Giantsfan vs. Patsfan!


The Giants Win The Pennant! The Giants Win The Pennant! The Giants Win The Pennant! They did it in a historic chill at Lambeau, in OT, after a series of blown kicks, fumbles, and penalties. (One nice thing about baseball: home runs don’t get called back.) I can’t recall a more exciting, enjoyable game of football. Cold weather. A lead switching back and forth. Setbacks. Ups and downs. I doubt the Super Bowl, which has become more of a spectacle than a sporting event, can live up to the NFC title, even if the Giants take it, and I expect they will. Go Big Blue!

106 comments… add one
  • and I expect they will.
    Do you really “expect” the Giants to win the Super Bowl? You won’t be at all surprised?
    As a fairly passive football observer/Patriots fan, I would expect the Giants to play a very good game and make it closer than a lot of people will probably predict, but I’d be very surprised if they won it.

    Paul SF January 21, 2008, 12:38 am
  • What a great night to be a Giants fan!
    To top things off I will be attending the Super Bowl with two friends. Flying out Thursday night and coming back Monday. I have never been to a Super Bowl and I can barely contain myself thinking about it. I will pack the camera and try and post as much as possible. I know this is a baseball site, but for this we can bend the rules I am sure.

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 12:44 am
  • Wow, that’s awesome, John. Congrats!

    Paul SF January 21, 2008, 12:56 am
  • Is it just my Pats bias, or is Eli Manning is very unpopular with his teammates?
    I couldn’t help noticing that when the Jints won, Manning was very isolated — only the kicker seemed to interact with him.
    While the other New York players were grinning and slapping each other on the back and engaging in mock-fainting antics and high fives, there was an ocean of empty space around Eli.
    Just seemed weird. But as I say, maybe it was a misimpression.

    Hudson January 21, 2008, 1:22 am
  • It did seem as if the cameras caught Eli at a rather odd moment after the game- all the Giants players were celebrating, and he was wandering around looking confused and trying to figure out where section 119 was (girlfriend?). He did not exactly cut an imposing figure.

    sox_fool January 21, 2008, 4:03 am
  • (One nice thing about baseball: home runs don’t get called back.)
    Tell that to George Brett!

    Atheose January 21, 2008, 7:04 am
  • One nice thing about baseball: home runs don’t get called back.
    Tell that to J.D. Drew

    Pat (SF) January 21, 2008, 7:22 am
  • Cool, John! I went in ’86 (Da Bears…), it was, um, less fun than I had hoped. The Super Bowl is certainly one of the weirder sporting events I have ever been to; even back in ’86 it seemed like the game was just a reason to get a ton of advertisers together and have them construct booths to sell things or let fans try to throw balls through hoops. The game was, for the most part, secondary to all the stuff outsider the game. I can’t say I loved the experience (and that was even before the Pats got totally mauled). Still, I imagine you will have a great time: it is a spectacle.
    Last night’s game was certainly the more exciting of the two, but the best half of football was most definitely the Patriots 2nd.

    SF January 21, 2008, 7:45 am
  • Yeah, Manning seemed to have no one to celebrate with except Feagles and Coughlin. That’s kind of like going to the prom stag and having to dance with the teacher.
    That being said, there’s been a lot of documentation about how much the team loves him this year. The big guys are extremely defensive of him.

    AW YF January 21, 2008, 8:52 am
  • I did not see the second half of the Pats game, so can’t comment on that half, accept to note it was against another second-rate afc squad with a gimpy qb and not star rb, and they were at home in decent conditions, as opposed to the Giants, on the road…..kidding.
    The Eli isn’t loved by his teammates thing is bs. During the postgame presentation he was mobbed by his teammates. The qb is always isolated by media/security/other crap on the field;

    YF January 21, 2008, 9:37 am
  • On Eli…He’s a quiet guy, I wouldn’t chalk it up to his teammates not liking him. He just doesn’t throw balls at play clocks and do fake Lambeau Leaps. I know one thing, they like him more then the liked Tiki!
    Thanks Paul, I can’t wait. SF, I am prepared to be bomarded and throw balls through hoops.

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 10:27 am
  • “Is it just my Pats bias, or is Eli Manning is very unpopular with his teammates?”
    Its your Pats bias.

    sam-YF January 21, 2008, 10:50 am
  • In case we actually did want to give yesterday’s football games (and those were some fun games!) some Baseball context, Gary Myers has done the “work” for us, from today’s Daily News:
    “In the long and bitter rivalry of New York and Boston sports, the Giants stopping the Patriots from a perfect season would be the most incredible accomplishment yet, topping the Red Sox coming back from a 3-0 deficit to the Yankees in the 2004 ALCS.”
    Uh, yeah Gary, because the Pats and Giants go way back together.
    If the Giants do win, I agree that that would be huge – maybe even finally topping Jets-over-Colts huge. But if you’re going to cross over into another sport for an analogy, you have to look elsewhere. To me, the 2004 ALCS created its own unique category of ‘upset’.

    FenSheaParkway January 21, 2008, 10:59 am
  • You know FSP, I started to type that last night but being the superstitious guy that I am I thought better of it. 2004 stung and really does still sting, nothing will make that go away (I can see the smiles on the faces of Sox fan now). But I will say if the Giants can somehow find a way to put an end to their streak, 2004 might sting a little less. That being said, I don’t have high hopes for that to happen, but if it does boy would it feel good. Either way I am sure the experience will be awesome!

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 11:19 am
  • hey, you are right about the Chargers’ offense, YF. But the Chargers’ D was healthy and imposing, and the Pats closed the last 9+ minutes out on offense on one drive, no scoring necessary. It was great stuff, the best football of the day by far.

    SF January 21, 2008, 11:31 am
  • A Giant upset could take the sting out of past events for New York fans, I can see that. But I still don’t get how or why it makes sense to compare it to 2004, and I don’t think I’m saying that only as a Sox fan. Here’s why:
    1) No notable history between the two teams.
    2) It’s one game.
    and most crucially, 3) The Giants could very well beat the Pats [related to #2]
    If someone described to me in abstract terms the circumstances surrounding a team giving another team its first loss, in the Super Bowl, I would’ve said, “Wow”. If someone had described to me the 2004 ALCS before it happened, I would have said, “Get the hell out of here”. That’s the difference to me.
    As if the 80 million rehashings of the Week 17 game aren’t already forthcoming, I’ll say it again: The Giants can win this game. I almost can’t wait.
    (Disclosure: I’m rooting for New England, despite being a Billsfan.)

    FenSheaParkway January 21, 2008, 11:40 am
  • the Giants can definitely win this game.
    And that is why I do not bet.

    SF January 21, 2008, 11:56 am
  • All you need to ask yourselves on the Giants / Pats v 2004 Yankees / Red Sox comparison is…
    if it was reversed, what would Yankee fans say?
    That is if the Yankees had come from 3-0 down in 2004 to beat the Red Sox, and the 13-6 Patriots were the 2 TD underdogs against the 18-0 Giants and a Sox fan was stupid enough to come on here and say, if the Pats win, that will take away some of the sting from 2004, what would everyone say…
    Sorry but even if the Giants crush the Patriots in some kind of freakish mauling where they pile on the score in revenge for all those poor NFL teams who the Patriots beat up in the 1st half of the season, and then add on another few scores to make up for their fellow New Jersey team being cheated in week 1, there is no way it takes any, any sting away from 2004.
    Just MHO of course!

    Neil SF January 21, 2008, 11:58 am
  • Belichick coached Patriots have almost never lost to an opponent they were playing for a second time in the same season.
    The Giants were lucky to score 35 points in their first meeting. The last 7 almost don’t count, and the Pats are very unlikely to give up a TD kickoff return indoors.
    The SD defense is better than the NY defense, despite the latter’s impressive sack count. SD held the Pats to 21 – but it could clearly have been higher than that based on the last drive. And the Giants’ sackability did not prevent the Pats from scoring 38 on the Giants’ home turf.
    In other words, I see the Giants scoring less and the Pats scoring about the same – or more – than Week 17.

    Waldomeboy January 21, 2008, 12:00 pm
  • “stupid enough”
    “there is no way it takes any, any sting away from 2004.”
    How could you as a Sox fan tell Yankee/Giant fans what will or won’t lessen THEIR sting? The arrogance that is now starting to surround (this is not directed to the regulars by any means) both of these New England based teams is a little sickening. Winning over the last 10 years has now allowed you to tell Yankee/Giant fans how to feel? And to add fuel to the fire call them “Stupid” Come on.

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 12:24 pm
  • This game, for me, can’t compare to any Yanks-Sox series. The Gints and Pats are not rivals, just opponents. It’s barely Boston-NY. (East Rutherford vs Foxboro?) The Super Bowl is a commercial spectacle, and the NFL is a watered down shadow of its former self. (I enjoyed the Giants game yesterday because it was such a throwback event.) The Pats don’t excite my imagination. Their uniforms tell you what you need to know: cold, corporate, efficient, without tradition.
    I don’t need a Giant win to take the “sting” off 2004. There is no longer any “sting” from 2004. When Sox fans think about the past, they can think about 04 and 07. For Yanks fans, we can look to our championships. Anyway, the whole this-upset-was-bigger-than-that-upset argument is truly and entirely pointless.

    YF January 21, 2008, 12:25 pm
  • To clarify my point it’s comments like the one made by Neil that is making me think that the Sox and Pats are starting to get their very own “Count The Rings” type fan. For years it seemed like we had the market cornered on casual fans who became loud and boastful once the success started to roll in, but apparently that’s not the case anymore. I don’t like cocky Yankee fans and I sure as heck don’t like cocky Sox fans. Everything that happens is cyclical even when it involves NY and NE based teams.

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 12:28 pm
  • YF, it’s personal. I didn’t say for all Yankee fans _______ would make the sting go away. For me to be able to sit in the stands out at Glendale and look up at the board and see a “W” would take away some sting. So to me YF, it’s not pointless, it’s how I feel.
    I am glad 2004 doesn’t sting for you, but for me it still does and this would make it feel a little less “Sting-yyy”

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 12:31 pm
  • PS: Can someone please explain what that strange graphic is along the midfield hashmarks at Foxboro? I’ve been wondering about this for a couple of weeks. It looks like a caliper emitting sparks. Is this some kind of statement about the Pats offense eating up yardage? It’s really strange. At first i thought it was some kind of electric razor advertisement, but the Norelco guy sold the team, right? Is it sponsored by Home Depot? Am I just not seeing something? Such a strange on-field graphic.

    YF January 21, 2008, 12:33 pm
  • Sorry John. Posted before I read your comment. Whatever spins your boat, and in any case, I hope you have a great time watching the Giants compelete their HISTORIC GREATEST COMEBACK EVER WITH A SMASHING OF THE MOST OVER-RATED ATHLETIC SQUAD EVER ASSEMBLED ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH.
    Kidding! Mostly!!
    Anyway, I’m looking forward to the photos.

    YF January 21, 2008, 12:37 pm
  • Wow, YF, that comment above is just dripping with snobbery. The Pats are “without tradition”? Tell that to those of us who grew up with parents who went to Nickerson Field. Tell that to those of us who have family members who have had season tickets for three decades. Tell that to those of us who sat in Shaefer Stadium in the rain in December for meaningless Patriots/Colts games twenty years ago.
    You root for the Yankees, who are fortunate to have been around for a long time. Don’t confuse that history with tradition. Tradition is what those who root for a team make of whatever length history their team has.

    SF January 21, 2008, 12:48 pm
  • John YF – if I was a Sox fan who tried to say that a Pats win overruled the pain I felt in 2004 (or 2003 to be realistic) I would expect to be ridiculed, sorry that is so outrageous to you – but it is nice that you will feel better.
    I have to take issue with your secondary argument that arrogance is behind telling you how to feel – no one told you how to feel (since when have blogs been a primary source of emotional consolation?), what they told you was how those feelings would be observed in the wider population – doesn’t make your feelings invalid, just perhaps lonely?
    Count the rings – from a Yankee fan… ok

    Neil SF January 21, 2008, 12:50 pm
  • Yeah, I also thought the “without tradition” comment was out of line. I don’t even care about the Patriots, but this whole “cold, corporate, efficient” thing also seems weird given that this silly set of words is often thrust upon the Yankees. And in both the Patriots’ and Yankees’ cases, the words are not always applicable.
    However, I agree that comparing upsets, and in this case comparing *possible* upsets, is a pretty futile endeavor. Way too subjective on a fan by fan basis.

    Devine January 21, 2008, 12:56 pm
  • I differ with some SFs posting here and also YF. I totally get why a Giants /Yankees fan might take some solace in beating the Pats. Though YF dismisses the idea, the fact is that there is a great deal of crossover of Pats/Sox fans. So the potential for collective anguish is there, and it’s only human to root for that if you don’t like one or both teams. I know that if NYC shared the Yankees and Giants exclusively, a collateral benefit of a Giants loss would be that Yankee fans were suffering,, no matter that the Yankees were at home sipping buttered rum.

    SF January 21, 2008, 12:57 pm
  • Again, I will say that FOR ME it will ease the sting. It’s personal. I am not sitting here saying going forward if the Giants can win all sting for all Yankee fans has been completely emliminated, hear ye hear ye. To be able to sit in the stands victorious and see the disappointment on the face of the Pats fans (just like I had to endure during game 7 of 2004) would FOR ME be a pretty cool feeling.
    “no one told you how to feel”
    Sure you did…”there is no way it takes any, any sting away from 2004.” I said it would make me feel better and you made the above statement. You also called my statement “Stupid” so don’t get all high and mighty after you made this personal.

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 1:04 pm
  • I am going to bow out gracefully from this argument. It’s headed down the wrong path. (Somewhat guilty) Either way it’s a good day for Pats and Giants fans.

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 1:15 pm
  • john:
    I totally get it. But realize that such schadenfreude opens you up to admonishment for caring more about us Pats fans than about your own team winning! This is something us SFs heard when we had the gall to suggest that seeing the Yankees lose was somehow satisfying. It’s hogwash. Sports fandom has always been about rooting for someone but also against others.

    SF January 21, 2008, 1:18 pm
  • Okay, yes, the Pats have a tradition, but it’s fairly anemic. (Steve Grogan?) The AFC-upstarts all!
    Characterization of the Yanks as corporate, as the US Steel of baseball is not without some merit. I don’t deny that, even if it’s reductive. Same with the Pats.
    Despite the persistent efforts of ownership, it’s still possible for the baseball fan to delude him or herself to the idea that there is something beyond those factors at play when teams take the field. It’s hard for me to feel the same way when i’m watching the Ford F-150 Super Bowl Halftime Show Sponsored by Tostitos.

    YF January 21, 2008, 1:22 pm
  • You are 100% right, except that I wouldn’t say I care more about the Pats fans than winning. I would have been rooting for whoever played the Pats in the SB, this only makes it better. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. But mostly you are right.

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 1:24 pm
  • YF laments the NFL and it’s commercialism, but what about the Taco Bell stolen base promotion during the World Series? Seems like YF has it in for the NFL…
    Sports in general has been commercialized. The NFL is not unique.

    SF January 21, 2008, 1:29 pm
  • I think in terms of commercialism, the NFL is far ahead of MLB. The very flow of the game is controlled by television advertisement.

    YF January 21, 2008, 1:45 pm
  • Anyway, sport has ALWAYS been commercialized. But the NFL is now more commercial than sport. I think that’s my point.

    YF January 21, 2008, 1:46 pm
  • US Steel? Bad analogy. A better one might be Microsoft. They have an excellent fundamental approach to their industy. They understand what it takes to be successful in their industry. They hire the best. Their employees execute the plan to perfection. If things don’t go as planned, they adapt. They implement in an efficient and seemingly unemotional manner. And everyone else begins to have negative feelings about them because they are so successful.
    That is how the Pats go about their business, week after week. How do you measure success in a single week? By who has scored the most points (not yards). How do you measure success over time? By who has scored the most points week after week. I could go into more detail, but I won’t.
    The surprising thing is that other teams in the NFL have not figured out what the Pats seem to understand (and this starts with the administration of the salary cap).
    To bring the analogy back to baseball, one of the reasons for the Red Sox’s success is that they have paid attention to the Patriots – they are emulating them in many ways. The Yankees haven’t figured it out yet, but they may be learning (based on the fact that they have not yet bet the ranch on Santana).

    Waldomeboy January 21, 2008, 1:48 pm
  • YF: I had the same question about the graphic at midfield. It looked like a face mask without a helmet to me. I looked up some pictures of Gillette Stadium and it appears that the graphic represents the wierd bridge/lighthouse thingy at the north end of the stadium. Seems strange to me, but whatever.

    Sacto-SF January 21, 2008, 1:54 pm
  • “To bring the analogy back to baseball, one of the reasons for the Red Sox’s success is that they have paid attention to the Patriots – they are emulating them in many ways. The Yankees haven’t figured it out yet, but they may be learning ”
    Id love to know how the Sox are learning from the Pats. The Red Sox are currently in the midst of a long streak of winning that pre-dates the Patriots current run. To clarify, Im not talking about winning the championship alone. The Pats are a very well run team but no baseball team with the resources of the Yankees or the Red Sox are gonna be taking lessons from them. I see the Yankees and the Sox as constantly emulating each other as to how they run their organization. One team will employ a new strategy and the other emulates and expands this strategy. The Pats have been great for a number of reasons but lets not give them credit for all of the other successful sports franchises too…

    sam-YF January 21, 2008, 1:57 pm
  • It seems we’re forgetting that 2004 in of itself (Sox beat Yankees) was not a momentous event, considering how close this very thing came to happening the year before. It was being down 0-3 and rallying that made it momentous. Since the Super Bowl is just one game, it seems it would be difficult to equate even a two-touchdown underdog upset (happens fairly often in football) to rallying from an 0-3 deficit (never happened in baseball to that point). The fact that the Pats are going for the undefeated season does add some to the magnitude of this game, but not that much.
    More apropos to me would be if the Patriots had a ridiculous lead in the fourth quarter and blew it to lose, thus becoming the first team in NFL history to have such a lead in the postseason and lose it.
    Also, those who are super-passionate about baseball are unlikely to be as passionate about football, so I think the idea posited by the Daily News that a Super Bowl upset would somehow soothe the minds of Yankee fans (if they indeed need to be soothed) is a bit off. Some, like John, obviously would feel a little better, and the more closely you follow football, the more likely that is to be the case. It’s just hard for me to believe there’s a legion of Yankee fans rooting for the Giants to avenge their 2004 wounds.

    Paul SF January 21, 2008, 2:08 pm
  • Sam, the only emulation that I recall reading is that the Red Sox admired Belichick’s buttoned-down approach and how he and the Patriots avoided the media storm that often follows the Red Sox — particularly after the Theogate and all the silliness that surrounded that.
    So, and I agree with your point, the only thing the Sox have really emulated that I can see is basically a more reserved approach with the media and trying to shut down leaks. It seems to have worked pretty well, though I’ve had my complaints with how that’s worked during certain moments.

    Paul SF January 21, 2008, 2:11 pm
  • It’s a lighthouse? That’s crazy.
    I wont argue with the Pats as Microsoft analogy. Enjoy your Zune while I’m watching video replays of the Giant SuperBowl victory on my iPhone.
    Okay. I don’t have an iPhone, but you get the point….

    YF January 21, 2008, 2:19 pm
  • Wikipedia on the Gillette Field logos:
    “Two gray logos appear on the 50 yard line of the playing field. They are the stadium logo, representing the bridge and tower at the entrance to the stadium.”
    This bugged me for a long time too, before seeing this explanation in Wikipedia. Now it bugs me slightly less than before. The stadium has its own logo, that’s based on an architectural flourish in the very same stadium? That’s weird and recursive.

    FenSheaParkway January 21, 2008, 2:31 pm
  • Paul, have the Red Sox really been able to avoid a media storm even close to as much as the Pats? Last year seemed to be a good year for the sox, media-wise but it sure helped they were in first place from game 1 and eventually won it all. That said there were certainly times when beating up Theo and Co over Drew and Lugo dominated Boston sports coverage for weeks at a time. I cant put my finger on examples now but I seem to remember the Boston FO still using press leaks when it helped their cause, they just had less cause to do so as of late. (unfortunately)

    sam-YF January 21, 2008, 2:35 pm
  • WMB has some good points, but I don’t agree with the Microsoft analogy. MS is successful, but it’s successful because it’s a smart company that only goes as far as it needs to within the near-monopoly it maintains by virtue of the means by which it gained market share. It’s product is inferior, despite this market domination. The Patriots play on an even field with the rest of the league and still dominate with a top-tier product. In that way, they are nothing like Microsoft, beyond the analogous “success”.
    I am not sure that comparing the Patriots to a publicly traded corporation makes any sense in general.

    SF January 21, 2008, 2:48 pm
  • I think you hear a lot less from Larry and Henry than you used to. I think (and this is really just me talking) you see a conscious effort to use Theo as the sigular front office voice, and as that voice, Theo tends to say very little, a la Belichick. It’s not going to keep the Boston press from overplaying everything the Red Sox do or don’t do, but it keeps the organization largely out of the fray and keeps its personnel happier.
    I’m not sure how much of this is lessons learned from Theogate and how much is actual emulation of the Patriots — or maybe the lesson learned from Theogate was to act more like the Patriots…

    Paul SF January 21, 2008, 3:38 pm
  • The graphic (which YF emailed me about last night and which I couldn’t identify by his description – I wasn’t watching the grass when I watched the game, never do!) is the lighthouse and bridge at Gillette Field. It’s illegibility is inversely proportionate to the level of one’s knowledge of Gillette Field, of which YF obviously has a very small amount.
    I don’t understand why the NFL takes it so hard on the chin from YF. Almost every argument he makes to denigrate the NFL (and, it seems, the Patriots) is an argument that can be applied to every league of all major sports. The NHL, the NBA, MLB have all expanded and become increasingly commercial. Just look inside Fenway Park: it’s an advertisement. Just watch a baseball game on ESPN on Sunday night: it takes 3.5 hours (longer than a football game!). View the NBA’s All-Star weekend sideshows on TBS/TNT/ESPN, etc. YF is very comfortable in deeming the NFL “more” commercial than the others (or, worse, nothing BUT a commercial), somehow. But I sense that this is rooted in a general personal disposition against the sport, the league, it’s successes in recent years, and, I speculate, a feeling exacerbated by the record of a team from up north that he clearly doesn’t like one bit. That their success coincides with this more commercial era of ALL sport is a convenient crutch on which he can lean to smear the entire league and them along with it. What about all those late 90s Yankees championships, expansion dilution, etc.? Who would ever denigrate those as anything less than wonderful accomplishments other than the biggest cynic?
    Another odd thing is this idea that the Patriots are “efficient”, cold, calculating, personality-less. This is a team with Tedy Bruschi (what a crazy story that guy has lived, coming back from an aneurysm), Tom Brady (talk about charismatic…), Junior Seau, Vince Wilfork (a true punk of a DL), RANDY MOSS, and yeah, Bill Belichick, who, though a cipher, is one of the oddest personalities ever to coach in the game. The Kraft family is an enthusiastic ownership, and they have built a new, nice stadium mostly on their own dime and helped continue to build a large regional following. They don’t restrict facial hair, they don’t talk about their team as if every other team plays Pop Warner or is the NFL equivalent of the Toledo Mud Hens, and they are singularly focused on each game individually in the pursuit of a championship. When they proclaim this it is actually possible to see that they sincerely believe that this is the case; it’s not a hollow platitude. Why is this boring, efficient? And even if that is the case (which, in my mind, it isn’t at all), what is the downside? Have the Pats hurt the league? Have they been unentertaining in their pursuit, this greatest statistical offensive show ever?

    SF January 21, 2008, 4:10 pm
  • it is impossible to relate the rivalry we share for baseball to football terms. name the backup quaterbacks for both teams? these guy’s could very well be the deciding factor in the superbowl. the adage “any given sunday” properly reflects what can happen in a football game. “any given 7 game series” doesn’t have the same ring to it.

    sf rod January 21, 2008, 5:05 pm
  • // The qb is always isolated by media/security/other crap on the field; //
    Well, funny how other QBs aren’t surrounded by oceans of empty space after winning postseason games. It looked as if Manning had a body odor that would kill a mastadon.
    Anyway, I love how Giants fans strain to talk down the Pats’ 18 consecutive wins — including the Colts and the Cowboys, and of course the Giants themselves. Nevermind the fact that the NFC is so weak, you can get to the Super Bowl with New York’s crummy record…
    It should be remembered that in that supposed “close” game, in which the Giants went all-out to win, New York only scored those last 7 points because Belichick quickly noticed how Eli was mismanaging the clock, and was happy to let him take endless time to get to the goal line). Who do you think learned more from their first meeting, Coughlin or Belichick?
    But please, Jintsfans, talk a ton of trash in the lead-up to the Super Bowl. It will make the result that much more satisfying.

    Hudson January 21, 2008, 7:39 pm
  • // The stadium has its own logo, that’s based on an architectural flourish in the very same stadium? That’s weird and recursive. //
    Agreed, but it’s also very American. We are, after all, a country where people pay hard cash to put miniature replicas of their house on their own lawn… in front of the house itself.

    Hudson January 21, 2008, 7:44 pm
  • // Another odd thing is this idea that the Patriots are “efficient”, cold, calculating, personality-less. //
    Agreed. Another counter-example: What other team has tried (and succeeded) with so many unusual plays this year? In recent games, Brady executed a beautiful Statue of Liberty play, and they’ve run some great reverses and flea-flickers, too.
    Belichick & Co. are relentless in their preparation and their execution of a game plan, but it can’t be said that they don’t do some flamboyant stuff out their with their talent.

    Hudson January 21, 2008, 7:54 pm
  • “people pay hard cash to put miniature replicas of their house on their own lawn… in front of the house itself.”
    I’m happy to say I’m completely unfamiliar with this phenomenon. Does the miniature replica also have a miniature replica on its lawn, and on and on, creating a self-similar fractal of ostentation?

    FenSheaParkway January 21, 2008, 8:18 pm
  • Hudson:
    I don’t necessarily feel the need to poke the beehive like you have – the Giants are a good team, they have improved throughout the season, and as erratic as Manning has been (and he was last night too) he’s led the team to the Super Bowl, no small feat. The team apparently likes him a lot, and I think you are reading too much into that shot from after the game.
    That being said, I do think that most people who parrot the “cold, efficient, bloodless” BS about the Pats are uninformed, they haven’t watched the Patriots enough to make that kind of comment, and are basically repeating what they read in the national media. It’s an easy knock on a team, particularly a team that has been so consistently successful in method and execution. Like you said, this is a spectacular, creative team, one which can adapt, work trick plays, can run and pass, and which has one of the greatest quarterbacks in history at the helm.
    And all THAT being said, they could still lose next week. Play ten games and the Pats win seven or eight of them, but there’s always those other three, right?

    SF January 21, 2008, 8:22 pm
  • I think SF has some kind of blinders on when it comes to the Pats, and the NFL. I don’t even know where to begin here.
    -Where have I suggested that other sports, and MLB in particular, are not overly commercial? That’s not the point. The issue is the NFL itself. Even you have written here about the fact that the Super Bowl has become more of a spectacle than a contest. The commercials are more highly anticipated than the game. And no other sport that I know of lets television networks actually control the flow of play. Networks have contractual right to interrupt action to get in their spots. Watching the last minutes of a game is torture. It’s 4 plays and 14 commercials. A baseball game is extended by commercial time, but the breaks at least come naturally. It’s pretty sad to me that you would somehow suggest that other sports are so essentially compromised. You truly have drunk Pete Rozelle’s gatorade. And he’s gone.
    -I don’t hate the Pats. You think I hate the Pats. I have no serious feeling about the Pats. Despite your arguments to the contrary, they are not a team with a tradition that engenders much emotion. (Oakland, Pittsburgh, even the Jets–these are AFC teams with some kind of tradition, or at least ethos.) The Pats are banal, like their USFL style uniforms.
    -As for the present team, I grant that they are excellent, though I truly feel the NFL, now, is not that interesting, and that they are not as impressive as their record. I’m in the minority on this, but a loss to the admittedly not inspiring Giants in the Super Bowl will basically bear me out. Or maybe it won’t. The Super Bowl is kind of a meaningless spectacle, two disjointed halfs of football divorced even from the postseason. So who knows what it means–yet another flaw of your beloved NFL.
    -As for the Pat’s corporatism. To deny this is to deny reality, and the fact they they have some funky players or that they execute trick plays effectively is beyond the point. It’s about the very way they use personnel.
    -As for Belicheck. I admire him. I don’t give a crap about spygate. I know some Giants fans are bitter about his departure from Big Blue, but I’m not among them. He engineered the Super Bowl win in 90 with a genius defensive scheme against the far-superior Bills, and for that I’ll always be appreciative.

    YF January 21, 2008, 9:55 pm
  • even the Jets–these are AFC teams with some kind of tradition, or at least ethos
    The Jets? Are you serious? Joe Namath and…what, exactly? Having a ten-year waitlist for season tix? Joe Walton? Rich Kotite? Ken O’Brien? What the hell are you smoking!?
    And aren’t you saying that the Pats have an ethos, anyhow? So the “at least ethos” part of your silly comment would at least seem to negate it’s non-application to the Pats, who have an ethos you seem to dislike or find uninteresting. But it’s an ethos nonetheless, even in the (flawed) terms you describe.

    SF January 21, 2008, 10:34 pm
  • It’s pretty sad to me that you would somehow suggest that other sports are so essentially compromised.
    They ARE compromised. And I still love them. Being compromised doesn’t mean they have lost their integrity. They have all changed, quite drastically. Revenue sharing, expansion, expansion of the playoff pool, salary caps, replay rules, etc., these have all fundamentally changed (compromised, maybe?) almost every organized sport. And in some cases for the better.
    You are a baseball snob. It’s ok to admit that, I am still something of one myself, happy to get that out in the open – it’s why I write for a baseball blog and have no interest in starting a Pats blog. But you should at least fess up: anything that threatens baseball gets your dukes up, and those dukes throw punches, sometimes aimlessly.

    SF January 21, 2008, 10:39 pm
  • “even if the Giants take it, and I expect they will”
    I dare say that statement of yours invalidates any positive you may post about the Yankees. There is homerism, and than there is blind fanaticism. But you sir, are downright freaking crazy.
    Take the points. The warm weather Patriots are back.

    Dirty Water January 21, 2008, 10:40 pm
  • // Does the miniature replica also have a miniature replica on its lawn, and on and on, creating a self-similar fractal of ostentation? //
    A while back I saw a whole photoset online of people who did this to their houses, but I haven’t found it again yet… will post the link if it turns up.

    Hudson January 21, 2008, 11:05 pm
  • What malarky. You should caveat your opinions with an opinion tag, YF.
    “And no other sport that I know of lets television networks actually control the flow of play”
    That’s because no other game is as valuable. MLB has a hard enouigh time finding a national audience so, no, marketers are not exactly beating down the leagues door, interrupting play. Although if the interest was there you better know MLB would sell it in a heartbeat.
    “They are not a team with a tradition that engenders much emotion. (Oakland, Pittsburgh, even the Jets–these are AFC teams with some kind of tradition, or at least ethos.) The Pats are banal, like their USFL style uniforms”
    Meh, that too is just your opinion. The NE/Giants game 16 was the most watched game in TV history. The most watched.
    “The Super Bowl is kind of a meaningless spectacle, two disjointed halfs of football divorced even from the postseason”
    Marketers cannot make a game a spectacle, only those caught up in a spectacle can. I personally see the SB as just another game that must be won to call your team the league champions.
    “As for the Pat’s corporatism”
    A Yankee fan making such a comment derogatorily is ironic, in that everything about the Yankees are corporate, even how their players are allowed to groom.

    Dirty Water January 21, 2008, 11:09 pm
  • Okay, this isn’t the photoset I saw, but it’s a related and equally sad phenomenon (per the Wall Street Journal):

    House-proud Americans have a new way to show off their trophy homes. Taking the pricey playhouse concept to the next level, some homeowners are building Mini-Me McMansions for their kids. The lavish replicas, which can include such grown-up amenities as hardwood floors and media rooms with satellite TVs, generally cost from $10,000 to $100,000. Some run even higher than that…

    Hudson January 21, 2008, 11:14 pm
  • “But please, Jintsfans, talk a ton of trash in the lead-up to the Super Bowl. It will make the result that much more satisfying.”
    You are speaking about a very small, small minority of Giant fans. Most Giants fans understand what the Giants are and what they are capable of. They also understand that what the Giants have accomplished thus far is nothing to sneeze at. Their road streak has set an NFL record. They defeated all three division winners and did so as the underdog and on the road in all three games. They beat the two best offensive teams in the NFC (2nd and 4th overall Off in the NFL). The Patriots are an extremely talented, well coached and experienced football team. It’s going to take a special effort and some breaks in order for the Giants to win. I am a season ticket holder and I can tell you Giants fans are a realistic group. We aren’t EXPECTING a win, but we also don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility.
    As for your continual references to this “Close” game, it’s getting old. Tom Coughlin and the Giants did what most other teams wouldn’t have done and that’s go balls to the wall. Look at the three teams that the Giants have defeated so far, they all pulled their starters in the weeks leading up to the playoffs. Tampa Bay started TWO weeks prior to the playoffs. How did that pay off for them? So while you are correct the game was really never in jeopardy for the Pats, it also did show a lot of character by the Giants. It also provided them with some insight and a ton of confidence going into the playoffs and Super Bowl.
    “Nevermind the fact that the NFC is so weak, you can get to the Super Bowl with New York’s crummy record…”
    Only GB and Dallas had a better playoff record at 13-3. 10-6 is not a crummy record, it’s you looking for reasons to attack. Teams that make the playoffs at 8-8 are fringe teams (2006 Giants), the Giants deserved to be there. It wasn’t a fluke and they have showed that thus far.

    John - YF January 21, 2008, 11:18 pm
  • “Meh, that too is just your opinion. The NE/Giants game 16 was the most watched game in TV history. The most watched.”
    Wow is that statement wrong. There is a little game called the “super bowl” that draws 2-3 times larger of an audience each year.

    sam-YF January 21, 2008, 11:24 pm
  • “But please, Jintsfans, talk a ton of trash in the lead-up to the Super Bowl. It will make the result that much more satisfying.”
    Has there really been any trash talking from Giants fans here? Is it a crime to hope and root for a victory for our own team? This is becoming a more and more typical comment from Boston fans (not all but some) concerning their teams. To echo what was said above it sucked when some yankee fans acting like that and it sucks equally when Boston/NE fans do the same…

    sam-YF January 21, 2008, 11:36 pm
  • Dirty Water January 21, 2008, 11:51 pm
    im gonna trust the article from the trade magazine for the advertising agency over one on a blog written by an ” Associated Pass Writer” what ever the hell that is.
    This article ( says:
    The Giants-Packers NFC championship game was a smash hit on TV. It drew a 31.7 overnight rating on Fox, the highest for a non-Super Bowl game since 1996. The Patriots-Chargers AFC title game got a 27.4.
    I assume this includes week 16.

    sam-YF January 22, 2008, 12:15 am
  • Well, there does seem to be some dispute about that 107 million figure (dispute being I don’t know what “overnight numbers” mean) so I’ll concede the point. Let me say this however: The lowest rated Patriots game this year, starting at the Dallas matchup, probably outdrew every Pittsburg, Oakland and Jets game combined.
    /slight exaggeration, but not much

    Dirty Water January 22, 2008, 12:37 am
  • If the Giants upset the Patriots, it may not be quite the upset that the 2004 ALCS was, but it will be close.
    The New England Patriots, after all, are the Greatest Team in NFL History and are trying to achieve history by completing a perfect 19-0 season.
    The NFL must be drooling over the Super Bowl, as it involves two major markets (NY and Boston), and it involves this history-making angle.

    yf2k January 22, 2008, 8:37 am
  • I would say that deriding the Patriots 18th win in a row as “against another second rate AFC squad” is talking trash.

    Hudson January 22, 2008, 8:43 am
  • // 10-6 is not a crummy record //
    It’s a mediocre record for a Super Bowl team, imho.

    Hudson January 22, 2008, 8:51 am
  • “It’s a mediocre record for a Super Bowl team, imho.”
    This is pointless. They are a Super Bowl team no matter how you want to view it. The fact that they have “a mediocre” record only means that to get to the super bowl they had that much harder of a path to travel to get there. That counts for something.

    sam-YF January 22, 2008, 8:57 am
  • There seem to have been so many erroneously conflated ideas here it’s hard to untangle them. But a few:
    -MLB has no shortage of advertisers. Also, it generates more revenue than the NFL. (It helps to play 162 games.) We’ve seen advertisers intrude on the game, as SF has noted, with various promotions, and most egregiously the green-screen advertising behind home plate during Fox telecasts. I hate that crap. There’s no suggestion here that MLB hasn’t compromised itself. We’re talking degree. The run of play is interrupted. That’s a cardinal sin.
    -I’m not out for other leagues. I wish the NFL weren’t such a disappointment. I’ve lost a bit of interest in the NBA, but I still love to watch. I’d sure love to see a Suns-Celtics final. The Celts are a real NY rival, but I find it hard not to like their team this year.
    -The Jets do have an ethos. They’re losers. They had the great moment in 1969, and since then they’ve been defined by futility. The Jets fan is a type. (Whether it’s a good type is not the point.)

    YF January 22, 2008, 9:06 am
  • I think according to Accuscore, the Giants have 22% chance of winning.
    There’s almost no way in hell coming back from 0-3 has that high of a probability. 10% might be too high.
    In any case though, I do think if there was a team to beat Pats, the Giants could be it. Then again, I also thought that about the Packers until Sunday’s poor performance – the game wasn’t close other than the final score..

    Lar January 22, 2008, 9:30 am
  • Ia the ratings controversy here just looking at different pieces of the elephant? Viewers vs. share? Maybe not.
    It does seem probable that a game shown on three different networks would have a higher rating than a game shown on just one, especially when it’s the last game of the regular season, featuring two major sports markets (even though Boston’s market itself is not that big), with one of them going for an undefeated regular season.
    Meanwhile, baseball > football. That’s all.

    Paul SF January 22, 2008, 9:31 am
  • Paul the original article that was posted about ratings was wrong. Everywhere else i looked last night said the same thing. Alot of people watched that game for a regular season game but it came nowhere close to as much viewership as a super bowl which dominates the top 20 TV shows of all time…

    sam-YF January 22, 2008, 9:36 am
  • Oakland? Tradition? Right – Gangsters and Al Davis. Stubbornminded. Unable to adapt. The J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets? YF, you said it yourself, the tradition is of losers. That used to be the Patriots tradition too, under the original and next owners, with an occasional exception. They have been building their new tradition under the Krafts. So it is more recent. This goes for the Red Sox too. The new ownership is building a new tradition, to replace the Yawkey ethos, which was losing and bigotry and favoritism. In doing so, they are emulating the Patriots approach, which also includes a fundamental, consistent philosophy toward building a team. For both the regular season and the tournament.
    Re the upcoming game: of course, the Any Given Sunday possibility exists. But the Pats record against teams who were at least 500 against teams-other-than-the-Pats this year was unbelievable. They beat San Diego twice, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Dallas, Washington, NY Giants, Cleveland, and Buffalo twice. That’s 11 of their 18 wins, 8 of which were against playoff teams. They also beat the Eagles, who were no slouches, despite their uneven year. They beat San Diego, Indianapolis, Dallas, and the Giants – 4 playoff teams – on their home turf. My guess is that, barring some bizarre development, they will be able to maintain that consistency for one more game. Add to this the fact that Belichick coached Pats teams have an incredibly good record against any team they played for a second time in the same year (except Indy, with whom they split over time) and the additional fact that most of the Pats have been through the Super Bowl hoopla distractions before – you see where I am going.
    I would give the points and take the Pats.

    Waldomeboy January 22, 2008, 10:41 am
  • The run of play is interrupted. That’s a cardinal sin.
    No, it’s not a “cardinal sin”. It’s annoying. It disrupts. But it’s also part of the deal. If we want to watch games televised, if we want access to the sport, then this is what we have to put up with. We put up with interruptions in the run of play in just about every sport. Baseball was, ingeniously, structured so that this “run of play” isn’t interrupted in the same manner as other sports. This is dumb luck, to some extent, since the inventors had no idea what was coming down the pike via satellite dish and cable box.
    But to be really honest, baseball is still “interrupted”. The “run of play” is delayed by television, by in-game promotions, by extra songs at the seventh inning stretch in most parks, by sausage races, and even baseball games take much longer than they should were there no commercial interruptions or commercial sideshows at the park. By this measurement the only sport that is completely immune to this charge of “interrupted run of play” is football, non-American style. Two 45 minute halves, running time, with added time for injury. A set halftime length. No breaks. Footie is the only pure game left by this measure, and even that game has been changed drastically by commercialism.

    SF January 22, 2008, 11:44 am
  • “But it’s also part of the deal. If we want to watch games televised, if we want access to the sport, then this is what we have to put up with.”
    There is no “deal.” There is simply the imposition of one interest upon another. That’s not a deal.
    I enjoy soccer. I agree it is the least hampered by advertisement. On the scale of badness, soccer is least bad, football is worst, basketball is pretty grim (all of those timeouts down the stretch–ugh), and then baseball sits somewhere down the middle. But for me it’s an enormously steep slope, and football sits at the bottom. All of the ills one finds in MLB, are magnified in the NFL. Whether that’s by chance or design is not relevant.

    YF January 22, 2008, 1:05 pm
  • “(all of those timeouts down the stretch–ugh)”
    An aside, but I recently heard David Stern lament the late game time outs in an interview. He wants to limit their use at the end of games, but teams have objected.
    I used to be into the NFL, but the violence of the sport and the way it’s covered in the media eventually alienated me. Oddly, I never liked any of the New York teams (they play in Jersey, I justified my dislike this way) and ended up a fan of the Redskins because my brothers and I liked the uniforms (we were young and unaware of just how offensive the team name and logos were). As a result, I never followed football the way I followed the Yanks or the Knicks–who I could read about in the local papers even during the off-season. Eventually, Gibbs left and I just lost interest. If the Skins are playing, they’re the team I root for. But I no longer hate the Giants. In fact, I’m rooting big time for them to dethrone those copycats of the recent Yanks dynasty. I’d say they learned from the Bombers, not the other way around (to create a myth in response to another myth created earlier in the thread).

    Nick-YF January 22, 2008, 1:22 pm
  • Very classy, NY Post.
    I have a question for the Yankee fans on this blog. In the following listing of Yankee championships – – an asterisk was added for the 1996, ’98, ’99 and 2000 championship teams, which I assume is because the majority of those Yankee’s rosters were taking steroids, per the Mitchell report. What of the earlier teams though. Why are they asterisked? In what manner were those teams cheating?
    Thanks for any qualified answers.

    Dirty Water January 22, 2008, 1:30 pm
  • My best friend was a Skins fan, and I went to college in Baltimore, where my closest buddies were all DC area Skins diehards. Those were great years. Giants-Skins. A fun rivalry between two terrific teams. That was when I actually cared about football.

    YF January 22, 2008, 1:33 pm
  • That was a great rivalry, although the Giants pretty much owned the Skins during that period.
    Shouldn’t Art Monk be in the Hall of Fame by the way?

    Nick-YF January 22, 2008, 1:38 pm
  • Dirty Water, that’s, uh, pretty incendiary.
    Look at the index at the bottom of the screen, an asterisk denotes a World Series champion (the non-asterisked years are years they won the AL pennant but not the series).
    No asterisks should be applied to former championships over steroids. Period.

    Devine January 22, 2008, 1:40 pm
  • The Skins won the SB twice!
    If Art Monk is not in the Hall, that’s crazy. And is Darryl Green still playing?

    YF January 22, 2008, 1:45 pm
  • “the majority of those Yankee’s rosters were taking steroids, per the Mitchell report”
    I laughed, so that means you’re joking, right?
    I know the Post’s NFL Standings has included all season an asterisk next to the Patriots line, with the qualification below reading “caught cheating”. I guess the Post felt they had to do the same for the Yankees, in the interest of fairness. Which is interesting to me, because it proves that a Murdoch-run organization actually keeps a working definition of the term handy. Whether that’s an accurate definition or not, it’s good to know.

    FenSheaParkway January 22, 2008, 1:46 pm
  • I know and I know. As far as why players should be slighted for steroids but not their teams… well, I’m not so sure about that one. They pull trophies in college ball for player offenses, you know.
    That was one very incendiary article by the Post this morning. No excuse.

    Dirty Water January 22, 2008, 1:46 pm
  • Take that BS to another blog Dirty Water. Seriously. It’s a non-starter. If you need something to waste your time, try actually reading the Mitchell Report.

    YF January 22, 2008, 1:48 pm
  • I understand your sensitivity towards the issue, YF. I will stop.

    Dirty Water January 22, 2008, 1:51 pm
  • YF, I meant head-to-head. The Skins won three SB’s! (I guess I shouldn’t count the one with Riggins since I was a wee chap). But the Giants always matched up well against the Skins.
    And indeed, Monk is not in the Hall of Fame. I’m sure saber football types can explain why. He was related to Thelonious for God sakes! Get him in!

    Nick-YF January 22, 2008, 2:00 pm
  • Ah, the lovely sight of New York fans living in the past. Man, those ’80s sure were great. And the ’90s too!
    I’ll take the oughts!

    SF January 22, 2008, 2:14 pm
  • DW:
    The authors of this site who root for New York teams are in no way responsible for the garbage that the Post puts out. Just as we Boston fans aren’t reponsible for Dan Shaughnessy or the Herald or the idiots on WHDH. YF is 100% right in his comment, I just wanted to back him up on that clearly.

    SF January 22, 2008, 2:17 pm
  • Thanks SF.
    Note, however, that unlike Pats fans we Giants fans can live in the past AND the present! Our past is Huff! Gifford! Tittle! LT! For the Pats? Pretty thin until Brady.

    YF January 22, 2008, 2:31 pm
  • OK, I switched to decaf this morning so I’m having a hard time following that list… the double asterisk means they were the first half winner?? First half of what?

    soxgirl January 22, 2008, 2:34 pm
  • “Our past is Huff! Gifford! Tittle! ”
    Whenever I see Gifford’s name I think of Exley’s “A Fan’s Notes”, and then I get depressed and wonder if that’s a past to want to live in? Anyone else read that masterpiece?

    Anonymous January 22, 2008, 2:36 pm
  • that was me

    Nick-YF January 22, 2008, 2:39 pm
  • Soxgirl: 1981, when the seasonw as split into halves by the strike, and the winners of each half played each other in the playoffs.
    Strange that the Post didn’t put an asterisk next to the Jets’ record, since they were caught “cheating” by the Patriots during the playoffs last season. Would have thought they were all fair and balanced. ;-)

    Paul SF January 22, 2008, 2:42 pm
  • Paul – Thanks! I was in college then and was still a year away from the baseball obsession…

    soxgirl January 22, 2008, 2:46 pm
  • For the Pats? Pretty thin until Brady
    Two words:

    SF January 22, 2008, 3:48 pm
  • When I was in the 3rd grade, a Patriot player came to my class because he was an alum and he went to school with my 3rd grade teacher. I can’t remember his name but I don’t remember him being as famous as Mosi Tatupu. (Then again, I knew zilch about football when I was 8.) Did the Pats have two guys from Hawai’i in the mid-80s? If not, maybe it was Tatupu after all.

    FenSheaParkway January 22, 2008, 4:42 pm
  • I hope Tom Brady emerges from Gisele Bundchen’s West Village townhouse tomorrow morning in a wheelchair with a fake cast on his arm, just to wind up the media.
    (By the way: Doesn’t it take more time to get to NYC from Boston by limo than it took Tony Romo to get to that resort in Mexico with whatsherface? I’m no Romo fan, but that was one of the dumbest phony outrage stories I can ever remember in sports.)

    Hudson January 22, 2008, 11:43 pm
  • // This is pointless. They are a Super Bowl team no matter how you want to view it. The fact that they have “a mediocre” record only means that to get to the super bowl they had that much harder of a path to travel to get there. //
    It’s not pointless. The point was to show those New York fans inclined to deride the Pats victories over “second-rate squads” that they live in Giant glass houses.

    Hudson January 22, 2008, 11:47 pm
  • // For the Pats? Pretty thin until Brady. //
    Well, Grogan did lead the Pats to the Super Bowl in 1986 (albeit only to be decimated by one of the great teams of all time from Chicago).

    Hudson January 22, 2008, 11:50 pm
  • “that they live in Giant glass houses.”
    Thats funny coming from you Hudson. You too inhabit a residence made of Silicon Dioxide in which many rocks have been tossed….

    sam-YF January 23, 2008, 10:14 am
  • Quite a thread y’all have going here. All I can add is what seems strange to me:
    I’ve strongly disliked the Sox (and their fans to some extent) for a long time now. As long as I can remember.
    But I liked the Giants and Celtics growing up and felt nothing for the Knicks or Pats. Even then those affiliations were pretty weak and now I only watch the playoffs for those sports without much fandom besides picking sides in a game/series. Still, here I liked the Celts (it was either them or the Lakers) and thus their fans or I liked the Giants and no feelings about the Pats and thus their fans.
    One time of year I strongly disliked a bunch of people, at another I was completely ambivalent, and still a third we were on the same side. It’s just weird how fandom works.
    Now? I like the Jeterness of Brady, but the underdog quality of the Giants. I think I have to go with the Giants because of the latter.
    What’s most sad to me is the Pats gave up their old unis. When did they drop red for blue? It’s more Yankee-like :)

    A YF January 23, 2008, 10:40 am
  • Sam-YF, I’ll save that last comment of yours and remind you of it the next time you complain about “personal attacks.”

    Hudson January 23, 2008, 2:47 pm
  • Hudson, give it a fricken rest. The Giants are in the superbowl, so regardless of their record they’re pretty damn good. You don’t win 10-straight road games when you suck.
    Likewise, the Patriots are in the superbowl and are a pretty damn good team; one of the best teams in history. Discrediting that because you think they had a weak schedule is petty.

    Atheose January 23, 2008, 3:14 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.