8:13pm

Re: 68

This isn't about the game, but the 86 Mets were one of the greatest teams ever. They've played baseball for over 100 years; you can count on one hand the number of teams that have won more games in a season than the 86 Mets. (98 Yankees, 27 Yankees, 61 Yankees (who really weren't at that level), 06 Cubs and 01 Mariners.) I really hope I haven't forgotten another team because then I would have go on another hand.

I suppose their playoff record, winning the LCS in 6 games and the WS in 7 pales in comparision to what some of the other great teams have done, like the 27 Yankees and 98 Yankees, but that shouldn't lessen what they accomplished during the regular season. They were a truly great team, one that was best suited for the 162 game season because their strength was the unbelievable depth they had, both in the lineup and in the pitching.

And if we're to get into a discussion of best single season teams ever, I would take out the 61 Yankees (didn't lead the league in either runs scored or allowed and played in an expansion year). Winning 108 games is a great accomplishment.

74
by Nicky P (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 9:09pm

I think the biggest difference between the 2001 Patriots and the 2007 Giants are the men leading each heavy favorite.

When the upstart Patriots pulled off the upset, it was Belichick vs. Martz.

Now the Giants try to knock off the #1 DVOA team of all time - only they have to overcome Belichick, not Martz.

75
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 9:27pm

Conor, off the top of my head, the 1954 Indians won 111 games. The 1975 Reds won 108. Yes, the Mets had a great season, but it certainly seemd to me as if they received attention that is normally reserved for tremendous multi-championship teams.

76
by Lance (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 9:58pm

#68-- glad to see there are still Cowboys haters out there. Given all the Pats hate out there, I was worried my team might have lost its edge. ESPN showed the '92 NFC Championship today. Man, that was a good team.

77
by Conor (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 10:27pm

Will-

Dammit, I knew I missed one. (Would you believe me if I said I had 6 fingers, like Antonio Alfonseca?) The 75 Reds did win 108 (but I left myself the out of saying only teams that had won more than the Mets, not the same).

I understand your point on multi championship teams, but I was under the impression we're talking about single season teams. In my opinion, the fact that the Mets didn't win the WS in 85 or 87 or 88 doesn't make the 86 team any worse (or better, for that matter.)

On another note, the Mets did finish second in 85, 87, 89, and 90, but they had the bad luck of playing in the East; they would have won the west in 85 and 87, and would have tied for it in 90. Maybe they could have won another WS if they had.

Anyway, like I said, for a single season, I think the 86 Mets rank in the top 5-7 teams in the history of the game. Obviously, if you take it out longer than a year, you run into trouble, because they had a great 7 year run, but only 2 first place finishes and 5 seconds. (They would have made the playoffs every year in the Wild Card era, but alas.)

Being a Met fan, I of course have a soft spot in my heart for them, especially because for those 7 years they were so successful but they were thisclose from being a truly immortal team for a stretch longer than one year.

78
by Duff Soviet Union (not verified) :: Sat, 01/26/2008 - 11:39pm

#77, the 1995 Indians won 100 games in a shortened 144 game season. To win 108 games, they would only have to go 8-10 in their last 18. Do they count?

79
by vis (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 12:05am

78 well Duff, we don't have to wonder what they might have done with 18 more, because they did go 9-6 in their next 14, putting them up to 109. unfortunately, 4 of those six losses were in the world series.

80
by Big Eddy (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 1:10am

The Greatest Team Ever

vs.

One of the worst in SB =

Giants don't have a chance.

81
by chris (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 2:29am

How can anyone say that the Giants are one of the worst teams in the SuperBowl? They are 2-1 all time and the Pats are 3-2 all time in the SuperBowl. Wouldnt you consider the Vikings or the Bills which are 0-4 all time in the SuperBowl the worst teams ever? Hmm I can make shit up too maybe I should be a reporter too.

82
by taxistan (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 2:52am

Conor: The 86 Mets sound like the Boys of Summer to me.

For the rest of you: The Gints will not win, even if Brady doesn't play!

83
by Alex (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 4:26am

How can anyone say that the Giants are one of the worst teams in the SuperBowl? They are 2-1 all time and the Pats are 3-2 all time in the SuperBowl.

Nobody said their past performance in the Super Bowl has been bad. The article is about the 2007 Giants, not the 1986 or 1990 Giants. All it says is that the 2007 Giants are one of the worst teams to make it to the Super Bowl.

84
by PW (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 1:04pm

I disagree the Giants have no chance if they're playing they have a chance.

If we went just by matchups and analysis on this site Tampa would have beaten the Giants.

85
by Waverly (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 3:34pm

Maybe there should be an article about how the 2007 Patriots are among the worst Super Bowl teams ever. I'm sure someone could come up with last-half or last-quarter regular season stats that would justify such a claim.

86
by Mikey (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 4:56pm

I've been having this debate with friends all week. It's possible to believe that the Giants are one of the worst teams ever to make the Super Bowl (I believe that) AND also believe that they're a good team with a chance to win (I believe that too).

Personally I'd put that chance at about 7-1, but 7-1 underdogs win sometimes.

87
by kevin (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 6:19pm

[i was going to moderate this comment but really, it's more funny/absurd than anything else. thanks, guy whose IP propagates to a major new york media outlet! -bb]

Have fun massaging your calculators. I'll watch football, thanks.

88
by kevin (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 6:20pm

[comment edited for absurd concept that we like excel more than football -BB]

89
by duh (not verified) :: Sun, 01/27/2008 - 6:42pm

Excellent article overall, but Aaron forgot to mention that if the Giants do outscore the Patriots on Sunday, they could possibly go on to be Super Bowl Champions!

90
by Lance (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 12:15am

#80, thanks. Now I have to clean the vomit off my computer.

91
by DolFan 316 (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 8:18am

An article saying the Giants are the worst ever Super Bowl team before the game is even played on a site run by a Pats fan? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say!

The irony is that Aaron and whoever else haven't even considered the fact that the Pats will get no real glory from beating the "worst Super Bowl team ever". Future generations might even discount their 19-0 record a bit because of it, much like the sudden outpouring of "the '72 Fins played one of the weakest schedules ever!" sentiment. After all, it could be spun that the Pats were lucky that not only did they not have to face the Colts, but the team that beat the Colts just *happened* to have almost all their key players get injured just in time for the Pats game. That alone doesn't exactly make the Pats look heroic, facing the "worst Super Bowl team ever" will make their playoff run look about as challenging as a healthy grown man beating a 5-year old in a bench press contest.

At some point the rest of America that aren't Pats fans (yes, there are some) need to believe the Pats overcame some real adversity, as opposed to having everything break just right for them in the playoffs as far as which teams won which games, players just happening to be getting injured at the right time, etc. At least the '72 Fins faced the NFC's best team that season--and had to play the AFC title game on the road to boot. Oh, and there's the little matter of having the Hall Of Fame starting QB injured for a large part of the season as well--somehow a LB here or a RB there for the Pats being hurt for a few weeks doesn't exactly compare to that.

I mean, surely after the Pats win the contingent of supporters here won't be gloating too much about beating the Worst Super Bowl Team Ever, will they?

92
by lyford (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 9:44am

"At some point the rest of America ... need to believe the Pats overcame some real adversity, as opposed to having everything break just right for them in the playoffs"

If the Patriots win Sunday, they will have completed a Championship season at 19-0, including 9-0 against the other 11 playoff teams, and 10-0 against the other 12 NFL teams that finished with a winning record. That will include wins at two 13-3 teams, and two wins over the NFC Champion Giants. They won by double-digits in the playoffs against an 11-5 team that many thought the second best team in the league when the season ended. Anyone who thinks that they won (again, assuming that they win - they may not, which would make all of this moot) because they "[had] everything break just right for them in the playoffs" is an idiot not paying attention...

93
by Eric P (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 11:46am

[ad hominem comment deleted]

94
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 1:50pm

#76, I despise Jerry Jones, not the Cowboys. I never despised the Cowboys in the Landry era, and there have been times in the Jones era, like prior to Jimmy Johnson leaving, and when coached by Parcells, when I have rooted for the Cowboys in playoff games and Super Bowls. I'm a Romo, Barber, and Ware fan.

I despise the fact that a guy who made some good guesses about where to sink oil wells, and played on a terrific college football team in th early 60s, has continually deluded himself into thinking that he is a competent evaluator of professional football talent, and has allowed his vanity to have such a negative effect on a business which has had tremendous value added to it now by the generosity of taxpayers. I accept the fact that most NFL owners are welfare queens, but I really prefer welfare queens who at least pretend to have some amount of humility, instead of apparently thinking they are geniuses in everything they endeavor. Any game in which Jerry Jones gets massively dissapointed is a great game.

95
by Paulo Sanchotene, Brazil (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 3:25pm

The Giants have nothing to lose and that's its best weapon. If they want to have a shot at the NFL title, they must go there and play for fun, like children on a suburb street...

P.S.: That's the second time in almost six months that I see a beloved team entering on a final being tottally underdog with a general feeling that it went too far already. The first experiency was not good: Boca won 5-0 over Grêmio, on agreggate score; 2007 Taça Libertadores da América. Unfortunately, I think it will happen again...

96
by Herm? (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 4:14pm

68 Will
you make this SB seem like an election cliché -you're voting for what you consider the lesser of 2 evils.
Is this what the impartial NFL fanbase has been reduced to?

97
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 5:05pm

Oh, I really don't dislike anyone in the Pats' organization at all, although I thought Belichik's behavior in the taping fiasco was ridiculously childish. For the most part I have immense respect for what Belichik and everyone else in that organization have accomplished. A lot of their fans get confused about what warrants acting as if one personally has accomplished something, but that is common to the fanbase of successful teams anywhere.

98
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 7:03pm

I'd like to thank BB (that's Barnwell, not Belichick :) for when moderating, deleting the content of posts and not the post itself, thus enabling the by-number references to continue to make sense.

99
by DoubleB (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 8:38pm

From post 94:

". . . I despise the fact that a guy who made some good guesses about where to sink oil wells, and played on a terrific college football team in the early 60s, has continually deluded himself into thinking that he is a competent evaluator of professional football talent."

And yet that is probably more "football" experience than 99+% of the commenters here as well at least some of the writers who deign to do the same thing.

100
by Eddo (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 10:00pm

99 (DoubleB):
And yet that is probably more “football” experience than 99+% of the commenters here as well at least some of the writers who deign to do the same thing.
So just because Jerry Jones has more football "experience" (and note that "experienced" does not necessary equal "good at making football-related personnel decisions"), it means it's OK that he interferes with football decisions? In that case, you'd be perfectly OK if your dentist bought the local heart clinic and decided he'd be performing all future heart surgeries. After all, he has more medical experience than 99% of the people who would complain about his decision.

101
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Mon, 01/28/2008 - 11:28pm

DoubleB, none of the writers here, to my knowledge, has been such a pompous ass as to fail to put forth a professional effort to retain the expert management talent responsible for building a roster capable of winning 3 Super Bowls in four years. That would be Jerry Jones.

102
by DoubleB (not verified) :: Tue, 01/29/2008 - 2:18am

100:

Your response doesn't refer to what I wrote. The end of the sentence was "deluded himself (Jones) into thinking that he is a competent evaluator of professional football talent.” In 3 or so months there will be a draft where everyone under the sun is going to write, comment, and post about "the evaluation of professional football players" despite the fact a vast majority of them haven't watched a scintilla of game film. My comment was in reference to that which I obviously did not make clear.

In response to your comment, yes it's OK for him to interfere in football decisions. He owns the team.

103
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 01/29/2008 - 12:38pm

Thanks doubleb, for informing me that the owner of the football team gets to make the final decisions. Is it still o.k. for me to despise an owner who is so unprofessional that he makes little to
no effort to retain a guy who put together a roster that won three championships, or who eventually exercised his final authority in a manner that produced five and six win seasons with regularity? Or to note that being a uninformed evaluator of football talent, while bloviating about it, is less obnoxious to me than being a poor evaluator of football talent, while driving off people who are good at it, and thus putting together crappy rosters for a long period of time?

Finally, I'll note that once a guy starts receiving hundreds of millions in public subsidies, his claim to having rightful authority by way of ownership is rather less legitimate. Like I said, I understand that most of these guys are free loaders with their snouts jammed deep in the public trough. I just prefer free loaders to maintain a lower profile, with less pretension to accomplishment.

104
by DolFan 316 (not verified) :: Wed, 01/30/2008 - 5:09am

The scouts for the Dolphins have far more experience evaluating player talent than I do, and yet I could've drafted better than the real-life Dolphins this decade had I been in charge (I wanted Drew Brees and *didn't* want Jamar Fletcher or Eddie Moore for one thing) so there goes that argument.

In modern day America, all that having job experience means is that most people have gotten away with bad job performance for a long time due to standards across the board becoming absurdly low and people's penchant to not only blindly forgive, but angrily defend even the most egregious mistakes. Nothing more.

105
by Noah of Arkadia (not verified) :: Thu, 01/31/2008 - 1:07pm

Aaron, 46: Now you're being defensive. lol.

If you feel like posting the answer, most of us will be very interested, as usual. If not, that's ok. No need to even say anything.

106
by Gerry (not verified) :: Mon, 02/04/2008 - 12:23am

Correction. The Giants are the worst team to ever have WON the Super Bowl, doing it by beating the best team to ever lose the Super Bowl.

Sorry for your team's loss, Aaron. But I am thrilled for my team.

107
by SteveNC (not verified) :: Mon, 02/04/2008 - 12:38pm

Yes, it would be monumentally embarrassing to lose to such a weak team. If that happened, the only noble thing to do would be to not even play the next year.