Big_Tony

I'll take a dominant defense over a dominant offense anytime. We better be picking the best available with every pick.

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.

Don't make me laugh. Serviceable running backs are a dime a dozen and the best don't win Super Bowls for you. You need only look at Tiki Barber. He was the best RB in the NFL last year and it didn't help us one bit .(see zero points in the playoffs) Defense wins Super Bowls. I want a defensive player picked with every choice we have. Build a stud unit like we had in the mid 80's. It's so easy to figure. What is EA doing ??

 

Yeah I know the Fab Four doesn't know what they are talking about. Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, !!!

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."

You have got it all wrong my friend. Clancy deserves better than that piece of Haitian trash laying next to him.

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.

Zing!

Set up...SPIKE!

You're right, we didn't get much pressure. I'm telling you that with Clancy (if resigined), Joseph, Strahan, Umenyiora and the backups, we'd be fine on the D-line if our LBers played better. My thoughts are

 

1- Outside LB

2- CB or S

3- WR

4- DT

5- LB

 

6 & 7- Offensive line depth

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."

After what we went through last season at LB and in the Secondary, if we go DT in the first in the draft, then we're not very smart. Now, if we get a shut down CB or fix the hole at S in free agency, than I'm fine with the DT.

 

But we have to get the best LB we can.

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).

The defense is priority one !! We better take the best defensive athlete available, DT, LB or CB.

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.

I'm high on Claude Wroten!

Man, did you see D'Brickashaw Ferguson's arms? He's like the Robot from Lost In Space!

Maybe he's KITM's evil twin...

Would that make him MTIK?

was that from Billy Madison?

Yup. I love that movie.

The cavalry has arrived

Garry Owen!

Wow, those is some strong stuff. What drive was this? First of the game?

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.

It is possible. You never no when we will relapse.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

I like BJ, but he may wind up being a Hulk Hogan: big, limited, and without manuevarbility.

Too bad. If it weren't for all his limitations, Hulk Hogan might've had a decent career. Oh...wait...

That's some pretty strong words there. You really stand by that? That play would've caused our defense to automatically contrain Santana Moss? We can only wonder...

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.

scheme depends on personnel and with a given roster, that's what dictates your play. So with that, we're not equipped for the 3-4, however it is a fine system (not a strategy or tactic) for creating confusion.

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.

Never the less, I think that the 3-4 is a superior system because of it's flexibility and with the advent of the TE as a power receiving threat (Gonzalez, Gates, Shock) then the middle and short field becomes a wide open target that is more difficult to navigate around the 3-4.

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?

I suppose asking KITM is out of the question.

Depends ... 3rd CBs are pretty much starters in the current game. But I think there should be much more time before we can decide if he was a worthwhile selection.

Fair enough. Frankly, I think he will start at one CB spot next year, regardless of who the Giants sign or draft.

They should use the 2-9 defense I employ when playing Madden 2006. Never fails on 3rd and long against a pass-happy opponent...

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.

No he won't. Here is the proof which you have failed to provide:

 

1) Jacobs is a fumbler.

2) Jacobs was drafted to be short yardage back, it's been made clear by everyone.

3) Jacobs proved to us that Dayne wasn't the problem, it was the OLine.

4) If Dayne was our short-yardage back, he would have had similar or better success than Jacobs.

5) He's a big target.

6) No one wants a big RB, this is the era of small RB.

 

Stick to Madden.

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.

Dayne was chosen as a short-yardage back? I guess that explains why he had more carries than Tiki did during Dayne's rookie season (228 > 213) ... I suppose we had a lot of short-yardage situations, 228 to be exact...

Second post of the fucking year.

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.

I'm Kirk. He's Khan. They became friends, right?

You're kidding, right?