Jump to content
SportsWrath

Memories....

BIGBLUE01

By BIGBLUE01
in New York Giants

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr. P

Mr. P

Posted
Posted

it is also painfully clear that you need some new material...unless appealing to the court jester's sense of humor is enough for you...

 

its not material, its fact. throw the towel already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fishgutmartyr

fishgutmartyr

Posted
Posted

The Dog shouldn't forget that in that time span, the Giants were playing in inarguably the toughest division in football. The Landry Cowboys, Buddy Ryan Eagles, and Gibbs Redskins were ALL very competitive and successful in that time frame... where the 49ers were facing the likes of the sometimes-competitive Rams, the hapless Saints, and the "how-the-fuck-are-they-in-the-NFC-West" Atlanta Falcons. The Niners compiled an awesome record every season beating up on tomato cans.

Exactly. It drove me crazy those years that we were in wars in the East, while S.F. (and the Bears, for that matter) would coast into the playoffs.

 

And take a look at the seasons where we had poor showings, dog. Two of them were during strike seasons, one was during a coaching change. One of the seasons we missed the playoffs was in '88, when we went 10-6. (That was the year S.F. "laid down like dogs," btw. Not that I blame them.) 3 of our playoff losses were to the eventual SB champions, so it wasn't like we lost against teams where anyone was wondering how they got there.

 

How you could look at that period and not consider the Giants a threat to every other contender is beyond me. Particularly with S.F. in the second half of the decade. We matched up very well against S.F., and even if we lost, they knew they had been in a brawl.

 

The Redskins? We owned that team, even with Gibbs. And the only SB wins they had were during strike seasons; the one time they made it to the SB in a normal season they were crushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ksm7

ksm7

Posted
Posted

Exactly. It drove me crazy those years that we were in wars in the East, while S.F. (and the Bears, for that matter) would coast into the playoffs.

 

And take a look at the seasons where we had poor showings, dog. Two of them were during strike seasons, one was during a coaching change. One of the seasons we missed the playoffs was in '88, when we went 10-6. (That was the year S.F. "laid down like dogs," btw. Not that I blame them.) 3 of our playoff losses were to the eventual SB champions, so it wasn't like we lost against teams where anyone was wondering how they got there.

 

How you could look at that period and not consider the Giants a threat to every other contender is beyond me. Particularly with S.F. in the second half of the decade. We matched up very well against S.F., and even if we lost, they knew they had been in a brawl.

 

The Redskins? We owned that team, even with Gibbs. And the only SB wins they had were during strike seasons; the one time they made it to the SB in a normal season they were crushed.

 

despite a harder division, the bears and the 49ers took care of business in the playoffs, so in the end, why should that matter? the dog is just responding to the notion that the giants are being considered with the 49ers as the two teams that were the most consistent powers in the 80's...how could you look at all of that and say this is true?? oh, you can, when you justify all of the negatives with excuses (i.e., they were strike years - fyi, they were strike years for all NFL teams...they missed the playoffs at 10-6, ok, so have a lot of teams....one had a coaching change - a coaching change b/c the team was bad maybe?...)...the dog is just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ksm7

ksm7

Posted
Posted

its not material, its fact. throw the towel already.

 

it is also fact that the rocky 4 video went stale after you reached the 150th use of it 2 years ago...so the dog thinks he will stick around and see when you reach using it for the 500th time (at that point, you may be forced to retire it...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. P

Mr. P

Posted
Posted

it is also fact that the rocky 4 video went stale after you reached the 150th use of it 2 years ago...so the dog thinks he will stick around and see when you reach using it for the 500th time (at that point, you may be forced to retire it...).

 

sweet.

 

should hit 500 in a month or so.

 

ill never retire it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ksm7

ksm7

Posted
Posted

sweet.

 

should hit 500 in a month or so.

 

ill never retire it.

 

what a pity then for population here that realizes pro wrestling is a male soap opera with really bad acting...oh well, the dog will await the next rocky video with less enthusiasm than say, bigblue, but hey...to each his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fringe

fringe

Posted
Posted

it is also fact that the rocky 4 video went stale after you reached the 150th use of it 2 years ago...so the dog thinks he will stick around and see when you reach using it for the 500th time (at that point, you may be forced to retire it...).

 

you bet on drago, no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BIGBLUE01

BIGBLUE01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

what a pity then for population here that realizes pro wrestling is a male soap opera with really bad acting...oh well, the dog will await the next rocky video with less enthusiasm than say, bigblue, but hey...to each his own.

 

I cant wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boohyah

boohyah

Posted
Posted

That's good, I still think this one is though:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRsYROOO20w

 

No doubt, the superbowl intro was great, but CBS started every game with that intro, and it would make you excited to watch a shitty game by the time it was over. Double that up that it's the first NFC Championship in years for the Giants, I think makes it special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sephiroth

Sephiroth

Posted
Posted

despite a harder division, the bears and the 49ers took care of business in the playoffs, so in the end, why should that matter? the dog is just responding to the notion that the giants are being considered with the 49ers as the two teams that were the most consistent powers in the 80's...how could you look at all of that and say this is true?? oh, you can, when you justify all of the negatives with excuses (i.e., they were strike years - fyi, they were strike years for all NFL teams...they missed the playoffs at 10-6, ok, so have a lot of teams....one had a coaching change - a coaching change b/c the team was bad maybe?...)...the dog is just saying...

 

So... who would the Dog say were more consistent powers in the 80's? Nobody in their right mind would say anyone in the AFC after 85.... so who were the great powerhouses to go along with the almighty Niners, from the Dog's point of view? The Broncos? The Redskins? The Eagles?

 

inquiring minds want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fishgutmartyr

fishgutmartyr

Posted
Posted

despite a harder division, the bears and the 49ers took care of business in the playoffs, so in the end, why should that matter? the dog is just responding to the notion that the giants are being considered with the 49ers as the two teams that were the most consistent powers in the 80's...how could you look at all of that and say this is true?? oh, you can, when you justify all of the negatives with excuses (i.e., they were strike years - fyi, they were strike years for all NFL teams...they missed the playoffs at 10-6, ok, so have a lot of teams....one had a coaching change - a coaching change b/c the team was bad maybe?...)...the dog is just saying...

The Bears took care of business in the playoffs? They were 5-3 (.600) in the 80's, while we were 6-4 (.600). So how did they take care of business and we didn't, while we played in a tougher division? You aren't using any logic, just tossing shit against the wall to see if you can piss people off.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a team do so little with so much talent and opportunity. With that defensive talent, Walter Payton, a very strong offensive line, a decent WR in Willie Gault , and playing in a very weak division (the only team even on the positive side of .500 was Minnesota); that team should have made multiple SB appearances. Instead they turned into a circus, and personal ego trips for Ryan and Ditka. Those two should have been run out of Chicago on a rail with all the opportunity they squandered.

 

Yes, San Fran took care of business in the playoffs--but it's a LOT easier when you're in a division that isn't knocking the shit out of each other for 6 games (I'm not counting the Cards). How many seasons were they handed home-field advantage throughout the playoffs by that crap division? They also had 3 one and done playoffs: two of them courtesy of the New York Giants. BTW, during the time period we are talking about, the teams were 2-2 in the playoffs, so yeah, they probably weren't thrilled to play against us. Hell, go ahead and count up to Reeve's first year--it would still be 3-3: but I don't think 2002 had a whole lot to do with Montana's Niners. If you do that, however, I'll point out that our playoff record becomes a gaudy 10-5 (.667) for the whole period, and completely blows the Bears out of contention (6-5, .545).

 

I'm justifying the bad seasons with fact: 1982 had a shortened season (9 games!) with a half-assed playoff qualification that didn't even consider divisions--and your beloved Bears and 49ers actually had worse records than we did that year. In 1987 teams got into the playoffs thanks in part to the play of scab players--we lost each of those games, which coupled with a slow start put us in a hole the real team couldn't get out of.

 

I hope you're kidding about the coaching change: it happened because Ray Perkins resigned to take the Alabama job as the personal choice of Bear Bryant--his dream job--it had NOTHING to do with his record. It's really starting to look like you don't know what you're writing about.

 

Oh, the division was won in 1988 by a 10-6 team. You make it sound like a 10-6 team doesn't normally make the playoffs, and should be ashamed. The only thing that team had to be embarrassed about was not taking the Jets game seriously enough. If they did, they would have been 11-5, won the division, and in the playoffs whether San Fran laid down or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. P

Mr. P

Posted
Posted

what a pity then for population here that realizes pro wrestling is a male soap opera with really bad acting...oh well, the dog will await the next rocky video with less enthusiasm than say, bigblue, but hey...to each his own.

 

i didnt realize we were talking about pro-wrestling.

 

oooh youre just grasping at shit trying to insult me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMFP

JMFP

Posted
Posted

The Bears took care of business in the playoffs? They were 5-3 (.600) in the 80's, while we were 6-4 (.600). So how did they take care of business and we didn't, while we played in a tougher division? You aren't using any logic, just tossing shit against the wall to see if you can piss people off.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a team do so little with so much talent and opportunity. With that defensive talent, Walter Payton, a very strong offensive line, a decent WR in Willie Gault , and playing in a very weak division (the only team even on the positive side of .500 was Minnesota); that team should have made multiple SB appearances. Instead they turned into a circus, and personal ego trips for Ryan and Ditka. Those two should have been run out of Chicago on a rail with all the opportunity they squandered.

 

Yes, San Fran took care of business in the playoffs--but it's a LOT easier when you're in a division that isn't knocking the shit out of each other for 6 games (I'm not counting the Cards). How many seasons were they handed home-field advantage throughout the playoffs by that crap division? They also had 3 one and done playoffs: two of them courtesy of the New York Giants. BTW, during the time period we are talking about, the teams were 2-2 in the playoffs, so yeah, they probably weren't thrilled to play against us. Hell, go ahead and count up to Reeve's first year--it would still be 3-3: but I don't think 2002 had a whole lot to do with Montana's Niners. If you do that, however, I'll point out that our playoff record becomes a gaudy 10-5 (.667) for the whole period, and completely blows the Bears out of contention (6-5, .545).

 

I'm justifying the bad seasons with fact: 1982 had a shortened season (9 games!) with a half-assed playoff qualification that didn't even consider divisions--and your beloved Bears and 49ers actually had worse records than we did that year. In 1987 teams got into the playoffs thanks in part to the play of scab players--we lost each of those games, which coupled with a slow start put us in a hole the real team couldn't get out of.

 

I hope you're kidding about the coaching change: it happened because Ray Perkins resigned to take the Alabama job as the personal choice of Bear Bryant--his dream job--it had NOTHING to do with his record. It's really starting to look like you don't know what you're writing about.

 

Oh, the division was won in 1988 by a 10-6 team. You make it sound like a 10-6 team doesn't normally make the playoffs, and should be ashamed. The only thing that team had to be embarrassed about was not taking the Jets game seriously enough. If they did, they would have been 11-5, won the division, and in the playoffs whether San Fran laid down or not.

 

 

Excellent points concerning the NFC West and Central...... those divisions were stocked with punching bags for the 49ers and Bears, respectively.

 

The fact is, the NFC East was a complete meat grinder back in the 1980s. Parcells was matched against a who's-who of coaching legends during the decarde - Joe Gibbs and the Redskin had some tremendous teams.....the Cowboys under Tom Landry and Jimmy Johnson......and the Eagles had Dick Vermeil and Buddy Ryan. The only softie on the schedule were the Cards.

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
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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