"Giant" Cheaters?

[Marc]

From: http://profootball.about.com/sports/profootball/library/weekly/aa011601.htm

According to the Globe and Mail, a newspaper out of the Toronto area, there are serious charges around the league that the New York Giants have been cheating by listening in on radio broadcasts between opposing coaches and players, therefore, having advance warning on every play the opponents run against them.

Reportedly the Philadelphia Eagles were the first team to complain to the commissioner's office about the alleged cheating. The Vikings also joined in the complaint after being dissected by the Giants Sunday.

Rumors around the league also claim the NFL is trying to cover up the incident since the Giants have qualified for the NFC's slot in the Super Bowl.

What do you guys think of this? I don't want to accuse the Giants of cheating, but beating a good Vikings team 41-0?

[DiamondDave]

I don't agree that it was a "good" Vikings team...

The Vikings were a uni-dimentional team that struggles against teams with a good offense and at least a capable defense...

Believe it the best 2 offensive teams that the Vikes played all year were the Bills and the Giants... yet they had the 28th ranked defense, with only San Fran, Seattle and Arizona ranked worse... when Cincy and Cleveland have a better defense than you, it is a bad thing....

Even on offense the Vikes were not all that and a bag of chips... yes they have Moss and Carter... but once again, Robert Smith was getting banged up with little injuries, and getting less effective in the late season... Culpepper was a beneficiary of the Moss/Carter duo and is not as good as his stas make him look. And by the end of the season, teams were starting to figure him out (plus look at the T.O. that boy gives up, looks like Tony Banks, who has the worst T.O. ratio in QB history).. plus the O line is big, but not talented across the board...

Also the Vikings were the worst of the playoff teams with 30 whole sacks, and their 18 total takeaways were the WORST in the NFL (and had a -10 turnover differential)...

Al this together sort of explains why the Vikings finished the last part of the season under .500 (which is about where they should have been in all reality)... this team was not worthy of being in the championship game... so a 41-0 blowout may have been a bit unexpected (I picked a 38 - 24 victory for the Giants) because of the offensive hype of the Vikings... but with proper preparation, the Giants underestimated skill, the Giants matching up as a team that the Vikes historically don't play well against, the great start with a very quick TD and the immediate turnover, and the quitter attitude of Moss and others can easliy be attributed as the causes of the blowout...

just my opinon and observation.. I could be wrong

[Marc]

Good points, but were the Vikes really *bad* enough to lose 41-0? The answer is probably not. The Vikes may have a weak defense, but they were good enough to go 11-5.

[Wedge231]

I dunno what to think. It is entirely possible that the Giants may cheat. I didn't think they were really that good in the first place and to win 41-0 looks like something is wrong.

[DiamondDave]

I personally think that the Vikings were lucky to go 11-5... I know, I know, all that matters is the record... but the Vikes did not have a hard schedule and struggled against good teams... teams with good defenses (Miami, New England, Tampa, Buffalo) they averaged they only averaged 21.6 PPG instead of 24.81. and the ones of that group with truly formidable defenses held them to an even lower average... also the Vikings only played 2 of the top offensive teams all of the regular season, yet wielded a whopping 23.18 PPG (and the majority of their opponents ranked very low offensively: Miami 26th, Detroit 27th, Dallas 25th, Arizona 24t, Chicago 23rd, New England 22nd, Tampa 21st, Carolina 20th)...

The Vikes got a very quick start against some poorly balanced or offensive teams... and when the real competition came around, they had a sub .500 record... against the teams they played with over .500 records they had a 4-5 record with those wins coming against Tampa (1), Detroit (2) and Miami (1)... against playoff teams they faired 2-3...

Were the Vikes bad enough to lose 41-0.. the consesnus says no... mainly because of the offense, but certainly not because of the defense or their record against good teams... now with the Quitter, crybaby attitude of Moss and the demoralizing quick strikes (and the carrer poor performance history and coaching of Deny Green), the team seemed to give up early (sealing their fate)...

[Tom Baker]

But Minnesota's playoff record in big games is less than remarkable...but I think everyone was stunned by the level of domination displayed by the Giants in that game. It's certainly not impossible...then again, it could be sour grapes.

[Rick Dogg]

2 words.....Sore Losers. The Vikings are just making excuses. They played similar to Ohio State in their bowl game, like they didnt care.

[Wedge231]

I disagree. When was the last time the Vikings lost 41-0 in the playoffs against a team like the Giants?

[DiamondDave]

Originally posted by Wedge231
I disagree. When was the last time the Vikings lost 41-0 in the playoffs against a team like the Giants?

Does anything from the distant past have any bearing on the Vikes that played the Giants? No

This Vikings team was over hyped. They were pittiful on defense against mostly crappy offensive teams. And they did not play any complete team this year, besides Buffalo (who managed to lose at any cost against everybody).

This Vikes team, with that aweful a defense should have at most won 9 games, and should have more realistically been an 8-8 or a sub .500 team. Everyone talked about the Rams D being bad, but this Vikes team took the cake. The reason Griffith is a pro-bowler is because he gets toms of tackles that the LB's and DL should have taken care of. And the bad thing is that the Vikings will probably get worse before they get beter. They are not in a good salary cap situation.

[Wedge231]

I know but still, how do you lose 41-0 to the GIANTS!?!?!

[DiamondDave]

OK... just for instance

Team With 5th Ranked Defense and 13th Ranked Offense

Plays

The Team with the 5th Ranked Offense and 28th Ranked Defense

Not really an advantage to the Vikings, even from that crude analysis

NEWSFLASH: The Vikings were more hype than substinance, people.

[Wedge231]

Okay, no sense in aruging anymore.

[Rick Dogg]

When will the Giants finally get the respect they diserve? Come on guys, I dont think it is fair to call them a bad team anymore.

[Wedge231]

I live in New York and know what goes on. And I like them a lot to but I don't think they really deserve to be in the Super Bowl. Weren't a lot of teams better than them? Well, maybe they just worked very hard and made it. I don't know but with these allegations on cheating I'm very confused.

[DiamondDave]

Originally posted by Wedge231
I live in New York and know what goes on. And I like them a lot to but I don't think they really deserve to be in the Super Bowl. Weren't a lot of teams better than them? Well, maybe they just worked very hard and made it. I don't know but with these allegations on cheating I'm very confused.

Well.. they had the homefield advantage and (obviously) the best record in the Conference.. that has to say something.... as for better teams... many said, early in the year, that the Redskins were a better team... but assumptions are not always correct

[Tom Baker]

On the subject of the Redskins, it must be pointed out that more TALENT doesn't necessarily mean a better TEAM.

Sports history is littered with examples of all star-stocked teams that fail to gel into consistent winners. The Redskins are merely the latest example.

The Giants may not be full of talent, but they play well together. When their coach guaranteed the playoffs, they responded, and how.