Gspotter

I also read that collins wasn't released, so perhaps he's not free and clear. I believe it was a link on ESPN.com saying that he wasn't officially released. If he does get released, he'll be competing, he doesn't walk into any job. I can see the Detroit thing. As for the other opps, he'd be a back up for Green Bay or anywhere else. He'd take the right offer, he took the same one from the Raiders. I also don't know if Billick would accept him as a replacment or competitor for the healm of his team?

smart money's in Baltimore for Fassel, but cetainly not back here, not to be an instant back up. Also, not going to go to the Saints, same owner (I believe) as when KC had his last pit stop there...not a likelihood. With Pennington being retained, I'd say he's en route to GB if Favre retires. He may also be asked to back up in SD or possibly even SF. Not much chance he'll be given a team again though.

In Eli we trust

I'm not implying that an uncapped season is in direction with correlation the strike season; my assertion is that seasons like those tend to keep a stigma with the champion. Were we to assemble a powerhouse line up in a capless season, would it be tainted or not for you. I agree with the poster who said that they'd rather win on a level playing field. I'm a heritage kind of guy, not a newbie and not a guy who learned most of his football through a video game. I'd rather win with players like Stah, Tiki, and Amani (having suffered through their biggest wins and losses with them). It's not necessarily a fan mindset that jibes with FA, however, I was a fan well before FA and so that's the imprinting that worked on me.

an uncapped year created a FA free-for-all and we put together a highly unusual team of super stars. Would it be an asterisk next to that championship, like many of us put next to the Skins SB wins during the strike season? Or would it tarnish the image, somewhat like the Steve Young championship with a host of FA's, different in large part than Joe Montana's reign?

Thanks for the info, it was clearly stated and made clear that which is unecessarily messy.

I think this is a nice piece of work: comprehensive. This should be a call to action for all of our posters as to what quality can be. I don't necessarily agree with all of the assessments, but it is well thought out and well presented. We should all strive to match the quality of thought in this post, since we have so much junk on this board as well as any other.

Funny I thought you a Giants fan. It is all much more clear...the good news is that despite all of your whining, we won't be drafting Cutler or any other high ticket QB's anytime soon.

I think the author of the "riveting" comment proves my point. Still in all, welcome to the MB.

welcome aboard. Frankly I couldn't care less what team you root for or teams for that matter. We have a lot of chowder heads that proport to be Giants fans and arent' very knowledgable about football. Then we also have the kids who played so much Madden now that they facy themselves as football savvy. If you're looking for good dialogue amidst a few turds, this is a good place to visit. Again, welcome. PS Still think Randy Moss is lazy and won't play much longer (out of bordome)

I'm surprised that so many people are surprised at Green's release. Dead weight and whether or not he was misdiagnosed is speculative at best. What is certain is that he's not been any kind of impact player for us. Emmons is more consistant, so he stays for a little while longer. Couldn't care less about Whittle

Forgive Floyd, he's our shame

I read you loud and clear here. Not only do I tire of people assuming to take a corrective measure with me, but i also get a kick out of (what I suspect) are Madden afficianados who equate that to playing football through college or better. It's getting re-G_d damn ridiculous

Though this is semantics, you're now confusing managment with strategy. You always put your best players on the field, that's a managment/coaching imperitive. I think that's fairly obvious however. You're strategy is how how to attack (and in many cases) defend the other team though in many cases you're just attacking. We are however in agreement on the Bill's analogy and since I've already argued that it is a strategy, you've proven my point. If we blitzed our doubled someone that would be a tactic. As for flexibility, well in scheming, it's a necessity otherwise you get picked apart. This is how you defend a QB like Peyton who has a lot of audible repsonsibilities, otherwise you have a vanilla look. I don't see this debate having much more than redundancy to it to it, so we may have to agree to disagree, though I will say that naming things properly is important and not just in the law.

I may have mistyped my intention, I don't belive that he's too slow in pads, however his 40 time is somewhat misleading, since his play in pads does seem different and (of course) he's powerful when running downhill...I don't know many RB's that aren't besides Warrick Dunn. Never the less, running high is a problem for a variety of reasons, most notably ball security (which has happened to him), drive (he doens't run over his feet), and then there's the angles that he hasn't taken since the Cleveland game. Judging by a preseason game against the Browns, I wouldn't call that (very strong) performance and indicator of his ability in game speed against starters. You needn't convince me to like BJ, but he hasn't accomplished his assignments with great consistency. He also must not be a great blocker yet, since he's not kept in on those assignments with great frequency, though I will say that I appreciate his tenacity on special teams. Not our starter anytime soon though, his role next year: 3rd string, unless he has a wicked good camp

got to agree with Hound, I think the Denver game showed me that he could win under pressure with his arm. I've seen others glimpses too. I'm optimistic about our future. I'm hoping that our coaches have enough vision to create a system that will get us to another level. I doubt I'll ever like Huf, but then again I grew to like Fassel and I hated him in the beginning. Good things are a coming, but it may be 2 years off.

I liked that one. Of course, I've been waiting for someone to remark about that one. Of course, a general football reference would've been too obvious though!

He's vertically fast when measured, not in pads. So, that hasn't manifested itself in preseason or otherwise. He's had the opportunity to earn more carries by accomplishing his goal line assignments. Fumbling and not getting in when that's your only job makes him as valuable as Feely in his kicking performance against Seattle. He's not wasted, nor is he fully utilized, but that's not a function of might be good and sometimes gets the job done. Ward is similar to Tiki and that'll take more exposure since cut back-lane running is difficult to perefect. Tiki's done it though and we'll need to begin planning for the future. Hopefully we'll see better production and reliability from Tiki's back-ups.

I don't know what Tiki and JB run in the 40 with or without pads. Since without is irrelevant, let's go with pads. I don't see Tiki with break away speed and that's never been his moniker (sp.). I don't know where the idea that BJ has good manueverability comes from. Where was that demonstrated? He's an intriguing prospect, but I would be surpised to see him excel. He's not just tall as some proport other RB's to be. He's got a significant length to his torso which is why he struggles to get low and since his primary carries are shorts (thus far) there's not much likelyhood (for him) to out maneuver defenders (assuming he could). I'm not ready to throw him away and frankly, I like him better than Ward. The challenge (as I see it) is that we have a Ward and a Jacobs and we need a hybrid to compliment Tiki. Running style are not easily adapted to by OL, especially when they're used to the TIki style of running. I'd say Brandon is our big hope and as of yet, he's only shown himself worthy to be on the team. He did not earn more carries just yet. Perhaps necessity will intervene, but I sure hope not.

Jacobs may be an impact player if he learns not to take big hits below his pads. He's awfully tall to avoid them. I'd say that he's going to struggle. i hope not, but the only time he looked good was in preseason against the Browns when he had some time to gain speed. I like him, but he's clumsy looking and our utilization of him is unfortunate. it's not just a matter of carries, it's the type. Also, I'll never be convinced of why he and Tiki can't occupy the same backfield. BJ is so big you'd loose Tiki before he hits the shuffle of the line. I like BJ, but he may wind up being a Hulk Hogan: big, limited, and without manuevarbility. That's right, I used a Hulk Hogan reference

All this is true, though I believe TL was quoted as saying he wanted to implement some 3-4 looks, but that never materialzed. Truly, there isn't a best defense, it's really the best defense for the situation, but of course, that (as you, me, and others have identified) is dictated by personnel.

I think we're splitting hairs here. Our scheme is dictated upon personnel otherwise we would easily convert to a 3-4. Teams have base defenses and that's their scheme. How to attack a teams strength is your strategy and that changes from game to game, what tactics you employ (as you've accurately depicted) is a result of your strategy. A strategy is to entice Thurman Thomas to run more than let Jim Kelly pass. The tactic to do so was to drop into deeper coverage and give up the underneath. Flexibility in scheming is what I propose and the 3-4 (IMO) gives us that. It's easier to converat to a 4-3 than a 3-4. I don't propose to be loose in our stopping of the pass or the run, I mean the flexibility that is exemplified by defenses like the Pats for whom I have endless admiration and envy

Depends on the TE, not all are the same and Shock draws more attention than say the TE for Cleveland. Dropping 8 in coverage is unlikely, however we've seen it done again by the Pats and to great affect. In a league geared towards passing and high scores, this is an effective response (at times) to perenial favs like the Colts. I wouldn't underestimate the diffenerence in scheming when you have a LB blitzing, yes, it puts 3 LB's in coverage (assuming pass) but that would be less if you sent one from the 4-3 or you'd send your saftey and then you've got LB's in deeper coverage (not optimal). Sure you could name a variety of teams employing the 4-3 to great effect: most teams play them and for a good reason. Few teams have 4 good LB's and big enough DL, so it isn't easily developed, not as easily as the 4-3. Of course it's been very effective for teams that commit to it. You just need the personnel and that's all that matters, look at Romeo (someone who knows this system well), without the personnel it was floundering in Cleveland. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but having seen it cause great problems for great Qb's, especially as a Giant fan, I prefer it.

No you don't just decide to impelement the 3-4. TL said that we would be using it though, so it's not my decision, he's the DC and he's the one that wants/wanted to have that as a partial face of our D. Yes, I've seen it done poorly. I think you're looking for a stark example of it done without the key personnel, like the Browns this year. It has, however, been difficult to defend because it's less common. Yes, Gannon struggled against the 4-3, you'll have ready examples of that since it's more prominent. It's not the only D, it's just one of the very complicated one's and though it's easy to pick apart in Madden, done properly, it's helped guide us to great heights in the past and the Pats more recently.

Jammings not always the tactic, so though it's commonplace, I don't buy your assessment of it as an axiom, especially if you talking about an LB whose not as likely to play tight. As for match-ups, assuming that you're in the right formation defensively, you may or may not be sending a blitzer. I think (again) the Pats show that they're not always blitzing. In any case if you are, then you have three back (as you've asessed) however you have a faster, outside blitzzer than a penetrating linemen. Assuming that you are trying to spread things out, you still have only a RB back to cover the obvious free man. You can counter the 3-4 with multuiple reciever threats, however not too many teams can sustain drives in the spread offense. I'd say it's happened before, but that's what adjustments are for and then the defense can start dictating, perhaps back to the 3-4. If a team is spreading then neither the 3-4 or the 4-3 are the best options. I think we've seen that with our Giants in the SB against the Bills and we've seen it more recently with the Pats of '04. I suppose that there are stats to support a number of perspectives on this and though I prefer the 3-4 that we demonstrated so well in the past, the personnel and management decisions won't support it right now. Of course, you could make the argument that the Steelers did well with their makeshift version, even if Seattle's TE could have had a decent day.