randoff Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I guess you're right. It's was a low blow to call the Giants lucky. But had the Giants finished off the Bills to the tune of 52-17 or 30-13 their really would be no need to analyze that fieldgoal attempt which, incidently, happened to be long enough... No matter how you look at it, the word "choke" still comes to mind. I'm not right. But I do know a little about football Eggo. It would be stupid to denounce any Superbowl win by any team. Seriously, you need to get your hands on a the Superbowl set, rewatch the games you've missed. I'm not talking about the New England wins, I'm talking about HISTORY eggy. Because seriously, the more you post, the more I am starting to see a pattern.... ...one thing I see is I don't believe you've followed the Cowboys back then. I believe either you was too young or someone hipped you on to them because they have cool uni's and had Emmitt Smith. I could be wrong, so please don't go throwing a tantrum, ok? Let's keep the talk about football (leave my mother out of it), cool?? Let's analize "Happen to be long enough"? Do you mean the distance that Norwood kicked from was long enough? I don't get it. To me the proper term would be Norwood is in range, no wind, a chip shot, he's made field goals of 45 yds before,etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I guess you're right. It's was a low blow to call the Giants lucky. But had the Giants finished off the Bills to the tune of 52-17 or 30-13 their really would be no need to analyze that fieldgoal attempt which, incidently, happened to be long enough... No matter how you look at it, the word "choke" still comes to mind. LOL..You make it too easy egg, you really need to brush up on your trash talkin. Have you ever given any thought to the reason why Dallas won by such a bigger score than the Giants?? Look at the class of competition those yrs. Dallas got a team that made it to the SB 4 yrs in a row cause the AFC was crap. After they got beat the 2 yrs prior to other NFC East teams. They got a used and abused elite AFC team in an AFC that was weak. 20-19 means a good game by 2 teams that were meant to be there. 52-17 means Dallas played the real SB in the NFC Champ. game. Good try on the sarcasm, but you stink at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Remember the expression "playing yourself"? That's Bad Eggster in a nutshell. Honestly if he was a 'fan' of Dallas, he could come up with better ammo. Or better yet, he could change his name and become a Patriot fan.... ...aren't they the hot shit that the ESPN's are feeding us???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 LOL..You make it too easy egg, you really need to brush up on your trash talkin. Have you ever given any thought to the reason why Dallas won by such a bigger score than the Giants?? Look at the class of competition those yrs. Dallas got a team that made it to the SB 4 yrs in a row cause the AFC was crap. After they got beat the 2 yrs prior to other NFC East teams. They got a used and abused elite AFC team in an AFC that was weak. 20-19 means a good game by 2 teams that were meant to be there. 52-17 means Dallas played the real SB in the NFC Champ. game. Good try on the sarcasm, but you stink at it. They got a "used and abused" yet "elite" AFC team in an AFC that was weak. But the Giants only beat the "used and abused" yet "elite" AFC team in the "weak" AFC by 1 point on a missed field goal... Well...anyway...How many years do you give a QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Judging by the lack of back-up QB talent to push him, at least one more year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 LOL..You make it too easy egg, you really need to brush up on your trash talkin. Have you ever given any thought to the reason why Dallas won by such a bigger score than the Giants?? Look at the class of competition those yrs. Dallas got a team that made it to the SB 4 yrs in a row cause the AFC was crap. After they got beat the 2 yrs prior to other NFC East teams. They got a used and abused elite AFC team in an AFC that was weak. 20-19 means a good game by 2 teams that were meant to be there. 52-17 means Dallas played the real SB in the NFC Champ. game. Good try on the sarcasm, but you stink at it. Well this discussion is way off topic from what the Dog had in mind, but since it has gone in this direction, the Dog would like to point out that the logic in the above argument is inane...In one breath, you are stating that the Cowboys "got a team that made it to the SB 4 yrs in a rwo cause the AFC was crap." Yet, the Giants 20-19 win over the same team in the same 4 year span was a "good game by 2 teams that were meant to be there." Question one: Please tell the Dog which catagory fits the Bills: a weak team that was in the super bowl 4 years in a row b/c the AFC was crap, or a team that plays hard and was deserving to be there?? If the "real super bowl" was played the game before in the Championship game, then one can only assume that the cowboys won a hard fought game between two teams that deserved to be there, and thus, proved to be the best team a week sooner...all deduced using your strained logic... if the bills were "used and abused" going into the super bowl, then how could the afc be so weak?? Truely yours is a dizzying logic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Well this discussion is way off topic from what the Dog had in mind, but since it has gone in this direction, the Dog would like to point out that the logic in the above argument is inane...In one breath, you are stating that the Cowboys "got a team that made it to the SB 4 yrs in a rwo cause the AFC was crap." Yet, the Giants 20-19 win over the same team in the same 4 year span was a "good game by 2 teams that were meant to be there." Question one: Please tell the Dog which catagory fits the Bills: a weak team that was in the super bowl 4 years in a row b/c the AFC was crap, or a team that plays hard and was deserving to be there?? If the "real super bowl" was played the game before in the Championship game, then one can only assume that the cowboys won a hard fought game between two teams that deserved to be there, and thus, proved to be the best team a week sooner...all deduced using your strained logic... if the bills were "used and abused" going into the super bowl, then how could the afc be so weak?? Truely yours is a dizzying logic... Im convinced you and rotten egg are one and the same. This one went WAAY over your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 Im convinced you and rotten egg are one and the same. This one went WAAY over your head. if it did go over the Dog's head, then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain your theories...because the Dog is not sure how you stating that the bills were a team that made it to 4 super bowls in a row b/c the afc was weak and you stating that the year the giants beat them they were a deserving team is really quite a contradiction...but perhaps you can explain this more thoroughly...or just make bizarre accusations that are unfounded, erroneous and false...which, as the Dog is thinking about it, fits with your dizzying logic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 if it did go over the Dog's head, then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain your theories...because the Dog is not sure how you stating that the bills were a team that made it to 4 super bowls in a row b/c the afc was weak and you stating that the year the giants beat them they were a deserving team is really quite a contradiction...but perhaps you can explain this more thoroughly...or just make bizarre accusations that are unfounded, erroneous and false...which, as the Dog is thinking about it, fits with your dizzying logic... Oh gosh, if you insist. If you remember, the Giants were the 1st to beat them. The AFC was on its way to becoming a weak conference, weaker than it already was, as the NFC won a bunch of SB's in a row for yrs. The "elite" remark was sarcasm, meaning they were the best team in a group of weak teams. They were a good team though, not great, the year they played the Gmen, but on thier decline. By the time they got to the Cowgirls(your team), they were done. Get it now, or do I need to refer to my preschool dictionary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Now these two yahoos come up in here talking this and that....like good cop/bad cop. Eggy/Dawg I think are the same poster. But Eggy is getting flustered (hating himself for giving this so much attention) and Hot Dog is shooting snide remarks about whatever.... ...now my question is: Isn't their "job" as fans of OTHER teams to 'rattle' the members here? I mean it's almost bordering on Troll-ism. Now rule says we should ignore them and they will go away. Not me! I like it. Responses are flying one after another, interaction is happening, and I sense a little worry from Eggy. Dog is a Giants fan IMO......he wont answer the "Who's his fave NFL team" question. Bad Egg is a Giants fan that will reveal his true colors with more interaction. Just my Opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Five years is more than reasonable. Now the $20 questions, what is success? Pro Bowl, All Pro, Division champs I say given what was traded to get him (and what those pieces could have meant to the G-Man had they kept them) and the hype associated with Manning ...anything short of Super Bowl Appearance by 2010 means we pissed this down our legs. C. Wagon Oh come on, Chuck. You're assuming we would've got Rivers and a year later we would've landed Mariman... And given our coaching Staff Mariman would've been on the bench anyway. Our problem has not be the QB, it had been the D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Eli's had three years. He's been average... and by that I mean not as good as Collins was under Fassel (29-of-43 passes for 342 yards and four touchdowns against the Niners... and that was a loss. Show me Eli's game with those numbers). Now, that being said, the coaching staff sucks balls. Gilbride SUCKS. We'll finish in the bottom third of the league in total offense... write it down. If we have a winning record, it'll be because of Spagnuolo and the Giants D... not because of Eli or the offense. He gets one more year after this one. If he doesn't start to play better than average, then I think we can start to legitimately look for a new starting QB... but hell, I'd be happy if we started looking for insurance right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayD Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Oh come on, Chuck. You're assuming we would've got Rivers and a year later we would've landed Mariman... And given our coaching Staff Mariman would've been on the bench anyway. Our problem has not be the QB, it had been the D. True dat. Look at last year, move our defense up about 12 slots, and Eli would already have a ring. Or at least a NFC championship. As far as Im concerned, if Eli gives us 3000 yards and 24 TDs every year, he is MORE than welcome on this team. Brandon Jacobs is going to help Eli improve big time though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 True dat. Look at last year, move our defense up about 12 slots, and Eli would already have a ring. Or at least a NFC championship. As far as Im concerned, if Eli gives us 3000 yards and 24 TDs every year, he is MORE than welcome on this team. Brandon Jacobs is going to help Eli improve big time though. What is Jacobs going to do that Tiki didn't do? The fact of the matter is that no one can help him if he insists on playing catch with defenses such as the Titans at the most critical junctures of games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 Oh gosh, if you insist. If you remember, the Giants were the 1st to beat them. The AFC was on its way to becoming a weak conference, weaker than it already was, as the NFC won a bunch of SB's in a row for yrs. The "elite" remark was sarcasm, meaning they were the best team in a group of weak teams. They were a good team though, not great, the year they played the Gmen, but on thier decline. By the time they got to the Cowgirls(your team), they were done. Get it now, or do I need to refer to my preschool dictionary? Hmmm...interesting. The Dog does recall that at the time the Giants beat them, the NFC had already won seven Super Bowls in a row, so it is safe to say that the AFC had been down for some time...That being said, you can't say that the Bills had declined so much in two years time, particularly since they made it back to the super bowl- which is an achievement in and of itself...not many teams are good enough to do that, regardless of the level of competetion...just as a point of reference, in the four years that the Bills went to the Super Bowl, they were 14-2 against NFC opponents during that stretch (including two wins against the Giants)...Not bad for a weak team playing the higher level of competetion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 Now these two yahoos come up in here talking this and that....like good cop/bad cop. Eggy/Dawg I think are the same poster. But Eggy is getting flustered (hating himself for giving this so much attention) and Hot Dog is shooting snide remarks about whatever.... ...now my question is: Isn't their "job" as fans of OTHER teams to 'rattle' the members here? I mean it's almost bordering on Troll-ism. Now rule says we should ignore them and they will go away. Not me! I like it. Responses are flying one after another, interaction is happening, and I sense a little worry from Eggy. Dog is a Giants fan IMO......he wont answer the "Who's his fave NFL team" question. Bad Egg is a Giants fan that will reveal his true colors with more interaction. Just my Opinion of course. The Italian Hotdog has come to discuss Giant's football, as this appears to be the place for that...the Dog's favorite team is irrelevant to this site, and if the Dog is so compelled to discuss other teams, then the Dog will happily go to those message boards and do so... For the record, the Dog started this thread with a legitimate question, that many members here have posted thoughtful responses to absent of malice...you my dear furstrated boy chose to respond otherwise (dare the Dog say, in a snide fashion...)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Judging by the lack of back-up QB talent to push him, at least one more year. I really wish the Giants would have gotten a decent backup to put Eli on notice. There is absolutely no competition and the best thing would be to push him. Either he'll respond like Tiki or fold and then the Giants can move on. I say at least 2 more years to show greatness but like Nas said he has been good already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlietags Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 I believe this is the year that Eli demonstrates his leadership and his ability. No more Tiki so the passing game must improve. I was against what we traded to get him and if he doesn't improve then it will have been a very bad deal IMMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 ...the Dog's favorite team is irrelevant to this site, and if the Dog is so compelled to discuss other teams, then the Dog will happily go to those message boards and do so... For the record, the Dog started this thread with a legitimate question, that many members here have posted thoughtful responses to absent of malice...you my dear furstrated boy chose to respond otherwise (dare the Dog say, in a snide fashion...)... I've replied to the topic question like 2 pages ago....but I was merely interacting with your 'friend' Egg. And like I've stated before, I am FINALLY enjoying the GIANTS section again. Posts are flying out one after another and football season hasn't really started yet. And BTW I am not "furstrated" nor am I upset. I like chatting with you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmenroc Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 On average, I'd give a QB 3-4 years before they become what they're going to become for their career. Sure, maybe a different scheme is instituted or a different coach is hired or different supporting cast is brought in; but if you're evaluating a QB, your evaluation should be independent of those other factors. Did the QB make the throws despite a poor offensive line or lack of running game? How did the QB make the rest of the team better? What's the physical attributes of the QB and how do they rank among other QBs in the league? Regarding Eli, he wasn't worth the trade then and he certainly wasn't worth the trade now. We could have drafted Roethlisberger without giving up an extra 3 picks. We could have had Rivers without giving up the extra 3 picks. Eli has reached 3 years in the league, provided not starting the first half of his rookie year. He's had one of the best running games in the league. He's been given a host of weapons on offense. His defense has been lacking somewhat, but that's not a reflection on him. There's no reason why he shouldn't be in the top 5 QBs in the league, top 10 at the least. I think too, that Eli's advancement has reached a plateau and this is as good as he'll be with some minor ups and downs from here on out. Due to the rules surrounding the salary cap, we're not able to get rid of him any sooner than the end of his contract, but even then it wouldn't make a difference. He'll probably be resigned before his contract expires to make his cap hit more favorable so that we can sign someone else to keep the fickle fans happy. To the person who noted that we'll keep Eli for longer because he led the team to the playoffs the past two years...well, I think that's not entirely accurate. There was a guy here named Tiki Barber who carried what, like 60% of the offense? He's gone now. Eli's true evaluation will begin this season, provided Droughens and Jacobs don't light it up. Again, I have to believe that Eli has topped off in his production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Eli's had three years. He's been average... and by that I mean not as good as Collins was under Fassel (29-of-43 passes for 342 yards and four touchdowns against the Niners... and that was a loss. Show me Eli's game with those numbers). Now, that being said, the coaching staff sucks balls. Gilbride SUCKS. We'll finish in the bottom third of the league in total offense... write it down. If we have a winning record, it'll be because of Spagnuolo and the Giants D... not because of Eli or the offense. He gets one more year after this one. If he doesn't start to play better than average, then I think we can start to legitimately look for a new starting QB... but hell, I'd be happy if we started looking for insurance right now. Comp/Att Yds TD's INT's 31/43 371 3 1 @Philly, 2006-W 29/53 344 2 1 @Seattle,2005-L 19/35 296 4 0 vs ST Louis,2005-W 24/41 352 2 0 @SD,2005-L Pretty Comparable. But that was a playoff game that youre talkin about, and at that time he had more playoff exp. than Eli. Yeah Eli got whooped in his 1st playoff game, but he did decent in his second, better than Garcia, stat wise. Eli's got this yr. to shine non stop, he HAS shown flashes of brilliance, incl. engineering a few 4th qtr drives to win it in his short career. It just looks worse cause of what we gave up to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 What is Jacobs going to do that Tiki didn't do? The fact of the matter is that no one can help him if he insists on playing catch with defenses such as the Titans at the most critical junctures of games... Less talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Less talk ....and also wear down Defenses. Tiki didnt do that, he was just so elusive and good out of the backfield as another receiver that he was a weapon. BJ will wear down D's wuith his punishing runnin style, he will command a safety or another LB to help the front line against the run, ikt will open up our passing game. Plus, he aint a bad receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 He's had one of the best running games in the league. He's been given a host of weapons on offense. I know. That's why when people say, "well, Roethlis-whatever and Rivers had Bettis and Tomlinson" I'm like, "WHAT?" Eli had Tiki Barber... NO ONE had more yards from scrimmage over the past five years (or something like that... maybe four years, stat monkies ) And his O-line has been better than average as well, so that's no excuse either. Eli aplogists act like he had Blair Thomas at RB the past three years. But the Eli supporters have a very valid point about the coaching. I don't think anyone can say that the playcalling has been good the past four years... I always used to say, "Nine yards by Tiki... then six... then thirteen by Jacobs... then THREE STRAIGHT PASSES? WTF?" Huffnagle was horrible, and Gilbride won't be much better; hes always been pass happy since his days in Houston with the run and shoot (Oilers, not Texans, for all you young'uns). In my book, he's got two more years to prove himself, but we had better draft a developmental guy just in case this is the best Eli's got. On that note... Lorenzens has about one more year in my book as well. WHEN Eli goes down this year (we'll miss Petitgout), he had better show us something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 What are the charges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now