Verification

by Max Schwager on Feb 7, 2012 9:46 PM EST

Let's be real for a second. The Super Bowl winner is the best team in the league. It doesn't happen by accident, and I don't need to go through what I am about to go through just to prove the point, but I am going to do that because, while I am not one to gloat, I have no problem throwing salt in the wounds of those who can't take losing like a man. Let me say, to those for which the latter applies, you disgust me. That you call yourselves fans of the game is a stretch of the imagination that I do not hope to fix, but rather, bury all appearances that you might give to suggest otherwise.

In football, above all else, one thing is coveted: winning the Super Bowl. As a rule, the Super Bowl winner is the best team in the league for that year, without question. Respect the process.

If you should not, I bring to you the following breakdown of playoff teams:

Opponents with 12 or more wins (regular season):

Giants (4)

Baltimore (3)

San Francisco (2)

New England (1)

Green Bay (1)

New Orleans (1)

Baltimore is the only team with more than one win in this area (beating Pittsburgh twice, as well as San Francisco). The Giants went 1-3 in this area, but it should be noted that they are the only team up there to play more than one of these games on the road (Baltimore played one, as did San Francisco). The Giants played three regular season games on the road against opponents with a record of 13-3 or greater, losing two of them.

Opponents with (.500) winning percentage or greater:

Giants (10) 6-4

Baltimore (10) 9-1

Green Bay (10) 10-0

New England (9) 7-2

San Francisco (9) 6-3

New Orleans (8) 7-1

This indicates that, while the Giants did have a worse regular season record than many counterparts, their wins against quality opponents are comparable to several other teams (New England, New Orleans, San Francisco) that are considered to be among the league's best.

New York Giants' track record against playoff teams:

Week 9: @ New England (13-3) (24-20) W

Week 10: @ San Francisco (13-3) (27-20) L

Week 12: @ New Orleans (13-3) (49-24) L

Week 13: vs. Green Bay (15-1) (38-35) L

Week 18: vs. Atlanta (10-6) (24-2) W

Week 19: @ Green Bay (15-1) (37-20) W

Week 20: @ San Francisco (13-3) (20-17) W

Super Bowl: vs. New England (13-3) (21-17) W

So, we can see that the New York Football Giants did pretty well against playoff teams. In these games, they went 4-2 on the road (including the Super Bowl). They were 1-1 at home. They lost just one of these games by more than one score (week 12 in New Orleans).

In these games:

Points Per Game (25.6)

Points Allowed Per Game (23.8)

Turnover Differential (+4)

To me, these numbers are impressive considering 75% of these games are played on the road, against opponents with a collective record of 105-23, or a winning percentage of (.820).

Considering the volume of injuries the Giants have endured through the regular season, it's all the more impressive.

Now, injuries are not an excuse in football. I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, we don't need to make any excuses because we won the damn thing. Excuses are for the other 31 teams that, no matter how you slice it, are all in the same boat. There is no silver lining. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and you either win the Super Bowl or you don't. That's how I've always felt about it.

There's no denying Giant legitimacy. They beat the top seeded Green Bay Packers (on the road) by 17 points, following it by knocking off the two seed in San Francisco. The Giants then beat a New England team had won 10 straight since the last time they played the Giants in the regular season.

Legitimacy of champion: Verified.

FanPosts are written by community members. This is simply a way for community members to express opinions too long to be contained in a comment.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I agree with you mostly EXCEPT

This indicates that, while the Giants did have a worse regular season record than many counterparts, their wins against quality opponents are comparable to several other teams (New England, New Orleans, San Francisco) that are considered to be among the league’s best.

that part

i don’t see how 6-4 compares to 7-1 (NO) and 7-2 (NE)

aside from that, yes, SuperBowl winners = best team in the league that year

Nets Mets Giants All day Every day.
Beware the Lopez
NY Giants Tribute

by netsareboss on Feb 7, 2012 9:59 PM EST reply actions

New england only beat one team with a winning record all season

Although they only played 4 such teams

Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble.
-John Madden
"Luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck." -Don Shula
"You just don't throw on Chase Blackburn.''

by Willgfass on Feb 12, 2012 5:49 PM EST up reply actions

Sucks to be Patriots now a days

This is not the 2007 team.
2011 NYG will have their own legacy.

by BB1156 on Feb 12, 2012 9:18 PM EST up reply actions

This

Where the Giants had the hardest road to the playoffs, New England, by far, had the easiest. Not to say they have a hand in the teams they play, but hey, maybe a few more quality opponents along the way, and New England is 10-6 or 11-5 and not 13-3.

Which is why people blow the 9-7 thing out of proportion. Not to mention that, even though the NFC East teams were inconsistent, on their good days, the Eagles and Cowboys have enough talent to play with anybody in the league. Part of the reason why the division looks the way it did (9-7 winner with two 8-8 runner-ups).

If the Giants had a 9-7 record with a cupcake schedule like NE’s, and backed their way into the playoffs the way the Jets had the past couple years, or even Arizona in 2008, then yeah, we could say they were a terrible team in the regular season but got hot at the right time.

But this was not the case.

by Max Schwager on Feb 13, 2012 3:40 PM EST up reply actions

Looking at number of wins

The fact that the Saints and Patriots didn’t play the same number of games makes it a little difficult.

Also, refer to the stat prior to that one. The Giants played four teams in the regular season with a record of 13-3 or better. New England, Green Bay, and New Orleans each had one such game.

So, where it appears one team has the edge in one category, they lose it in another. I try to show both in the interest of fairness.

The point really is that you can make a team look better or worse with stats, which is why, at the end of the day, the big stat is the Super Bowl record. Giants went 1-0 in that category this year.

by Max Schwager on Feb 7, 2012 10:28 PM EST reply actions

Vegas

has the Patriots, Packers and Saints favored against the Giants should they play next week. No respect. Honestly, I could see the Saints. Not sure how we could stop them but it should be noted they cannot stop anyone either. The Packers we dismantled on their home field. Remember that the Pack got two bad calls to go their way which extended drives resulting in TDs (fumble and Osi’s ‘illegal’ hit on Rogers). That score could have been considerably more lopsided.
The Patriots? I dunno know. We beat them twice this year…once in Foxborough, again in the Superbowl. What else do we have to do? A few sports ‘analysts’ have attributed the loss to a less than 100% Gronkowski…again, no respect
I don’t mind the lack of respect. I’ll take the ring. Athletes, particularly the Giants, seem to rise to the challenge when they feel they are disrespected. I would rather go into next year’s season being undervalued than overestimated. Have you seen our schedule? It’s murderous…

by Ghamilton05 on Feb 8, 2012 9:29 AM EST reply actions

They even have Philadelphia ahead of us.

Having teams lined up ahead of us is not new and we are used to that now. We will see what happens. Team will be fine.

This is not the 2007 team.
2011 NYG will have their own legacy.

by BB1156 on Feb 8, 2012 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

I wouldn't consider it disrespect

If the Packers weren’t the favorite coming into this 2011 season, keeping in mind that they went 10-6 prior to their SB run. Let’s face it, repeating is ridiculously hard. But the Eagles?

But it’s room to work with. Vegas is good at what they do. Getting people to buy into the Eagles might be a money make for them.

Vegas gave me long odds on the Giants this season plenty of times, and it worked out nicely for me. That’s the best thing about the Giants, is that even Vegas seems to underrate the Giants, making for some very favorable spreads on certain games.

But any Giant fan also knows that it takes some guts to put money down on the Giants in any circumstance. This team has to be the definition of an oddsmakers’ nightmare.

by Max Schwager on Feb 8, 2012 6:25 PM EST up reply actions