Clarence the Blue Puppet Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 As a Giant fan I'm a little nervous about all of the positive coverage they are getting from the media. We all know the Giants play their WORST football when the media hypes them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gspotter Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The author of this post is a dildo; don't worry about predictions. If he's wrong, you won't have him on this Mb for a while and then it'll be excuses. All message board scum is like that... As for us, our chances like as much with our secondary as they do with Eli. This is a game of turnovers and ball control. If we manage it properly we can force them into taking shots into coverage at specific times. I like our chances and of course, we're better off without TO playing, but I wouldn't count on it. he'll be good not great (if he's really hurt) and he'll still be one hell of a decoy. If we control the clock with our running team and keep their offense off the field, the rest will take care of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 As a Giant fan I'm a little nervous about all of the positive coverage they are getting from the media. We all know the Giants play their WORST football when the media hypes them up. Me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia Giant Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 [/b] Are you saying that beating Dallas with both Glenn and Owens at 40%, whatever that is, is the same as if they were 100%? Really? It's not an excuse, because the Cowboys should not be relying on two old Wrs. But they are a different team without them. You really don't understand this distinction? Of course not, and honestly I don't know how you managed to get that out of my post. My point is you dissmiss anything the Giants do to either a soft schedule and/or other teams injuries. Yet tell us the fact Plax has been less than 100 % all year has no real impact on the game. Now you give yourself an out should Dallas lose. You soften it up by saying it isn't an excuse, but thats exactly what it is. You're the one who has been dissmissing and devaluing the Giants accomplishments, yet you use the same excuses justifications for the Cowboys. Basically, we have said things may be different if we were healthy when we played the Cowboys, and you dismiss that. Now you are saying that if your wide receivers aren't healthy and you lose, that would be the reason why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 So in other words, injury IS a excuse for losing. Thanks for your honesty. You just said if Plax cant play, then that CAN be used as a excuse. But when we point out that last year we had 12 PLAYERS on IR, that isnt a excuse?? You got me spinning in circles here egg. Here is why: Giants fans like to cry about penalties and injuries. This is nothing new. Whatever floats your boat...But I do not believe that the Giants have suffered the type of injuries, at least during the regular season, that they can use injuries as an excuse. And Burress has been healthy enough to play at a very high level, so let's stop crying about his ankle already. ...and who's actually crying about Burress' ankle??? Seems like Eggo is crying about T.O. Are you saying that beating Dallas with both Glenn and Owens at 40%, whatever that is, is the same as if they were 100%? ...Because the Cowboys, while better than the Giants, are not that much better and the Giants are a different team without both Shockey and Burress on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feefifoefum Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 True there is no guarantee. And, honestly, I would have rather seen TB. It still doesn't change the fact that the Cowboys have no business losing this game. Your right about TO. At 50% he is just any other WR. But any other WR should be enough against the Giants defensive back field. Stop acting as if Dallas' defensive backfield isn't just as vulnerable, especially to a QB who is feeling good about himself right now and usually plays well in Dallas anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Steve Smith has a big day if Roy Williams has to (try to) cover him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feefifoefum Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 [/b] Are you saying that beating Dallas with both Glenn and Owens at 40%, whatever that is, is the same as if they were 100%? Really? It's not an excuse, because the Cowboys should not be relying on two old Wrs. But they are a different team without them. You really don't understand this distinction? More pre-emptive excuse making. We all understand you are not as confident about this matchup as you might have been 6 weeks ago, but you need to be a stand up guy here and hold true to your "beliefs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The Bucs cannot blame there loss to the Giants on injuries. Galloway was hurt. Your right about TO. At 50% he is just any other WR. But any other WR should be enough against the Giants defensive back field. I guess Galloway was supposed to be enough to beat the Giants. After all he is 'any other reciever'. Brilliant!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feefifoefum Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 One last time. I am not making excuses for the Cowboys. If you rely on two receivers in their thirties and they get hurt you have no one to blame but yourself. No excuses. But you can't separate out the fact that the Cowboys are a different team without them. But I'm not going to cry about it if they lose. That's football. You are supposed to have guys that step it up when others can't go. And that was my point about TB. They should have another weapon other than Galloway. They don't. And, therefore, they deserved to go home. But saying the Cowboys are the same team without these guys is like saying the Pats/Colts game is the same game regardless of whether Moss and Welker are hurt. Or both Wayne and Harrison are hurt. They are different teams without these guys. Interestingly, the Colts haven't been crying about Harrison. Why do Giants fans continue to cry? Here is why: Giants fans like to cry about penalties and injuries. This is nothing new. Whatever floats your boat...But I do not believe that the Giants have suffered the type of injuries, at least during the regular season, that they can use injuries as an excuse. And Burress has been healthy enough to play at a very high level, so let's stop crying about his ankle already. But I will give you this. If Burress' ankle severely limits him this game or flares up to an extent that he cannot play, maybe the Giants can blame this one playoff loss on injuries. Because the Cowboys, while better than the Giants, are not that much better and the Giants are a different team without both Shockey and Burress on the field. So they are not the same without both of them, but they are the same with Boss instead of Shockey? Especially in this game, since we all know who's Shockey's bitch is... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feefifoefum Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 [/b] Are you saying that beating Dallas with both Glenn and Owens at 40%, whatever that is, is the same as if they were 100%? Really? It's not an excuse, because the Cowboys should not be relying on two old Wrs. But they are a different team without them. You really don't understand this distinction? Glenn had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Cowboys stellar season to this point. Throwing him into the fray here to validate your "factor" (excuse) of injured players shows how desperate you are to have a "reason" (excuse) to cling to as to why Dallas lost the game and wasted their season. You are just looking bad any way you slice this thread, pal. Shitcan it and start a new one, and have some balls about it, yellow belly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 Stop acting as if Dallas' defensive backfield isn't just as vulnerable, especially to a QB who is feeling good about himself right now and usually plays well in Dallas anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Steve Smith has a big day if Roy Williams has to (try to) cover him. The Dallas defensive backfield isn't as vulnerable. And Steve who? He has to do a little more than catch a pass or two against TB for anyone to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gspotter Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Should the Giants win, I hope we'll have the joy of BadLeg's attendance here for his ass-beating...messageboard style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 The Dallas defensive backfield isn't as vulnerable. And Steve who? He has to do a little more than catch a pass or two against TB for anyone to care. Spoken like a true cowgirl fan. He has, and we(Giant fans) noticed. We wouldnt expect a bandwagon jumper to notice things like that. If Emmitt Smith never won the rushing title, you'd have no idea who he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 Spoken like a true cowgirl fan. He has, and we(Giant fans) noticed. We wouldnt expect a bandwagon jumper to notice things like that. If Emmitt Smith never won the rushing title, you'd have no idea who he is. Rushing title??? I thought he was the guy that won Dancing with the Stars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Rushing title??? I thought he was the guy that won Dancing with the Stars! All time leading rusher, rushing title. Potato, potahto....whatever. Oh, and BTW, I hope one of our defenders knocks the snot outta Crayton. He had the nerve to say DeMarcus Ware has the potential to be better than LT. He needs to be bitch slapped for stating that Ware is even in the same category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 All time leading rusher, rushing title. Potato, potahto....whatever. Oh, and BTW, I hope one of our defenders knocks the snot outta Crayton. He had the nerve to say DeMarcus Ware has the potential to be better than LT. He needs to be bitch slapped for stating that Ware is even in the same category. interestingly enough, if you compare their careers at this stage, and if the dog's reserach is correct, ware has better numbers...doesn't mean he will be better, but the numbers are what they are... it is conceivable that there are linebackers that will come that will be better then Taylor...is ware? at this point, it is hard to say, but there were very few in the late eighties and early nineties that would have said there will be a better QB then Montana, and now we have Brady... your infatuation with taylor can be unnerving at times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarence the Blue Puppet Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 interestingly enough, if you compare their careers at this stage, and if the dog's reserach is correct, ware has better numbers...doesn't mean he will be better, but the numbers are what they are... it is conceivable that there are linebackers that will come that will be better then Taylor...is ware? at this point, it is hard to say, but there were very few in the late eighties and early nineties that would have said there will be a better QB then Montana, and now we have Brady... your infatuation with taylor can be unnerving at times... LT redefined the position. It will be a long time before another linebacker can do that. It's also not hard for a linebacker to look amazing in the modern NFL what with all the watered down talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feefifoefum Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 The Dallas defensive backfield isn't as vulnerable. And Steve who? He has to do a little more than catch a pass or two against TB for anyone to care. Uh... that's kind of the point here, pointing out how bad Roy Williams is in coverage, Steve Smith might actually show up in the box score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feefifoefum Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 interestingly enough, if you compare their careers at this stage, and if the dog's reserach is correct, ware has better numbers...doesn't mean he will be better, but the numbers are what they are... it is conceivable that there are linebackers that will come that will be better then Taylor...is ware? at this point, it is hard to say, but there were very few in the late eighties and early nineties that would have said there will be a better QB then Montana, and now we have Brady... your infatuation with taylor can be unnerving at times... When Ware wins an NFL MVP award, then maybe we can have this discussion, until then, as that old Dolphin used to say, "Call me when you're on my block." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia Giant Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 interestingly enough, if you compare their careers at this stage, and if the dog's reserach is correct, ware has better numbers...doesn't mean he will be better, but the numbers are what they are... it is conceivable that there are linebackers that will come that will be better then Taylor...is ware? at this point, it is hard to say, but there were very few in the late eighties and early nineties that would have said there will be a better QB then Montana, and now we have Brady... your infatuation with taylor can be unnerving at times... I'm still anxious to hear the dogs response to my post. Seeing as he likes to claim things without reading a thread in its entirety, I'm wondering what the dog has to say. Don't worry, I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 interestingly enough, if you compare their careers at this stage, and if the dog's reserach is correct, ware has better numbers...doesn't mean he will be better, but the numbers are what they are... it is conceivable that there are linebackers that will come that will be better then Taylor...is ware? at this point, it is hard to say, but there were very few in the late eighties and early nineties that would have said there will be a better QB then Montana, and now we have Brady... your infatuation with taylor can be unnerving at times... Can you blame me? He was the best player ever to don a uniform, the guy was amazing. With all due respect to Montana, he didnt change the position like LT. You can say that about every position except LB, there will never be another LT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 LT redefined the position. It will be a long time before another linebacker can do that. It's also not hard for a linebacker to look amazing in the modern NFL what with all the watered down talent. Exactly....before LT offenses were running pro sets and attempting to block linemen (much less blitzing LB's) with running backs. After LT tackled the backfield enough times they started putting the OT on him, sometimes with a TE to chip him as well. Just think LT did all of this on talent and desire (maybe a little caine to take the edge off) and religiously avoided the weight room. George Martin once told him if he ever went into the strength and conditioning aspect of the game he could last another 5 years. He was a true master of his craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK-Giantsfan Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Been on the Cowboys boards a bit ......and there are growing signs of overconfidence from them ! ( one more win for the G-men and the outrageous prediction in my sig comes true - Go Giants ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I'm still anxious to hear the dogs response to my post. Seeing as he likes to claim things without reading a thread in its entirety, I'm wondering what the dog has to say. Don't worry, I'll wait. if your referring to the whol einjury excuse comments, the Dog was merely pointing out how that is the common excuse weekly in here, and used your comment as an example...the Dog's not sure why you are offended, but with all do respect, it was not meant as anything other then an example of what typically gets said here, and so perhaps you need not be taking things quite so personally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Can you blame me? He was the best player ever to don a uniform, the guy was amazing. With all due respect to Montana, he didnt change the position like LT. You can say that about every position except LB, there will never be another LT. oh, the dog really doesn't want to digress this back to the same debate we had in august, so just refer back to those threads please...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... time to stick to the original point of the thread...while the dog feels that really no team should beat another 3 times in a season, the dog sees the cowboys winning...too many weapons to keep pace with... 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