Wide Receivers

[ksm7]

Thats just dumb, we were one score away from winning the game. No coach in the league wouldnt have tryed for the win. If we had locked up first seed maybe he would have been ok with taking a knee, but I doubt he would have let off no matter what the case.

 

Side note. I dont like to give the cowboys any credit, but Ware is a freakin animal. Your whole front 7 abused us like no other team this year. Its more than obvious they wanted to win REALLY bad. And I cant believe Im going to say this, but not only is Romo a really good QB, but the kid has a set of balls too. When ever the Giants start to abuse a QB the way they were abusing Romo, its rare they finnish the game(like Johnson the first time we played you guys) and even more rare they come out with the win. If you can find away to slip into the playoffs, the boys will probably do some damage. Id like to think the game would have been different if Jacobs was in, but it probably wouldnt have mattered. Taking away Burress AND Jacobs is just too much for our offense to overcome against teams with good defenses. Not that that explains why our O-line was treated like a red headed step child.

 

just to be clear and that we are discussing the same game, with 45 seconds left, the score was 20-8, right? the dog just wants to be sure...if the giants can make up 12 points with one score, then they truely are a superior team in this league as it stands...

[fishgutmartyr]

they really didn't get open...just a guess, and the dog doesn't want to speak for anyone...but...

 

on a side note, the o-line has been somewhat dismal for the last two weeks...which surprises the dog, who has been all about the giants o-line the last season and a half...

 

They really didn't have time to get open--the end rush was in the backfield too fast. Our tackles aren't exactly known for their speed, and at this point, they're a little beat up, especially MacKenzie. I'm afraid that four straight games against Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philly, and Dallas might be taking a toll--maybe not in an injury sense, but overall wear and tear. That's not an excuse, but a statement of reality--they're going to have to suck it up one more time next week against Carolina to earn the rest they need.

 

There is a reason that they could be so aggressive up front. They were not worried about being burned deep should the blitzes be picked up. Also, downfield coverage made Manning hold the ball longer than he wanted to. There was no separation all night long.

 

The first goal was achieved when they had a WR on the field that defenses were forced to game plan around and pay attention to. Regardless of the number of catches he had, teams played the Giants differently when Burress was there.

 

Most people would understand that. But it really doesn't surpise me with you.

 

P.S. Unfortunately for Mr. Hixon, and by by extension the entire Giants offense, there are no more Seattles or Washingtons on the schedule.

 

In that span, we won games with Hixon starting. We won just about all of our patsy games; you know, like the Rams. I'm not sure why you are slapping down Washington, either, since you had to settle for a split with them. We're not the team clinging to the hope of a wildcard berth. Frankly,4-2 in divisional play is OK with me, and is what I expected at the beginning of the year.

 

The fascinating aspect of this whole rant of yours is that I'm actually giving credit where it's due, the Cowboil front seven; while you are insisting that the reason for your win is a flaw in the Giants. I take it by this that you are conceding that your team had no chance unless there was some fundamental flaw in the Giants?

 

Our win against you guys earlier in the year had everything to do with the running game. Are you trying to tell me that not double covering Burress was the reason that didn't happen this time around?

[Gspotter]

Why couldn't Plax have shot Moss in the leg?

[Gspotter]

There is a reason that they could be so aggressive up front. They were not worried about being burned deep should the blitzes be picked up. Also, downfield coverage made Manning hold the ball longer than he wanted to. There was no separation all night long.

 

The first goal was achieved when they had a WR on the field that defenses were forced to game plan around and pay attention to. Regardless of the number of catches he had, teams played the Giants differently when Burress was there.

 

Most people would understand that. But it really doesn't surpise me with you.

 

P.S. Unfortunately for Mr. Hixon, and by by extension the entire Giants offense, there are no more Seattles or Washingtons on the schedule.

 

Though I usually find BadEgg's commentary to be obvious antagonism, he's not wrong in this assessment. We are not a deep threat and unless Gilbride starts acting accordingly, teams do not fear us beyond 20 yards...that's been demonstrated.

[Nas]

Alot of people on the saints board are throwing around the idea of a Lance Moore/ Robert Meachum/ Devery Henderson for Jacobs. Some are even saying Colston for Jacobs. I wouldnt want to trade Colston, but I could see Moore plus a pick for Jacobs. Oh wait you guys already have our second rounder next year.

 

[BadEgg]

In that span, we won games with Hixon starting. We won just about all of our patsy games; you know, like the Rams. I'm not sure why you are slapping down Washington, either, since you had to settle for a split with them. We're not the team clinging to the hope of a wildcard berth. Frankly,4-2 in divisional play is OK with me, and is what I expected at the beginning of the year.

 

The fascinating aspect of this whole rant of yours is that I'm actually giving credit where it's due, the Cowboil front seven; while you are insisting that the reason for your win is a flaw in the Giants. I take it by this that you are conceding that your team had no chance unless there was some fundamental flaw in the Giants?

 

Our win against you guys earlier in the year had everything to do with the running game. Are you trying to tell me that not double covering Burress was the reason that didn't happen this time around?

 

As far as the 4-2 record goes, I agree with you. As far as Washington goes, I was not impressed with the Redskins even the night the Cowboys beat them. The Redskins played much better the first time around. They are capable of beating the Eagles, but they don't look very good right now. As a Dallas fan, with the exception of Romo, I was happier with the way the Cowboys looked in a loss to Pitt than the win at Washington.

 

I appreciate the credit given to the Cowboys front 7. I just disagree as to the impact Burress has on the way teams play. With Burress they lose experience, they lose consistency in big games and, most importantly, they lose a physical receiver. It's too early to say there is a fundamental flaw, but it certainly looks possible. Is there a WR on the Giants now that can do what Burress did in GB last season, or the first game this year?

 

The Cowboys defense played the Giants completely different without him. Neither Henry nor Newman could hang with Burress one-on-one. He is too quick for Henry and too physical for Newman. Now Henry can go to Toomer, which is a more even matchup and Newman can take Hixon, who is about 30 pounds lighter than Burress. Other teams with quality defensive backs -- the Eagles for one -- will do the same. And that allows them to turn the pass rush loose.

 

This Carolina game will be interesting. Especially if Jacobs plays. I think somebody is going to have to pass to win this game. I would be surprised if either team ran the ball down the other's throat. Delhomme can be rattled, yet the Giants can no longer pass consistently. The Panthers can be burned threw the air, but some WR on the Giants needs to step up and make a big play. I will be surprised if the Giants consistently sustain 12 play scoring drives against the Panthers without a critical penalty or turnover. They need big plays from their WRs and I would be concerned if the Giants cannot throw this week.

 

As far as the Giants rushing the ball agains the Cowboys goes in the first meeting, I think that had more to do with the Cowboys QBs, or what the Giants did to them. Romo may not score consistently against the Giants, but he is capable of getting first downs. The Cowboys defense, aside from the first drive, was not horrible the first half of the first game. But they were on the field way too long because the Cowboys offense could not get out of its own way.

[xxi-xxv]

In that span, we won games with Hixon starting. We won just about all of our patsy games; you know, like the Rams. I'm not sure why you are slapping down Washington, either, since you had to settle for a split with them. We're not the team clinging to the hope of a wildcard berth. Frankly,4-2 in divisional play is OK with me, and is what I expected at the beginning of the year.

 

The fascinating aspect of this whole rant of yours is that I'm actually giving credit where it's due, the Cowboil front seven; while you are insisting that the reason for your win is a flaw in the Giants. I take it by this that you are conceding that your team had no chance unless there was some fundamental flaw in the Giants?

 

Our win against you guys earlier in the year had everything to do with the running game. Are you trying to tell me that not double covering Burress was the reason that didn't happen this time around?

 

As far as the 4-2 record goes, I agree with you. As far as Washington goes, I was not impressed with the Redskins even the night the Cowboys beat them. The Redskins played much better the first time around. They are capable of beating the Eagles, but they don't look very good right now. As a Dallas fan, with the exception of Romo, I was happier with the way the Cowboys looked in a loss to Pitt than the win at Washington.

 

I appreciate the credit given to the Cowboys front 7. I just disagree as to the impact Burress has on the way teams play. With Burress they lose experience, they lose consistency in big games and, most importantly, they lose a physical receiver. It's too early to say there is a fundamental flaw, but it certainly looks possible. Is there a WR on the Giants now that can do what Burress did in GB last season, or the first game this year?

 

The Cowboys defense played the Giants completely different without him. Neither Henry nor Newman could hang with Burress one-on-one. He is too quick for Henry and too physical for Newman. Now Henry can go to Toomer, which is a more even matchup and Newman can take Hixon, who is about 30 pounds lighter than Burress. Other teams with quality defensive backs -- the Eagles for one -- will do the same. And that allows them to turn the pass rush loose.

 

This Carolina game will be interesting. Especially if Jacobs plays. I think somebody is going to have to pass to win this game. I would be surprised if either team ran the ball down the other's throat. Delhomme can be rattled, yet the Giants can no longer pass consistently. The Panthers can be burned threw the air, but some WR on the Giants needs to step up and make a big play. I will be surprised if the Giants consistently sustain 12 play scoring drives against the Panthers without a critical penalty or turnover. They need big plays from their WRs and I would be concerned if the Giants cannot throw this week.

 

As far as the Giants rushing the ball agains the Cowboys goes in the first meeting, I think that had more to do with the Cowboys QBs, or what the Giants did to them. Romo may not score consistently against the Giants, but he is capable of getting first downs. The Cowboys defense, aside from the first drive, was not horrible the first half of the first game. But they were on the field way too long because the Cowboys offense could not get out of its own way.

 

forecast for Sunday SNOW, it will most likely come down to the run game, who turns the ball over less and possily special teams. Winds are expected to be light, so if the field is clear who knows, but the weather is very ominous right now and playing into the hands of those that want to bet the under.