Will the fast track indoors a huge factor?

[UniHamachi]

Are the Giants a fast enough team to gain an edge from playing in Lucas Oil Stadium?  I heard Strahan saying that the turf will give Osi and JPP an edge in rushing because the turf will allow them to make violent cuts and allow them to exploit their quickness and speed advantage.

Eli's numbers are better on turf than grass throughout the season including playoffs.  None of the stats are earth shatteringly different, but the numbers are a little better across the board.  7 points higher passer rating on turf.

Of course, the turf gives Cruz and Nicks extra ability to cut in and out of their breaks and allows Manningham an opportunity to outrun defenders.

The Giants have only played two games in a dome this year (including the horrible loss to the Saints) while the Pats have played zero, so there isn't much to go on.

• Tweet

[jimmyz]

The Giants are plenty fast on both sides of the ball.

[MightyGiants]

I have been saying all along this will be a big factor in favor of the Giants.   The biggest weakness on the Pats is the secondary and one of the biggest strengths of the Giants is the WR.   A fast track means the Giants WRs should get open quicker.  You already covered why it helps the Giants on defense.

[PSUBeirut]

Definitely a nudge for the Giants.  Although Welker is pretty scary on a fast track too- his cuts are ridiculous.

[BlueMoshik]

Everybody is playing on the same turf, I see no advantage to either side. You could make the argument that the worse the turf and weather are, the advantage goes to the team with the best receivers, because their skills allow them to overcome the elements (this to me helps explain the Giants win over the 49ers). Once everyone is indoors, all bets are off, as long as no team has home field advantage- as is the case here.

In other words, whether the Giants or Patriots win will have no relation to the turf.

We are just looking for stuff to talk about because this bye week is pointlessly and insufferably long. Once the game starts we won't be thinking about all this side stuff.

[vette]

I think it gives Wes Welker an edge too.

"The Giants have only played two games in a dome this year (including the horrible loss to the Saints)"

That loss still haunts my memory.

[UniHamachi]

I don't think the Pats Dline will have any real advantage on turf because they don't have speed edge rushers like the Giants do.  And the Pats secondary is overmatched as it is -- allowing the Giants receivers to gain extra speed on carpet makes that matchup even more lopsided.  The Pats receivers aren't as fast.  I think the surface is a factor here.

[MightyGiants]

I don't think the Pats Dline will have any real advantage on turf because they don't have speed edge rushers like the Giants do.  And the Pats secondary is overmatched as it is -- allowing the Giants receivers to gain extra speed on carpet makes that matchup even more lopsided.  The Pats receivers aren't as fast.  I think the surface is a factor here.

Exactly, the biggest over all weakness of the Pats is team speed and ideal conditions will only make it worse.

[BlueMoshik]

I don't understand the logic behind what you're saying. Ideal conditions are the same for everybody. It's not like it would make one team faster than the other team. It would make everybody faster. If the Giants receivers are faster than the Pats receivers, that would be true on every kind of turf. It makes more sense to say that a bad playing field gives an advantage to the faster players, because they can overcome the conditions. But perfect conditions affect (or don't affect) everyone equally.

The turf will have NOTHING to do with who wins the game, fellas.

[UniHamachi]

The team with speed will be helped by the turf.  The team without speed will see little advantage because it is not a factor in their play. 

An OLineman will not see any advantage to playing on turf.  But a speed rusher will.  The Giants have speed rushers.  The Pats don't.

So it is not a wash for both teams.

[MightyGiants]

I don't understand the logic behind what you're saying. Ideal conditions are the same for everybody. It's not like it would make one team faster than the other team. It would make everybody faster. If the Giants receivers are faster than the Pats receivers, that would be true on every kind of turf. It makes more sense to say that a bad playing field gives an advantage to the faster players, because they can overcome the conditions. But perfect conditions affect (or don't affect) everyone equally.

The turf will have NOTHING to do with who wins the game, fellas.

Look at it this way BM, the receivers are trying to get separation and the faster they can run the quick and the greater the degree of separation.    If you have two people walking, the first is walking 1 mile an hour and the second one is walking 2 miles an hour.   In a half an hour the two runners will be half a mile apart.   Now if you take one car going 50 miles an hour and the other car goes twice as fast, just like the walkers, at 100 mph, in that same half an hour the two cars will be 25 miles apart.   So as you can see the faster the players the bigger the separation over the same period of time.

[spiderblue43]

In this case, I think we may an edge with the pass rush over the mush in SF (the real city by the bay). But that's it. It's about executing, staying on point and avoiding mental mistakes that could lead to turnovers for the Pats.

But a fast turf can make a difference-like the Saints in the Thunderdome. They were unstoppable all year there. Not here as much.

[bldevil]

I don't understand the logic behind what you're saying. Ideal conditions are the same for everybody. It's not like it would make one team faster than the other team. It would make everybody faster. If the Giants receivers are faster than the Pats receivers, that would be true on every kind of turf. It makes more sense to say that a bad playing field gives an advantage to the faster players, because they can overcome the conditions. But perfect conditions affect (or don't affect) everyone equally.

The turf will have NOTHING to do with who wins the game, fellas.

Look at it this way BM, the receivers are trying to get separation and the faster they can run the quick and the greater the degree of separation.    If you have two people walking, the first is walking 1 mile an hour and the second one is walking 2 miles an hour.   In a half an hour the two runners will be half a mile apart.   Now if you take one car going 50 miles an hour and the other car goes twice as fast, just like the walkers, at 100 mph, in that same half an hour the two cars will be 25 miles apart.   So as you can see the faster the players the bigger the separation over the same period of time.

Precisely.  And jsut a couple of feet of separation often make the difference between a completion or an incompletion.

The turf gives an edge to WRs because they have the first-mover advantage.  The CBs have a half-beat delay to match the WRs move.  How fast can you separate given that minor delay?

Same argument on defense.  On turf, the Giants speed rushers are a half-beat slower, giving the offense more time.  If you're a slow-moving behemoth, you're better off in mud.

[ViewFromSection129]

  I don't think there is any question that the turf helps the Giants.  Fast TE's will be helped as well, yes, but they are not as fast as fast WR's.  Considering the Giants' penchant for big plays, many of which are catches and runs, I would be a little surprised if the Giants didn't have a small handful of big gainers Sunday.  Welker is more quick than fast in my eyes, and his 99 yd TD earlier this year aside, is not as big of a play guy as a great possession guy.

  Same goes on defense.  I would be shocked if Osi, JPP, Tuck, etc are not Freeney-esque and Mathis-esque on the Indy turf, showing incredible speed.  NE does not have the same speed the Giants do on defense. 

  I think intangibles are on NE's side (revenge factor, everyone picking the Giants to win, etc), but I don't see how the Giants cannot score 30 in this game, and if the Giants' d-line is on, I think they make it tough for Brady to score 30.  Plus, I think the crowd is likely to be 60/40 minimum for the Giants (Indy fans will be rooting for the "other" Manning and hate NE) which will be an advantage.

[BlueMoshik]

I really fear the unpredictable stuff. We can't script the game depending just on how they match up. I worry about early mistakes on defense that allow NE to get a couple of quick scores. Or on offense, one tipped ball and a pick six. Suddenly you can be down 14-0 or 21-0 and the game hasn't even really started. And you are in a hole.

Call me fearful, but I can't help it.