fishgutmartyr

I've seen it on the GMB, BBI...not necessarily here. But there seems to be a lot of Giants fans on a whole that think he was the greatest.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what's the deal? For every good game Collins had, he had a disasterous one. He holds the record for fumbles in a season, and that doesn't include his interceptions for that year; he was a sitting duck in the pocket, and if anyone got around the LT, the ball was hitting the ground. If he scrambled in the red zone, the ball was going to be intercepted. I actually sat there during games and called his fumbles and ints. I even called his fumble during the Raider game last year. I'm not saying he's the worst QB ever to play in a game for the Giants ("Dandy" Randy Dean holds that title), but I wouldn't hold him in the same esteem as a Phil Simms or YA Tittle, either. I think he was a mediocre player during a time when most QBs coming out of college were sub-par (Besides Farve and McNair, name great QBs in the 90's that weren't finishing their career--I'll even give you Aikman, because his career finished earlier than it should have). I understand how bad our QBs were in the mid/late-90's. But really, what does that have to do with Collins' play? If you are using that logic, then you need to hold Phil Simms in higher regard than Joe Montana, because I would definitely take Brown, Graham, and Kanell over Pisarcik, Golsteyn, and Dean. Again, I'm not trying to trash the man, he did play his best for us, but I really don't understand why his pedestal is so high.

I think Emmons is staying. We have two guys that can play WILL at a competent level, or at least we hope we do. Before the draft, I thought he was going, but with Arrington going SAM, and Emmons going weakside, I don't think that would make sense any longer. I think the competition is between Blackburn and Short. And it is going to come down to where the coaches are going to place the highest value: backup at a single position and specials, or backup at two positions. Short is slow, but Blackburn had herniated discs in his upper spine. Short is mediocre but has starting experience, Blackburn is fast but has only played linebacker in 1 1/2 games.

Look how calm he is. No pressure, he's getting laid. He's willing it so. Donovan, of course, would suddenly get the "flu."

When is the next Kennedy Presidency? Seems to be the only time the Eagles can win a championship.

Parcells is notorious for bringing in old players that he drags with him from team to team. So far with Dallas, he's brought in Testaverde, Bledsoe, and Johnson, all of them past their prime. Parcells as a GM would be a disaster. I never considered his ability to choose personnel his strength, even when he was here. If George Young wasn't calling those shots, we'd still be waiting for Superbowl rings. If you're going to constantly talk about replacing EA with a great GM anyway, at least pick a good one.

That's really my point. If Bush turns out to be just one of the best RBs in the league, that poor SOB is going to have to play like Reggie White to get any acceptance from Houston fans. He hasn't played a down, and he's already in disfavor.

Of the 5 guys that were drafted by need in the first round (Eli really wasn't a need, we could have extended Collins if we wanted to; Webster was 2nd round), 3 of those players were, to put it mildly, disappointing. Other than a superbowl due to an incredibly weak NFC that year, what has our record been after drafting by need? Some of it has to do with scouting, but some of it also has to do with us getting guys who simply didn't deserve to be drafted in the first round, even if they were the best available at their position. If it makes you feel any better, I was just as confused when we drafted Carl Banks back then. Even Shockey, we only traded up 2 spots for him. To get a great DT, we would have had to trade up 12 spots to get Bunkley, as it turned out. What would that have left us as far as draft picks are concerned? Even if we blew off the trade and picked McCargo (which is what we would have had to do, considering the huge reach the Bills did), there is no way he would have been able to meet the expectations we would have had if he was our first round choice. The pressure on the kid would have been off of the charts, especially with the "reach" tag he would have gotten from the media. Hell, look at the pressure Kiwi is going to feel, and he was pegged to be a first-rounder. Just some thoughts.

... Hey Drew, Can I work out with Jeremy and Plax?

This argument conflicts itself. The "wheels fell off" in the second half of the season. They had already played numerous games together, so chemistry should not be an issue, even with less practice time in the offseason. If that had taken place at the beginning of the season, you would have a point. By your argument, if chemistry fell apart in the second half of the season, not only should they not work out together now, but they shouldn't practice with each other in training camp in order to make sure that chemistry is maintained throughout the season. Obviously, I'm not advocating that, I'm simply pointing out a major flaw in your position.

I wouldn't do it. The BS:Joy ratio is too far out of whack with this guy.

Yeah, could you do that? Because I like my GM to think out of the box about personnel and make decisions like starting Scott Brunner over Phil Simms.

Without the trade, we would have had the DE (who was considered the 2nd-best DE in the draft according to ProFootball Weekly, btw), a low-ranked 2 rounder (probably not Moss), 1 3rd, 1 4th, a 5th and 7th. We traded down, got Mathias, Moss, Wilkenson, a DT and OT, a safety, and a cornerback. We are going to be losing a HOF defensive end in the next few years. We are almost assured that there will be a drop-off in production from that position. Having two very good DE prospects compete a year or two before it actually happens will prepare the eventual successor, and make sure the drop-off isn't too steep. I keep making the same point, but I'm glad that they have the foresight to recognize this. Based on Coughlin's post-draft interview, he seems to be very stoked about the progress both Duckett and Seawright are making, and isn't as nervous about the DT position as we seem to be. But we did draft a DT as well, and the first two UDFAs we signed were DTs. Considering that he also mentioned Emmons going to weakside(?) this year with LA on the strongside, I'm not even going to hazard a guess on what they are doing. But I don't think they are using the same rules most of us fans are.

I would say easily a B, probably better. The concepts behind the picks were solid, and from what I've seen of rankings, we got them consistently at lower picks than they were supposed to go.

Him and TO in the same lockerroom--I'd love to see it. It would be better than reality TV, and Dallas taking him in the second would have been heaven-sent for us.

41. Chijioke Onyenegecha, CB, Oklahoma If only he was a defensive tackle...oh well, a dline called "the unpronouncables" remains a dream.

Marcus Vick wasn't drafted at all? Man, you need to be a serious asshole to have 32 teams overlook that much talent!

I stand corrected.

That's true. He has built a winning team in Dallas. Not a playoff contender, but a winning team. His team has faded towards the end of the year for two straight seasons.

There! Now the draft is both smooth and level. You guys need to relax. This draft is not about starters for this year. It's about depth and starters in future years. Even if these guys don't blow us away in preseason, it's not going to be the point. All we really need them to do this year is be adequate backups. For the first time in who knows how long, we don't need them to be starters this year. Think about it--you should be pretty happy about that. In a few more years, our backups might just get us compensatory picks. You never know. As for our first round choice: we are going to lose a Hall of Famer in a couple of years with Strahan. That is one major hole for the defense to fill. Do you really want to put all the eggs in the Justin Tuck basket, or do you want to pick between two seasoned, strong players?

Sometimes having immediate access to information is, at best, a mixed blessing. No time to digest, and no perspective. I try to remember that if the Giants do something wrong, I won't be billed. If they do something right, I'm not receiving a check.

That is what has had me confused with Cromartie--as good an athelete as this guy supposedly is, he has relatively little on-field experience. It's going to be a couple of years before he starts making an impact, if he ever does. The team that took him in the first round took a big risk, in my opinion.

I think we have. You now have two very talented young guys who get to watch a future hall of famer and another Pro-Bowler in action. In two or so years, Tuck and Kiwi are going to battle it out for Strahan's starting position. At that point, you have either a starter-caliber backup, or you can trade him for one or two picks. You've now maintained the position as a position of strength, and have extra draft picks.

While reading this post, I thought for a second I was watching "Nell."

I think we'll have to see with Eric. He was injured very early in training camp last year, and TC and co. thought enough of him not to cut him. He had no shot at the field during the playoff run, especially since Osi and Strahan stayed healthy all year, and Tuck turned out so well. That they even tried to convert him tells you that there's something about him that the staff likes.