Let's run through one more mailbag in anticipation of the biggest game on the planet.
Why wasn't Bill Parcells elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame?
–Derek, East Bridgewater, Mass.
It would have been harmonious for Parcells to get the call this weekend when two of his brightest former assistant coaches are leading their teams to the Super Bowl. Bottom line, Parcells is a Hall of Famer for his Super Bowl success and his accomplishments with the Giants, Patriots, Jets, Cowboys and Dolphins.
While I was definitely surprised Parcells wasn't inducted Saturday, I understand the sentiment from those who voted against him. Apparently, there was a concern from the selection committee that Parcells will eventually return to the NFL as a front-office member, perhaps as a team president. And that committee really doesn't want to induct someone who will eventually serve in that same role later on.
Also, Parcells' job-hopping works against him to an extent, which is a double-edged sword. He deserves credit for resuscitating those teams, but legacies are always given more credit when a player or coach remains with one team for their entire career.
Again, I thought Parcells deserved to get elected Saturday, and I don't need vouch for him by running through his bevy of accolades. That stuff has already been well-defined, and there's no arguing against his accomplishments. But I can at least see where the committee is coming from, even though I don't agree with their decision.
Jeff, it seems like Rob Gronkowski is going to be OK to play in the Super Bowl, and the press is making more about it than it actually is. What are your thoughts?
–Tom, Allen, Texas
Yeah, Gronkowski will play, and that was my belief all along. However, it is a big deal that one of the league's greatest stars is suffering from an injury that has derailed a lot of players' seasons. I understand the sentiment from the fan base that they're sick of hearing about the storyline, but there's always one or two stories that take over the two weeks of hype. Side note, just imagine how crazy the Harbaugh brothers story would have been if the Ravens and 49ers played in this game.
One other thing I never realized, since this was my first Super Bowl, everyone in the media is so insanely busy all week that it's hard to get a grasp of what stories have gone crazy back home, or elsewhere. Obviously, I knew the Gronkowski story was a big one, and I probably wrote five stories about it last week, but it's nearly impossible for reporters to pay attention to how everyone else has been covering this event. So, I guess that's the perspective from out here.
Many people have said in 2007 when Pats beat the Giants in Week 17, we were all about the long ball, and then the Giants adjusted for that in the Super Bowl, and they beat us. Well, this year everyone says that we're all about the short passing game. The Giants beat us this November already. What do you see as our offensive approach now? Keep it the same and just have the Pats study film, and see how they can improve?
–Len, Leominster, Mass.
Sunday won't be so much about the long, intermediate or short passing game. Rather, it will be about containing the Giants' pass rush, and we'll see how they've adjusted to that this time around. Also, the Giants did a great job of manning up the Patriots' receivers and tight ends in Week 9, and that was the stretch of the season when the Patriots struggled with man-press coverages. Eventually, they worked their way out of that funk, so we'll see how successful the Giants can be with that strategy this time.
Coughlin has drawn up some tremendous game plans against Bill Belichick. This one will be interesting, but I think the Giants are going to be able to disguise some more things this time around, maybe by pressing at the line and dropping into a zone look and stuff like that. It's going to be a great chess match.
I have this awful fear that the Patriots defense is going to get stuck on the field for 40 minutes because of their inability between the 20s. What can they do to keep the Giants' offense off the field?
–Ken, Hooksett, N.H.
Well, the defense has played better in the playoffs, but it's definitely a concern against a very well-balanced Giants offense that has so many weapons. But first, 40 minutes is a huge number in terms of time of possession. I'd be stunned if they controlled the ball that effectively.
It's got to be a complementary effort, though. I think the Patriots will work on containment first, trying to keep from allowing big plays and force the Giants to slowly work their way down the field. Eventually, they've got to hope Eli Manning makes an Eli Manning-type of mistake, as he did with his end-zone interception in Week 9. Manning has been really good this season, but he's still not perfect. The Patriots have to bank on that and try to pressure him with a solid push up the middle from the defensive tackles like Vince Wilfork, Kyle Love and Gerard Warren, and then hope Mark Anderson can keep making noise as a rush linebacker.
The Patriots' offense bears responsibility, too. Tom Brady and company are better when they push the pace with the no-huddle, so I think an effort to slow down the pace would be a mistake, even if that lends the Giants the edge in time of possession. But Brady needs to do his best to turn this game into something of a shootout, or at least force the Giants to rely on their passing game as much as possible. If the Giants can stay balanced on offense, it will make things much more difficult for the Patriots' defense.
When the Pats win, do Albert Haynesworth, Brandon Tate, Brandon Meriweather, Leigh Bodden, Taylor Price, etc. get a ring?
–Jim, Manchester, N.H.
Good question. I believe the rule is if a player was on the roster for eight games, they're eligible for a Super Bowl ring, but I'm not sure if that's a black-and-white argument or if the team owner is allowed to use his own discretion. At any rate, that would almost certainly rule out Tate, Meriweather and anyone else who got bagged after training camp, and it would rule out Bodden, too. If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, I'll look into it further this week to see about Haynesworth, Price and a few others.
The great debate about Tom Brady is, "Is Tom Brady the best of all-time?" If you ask me, that measuring stick is Joe Montana. Brady has equaled him in postseason wins (16) and is now in his fifth Super Bowl (three wins with a potential fourth on the way) to Montana's four rings. Montana had Jerry Rice. Brady had (until 2007) a cast of average players by most standards and has three rings in that time. Since adding guys like Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Gronkowski, he has been nothing short of ridiculousness, adding two more Super Bowl appearances. What is your take on where Brady ranks among the elite quarterbacks?
–Tim Philbrook, Beverly, Mass.
If Brady wins Super Bowl XLVI, he's neck and neck with Montana, who actually told NFL Network this week he believes Brady is already the best of all-time, which is a heck of a statement from him. I went completely in depth on this exact storyline earlier in the week, so check that out for a much longer answer. Bottom line, if the Patriots win, Brady will be on pace to be known as the greatest ever. If the Patriots lose, it's hard to make that argument in favor of a guy who lost two Super Bowls to the same quarterback. That doesn't mean I think Eli Manning is better than Brady, but I think it makes it more difficult to argue in Brady's favor. No matter what happens, Brady should still go down as one of the five greatest ever.
Have a question for Jeff Howe? Send it to him via Twitter at @jeffphowe or send it here. He will pick a few questions to answer every week for his mailbag.
