ksm7

The Dog is not sure even the Giants staff is sold on Jacobs just yet - having gone after a proven 1000 yard back in the offseason (the Dog isn't sure the Giants went out and got Drougns to have him be Jacobs back-up while they give him the ball 30 times a game...)...anyhow, Jacobs has a lot to prove this season, and it is difficult to say that he will improve the Giant's situation by replacing Barber...stopping barber went far beyond filling the gaps, and if it were that easy, he wouldn't have had the success he did in recent years...

Truthfully, the Dog is pretty sure McNabb's all around production was better then Mannings in his first three years...including two trips to the championship game...and all with arguabley the lamest receiving core assembled (who most likely dropped their fair share of passes...)...

The Dog is pretty sure that one would be wise not to count championships prior to the Super Bowl Era - the dog's reasoning is that while credit should not be taken away from the likes of the Akron Pros, the Chicago Staleys, and the Providence Steam Rollers, comparing champioship winners in an era that had few teams and no playoff system is just plain silly...

The Italian Hotdog has come to discuss Giant's football, as this appears to be the place for that...the Dog's favorite team is irrelevant to this site, and if the Dog is so compelled to discuss other teams, then the Dog will happily go to those message boards and do so... For the record, the Dog started this thread with a legitimate question, that many members here have posted thoughtful responses to absent of malice...you my dear furstrated boy chose to respond otherwise (dare the Dog say, in a snide fashion...)...

Hmmm...interesting. The Dog does recall that at the time the Giants beat them, the NFC had already won seven Super Bowls in a row, so it is safe to say that the AFC had been down for some time...That being said, you can't say that the Bills had declined so much in two years time, particularly since they made it back to the super bowl- which is an achievement in and of itself...not many teams are good enough to do that, regardless of the level of competetion...just as a point of reference, in the four years that the Bills went to the Super Bowl, they were 14-2 against NFC opponents during that stretch (including two wins against the Giants)...Not bad for a weak team playing the higher level of competetion...

if it did go over the Dog's head, then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain your theories...because the Dog is not sure how you stating that the bills were a team that made it to 4 super bowls in a row b/c the afc was weak and you stating that the year the giants beat them they were a deserving team is really quite a contradiction...but perhaps you can explain this more thoroughly...or just make bizarre accusations that are unfounded, erroneous and false...which, as the Dog is thinking about it, fits with your dizzying logic...

Well this discussion is way off topic from what the Dog had in mind, but since it has gone in this direction, the Dog would like to point out that the logic in the above argument is inane...In one breath, you are stating that the Cowboys "got a team that made it to the SB 4 yrs in a rwo cause the AFC was crap." Yet, the Giants 20-19 win over the same team in the same 4 year span was a "good game by 2 teams that were meant to be there." Question one: Please tell the Dog which catagory fits the Bills: a weak team that was in the super bowl 4 years in a row b/c the AFC was crap, or a team that plays hard and was deserving to be there?? If the "real super bowl" was played the game before in the Championship game, then one can only assume that the cowboys won a hard fought game between two teams that deserved to be there, and thus, proved to be the best team a week sooner...all deduced using your strained logic... if the bills were "used and abused" going into the super bowl, then how could the afc be so weak?? Truely yours is a dizzying logic...

Interesting point - as a student, the Dog would have loved your grading scale...a place where you can fail 83% of the time, but since you make progress each test, you get an A+... For clarification, the Dog suggests failure for losses...perhaps unfair... Be that as it may, your points have been aknowledged...

The Dog is not asking you to say anything you don't want to say...quite simply, if you feel that it is unfair to put a timetable on a QB's progress, then so be it...The Dog humbley disagrees, as in todays day and age in the NFL, with free agency being what it is, teams have less time to develop players in key positions...that being said, the Dog doesn't have an issue with Manning being deserving of more then 3 years to gauge progress...the Dog is simply looking for opinions on the matter... As for your "Team Sport" comment - the Dog concurs, which is one reason that the trade was a poor management move...

Few are able to fully comprehend the elegant beauty that is the Italian Hotdog...there have been a few noted instances when individuals have fainted in awe in the Dog's presence...these are truely moments that are most memorable...

clearly you are taking a simple discussion into something it is not...the Dog isn't suggesting that anyone give up on a team as you are suggesting....the Dog suggests having someone near by you read the question out loud to you as you read it silently to yourself to better process what is being asked... As for Tony Romo, the Dog finds him relevant to this discussion only in so much as the question can also apply to him - how long is reasonable to give him to prove his value... For the record, the Dog is neither a giants or cowboys fan...The Italian Hotdog does wonder of you have an opinion to the original question, or do you just enjoy provoking irrelevant banter in the hopes of stirring up trouble....

Untrue...the Dog could place a number of names in place of Manning (i.e., Culpepper, Vick, Alex Smith...) and the question remains...what makes this more intriguing is that Manning was part of a poor trade that increased his value before he took the field, and well, with this being a Giants message board and all, the Dog figured he should stick to that topic...

ask a harmless and serious question, and the dog get's this type of odd response...the dog knows bad egg from years past on the old boards...that is all... the question still stands - the dog didn;t say it was easy to drop a high priced player, particularly a QB that has so much invested in him - the Dog was wondering how long you give a player to prove his value...the dog thinks you may have stability issues...

So the Dog has noticed that there still continues to be on-going debate regarding Manning/his progress/his worth...the trade was poor management for several reasons, but being that it cannot be undone, how many years, in your opinion, do you give Manning (or any drafted QB) to prove his worth? At the time of thr trade, many said it would be clear after three years how good/or bad a move it was...now that it is three years past, Manning supporters argue that it is too soon to judge him, while those disenchanted say it's past due for him to step up...How long should a team ride it out? Time for a health shake...the Dog will be checking in periodically...Enjoy....

Last January, while the Dog was enjoying some much needed rest and relaxation following a four day excursion up the center mountain of the isle of Nevis (the Dog, as you may be aware, has made a lifetime commitment to assist in the process of saving the Nevisian Green Monkeys), a batch of rancid rasberries made it into the Dog's frozen daiqeries...both the Dog and Murray Kafloun spent several sleepless nights with intense stomach cramps the likes of which you have never experienced... the good news, as you have promised in the title of this thread, is that in the event that the Dog suffers from sleeplessness in the future, he need only re-read this thread, and the resuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

hi prince nas...the italian hotdog finds you interesting...

perhaps tom coughlin could have made a guarentee similar to that of the once loved, now shunned jim fassel, who, as you may recall, once guarenteed a playoff trip in the latter stages of the season with a winning record and a schedule that did not boast a team with a winning record remaining....the dog recalls that many were giddy that season... as for the caretaker, the dog once had a friend, robert "bob" kilmer, who took care of things in his own right - he smelled a tad of stale cocoa, and relished a mushy bananna for lunch, but let the dog tell you, that man was all business when it came to washing and waxing floors...cursed arson, killing the caretaker...

The Italian Hotdog for one is quite pleased to see that after a two year hiatus/retreat, there is still some consistency with how the message boards were left, when of course, the Dog had left his boards in prime condition at the giants site...pity they fell to pieces when the Dog was away, but it is nice to see that the masses have collected here... How are you badegg, a familiar beacon in the Dog's wide ocean...

The question begs to be asked - are you Ike Hilliard? Because the Dog is quite certain that the only person that would right an extensive post about Ike Hilliard, complete with statistics and draft placement, is Ike Hilliard...