BurnThePhilFans Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I move from GMB and still can't get away from the clown formally known as badegg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The Dog finds it humorous that time and time again, the same frustration over power rankings comes out with the same borish arguments...you all get all jazzed up, yet continue to look at them...the fact is, after 4 weeks, the teams to beat are the colts, patriots and cowboys...the rest are all mediocre for various reasons...by week 8, this may or may not change, but you all will still be posting the rankings and complaining...the giants jumped 9 spots for beating a weak eagles team...who cares? be like the dog, sit back, enjoy the season that is far too short, and sip on some fine B and B...or herbal tea, should you choose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Oh yes, Greenbay. The team with no running game. As if Dallas has a running game to brag about. Ward has almost as many yds as Jones and Barber combined. Its early, by midpoint I think youll see teams like SD, JAX, DEN SEA and quite possibly the Giants will be ahead in the rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 We have a new starting tackle too, and he owned Trent Cole. The reason Justice couldnt do the same, is not becasue of Justice. Whoever was there, was gettin owned by Osi that nite. And how much of a difference would Wetbrook have really made? Buckhalter had 100+ yds and played very well. And the O and McNabb still got....OWNED. P.S. Way to avoid the next meeting comment, is fear starting to set in?? you're blind if you dont think that Westbrook MAKES that offense. He ALWAYS torches us and we were lucky to face the Eagles when not only he was out but like 2 other pro bowlers (Sheldon Brown or was it the other guy? and Brian Dawkins) and 2 other starters were gone...and we STILL scored under 10 points on that defense. We still have lots to work on and theres no reason that ESPN or any other site should rank us anything more than like 18th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 you're blind if you dont think that Westbrook MAKES that offense. He ALWAYS torches us and we were lucky to face the Eagles when not only he was out but like 2 other pro bowlers (Sheldon Brown or was it the other guy? and Brian Dawkins) and 2 other starters were gone...and we STILL scored under 10 points on that defense. We still have lots to work on and theres no reason that ESPN or any other site should rank us anything more than like 18th. Youre not getting my point. Westbrook does always run on us, but so did Buckhalter. So what would the difference have been? Westy runnin for over 100 yds on us?? Buckhalter alraedy did that and we still beat them and held thier O to 3 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Youre not getting my point. Westbrook does always run on us, but so did Buckhalter. So what would the difference have been? Westy runnin for over 100 yds on us?? Buckhalter alraedy did that and we still beat them and held thier O to 3 points. Uhhh Donovan Mcnabb hitting Westbrook in the flat(or even down the field....god knows the Eagles have no other WRs) and Westbrook making the entire secondary miss. If Buckhalter got 100 yards, Westbrook is getting 150 and a TD, man. It's like the difference between Tiki Barber and Derrek Ward, for us. Sure they are both decent RBs that are gonna pick up yards but obviously one is much, much better. Westbrook has turned into that teams Tiki Barber, they rely on him for like half their yards every game. I'm just saying, we did nothing well on offense against a team that's decimated. Eli is still forcing the ball to Shockey, we are not sustaining drives, we are leaving points on the field, and when we get down in enemy territory, we should honestly just start taking shots at the endzone when we get to the opposing 35. Because we can't kick field goals and we cant score inside the 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Youre not getting my point. Westbrook does always run on us, but so did Buckhalter. So what would the difference have been? Westy runnin for over 100 yds on us?? Buckhalter alraedy did that and we still beat them and held thier O to 3 points. The Dog has to wonder just how limited your knowledge of football can be...Westbrook is a big play talent that when healthy, can make game changing plays (ala Tiki Barber to put it in perspective that you might be able to relate to...the Dog finds that making learning meaningful to the learner can be a successful strategy)...Besides the fact that his style and Buckhalter's style are very different, and so coaches have to alter their game planning for that - it impacts the entire flow of the game...and may in fact limit what a team can do...but your right, everyone else is missing the point but you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 The Dog has to wonder just how limited your knowledge of football can be...Westbrook is a big play talent that when healthy, can make game changing plays (ala Tiki Barber to put it in perspective that you might be able to relate to...the Dog finds that making learning meaningful to the learner can be a successful strategy)...Besides the fact that his style and Buckhalter's style are very different, and so coaches have to alter their game planning for that - it impacts the entire flow of the game...and may in fact limit what a team can do...but your right, everyone else is missing the point but you... THANK YOU! This is the second time I've had to shut a fellow fan down. We beat the Eagles. So what. MY roomate is a big Eagles fan so when they don't play at the same time as the Gmen I watch the Eagles with my boy...The Eagles are a team that has fallen off, BUT, it's mostly because Mcnabb is obviously playing injured, 5 starters are out, and they have no WR talent. We beat a hurting Eagles team this week...we were so lucky to get them when they were down like this. THey were missing half their secondary...William James was on the field...that's how bad they hurt at CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 The Dog has to wonder just how limited your knowledge of football can be...Westbrook is a big play talent that when healthy, can make game changing plays (ala Tiki Barber to put it in perspective that you might be able to relate to...the Dog finds that making learning meaningful to the learner can be a successful strategy)...Besides the fact that his style and Buckhalter's style are very different, and so coaches have to alter their game planning for that - it impacts the entire flow of the game...and may in fact limit what a team can do...but your right, everyone else is missing the point but you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Uhhh Donovan Mcnabb hitting Westbrook in the flat(or even down the field....god knows the Eagles have no other WRs) and Westbrook making the entire secondary miss. If Buckhalter got 100 yards, Westbrook is getting 150 and a TD, man. It's like the difference between Tiki Barber and Derrek Ward, for us. Sure they are both decent RBs that are gonna pick up yards but obviously one is much, much better. Westbrook has turned into that teams Tiki Barber, they rely on him for like half their yards every game. I'm just saying, we did nothing well on offense against a team that's decimated. Eli is still forcing the ball to Shockey, we are not sustaining drives, we are leaving points on the field, and when we get down in enemy territory, we should honestly just start taking shots at the endzone when we get to the opposing 35. Because we can't kick field goals and we cant score inside the 20. Oh, youre right. My bad, I dont know what I was thinking. Westy would have gotten 150 yds and a TD, that would have been the difference. That would have made the score........whats that? OH YEAH, Giants 16-Egirlz10 We still win. And youre not factoring in the fact that Westy gets these things on us normally, but not the way that D was playing that nite. I'll bet if our D wasnt clicking on all cylinders that Buckhalter could have torched us worse, but our D was too dominating. Becasue dont forget, McNabb beats the piss out of us usually too. Westbrook being in there has a better chance than Buckhalter being in there, but our D wasnt letting ANYONE torch us that nite. and P.S. Dont ever take this schmuck hotdogs side, whats wrong w/ you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Oh, youre right. My bad, I dont know what I was thinking. Westy would have gotten 150 yds and a TD, that would have been the difference. That would have made the score........whats that? OH YEAH, Giants 16-Egirlz10 We still win. And youre not factoring in the fact that Westy gets these things on us normally, but not the way that D was playing that nite. I'll bet if our D wasnt clicking on all cylinders that Buckhalter could have torched us worse, but our D was too dominating. Becasue dont forget, McNabb beats the piss out of us usually too. Westbrook being in there has a better chance than Buckhalter being in there, but our D wasnt letting ANYONE torch us that nite. and P.S. Dont ever take this schmuck hotdogs side, whats wrong w/ you? So NO ONE could have scored on the Giants that night because the D wasn't allowing it... :lol: Thanks, I needed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 So NO ONE could have scored on the Giants that night because the D wasn't allowing it... :lol: Thanks, I needed that. You got that right putz, glad I could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Oh, youre right. My bad, I dont know what I was thinking. Westy would have gotten 150 yds and a TD, that would have been the difference. That would have made the score........whats that? OH YEAH, Giants 16-Egirlz10 We still win. And youre not factoring in the fact that Westy gets these things on us normally, but not the way that D was playing that nite. I'll bet if our D wasnt clicking on all cylinders that Buckhalter could have torched us worse, but our D was too dominating. Becasue dont forget, McNabb beats the piss out of us usually too. Westbrook being in there has a better chance than Buckhalter being in there, but our D wasnt letting ANYONE torch us that nite. and P.S. Dont ever take this schmuck hotdogs side, whats wrong w/ you? Dump offs and screens would have slowed the D a lot. Not having Westbrook is a big difference for the Eagles because he is like 75% of the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Dump offs and screens would have slowed the D a lot. Not having Westbrook is a big difference for the Eagles because he is like 75% of the offense. This is like the 4th time someone has said this, and this is the 4th time Im gonna say... I KNOW THIS. Seems like you think all that Defensive effort was due to Westy not being there. Give the D a little more credit than that. I know Westy is better than Buckhalter, but Buckhalter is still a good back who can be effective in those dumps and screens, heck, he rushed for over 100 yds as the O was gettin pummeled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 This is like the 4th time someone has said this, and this is the 4th time Im gonna say... I KNOW THIS. Seems like you think all that Defensive effort was due to Westy not being there. Give the D a little more credit than that. I know Westy is better than Buckhalter, but Buckhalter is still a good back who can be effective in those dumps and screens, heck, he rushed for over 100 yds as the O was gettin pummeled! So then, regardless of whether "Westy" (I assume he is your neighbor) is healthy, the Eagles should start Buckhalter the rest of the season and sit or possibly trade "Westy." Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 So then, regardless of whether "Westy" (I assume he is your neighbor) is healthy, the Eagles should start Buckhalter the rest of the season and sit or possibly trade "Westy." Right? I just dont like typing his whole name Of course not, Westy is the better back. My point is the run game was not thier major problem that nite. It didnt necessarily suffer due to Buckhalter being out. Could it have been better? Well yes, and probably would have. But would it have been enough to beat the Giants, I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I just dont like typing his whole name Of course not, Westy is the better back. My point is the run game was not thier major problem that nite. It didnt necessarily suffer due to Buckhalter being out. Could it have been better? Well yes, and probably would have. But would it have been enough to beat the Giants, I think not. Yah my point was never that the run game was bad...it was that the didnt have the big play ability as they would if Westbrook was in there. Not to mention all the third downs he converts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Yah my point was never that the run game was bad...it was that the didnt have the big play ability as they would if Westbrook was in there. Not to mention all the third downs he converts. Both teams had a total of 16 1st downs. THe eagles obtained 8 of those rushing, the Giants 4. Thier 3rd down conversion % was 31%, ours 27%. Im tellin ya, Westbrook coulda been in and we still woulda won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Both teams had a total of 16 1st downs. THe eagles obtained 8 of those rushing, the Giants 4. Thier 3rd down conversion % was 31%, ours 27%. Im tellin ya, Westbrook coulda been in and we still woulda won. Nobody is saying they wouldn't have won...what EVERYONE seems to be suggesting is that the game could have been dramatically different had both teams been at full strength, and yes, Westbrook could have made a dramatic difference in the outcome...The Dog would site a game not so long ago when the Giants defense was pretty dominant against the Eagles, and Westbrook ended up winning the game in the final seconds on an explosive punt return for a touchdown...it is the difference between a playmaker rushing for over 100 yards and a steady back plodding for over 100 yards... and again, the Dog will reiterate the fact that the Eagles had to change their apporach because he was not in the game... Why is the argument any different then when you want to say that the Giants would have beaten the Cowboys week one had Uminyera not get hurt? Isn't it fair to say that he could have impacted the Cowboys success that night? of course it does...Now Dance, court jester - it is what you do well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Nobody is saying they wouldn't have won...what EVERYONE seems to be suggesting is that the game could have been dramatically different had both teams been at full strength, and yes, Westbrook could have made a dramatic difference in the outcome...The Dog would site a game not so long ago when the Giants defense was pretty dominant against the Eagles, and Westbrook ended up winning the game in the final seconds on an explosive punt return for a touchdown...it is the difference between a playmaker rushing for over 100 yards and a steady back plodding for over 100 yards... and again, the Dog will reiterate the fact that the Eagles had to change their apporach because he was not in the game... Why is the argument any different then when you want to say that the Giants would have beaten the Cowboys week one had Uminyera not get hurt? Isn't it fair to say that he could have impacted the Cowboys success that night? of course it does...Now Dance, court jester - it is what you do well... Im a dancin machine!!! Wheeee!!! Oh, and BTW, I cant believe you responded how you did. You must have finally realized I am superior to you. You must bow down to me, Stuy, the dancin court jester. Becasue in that first paragraph, you stated no one is saying the Giants still would havent have won, even with Westy. Thats what Ive been saying all along. Westy is the better, more impact player, but we would have won regardless. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxi-xxv Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 A case can be made that in last years playoff game with the Eagles the outcome would have been dramatically different had the Giants defense been at full strength. You know what though? Making that case gets big fat finger pointed at you as an "exuse". Injuries are part of the game, lord knows the Giants have dealt with many over the years and have played plenty of games undermanned at some tough poitions(see playoff game 05 wth the immortal Kevin Lewis, Jay Foreman and Reggie Torbor LB crew). Everytime some apologetic Giants fan would bring this up, a big fat "wahhhh stop the whining" would be thrown back in their face. Well you know what? Well you know what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Im a dancin machine!!! Wheeee!!! Oh, and BTW, I cant believe you responded how you did. You must have finally realized I am superior to you. You must bow down to me, Stuy, the dancin court jester. Becasue in that first paragraph, you stated no one is saying the Giants still would havent have won, even with Westy. Thats what Ive been saying all along. Westy is the better, more impact player, but we would have won regardless. Case closed. HA HA HA...The Dog just can't get enough of you...truely...The argument all along by Giant fans as well is that Wetsbrook would have made a difference...nobody can argue that it automatically means the Eagles would have won, but it certainly would have changed the game...you are much like the overweight and ugly drunk female wallowing around the bar at the end of the night (certainly the Dog is confident in saying that you know the type very well)...you should stay away, but it is wwwaaayyyyy too easy... By the way, superior court jester, what is a "Stuy"? And the whole Westy thing is silly (really, typing 4 more letters is so difficult...?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 HA HA HA...The Dog just can't get enough of you...truely...The argument all along by Giant fans as well is that Wetsbrook would have made a difference...nobody can argue that it automatically means the Eagles would have won, but it certainly would have changed the game...you are much like the overweight and ugly drunk female wallowing around the bar at the end of the night (certainly the Dog is confident in saying that you know the type very well)...you should stay away, but it is wwwaaayyyyy too easy... By the way, superior court jester, what is a "Stuy"? And the whole Westy thing is silly (really, typing 4 more letters is so difficult...?) Youve never seen "Family Guy"??? You aint american!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Im a dancin machine!!! Wheeee!!! Oh, and BTW, I cant believe you responded how you did. You must have finally realized I am superior to you. You must bow down to me, Stuy, the dancin court jester. Becasue in that first paragraph, you stated no one is saying the Giants still would havent have won, even with Westy. Thats what Ive been saying all along. Westy is the better, more impact player, but we would have won regardless. Case closed. Personally, I think the Dog just owned you. dude. And it's Stuey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayD Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Are you people kidding me????????? Our defense was pure dominant. Westbrook may have made a small difference in there losing effort, but they were getting there asses handed to them either way. I dont blame the "dog" for taking shots now, cause he knows damn well if they keep playing the way they did against the eagles, The Giants are going to make a big splash this year. And since he's a dirty ass cowpuke fan, well you do the math. Bottom line is our D line was VERY dominant against a very good eagle Oline. Our secondary played VERY well as well. If they keep playing the way they did, we are definitly playoff bound. I cant wait to see the Cowboys again, I got a feeling Romo is going to get punched in the mouth. BTW Brandon Jacobs was out to. 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