05 Dec 11
Originally posted by RBHILLThey played a whole season without Brady, look it up. I've got to hand it to Bill for always thinking... he played his second string to prove to the league that The Colts are losing on purpose... this is why the NBA has a lottery. Shame on them, Bill handed them the game and The Colts did everything possible to lose.
They should play without Brady to see if they are good enough to beat the colts. I hope they go 0-16.
Someone call Roger Goodell, he needs to fix this.
Originally posted by shortcircuitHow was it a "fluke"? The Giants tied the game with 58 seconds to go, but Rodgers engineered a great drive (with a couple of fine catches) and the Pack got a winning FG. How should they have "won the game by 7"?
True, but that was more of a fluke. They should have won the game by 7, and would have covered.
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Giants never should have scored on their last drive is how.
How was it a "fluke"? The Giants tied the game with 58 seconds to go, but Rodgers engineered a great drive (with a couple of fine catches) and the Pack got a winning FG. How should they have "won the game by 7"?
Green Bay played soft. THAT is what I mean.
If the Giants don't score with 58 seconds left, GB wins by 7, which covered the spread.
Geez, sometimes you can be such a mental midget.
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitThat's pretty stupid reasoning even for you. The Giants moved the ball pretty well the entire game and Green Bay's pass defense isn't very good. Yeah, if the Giants didn't score at all the entire game GB would have covered, too. But the Giants scoring on that last drive was hardly a "fluke" (and they were down by 8, not 7 BTW).
The Giants never should have scored on their last drive is how.
Green Bay played soft. THAT is what I mean.
If the Giants don't score with 58 seconds left, GB wins by 7, which covered the spread.
Geez, sometimes you can be such a mental midget.
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I realize they were down by 8, but they needed 7 to cover the spread.
That's pretty stupid reasoning even for you. The Giants moved the ball pretty well the entire game and Green Bay's pass defense isn't very good. Yeah, if the Giants didn't score at all the entire game GB would have covered, too. But the Giants scoring on that last drive was hardly a "fluke" (and they were down by 8, not 7 BTW).
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitThen why did you say:
Yes, I realize they were down by 8, but they needed 7 to cover the spread.
sc: If the Giants don't score with 58 seconds left, GB wins by 7, which covered the spread.
For the game, the Giants had 447 yards of offense and 24 first downs. The Packers are second to last in the league in allowing passing yards, while the Giants are 4th in total passing yardage. The Giant drive was hardly a "fluke".
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Giants are what, 6-5 now?
Then why did you say:
sc: If the Giants don't score with 58 seconds left, GB wins by 7, which covered the spread.
For the game, the Giants had 447 yards of offense and 24 first downs. The Packers are second to last in the league in allowing passing yards, while the Giants are 4th in total passing yardage. The Giant drive was hardly a "fluke".
They have been beating the hell out of everyone.
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitShoulda coulda woulda...great anaolgy
The Giants never should have scored on their last drive is how.
Green Bay played soft. THAT is what I mean.
If the Giants don't score with 58 seconds left, GB wins by 7, which covered the spread.
Geez, sometimes you can be such a mental midget.