TheShocker Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 after they ranked the teams 1-32 based on the full depth chart (giants finished #8), they picked Wash. to win the division and Dallas to take the w.c. I really don't think Dallas OL has improved...they do get Adams back from injury but overall, I don't really see it as an improved unit. If anyone knows how much a weak OL affects a team, well, we probably do. And the redskins...well, i don't even know what to say about that. They're good but Brunell.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 after they ranked the teams 1-32 based on the full depth chart (giants finished #8), they picked Wash. to win the division and Dallas to take the w.c. I really don't think Dallas OL has improved...they do get Adams back from injury but overall, I don't really see it as an improved unit. If anyone knows how much a weak OL affects a team, well, we probably do. And the redskins...well, i don't even know what to say about that. They're good but Brunell.. Who cares dude! Those guys are always wrong anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nesta Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Good. Let them try to live up to the hype, while we once again become overachievers. What did they predict for us last year? Wasn't it 5-11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jranieli Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Here is what they fail to ever mention when it comes to the Giants. The Giants were the NFL East division winners last year. This team has improved especially on the defensive side and Manning will only get better. The addition of Arrington, Demps, Madison drastically improves this defense plus some big guys on the line. What really have the Cowboys done in the post season except signing TO. Does that automatically make them a better team because of just one signing? I am sorry fellas but when he starts learning that Bledsoe is slow and will not be able to connect to him every time, then the shit hits the fan. What happens if Bledsoe goes down? Tony Romo, that's a joke in itself. All I have to say is about Washington is that they are a good team, had a good off season and will make the playoffs. Just their QB situation is suspect right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 after they ranked the teams 1-32 based on the full depth chart (giants finished #8), they picked Wash. to win the division and Dallas to take the w.c. I really don't think Dallas OL has improved...they do get Adams back from injury but overall, I don't really see it as an improved unit. If anyone knows how much a weak OL affects a team, well, we probably do. And the redskins...well, i don't even know what to say about that. They're good but Brunell.. Yah, Washington is always GREAT in the offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Here is what they fail to ever mention when it comes to the Giants. The Giants were the NFL East division winners last year. This team has improved especially on the defensive side and Manning will only get better. The addition of Arrington, Demps, Madison drastically improves this defense plus some big guys on the line. What really have the Cowboys done in the post season except signing TO. Does that automatically make them a better team because of just one signing? I am sorry fellas but when he starts learning that Bledsoe is slow and will not be able to connect to him every time, then the shit hits the fan. What happens if Bledsoe goes down? Tony Romo, that's a joke in itself. All I have to say is about Washington is that they are a good team, had a good off season and will make the playoffs. Just their QB situation is suspect right now. not to mention we lost like zero starters on offense and picked up a gamebreaking WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Here's my problem with the Giants... The offense is good, but only good against average defensive team. (Seattle don't because of the division they play in) If you look at the team we played against whi have great defenses. You will notice that this offense was pushed around. Denver, Dallas, Carolina all punished this offense, almost at will. I think some analysts are thinking the same way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Here's my problem with the Giants... The offense is good, but only good against average defensive team. (Seattle don't because of the division they play in) If you look at the team we played against whi have great defenses. You will notice that this offense was pushed around. Denver, Dallas, Carolina all punished this offense, almost at will. I think some analysts are thinking the same way... ...Denver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 ...Denver? We were outplayed in that game until the 4th quarter. What I don't get (besides the obvious disregard for the team that is coming into the season as the defending NFC East Champions) is where they come off thinking that Carolina is better than Seattle. Yeah Carolina beat up on a Giants team that was nowhere near full strength, and then beat Chicago, but when it came to Seattle, Carolina got there asses handed to them. Now most people would say that I'm basing this (my argument that Seattle is better than Carolina) on that one game, but everyone is basing the entire 2005 season for the Giants on the playoff loss so what's the difference? The other thing is that they said something to the effect of "Someone has to win this division (NFC North)" What is that all about? Chicago was 12-4 last year and they were the 2nd seed in the playoffs. It's not like that division is horrible. Also what were the Jags doing ranked 17th in the league when they were 12-4? Although overlooked a lot, Jacksonville was amazing last season. The NFL analysts on ESPN are full of crap and have no knowledge whatsoever. That was made completely clear today as I watched Merril Hodge on ESPNEWS say that the Philadelphia Eagles would finish the season 9-6 and just miss the playoffs. No that isn't a typo, he said that they would finish 9-6. They're pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 We were outplayed in that game until the 4th quarter. What I don't get (besides the obvious disregard for the team that is coming into the season as the defending NFC East Champions) is where they come off thinking that Carolina is better than Seattle. Yeah Carolina beat up on a Giants team that was nowhere near full strength, and then beat Chicago, but when it came to Seattle, Carolina got there asses handed to them. Now most people would say that I'm basing this (my argument that Seattle is better than Carolina) on that one game, but everyone is basing the entire 2005 season for the Giants on the playoff loss so what's the difference? The other thing is that they said something to the effect of "Someone has to win this division (NFC North)" What is that all about? Chicago was 12-4 last year and they were the 2nd seed in the playoffs. It's not like that division is horrible. Also what were the Jags doing ranked 17th in the league when they were 12-4? Although overlooked a lot, Jacksonville was amazing last season. The NFL analysts on ESPN are full of crap and have no knowledge whatsoever. That was made completely clear today as I watched Merril Hodge on ESPNEWS say that the Philadelphia Eagles would finish the season 9-6 and just miss the playoffs. No that isn't a typo, he said that they would finish 9-6. They're pathetic. I agree on somethings. but keep in mind, just like us, Carolina headed into the Seattle playoff game hurt. They were down to their , what, 6th RB? and some of their OL were hurt too. Lets make no mastake about it, the Carolina Panthers a good team. I think its going to either them, Washington or us that will repesent the NFC in the SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 I agree on somethings. but keep in mind, just like us, Carolina headed into the Seattle playoff game hurt. They were down to their , what, 6th RB? and some of their OL were hurt too. Lets make no mastake about it, the Carolina Panthers a good team. I think its going to either them, Washington or us that will repesent the NFC in the SB. Oh no I'm not denying that Carolina is good. I'm just saying that it's retarded to say that the Panthers or any team in the NFC for that matter should be considered to be better than the champs. This is exactly how I feel about the NFC East. It is absurd that anyone should be considered to be better than us when we are the defending division champions. As far as their RB/OL situation goes, you're absolutely right, but my point here is the same as before. No one wants to say that Carolina ran all over us due to us having close to or over 50% of our defense injured, so why should I give them the benifit of the doubt when their RBs and OL were performing well enough to get them to the NFC Championship game. Seattle out played them and in my mind Carolina shouldn't be rated higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Oh no I'm not denying that Carolina is good. I'm just saying that it's retarded to say that the Panthers or any team in the NFC for that matter should be considered to be better than the champs. This is exactly how I feel about the NFC East. It is absurd that anyone should be considered to be better than us when we are the defending division champions. As far as their RB/OL situation goes, you're absolutely right, but my point here is the same as before. No one wants to say that Carolina ran all over us due to us having close to or over 50% of our defense injured, so why should I give them the benifit of the doubt when their RBs and OL were performing well enough to get them to the NFC Championship game. Seattle out played them and in my mind Carolina shouldn't be rated higher. C'mon...Seattle was lucky. They had a weak division and played against teams like the Texans and Titans. They were well rested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 C'mon...Seattle was lucky. They had a weak division and played against teams like the Texans and Titans. They were well rested. I know, but I refuse to give Carolina or anyone else for that matter the nod over the champs until they are dethroned. Don't get me wrong... I can't stand Seattle, but the fact is that they are the NFC Champions meaning, regardless of how lucky they are, they are the team to beat in the NFC. And they will be surpassed by us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 I know, but I refuse to give Carolina or anyone else for that matter the nod over the champs until they are dethroned. Don't get me wrong... I can't stand Seattle, but the fact is that they are the NFC Champions meaning, regardless of how lucky they are, they are the team to beat in the NFC. And they will be surpassed by us. I see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jranieli Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 C'mon...Seattle was lucky. They had a weak division and played against teams like the Texans and Titans. They were well rested. Sassy, it does not matter. They made it to the Super Bowl. They might have a half assed schedule but were able to beat a very good Panthers in the playoffs. I would not say they were well rested, lucky as not having many injuries and had a very good football team. We should have beat them and I am not sure if it would have turned out fortunes around but we lost a great deal of players towards the end of the year. I don't think it really would have mattered anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torn084 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 after they ranked the teams 1-32 based on the full depth chart (giants finished #8), they picked Wash. to win the division and Dallas to take the w.c. I really don't think Dallas OL has improved...they do get Adams back from injury but overall, I don't really see it as an improved unit. If anyone knows how much a weak OL affects a team, well, we probably do. And the redskins...well, i don't even know what to say about that. They're good but Brunell.. Redskins won....the offseason again. I agree the Giants were ranked way too low, but the Ravens above Miami? Cmon Mike Golik. They keep saying how we are gonna make a run at the division this year, and how is that possible when the Ravens take a wildcard spot. Don't listen to a word they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Redskins won....the offseason again. I agree the Giants were ranked way too low, but the Ravens above Miami? Cmon Mike Golik. They keep saying how we are gonna make a run at the division this year, and how is that possible when the Ravens take a wildcard spot. Don't listen to a word they say. Oh believe me, I won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 They're Retards. GO GIANTS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Jeans Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 They picked Carolina vs. Patriots for SB and Carolina wins because they say the Pats don't have Vineteri anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 They picked Carolina vs. Patriots for SB and Carolina wins because they say the Pats don't have Vineteri anymore. If thats not enough to tell you they're retards, I dont know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeMesiS Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 They picked Carolina vs. Patriots for SB and Carolina wins because they say the Pats don't have Vineteri anymore. They picked the Patriots. Wow, that's really going out on a limp. <_> 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