PDA

View Full Version : Better off without Manningham?



Giants10Joe
02-28-2012, 04:20 PM
Let me just preface this by saying I like Manningham and hope he stays, but part of me wonders if we would be better off without him. With Nicks and Cruz drawing the other team's top 2 cornerbacks and frequently double coverage, Manningham only had to beat the number 3 (sometimes even number 4 or 5) cornerback and he couldn't always do that. Maybe Jerrigan or someone else will be a able to get open more often.

giantman8493
02-28-2012, 04:22 PM
lol good.

miken609
02-28-2012, 04:27 PM
lol good.

What kind of response is that? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

ny06
02-28-2012, 04:27 PM
I don't agree we will be better without Manningham. </P>


Not saying we still won't be lethal in the passing game. </P>


But Manningham was a legitimate #2 receiver in this league. </P>


His knock was he was not on the same page with Eli on numerous occasions. </P>


That is what kept him at best on the #3 wr on the depth chart. </P>


And the resurgence of Cruz made it near imposible for Manningham to move up on the depth chart. </P>


Manningham did alot for us, he gave us a deep threat, and like Nicks and Cruz, was dangerous once he got the ball in his hands. </P>


I think the Giants would love to keep him, but that is just near imposible with the salary cap issues. </P>


I hope nothing but the best for Mario Manningham. </P>

egyptian420
02-28-2012, 04:29 PM
I don't agree we will be better without Manningham. </p>


Not saying we still won't be lethal in the passing game. </p>


But Manningham was a legitimate #2 receiver in this league. </p>


His knock was he was not on the same page with Eli on numerous occasions. </p>


That is what kept him at best on the #3 wr on the depth chart. </p>


And the resurgence of Cruz made it near imposible for Manningham to move up on the depth chart. </p>


Manningham did alot for us, he gave us a deep threat, and like Nicks and Cruz, was dangerous once he got the ball in his hands. </p>


I think the Giants would love to keep him, but that is just near imposible with the salary cap issues. </p>


I hope nothing but the best for Mario Manningham. </p>
Agreed, I can't imagine this passing game possibly getting any better, much less without Manningham. I hope the OP proves me wrong though.

myles2424
02-28-2012, 04:29 PM
Dude HAM is easily one of the best #3s in the league......let's not start getting bitter because he's leaving.....

miken609
02-28-2012, 04:34 PM
I would never say that a team is better off without a particular player because said player could always serve as a back up.

That said, I do agree with you. Manningham should have been open more often.

However, we must consider that when either Nicks or Cruz was doubled, the other team was probably not using their #1 and #2 CBs on the same WR on the same play. If Nicks was doubled he was probably doubled with the other teams #3 and #4 CBs while Cruz would be left matched up with the #1 and Manningham, the #2. Thus Manningham probably face better CBs than we may have thought.

All things considered, Manningham should have been able to get open more frequently considering how much he faced single coverage on the other teams #2, #3, or #4 CB.

In conclusion, while we wouldn't be a better team without Manningham he most definitely is replaceable for someone who can be paid less, someone who is better, or any combination of the 2.

nygsb42champs
02-28-2012, 04:36 PM
Yes he was against a weaker DB than Nicks or Cruz but we will not be better without him. He developed nicely with Eli and it will take time for another WR to develop that same type of chemistry.

Kruunch
02-28-2012, 04:36 PM
Let me just preface this by saying I like Manningham and hope he stays, but part of me wonders if we would be better off without him. With Nicks and Cruz drawing the other team's top 2 cornerbacks and frequently double coverage, Manningham only had to beat the number 3 (sometimes even number 4 or 5) cornerback and he couldn't always do that. Maybe Jerrigan or someone else will be a able to get open more often.


MM usually had to beat a Safety over the top (or to the inside).

As a #3, with money not coming into the picture, MM was great in that position.

I don't consider us better off without him unless we can replace his talent (not as easily done as said).

Morehead State
02-28-2012, 04:44 PM
Let me just preface this by saying I like Manningham and hope he stays, but part of me wonders if we would be better off without him. With Nicks and Cruz drawing the other team's top 2 cornerbacks and frequently double coverage, Manningham only had to beat the number 3 (sometimes even number 4 or 5) cornerback and he couldn't always do that. Maybe Jerrigan or someone else will be a able to get open more often.
</P>


What about 2010 when Nicks and Smith were both out andManningham averaged well over 100 yards for those 4 games.</P>

buddy33
02-28-2012, 04:46 PM
The year before he was one of the leagues best big play WR.

This past season he was injured a lot and never could get into a groove until the end. Better without him? I don't see how. Not saying they won't survive, because JJ might turn out to be just fine, but Manningham is a very good WR.

GmenFan1980
02-28-2012, 04:50 PM
I would never say that a team is better off without a particular player because said player could always serve as a back up.

That said, I do agree with you. Manningham should have been open more often.

However, we must consider that when either Nicks or Cruz was doubled, the other team was probably not using their #1 and #2 CBs on the same WR on the same play. If Nicks was doubled he was probably doubled with the other teams #3 and #4 CBs while Cruz would be left matched up with the #1 and Manningham, the #2. Thus Manningham probably face better CBs than we may have thought.

All things considered, Manningham should have been able to get open more frequently considering how much he faced single coverage on the other teams #2, #3, or #4 CB.

In conclusion, while we wouldn't be a better team without Manningham he most definitely is replaceable for someone who can be paid less, someone who is better, or any combination of the 2.

This^

miken609
02-28-2012, 04:58 PM
Dude HAM is easily one of the best #3s in the league......let's not start getting bitter because he's leaving.....

With Nicks and Cruz as the #1 and #2 receivers, I could be the best #3 in the league. Manningham is replaceable just like Smith, Toomer, Shockey and Plax were.

Eli make the receivers better.

miken609
02-28-2012, 04:59 PM
Dude HAM is easily one of the best #3s in the league......let's not start getting bitter because he's leaving.....

With Nicks and Cruz as the #1 and #2 receivers, I could be the best #3 in the league. Manningham is replaceable just like Smith, Toomer, Shockey and Plax were.

Eli make the receivers better.

and Boss. Anyone want to add any others to the list?

miken609
02-28-2012, 05:00 PM
The year before he was one of the leagues best big play WR.

This past season he was injured a lot and never could get into a groove until the end. Better without him? I don't see how. Not saying they won't survive, because JJ might turn out to be just fine, but Manningham is a very good WR.
We are obviously not better without him but the fact that he's always injured does not exactly help his case.

miken609
02-28-2012, 05:02 PM
Yes he was against a weaker DB than Nicks or Cruz but we will not be better without him. He developed nicely with Eli and it will take time for another WR to develop that same type of chemistry.

Manningham and Eli never exactly had the greatest chemistry. It won't take long for another receiver to get to where Manningham is at with Eli right now.

miken609
02-28-2012, 05:03 PM
I don't agree we will be better without Manningham. </P>


Not saying we still won't be lethal in the passing game. </P>


But Manningham was a legitimate #2 receiver in this league. </P>


His knock was he was not on the same page with Eli on numerous occasions. </P>


That is what kept him at best on the #3 wr on the depth chart. </P>


And the resurgence of Cruz made it near imposible for Manningham to move up on the depth chart. </P>


Manningham did alot for us, he gave us a deep threat, and like Nicks and Cruz, was dangerous once he got the ball in his hands. </P>


I think the Giants would love to keep him, but that is just near imposible with the salary cap issues. </P>


I hope nothing but the best for Mario Manningham. </P>

I've never seen a nine paragraph response with so little analysis and information.

miken609
02-28-2012, 05:04 PM
Wow what have I done? I've really trolled this thread.

ny06
02-28-2012, 05:06 PM
I don't agree we will be better without Manningham. </P>


Not saying we still won't be lethal in the passing game. </P>


But Manningham was a legitimate #2 receiver in this league. </P>


His knock was he was not on the same page with Eli on numerous occasions. </P>


That is what kept him at best on the #3 wr on the depth chart. </P>


And the resurgence of Cruz made it near imposible for Manningham to move up on the depth chart. </P>


Manningham did alot for us, he gave us a deep threat, and like Nicks and Cruz, was dangerous once he got the ball in his hands. </P>


I think the Giants would love to keep him, but that is just near imposible with the salary cap issues. </P>


I hope nothing but the best for Mario Manningham. </P>


I've never seen a nine paragraph response with so little analysis and information.</P>


Well I guess I have to dumb it down for you. </P>


The question from the op was are we better without Manningham? </P>


I responded with no. </P>


And I gave reasons as to why and why he was the #3 wr on the depth chart. </P>


Note to self, don't respond to miken609. I will only get a headache</P>

miken609
02-28-2012, 05:12 PM
I don't agree we will be better without Manningham. </P>


Not saying we still won't be lethal in the passing game. </P>


But Manningham was a legitimate #2 receiver in this league. </P>


His knock was he was not on the same page with Eli on numerous occasions. </P>


That is what kept him at best on the #3 wr on the depth chart. </P>


And the resurgence of Cruz made it near imposible for Manningham to move up on the depth chart. </P>


Manningham did alot for us, he gave us a deep threat, and like Nicks and Cruz, was dangerous once he got the ball in his hands. </P>


I think the Giants would love to keep him, but that is just near imposible with the salary cap issues. </P>


I hope nothing but the best for Mario Manningham. </P>


I've never seen a nine paragraph response with so little analysis and information.</P>


Well I guess I have to dumb it down for you. </P>


The question from the op was are we better without Manningham? </P>


I responded with no. </P>


And I gave reasons as to why and why he was the #3 wr on the depth chart. </P>


Note to self, don't respond to miken609. I will only get a headache</P>

haha I get it. I was just making fun of how you write.

Giants10Joe
02-28-2012, 05:12 PM
I would never say that a team is better off without a particular player because said player could always serve as a back up.

That said, I do agree with you. Manningham should have been open more often.

However, we must consider that when either Nicks or Cruz was doubled, the other team was probably not using their #1 and #2 CBs on the same WR on the same play. If Nicks was doubled he was probably doubled with the other teams #3 and #4 CBs while Cruz would be left matched up with the #1 and Manningham, the #2. Thus Manningham probably face better CBs than we may have thought.

All things considered, Manningham should have been able to get open more frequently considering how much he faced single coverage on the other teams #2, #3, or #4 CB.

In conclusion, while we wouldn't be a better team without Manningham he most definitely is replaceable for someone who can be paid less, someone who is better, or any combination of the 2.

I agree with this. I guess saying we're "better off without him" is a little too strong. As Miken609 pointed out before turning into a troll, he could always serve as a backup. I guess a better question is "can the Giants get a better #3 for the same or less money?" I think the answer is yes. I think Jernigan can be that guy.

Giants10Joe
02-28-2012, 05:13 PM
Wow what have I done? I've really trolled this thread.

Yes you have.

miken609
02-28-2012, 05:15 PM
I would never say that a team is better off without a particular player because said player could always serve as a back up.

That said, I do agree with you. Manningham should have been open more often.

However, we must consider that when either Nicks or Cruz was doubled, the other team was probably not using their #1 and #2 CBs on the same WR on the same play. If Nicks was doubled he was probably doubled with the other teams #3 and #4 CBs while Cruz would be left matched up with the #1 and Manningham, the #2. Thus Manningham probably face better CBs than we may have thought.

All things considered, Manningham should have been able to get open more frequently considering how much he faced single coverage on the other teams #2, #3, or #4 CB.

In conclusion, while we wouldn't be a better team without Manningham he most definitely is replaceable for someone who can be paid less, someone who is better, or any combination of the 2.

I agree with this. I guess saying we're "better off without him" is a little too strong. As Miken609 pointed out before turning into a troll, he could always serve as a backup. I guess a better question is "can the Giants get a better #3 for the same or less money?" I think the answer is yes. I think Jernigan can be that guy.


I agree. This is a salary cap league and team sport.

miken609
02-28-2012, 05:16 PM
Wow what have I done? I've really trolled this thread.

Yes you have.


I OWN this thread

dave56dj
02-28-2012, 05:21 PM
What was super annoying is that when bellicheck said this game is about cruz and hakeem before the final drive all mario did was catch three passes and one of the most remarkable in sb history - and those three td's in the playoff run - uggh he just didnt get open ENOUGH.

GUYS LET IT GO - MM is a very talented wide out - a number 2 on almost every team in the league - LUCKILY FOR US HE WAS A 3 CAUSE WE ARE SO TALENTED AT WR. That said he doesn't always read the D well and had many miscommunications with eli due to that fact - but man you're complaining he wasn't open ENOUGH? He was hurt a lot of the year and when he played he was open a lot - there aren't enough balls to go around.

Are we better off? NO - but can jj or ramses and perhaps a new TE fill that role - YES Hopefully so.

Giants10Joe
02-28-2012, 05:22 PM
Wow what have I done? I've really trolled this thread.

Yes you have.


I OWN this thread

I wasn't originally going to point this out, but Mike is my younger brother. I feel that him claiming ownership to this thread is the same sort of little brother antics that the Jets engaged in when they covered our Super Bowl logos. I apologize for his behavior.

miken609
02-28-2012, 05:27 PM
Wow what have I done? I've really trolled this thread.

Yes you have.


I OWN this thread

I wasn't originally going to point this out, but Mike is my younger brother. I feel that him claiming ownership to this thread is the same sort of little brother antics that the Jets engaged in when they covered our Super Bowl logos. I apologize for his behavior.


Who the heck is this guy? I'm not your brother.. I don't even know you. Mods, ban him

DelawareGiants
02-28-2012, 05:32 PM
Let me say this- I won't miss those sideline routes he runs himself out of bounds prior to the catch or the easy dropped passes or the miss read of defenses leaving Eli shaking his head. I will miss those spectacular game breaking catches he seems to come up with in many games.

Give MM his due- he is certainly a game-breaker and I wish him well if he decides to leave for warmer weather and no taxes in FL- you deserve to make some great money and thank you for helping us win SB 46. You will be hard to replace with current guys on the team.

myles2424
02-28-2012, 05:50 PM
Dude HAM is easily one of the best #3s in the league......let's not start getting bitter because he's leaving.....

With Nicks and Cruz as the #1 and #2 receivers, I could be the best #3 in the league. Manningham is replaceable just like Smith, Toomer, Shockey and Plax were.

Eli make the receivers better. regardless, manningham was fine even when Cruz wasn't in the picture....
Worlds not going to end with manningham gone.....but it's a must to pick up another WR.....
Wed all hope for Jernigan stepping up, but that's still a gamble.....
I'm all for drafting a WR by the 3rd round....
If someone can fill that 3rd spot nicely,fix the Oline/running game, and improve the TE spot, we can have a amazing offense...

Pierre-Paul
02-28-2012, 06:12 PM
First, I must disagree with the concept that he should have been open more. Perhaps it was his job to stretch the field vertically. I think he did that well. He had nice production for a third receiver. This was the best production out of the passing game ever!
Manningham is talented. Mostly because he can fly. He will be missed. But, if we had to pay him what he thinks he is worth, it would've hurt the team more than it would have helped to keep him. So in a slightly complicated way, we are probably better off without him.
Hope Mario gets a LOT of money! as long as it doesn't come from the Giants.