A Shockey Trade Deal Still Cooking?

[Money]

Its funny how everyone who wants him gone says that he said, " I dont wanna be a Giant." Yet, I have yet to see a link to an interview or comment where he said that. Yeah, he doesnt wanna be on a contending team. He wants to go to a shaky Saints team with an uncertain future instead of staying with the Giants. Bullshit.

 

I don't think we're all that much better than the Saints right now. They were in the conference title game in 2006. Lot of good talent on offense, starting with Brees, Colston, and Bush. And their defense added Jon Vilma, Dan Morgan, and Sedrick Ellis. They have the look of a 10+ win team to me.

[gateb]

He's a LT.

 

He and Shockey seem like a pretty even swap. Both are 27 years old, former Pro Bowlers, top 15 picks, Oklahoma natives. But, much like our predicament with Shockey, the Saints would be foolish to trade Brown since they have no ammunition for attaining a viable replacement.

Plus Brown wouldn't have much of a spot on the team. Diehl is now making starting LT money and we locked up Seubert to be our starting guard. Unless we expected Snee to depart and Diehl to be his heir, there is no place for Brown on our team.

[Money]

 

What? You expect to replace J. Shockey with a player with only 11 career catches (Jeremy had 12 against the Cowboys alone). You want to replace Shockey with a player who had more drops in the playoffs (4) than Shockey had all year (3). You want to replace J. Shockey with a player who can't block to save his life.

 

Right before the Giants vs Cowboy playoff game, the Defensive coordinator of the Cowboys came on a local radio station and admitted in the first game they so were committed in eliminating Jeremy Shockey that it left Burress wide open. In one play, he said they called for Shockey to be almost triple teammed. In the second game they decided not to double team Shockey and got smoked. Kareem McKanezyeven said you can see teams game planning for Shockey and not Boss. An we want to replace Shockey with a TE who can't catch, who can't run, who can't block. But some how he's better than Shockey. He's not even 1/20 of the Athlete or football player Shockey is. Not even close...

 

And now Shockey is a bad teammate because he wants to be more involve in the passing game. So when Toomer went to the media and said the samething "he just wants to help the team.," With Shockey "he's a distractions to Eli." So when Jerry Rice would yelled at S Young for the ball he was a "Playmaker." It like my old high School coach use to say "Show me receiver who doesn't want the ball and I'll show you a player sitting on the bench."

 

Now we hate Shockey because he wants to be traded. I mean, is this really the first time we've seen this before. In fact Phil Sims, Harry Carson, LT all resquested to be traded at one point. Hell, Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry had to go to a local bus station and convince Sam Huff not to quite the team.

 

Some of you guys act as if this is your first year watching football. My God...

 

It's difficult to sing Shockey's praises (or criticize Boss so unnecessarily) when the team had so much success subsequent to 80 getting hurt. It's hard to dismiss our playoff run as a coincidence. The evidence indicates that there's merit to the idea that the Giants, in some ways, are better without him.

 

Jeremy is a valuable player, but clearly we can exist without him. And replacing him isn't placed solely on Boss's shoulders (a guy who sure looked like he could catch and run in the Super Bowl when he made a game-changing play). Recovering those 60 catches would be a team effort carried out from Burress to Toomer to Boss to Smith, Moss, and Mario Speedwagon. I'd prefer to keep him, but if we can get a 2009 1st round pick or Jammal Brown (who is a better player than Shockey), then it's very much worth considering.

[Money]

Plus Brown wouldn't have much of a spot on the team. Diehl is now making starting LT money and we locked up Seubert to be our starting guard. Unless we expected Snee to depart and Diehl to be his heir, there is no place for Brown on our team.

 

The salaries are not prohibitive of a Brown-Diehl-O'Hara-Snee-McK line with Seubert as the 6th man...

[boohyah]

The theory that the Giants are a better team without Shockey and that Eli plays better without IS THE DUMBEST THEORY OUT THERE. These guys have been teamates for 4 years, and have 3 winning seasons playing together. How did that happen?

[gateb]

The salaries are not prohibitive of a Brown-Diehl-O'Hara-Snee-McK line with Seubert as the 6th man...

True... it would be an upgrade at both guard and tackle if we could swing that deal.

[gateb]

Shockey's so valuable for blocking though, it's not just the 60 catches we have to make up. He's actually blocked defensive ends by himself before, and he's a beast in the running game. Boss is adequate in that department but for a team that works best when they stuff it down the opponent's throat, a guy like Shockey becomes so much more valuable.

 

So is the downgrade in the passing offense and run blocking from the TE negated by the upgrade at LT, and G?

[eagleEye]

I don't think we're all that much better than the Saints right now. They were in the conference title game in 2006. Lot of good talent on offense, starting with Brees, Colston, and Bush. And their defense added Jon Vilma, Dan Morgan, and Sedrick Ellis. They have the look of a 10+ win team to me.

 

 

All that happened was people realized how to stop Reggie Bush. After that they have shit.

 

The theory that the Giants are a better team without Shockey and that Eli plays better without IS THE DUMBEST THEORY OUT THERE. These guys have been teamates for 4 years, and have 3 winning seasons playing together. How did that happen?

 

Thankyou.

 

[Money]

All that happened was people realized how to stop Reggie Bush. After that they have shit.

 

4th in total offense last year. Scored more points than we, the high and might Super Bowl champs, did. And that was with McAllister on IR. Even if Deuce doesn't come back healthy, keep an eye on Pierre Thomas (the first Money Fantasy Tidbit of the year!!) to complement Bush. They have a lot ... well, at least a lot more than "shit"

[CrazedDogs]

Eli in '08 with Shockey:

 

55.7% comp

6.18 ypa

3.95% TD/att

3.53% INT/att

 

Eli in '08 without Shockey:

 

60.8% comp

7.33 ypa

6.02% TD/att

2.41% INT/att

 

Hmmmmm

[Money]

The theory that the Giants are a better team without Shockey and that Eli plays better without IS THE DUMBEST THEORY OUT THERE. These guys have been teamates for 4 years, and have 3 winning seasons playing together. How did that happen?

 

Right, but we also played five great games without Shockey, headlined by Eli suddenly looking like a top-notch QB. If you project that sample over the course of 16 games, and Eli's numbers look incredible:

 

62.3 comp. %, 3536 yards, 7.3 YPA, 32 TDs, 6.4 INTs

 

In any statistical analysis, you never want to confuse causation with correlation. But nothing changed in our offensive personnel besides Shockey getting hurt and replaced by Boss. That doesn't imply that Boss was a better player -- that's a ridiculous premise -- but it's not unreasonable to conclude that, under the circumstances, Boss was better for our passing game than Shockey.

 

There's a legitimate theory to support that conclusion: for whatever reason, Eli forced a lot of passes to Shockey and they frequently miscommunicated, resulting in a number of incompletions and INTs. Once Shockey was out of the line-up, Eli wasn't pressured to force the ball and consequently spread the ball around more effectively. He also knew where his TE would be at all times, and although he didn't throw to Boss with nearly the regularity that he went to Shockey, whenever he targeted Boss there were no negative plays. The overall outcome? A much more efficient, balanced passing attack.

 

In fairness, some other occurences coincided with our playoff run. Toomer stepped up and played significantly better. Smith emerged as a reliable third receiver that could beat man coverage, particularly and 3rd downs. Bradshaw became a vital component in the running game. But I sense those first two things likely would not have happened if Eli were continuing to force the ball to Shockey and Burress.

 

Speaking of Burress, with the exception of the NFC title game, he wasn't targeted as much as he was during the regular season because of his injury. This lends support to the notion that Eli has the most success when he's distributing the ball among 5-6 receivers instead of only 2-3. Without a demanding target that often was in the wrong place, our embattled QB and inconsistent passing game magically improved by substantial quantifiable margins.

 

If we accept the aforementioned theory, the solution is easy -- get Eli and Shockey on the same page, and make sure Eli continues to spread the ball around. Considering that Shockey is a significantly more capable receiver than Boss, that's the best-case scenario. Factor in Shockey's influence in the running game (which markedly declined in his absence, as gateb alluded to; I don't feel like digging up the numbers, but I assure you the stats bear this out), and he's a valuable TE that would drastically improve our offense so long as he and Eli meet those preconditions.

 

But if he really doesn't want to be here, and if the Giants can get a 1st round pick or comparable Pro Bowl-caliber player for him, then a trade is absolutely worth investigating. Jeremy Shockey is valuable, but he is definitely not indispensible.

[Dragon]

Too lazy to retype what I posted in another thread so I'll just copy and paste it.

 

"Our season didn't turn around when Shockey went down. Shockey went down in the second Redskins game and Eli turned in a subpar performance the next week against Buffalo. Our season turned around when Gilbride pulled his head out of his ass and started calling a more balanced and "Eli-Friendly" gameplan."

 

I know it'll come up too so I'll address that as well. Eli was playin like shit before it started snowing in Buffalo. What I find funny is that the same ones that are calling for Shockey to get traded now are the same one that were crying for the Giants to get him more involved in the offense because we were wasting his talent by having him run "3-yard-curls" every play. I have nothing against Boss and I think that he did great when he got his opportunity but I can't expect him to come in and have the same impact that Shockey could potentially have if Gilbride uses him like the weapon that he is. The turnaround was directly connected to Kevin Gilbride finally realizing that his gameplans (You know... the ones where we throw the ball 52 times in 40mph winds) weren't working.

[JMFP]

 

What? You expect to replace J. Shockey with a player with only 11 career catches (Jeremy had 12 against the Cowboys alone). You want to replace Shockey with a player who had more drops in the playoffs (4) than Shockey had all year (3). You want to replace J. Shockey with a player who can't block to save his life.

 

Right before the Giants vs Cowboy playoff game, the Defensive coordinator of the Cowboys came on a local radio station and admitted in the first game they so were committed in eliminating Jeremy Shockey that it left Burress wide open. In one play, he said they called for Shockey to be almost triple teammed. In the second game they decided not to double team Shockey and got smoked. Kareem McKanezyeven said you can see teams game planning for Shockey and not Boss. An we want to replace Shockey with a TE who can't catch, who can't run, who can't block. But some how he's better than Shockey. He's not even 1/20 of the Athlete or football player Shockey is. Not even close...

 

And now Shockey is a bad teammate because he wants to be more involve in the passing game. So when Toomer went to the media and said the samething "he just wants to help the team.," With Shockey "he's a distractions to Eli." So when Jerry Rice would yelled at S Young for the ball he was a "Playmaker." It like my old high School coach use to say "Show me receiver who doesn't want the ball and I'll show you a player sitting on the bench."

 

Now we hate Shockey because he wants to be traded. I mean, is this really the first time we've seen this before. In fact Phil Sims, Harry Carson, LT all resquested to be traded at one point. Hell, Vince Lombardi and Tom Landry had to go to a local bus station and convince Sam Huff not to quite the team.

 

Some of you guys act as if this is your first year watching football. My God...

 

Nem, I don't want to replace Shockey with Boss, but from what I've read, Shockey wants to be replaced by Boss. So there you have it.

 

I understand what you're saying. Shockey is a talented player, but not irreplaceable. We all saw what the team accomplished without him. I'm not going to sit here and say that we should dump Shockey for a 4th round pick. What I'm saying is, if he wants to leave, and we can TRADE for TALENT, then I won't be tearing my clothes.

 

And I'll stick by my point that he's a big fucking baby, too.

 

Phil Simms, Harry Carson, LT, Sam Huff, and Jeremy Shockey.....reminds me of that old Sesame Street song.... "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong".

[Money]

Too lazy to retype what I posted in another thread so I'll just copy and paste it.

 

"Our season didn't turn around when Shockey went down. Shockey went down in the second Redskins game and Eli turned in a subpar performance the next week against Buffalo. Our season turned around when Gilbride pulled his head out of his ass and started calling a more balanced and "Eli-Friendly" gameplan."

 

I know it'll come up too so I'll address that as well. Eli was playin like shit before it started snowing in Buffalo. What I find funny is that the same ones that are calling for Shockey to get traded now are the same one that were crying for the Giants to get him more involved in the offense because we were wasting his talent by having him run "3-yard-curls" every play. I have nothing against Boss and I think that he did great when he got his opportunity but I can't expect him to come in and have the same impact that Shockey could potentially have if Gilbride uses him like the weapon that he is. The turnaround was directly connected to Kevin Gilbride finally realizing that his gameplans (You know... the ones where we throw the ball 52 times in 40mph winds) weren't working.

 

I disagree. Our gameplans didn't change at all. We still had the passing tree and a similar run/pass ratio. Same downfield aggression and 5- and 7-step drops.

 

Also, as I recall, Eli played fairly well in the 1st half vs. the Bills, and he had a 50-yard TD strike dropped by Smith. Things fell apart in the second half because of the weather, which is why I excluded that game from the data segmentation.

[xxi-xxv]

If Eli plays the way he did in the post season a healthy Shockey only HELPS the team. To quote Adam Schein of Sirius NFL radio "Shockey can get into the ebb and flow of the game at ELI's leisure instead of forcing things and bad things happening early"

 

DO not discount how SMith helps this process, particularly in 3 WR 1 TE sets.

[Dragon]

I disagree. Our gameplans didn't change at all. We still had the passing tree and a similar run/pass ratio.

 

Also, as I recall, Eli played fairly well in the 1st half vs. the Bills, and he had a 50-yard TD strike dropped by Smith. Things fell apart in the second half because of the weather, which is why I excluded that game from the data segmentation.

If the gameplans hadn't changed, we'd have been throwing the ball when we were down 14-0 in that Buffalo game instead of relying on the running game that went for almost 300 yards. Bottom line is that most people believe that Shockey was the direct reason for the Giants' failures and I find that to be complete bullshit.

[Money]

If the gameplans hadn't changed, we'd have been throwing the ball when we were down 14-0 in that Buffalo game instead of relying on the running game that went for almost 300 yards. Bottom line is that most people believe that Shockey was the direct reason for the Giants' failures and I find that to be complete bullshit.

 

That was more a product of the weather. It went nuts in the second half, and neither team could complete a pass when they were headed in one direction (all points where scored in one end zone). And we kept passing while we were down; our first possession after being down 14-0:

 

New York Giants at 05:31

9-R.Lindell kicks 64 yards from BUF 30 to NYG 6. 44-A.Bradshaw to NYG 30 for 24 yards (35-D.Fox).

1-10-NYG 30 (5:25) (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning pass incomplete short left to 27-B.Jacobs. Thrown behind receiver at NYG 32.

2-10-NYG 30 (5:21) 27-B.Jacobs right tackle to NYG 30 for no gain (55-A.Crowell).

3-10-NYG 30 (4:37) (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning pass deep right to 81-A.Toomer to BUF 15 for 55 yards (42-J.Leonhard). Caught near sideline at BUF 33. Buffalo challenged the runner was down by contact ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning pass deep right to 81-A.Toomer to BUF 31 for 39 yards (42-J.Leonhard). Caught near sideline at BUF 33.

1-10-BUF 31 (3:48) 10-E.Manning pass incomplete deep left to 17-P.Burress. Overthrown, receiver 4 yds. into end zone, near sideline.

2-10-BUF 31 (3:41) 27-B.Jacobs left end to BUF 30 for 1 yard (43-B.Scott).

3-9-BUF 30 (2:56) (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning sacked at BUF 37 for -7 yards. FUMBLES, and recovers at BUF 37. 10-E.Manning to BUF 37 for no gain (90-C.Kelsay). Ball squirted from QB's hand on backswing of throw.

4-16-BUF 37 (2:26) 18-J.Feagles punts 33 yards to BUF 4, Center-51-Z.DeOssie, out of bounds. Penalty on BUF-53-M.Haggan, Defensive Offside, declined.

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?g...&week=REG16

 

If you look at the run/pass ratio of Weeks 1-15 vs. Weeks 16, 17, and the playoffs, it's very similar. Our philosophy remained the same throughout. We obviously altered our gameplan to accomodate for Shockey's absence, but it was the same offense and play-calling tendencies that characterized the first 14 games.

 

I haven't really seen anyone blame Shockey for the teams problems. We were, after all, 9-4 when he got hurt. But the data overwhelmingly indicates that the team played better without him, and I don't think you can dismiss that as an aberration rooted in a modified offensive philosophy (when the data does not support that)...

[boohyah]

Right, but we also played five great games without Shockey, headlined by Eli suddenly looking like a top-notch QB. If you project that sample over the course of 16 games, and Eli's numbers look incredible:

 

62.3 comp. %, 3536 yards, 7.3 YPA, 32 TDs, 6.4 INTs

 

In any statistical analysis, you never want to confuse causation with correlation. But nothing changed in our offensive personnel besides Shockey getting hurt and replaced by Boss. That doesn't imply that Boss was a better player -- that's a ridiculous premise -- but it's not unreasonable to conclude that, under the circumstances, Boss was better for our passing game than Shockey.

 

There's a legitimate theory to support that conclusion: for whatever reason, Eli forced a lot of passes to Shockey and they frequently miscommunicated, resulting in a number of incompletions and INTs. Once Shockey was out of the line-up, Eli wasn't pressured to force the ball and consequently spread the ball around more effectively. He also knew where his TE would be at all times, and although he didn't throw to Boss with nearly the regularity that he went to Shockey, whenever he targeted Boss there were no negative plays. The overall outcome? A much more efficient, balanced passing attack.

 

In fairness, some other occurences coincided with our playoff run. Toomer stepped up and played significantly better. Smith emerged as a reliable third receiver that could beat man coverage, particularly and 3rd downs. Bradshaw became a vital component in the running game. But I sense those first two things likely would not have happened if Eli were continuing to force the ball to Shockey and Burress.

 

Speaking of Burress, with the exception of the NFC title game, he wasn't targeted as much as he was during the regular season because of his injury. This lends support to the notion that Eli has the most success when he's distributing the ball among 5-6 receivers instead of only 2-3. Without a demanding target that often was in the wrong place, our embattled QB and inconsistent passing game magically improved by substantial quantifiable margins.

 

If we accept the aforementioned theory, the solution is easy -- get Eli and Shockey on the same page, and make sure Eli continues to spread the ball around. Considering that Shockey is a significantly more capable receiver than Boss, that's the best-case scenario. Factor in Shockey's influence in the running game (which markedly declined in his absence, as gateb alluded to; I don't feel like digging up the numbers, but I assure you the stats bear this out), and he's a valuable TE that would drastically improve our offense so long as he and Eli meet those preconditions.

 

But if he really doesn't want to be here, and if the Giants can get a 1st round pick or comparable Pro Bowl-caliber player for him, then a trade is absolutely worth investigating. Jeremy Shockey is valuable, but he is definitely not indispensible.

 

 

Money, when Eli was fumbling the snaps up in Buffalo, Shockey had nothing to do with that. He did it 4 times. That's carelessness.

 

The playoff run has significantly way more to do with Eli improving than Shockey missing. Think about this for one second, what if eli never improved and we never won the bowl. Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, he's the one possibly being traded.

 

We have no proof that we could have been even better during those 4 games with Shockey, and that should also be considered.

 

 

[Money]

Money, when Eli was fumbling the snaps up in Buffalo, Shockey had nothing to do with that. He did it 4 times. That's carelessness.

 

The playoff run has significantly way more to do with Eli improving than Shockey missing. Think about this for one second, what if eli never improved and we never won the bowl. Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, he's the one possibly being traded.

 

We have no proof that we could have been even better during those 4 games with Shockey, and that should also be considered.

 

Why does everyone keep talking about Buffalo? It was a weird game that was helplessly skewed by the weather (hence the fumbles), and it's not consistent with any game we played this year. It's an outlier.

 

If Eli didn't make the leap during our playoff run, then obviously the entire team is viewed in a different light. That goes without saying.

 

But he did make the leap. The playoff run did happen. And it happened after Shockey got hurt. Your proof lies in our with-Shockey performance vs. our without-Shockey performance. The difference is far too staggering to overlook.

 

How do you explain our offensive improvement post-Shockey and accompanying playoff run?

[Dragon]

So in other words you believe that Shockey as a player is a detriment to the success of the team and our success had nothing to do with Gilbride no longer having Eli throw the ball all over the field. IDK maybe it's just me. Maybe Shockey's 57 catches and weren't enough to compete with Boss' 14. Maybe before the Pats game I only THINK I saw a ton of downfield passes and no balance in the offense. Maybe Eli's efficiency didn't go up because he started making better decisions with the ball (Like NOT throwing it to Michael Matthews). Maybe it was all Shockey's fault that the Giants led the NFL in dropped passes even though Amani Toomer led the team.

 

EDIT: The Buffalo game keeps getting brought up because it was the first full game without Shockey and if Shockey's absence was directly related to the failures of the team the comparisons have to start as soon as Boss starts his first game. The argument is skewed if you leave facts out.

[Money]

So in other words you believe that Shockey as a player is a detriment to the success of the team and our success had nothing to do with Gilbride no longer having Eli throw the ball all over the field. IDK maybe it's just me. Maybe Shockey's 57 catches and weren't enough to compete with Boss' 14. Maybe before the Pats game I only THINK I saw a ton of downfield passes and no balance in the offense. Maybe Eli's efficiency didn't go up because he started making better decisions with the ball (Like NOT throwing it to Michael Matthews). Maybe it was all Shockey's fault that the Giants led the NFL in dropped passes even though Amani Toomer led the team.

 

No, it's not that cut-and-dry and it never is. He's a very good player. He's much better than Boss. I've said that multiple times, and never once imtimated that Jeremy was a detriment.

 

We did throw the ball a lot after Shockey was hurt. During the five games, we averaged 33 attempts per game (starting with NE and ending with the Super Bowl). We attempted 30.1 passes per game when Shockey was active (15 games). Like I said earlier, the ratios are virtually the same, which belie the notion that we suddenly changed our offensive philosophy. Plus, it's a completely subjective claim that's reinforced by no quantitative information.

 

As for Eli making better decisions, we can agree on that. I made that abundantly clear in my earlier post. But I think there's strong reason to believe that his decisions improved because he no longer was compelled to force the ball to #80 (who often made a different read than the QB, thus resulting in errant passes and turnovers), instead distributing the ball among Plax, Amani, Smith, and Boss.

[Money]

EDIT: The Buffalo game keeps getting brought up because it was the first full game without Shockey and if Shockey's absence was directly related to the failures of the team the comparisons have to start as soon as Boss starts his first game. The argument is skewed if you leave facts out.

 

Shockey's absence was not directly related to the "failures" of a 9-5 team. That's never been a premise.

 

And as I said in my response to booyah, I excluded that game from the data set because it's totally inconsistent with the other 19 games we played. And the cause of the difference is easily identifiable: the weather.

[Dragon]

No, it's not that cut-and-dry and it never is. He's a very good player. He's much better than Boss. I've said that multiple times, and never once imtimated that Jeremy was a detriment.

 

We did throw the ball a lot after Shockey was hurt. During the five games, we averaged 33 attempts per game (starting with NE and ending with the Super Bowl). We attempted 30.1 passes per game when Shockey was active. Like I said earlier, the ratios are virtually the same, which belie the notion that we suddenly changed our offensive philosophy. Plus, it's a completely subjective claim that reinforced by no quantitative information.

 

As for Eli making better decisions, we can agree on that. I made that abundantly clear in my earlier post. But I think there's strong reason to believe that his decisions improved because he no longer was compelled to force the ball to #80 (who often made a different read than the QB, thus resulting in errant passes and turnovers), instead distributing the ball among Plax, Amani, Smith, and Boss.

 

Shockey's absence was not directly related to the "failures" of a 9-5 team. That's never been a premise.

 

And as I said in my response to booyah, I excluded that game from the data set because it's totally inconsistent with the other 19 games we played. And the cause of the difference is easily identifiable: the weather

1. Most of that last post wasn't directed just to you. Most do believe that Shockey is a detriment regardless of his production or drive.

 

2. You're misunderstanding what I mean when I'm saying balanced. I mean as far as higher percentage passes as opposed to runs.

 

3. Eli made better decisions, but you're still looking at it in an Anti-Shockey light. If our QB was THAT intimidated by the presence of one person he wouldn't have ever been able to perform the way he did in the biggest pressure situation... 2:42 left in the Super Bowl. I find that to be an excuse rather than fact seeing as how everyone on the team seems to want Shockey back including Manning. I don't have the stats on the amount of times that a certain player was targeted, but Burress caught 23 more passes than Shockey did in the regular season and only 5 after Shockey went down. Granted one of those games was the Buffalo game so we'll leave that one out and say he only caught 4. Manning wasn't forced to get Shockey the ball. Just as you said before... there was a passing tree. Burress was on top not Shockey.

 

4. It was if you pay attention to other people posting.

 

5. Weather is a part of football. You know that. If you don't include that game you can't include any game we've ever played in bad weather where Shockey or any other player has had any negative effect.

[Money]

1. Most of that last post wasn't directed just to you. Most do believe that Shockey is a detriment regardless of his production or drive.

 

2. You're misunderstanding what I mean when I'm saying balanced. I mean as far as higher percentage passes as opposed to runs.

 

3. Eli made better decisions, but you're still looking at it in an Anti-Shockey light. If our QB was THAT intimidated by the presence of one person he wouldn't have ever been able to perform the way he did in the biggest pressure situation... 2:42 left in the Super Bowl. I find that to be an excuse rather than fact seeing as how everyone on the team seems to want Shockey back including Manning. I don't have the stats on the amount of times that a certain player was targeted, but Burress caught 23 more passes than Shockey did in the regular season and only 5 after Shockey went down. Granted one of those games was the Buffalo game so we'll leave that one out and say he only caught 4. Manning wasn't forced to get Shockey the ball. Just as you said before... there was a passing tree. Burress was on top not Shockey.

 

4. It was if you pay attention to other people posting.

 

5. Weather is a part of football. You know that. If you don't include that game you can't include any game we've ever played in bad weather where Shockey or any other player has had any negative effect.

 

I really don't agree that we were attempting higher percentage passes. I saw the same complex passing tree and downfield aggression that characterized our passing game throughout the season. Similar number of deep shots. It's strange how people contend that Shockey was misused in that he wasn't challenging defenses vertically enough, yet those same people claim our offense was safer and more "high-percentage" following his departure. You can't have it both ways. To be truthful, both are misconceptions. We were aggressive with him, and aggressive without him.

 

Burress wasn't on "top" of the passing tree. There is no top or bottom; that's not how it works. The passing tree is the various routes an individual receiver can run (generally there's 9 options) based on his positions, the playcall, and the pre-snap reads. As consequence of the complexity, Shockey often made different reads than the QB. This is something that's been whispered dating all the way back to 2005. The result? Incompletions, interceptions, sacks, turnovers, etc. Those misreads and subsequent negative plays were instantly minimized when Boss entered the line-up.

 

I wouldn't say Eli was intimidated. My point was he forced the ball a lot to a guy that never hid the fact that he felt he wasn't getting the ball enough. Shockey was among the most targeted players at his position, yet we rarely threw the ball to the TE when Boss was the starter. That's partly symptomatic of Boss not getting open as much as Shockey, but also indicative that Eli wasn't looking for #80 too much.

 

The weather that impacted the Buffalo game was far too outrageous to categorize as anything other than an outlier. In a 267-game NFL season, there's maybe 10 games (less than 3%) that are played in those types of conditions. In any case, if you include the Buffalo game in the date set, the post-Shockey performance is still substantially better, and it's not even close:

 

60.8 comp. %, 3243 yards, 7.3 YPA, 27 TDs, 11 INTs, 93.4 QBR (27% higher than his career avg.!!)

 

We also scored 26.3 points per game without Shockey, 21.4 with him. And that improvement came against a slate of strong playoff defenses, including a top-5 NE unit twice!

[boohyah]

Why does everyone keep talking about Buffalo? It was a weird game that was helplessly skewed by the weather (hence the fumbles), and it's not consistent with any game we played this year. It's an outlier.

 

If Eli didn't make the leap during our playoff run, then obviously the entire team is viewed in a different light. That goes without saying.

 

But he did make the leap. The playoff run did happen. And it happened after Shockey got hurt. Your proof lies in our with-Shockey performance vs. our without-Shockey performance. The difference is far too staggering to overlook.

 

How do you explain our offensive improvement post-Shockey and accompanying playoff run?

 

 

You can't disgard the Buffalo game, it has rained, snowed, been windy before. Taking a snap from the center or having the ball in your hands and fumbling it has little to do with the weather. Yes it was a bad day, but the QB simply wasn't good. Our running game carried us and Buffalo couldn't handle it.

 

Also, how was our offensive output so drastically different in the playoffs. Apart from the NE last game of the season, our average point total was just over 20 for all 4 games. That's not killing teams, we managed games better, and our defense played better. But the stat that stands out is turnovers - one. And the guy who has most control of turnovers is Eli.

 

The whole issue with forcing passes to Shockey is also overblown IMO. Sure Eli does it, I just watched the DVD with highlights of the Minnesota game and he clearly was targeting Shockey when he got picked on one throw. But the idea that Shockey runs bad routes and gets upset are only magnified by the fact that's he demonstrative ( the same thing been said about Plaxico last year). Fact is, Shockey gets open a lot and doesn't throw him the ball, and then when Eli does run out of options he does look to Shockey. If you think about this, his throw to Tyree, which was clearly a forced throw, if Shockey had been healthy, don't you think for one second that Shockey would have been the guy getting that pass. Think about the past few years, there's some truth to it.