Jump to content
SportsWrath

A Shockey Trade Deal Still Cooking?


BleedinBlue

Recommended Posts

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!

By this entire post you contridicted an earlier statement of yours.

 

"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."

 

But by everything you just said, you believe that Shockey is a detriment to the success of this team.

 

The idea of Shockey being misused has to do with what we saw of Shockey during the Fassel era and what we see of Witten now. There's no doubt in my mind that if Shockey was given that type of role his production, as well as Eli's, would increase. Not to say that he should only work out of the slot in passing situations, but moving him around couldn't hurt. (Let me clarify my stance. TEs have to block and Shock needs to stfu about that, however his production and therefore the offense's would increase if he was used in more of a hybrid TE/WR role)

 

As far as the misreads go, Eli and Shockey neet to get together and handle that. That is an issue that I can't refute. Every game I saw Eli and Burress on the field before the game (like Peyton and his receivers) going over their routes. Fuck just having Burress out there. Get the entire receiving core on the field. However, one can't say that Boss didn't make those same misreads. As you stated before, Boss wasn't thrown to as much as Shockey was.

 

As far as the passing tree is concerned, that was a misunderstanding on my part. I didn't understand what you meant by that. Like I said before, I don't have anything that shows the amount of times that a player was targeted by the QB. All I can show is that Burress had 21 more receptions than anyone else on the team and 23 more than Shockey (18 if you leave out the final two games of the season where Shockey didn't play).

 

No receiver is content with the amount of passes he sees. Sometimes it's due to ego (TO and 85) and sometimes it's desire (Shockey and Toomer). Toomer complained about not getting the ball and there was no backlash. However when Shockey does it there's a big problem being caused on the team. Shockey knows, as well as every Giants fan and hater, that when he gets involved in the game earlier it can set the tempo and potentially make our offense THAT much more dangerous.

 

Weather, again, is a part of football. Looking at it like you are says that no game played in bad-terrible weather should ever be considered in the equation. The second Washington game this year saw our Giants throwing the ball 52 times in 325786235782635786mph winds. Eli's stats were definately skewed by that game but we can't leave that out, can we? Do we leave out the Packers-Seahawks game because of the snow when Brett Favre's stats are up for debate? What about our very own NFC Championship game? I don't see how Weather was much of a problem for Eli and the passing game there. Eli came into his own during the final five weeks of the season which I see is the direct factor in his production going up. I can't understand how losing one of your main weapons (unless you use the "Tiki Barber" explanation) would make your production better. Instead of blaming (again not just directed to you) Shockey for the offense's lack of production, how about we praise guys like Steve Smith for coming in and coming up big. Why don't we praise Toomer for getting over his Season-long case of the dropsies.

 

Not sure where you're going by posting Eli's season stats. I'm sure he didn't throw for over 3000 yards and 27 TDs after Shockey went down.

 

Come on. You know damn well that NE's defense was far overrated. Also we scored 38 (Buffalo with 2 Defensive TDs and 3 rushing TDs), 35 (NE - with return by Hixon and a TD pass in garbage time Eli-Burress), 24 (against a team we should've destroyed - Tampa), 21 (Dallas), 23 (OT against GB with 2 rushing TDs), and 17 (NE in SB42 where we basically relied on the defense until the 4th qtr). To say that the offensive production we up after Shockey went down by posting avg. points is to say that our offense, better yet our passing game, was the only part of the team that ever scored.

 

WK 16 BUF - TDs by Jacobs (2 TD runs), Bradshaw (88 yd TD), Webster (INT return), and Mitchell (INT return)

 

WK 17 NE - Jacobs (TD rec.), Hixon (KR return) Boss (TD Rec.), Burress (2 TD rec.)

 

WK 18 TB - Jacobs (TD Rec and run), Toomer (TD rec.)

 

WK 19 DAL - Toomer (2 TD rec), Jacobs (TD run)

 

WK 20 GB - Jacobs (TD run), Bradshaw (TD run)

 

WK 21 NE - Tyree (TD rec.), Burress (TD rec.)

 

Out of those game the only one that you could say that the passing game was dominant (not dominant over the running game, but dominant over the opposing team) was the WK 17 game against NE, but we had a similar game against Dallas in week 1.

 

WK 1 DAL - Eli Manning 28-41 312 yards 4 TDs 1 INT

 

WK 17 NE - Eli Manning 22-32 251 yards 4 TDs 1 INT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to clarify one more thing.

 

The Tiki Barber explanation: Eli loses his security blanket and therefore has to step up and become a better player.

 

Just in case there was any confusion about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A theory I heard on Sirius by Jim Miller was that ELI had hit a "wall" the last fw years at the end. His second half numbers in 05 and 06 dictate this and that maybe this year he wa finnally able to fight through the wall and that helped him.

 

As for Shockey, I am also not down with this idea that he was used improperly. I have stated before he is a better overall TE in 2008 then he was in 2004 when Coughlin got here, doing what Te's in our offense are required to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of Shockey being misused has to do with what we saw of Shockey during the Fassel era and what we see of Witten now. There's no doubt in my mind that if Shockey was given that type of role his production, as well as Eli's, would increase. Not to say that he should only work out of the slot in passing situations, but moving him around couldn't hurt. (Let me clarify my stance. TEs have to block and Shock needs to stfu about that, however his production and therefore the offense's would increase if he was used in more of a hybrid TE/WR role)

 

As far as the misreads go, Eli and Shockey neet to get together and handle that. That is an issue that I can't refute. Every game I saw Eli and Burress on the field before the game (like Peyton and his receivers) going over their routes. Fuck just having Burress out there. Get the entire receiving core on the field. However, one can't say that Boss didn't make those same misreads. As you stated before, Boss wasn't thrown to as much as Shockey was.

 

As far as the passing tree is concerned, that was a misunderstanding on my part. I didn't understand what you meant by that. Like I said before, I don't have anything that shows the amount of times that a player was targeted by the QB. All I can show is that Burress had 21 more receptions than anyone else on the team and 23 more than Shockey (18 if you leave out the final two games of the season where Shockey didn't play).

 

No receiver is content with the amount of passes he sees. Sometimes it's due to ego (TO and 85) and sometimes it's desire (Shockey and Toomer). Toomer complained about not getting the ball and there was no backlash. However when Shockey does it there's a big problem being caused on the team. Shockey knows, as well as every Giants fan and hater, that when he gets involved in the game earlier it can set the tempo and potentially make our offense THAT much more dangerous.

 

Weather, again, is a part of football. Looking at it like you are says that no game played in bad-terrible weather should ever be considered in the equation. The second Washington game this year saw our Giants throwing the ball 52 times in 325786235782635786mph winds. Eli's stats were definately skewed by that game but we can't leave that out, can we? Do we leave out the Packers-Seahawks game because of the snow when Brett Favre's stats are up for debate? What about our very own NFC Championship game? I don't see how Weather was much of a problem for Eli and the passing game there. Eli came into his own during the final five weeks of the season which I see is the direct factor in his production going up. I can't understand how losing one of your main weapons (unless you use the "Tiki Barber" explanation) would make your production better. Instead of blaming (again not just directed to you) Shockey for the offense's lack of production, how about we praise guys like Steve Smith for coming in and coming up big. Why don't we praise Toomer for getting over his Season-long case of the dropsies.

 

Not sure where you're going by posting Eli's season stats. I'm sure he didn't throw for over 3000 yards and 27 TDs after Shockey went down.

 

Come on. You know damn well that NE's defense was far overrated. Also we scored 38 (Buffalo with 2 Defensive TDs and 3 rushing TDs), 35 (NE - with return by Hixon and a TD pass in garbage time Eli-Burress), 24 (against a team we should've destroyed - Tampa), 21 (Dallas), 23 (OT against GB with 2 rushing TDs), and 17 (NE in SB42 where we basically relied on the defense until the 4th qtr). To say that the offensive production we up after Shockey went down by posting avg. points is to say that our offense, better yet our passing game, was the only part of the team that ever scored.

 

WK 16 BUF - TDs by Jacobs (2 TD runs), Bradshaw (88 yd TD), Webster (INT return), and Mitchell (INT return)

 

WK 17 NE - Jacobs (TD rec.), Hixon (KR return) Boss (TD Rec.), Burress (2 TD rec.)

 

WK 18 TB - Jacobs (TD Rec and run), Toomer (TD rec.)

 

WK 19 DAL - Toomer (2 TD rec), Jacobs (TD run)

 

WK 20 GB - Jacobs (TD run), Bradshaw (TD run)

 

WK 21 NE - Tyree (TD rec.), Burress (TD rec.)

 

Out of those game the only one that you could say that the passing game was dominant (not dominant over the running game, but dominant over the opposing team) was the WK 17 game against NE, but we had a similar game against Dallas in week 1.

 

WK 1 DAL - Eli Manning 28-41 312 yards 4 TDs 1 INT

 

WK 17 NE - Eli Manning 22-32 251 yards 4 TDs 1 INT

 

You guys are amazing on how much you want to defend this guy.

 

The fact that Shockey is now blocking has made him more valuable. Considering the injuries to his legs and feet (remember the "hot spot" surgery?), you would have to think that his YAC might have peaked (yes, I know Nem, 3 yard curls), and while he is still good as a receiver, he's not going to be a Gates-type tight end. Maybe if he didn't get injured, he would have; but we'll never know.

 

Eli and Shockey getting on the same page? How is that supposed to happen when he's in miami while Manning calls him? It's not like Eli doesn't want him involved, but there doesn't seem too much give the other way.

 

Toomer complaining about not getting the ball? He lost his position when Burress came over, and you didn't hear a peep from the man. And there's a big difference between saying that you'd like to see the ball more to the press (which is a pretty innocuous comment--he's supposed to want the ball more), and getting your agent involved. Please don't compare Shockey's actions to Toomer's actions--you're not giving Toomer any justice.

 

You're comparing an extremely cold, but still night to a game played in heavy winds. Extreme cold is going to effect receivers a lot more than it will a qb (and you're right, a lot of credit should be given to the receivers for that game), but wind is going to do the opposite. Weather is part of the game, as are field conditions, etc. You can't remove the stats, but you can at least acknowledge the conditions that created them.

 

The stats you put up show more receiving tds than rushing tds, so I'm not sure what the point of that was. The good news is that they're close, which shows balance. It's nice to know that we can punch it in from 1-yd nowadays. But this is not really a great way to tell what's going on anyway, since a 3 yd td pass could be set up by a 30 yd run, and vice-versa.

 

Personally, I don't care if he stays or goes (I figured him to be gone next year), but with all this BS surrounding him, I'm starting to think he's simply not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this entire post you contridicted an earlier statement of yours.

 

"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."

 

But by everything you just said, you believe that Shockey is a detriment to the success of this team.

 

The idea of Shockey being misused has to do with what we saw of Shockey during the Fassel era and what we see of Witten now. There's no doubt in my mind that if Shockey was given that type of role his production, as well as Eli's, would increase. Not to say that he should only work out of the slot in passing situations, but moving him around couldn't hurt. (Let me clarify my stance. TEs have to block and Shock needs to stfu about that, however his production and therefore the offense's would increase if he was used in more of a hybrid TE/WR role)

 

As far as the misreads go, Eli and Shockey neet to get together and handle that. That is an issue that I can't refute. Every game I saw Eli and Burress on the field before the game (like Peyton and his receivers) going over their routes. Fuck just having Burress out there. Get the entire receiving core on the field. However, one can't say that Boss didn't make those same misreads. As you stated before, Boss wasn't thrown to as much as Shockey was.

 

As far as the passing tree is concerned, that was a misunderstanding on my part. I didn't understand what you meant by that. Like I said before, I don't have anything that shows the amount of times that a player was targeted by the QB. All I can show is that Burress had 21 more receptions than anyone else on the team and 23 more than Shockey (18 if you leave out the final two games of the season where Shockey didn't play).

 

No receiver is content with the amount of passes he sees. Sometimes it's due to ego (TO and 85) and sometimes it's desire (Shockey and Toomer). Toomer complained about not getting the ball and there was no backlash. However when Shockey does it there's a big problem being caused on the team. Shockey knows, as well as every Giants fan and hater, that when he gets involved in the game earlier it can set the tempo and potentially make our offense THAT much more dangerous.

 

Weather, again, is a part of football. Looking at it like you are says that no game played in bad-terrible weather should ever be considered in the equation. The second Washington game this year saw our Giants throwing the ball 52 times in 325786235782635786mph winds. Eli's stats were definately skewed by that game but we can't leave that out, can we? Do we leave out the Packers-Seahawks game because of the snow when Brett Favre's stats are up for debate? What about our very own NFC Championship game? I don't see how Weather was much of a problem for Eli and the passing game there. Eli came into his own during the final five weeks of the season which I see is the direct factor in his production going up. I can't understand how losing one of your main weapons (unless you use the "Tiki Barber" explanation) would make your production better. Instead of blaming (again not just directed to you) Shockey for the offense's lack of production, how about we praise guys like Steve Smith for coming in and coming up big. Why don't we praise Toomer for getting over his Season-long case of the dropsies.

 

Not sure where you're going by posting Eli's season stats. I'm sure he didn't throw for over 3000 yards and 27 TDs after Shockey went down.

 

Come on. You know damn well that NE's defense was far overrated. Also we scored 38 (Buffalo with 2 Defensive TDs and 3 rushing TDs), 35 (NE - with return by Hixon and a TD pass in garbage time Eli-Burress), 24 (against a team we should've destroyed - Tampa), 21 (Dallas), 23 (OT against GB with 2 rushing TDs), and 17 (NE in SB42 where we basically relied on the defense until the 4th qtr). To say that the offensive production we up after Shockey went down by posting avg. points is to say that our offense, better yet our passing game, was the only part of the team that ever scored.

 

WK 16 BUF - TDs by Jacobs (2 TD runs), Bradshaw (88 yd TD), Webster (INT return), and Mitchell (INT return)

 

WK 17 NE - Jacobs (TD rec.), Hixon (KR return) Boss (TD Rec.), Burress (2 TD rec.)

 

WK 18 TB - Jacobs (TD Rec and run), Toomer (TD rec.)

 

WK 19 DAL - Toomer (2 TD rec), Jacobs (TD run)

 

WK 20 GB - Jacobs (TD run), Bradshaw (TD run)

 

WK 21 NE - Tyree (TD rec.), Burress (TD rec.)

 

Out of those game the only one that you could say that the passing game was dominant (not dominant over the running game, but dominant over the opposing team) was the WK 17 game against NE, but we had a similar game against Dallas in week 1.

 

WK 1 DAL - Eli Manning 28-41 312 yards 4 TDs 1 INT

 

WK 17 NE - Eli Manning 22-32 251 yards 4 TDs 1 INT

 

Again, it's never that cut-and-dry. Our improvement without him does not imply he was a detriment. It's not uncommon for teams to elevate their game following the loss of a star player. Refer to Bill Simmons' Ewing Theory. That doesn't render Shockey a detriment; but the statistical variation is so startling that there's legs behind the theory.

 

We did move Shockey around quite a bit, and his alleged overuse as a blocker is woefully overblown. Under Coughlin, he's routinely ranked among the most targeted TEs in the league. He also was routinely among the league leaders in Passes Not Caught, which reinforces the observation that he and were Eli miscommunicating frequently.

 

It stands to reason Burress was targeted more and caught more passes than Shockey: (1) He's our primary WR, (2) he's our best offensive player, (3) he's a better receiver than Shockey. But this year -- and this intensified during the postseason -- it was evident that he and Eli were much more in tune than the Eli-Shockey combo. There weren't nearly as many miscommunications between 10 and 17 as there were between 10 and 80. I think Burress' injury humbled him to some degree and caused him to play with more precision.

 

I won't argue with you about the weather because you're missing my point altogether. I included the Buffalo game in the post-Shockey data set. Those 6 games after Shockey got hurt project over a 16-game to season to this:

 

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

 

Who cares if NE's defense was overrated or not? It's inconsequential. That's how data computation works ... you have to look at the overall picture, and attemtping to qualify everything is a fool's errand. The with-Shockey sample set, for example, includes defensive TDs against the Jets, Eagles, and 49ers. If you start removing defensive/special teams points, then do you remove points scored when the defense/special teams creates an offensive possession inside the opponent's red zone? The slippery slope is too large to alter the data.

 

If I have time, I'll calculate the entire statistical juxtaposition of Shockey vs. no Shockey. But the superficial numbers (wins, PPG, QBR, YPA, TD/INT) indicate that our passing offense dramatically improved after he went on IR, which supports my original conclusion -- valuable, yes. Indispensible? Hardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one is saying he's indispensible or indicating as such because we defend his play. No-one is.

 

I'm saying we're a better team with him, the GM has said it, his teamates have said it, they are the ones that matter.

 

 

I think Shockey is trade bait because of his personalty and that it doesn't fit the team concept anymore. I can't defend him on this anymore. I may not think it's that big a deal but the team may think that his production is not worth the hassle. It's hard to argue with them, now that they are superbowl champions. They aren't trying to accomplish, they have accomplished. Jeremy has little to stand on.

 

I don't go to major lengths to defend him as a player as much as I think the theory of him not playing results in us winning a superbowl. Kiwi was out of the team and no-one brings up the possibility the defense might have played better without him at linebacker. Had Kiwi been a jawjacker and had some of Shockey's personality, perhaps they would have brought that up to.

 

The Giants played better in the playoffs because Eli played well, and you know what, he should have. Romo is down there in Dallas with a headcase like Owens and he's a probowler, and I guarentee that the minute Owens doesn't get the ball thrown his way, he's telling Romo everytime.Shockey or no Shockey, Eli had to step up. Thankfully he did, and it's not fair to throw this back on Shockey.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one is saying he's indispensible or indicating as such because we defend his play. No-one is.

 

I'm saying we're a better team with him, the GM has said it, his teamates have said it, they are the ones that matter.

I think Shockey is trade bait because of his personalty and that it doesn't fit the team concept anymore. I can't defend him on this anymore. I may not think it's that big a deal but the team may think that his production is not worth the hassle. It's hard to argue with them, now that they are superbowl champions. They aren't trying to accomplish, they have accomplished. Jeremy has little to stand on.

 

I don't go to major lengths to defend him as a player as much as I think the theory of him not playing results in us winning a superbowl. Kiwi was out of the team and no-one brings up the possibility the defense might have played better without him at linebacker. Had Kiwi been a jawjacker and had some of Shockey's personality, perhaps they would have brought that up to.

 

The Giants played better in the playoffs because Eli played well, and you know what, he should have. Romo is down there in Dallas with a headcase like Owens and he's a probowler, and I guarentee that the minute Owens doesn't get the ball thrown his way, he's telling Romo everytime.Shockey or no Shockey, Eli had to step up. Thankfully he did, and it's not fair to throw this back on Shockey.

 

Shockey's personality is only part of the puzzle. The miscommunications are the bigger problem, and you don't see that with Romo and Owens, nor did you see that with oue offense once Boss stepped in. I think Eli was able to step up because, for the first time in his career, he finally could trust all his receivers to be in the right spot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no question that something changed in Eli's game

once Shockey went down and whether or not Boss is

comparable to SHockey (which he is not) the elements

that were on the field clicked for Eli.

 

Yes "trust" is a great word here because that word

in pro sports is the foundation of championship teams.

 

There was a disconnect with Shockey and Eli so

if Shockey wants to remain a special part of the

team he will have to work hard at it with Eli checking

in his ego at the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money, those of us that understand how to analyze statistical data understand what outliers are and why they can't be included in drawing conclusions from the greater sample. You are right to not include the Buffalo game as the data was skewed greatly by the weather, and hence, statistically means it's an outlier. Outliers are not considered in analyzing data which you did very well.

 

There is no question in my mind that the offense clicked much better without Shockey. I really like Shockey. He CAN be a great force on the team. Unfortunately, his FREQUENT miscommunications with Eli has caused too high of a number of negative plays, and some of those negative plays have swung games the other way.

 

I don't know what the right thing to do with Shockey is. But I can't support an argument that says our offense is more dangerous with Shockey in there, when that hasn't been the case. It doesn't matter what Shockey's individual stats are if he causes negative plays that sometimes have cost us a win. All I know is what I see. It's not that Boss is a better player, it's that he's been more efficient with his opportunities, therefore the offense has been more efficient. As it's been said, Shockey needs to keep his mouth shut and be a team player. His fits of anger and selfishness has been counter-productive to Eli's progression, I really believe that. Eli is definitely at his best when he spreads the ball around, as you said, and Shockey, like the other players, needs to fall in line with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no question that something changed in Eli's game

once Shockey went down and whether or not Boss is

comparable to SHockey (which he is not) the elements

that were on the field clicked for Eli.

 

Yes "trust" is a great word here because that word

in pro sports is the foundation of championship teams.

 

There was a disconnect with Shockey and Eli so

if Shockey wants to remain a special part of the

team he will have to work hard at it with Eli checking

in his ego at the door.

I agree with you, Martin. Boss isn't comparable to Shockey right now (and not even to Shockey's rookie year)--and considering he was drafted as a project, that's fine.

 

Trust is the issue here. And that can be built. But to date, I have yet to see the effort put in, and if he did contact his agent to get a trade done (based on Rosenhouse's responses, I think he did), then it doesn't look like he wants to put in that effort.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As promised...

 

With Jeremy Shockey (14 games)

 

21.4 points per page

 

330.4 total yards per game

 

125.3 rushing yards per game

 

205.1 passing yards per game

 

2.1 turnovers per game

 

Average rank of opposing defenses = 17.1 total defense / 16.4 scoring defense

 

 

Without Jeremy Shockey (6 games)

 

26.3 points per game

 

320.17 total yards per game

 

130.5 rushing yards per game

 

189.67 passing yards per game

 

1.0 turnover per game

 

Average rank of opposing defenses = 10.2 total defense / 8.0 scoring defense

 

 

------

 

In the games without Shockey, the Giants rushing output actually increased by 5.2 yards/game while their passing output decreased by 15.43 yards/game. Overall, they gained 10.23 fewer total yards/game with Shockey sidelined.

 

However, despite facing a slate of top 10 defenses (instead of decidedly mediocre-to-below avg. defenses) our scoring improved by 4.9 points/game, likely because we cut our turnovers in half (!). Furthermore, you can partially attribute the dip in yardage output to the caliber of opponent. And although we passed for fewer yards without Shockey, we were significantly more efficient: Eli's YPA jumped from 6.2 to 7.3, and his QBR increased by a whopping 20+ points. Efficiency + reduced TOs = enhanced scoring.

 

This information compels me to compare peripheral stats such as 3rd down percentage and Red Zone efficiency, but these numbers (in addition to the Eli stats I presented earlier) paint a very strong picture of how our offense improved after Shockey went on IR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it's never that cut-and-dry. Our improvement without him does not imply he was a detriment. It's not uncommon for teams to elevate their game following the loss of a star player. Refer to Bill Simmons' Ewing Theory. That doesn't render Shockey a detriment; but the statistical variation is so startling that there's legs behind the theory.

 

We did move Shockey around quite a bit, and his alleged overuse as a blocker is woefully overblown. Under Coughlin, he's routinely ranked among the most targeted TEs in the league. He also was routinely among the league leaders in Passes Not Caught, which reinforces the observation that he and were Eli miscommunicating frequently.

 

It stands to reason Burress was targeted more and caught more passes than Shockey: (1) He's our primary WR, (2) he's our best offensive player, (3) he's a better receiver than Shockey. But this year -- and this intensified during the postseason -- it was evident that he and Eli were much more in tune than the Eli-Shockey combo. There weren't nearly as many miscommunications between 10 and 17 as there were between 10 and 80. I think Burress' injury humbled him to some degree and caused him to play with more precision.

 

I won't argue with you about the weather because you're missing my point altogether. I included the Buffalo game in the post-Shockey data set. Those 6 games after Shockey got hurt project over a 16-game to season to this:

 

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

 

Who cares if NE's defense was overrated or not? It's inconsequential. That's how data computation works ... you have to look at the overall picture, and attemtping to qualify everything is a fool's errand. The with-Shockey sample set, for example, includes defensive TDs against the Jets, Eagles, and 49ers. If you start removing defensive/special teams points, then do you remove points scored when the defense/special teams creates an offensive possession inside the opponent's red zone? The slippery slope is too large to alter the data.

 

If I have time, I'll calculate the entire statistical juxtaposition of Shockey vs. no Shockey. But the superficial numbers (wins, PPG, QBR, YPA, TD/INT) indicate that our passing offense dramatically improved after he went on IR, which supports my original conclusion -- valuable, yes. Indispensible? Hardly.

1. You're contradicting yourself again. He's not a detriment, but the stats say that he hampers the success of the NYG Offense.

 

2. Did I not say that Shockey needed to stfu about blocking? I could swear that I did. Also did it ever orrur to anyone that the "Passes not caught" stat has to do with both the QB and the receiver? Who's to say that every time a bad read is made it's Shockey's fault?

 

3. Burress really only stood out in 1 game in the post season and that was the GB game. Aside from that he had 7 catches and 1 TD over the span of 3 games. No one is debating Burress position as the #1 receiver though. What I said was that I misunderstood what you meant when you referred to a passing tree. There's no doubt that Burress' injury humbled him. (Holy shit we agree on something!!!!)

 

4. That's saying that we would've had "Good Eli" for that entire 16 game stretch. Remember Shockey hasn't played with "Good Eli" for any extended period of time. The jury's still out on if Eli can consistently be 2007-08 Playoffs Eli. That's a little TOO iffy for my taste... although that was a good job putting that together. (Not being sarcastic. I'm really saying good job. I'd probably lose my damn mind trying to figure out a QB Rating. Be thankful that you know how).

 

5. You brought up NE saying that they were top 5. Everyone here knows that they didn't deserve to be top 5. You were saying that the offense performed extremely well against very good playoff defenses. No one doubts that. You provided avg. points. The problem with that is that you're factoring in points that were scored by our defense and rushing game when addressing the passing game. You're right... it is a slippery slope. You can't expect someone to factor out stats like where the defense gave the offense the ball and I'm not saying that you or anyone else should (Knowing you... you'd probably do that stupid shit). What I mean is the TDs scored by the D, Rushing game, and STs shouldn't be included when talking about the production of our passing game.

 

I don't EVER remember saying that ANYONE was indispensible. What I do remember is saying that Shockey wasn't the cause of our lack of production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Martin. Boss isn't comparable to Shockey right now (and not even to Shockey's rookie year)--and considering he was drafted as a project, that's fine.

 

Trust is the issue here. And that can be built. But to date, I have yet to see the effort put in, and if he did contact his agent to get a trade done (based on Rosenhouse's responses, I think he did), then it doesn't look like he wants to put in that effort.

 

 

And also agree with you Fish that I dont think Shockey wants

to put in the extra time. Shockey is a maverick and has

been since day one. Little kids dream of playing on a

championship team and winning the S-bowl but with

Shockey you have to beleive that this maybe all

about Shockey's stats, his persona and money!

 

I don't think Shockey wants to be a Tom Coughlin type NY Giant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You're contradicting yourself again. He's not a detriment, but the stats say that he hampers the success of the NYG Offense.

 

That's what the stats indicate to some degree. I'm not inventing them out of thin air, just posting them. You're drawing the conclusion that he was a detriment to the offense.

 

2. Did I not say that Shockey needed to stfu about blocking? I could swear that I did. Also did it ever orrur to anyone that the "Passes not caught" stat has to do with both the QB and the receiver? Who's to say that every time a bad read is made it's Shockey's fault?

 

It goes without saying that the QB incurs part of the blame. But Shockey was disproportionately involved in the miscommunications. You didn't see any other receiver out of sync with Eli nearly as often, and the miscommunications were suddenly minimzed once Boss stepped in. That would lead one to believe that Shockey was often (but not always) responsible for the misreads.

 

4. That's saying that we would've had "Good Eli" for that entire 16 game stretch. Remember Shockey hasn't played with "Good Eli" for any extended period of time. The jury's still out on if Eli can consistently be 2007-08 Playoffs Eli. That's a little TOO iffy for my taste... although that was a good job putting that together. (Not being sarcastic. I'm really saying good job. I'd probably lose my damn mind trying to figure out a QB Rating. Be thankful that you know how).

 

Well yeah, that's how projections work. 6 games and 166 pass attempts is a pretty strong sample to draw from and extrapolate over the course of a 16-game season.

 

I think the underlying indication is that "Good Eli" (as you call him) couldn't sustain himself until Shockey was out of the line-up.

 

You brought up NE saying that they were top 5. Everyone here knows that they didn't deserve to be top 5. You were saying that the offense performed extremely well against very good playoff defenses. No one doubts that. You provided avg. points. The problem with that is that you're factoring in points that were scored by our defense and rushing game when addressing the passing game. You're right... it is a slippery slope. You can't expect someone to factor out stats like where the defense gave the offense the ball and I'm not saying that you or anyone else should (Knowing you... you'd probably do that stupid shit). What I mean is the TDs scored by the D, Rushing game, and STs shouldn't be included when talking about the production of our passing game.

 

Regardless of what you think of NE, they are part of the post-Shockey sample. That's all they need to be.

 

Defensive/specials TDs impacted both the with-Shockey (PHI, NYJ, SF) and w/out-Shockey (BUF x 2, NE) samples. Including them is the most reasonable way to do it. For the sake of appeasement, here's the points/game comparison if you remove all non-offense TDs:

 

With Shockey --> 19.9 points/game

Without Shockey --> 22.8 points/game

 

Lastly, if we look exclusively at the passing numbers, the stats are that much more one-sided in favor of the no-Shockey offense. We averaged fewer passing yards per game in Shockey's absence, but YPA, TD:INT, and QBR (as most football statisticians would tell you, those are three of the best predictors of QB success) jumped by incredible margins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Martin. Boss isn't comparable to Shockey right now (and not even to Shockey's rookie year)--and considering he was drafted as a project, that's fine.

 

Trust is the issue here. And that can be built. But to date, I have yet to see the effort put in, and if he did contact his agent to get a trade done (based on Rosenhouse's responses, I think he did), then it doesn't look like he wants to put in that effort.

 

I think the best solution is establishing and augmenting that trust between Eli and Shockey. But like you and Martin said, it doesn't look like there's complete commitment from both sides.

 

Jeez, I feel like Dr. Phil with all this relationship talk...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are amazing on how much you want to defend this guy.

 

The fact that Shockey is now blocking has made him more valuable. Considering the injuries to his legs and feet (remember the "hot spot" surgery?), you would have to think that his YAC might have peaked (yes, I know Nem, 3 yard curls), and while he is still good as a receiver, he's not going to be a Gates-type tight end. Maybe if he didn't get injured, he would have; but we'll never know.

 

Eli and Shockey getting on the same page? How is that supposed to happen when he's in miami while Manning calls him? It's not like Eli doesn't want him involved, but there doesn't seem too much give the other way.

 

Toomer complaining about not getting the ball? He lost his position when Burress came over, and you didn't hear a peep from the man. And there's a big difference between saying that you'd like to see the ball more to the press (which is a pretty innocuous comment--he's supposed to want the ball more), and getting your agent involved. Please don't compare Shockey's actions to Toomer's actions--you're not giving Toomer any justice.

 

You're comparing an extremely cold, but still night to a game played in heavy winds. Extreme cold is going to effect receivers a lot more than it will a qb (and you're right, a lot of credit should be given to the receivers for that game), but wind is going to do the opposite. Weather is part of the game, as are field conditions, etc. You can't remove the stats, but you can at least acknowledge the conditions that created them.

 

The stats you put up show more receiving tds than rushing tds, so I'm not sure what the point of that was. The good news is that they're close, which shows balance. It's nice to know that we can punch it in from 1-yd nowadays. But this is not really a great way to tell what's going on anyway, since a 3 yd td pass could be set up by a 30 yd run, and vice-versa.

 

Personally, I don't care if he stays or goes (I figured him to be gone next year), but with all this BS surrounding him, I'm starting to think he's simply not worth it.

What I'm doing is refuting the notion that Shockey hampers the success of the offense.

 

Once again... Did I not say that Shockey should STFU about blocking? TEs have to block. It's a part of the job. However, I feel that we are still limiting the man's potential. Let's just say for arguments sake that we do trade Shockey to NO and Payton uses him like a Hybrid WR/TE. The man's production is going to go up unless he suffers (another) serious injury.

 

Eli could say, "Shock, Plax and I are going to do some pregame workouts before the game. Come on. I want you in this too." It's not like Shockey's in Miami on gameday or during training camp for that matter.

 

I distinctly remember Toomer saying that he didn't feel like he was a part of the offense and that he wanted Eli to look his way more often. That happened twice IIRC 2005-2006. I haven't once seen or heard Shockey say that he wanted to be traded. That's not to say that I have seen everything written in the news. I just haven't seen it. I'm pretty sure that the Anti-Giant network (ESPN) would've had a field day with it if he did. All I've heard is "Sources close to..." I want to hear, or read something where Shockey himself has come out and said that he didn't want to be a Giant anymore.

 

I named four different situations in which the weather was bad, three of which we were involved in. I understand the extreme nature of the Buffalo game, but most think that the offense just took off AS SOON AS Shockey went on IR and that's not the case. It took a few games, Steve Smith coming back full strength and our other receivers actually catching the ball when it was thrown to them.

 

The stats I put up show all of the TDs scored from the first full game that we played w/o Shockey through the Super Bowl. Money said that we avg. 5 more ppg. w/o Shockey than we do w/ Shockey. I posted those stats to say that the avg. points were including rushing, defensive, and ST touchdowns. It's like saying that our offense is great because we average 39 ppg but we actually kick 13 fgs/game.

 

As you can see I want Shockey to remain on this team. Not because of his mouth, but because I believe that he's an integral part of the team. We stepped up and played our hearts out from WK 17-WK21, limited mistakes, and ended up winning the greatest Super Bowl I've personally ever witnessed. However, none of us can say that we've seen this team come out and play like they did consistently. Say we trade Shockey. That leaves up with Boss and Matthews (assuming that we don't pick up anyone after June 1). Boss goes down and then what? We're left with Michael Fucking Matthews as our TE. Until I'm sure that Boss is the real deal, or Shockey was the true cause of "Bad Eli" I want him on this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the miscommunications were suddenly minimzed once Boss stepped in. That would lead one to believe that Shockey was often (but not always) responsible for the misreads.

 

 

Let's be fair, Boss wasn't expected and didn't pick up the entire load after Shockey got hurt. He played in a few games, not an entire season.

 

 

I'd like to see Boss get a season's worth of plays before we determine that he minimizes miscommunications. Hopefully he's like Stretcher Armstrong also so that he can catch some of those passes that sometimes go astray by Eli.

 

One thought that needs to be kept in mind here is how people tend to downplay people's performances because of our perceptions of their personalty. You only have to read old posts here to see that Plaxico sucked last year, Tiki's career wasn't what it was and that he was overated and that we were better off without Strahan last year. The common denominator here is that at one stage, they all pissed us off with their off field behaviour. I think this clearly factors into the feelings about Shockey. After all, he's been rookie of the year and 3 time pro bowler, he deserves more credit than this. Giants have won more games with him on the field than with him off, he should be given credit for his overall career.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what the stats indicate to some degree. I'm not inventing them out of thin air, just posting them. You're drawing the conclusion that he was a detriment to the offense.

It goes without saying that the QB incurs part of the blame. But Shockey was disproportionately involved in the miscommunications. You didn't see any other receiver out of sync with Eli nearly as often, and the miscommunications were suddenly minimzed once Boss stepped in. That would lead one to believe that Shockey was often (but not always) responsible for the misreads.

Well yeah, that's how projections work. 6 games and 166 pass attempts is a pretty strong sample to draw from and extrapolate over the course of a 16-game season.

 

I think the underlying indication is that "Good Eli" (as you call him) couldn't sustain himself until Shockey was out of the line-up.

Regardless of what you think of NE, they are part of the post-Shockey sample. That's all they need to be.

 

Defensive/specials TDs impacted both the with-Shockey (PHI, NYJ, SF) and w/out-Shockey (BUF x 2, NE) samples. Including them is the most reasonable way to do it. For the sake of appeasement, here's the points/game comparison if you remove all non-offense TDs:

 

With Shockey --> 19.9 points/game

Without Shockey --> 22.8 points/game

 

Lastly, if we look exclusively at the passing numbers, the stats are that much more one-sided in favor of the no-Shockey offense. We averaged fewer passing yards per game in Shockey's absence, but YPA, TD:INT, and QBR (as most football statisticians would tell you, those are three of the best predictors of QB success) jumped by incredible margins.

That's basically due to you making implications like saying that the theory has legs.

 

It can also be said that Boss wasn't targeted (you said that before) as much as Shockey was. That could be a reason as to why mistakes were limited. There's no way of knowing if Boss would've made the reads that Shockey missed. The only way to truly know that is for Eli to go through a full season with him or with both of them.

 

"I think the underlying indication is that "Good Eli" (as you call him) couldn't sustain himself until Shockey was out of the line-up." This year. If he stays, we'll see what happens.

 

Regardless of whether they're a part of the w/ Shockey or w/o Shockey stats, NE was fucking overrated. That's my only point about them. SD would've won the AFC Championship had LDT been able to play.

 

As far as the points go (once again good job, cause I ain't goin that far to prove a point) the rushing TDs are still included and we're talking about a FG difference. The QB stats can be looked at (as I was saying before) as people finally stepping up. IIRC Shockey had 3 dropped passes on a team that dropped the most passes in the league... most of which came from Toomer. Toomer got over his issues and Steve Smith came in and became what Shockey could be if he was used like a Jason Witten. Boss in my mind is still a "?" when it comes to being able to produce over a full season rather than 6 1/2 games. I not ready to put the trust in him that most people are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best solution is establishing and augmenting that trust between Eli and Shockey. But like you and Martin said, it doesn't look like there's complete commitment from both sides.

 

Jeez, I feel like Dr. Phil with all this relationship talk...

Get your head screwed on straight. This is football not Valentine's Day. :furious::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm doing is refuting the notion that Shockey hampers the success of the offense.

 

I think what you might find even more disconcerting is the limited impact he has on the offense at all. Other than some extra total yards which may or may not have occurred with the defenses played, there isn't a whole lot there to justify the "prima donna" act.

 

Once again... Did I not say that Shockey should STFU about blocking? TEs have to block. It's a part of the job. However, I feel that we are still limiting the man's potential. Let's just say for arguments sake that we do trade Shockey to NO and Payton uses him like a Hybrid WR/TE. The man's production is going to go up unless he suffers (another) serious injury.

 

Or they discover he's not the same player that came into the league because of all the injuries he's had already. I'm not saying that as a fact, but as a possibility.

 

Eli could say, "Shock, Plax and I are going to do some pregame workouts before the game. Come on. I want you in this too." It's not like Shockey's in Miami on gameday or during training camp for that matter.

 

I could turn that around and ask why Shockey doesn't ask to join in. Plax also studied the playbook. Think this happens in Miami?

 

I distinctly remember Toomer saying that he didn't feel like he was a part of the offense and that he wanted Eli to look his way more often. That happened twice IIRC 2005-2006. I haven't once seen or heard Shockey say that he wanted to be traded. That's not to say that I have seen everything written in the news. I just haven't seen it. I'm pretty sure that the Anti-Giant network (ESPN) would've had a field day with it if he did. All I've heard is "Sources close to..." I want to hear, or read something where Shockey himself has come out and said that he didn't want to be a Giant anymore.

 

Now that you mention it, I do recall something like that in 2005. And when Toomer finally got the passes, he made good on them to the point that Manning was passing to him pretty consistently in 2006 before the injury.

 

Read between the lines of Rosenhaus' response.

 

TREY WINGO: Here's the question: Does he want out of New York or does he want to stay?

 

ROSENHAUS: You're probably going to hear a lot of this from me in our interview, Trey: That's going to be between Jeremy and the New York Giants. One thing I've learned, unfortunately the hard way - and I can tell you with all sincerity - is that I prefer to do my business with a team off camera. I appreciate you guys inviting me on, but in terms of Jeremy's feelings as relating to the Giants, that's something that we've communicated to the Giants and the ball's going to be in their court.

 

I named four different situations in which the weather was bad, three of which we were involved in. I understand the extreme nature of the Buffalo game, but most think that the offense just took off AS SOON AS Shockey went on IR and that's not the case. It took a few games, Steve Smith coming back full strength and our other receivers actually catching the ball when it was thrown to them.

 

The stats I put up show all of the TDs scored from the first full game that we played w/o Shockey through the Super Bowl. Money said that we avg. 5 more ppg. w/o Shockey than we do w/ Shockey. I posted those stats to say that the avg. points were including rushing, defensive, and ST touchdowns. It's like saying that our offense is great because we average 39 ppg but we actually kick 13 fgs/game.

We wish our kicker could make 13 fgs/game. :P

As you can see I want Shockey to remain on this team. Not because of his mouth, but because I believe that he's an integral part of the team. We stepped up and played our hearts out from WK 17-WK21, limited mistakes, and ended up winning the greatest Super Bowl I've personally ever witnessed. However, none of us can say that we've seen this team come out and play like they did consistently. Say we trade Shockey. That leaves up with Boss and Matthews (assuming that we don't pick up anyone after June 1). Boss goes down and then what? We're left with Michael Fucking Matthews as our TE. Until I'm sure that Boss is the real deal, or Shockey was the true cause of "Bad Eli" I want him on this team.

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you might find even more disconcerting is the limited impact he has on the offense at all. Other than some extra total yards which may or may not have occurred with the defenses played, there isn't a whole lot there to justify the "prima donna" act.

Or they discover he's not the same player that came into the league because of all the injuries he's had already. I'm not saying that as a fact, but as a possibility.

I could turn that around and ask why Shockey doesn't ask to join in. Plax also studied the playbook. Think this happens in Miami?

Now that you mention it, I do recall something like that in 2005. And when Toomer finally got the passes, he made good on them to the point that Manning was passing to him pretty consistently in 2006 before the injury.

 

Read between the lines of Rosenhaus' response.

We wish our kicker could make 13 fgs/game. :P

 

Fair enough.

 

 

I'm glad Rosenhaus learned his lesson the hard way. jackass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be fair, Boss wasn't expected and didn't pick up the entire load after Shockey got hurt. He played in a few games, not an entire season.

I'd like to see Boss get a season's worth of plays before we determine that he minimizes miscommunications. Hopefully he's like Stretcher Armstrong also so that he can catch some of those passes that sometimes go astray by Eli.

 

One thought that needs to be kept in mind here is how people tend to downplay people's performances because of our perceptions of their personalty. You only have to read old posts here to see that Plaxico sucked last year, Tiki's career wasn't what it was and that he was overated and that we were better off without Strahan last year. The common denominator here is that at one stage, they all pissed us off with their off field behaviour. I think this clearly factors into the feelings about Shockey. After all, he's been rookie of the year and 3 time pro bowler, he deserves more credit than this. Giants have won more games with him on the field than with him off, he should be given credit for his overall career.

 

In the six games Boss started, he was on the same page as the QB. Despite playing over 50 games with Eli, the same cannot be said of Shockey.

 

To your latter point, it's a fair perspective. However, I think it also goes to show that players -- no matter how skilled or adored -- are replaceable. From 2004-06, Tiki Barber was the most prolific offensive player in the history of the franchise. On the field, he was better and more valuable than Jeremy Shockey could ever dream of being. After Tiki retired, our RB arsenal consisted of a former short-yardage specilaist, a practice squad pick-up, a 7th round pick, and RB acquired straight up for Tim Carter. Yet we ran for 2,000 yards as a team and won the Super Bowl without him.

 

More than anything else, winning without Tiki and Shockey speaks to the essence of team sports. And good teams can replace and succeed without star players that are more flawed than their individual accolades and accomplishments would suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uggggh I'm not reading this whole thread, but has anyone even considered that the improvement in our offense only occurred because Shockey was such an integral part of it? Once Jeremy was out our fuck-up OC was forced to revisit his crappy playbook and actually started calling decent games. THAT'S the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's basically due to you making implications like saying that the theory has legs.

 

It can also be said that Boss wasn't targeted (you said that before) as much as Shockey was. That could be a reason as to why mistakes were limited. There's no way of knowing if Boss would've made the reads that Shockey missed. The only way to truly know that is for Eli to go through a full season with him or with both of them.

 

"I think the underlying indication is that "Good Eli" (as you call him) couldn't sustain himself until Shockey was out of the line-up." This year. If he stays, we'll see what happens.

 

Regardless of whether they're a part of the w/ Shockey or w/o Shockey stats, NE was fucking overrated. That's my only point about them. SD would've won the AFC Championship had LDT been able to play.

 

As far as the points go (once again good job, cause I ain't goin that far to prove a point) the rushing TDs are still included and we're talking about a FG difference. The QB stats can be looked at (as I was saying before) as people finally stepping up. IIRC Shockey had 3 dropped passes on a team that dropped the most passes in the league... most of which came from Toomer. Toomer got over his issues and Steve Smith came in and became what Shockey could be if he was used like a Jason Witten. Boss in my mind is still a "?" when it comes to being able to produce over a full season rather than 6 1/2 games. I not ready to put the trust in him that most people are.

 

How's this for a compromise: according anecdotal evidence and detailed statistical analysis, our QB and offense perform at a much higher level when the TE makes the same reads as the QB.

 

It's safe to say Eli and Boss were on the same page, considering that the miscommunications that had plagued our offense (and often resulted in negative plays) were minimized. And this occurred over the course of 6 games and 160+ passing plays -- that's a good-sized sample.

 

Of equal importance, Shockey's reads have implications for the other receivers on the field, particularly when he's not the intended target. Here's a blog entry from my buddy Jerry following our road win vs. the Bears:

 

If you watched yesterday's Giants game, you saw Eli Manning miss a wide open Jeremy Shockey and put the ball right into Brian Urlacher's breadbasket. No you didn't.

 

What you actually saw was Eli Manning attempting to throw to Plaxico Burress, who was running a deep in route, several yards behind the play (and barely in the screen). Shockey was running an option route and decided to sit down in a soft spot in the zone, where he was wide open. Eli was working under the impression that Shockey would choose to run an in route (or maybe an out -- there are conflicting reports) and take Urlacher out of the zone, opening up the throwing lane for a strike to Burress.

 

Shockey made a read, which allowed him to get open. However his decision had implications for the rest of the play. Eli read something in the defense that convinced him that Shockey would essentially sacrifice himself for the good of the play. Was Shockey supposed to? I have no idea. Eli's decision to throw to Plaxico was based on the defenses reaction to Shockey's reaction to the defense.

 

And let's remember that we're only dealing with 2 receivers and one defender in this analysis. Potentially, there were similar reads and reactions occurring elsewhere on the field that could have resulted in dozens of possibilities.

 

 

Rushing yards and TDs have to be included in the evaluation. Jeremy Shockey is our TE. He blocks on running plays. He's credited as a very good blocker by people who follow the team. We can't sing his praises as a blocker and then dismiss how our running game performed in his absence. Bottom line, just like our passing game, our running game was successful without him. That much is indisputable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you might find even more disconcerting is the limited impact he has on the offense at all. Other than some extra total yards which may or may not have occurred with the defenses played, there isn't a whole lot there to justify the "prima donna" act.

Or they discover he's not the same player that came into the league because of all the injuries he's had already. I'm not saying that as a fact, but as a possibility.

I could turn that around and ask why Shockey doesn't ask to join in. Plax also studied the playbook. Think this happens in Miami?

Now that you mention it, I do recall something like that in 2005. And when Toomer finally got the passes, he made good on them to the point that Manning was passing to him pretty consistently in 2006 before the injury.

 

Read between the lines of Rosenhaus' response.

We wish our kicker could make 13 fgs/game. :P

 

Fair enough.

Very True. I would like Shockey to keep himself in check, but like most Miami products he can't. I said before that I want Shockey as a player not as a person. (Please Phillips PLEASE don't be a typical guy from the U).

 

It's definately a possibility that he's a shell of his former self, but there's also a possibility that he closer to 100% than we can fathom. Pure speculation on our part and completely useless.

 

Cause like you said he has a prima donna attitude. This is where I want Eli to step in and be a true leader. A lot of the Giants routes are receiver "Options" where they can run one of three different patterns. Eli pulling Shockey onto the field would give them a better understanding of what the other is looking for/at while running those option routes. ......... Now I feel the way Money does. :ph34r:

 

What's to say that Shockey can't do the same? Maybe Burress can be (as creepy as this sounds) a little whisper in Shockey's ear telling him to get his act together and Eli'll get him the ball more.

 

OK... I look at Rosenhaus in the same light as I look at Scott Boras (baseball's evil agent). I fucking hate them both. Always have. I can see ur point with his statement, but I think it can be taken multiple ways.

 

Hey... he can make 13 fgs... he just has to make us sweat by missing about 14 first. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...