Jump to content
SportsWrath

ohara makes probowl


기둥서방
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last year, when the Giants were the NFC's No. 1 seed, they sent a conference-best six players to the Pro Bowl. This year, they'll send one -- center Shaun O'Hara.

 

O'Hara, who made the team last year as well, is a reserve on the NFC team. Six of his Giants teammates were also named alternates.

 

Left tackle David Diehl, wide receiver Steve Smith and right guard Chris Snee are first alternates.

Defensive end Justin Tuck and kick returner Domenik Hixon are third alternates. Quarterback Eli Manning, who has thrown a career-high 27 touchdown passes this year, is a fourth alternate.

 

Since the Pro Bowl will be played in Miami the week before the Super Bowl, and players in the championship game won't be participating in the all-star event, Pro Bowl alternates have a better chance of playing than in previous years.

 

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2009/12/ny_giants_center_shaun_ohara_p_1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Hara on his Pro Bowl invite: "It’s a little excitement in an otherwise sad 48 hours. I couldn’t stop thinking about the game and about the season and how crappy everything is, for lack of a better term, We’re all so embarrassed and upset and angry. I didn’t think anything would be able to pick me up out of that hole, but this sure is trying."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Smith should have made it over Miles Austin, DeSean Jackson AND Sydney Rice. Bullshit.

 

 

Erm... with all respect to Steve Smith and the season that he's had, no he shouldn't. Those guys all had better seasons and no one can deny that all three of them are more explosive and/or a better redzone threat than Smith.

 

If I have a gripe, it's that Eli didn't make it. And Snee should've as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm... with all respect to Steve Smith and the season that he's had, no he shouldn't. Those guys all had better seasons and no one can deny that all three of them are more explosive and/or a better redzone threat than Smith.

 

If I have a gripe, it's that Eli didn't make it. And Snee should've as well.

 

I disagree. Steve Smith is 3rd in the NFL in receiving. And the two ahead of him are in the AFC. Steve was definitely snubbed for players on winning teams. End of story. Blue is totally right on this.

 

And you don't know what you're talking about. Sydney Rice didn't have nearly as good of a season, 20 less receptions, 1 less touchdown, 1 more fumble (to Smith's zero).

 

Miles Austin simply had 4 more TDs, 23 less receptions, 1 more fumble.

 

Desean had 37 less receptions, but more touchdowns.

 

And other than Desean, not one of those players has meant more to their team this year than Steve Smith did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Steve Smith is 3rd in the NFL in receiving. And the two ahead of him are in the AFC. Steve was definitely snubbed for players on winning teams. End of story. Blue is totally right on this.

 

And you don't know what you're talking about. Sydney Rice didn't have nearly as good of a season, 20 less receptions, 1 less touchdown, 1 more fumble (to Smith's zero).

 

Miles Austin simply had 4 more TDs, 23 less receptions, 1 more fumble.

 

Desean had 37 less receptions, but more touchdowns.

 

And other than Desean, not one of those players has meant more to their team this year than Steve Smith did.

 

 

I'm telling you, Steve Smith is getting knocked because he is a possession receiver. And in my opinion, rightfully so. The number of receptions is largely irrelevant. Did Steve Smith have a great season? Yes. But if I'm having a draft right now to build my team, Steve Smith would get picked fourth out of that group. Did he mean a lot to his team? Yes he did. But only because the quality of the alternative weapons on the Cowboys and especially the Vikings was greater than for the Giants. Those players shouldn't be penalized because Eli didn't have a lot of other great options to throw the ball to. In truth, I love Boss and Nicks. But Nicks was not a big part of the offense for over half the year and he missed quite a bit of time. Boss is totally under utilized and I have no idea why. But those guys weren't to Eli what Roy Williams and Witten was to Romo, nor were they what Harvin and Shiancoe was to Favre. So yes, other than Jackson, nobody was more important to their respective team than Steve Smith. But if you want to talk about who were the most outstanding players... the best players to represent the conference... then I think Steve Smith comes up a little short when considering that group.

 

Miles Austin and Sidney Rice all have more yards in much fewer receptions than Steve Smith. In Austin Miles case, he has 11 touchdowns. In Rice's case, his 1200 yards, 15.6 avg/rec, and his 265 YAC are all greater than Smith's, and he has 1 fewer TD. The fact that he did all that in 20 fewer catches means that he is a better/more dangerous receiver. It is a credit to him, not the other way around.

 

To put it another way, would you rather have a guy make 4 catches and put you in field goal range, or would you rather have a guy that makes one catch and goes all the way for the touchdown? Anyone who is not a moron would take the latter, but at the end of the day you could still have some fool make the argument that the guy with the 4 catches had the better game when that is not the case.

 

In DeSean Jackson's case, it is not even close. If you asked any corner in the league who they would rather face, Smith or Jackson? They would say Smith and it would be unanimous. He is the best WR in the NFC... nearly equaling Steve Smith's yardage in 37 fewer receptions and had 2 more touchdowns to boot. *EDIT* THAT IS JUST RECEIVING TD's... he also had a rushing TD and 2 return TD's, so his 12 total touchdowns would put him right near the top of all the receivers in the NFL.

 

If your argument held water, Wes Welker would be one of the greatest wide receivers to ever play the game.

 

Getting a lot of catches is one of the least important statistics in evaluating a WR unless you just want possession receivers. But I think most people would want the Jerry Rice's, Randy Moss', and the DeSean Jackson's more than they would want the Steve Largent's, Art Monk's, and the Steve Smith's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm telling you, Steve Smith is getting knocked because he is a possession receiver. And in my opinion, rightfully so. The number of receptions is largely irrelevant. Did Steve Smith have a great season? Yes. But if I'm having a draft right now to build my team, Steve Smith would get picked fourth out of that group. Did he mean a lot to his team? Yes he did. But only because the quality of the alternative weapons on the Cowboys and especially the Vikings was greater than for the Giants. Those players shouldn't be penalized because Eli didn't have a lot of other great options to throw the ball to. In truth, I love Boss and Nicks. But Nicks was not a big part of the offense for over half the year and he missed quite a bit of time. Boss is totally under utilized and I have no idea why. But those guys weren't to Eli what Roy Williams and Witten was to Romo, nor were they what Harvin and Shiancoe was to Favre. So yes, other than Jackson, nobody was more important to their respective team than Steve Smith. But if you want to talk about who were the most outstanding players... the best players to represent the conference... then I think Steve Smith comes up a little short when considering that group.

 

Miles Austin and Sidney Rice all have more yards in much fewer receptions than Steve Smith. In Austin Miles case, he has 11 touchdowns. In Rice's case, his 1200 yards, 15.6 avg/rec, and his 265 YAC are all greater than Smith's, and he has 1 fewer TD. The fact that he did all that in 20 fewer catches means that he is a better/more dangerous receiver. It is a credit to him, not the other way around.

 

To put it another way, would you rather have a guy make 4 catches and put you in field goal range, or would you rather have a guy that makes one catch and goes all the way for the touchdown? Anyone who is not a moron would take the latter, but at the end of the day you could still have some fool make the argument that the guy with the 4 catches had the better game when that is not the case.

 

In DeSean Jackson's case, it is not even close. If you asked any corner in the league who they would rather face, Smith or Jackson? They would say Smith and it would be unanimous. He is the best WR in the NFC... nearly equaling Steve Smith's yardage in 37 fewer receptions and had 2 more touchdowns to boot. *EDIT* THAT IS JUST RECEIVING TD's... he also had a rushing TD and 2 return TD's, so his 12 total touchdowns would put him right near the top of all the receivers in the NFL.

 

If your argument held water, Wes Welker would be one of the greatest wide receivers to ever play the game.

 

Getting a lot of catches is one of the least important statistics in evaluating a WR unless you just want possession receivers. But I think most people would want the Jerry Rice's, Randy Moss', and the DeSean Jackson's more than they would want the Steve Largent's, Art Monk's, and the Steve Smith's.

 

 

I'd rather have Steve Smith's +30 more 3rd down receptions than any of those receivers production which is about 100 yards more. He had a better season than all of them. Snubbed. He's third in the league in RECEIVING.

 

There's a separate position for returning punts and kicks. So the DeSean Jackson kick return touchdowns don't matter much.

 

And I would definitely rather have Steve Smith over Sydney Rice or Miles Austin.

 

Did I mention Sydney Rice had LESS touchdowns than Steve Smith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather have Steve Smith's +30 more 3rd down receptions than any of those receivers production which is about 100 yards more. He had a better season than all of them. Snubbed. He's third in the league in RECEIVING.

 

There's a separate position for returning punts and kicks. So the DeSean Jackson kick return touchdowns don't matter much.

 

And I would definitely rather have Steve Smith over Sydney Rice or Miles Austin.

 

Did I mention Sydney Rice had LESS touchdowns than Steve Smith?

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong on this issue. Did I mention that all three of those guys put up those stats on playoff teams? Did I also mention that Rice had only 1 less TD than Smith despite 20 fewer receptions and also put up more yards?

 

All Steve Smith has over these guys really is that he caught a lot more balls. Don't get me wrong, his season was excellent, he is definitely worthy of consideration and probably should be a first alternate. But those guys had better seasons on playoff teams. Even Rice. He produced more yardage and a near stalemate in TD's with Smith despite 20 fewer catches... 20.

 

And if you would rather have Steve Smith over guys that are legit scoring threats whenever they catch the ball because he catches the ball on third down a lot... then it is you that is nuts, with all due respect. You know why Smith got a lot of third down conversions? Because he was thrown the ball to a lot more than those other guys on third down. And you know why Smith has more catches? Because he was thrown the ball to more.

 

The point stands. You tell me right now, Storm.... tell me this minute... if you would rather have Randy Moss or Wes Welker on your team if you could only have one. Your answer will tell you all you need to know as to why Smith isn't on the Pro Bowl roster and Rice, Austin, and Jackson are.

 

And if you said Welker than you are a complete dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that Rice also had less receptions? That's less time's he got open and less catches he had to keep the chains moving forward?

 

And, like I've already said, Rice did put up those numbers on playoff, winning teams, who are better and scored more times than ours. Smith was snubbed because of that reason. You can't say that if Rice had caught 20 more passes, which he didn't, he would have even scored another touchdown to tie Smith, because he did just that, caught less balls. Oh, he also fumbled the ball given 20 less opportunities to do so than Smith. Where's that in your consideration? Sure, it's one fumble, but it's one less than Smith.

 

We aren't talking about Wes Welker or Randy Moss.

 

Oh, and you're point is moot. Welker is a two time Pro Bowler. Because his team is in the playoffs. Guess who didn't make it this year? Mr. Moss.

 

Talk about COMPLETELY negating your point that big play players should go to the Pro Bowl over Production based players. Or is it that the NFC values big play receivers and the AFC values production players? Because that contradicts your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that Rice also had less receptions? That's less time's he got open and less catches he had to keep the chains moving forward?

 

And, like I've already said, Rice did put up those numbers on playoff, winning teams, who are better and scored more times than ours. Smith was snubbed because of that reason. You can't say that if Rice had caught 20 more passes, which he didn't, he would have even scored another touchdown to tie Smith, because he did just that, caught less balls. Oh, he also fumbled the ball given 20 less opportunities to do so than Smith. Where's that in your consideration? Sure, it's one fumble, but it's one less than Smith.

 

We aren't talking about Wes Welker or Randy Moss.

 

Oh, and you're point is moot. Welker is a two time Pro Bowler. Because his team is in the playoffs. Guess who didn't make it this year? Mr. Moss.

 

Talk about COMPLETELY negating your point that big play players should go to the Pro Bowl over Production based players. Or is it that the NFC values big play receivers and the AFC values production players? Because that contradicts your point.

 

Answer the question, Storm. The fact that Welker made it over Moss only means the fans voted him in over Moss and the fans are retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer the question, Storm. The fact that Welker made it over Moss only means the fans voted him in over Moss and the fans are retarded.

 

 

Storm, the way you cling to your wrongness so tightly sometimes is just amusing.

 

Answer the question. Welker or Moss on your team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moss 78 receptions 1189 yards 13 TDs

 

Welker 122 receptions 1336 4 TDs

 

 

Good attempt, dude, but it's all subjective to which teams make the playoffs, which is too bad, because Steve Smith was snubbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storm, do you know why Smith had more catches than Rice?

 

Because Eli didn't have Berrian, Harvin, and Shiancoe on his team. That is the only reason. And if Rice did have 20 more catches, he would have at least 1 more TD, and a shit ton even more yards than he already has over Steve Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storm, the way you cling to your wrongness so tightly sometimes is just amusing.

 

Answer the question. Welker or Moss on your team?

 

That isn't what we're talking about, dumbass. You tried to make a point, your point doesn't even hold any truth, lol.

 

It's quite apparent you didn't even look at who's even in the Pro Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moss 78 receptions 1189 yards 13 TDs

 

Welker 122 receptions 1336 4 TDs

 

 

Good attempt, dude, but it's all subjective to which teams make the playoffs, which is too bad, because Steve Smith was snubbed.

 

 

So you would want Moss, right? Seriously dude. Think about it. Stop being a stat boy for a second and just look at the players. Look at how they play and the effect they have on the outcome of games. Would you rather have Moss or Welker, without looking at the stats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storm, do you know why Smith had more catches than Rice?

 

Because Eli didn't have Berrian, Harvin, and Shiancoe on his team. That is the only reason. And if Rice did have 20 more catches, he would have at least 1 more TD, and a shit ton even more yards than he already has over Steve Smith.

 

Fine. Let me spell it out for you because you're a complete idiot who is pulling things out his ass with no facts.

 

Manningham- 57 receptions 822 yards 5 tds

Berrian- 53 receptions 568 yards 4 tds

 

Hakeem Nick- 46 receptions 795 yards 6 tds

Percy Harvin- 53 receptions 731 6 tds

 

Kevin Boss - 42 receptions 567 yards 5 tds

Visanthe Shiancoe- 49 receptions 472 yards 10 tds

 

-4, +7, +7. That's ten receptions, Rice MIGHT have caught had Favre not thrown to the guys you named, and each of those guys nearly mirror each other statistically, anyway.

 

You have NO idea what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That isn't what we're talking about, dumbass. You tried to make a point, your point doesn't even hold any truth, lol.

 

It's quite apparent you didn't even look at who's even in the Pro Bowl.

 

 

Actually, I did look at who's in the Pro Bowl. My point holds absolute truth. You are saying a guy who amasses a lot of catches should go over another player with fewer catches and more yards. YOU are claiming that increased catches equals more production. That is the point that absolutely holds no truth. Yardage and scoring are the production statistics that matter, more than receptions. Receptions matter, don't get me wrong, but not MORE than yardage and TD's.

 

Would you claim that Matt Forte had a better season than Ray Rice because he had 2 more carries? You wouldn't, because that would be asinine. Rice had the better yardage and was clearly the better player that people watched ON THE FIELD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would want Moss, right? Seriously dude. Think about it. Stop being a stat boy for a second and just look at the players. Look at how they play and the effect they have on the outcome of games. Would you rather have Moss or Welker, without looking at the stats?

 

Welker MADE the Pro Bowl, Moss DIDN'T. Your argument is unsound. You claim big play players go to the Pro Bowl over production players. Obviously, that's not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which is it? The NFC values big play players while the AFC values production and timely receptions, not to mention what a player actually means to a team? Or could it be, maybe, JUST MAYBE, Smith was snubbed for a player on a playoff team?

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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