Who do you want to see in the Super Bowl?

[Heyjoe4]

Eli and the Giants seemed to handle it well. Plexico Burress had a solid outing. The one Giant who struggled was their kicker who finally won it on the 3rd try which was understandable. We just could not run the ball the way we did the previous week.

I was really surprised at how well the Giants played in "Lambeau" weather in January. I think their HC took the brunt of the cold. Even so, they won on the road in terrible conditions. And Eli Manning was always underrated IMO. The guy knew how to win in the most important games.

 

[rmontro]

I was really surprised at how well the Giants played in "Lambeau" weather in January.

Well, the Giants are a cold weather team too. It was maybe more impressive how Dallas played in the Ice Bowl.

And Eli Manning was always underrated IMO. The guy knew how to win in the most important games.

Funny how his brother had the opposite reputation, early on in his career. Until he didn't. And they both ended up winning two rings. Irritating, with Favre and Rodgers winning only one apiece.
Seems like Eli either had an average year, or he won the Super Bowl.

 

[milani]

I was really surprised at how well the Giants played in "Lambeau" weather in January. I think their HC took the brunt of the cold. Even so, they won on the road in terrible conditions. And Eli Manning was always underrated IMO. The guy knew how to win in the most important games.

Coughlin was willing to test Favre in beating the Giants. His game plan was to stop the run. And they did enough which forced 2nd and 3rd longs. The week before with Ryan Grant in the snow the Packers had like 200 plus yards rushing. Yet, the game was winnable for us. The Giants fumbled putting us on their side and we did nothing late in the game. They missed 2 FG attempts which would have nailed us. And worst of all they muffed a punt which several Packers should have recovered near the end of regulation. MM should have been in the SB.

 

[milani]

Well, the Giants are a cold weather team too. It was maybe more impressive how Dallas played in the Ice Bowl.



Funny how his brother had the opposite reputation, early on in his career. Until he didn't. And they both ended up winning two rings. Irritating, with Favre and Rodgers winning only one apiece.
Seems like Eli either had an average year, or he won the Super Bowl.

And the other ironies were that Peyton may have won more if it were not for the Patriots. And yet Eli's 2 came at the expense of the Pats.

 

[rmontro]

Coughlin was willing to test Favre in beating the Giants. His game plan was to stop the run.

Smart strategy, considering the conditions. Ugh, I remember watching/listening to the game very vividly. I had to listen to the end of it on the radio in the bathroom because I had to get ready for work (I worked nights at the time). One of the most frustrating games I've ever experienced, because of what was at stake, and for all the reasons you mentioned. We kept getting chances, but couldn't do anything with them.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Coughlin was willing to test Favre in beating the Giants. His game plan was to stop the run. And they did enough which forced 2nd and 3rd longs. The week before with Ryan Grant in the snow the Packers had like 200 plus yards rushing. Yet, the game was winnable for us. The Giants fumbled putting us on their side and we did nothing late in the game. They missed 2 FG attempts which would have nailed us. And worst of all they muffed a punt which several Packers should have recovered near the end of regulation. MM should have been in the SB.

Yeah along with the 2014 NFCCG debacle, the Giant game was one where GB should have been in the SB. Both had very shocking and unpleasant endings.

Good teams and good QBs just find ways to win those games. Favre wasn't up to the task against the Giants (nor was he the sole reason for the loss) and the Seahags loss was just a comedy of errors made worse by MM's decision to play not to lose.

And on the subject of the Giants and QBs, I still think Eli was a better "money" player than his brother. Peyton really only won one SB where he was actively involved - against the Bears. The Broncos SB win was all on the back of their D. Peyton M wasn't a factor. Eli just knew how to win the important games.

 

[Heyjoe4]

And the other ironies were that Peyton may have won more if it were not for the Patriots. And yet Eli's 2 came at the expense of the Pats.

I think Eli's first SB ring came against the 18-0 Pats, they had Randy Moss that year I think. That was the game with the helmet catch. If recall correctly, BB ran off the field without shaking Coughlin's hand. And all those old Miami Dolphin guys had a sigh of relief.

 

[rmontro]

Yeah along with the 2014 NFCCG debacle, the Giant game was one where GB should have been in the SB. Both had very shocking and unpleasant endings.

That whole Giant game had a crummy feeling to it. You know how you watch those games where you feel like you're losing, irrespective of what the score might be? That's the way that Giant game felt to me. The Seahawk game felt much more up and down. We had outplayed them, but it seemed like once the momentum switched, our unraveling felt inevitable.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That whole Giant game had a crummy feeling to it. You know how you watch those games where you feel like you're losing, irrespective of what the score might be? That's the way that Giant game felt to me. The Seahawk game felt much more up and down. We had outplayed them, but it seemed like once the momentum switched, our unraveling felt inevitable.

I do know what you mean. The Packers let the Giants hang around way too long and it cost them.

The Seahag game was an absolute lock, for about 56 minutes, and then it wasn't. Lots of blame in that one, but the lion's share goes to MM who started to play not to lose. Crushed momentum and the Hags smelled blood. All of a sudden, it's back to back three and outs and the Hags do everything right and the Packers do everything wrong and, well we know the rest.

 

[rmontro]

The Seahag game was an absolute lock, for about 56 minutes, and then it wasn't. Lots of blame in that one, but the lion's share goes to MM who started to play not to lose.

I never felt safe in that Seattle game. We were leaving too many points off the board.

 

[milani]

That whole Giant game had a crummy feeling to it. You know how you watch those games where you feel like you're losing, irrespective of what the score might be? That's the way that Giant game felt to me. The Seahawk game felt much more up and down. We had outplayed them, but it seemed like once the momentum switched, our unraveling felt inevitable.

We also were a one and done with the Giants after a 15-1 season in 2011. And we got pummeled. That crash hurt because a great season went completely down the drain. And we had beaten the Giants in NY during the regular season. Say what we want but there is a certain mental and physical toughness that teams must have in these kind of games when the talent level is fairly close. In all these games we did not have it. Lombardi's Packers did. That is what set them apart.

 

[rmontro]

We also were a one and done with the Giants after a 15-1 season in 2011.

That was another painful game. But that was one of the funnest seasons, even though it ended in disappointment. We were the Super Bowl champs all season long, and I promised myself I was going to enjoy it. Not only did we win 15 games, our offense looked unstoppable, except for a couple of games toward the end there.

You're right about Lombardi's Packers, as good as the team has been in the last 30 years, unfortunately it has mostly lacked the toughness that is needed to win the big one.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I never felt safe in that Seattle game. We were leaving too many points off the board.

That's true but at one point late in Q4 there was about a 1% chance Seattle would win. Everything that could possible o wrong for GB went wrong. And MM played it safe instead of keeping the pedal to the floor.

 

[rmontro]

That's true but at one point late in Q4 there was about a 1% chance Seattle would win. Everything that could possible o wrong for GB went wrong. And MM played it safe instead of keeping the pedal to the floor.

You're spot on right. Nonetheless, there seemed to be a sense of impending disaster hanging in the air, at least for me.

 

[Thirteen Below]

That was another painful game. But that was one of the funnest seasons, even though it ended in disappointment. We were the Super Bowl champs all season long, and I promised myself I was going to enjoy it. Not only did we win 15 games, our offense looked unstoppable, except for a couple of games toward the end there.

You're right about Lombardi's Packers, as good as the team has been in the last 30 years, unfortunately it has mostly lacked the toughness that is needed to win the big one.

Teams often tend to take on the personalities of their coaches, and when you compare the "toughness" factor of the Sherman and McCarthy Packers to that of the Lombardi Packers... well... not hard see the validity of that theory. They were timid and poorly pepared coaches in high-pressure games, and their teams often played like timid and poorly-prepared teams.

 

[Voyageur]

Teams often tend to take on the personalities of their coaches, and when you compare the "toughness" factor of the Sherman and McCarthy Packers to that of the Lombardi Packers... well... not hard see the validity of that theory. They were timid and poorly pepared coaches in high-pressure games, and their teams often played like timid and poorly-prepared teams.

Another trait of both coaches that I disliked is that they believed it wasn't their job to motivate the players. They felt that should be something they did on their own. It's probably right that a coach should believe his players can and will do it, but make no mistake, the intensity of the coaching staff at practice and going into games will add to the way the players address the games.

I never figured out why coaches think that being a football coach is like being a hostess at a British high tea.

 

[milani]

I do know what you mean. The Packers let the Giants hang around way too long and it cost them.

The Seahag game was an absolute lock, for about 56 minutes, and then it wasn't. Lots of blame in that one, but the lion's share goes to MM who started to play not to lose. Crushed momentum and the Hags smelled blood. All of a sudden, it's back to back three and outs and the Hags do everything right and the Packers do everything wrong and, well we know the rest.

Seahawks defense was strong that year but they stacked the box after the INT and we played into it. As good as they were they were selling out on the run. Play action to Jordy could have put it away. They also knew Aaron could not run himself because of the calf.

 

[Heyjoe4]

You're spot on right. Nonetheless, there seemed to be a sense of impending disaster hanging in the air, at least for me.

I started to feel just a little queasy when they faked a FG just before half and scored a TD. I still thought they'd win until MM stopped playing to win. Damn that was a hard loss.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Another trait of both coaches that I disliked is that they believed it wasn't their job to motivate the players. They felt that should be something they did on their own. It's probably right that a coach should believe his players can and will do it, but make no mistake, the intensity of the coaching staff at practice and going into games will add to the way the players address the games.

I never figured out why coaches think that being a football coach is like being a hostess at a British high tea.

I think it is most certainly the job of the coaching staff to get their guys ready. A coach that thinks this isn't part of their job should not be coaching.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Teams often tend to take on the personalities of their coaches, and when you compare the "toughness" factor of the Sherman and McCarthy Packers to that of the Lombardi Packers... well... not hard see the validity of that theory. They were timid and poorly pepared coaches in high-pressure games, and their teams often played like timid and poorly-prepared teams.

Good point. And in the recent playoff route the Packers laid the Cowboys, you could just tell that none of the coaches had bothered to tell the Cowboy players they still had to win this game. And we all know the HC of the Cowboys. Still can't believe Jerruh didn't whack MM after that game.

 

[milani]

I started to feel just a little queasy when they faked a FG just before half and scored a TD. I still thought they'd win until MM stopped playing to win. Damn that was a hard loss.

The better coaches do not sell their opponents short. We escaped Carolina in December and I think MLF learned from that. He was smarter the next few weeks and he was giving it to Dallas but he misread the game clock and before you knew it the score was 48-32.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The better coaches do not sell their opponents short. We escaped Carolina in December and I think MLF learned from that. He was smarter the next few weeks and he was giving it to Dallas but he misread the game clock and before you knew it the score was 48-32.

Yeah I think he cleared the bench just a little too early. That game score should have been 48-16.

And maybe Carolina was a wake up call. GB led handily, until they didn't.

 

[rmontro]

I think it is most certainly the job of the coaching staff to get their guys ready. A coach that thinks this isn't part of their job should not be coaching.

I thought the story of how McCarthy had the players measured for Super Bowl rings a day or two before the game was funny. At the time it seemed like a brilliant move, McCarthy instilling confidence in his players, this is our time and we're going to win. Later it turned out McCarthy had nothing to do with it, that was the only time the company making the rings had time to do the measuring. I always wondered if the Steelers were also measured for rings before the game, but only the Packers got the publicity.

Of course, had the Packers lost the game, it would have looked like a big mistake on McCarthy's part (if the story had been true).

 

[Heyjoe4]

I thought the story of how McCarthy had the players measured for Super Bowl rings a day or two before the game was funny. At the time it seemed like a brilliant move, McCarthy instilling confidence in his players, this is our time and we're going to win. Later it turned out McCarthy had nothing to do with it, that was the only time the company making the rings had time to do the measuring. I always wondered if the Steelers were also measured for rings before the game, but only the Packers got the publicity.

Of course, had the Packers lost the game, it would have looked like a big mistake on McCarthy's part (if the story had been true).

Interesting story, thanks. I did hear about that and see no reason why players of either team would need to be measured for rings before the game. Sounds like an urban legend.

As for MM, hey a SB win is still a win, and he coached that team to success. There's another unproven theory that coaches should move on after 10 years with a team. I guess I agree with that, with the exception of Mike Tomlin.

For whatever reason, MM started coaching very good teams not to lose rather than how to win. I'm surprised Jerruh didn't fire him after the Packers whipped the Cowboys. MM will win a lot of games, just not the big ones with any regularity. The current NFL seems to have passed him by.

 

[milani]

Interesting story, thanks. I did hear about that and see no reason why players of either team would need to be measured for rings before the game. Sounds like an urban legend.

As for MM, hey a SB win is still a win, and he coached that team to success. There's another unproven theory that coaches should move on after 10 years with a team. I guess I agree with that, with the exception of Mike Tomlin.

For whatever reason, MM started coaching very good teams not to lose rather than how to win. I'm surprised Jerruh didn't fire him after the Packers whipped the Cowboys. MM will win a lot of games, just not the big ones with any regularity. The current NFL seems to have passed him by.

Not sure if they still used Jostens. THat was the company who did the first Super Bowl rings. I forget exactly who it was but it will come to me. One of the Super Bowl I Packers worked for that company.