Giants will not upset the Bears

IrishMike · November 6, 2006 9:51PM

At least according to the oddsmakers, the Giants are 1-3 point favorites, so if they win it won't be an upset. Now I guess the Bears could upset the Giants, however I predict right here and now if the Giants win, the Giants fans will claim it as an upset.

Amazing how short circuited the thinking process can be here.

Now that I am done poking, can't wait for the game as I hope it will be a real slobber-knocker. If the Bears don't come out angry they can kiss the Superbowl...bye bye. This is a man-up game for them.

stevek · November 6, 2006 10:11PM

Yea that line surprised me - I thought the Bears would be about +2 1/2 favorites especially after getting blown out by Miami - usually good teams can be expected to rebound bigtime after getting blown out.

I hope you're right, Eagles fans could use a Giants loss. But that line is telling me that the Giants are going to have to make a few bad mistakes to lose this game.

bri2327 · November 7, 2006 12:00AM

No way the Giants should be the favorites with half their defense out hurt. IF they beat the Bears it will indeed by an upset.

joestalin · November 7, 2006 2:02AM

Bears have no offense. Rex is a scared little schoolgirl. Urlacher is most likely out and they have coming off a home game pummeling. Welcome
to the Bears meltdown..week 2.

JS

IrishMike · November 7, 2006 2:15AM

<< No way the Giants should be the favorites with half their defense out hurt. IF they beat the Bears it will indeed by an upset. >>

As predicted, first excuse.

bri2327 · November 7, 2006 2:36AM

<< 

<< No way the Giants should be the favorites with half their defense out hurt. IF they beat the Bears it will indeed by an upset. >>

As predicted, first excuse.

>>

Yawn

I will let it slide without a big to do ONLY because you are an IRish fan

thegemmintman · November 7, 2006 6:00AM

The line doesn't shock me at all. The Giants have won 5 straight, and they're at home. Da Bears are coming off an ugly loss.

Axtell · November 7, 2006 6:03AM

The bears have been playing a cupcake schedule all year long, and they bought into the whole 'we're as good as the 85 bears team!' hype.

They are now going into a real tough stretch, and Grossman's numerous shortcomings continue to be exposed.

I don't see the Giants winning as an upset, as they've played a far tougher schedule than those ladies in Chicago.

softparade · November 7, 2006 6:33AM

<< No way the Giants should be the favorites with half their defense out hurt. IF they beat the Bears it will indeed by an upset. >>

Upset? No. If the game was in Chicago I might consider a Giant win a upset considering that the Giants defense can't stay healthy for the second straight year. If they can't win at home with that offense then there are no excuses.

ctsoxfan · November 7, 2006 6:40AM

One of the Bears top receivers is out, Bernard Berrian - and Urlacher might miss the game as well.

Still, the Bears should be able to beat the paper-tiger Giants.

softparade · November 7, 2006 6:53AM

<< 
Still, the Bears should be able to beat the paper-tiger Giants. >>

Ooooo, I'm gonna have to bump this thread Sunday night. This is like the baseball season

ToppsCo1lector · November 7, 2006 11:00PM

<< One of the Bears top receivers is out, Bernard Berrian - and Urlacher might miss the game as well.

Still, the Bears should be able to beat the paper-tiger Giants. >>

LOL, the Giants have won 5 straight. A 2 game lead in there division, and 3-0 in division games. Paper tigers eh?

WinPitcher · November 7, 2006 11:08PM

yeah i laughed when i saw that remark too Topps, but then i saw who said it.

Steve

Axtell · November 8, 2006 2:07AM

<< yeah i laughed when i saw that remark too Topps, but then i saw who said it.

Steve >>

Oh you're a giants fan this week? Is it next week when you'll be a jets fan?

The giants have had a pretty comfy schedule....we'll see what happens when they make the playoffs and eli pulls a manning tradition and chokes it away.

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 2:11AM

Comfy scedule? If ranked by previous seasons opponents win percentage(as how schedules are "ranked" for toughness) the Giants have the toughest schedule along with Cincy. The Giants will win the division for a second straight year, you being a Bucs fan(who are what, 2-6 one of those losses being against the Giants right?) don't have much room to talk.

Axtell · November 8, 2006 2:18AM

<< Comfy scedule? If ranked by previous seasons opponents win percentage(as how schedules are "ranked" for toughness) the Giants have the toughest schedule along with Cincy. The Giants will win the division for a second straight year, you being a Bucs fan(who are what, 2-6 one of those losses being against the Giants right?) don't have much room to talk. >>

But you aren't playing LAST YEAR'S teams.

Look at their opponents for THIS YEAR'S records.

Then you'll see what COMFY really is.

Yes, the giants beat a team that is 2-6. That team is VASTLY different than the one who was 11-5 last year...so don't give me this crap that the giants played the toughest schedule in the league - no one's buying it (well, maybe giants fans are).

Colts (8-0) LOSS
Eagles (4-4) win
Seahawks (5-3) LOSS
Redskins (3-5) win
Falcons (5-3) win
Cowboys (4-4) win
Bucs (2-6) win
texans (2-6) win

So you've beaten one team with a winning record all year long. Please don't spin it as 'well based on last year's records we have the toughest schedule!' crap.

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 2:30AM

06 NFL Strength of Schedule

Check it out. You're wrong, Giants have one of the toughest schedules in the league.

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 2:42AM

Well Ax? The numbers don't lie buddy.

IrishMike · November 8, 2006 4:07AM

Heh reminds me of the good old days, 85 and 63, some good smack between Da Bears and Da Giants. And this Buc's team reminds me of the 76 Buccies.

Axtell · November 8, 2006 4:25AM

topps-

you specifically IGNORED what I said: I said, the Giants are playing teams from 2005, they are playing teams from THIS YEAR.

Please, pull off the 'ny is best!' blinders and look at the facts.

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 5:19AM

<< topps-

you specifically IGNORED what I said: I said, the Giants are playing teams from 2005, they are playing teams from THIS YEAR.

Please, pull off the 'ny is best!' blinders and look at the facts. >>

Strength of schedule buddy. It's not made up numbers, it's fact. Giants have one of the toughest in the NFL. Look where the Bears rank in that same area, dead last.

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 5:28AM

<< topps-

you specifically IGNORED what I said: I said, the Giants are playing teams from 2005, they are playing teams from THIS YEAR.

Please, pull off the 'ny is best!' blinders and look at the facts. >>

Fact is, the Giants have one of the toughest schedules. Truth is, Da Bears have one of the easiest. Take off the "I Hate NY" sunglasses for a minute and realize you can't prove me wrong on this one.

IrishMike · November 8, 2006 6:10AM

The only thing that matters is how well the two teams play on Sunday. Previous schedule means zippo, both teams have injuries to key players. This could easily be a game won by which QB plays the best and/or which team brings it. I am hoping for a game not for the weak of heart.

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 6:29AM

Mike-It's gonna be a great game I think. Just heard that Amani Toomer is out for the rest of the season w/ a partially torn ACL. Hopefully Tyree and Carter will step up.

Axtell · November 8, 2006 6:38AM

<< Strength of schedule buddy. It's not made up numbers, it's fact. Giants have one of the toughest in the NFL. Look where the Bears rank in that same area, dead last. >>

No one is disputing the bears have had an easy go of it so far. But strength of schedule? Your continued insistence of using last year's team's records on how tough the giants have had it proves just how blind you are to the facts. Look, the Bucs' team of last year (that went 11-5) is vastly better and superior to the one who played the Giants this year. Please do not continue to use LAST year's records as an indicator how tough the schedule has been.

<< Fact is, the Giants have one of the toughest schedules. Truth is, Da Bears have one of the easiest. Take off the "I Hate NY" sunglasses for a minute and realize you can't prove me wrong on this one. >>

I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN YOU WRONG. I posted the giants' schedule, the teams records from THIS YEAR (not last year), and shown the Giants have just ONE win against teams with winning records THIS YEAR.

Good god this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

NEXT!

WinPitcher · November 8, 2006 6:54AM

<< Comfy scedule? If ranked by previous seasons opponents win percentage(as how schedules are "ranked" for toughness)

I understand what you are saying Topps. Schedules are MADE using last years records. That is the crux of it that he fails to see.

The better your record the previous year the harder the schedule is for the following year. The Steelers prolly have a very tough schedule. The team (if any that went 2 and 14) plays only schmoes. That is how they try to creat competitive balance. Even i know and understand that. What happens once the season starts is anyone's guess.

To say now what those teams records are is folly. They change from week to week.

He was not saying that they are playing teams with records from last year as current. It simply is that they play teams based on the record they had the year before.

Steve

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 6:56AM

That was exactly my point WP. Some fail to realize it. That's exactly how the toughness of ones schedule is determined. Otherwise you'd know the toughness of the schedule after the season in which one played.

softparade · November 8, 2006 7:54AM

Shooting fish in the barrel???? LOL

yeah, OK .... that little analogy is getting old Ax. Use something else

Axtell, using your logic .... what do you think of the vaunted New England Patriots who have EXACTLY ZERO WINS against teams with winning records this year?

You so called "experts" will say anything to try and skew things in "your" view. Ax, are you not aware that the NFL is FULL of teams that define that ..... "parity" word? That the difference between a 3-5 or 4-4 team and the Patriots or Giants is almost NOTHING?

egads man!

ctsoxfan · November 8, 2006 8:19AM

<< That the difference between a 3-5 or 4-4 team and the Patriots or Giants is almost NOTHING? >>

I wouldn't put the Giants in the same class as the Patriots.

By paper-tiger Giants, I meant exactly what Axtell showed you - the Giants have beaten one (1) team with a winning record thus far. Not sure why that's a tough one to figure out.

I'll see if I can find my flash cards.

softparade · November 8, 2006 8:24AM

CT, did you even read my post there braniac

The Patriots HAVE NOT beat ANYBODY with a wining record. That is ZERO (0) . So, using this flawed and stupid logic ...... how could I put the Patriots in the same league as the Giants? huh?

huh?

I mean, the Giants have won 100% more games against winning teams then the Patriots have right?

softparade · November 8, 2006 8:34AM

Come on Jerry! I am waiting .........

Using the logic that you agree with .... how is it POSSIBLE to even dare put the Pats in the same league as the Giants? The Pats have not won ANY games this season against teams with winning records.

lets go Jer! Explain that please? Afterall, it is the DUMB logic that you agree with. NOT ME

What was that about flash card? LOL Man, are you guys easy ....

stown · November 8, 2006 8:40AM

Actually, the NFL schedules are pretty much set until 2009. When Houston came in, they revised it so a fan can watch all 32 teams in a 4 or 6 year period (I forget which). I believe they set aside 1 or 2 games for rematches and developing rivalries.

Edited to clarify: The dates and times haven't been set, just the teams.

Yet another edit

Link

<< Note: Each team plays the other teams in its division home and away each season in addition to games listed; last game in each column to be determined by previous year's finish >>

softparade · November 8, 2006 8:44AM

I don't agree with the whole hard sked soft sked angle. It just really really amuses me regarding this thought process that some of this forums posters try and shove down our throats. Not one single solitary ounce of thought goes into any of that crap. If they were a wee bit bright, maybe they would have investigated the soft as charmin skeds like teams as the Patriots have had? But nooooooo .... that wouldn't serve the purpose

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 9:00AM

<< 

<< That the difference between a 3-5 or 4-4 team and the Patriots or Giants is almost NOTHING? >>

I wouldn't put the Giants in the same class as the Patriots.

By paper-tiger Giants, I meant exactly what Axtell showed you - the Giants have beaten one (1) team with a winning record thus far. Not sure why that's a tough one to figure out.

I'll see if I can find my flash cards. >>

The Pats haven't beat a single team with a winning record.

softparade · November 8, 2006 9:01AM

Jerry,

its not a good night for you on the boards man! I mean ...... DUHHHHHHHHHH

ctsoxfan · November 8, 2006 9:18AM

Whoa - I had to step out for a bit - but my point was that the Giants and Pats are not the same level of football team, and that the Giants basically beat no one so far.

You mentioned the Giants and the Pats like they were similar teams, and they are not - regardless of whom either team plays or has played.

That's all there is to that.

Now you are saying that the Pats always have soft schedules? When was this, while they were winning 3 Super Bowls, and always getting the toughest schedule in the league the following season? I don't get it.

softparade · November 8, 2006 9:52AM

<< 
By paper-tiger Giants, I meant exactly what Axtell showed you - the Giants have beaten one (1) team with a winning record thus far. Not sure why that's a tough one to figure out.

I'll see if I can find my flash cards. >>

Ummmm, if ya want me to get you flash cards I will Jer ... but ..... you can backtrack and dance all ya want out of this quote

Axtell · November 8, 2006 9:56AM

Why do people continue to insist on using last year's team's records to indicate the toughness of THIS year's schedule?

The fact of the matter is this: the giants have beaten exactly ONE team with a winning record THIS year.

softparade · November 8, 2006 1:33PM

And the Pats???? How many games have they won THIS YEAR against teams with a winning record? Do they havy a comfy sked too? But most importantly, can you read?

Axtell · November 8, 2006 1:44PM

I don't care about the Pats - my post was directly pointed at Giants fans.

Why do you insist on deflecting the question? Just answer the question...sheesh.

grote15 · November 8, 2006 2:19PM

grote15 · November 8, 2006 2:27PM

The Giants & the Pats are equally good this year IMO. The Giants have had a tougher schedule so far, but I don't think it's fair to say the Pats aren't as good because they haven't played as tough a schedule. Both teams lost to Indy and the Broncos are turning into a strong contender in the AFC. Really, it's too early to tell at this point, but NE has Brady and Big Bill and the rings, so you have to give them the respect they've earned. And they have looked awfully good against (albeit) weaker opponents, while the Giants have struggled at times this year. Losing Strahan & Usi really hurts, especially vs Chicago where for the Giants to win they need to get in Rex's face.

ToppsCo1lector · November 8, 2006 11:12PM

<< Why do people continue to insist on using last year's team's records to indicate the toughness of THIS year's schedule?

The fact of the matter is this: the giants have beaten exactly ONE team with a winning record THIS year. >>

Ax. It's basic numbers, the Giants have one of the toughest schedules in the league. Top 5 toughest, atleast.

stown · November 8, 2006 11:59PM

If you are going to bash the Giants for beating 1 team with a winning record, you have to do the same with the Pats who have 0 wins against teams with winning records.

Axtell · November 9, 2006 3:00AM

<< 

<< Why do people continue to insist on using last year's team's records to indicate the toughness of THIS year's schedule?

The fact of the matter is this: the giants have beaten exactly ONE team with a winning record THIS year. >>

Ax. It's basic numbers, the Giants have one of the toughest schedules in the league. Top 5 toughest, atleast. >>

If you want to go back in time, and have them play teams from last year, sure, I'll agree with you.

But using THIS year's schedule (which is what matters, not LAST year's), then no way in hell do they have a top 5.

stown-

(a) why are you putting your nose in this debate? (b) who cares about the Pats? I never mentioned them, and if you want to look into their schedule, have at it.

THIS IS ABOUT THE GIANTS.

ToppsCo1lector · November 9, 2006 3:03AM

2006 Strength Of Schedule
Team Winning Percentage Opp. Total Wins Opp. Total Losses
Saints .566 145 111
Buccaneers .550 132 108
Giants .543 139 117
Bengals .543 139 117
Steelers .531 136 120

Those are the Top 5 toughest scheduled teams for the 2006 season. Numbers don't lie, it's all right there proving you wrong. Who's last on that list, Chicago. Talk about a comfy schedule.

Axtell · November 9, 2006 3:06AM

Look, just admit that the giants have had an easy go of it this year, that they've been fortunate the teams they've played have had down years.

Quit trying to spin it as the bears, the pats....

ToppsCo1lector · November 9, 2006 3:10AM

I'm not spinning, I've been saying the same thing since my first mention. The bears have had a comfy schedule while the Giants have had one of the toughest. Prove me wrong Ax, I've got stats that backup my claims you're just throwing your opinion about like it carries weight.

ToppsCo1lector · November 9, 2006 3:11AM

Where's your proof Ax?

Here's mine....
2006 Strength Of Schedule
Team Winning Percentage Opp. Total Wins Opp. Total Losses
Saints .566 145 111
Buccaneers .550 132 108
Giants .543 139 117
Bengals .543 139 117
Steelers .531 136 120

WinPitcher · November 9, 2006 3:12AM

Ax no one has disputed what you said. yes the records of the teams that the giants played thus far this yr is below 500, However that was not what Topps was saying. he was saying that the schedule is made from what the teams did the previous year. No spin, just a miscommunication. Now stown has said that the NFL no longer does that so while what Topps and i said no longer may be correct it simply was what we were saying at the time.

Understand?

Steve

stown · November 9, 2006 4:30AM

<< stown-

(a) why are you putting your nose in this debate? (b) who cares about the Pats? I never mentioned them, and if you want to look into their schedule, have at it.

THIS IS ABOUT THE GIANTS. >>

(a) Why are you trying to be the forum police? I can post when I want, where I want.

(b) You don't control the debates. The Pats have been brought up numerous times in this thread in counter-point to your claims. I am pointing out your flawed argument.

And you can only discuss the Giants in this thread? You, the biggest derailing poster on this forum, are a hypocrite.

Giants will not upset the Bears

Comments