But here’s what doesn’t make sense about this game in particular: the Patriots essentially have been a three-point favorite from the start - the smallest Super Bowl point spread in roughly 30 years - and yet most everyone outside of New England is picking the Giants. Why? Based on what? When did such a mismatch become so clear? Everything about Sunday’s game suggests that public sentiment should be split as evenly as it was in the 1960 presidential election, and yet the scale seems noticeably skewed in favor of New York.
If you don’t understand this, you’re not alone.
In New England, too, we all know how good the Giants can be. During New York’s run to the Super Bowl, the Giants have played better and more complete football than any other team in what Bill Parcells often referred to as “the tournament.” Beginning with a pair of regular season victories over the Jets and Cowboys in Weeks 16 and 17, the Giants have won five straight while allowing a measly 13.4 points per game. They have beaten the top two seeds in the NFC (the Packers and 49ers) on the road. They have beaten no team with anything worse than a .500 record.
Fine. We get it. The Giants are hot. But this is also a team with the capability to play very poorly, something everyone seems to have forgotten in the last month or so.
For example, did you know the Giants were actually outscored during the regular season? Did you know that prior to Week 16, they were a minus-38 for the year? Overall, their pass defense ranked 29th. Their rushing defense ranked 19th. Their rushing offense ranked 32nd. Simply put, there’s a reason why the Giants went 7-7 through their first 14 games, something everyone is now too readily dismissing.
So are we just supposed to chuck 14 games of history out the window?
