nosebleedjints

I don't know if anybody here went to the game last night. The Yankees always invade Baltimore however last night was unreal. I was there as I've been all season, and I swear it was 95% Yankee fans. Everywhere you looked ALL you saw was BLUE, you would seldom run into an Orioles fan as they couldn't even attempt to drown out the Yankees rallies. It was unreal, 95% Yankee fans, yes I know it's the end of the year but to be overturned like that wow Baltimore really pales as a sports town.

When I've made this argument to some people you wouldn't believe how many rise to his defense claiming "Well who else is Torre supposed to use...Farnsworth" or "He's trying to win games, all teams use their best men." I hear that ALL the time for Torre supporters.

I've been saying and people have been blowing me off as being naive that Joe Torre, as far bullpen management is concerned, sucks. I understand him bringing in Farnsworth this weekend because the bullpen was short. My problem with him is his gross negligence when it comes to abusing pitchers. Somebody on BBI coined the perfect phrase "Torred" and it's true. There was an article written two years ago which I thought perfectly summarized his incompetence with the bullpen. It stated Torre typically finds a reliever who is pitching effective, and will use that pitcher adnesyum disregarding the score and how many innings, appearances, and consecutive days the pitcher has worked. Several cases exemplified this, going all the way back to the dynasty in the late 90s when he would almost exclusively rely on Wettland, Rivera, Nelson than Stanton, Mendoza, and even Grimsley. Given the Yankees plethora of bullpen depth it did not become a big deal UNTIL Nelson left at which point Rivera was given an insane workload in 2001 which really was to blame for him blowing game 7 (and come to think a 6 out save, come on that is NOT choking). The next year in 2002 Rivera missed a ton of games likely stemming from 2001 overuse. What did Torre do? The Yankees signed Steve Karsay who Torre completely abused, and while effective, he completely fell apart in 2003. He was injured and never really recovered. Stanton left to go to the Mets and also had lost it, though age probably was factor. Let's move on to 2004 where the Yankees had a really effective bullpen most of the regular with Rivera, Gordon, and Quantrill, then Sturtze. However by August Quantrill lost it followed by Gordon in September. In October Rivera blew two saves that allowed the Red Sox to come back in the series. I was hard on Rivera but after looking back, the 2nd save he came on with a runner at 3rd and no outs and only allowed a sac fly, hardly a real blow. The other blow was the night before when he walked the leadoff batter in the ninth, however that was a six out save after a ridiculous workload in the regular season. Move onto 2005, Sturtze was completely abused, got injured, and has never really come back. Gordon left after 2005 and has been injured since. In 2006 Proctor became effective, and Torre gave him an insane workload over more than 100 innings. Come 2007 Proctor was useless. Now we move to Vizcaino, he started slow, and then became an effective 8th inning guy. What do you know, Torre began abusing Vizcaino by having near the top in appearances, coming into games on almost nightly, using him even if the score was not close but just at the first sign of unrest. Now Vizcaino has a tired shoulder. I am so happy the Yankees put in place the Joba rules because you simply know without them he'd be wearing out his arm. I found it funny yesterday and this weekend the Yankees won without the Vizcaino or Joba on Saturday and Sunday. While Sunday's game was close this is what the Red Sox have done well, they DO NOT overwork their relievers, they give them days off even if the score is close. Torre always is afraid to this and I have little thought he would have used one of both Sunday. On Saturday while Bruney was ineffective the Yankees had a huge lead, but again that is the type of game I've seen Torre MANY times bring in his 8th inning man in a blowout. The best for me was in June on that Friday in Boston when the Yankees were beating up the Red Sox in a blowout and he still brought in Proctor in the ninth. I simply can't stand how clueless and irresponsible Torre is. When it comes to positional players, yes, you use the hot hand. When it comes to relieves, definitely you should rely and rank relievers among who is and doing best but to consistently have it year after year where one if not two or more of your reliever lead the league in appearances and innings, this guy is clueless. He stubbornly refuses not to treat relievers differently than positional players. What gets me is people who defend by saying, who is Torre to use. I understand the Yankees bullpen doesn't have the depth of the 90s, but so what. Who does consistently year in and year out? Good bullpens and relievers are like oil, they are scarce so you have to manage and conserve. This means bringing them in when their really needed, this means giving EVERYBODY work, not just the same guy every night. Look at what did this year with Edward Ramirez having him sit for two weeks. Classic Torre, abusing one pitcher and neglecting the rest. He is extremely stubborn and once he finds his man, it doesn't matter if you pitch 2 days in a row or if the score is 8-1, if a runner is on base in the 7th inning his top man is coming in, totally disregarding the team's need to preserve men for the stretch and the pitcher's health. What do they need to, have the Vizcaino rules?

I didn't expect a win, I wanted a win but would have settled for a good game which I thought we got from the offense. Maybe it's just my lowered expectations but this team IS NOT as bad as pundits say.

You know what, I know we lost, but so what. I didn't think we'd win a road game against a good division rival to start the year. I did think we'd play competitive and was very interested to see the club's effort, OL, and new defense. The defense was terrible but keep in mind Kiwi was in his first game at linebacker, the unit it's first week under the new coordinator. I was very impressed with Eli and the offense, very much so with the line. We had to endure all the fear our line wouldn't hold up when against one of the better 3-4's Diehl held his own. The bigger concern for me would be how the Giants defense fares the next several weeks. Was this a case of too many new faces in new positions against a good offense or a really terrible defense? If Kiwi can adjust, and we do better against easier offenses along with a more refreshed Strahan that should help. I would also like to point out how the Giants didn't quit, they kept firing back. What I really find interesting is the fact Jacobs goes down, then Ward comes in and looks like a version of Tiki in the elusive pass receiving. I am fearful of the injuries BUT if they aren't serious and IF this wasn't a one game fluke then perhaps the Jacobs scare could help in that they see they do not have to give 300 carries to a single back they can rotate and platoon Jacobs, power, Drougns, power, and Ward, receiving, to keep everybody fresh and the defense guessing? The bottom line is this isn't a great team and I am not rejoicing over a loss or being an ignorant homer Redskin fan. I'm saying we showed a good offense, Eli played outstanding, we showed a lot of heart, two of three major questions were answered. The defense and injuries will be the big factors in the next few weeks, but if they don't turn the wrong way I think we saw tonight this offense can give an oppurtunity for 8-8, 9-7 playoffs in the weak in the NFC. At the very least, people who insist we are a last place top 5 drafting team can STFU!

I agree. Your words I'm certain really inspire and mean so much, keep running your mouth online, you're really tough and cool for a 40 year old bro!

I wish there was a book written about the mid 80s to early 90s Giants, but I checked amazon, nothing. All they write about is baseball and the Cowboys. :brooding:

In your view, if Reeves or Parcells coaches us in 91 or 92, do we have a similar contending team? This would almost show how bad Handley was, the fact that the year after the Giants were back.

I don't follow the NBA, so I am not familiar with their revenue sharing or salary cap. I would like some movement and oppurtunity for all to compete, but I'd like good drafting and management to be rewarded or have time to mold instead of being raided. It's too bad the NFL can't do anything about it because while it is nice to see new teams, the quality of talent per team has been too watered down in an almost communist manner. I'm not saying have the rich get richer, I'm saying don't make a system where teams can't build and stay together cohesively speaking.

In your view, Joe Morris and OJ Anderson were good, but Tiki was better, and if we had him then, despite him being small, selfish, and a fumbler until the end, we would have been an improved club and with that line, gameplan, Tiki would have an HOF player? I dunno if he could hold up, the Giants were a ball control team, the running back had to carry a lot more then, although they did use a rotation, could he have held?

Rams were not in that top echelon, they got lucky with Flipper Anderson. The Eagles were a good team, but second fiddle to the Giants or Redskins. The Cowboys were in their downtime then.

If so, how would players go from team to team? Were trades or non tenders the only the way, and if so, how could the Giants not have won more than two Super Bowls or at least made the playoffs in 87 and 88? I suppose this put an emphasis on drafting, making it hard for teams to good from bad to good fast, but also keeping together the cores of teams which worked hard to earn their high stature. The question I have is, which do you prefer? Post 1993 free agency or pre 1993? I think I would prefer it with less free agency. I like parity in that anyteam has a chance, but there has been too much parity. Look at the Giants having a shot at the playoffs. Moreso, with so much parity, it kind of has taken the meaning out of it. When I began following football, playing tecmo Super Bowl, I recall I would have the computer simulate games. I would do this so perinnel losers, like the Pats, Colts, Falcons, Saints, Rams, Bucaneers, would win. I remember how weird it was to see those franchises winning. Nowadays we only have two real losers, the Lions and the Cardinals. The Raiders were in a Super Bowl four years ago and the Texans are still an expansion club. When you used to see somebody like the Bucs or Rams win it was cool because it happened so rarely. Now, all the time teams go from nowhere to the championship game, and it's taken some of the meaning out of it. I'd like some free agency, and some parity so teams and fans get to experience winning, but a moderated version, this too all over the place. Also, I think this unfairly punished contenders who have built strong teams. Look at the Colts. No they have no won a Super Bowl and no they do not have a good defense. However they have drafted outstandinding, but teams keep raiding their defense which they can not afford due to the offense. Were this to be pre 1994 the Colts would have, in my view, won a Super Bowl or at least been because they would kept all the talent on defense instead of replenishing. Teams should have to share some the talent wealth, but they should not be punished for drafting, scouting, and making wise choices by having smaller windows and turnover losses.

Mostly subjective, but try to use facts. Do you believe if we had beaten Phoenix or Dallas in the last two games to go 12 or 13 wins, that with the 1st seed, we would have gone to the Super Bowl? That was my first season of really following and getting into football. This was a good team that looked like a contender, a serious thorn to Dallas, only to choke at the end of the season and run out of gas in San Francisco. Isn't it true that if we win just one, even if we lost the Dallas game to have 12 wins, we still have the division, number seed, and do you think our fate would have been much better, perhaps a Super Bowl rematch, or was SF going to be a bad matchup irregardless and Dallas with Emmit back after holding out a team of destiny? Also, how did we choke that badly? The 1993 team struck me as being a lot better than the 2000 bunch.

What was the deal with Joe Morris? He is widely publicized, much greater than OJ Anderson, as the key skill player cog outside Simms in our 80s to 90s contending seasons. However, he only had two really solid season in 85 and 86. What happened to him 87, and 88? Specifically what happened to the Giants running game in 88, because OJ Anderson wasn't a starter until 89? I don't understand a few things, and maybe it's becase this was a different era. Why is it the Giants were a run based team, a ball control team, in the 80s and 90s with Morris and Anderson, yet both with the Giants only had a few years individually that stood out? Going by the stats both were nowhere close to the explosiveness of Tiki, the playmaking, and consistent year in and out, production. Why is it those teams won 2 Super Bowls while this club underachieved? Is this simply due to inflation in terms of more offense? Is Tiki really better than Morris or Anserson, had we had Tiki instead of those two as our SB starters, would that have affected the outcome negatively, could we have been better, or was that team simply the right balance of defense, OL, and ball control running backs, and equilbrium that 1) Tiki would have fit as well into and 2) The NFL then had much less backs with those numbers?

What's up with the Padres letting Boochy go, and letting him go to a division rival in the Giants? Were they that upset with the job he did last season, or the last few years? Was he really that bad they'd let a rival get him, and what's your stand?

Last year our chances to do anything in the playoffs were destroyed by injuries to our 1st and 2nd string linebackers, resulting in practice squad caliber players starting in the playoffs. To remedy this, we signed Arrington and Short, then drafted Wilkerson. This gave us a starting lineback corps of Emmons Pierce Arrington A second unit of Short Blackburn Wilkerson Torbor So we started with I thought was a good amount of depth. However, Emmons already has missed three games. Now in those games Short from what I have seen has played well and we have one, plus he is getting healthy and should come back. Arrington is out for the season, likely. The good news is he did no reaggravte an old injury and was not overall the old Lavar of his best year. However, he now has another injury to be cautious of, and he was coming on making two big plays. We could look at this several ways. One is we have more depth than last season. Torbor is no slouch. Short is no slouch. Wilkerson has potential. Blackburn is alright. However, we already have two linebackers hurt, one down for the season. This is in that regard a repeat already in week seven of last season, if Pierce goes down, the heart of our defense, the heir to Armstead, that would be a full repeat of last season when all three got hurt. So my concern is 1) What is going to happen, how can keep Pierce healthy? 2) How can we keep all our LBs healthy? 3) When is Emmons coming back? 4) Can we win, and go far, without Lavar and with the LBs we have now, can we if Emmons and Arrington are not playing, 2 of 3 starters? 5) I am worried our big offseason transaction is no gone, and we are back to square one from last time.

If I were building a team, my focus would be on the OL, the DL, the QB, the running game, the LB/CB, and receivers in that order unless a prodigy in spot or lack of people in another was free. I also would like to have smarter, articulate players such as Tiki Barber. I would do everything I could to field a winner and not have trashy, ghetto thugs like Michael Irvin. People like him, who act trashy, make it difficult to root for your team, at least for me, because they are simply unitellegent thugs, and I would try to get a team without them, if it can be accomplished.

What was Torre doing, why would you take out a guy in control and start using a bullpen, we might need the pen tomorrow and we know how they do with less innings.

Is badegg a joke, or did your family really lay a big one when you were created? Dude it's been THREE games and we have a young QB, think before you write, if it's feasable.

No, Petter Gammons is a reason why ESPN has lost credibility, is tough to view at times, and has been dragged down by sappy, homers. He has little to do with the NFL.

It wasn't the Super Bowl, is was the second round. Al Del Greco was another big reason for the loss.

Wait a second. What's up Don? I was going to go look for you on the board and give me congrats for Hoffman, and then it hit me, the profile of him closing, you're DON. I didn't realize I've been talking with you, how's it going my buddy?

People on here seem to misinterpert what I say. I meant cut Emmons AFTER the season, it makes NO sense to cut him now unless you consider, *shrugs*, Alonzo Jackson an upgrade.

I'm not getting into semantics with you. Not only is it not worth my time, but it doesn't serve the board. I didn't come to this board, nor was this board created, so retards could have a medium to carry out their acts, and I will not give attention to those people, as this kills the spirit of the board. You know where I stand, there is a reason why I do not go on BBI, and I feel as Giants fans we should not support a website by a person who is this classless. End of discussion. In the future, to serve the board and yourself best, ignore me if you don't like me, but don't go shit stirring, it only makes you look bad.

I forgot to add Booyah, you have nerve on twisting words. I never wished Mara or Gammons ill health. I said I have not missed Gammons on ESPN and that the Giants are in better hands without Mara as the owner. I have never said anything but the utmost for Gammons and his health, YOU have a problem misinterpreting and a problem with me, and need to stop stalking and twisting my words you hypocrite. Again, don't you have anything better to do than shit stir with me, apparently no. It is people like who are keeping SW from being the place to go. But you don't care being the psychotic loser you are.