Comments on: The Aftermath http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/ People don't think it be like it is, but it do. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:04:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Gonzo http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-993 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:30:42 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-993 They were the better team, they were at home, they had the HOF QB, the weather favored them (Favre was 34-5 when temp < 34 degrees) yet, as you noted, they should have lost by 20. IMO, when you lose a game to a clearly inferior team, that is choking. Not Yankees in '04 choking, but choking nonetheless... They were the better team, they were at home, they had the HOF QB, the weather favored them (Favre was 34-5 when temp < 34 degrees) yet, as you noted, they should have lost by 20.

IMO, when you lose a game to a clearly inferior team, that is choking. Not Yankees in ‘04 choking, but choking nonetheless…

]]> by: shtiny http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-992 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:43:18 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-992 Choked? That isn't the right word. They were beaten... Choking is when you are up by 14 points going into the fourth and blow it. Choked? That isn’t the right word. They were beaten… Choking is when you are up by 14 points going into the fourth and blow it.

]]> by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-986 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:19:52 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-986 So... you're with Gonzo: The Packers choked? So… you’re with Gonzo: The Packers choked?

]]> by: shtiny http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-984 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:36:33 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-984 OK..... 3 hurries, no sacks, no knockdowns in 35 pass attempts. I would say Clifton and Tauscher more than held there own against Osi and Strahan. Packers should have rolled, but the QB played an awful game, McCarthy was outcoached, and Burriss abused Harris. I said above that the Giants should have won by 20, but that has nothing to do with the play of the D-Line against the pass. Favre had plenty of time. OK….. 3 hurries, no sacks, no knockdowns in 35 pass attempts. I would say Clifton and Tauscher more than held there own against Osi and Strahan.

Packers should have rolled, but the QB played an awful game, McCarthy was outcoached, and Burriss abused Harris. I said above that the Giants should have won by 20, but that has nothing to do with the play of the D-Line against the pass. Favre had plenty of time.

]]> by: Gonzo http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-982 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:22:37 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/the-aftermath/#comment-982 "If you look at my post “Today’s Matchup” you will see that all I basically said was that the main strength of the Giants was their ability to pressure the quarterback, and that the Packers have two stud offensive tackles that would neutralize that strength. The D-backs of the Giants were banged up and Favre should have a field day." What about your smack talk in email, where you said Giants were "below average" and Packers "will roll". And just to nitpick, there were at least 3 hurries on Favre (i'll have to check tape to see if there were more), one of which led to the first INT (of course, McQuarters coughed it right back up, but still...) “If you look at my post “Today’s Matchup” you will see that all I basically said was that the main strength of the Giants was their ability to pressure the quarterback, and that the Packers have two stud offensive tackles that would neutralize that strength. The D-backs of the Giants were banged up and Favre should have a field day.”

What about your smack talk in email, where you said Giants were “below average” and Packers “will roll”.

And just to nitpick, there were at least 3 hurries on Favre (i’ll have to check tape to see if there were more), one of which led to the first INT (of course, McQuarters coughed it right back up, but still…)

]]>