Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 Jim. I didn't start the 2007 vs 2015 comparison, I'm just sticking to the original argument. I also compare Toomer to Cruz, not Randle. Beckham + Cruz + Randle >> Burress + Toomer + ??? (Hixon?) I was actually going to make the same comparison, but since Cruz and Beckham have only seen the field together a handful of times I didn't think it was a valid one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Jim. I didn't start the 2007 vs 2015 comparison, I'm just sticking to the original argument. I also compare Toomer to Cruz, not Randle. Beckham + Cruz + Randle >> Burress + Toomer + ??? (Hixon?) My "over-thought analysis" is merely an exercise in objectivity. Something foreign to these boards, I know. I don't see how u can say that Beckham, Cruz and Randle are better than Burress, Toomer, and anyone when the first option is merely a hypothetical. We haven't even seen that combination and probably never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I don't see how u can say that Beckham, Cruz and Randle are better than Burress, Toomer, and anyone when the first option is merely a hypothetical. We haven't even seen that combination and probably never will. That's a production argument, not a talent argument. I didn't make the rules, Jimbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 16, 2016 Author Share Posted January 16, 2016 That's a production argument, not a talent argument. I didn't make the rules, Jimbo. Honesty Tree, I'm not sure I understand the difference between talent and production. Was Mike Mamula a more talented pick than Chad Bratzke? Mamula was a physical marvel that never amounted to jack and Bratzke was the consummate overachiever with limited athleticism. We can talk semantics all you like, but I think the point of the thread is that most fans would rather have the 2007 roster than the 2015 one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Well the whole debate started because Tree and Seph were comparing the production between 2007 Shockey and 2014 Donnell/2015 Tye. I brought up 2007 Toomer vs 2015 Randle because Randle's stats are better but in no way would I take him over Toomer. Hell... I'd probably take 2015 Toomer over Randle at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMFP Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Honesty Tree, I'm not sure I understand the difference between talent and production. Was Mike Mamula a more talented pick than Chad Bratzke? Mamula was a physical marvel that never amounted to jack and Bratzke was the consummate overachiever with limited athleticism. We can talk semantics all you like, but I think the point of the thread is that most fans would rather have the 2007 roster than the 2015 one. Imagine the 2007 roster, with 2015 Eli. Only reason 2015 wasnt a complete joke was because Manning could get the ball to Beckham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Tree thinks potential talent is a factor. I see what he's saying, but potential means zilch until it is realized. And yes, I'd take Burress, Toomer, and Hixon back in a heartbeat over what we have now. Because what we have now is Beckham, a maybe (Cruz), and jags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Rueben Randle doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Amani Toomer. Amen to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Rueben Randle doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Amani Toomer. Amen to that? Yeah he's no Sinorice Moss that Randle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Tree thinks potential talent is a factor. I see what he's saying, but potential means zilch until it is realized. And yes, I'd take Burress, Toomer, and Hixon back in a heartbeat over what we have now. Because what we have now is Beckham, a maybe (Cruz), and jags. It's not A factor, it's THE factor under contention, unless you guys hold Reese responsible for a) injuries, b) player development and c) playcalling too? The constant here is you guys keep bitching that Reese has screwed up the team because he hasn't delivered sufficient TALENT for Coughlin to work with, yet you all seem incapable of recognising that TALENT is not equivilent to PRODUCTION, it's merely one component of it. Seriously, I hate having to play Devil's Advocate on this all the time, I'm not really a fan of Reese either, but the debate here is centred entirely too much on subjective analysis skewed to fit a pre-determined hypothesis and it hurts my scientist's brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 It's not A factor, it's THE factor under contention, unless you guys hold Reese responsible for a) injuries, b) player development and c) playcalling too? The constant here is you guys keep bitching that Reese has screwed up the team because he hasn't delivered sufficient TALENT for Coughlin to work with, yet you all seem incapable of recognising that TALENT is not equivilent to PRODUCTION, it's merely one component of it. Seriously, I hate having to play Devil's Advocate on this all the time, I'm not really a fan of Reese either, but the debate here is centred entirely too much on subjective analysis skewed to fit a pre-determined hypothesis and it hurts my scientist's brain. Stop thinking so hard and accept you can't have an objective conversation with everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Tree thinks potential talent is a factor. I see what he's saying, but potential means zilch until it is realized. And yes, I'd take Burress, Toomer, and Hixon back in a heartbeat over what we have now. Because what we have now is Beckham, a maybe (Cruz), and jags. Okay, then work through this excercise: Take Beckham, Cruz, Randle, Harris as one group, and Burris, Toomer, Hixon and (look it up) as the other. The version of the player as they are in their career either in 2015 or 2007, respectively. Remove all injuries. Give them the same environment (QB, OLine, competition). Which group performs best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Stop thinking so hard and accept you can't have an objective conversation with everyone. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Okay, then work through this excercise: Take Beckham, Cruz, Randle, Harris as one group, and Burris, Toomer, Hixon and (look it up) as the other. The version of the player as they are in their career either in 2015 or 2007, respectively. Remove all injuries. Give them the same environment (QB, OLine, competition). Which group performs best? Sure, since we get to remove injuries we can add Steve Smith to the group. We also had Tyree then. And Jeremy Shockey was really the third receiver for most of 2007 until he got hurt, and then we had Kevin Boss. I have no issues whatsoever in saying the older group was much better and deeper. Yes, Beckham would be the best player out of them all. But Burress at his best was still plenty good enough to be a top-end #1 receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 And no, Tree... POTENTIAL can only be used in the argument if the potential is derailed by injury. It should work against Reese when injuries weren't really a factor. So we can't excoriate Reese over what happened to Cruz but Randle is not a good NFL receiver and he really can't use injuries as an excuse there. BTW, I thought the Giants got a steal with Rueben Randle and was a big fan of the pick. However, I do not have access to all the information that Reese has and I also do not get paid to build the football team (although I should ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Tye gets open for a reason. He's not explosive after the catch but he's not slow either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Same reason Hynoski got open. No one cared to guard him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
echochamber Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Staying healthy is a talent. Knowing how to properly train completely eludes many a Giant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Same reason Hynoski got open. No one cared to guard him. Leaving a fullback in the flat open is different than leaving a TE open up the seam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Not being a threat is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 He's a serviceable possession receiving option is all I'm saying. I'd like to upgrade the position but he's enough where I'm not worrying about updating te as much as I am the pass rush, safety, linebackers etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Leaving a fullback in the flat open is different than leaving a TE open up the seam I've seen linebackers fall down laughing when Hynoski was running a route so let us not assume he wasn't accounted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 LOL, yes. I know I've said this before but I think a tall receiver makes Eli comfortable. So if we're going to have a TE who's just serviceable, I'd prefer a tall one. Or a tall 2nd or 3rd WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I'm cool with upgrading tye at some point. I don't think he's too far from his ceiling. I just think we have more pressing priorities I'd like to see addressed first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 And no, Tree... POTENTIAL can only be used in the argument if the potential is derailed by injury. It should work against Reese when injuries weren't really a factor. So we can't excoriate Reese over what happened to Cruz but Randle is not a good NFL receiver and he really can't use injuries as an excuse there. BTW, I thought the Giants got a steal with Rueben Randle and was a big fan of the pick. However, I do not have access to all the information that Reese has and I also do not get paid to build the football team (although I should ). Who's making that argument? I don't think Randle is nearly as bad as people make out, though. He's not great, but he's got the skills to be a solid #2 (see my previous comments on player development). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now