Zelmo

Link -Z

I like the dog's posts too. Most of the time he has a pretty spot on rational analysis of things, which sometimes people don't like to hear. -Z

Lol Jack...you post every last thought that happens to flit through your mind without the slightest consideration as to whether people are interested, so you really shouldn't be preaching from this particular soapbox. And for the record, I have no beef with you. I actually find you very entertaining, and not in a Italian Hotdog condescending sort of way. I truly find you entertaining. Your unique mix of alternatively predictable and unpredictable outbursts of emotion add a lot of character to the Giants section of the board. -Z

K so I don't know if what I said was common knowledge or not but either way..thanks for the compliment. -Z

Guess if I just released Plaxico from my fantasy team before this week because I gave up on him and the pitiful Jets offense producing anything? Also guess if Plaxico was riding the bench for me and this past week would've been his chance to crack the starting lineup because my receivers had byes? -Z

Jack this is ridiculous. How does the equation go? Oh yeah Aaron Rodgers>Ryan Fitzpatrick. I'm a little rusty on my math but I'm pretty sure that's it. -Z

Yes Rivers had a bad game and yes Rivers is having a lousy season. But let's not forget that Rivers career QB rating including this lousy season so far is 96.5 and I'm pretty sure it was over 100 or flirting with it coming into the year. His last three years he's averaging 4,324 yards, 30 TD's, and 11 INT's with a 65.5 completion percentage and getting 8.6 yards per attempt. Those are serious numbers. Period. -Z

Story of our lives with the Giants isn't it? -Z

You know everything about the schedule is actually a set system? You play 6 games in your division, 4 games against another division in your conference, and 4 games against a division in the other conference, these divisions being selected by rotation. That leaves two games, which you play against the teams in the remaining two divisions in your conference which finished the previous season in the same position in their division as you finished in yours. (So for example, in your example, the Packers NFC games are against their division, the NFC North, and a division by rotation, which this year is the NFC South. Since the Packers finished their division as a #2 seed last year the other two games are played against the teams that finished #2 last year in the NFC East and NFC West, which is the Giants and Rams respectively. It's designed to make it that every team in the league plays 4 games each against a 1 seed, 2 seed, 3 seed, and 4 seed team from the previous year. -Z

Speaking of good blocking...Manningham had a killer block on that 30 yard Bradshaw run on our last drive... -Z

Had to stop watching the game with about five minutes or so to go...so I taped it, turned my cell phone off and avoided all contact with sources that might tell me the outcome...and just now watched the tape....the first play on the recording was the second Webster pick.... Excellent game -Z

Part of me feels like this is exactly the type of game that Fewell will wake up for and play a smart scheme instead of this soft zone garbage.... And yet part of me remembers the Packers game from last year when we tried beating a quick team with a quick release QB with our pass rush and a soft zone and we got DECIMATED... -Z

It's a pay service -Z

The Coaches Cam of select plays went up today on NFL Rewind...Inexplicably, they have the coaches cam replay of the garbage time interception by Eli but no coaches cam replay of this INT. -Z

Even if Cruz doesn't lose his footing??? Jack if Cruz doesn't lose his footing that ball hits Cruz as Jim said, right between the 8 and the 0 and we have a completion to about the 3 or 4 and no one would have ever thought twice about the play except to post Crrrrrrrrruuuuuuuuuzzz in the game thread. Cruz doesn't slip, that ball hits dead on the money....and I guarantee no one is on here afterward saying "You know that completion to Cruz at the 4? That was a real dangerous throw by Eli." No one would be saying that, because it wasn't. -Z

Cruz did recover from the slip very fast, but that doesn't mean the ball would have been out front had Cruz not slipped. No matter how fast he recovers he still lost at the very least one stride and more accurately probably two...add two short strides to Cruz's position and that ball is dead on the money -Z

Here ya go Tree: In this pic you see the ball already passing his body and in his left hand....the ball is already PAST it's target and there's still no defender near making a play on the ball... The "triple-coverage" that everyone is talking about is one defender diving behind the play and two defenders 5 yards away. There was nothing wrong with Eli's decision to throw to Cruz at all. -Z

Maybe this is overkill, and beating a dead horse, but this is a pic from the moment AFTER Cruz gets up from his stumble Yeah big crowd there Eli is throwing into (And remember Eli isn't throwing this ball from thirty yards away where defenders have tons of time time to break on the ball, he's throwing it from 10 yards away) How anyone can call Cruz triple covered when not a single defender is in position to make a play on a ball thrown to him is nuts. If all that it takes for a receiver to be considered "covered" is for there to be a defender somewhere who's in position to make a play on the ball should it get tipped up in the air then I daresay that few receivers are ever ever open. Covered means a defender is in position to challenge the pass attempt. Covered means there's no reasonable angle or lane by which to get the ball to the receiver. Cruz clearly isn't covered, not even by a stretch of the word. And if you'll look at the play as Jim did, you'll see that Hicks, Manningham, and Ballard all were covered. -Z

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS Thank you Jim This whole Cruz was triple teamed or even double teamed is just ridiculous...he was OPEN -Z

I don't like to bring up 2007, because what happened in 2007 is done and in the past, but I want to bring out one point from that season in terms of judging where a team is headed. No one looked at the Giants in week 5 that year and said "This team is gonna compete for a SB". We played mostly mediocre football that entire season, and literally things only lit up for us in week 17 when we went toe to toe with the Pats. No one looking at that team in week 5 would have said "Sure, this team is capable of rattling off 3 road playoff wins including two in Dallas and Green Bay, and then they're gonna beat the Pats." Green Bay was a similar story last year. After all their injuries, at around week 5, no one thought they're gonna be a team shredding people up in the playoffs. But they slugged their way through the year, got in the six seed, were hot at the right time and brought home a championship. Point is, it's a long season, things can change, teams can change, and if you just scratch and claw to keep yourself in decent position you never know when a team can get on a roll. Note before I'm flamed: My reference of the 2007 season was just to bring out an isolated point. This team bears little resemblance to that team. -Z

This ^^^ +10 -Z

People are really overrating what a dangerous throw it was. Cruz was open. Just because there are defenders in the vicinity doesn't make one not open. Plays like Stokley smoking Sehorn in the SB and leaving him off the screen are rare, tons of completed passes and smart throws happen in fairly tight space. And this wasn't even tight space. Overrated dangerous. (And it very well might have been the best place to go with the ball. Manningham, Nicks and it's hard to tell but I think Ballard too were all more covered than Cruz. Bradshaw was obviously a better option but Eli was already heading to Cruz before Bradshaw released. It's unfortunate, but I don't think anyone's fault.) Manning made a ten times more dangerous throw to Bradshaw on the previous series which Bradshaw dropped. -Z

I was referring more to your insinuation that Manningham is less of a receiving threat than Ballard. -Z

Jack whatever it is you're smoking, it's awfully good. -Z

I hear ya Jim, but what's considered an acceptable smaller gain? With the speed of today's NFL, having your CB stand basically at the first down marker is essentially gifting the offense easy 7-8 yard completions. Isn't that suicide? This approach only works against teams that are deep ball teams that are going to go for the big play even though you're challenging them by trying to take it away. And even those teams eventually adjust and start throwing underneath. I just don't get it. Unless the bend but don't break is somehow producing consistent 3 yard passing gains, the numbers just don't add up to make it feasible and reasonable to employ. -Z