fishgutmartyr

Just to be clear, I wasn't making light of the stress a lineman's knees take during their careers--the amount of force being compressed into those joints must be incredible. The difference is most of the action and force is linear and straight-forward--very little of the side to side force that a WR's knee has to take when making a sharp cut in a pattern. Not that I'm a doctor, but I would think that has to be a factor in how well Cruz recovers from that injury. Guaranteeing contracts off of the cap for injured players would be very fair, and keep things competitive. But even now, IR players are being paid, and a player doesn't lose a paycheck if they're too injured to play in a game. I agree that IR'd players shouldn't be considered for the cap, but maybe that changes someday. If the cap wasn't an artificial barrier meant to keep contracts lower rather than keep things competitive, it probably would have happened already. But I don't think a larger roster would have mattered here because we had 3 reserves on the squad already at this point. You could argue that he wouldn't have kept playing if Beckham wasn't out so long AND Jernigan wasn't on IR; but we could have had 12 WRs and he would have still played. Simply having bodies available doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a drop-off in talent, or a willingness on the coach's part to lose further effectiveness on the field. You'd have to change the mentality of football itself. The whole "playing hurt=tough" thing. And that would require a change in perspective among players, coaches, front office, and fans. Could you imagine the posts in this place if you kept a player out if he wasn't limping?

I'll say it. I think the oline has gotten to the stage of inconsistency, rather than just bad play. We're a young line, so there's going to be inconsistencies--and Sunday brought them back to reality. If the defense can limit Murray, and Akumara can stay with Bryant; which we can do barring another Fewell brain fart, we'll win. Not easy, but I don't think our dline is as bad as it showed Sunday night, and is should be able to stand up against their line.

Good players. But those three could have been (and hopefully in Cruz' case) much, much more. A healthy Nicks was far more dynamic than Burress--Burress was able to break a couple every season: Nicks was a threat every time he caught the ball. Toomer was very good as a possession receiver, but Smith was better and more consistent. Neither one of Burress/Toomer were capable of the YACs those three were getting. Both Shofner and Jones were getting 1,000+ yard seasons consistently back when they were playing 14 games. That's the level of talent you could compare Smith, Cruz, and Nicks to.

I really don't care if they talk trash or not. But it's been a very long time since this team has backed up their talk in any significant way. They consistently get caught up in the hype and forget to play the game.

The thing is, Joe Klecko wasn't exactly known for his speed. He was a bull, and his demands on his knees were far different than Cruz' demands. Incredible, tough player, and I always thought he was the best player on that Jets line; but really this is apples and oranges. It's sickening how we've had some of the best WR talent this team has seen since Homer Jones/Del Shofner, and each one had some potentially career threatening injury within a couple years. Could you imagine the damage Manning could have done with a wideout set that had Smith, Nicks, and Cruz all healthy--even if it was for only a couple of seasons? Oh, well. We're just going to have to hope for the best.

Well, congrats Cut and BG--your team played well, and the Giants obviously have a lot of work to do. Was hoping that it would at least be a game. I suspect they thought they were only playing you guys in week 17, because they didn't show up this week. I still hate your team, though.

Oh, I get it. They're not saying the coming games are easy--the end of the schedule is easy (Jags, Titans, Washington, Rams), comparatively speaking. The next few games are gonna be a bitch.

Honestly, I don't think any of these teams have shown a lot yet. You guys have won, but with the injuries, you have been basically scraping by with wins with little offensive help (I'm not even trash-talking here--your team has been getting the job done). And even before then, your team was spotting points like crazy in your wins. But neither one of these trends are going to be sustainable over 16 games. Your team is good, but it has problems and isn't the juggernaut you think they are. Considering how deeply ingrained the hatred for your team is within me, this is about as close to praise as you'll ever see. But don't assume the Eagles have won the division just yet. Dallas' win against NO was impressive, but that was some of the worst defense I've seen in a long time on NO's part--and Dallas usually looks decent this part of the season. Keep pace with them, and take over when they fade late-season. Wake me when Murray plays a full season. We've looked good the last three games, but 3 games doesn't necessarily mean we've turned a corner from a horrific preseason and first 2 games. But it's a good sign, and progress. I'm taking hope with the way we beat Washington compared to your game with them, but it's tempered knowing you guys beat hell out of each other, and Washington had only 4 days afterwards. And frankly, a team's record from last year doesn't mean anything any more--far too much turnover from season to season. Look at your team from 2012->2013 if you don't believe me. All things considered, being only a game behind from our starting point is a pretty amazing accomplishment; and you guys should be nervous, because nobody in this division is going 15-1. And this sure beats the fuck out of 0-6.

It ain't gay if the Cox don't touch.

Yeah, but not by much: assuming your dog shits twice a day--2 x 365 x 30 x 50 = 1,095,000 But that's before taxes--and I'm not sure if that gets taxed as earned income or as a gift. Do you get to depreciate dog food, and if you do, is this an investment? You've got some really thought-provoking posts going on in here.

And wouldn't it be a green jersey? For that matter, was the leprechaun killed; or was the anus surgically harvested, with the leprechaun running around with a little bag? What are the statutes for hunting humanoid species? Oh man, so many legal/ethical questions opened up with that post...

This is beginning to sound like it's going to be an ugly game with penalties and injuries. Exactly the sort that neither team can afford to play right now--we're just getting in sync, and Philly is still recovering from their Washington win. I love physical football, but this is starting to sound like it won't be clean football. I hope I'm wrong, because leaving the door open for Dallas because these two teams crippled each other would make me sick.

I wouldn't count on anything in a game between these two teams, ever. Too many games in this series end freakishly.

LOL, I must suck as a communicator--I've been trying to make that point for eons, it seems.

...and yet we managed to do it twice in 4 games this year. Seattle did it 11 times last year. This year: Detroit 3 times, Cincinnati 3 times, Arizona 3 times...Hell, Dallas has also done it twice this year, and their defense supposedly sucks! Is it tough to do? Abso-fucking-lutely. Which is why I use it as a "magic number." Good defenses do it, and when they do, they greatly increase the odds of winning, as a good offense should get over 20 points a game. But once a defense starts giving up over 25 points a game, they make it exponentially harder for the offense to win the game. Putting aside Tom Quinn for a moment. Not only does that mean that they have to score more often, but all the opponent's scoring takes more time off of the clock, meaning that the offense has to do more scoring in less time. In a nutshell: If the offense scores over 20 points, they're doing their job. If they score over 25, the game should be a win. If the defense allows under 25 points, they're doing their job. If they allow less than 20 that should be a win.

The Giants ran for 301 yards against Carolina. 138 against Philly. Jacobs for 92 yards--on a knee he tweaked in early December of that year. They averaged around 150 yards a game in 2008. This is one of the biggest jokes of the whole Gilbride era--that he never stuck with the run. When he had the horses, he ran the horses. When he didn't have a line anymore, and a RB group that resembled bisque dolls, then he passed. If anything, you could argue that Coughlin and Gilbride shortened Jacob's career by running him as much as they did that December.

It's a legit argument. It's giving credit to the defense when the offense (Gilbride or big play--your choice) got them to the show that cheeses me off.

We wouldn't have even seen the playoffs in 2011 if we had to rely on that defense. Your QB throws for nearly 5,000 yards, has multiple comeback wins and you have a 9-7 record, it isn't your offense that's the problem. If you bring in Chase Blackburn in to save your linebackers, your defense has serious problems. I give them credit for finally showing up at the end of the season and in the playoffs, but this statement is revisionist. http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-11/2011-new-york-giants-football-schedule.php Do those scores look like the defense was carrying the day? They kept the opponent under 20 points 6 times the entire regular season--the offense did their job 5 of those times. For nearly the rest of that season, the defense was getting slaughtered. We were 2-5 when the defense gave up 25 points or more, and 2 of those losses were by 6 points or less, with an additional one by 7pts: the offense was keeping them in those games. We scored over 20 points in 11 regular season games--8-3. (The one missing win was 20-17 against Miami. And there were a couple of losses where we sucked on both sides of the ball.) Not one win where the offense did not score at least 20 points. Not in the regular season. Not in the playoffs. Not the SB. Clearly, if the defense did a decent job, the offense came through for them 83% of the time. That isn't so evident in the converse, where more games were flat-out blown by the defense (72% winning percentage). The offense couldn't expect any help when they came out flat in 3 games--the defense at least had a chance if they stunk up the field, which they did 7 times. If you guys want to discredit Gilbride by saying that the season was all Manning, Nicks, and Cruz--fine. You could make that argument, I guess. But don't credit the defense for the 2011 SB--they simply don't deserve it. 2007, you have a better argument, at least after the first couple of games.

Thank god! I thought I was the only one that remembered that half the dline had microfracture surgery after that season...or that Robbins' hand was broken. Or that Brandon Jacobs basically drained the tank in that Carolina game, incredible performance that it was. (Now that I think about it, he never was quite the same after that game, was he?) We were completely spent at the end of that regular season--mentally and physically. (As an aside, just like I wasn't about to break out with "I told you so" after two losses, I'm not going to eat crow after two wins. But if we keep going and win against Atlanta, I may have to think about pre-heating the oven.)

N.O. had some of the worst tackling I've ever seen. And we started Hertzlich.

Anyone that gets Curtis Painter off your roster is not a wasted pick. If Nassib winds up playing a game, I don't assume it will be a loss--with Painter, I would.

LOL. Where did I say Foles was a bad QB? I just said he had an outlier season when it came to interceptions. Even you have to admit it's doubtful that he's thrown his last INT of the year... I've seen plenty of 6-2 seasons go toes-up to 8-8. I've also seen 0-2 win a Lombardi. I'm not saying that this is going to happen this year, but let's see what happens down the road. I wasn't expecting too much at the beginning of this season, with a new offense and line--I figured we'd lose the first two, and wouldn't have been surprised if we lost last week. I have no illusions that Thursday is a foregone conclusion, but if we get past it at 2-2, you might start looking in your rear-view. Don't worry about Manning. His completion percentage has climbed steadily over the 3 games, as has his rating. The ints were in the two losses, against two teams that have played well so far. If the completion percentage stabilizes, and the line continues to gel, the INT rate will drop. And we may have a decent running game for the first time in years, since before our last SB run (I live in that past, too). That's going to help a lot. If things continue to climb, I may have to admit I was wrong to all the Gilbride-haters, and nothing would make me happier. Meanwhile, you're seeing your first serious injury in a while. And spotting your opponent 10+ points a game is no way to go through a season. Hubris, my man. Beware of hubris.

You found my reference to Fole's exceptional year regarding INTs somehow mocking? He did it, good for him. But I wouldn't exactly mortgage the house to bet he does it again. That's probably going to be Fole's career low. You simply can't be an elite QB and not help but throw more than that. The game sometimes forces you to take risks that you wouldn't normally take, and that increases the odds. I'm not saying he's going to throw 30+ INTs, just that he's going to throw more than he has. And a few will cost you some games. Hell, he's matched his total from last year already.

There's a bit of a difference between 3 years and 54 years. Last year is the past too, by that thinking: the Eagles glorious "one and done" year. Let's see what happens this year as the injuries for your team head more towards the average and Foles continues to throw INTs.

I hear tell that the Cleveland Browns won a few championships too. And Detroit. Before I was born. You know, a guy that gets mail from AARP? That glory year is quickly going from history to archaeology. But just for BG, I present Where Are the 1960 Philadelphia Eagles? http://www.businessinsider.com/1960-eagles-where-are-they-now2011-8?op=1 Here's a hint: a little less than half are on the wrong side of grass.