Jump to content
SportsWrath

Big_Tony

Members
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Big_Tony

  1. With the possible exception of a good O-Lineman (or two) in the mid-to-later rounds, I'm pretty sure we'll emphasize defense in the draft -- free-agency, too. But you shouldn't discount the importance of offense. I'm sure the Bears won't.
  2. Defense doesn't always win Super Bowls. Take Super Bowl XXV as an example -- it proved the old adage that "the best defense is a good offense."
  3. We had this same conversation last year, when you were certain that Willie Joe would be cut. Once was enough for me. Eat shit and die, you racist piece of crap, and don't ever call me your friend. Enjoy #94 starting next year.
  4. Joseph needs a better partner than Clancy (or Robbins, or Allen); a more complimentary player. Controlling the line of scrimmage is paramount and that, first and foremost, is the job of our front four. As for the "FAB 4," there's an old rabbinical saying: "If one man says to thee, 'Thou art a donkey," do not mind. If two speak thus, purchase a saddle for thyself."
  5. Defense begins at the point-of-attack, at DT, with pressure up the middle...which we were sorely lacking last season, especially when Joseph got hurt. I'm hoping we go DT in the 1st Round (2nd Round at the latest).
  6. Absolutely. Why would you want a running back -- Barber, Ward, and Jacobs aren't enough for you? And in the 1st Round? Gee...and I thought I was the one doing bong hits. Anyway...if we go LB in the 1st Round I'd be happy with Ernie Sims, D'Qwell Jackson, Abdul Hodge...Ryans, Carpenter, Greenaway. They're all good, and God knows we can use the help. But there are also LB's that I'd like to see us target in the middle rounds, too -- guys like Spencer Havner, Gerris Wilkerson...hell, even Rocky McIntosh (just to make Money happy). I'd like to see us grab two LB's in the first five rounds. Like I said, we can use the help.
  7. Man, did you see D'Brickashaw Ferguson's arms? He's like the Robot from Lost In Space!
  8. Yup. After we took the opening kick-off to mid-field. Now, I really don't know what would've happened...whether or not the Giants would've won...after all, there was a whole game left to be played...but my gut tells me that had we scored that TD we probably would have.
  9. If you do, I'll turn this bus around and that'll be the end of your little field trip! Oh...sorry. I channelled Chris Farley there for a moment. Carry on.
  10. No. Putting your best people on the field at the positions for which they're best suited is your strategy. How you deploy them once they're there is tactical, and that will change depending on the situation -- down and distance, for example -- and the personnel deployed against you, say, 4 WR's. To expand on your Bills analogy, Parcells' defensive strategy in Super Bowl XXV was to play a 2-5 for most of the game. Flexibility is fine if you have to be flexible. If you don't, then who cares? The bottom line is that there is no evdience -- empirical or anecdotal -- that a 3-4 defense is better than a 4-3.
  11. Too bad. If it weren't for all his limitations, Hulk Hogan might've had a decent career. Oh...wait...
  12. Yeah, that one play set the tempo. Plax makes that catch and it's a quick dagger in the heart of the 'Skins...and on their turf. Instead, Tiki gets stuffed on the next play and Eli looks goofy on 3rd and long. Talk about the wind coming out of your sails. They never recovered.
  13. Yes, we are not equipped to play a 3-4, but you are incorrect in stating that your defensive scheme is not a strategy or a tactic. Of course it's a strategy -- it's step one for deciding how you're going to stop opposing teams from scoring with the personnel you have available. Strategy always dictates tactics, not the other way around, so, you don't play a 3-4 just so you can run stunts with your linebackers, you play it because you have linebackers who can be effective running stunts -- you play it because you have the personnel for it. It is neither more or less effective than a 4-3 -- it's simply different, strategically. Flexibility is a fine thing, but it is not the only thing. Remember the line from Goodfellas, "Paulie might've moved slow, but Paulie didn't have to move for anybody." If you're so dominating that they can't stop you even when they know you're coming you don't need much flexibility. You just hammer them into submission. And since when is "the TE as a power receiving threat" a new thing? You never heard of Mark Bavaro?
  14. Fair enough. Frankly, I think he will start at one CB spot next year, regardless of who the Giants sign or draft.
  15. I peaked with Madden '93 for Sega Genesis. Anyway, like Hendrix said, "if six turns out to be nine, I won't mind." As long as the Giant defense is kicking ass and taking names, I don't care how their front seven are positioned.
  16. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph -- where do these cetrioles come from? You see, Money? You see why I'd rather identify as "Klingon" instead of "Italian?" And you thought it was because of all the Mafia references. Well, guess again.
  17. I'd love to see the Giants have success with a 3-4 -- I remember the glory days with LT. But it's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so, that's that. As long as Big Blue is stuffing the run, stopping the pass, and scaring the Hell out of opposing QB's, they can play a 4-3, 3-4, 2-5, whatever.
×
×
  • Create New...