New England did what it does best on its first drive, picked New York apart to go up 7-3. But for most of the half, the Giants have been the better team.
The problem for New York is that it is in danger of going the road of the San Diego Chargers. Move the ball all you want outside the red zone, but when you get close to the end zone, this New England defense turns into a monster.
Is it me, or are the ads underwhelming?
You know you’re good (Kevin Faulk) when you get hurt and the team calls a timeout just to wait for you to walk it off and get back onto the field. Any question about how important Faulk is to this team is answered right there.
When you have this job, people are always questioning your choice of story subjects. “Why’d you write about that?“
Well, you’re talking about it, aren’t you?
But I had to ask that very question when I saw The New York Times this morning. The Times ran a story about the Patriots denying some spying allegations connected with the 2002 Super Bowl. I mean, it’s a legitimate story, but today?
Key stat — Time of possession. New York 19:27. New England 10:23.
Congrats to Howie Long for giving us one of the great sports cliches — by asking how fatigue would hurt the New England defense in the second half? What about the New York offense.
I’d say everything in this game is going New York’s way. But none of it will mean anything if they can’t get through New England’s red-zone resilience.
Anyway, here’s a question. What happens if New England stays on this route, gets outgained, loses the possession battle, but wins 10-6 or something.
They’re still the perfect team, but does it affect the way they are remembered? I don’t think so, but maybe you think differently.