FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Excellent article. Too many people are hopping on the Giants bandwagon. Although Denver is possibly the most important game of the year so far for the packers. Coming out of the bye week, these young players need an adrenaline shot.

If we go by your standards then the packers have not beaten anyone either. They have played 2 teams with a record above 500 and one you claim are only there because of a the bad teams they have played. This is what people do jump on and off band wagons and sport writers are no different, but to your point. Is the packers a better team than the giants? The answer would be yes only because of head to head play, but would they win a second time around I am not so sure. It is sometimes better to be lucky than good. You caught the chargers when they were'nt playing good football either. Statistics dont always define what is right. In looking at common opponents the packers scored 33 points while giving up 27 the giants scored 40 and gave up less 20 when you look at the redskins and eagles since both team have played them. It is a long season just sit in watch and when it is all over the cream will rise to the top.

Good point, Laidbackfan. I'm not normally sucked into the who's better than whom debates, but I just got mad as I read that Clark Judge article last night for some reason.

I agree with you laidbackfan but the point that the waterboy is trying to make is that to this point the Giants have similar records against other opponents at 4-1, they both beat the common opponenets Washington and Philadelphia and though they were close scores for the Packers because those both happened to be Favre's two bad games this season they reveal just how good Green Bay's championship defense is and the Packers beat the Giants head to head, in New York, by a double digit margin, yet right now, not at the end of the season, right now the experts are all jumping on the Giants bandwagon for power rankings and analysis of who the best teams are. The Giants excuse for being a great team at 4-1 is not that they started the season slow, they started the season just fine, it's that they faced the two best teams in the NFC to start it and lost but they rose to 4-2 after playing other teams. if they are so great for only losing to the two best teams in the NFC how are they then one of the two best. If the Jags had lost to the Colts and Pats rather than the Colts and Titans, then could you say you don't have confidence in Payton Manning's stats being down (like people don't have confidence in the Packers running game) this year so the best two teams in the AFC are the Pats and Jags, it doesn't make sense, yet when it makes a New York team look good it suddenly makes sense and beating another team head to head when you both have two of the best records in the conference means nothing(Playoffs?!). The best record in the NFC will be determined on November 29th no matter what the experts say, it just hurt that the experts have so little respect for a team that they destroy the competitive ideals that our current competitive structure is completely founded on just to call another team better. And some experts are also calling the Chargers whom the Packers also beat and are only 3-3 better than the Packers because they play in the "superior" AFC and they got off to a slow start on offense, which was really just starting the year against four very good defenses(Healthy bears, NE, GB, and KC) and still beating one of them. As an avid Cardinals baseball fan not only was last years WS win beautiful but it perfectly pointed out a fact that was needed to be proven and was cleverly placed on a fan's sign, "experts are idoits".

honestly though, I was ticked too when Judge said - Giants-Cowboys whoever wins will be the best team in the NFC

But you think about it, doesn't it make sense though?

For now, the packing order should be:

1. Dallas
2. Green Bay
3. NYG

If #1 wins, they stay at #1. But if #3 beats #1, can't they make themselves a case for being the #1 team in the NFC?

It makes sense.

They both have inflated records and are average teams. Between the two of them, Green Bay is better.

Its all about which is more interesting to talk about. Which place creates the most buzz, Green Bay or New York? For the most part these "experts" give the most time to the big cities and the big teams. A great example of this when the Colts and the Patriots play its going to be hyped so much it's going to be like there is no other game going on that week. What I'm trying to get at is the majority of these experts are going to play to where the majority of their audience comes from, and that is NYC. However, Green Bay is by far the better football team, right now

Another good point, Sunman.

Sunman, its not true because if the Giants beat the Cowboys then the Packers still have a better record than the Giants and still beat them head to head so the Giants playing the Cowboys earlier and winnning one of the games doesn't null that it just moves the Packers to #1 in the NFC, now if the Packers then lose to the Cowboys on Nov. 29 there will be a conversation and an interesting knot of similar opponent and Conference record tiebreakers, of course assuming they continue to have similar records in all of the other games this year. Either way right now the Packers are a better team and there is no sensible way to explain the Giants being better right now, especially considering how as a culture we have determined to reveal the best competitors in a situation, except just because; yet every expert from commentors on CBS to the experts making the power rankings on ESPN,SI, Fox Sports, NFL.com, USA Today, Sporting News, or any "expert" discussion of the best teams in the NFC occuring right now, they are all calling the Giants better than the Packers.