PDA

View Full Version : Victor Cruz: Was he our #1, #2, or #3 receiver last year?



MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------


EDIT: And another thing: Who do you think had more plays played for us
this year CRUZ or Mario. Who do u think had more snaps. Or rather Snaps
per game average since Mario was hurt for a little bit (just to be fair)
---------

What do you guys say?

NYGinIN
03-06-2012, 12:32 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------



What do you guys say?


Interestingly enough, I can see him being x, y, or z. He has a very unique skill set. He can run the deep route, beat double coverage, and has big play capability. He has good hands and body control and fits as a nice possession receiver and in the slot, he's not afraid to go across the middle, acts as a good safety net when he isn't the first look. I think that's why the Giants moved him around so much throughout the season.

RagTime Blue
03-06-2012, 12:32 PM
I think 1, 2, or 3 is more of an informal way to label who our best receiver is. Who's the most consistent and high-performing at any given time.

It's true that for the first third of the season, #80 was really only playing because other guys got injured.

But I think the relevant question isn't "Who was our #1 all last year?"
but rather, "Who IS our #1 right now?" (that is, who FINISHED the season #1)

I think that although Nicks made Cruz better (and vice versa), Eli had tons of confidence in Cruz toward the end, and especially during the playoffs.

Cruz = #1 (At this moment in time)

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:34 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------



What do you guys say?


Interestingly enough, I can see him being x, y, or z. He has a very unique skill set. He can run the deep route, beat double coverage, and has big play capability. He has good hands and body control and fits as a nice possession receiver and in the slot, he's not afraid to go across the middle, acts as a good safety net when he isn't the first look. I think that's why the Giants moved him around so much throughout the season.

im not trying to sway your argument, im just curious

so you attribute X-Y-Z as who the #1, #2, and #3 WRs are at all times?

dezzzR
03-06-2012, 12:36 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------



What do you guys say?
Well when the Giants ran 2 wr sets it was mostly Nicks and Cruz. Just because Cruz played the slot a lot doesnt mean hes number 3.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:36 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------



What do you guys say?
Well when the Giants ran 2 wr sets it was mostly Nicks and Cruz. Just because Cruz played the slot a lot doesnt mean hes number 3.


well daven is disputing that, he said 2 WR sets were mostly Mario and Nicks

GmenFan1980
03-06-2012, 12:39 PM
I think 1, 2, or 3 is more of an informal way to label who our best receiver is.* Who's the most consistent and high-performing at any given time.

It's true that for the first third of the season, #80 was really only playing because other guys got injured.*

But I think the relevant question isn't "Who was our #1 all last year?"
*** but rather, "Who IS our #1 right now?"* (that is, who FINISHED the season #1)

I think that although Nicks made Cruz better (and vice versa), Eli had tons of confidence in Cruz toward the end, and especially during the playoffs.

Cruz =* #1****** (At this moment in time)


Your argument suggest Nicks should be our #1 then since he had the most receiving yards and tied for most TD receptions this post-season.

I felt Nicks has been our #1 all season though

Edit- and for this argument, I look at who is getting targeted more. According to espn stats, Nicks and Cruz were targeted about 130 times each, both having around 80+ catches, while manningham was targeted only 70+ times with 38 receptions.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards/qualified/false

Drez
03-06-2012, 12:42 PM
I don't think you can say if a guy is a 1-2-3 based on where he lines up in the formation. Take Smith when he was still here. He was definitely our 1 or 2, but lined up in the slot in most 3-wide situations, very much like Cruz. X-Y-Z is just where you line up, not your position on the depth chart.</P>


I'd say Nicks is our 1, Cruz our 2 (despite that he lines up in the slot frequently), and MM our 3 (despite he frequently lines up on the outside). I think the snap counts will bear that out (after adjusting for injury).</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:42 PM
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="80" width="560"><colgroup><col width="64"></colgroup><tbody><tr height="24">
<td style="height:18.0pt;width:48pt" height="24" width="64">
EDIT: And another thing: Who do you think had more plays played for us this year CRUZ or Mario. Who do u think had more snaps. Or rather Snaps per game average since Mario was hurt for a little bit (just to be fair)

</td>
</tr></tbody></table>

G-Man67
03-06-2012, 12:43 PM
all of the above

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:44 PM
I think 1, 2, or 3 is more of an informal way to label who our best receiver is. Who's the most consistent and high-performing at any given time.

It's true that for the first third of the season, #80 was really only playing because other guys got injured.

But I think the relevant question isn't "Who was our #1 all last year?"
but rather, "Who IS our #1 right now?" (that is, who FINISHED the season #1)

I think that although Nicks made Cruz better (and vice versa), Eli had tons of confidence in Cruz toward the end, and especially during the playoffs.

Cruz = #1 (At this moment in time)


Your argument suggest Nicks should be our #1 then since he had the most receiving yards and tied for most TD receptions this post-season.

I felt Nicks has been our #1 all season though

See that I would agree with. #1 and #2 could be debated because Cruz had the stats but Nicks had the attention but they both had killer years

Daven is suggesting that Mario was the #2 for us and said that most would agree with him so I'm just trying to get a grasp on what everybody thinks.

Drez
03-06-2012, 12:45 PM
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=560 height=80>
<COLGROUP>
<COL width=64></COLGROUP>
<TBODY>
<TR height=24>
<TD style="WIDTH: 48pt; HEIGHT: 18pt" height=24 width=64>
EDIT: And another thing: Who do you think had more plays played for us this year CRUZ or Mario. Who do u think had more snaps. Or rather Snaps per game average since Mario was hurt for a little bit (just to be fair)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


</P>


I'd imagine Cruz had more snaps per game than Mario this past season (after adjusting for injury and Cruz not being involved a lot earlier in the season). I suppose another way we can look at it is look at the number of targets they got... Maybe even take a step further and look at targets per snap (passing plays only).</P>

Redeyejedi
03-06-2012, 12:48 PM
Hakeem Nicks I believe is the best receiver on the team

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:54 PM
Hakeem Nicks I believe is the best receiver on the team

so then im guess that means u consider Nicks the #1

who would you consider the #2?

TheEnigma
03-06-2012, 01:01 PM
In today's football world, there doesn't seem to be a clear and unanimous decision on how to define #1, #2, and #3.

It comes down to to an individual's perception of an offense and who they view as the largest threat and biggest contributor to the opposing defense. I'd say whoever gets the most attention from a defense would be the #1.

Of course I'm applying speculation here but I think most defenses don't see either Cruz or Nicks as the #1 but as equal threats where as Megatron is the clear main threat for the Lions or Andre Johnson is for the Texans.

Drez
03-06-2012, 01:01 PM
Daven is suggesting that Mario was the #2 for us and said that most would agree with him so I'm just trying to get a grasp on what everybody thinks.
</P>


When has the majority ever agreed with Daven when it comes to WRs... Does he still want Braylon, lol?</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:08 PM
In today's football world, there doesn't seem to be a clear and unanimous decision on how to define #1, #2, and #3.

It comes down to to an individual's perception of an offense and who they view as the largest threat and biggest contributor to the opposing defense. I'd say whoever gets the most attention from a defense would be the #1.

Of course I'm applying speculation here but I think most defenses don't see either Cruz or Nicks as the #1 but as equal threats where as Megatron is the clear main threat for the Lions or Andre Johnson is for the Texans.

So by that standard and your standard, should Mario be considered the #2 over Cruz?

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:09 PM
I think 1, 2, or 3 is more of an informal way to label who our best receiver is. Who's the most consistent and high-performing at any given time.

It's true that for the first third of the season, #80 was really only playing because other guys got injured.

But I think the relevant question isn't "Who was our #1 all last year?"
but rather, "Who IS our #1 right now?" (that is, who FINISHED the season #1)

I think that although Nicks made Cruz better (and vice versa), Eli had tons of confidence in Cruz toward the end, and especially during the playoffs.

Cruz = #1 (At this moment in time)


Your argument suggest Nicks should be our #1 then since he had the most receiving yards and tied for most TD receptions this post-season.

I felt Nicks has been our #1 all season though

Edit- and for this argument, I look at who is getting targeted more. According to espn stats, Nicks and Cruz were targeted about 130 times each, both having around 80+ catches, while manningham was targeted only 70+ times with 38 receptions.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards/qualified/false

Targets, that's a good point as well...I wanted to use snaps (like the amount of times they lined up as a WR) but Targets is as good if not a better way to determine it....good point.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:10 PM
I think 1, 2, or 3 is more of an informal way to label who our best receiver is. Who's the most consistent and high-performing at any given time.

It's true that for the first third of the season, #80 was really only playing because other guys got injured.

But I think the relevant question isn't "Who was our #1 all last year?"
but rather, "Who IS our #1 right now?" (that is, who FINISHED the season #1)

I think that although Nicks made Cruz better (and vice versa), Eli had tons of confidence in Cruz toward the end, and especially during the playoffs.

Cruz = #1 (At this moment in time)


Your argument suggest Nicks should be our #1 then since he had the most receiving yards and tied for most TD receptions this post-season.

I felt Nicks has been our #1 all season though

Edit- and for this argument, I look at who is getting targeted more. According to espn stats, Nicks and Cruz were targeted about 130 times each, both having around 80+ catches, while manningham was targeted only 70+ times with 38 receptions.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards/qualified/false

Targets, that's a good point as well...I wanted to use snaps (like the amount of times they lined up as a WR) but Targets is as good if not a better way to determine it....good point.


So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:11 PM
Daven is suggesting that Mario was the #2 for us and said that most would agree with him so I'm just trying to get a grasp on what everybody thinks.
</p>


When has the majority ever agreed with Daven when it comes to WRs... Does he still want Braylon, lol?</p>

Rofl I admitted that I was wrong there long ago, Nicks turned out good...I still contend that "at the time" it made sense though....normally receivers don't just step in and play well the first season...there is usually a learning curve...or at least that's what history shows but it hasn't been the case the last few years.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:12 PM
Daven is suggesting that Mario was the #2 for us and said that most would agree with him so I'm just trying to get a grasp on what everybody thinks.
</p>


When has the majority ever agreed with Daven when it comes to WRs... Does he still want Braylon, lol?</p>

Rofl I admitted that I was wrong there long ago, Nicks turned out good...I still contend that "at the time" it made sense though....normally receivers don't just step in and play well the first season...there is usually a learning curve...or at least that's what history shows but it hasn't been the case the last few years.


I agree with you... at that time it was very common for WRs to take a while before producing unless they were like a tpo 7 pick

TheEnigma
03-06-2012, 01:14 PM
In today's football world, there doesn't seem to be a clear and unanimous decision on how to define #1, #2, and #3.

It comes down to to an individual's perception of an offense and who they view as the largest threat and biggest contributor to the opposing defense. I'd say whoever gets the most attention from a defense would be the #1.

Of course I'm applying speculation here but I think most defenses don't see either Cruz or Nicks as the #1 but as equal threats where as Megatron is the clear main threat for the Lions or Andre Johnson is for the Texans.

So by that standard and your standard, should Mario be considered the #2 over Cruz?
By watching the film in the earlier part of the season, defenses didn't think of Cruz too much and placed more attention on MM at first but as the season progressed and Cruz demonstrated that his production was consistent, defenses realized how intelligent and explosive of a player Cruz was in Gilbride's system. At that point, he began to receive more attention from defenses and was deemed a larger threat.

So, eventually, Cruz become the #2 over MM.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:16 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:17 PM
And I'm not joining TAGF yet...we'll see...I just have a lot of extra time at work today.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:19 PM
oh and I still to this day think getting rid of Shockey was a mistake...although I do like Ballard (I never liked Boss)

Kruunch
03-06-2012, 01:21 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------


EDIT: And another thing: Who do you think had more plays played for us
this year CRUZ or Mario. Who do u think had more snaps. Or rather Snaps
per game average since Mario was hurt for a little bit (just to be fair)
---------

What do you guys say?


Statistically, Cruz was our #1 receiver last year (obviously).

Read wise he became our #2 receiver in terms of read progression (first Nicks, then Cruz then Manningham).

Positionally he played the typical #3 spot (slot) for the most part but WR positions are so varied today that you don't really judge a receiver by his alignment anymore.

I'd say he became our #1 receiver by the time the post season came around and this was especially evident in the GB and SF games where he was consistantly doubled (and even tripled in the SF game).

From my point of view, Nicks and Cruz are neck and neck for the #1 spot and we literally have two bona fide play making WRs. They both are home run threats, both are consistant (Cruz improved A LOT in this area over the course of the year), both run multiple routes (slants, outs, gos, etc ...) and both are the favorite target of Eli.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:26 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.


Your the only person that would suggest that Mario got the majority of the regular season snaps.

USing the Dallas game is ridiculous becuase the two games before the Dallas game Mario was injured. But up til before those two games he was injured Cruz had 83 targets and Mario had 66. While also Mario only got targeted more times in 2 of those 10 games.

And i'd say that the majority of the 2 WR sets were also Cruz - Nicks.

There is no doubt about it. The only debate about WR is who was the #1, Nicks or Cruz

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:27 PM
oh and I still to this day think getting rid of Shockey was a mistake...although I do like Ballard (I never liked Boss)


he is a FA again

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:28 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------


EDIT: And another thing: Who do you think had more plays played for us
this year CRUZ or Mario. Who do u think had more snaps. Or rather Snaps
per game average since Mario was hurt for a little bit (just to be fair)
---------

What do you guys say?


Statistically, Cruz was our #1 receiver last year (obviously).

Read wise he became our #2 receiver in terms of read progression (first Nicks, then Cruz then Manningham).

Positionally he played the typical #3 spot (slot) for the most part but WR positions are so varied today that you don't really judge a receiver by his alignment anymore.

I'd say he became our #1 receiver by the time the post season came around and this was especially evident in the GB and SF games where he was consistantly doubled (and even tripled in the SF game).

From my point of view, Nicks and Cruz are neck and neck for the #1 spot and we literally have two bona fide play making WRs. They both are home run threats, both are consistant (Cruz improved A LOT in this area over the course of the year), both run multiple routes (slants, outs, gos, etc ...) and both are the favorite target of Eli.

thats the one thing I don't get in this debate, what does playing the slot have to do with it?

I mean when Steve Smith was here being our #1 he was in the Slot more than anybody - did ANYBODY consider him a #3?

Plus i'd say the 2 WR sets were mostly Cruz - Nicks

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:30 PM
Your the only person that would suggest that Mario got the majority of the regular season snaps.

USing the Dallas game is ridiculous becuase the two games before the Dallas game Mario was injured. But up til before those two games he was injured Cruz had 83 targets and Mario had 66. While also Mario only got targeted more times in 2 of those 10 games.

And i'd say that the majority of the 2 WR sets were also Cruz - Nicks.

There is no doubt about it. The only debate about WR is who was the #1, Nicks or Cruz


You are the one who wouldn't take the Hixon bet before because you said receptions don't mean everything....now you are saying they do.

I'd really like to find a snaps taken stat somewhere...

I do believe Cruz will be considered #2 next year (and even kinda was in the playoffs) but while the WR is changing I still think of it as X-Y-Z = 1-2-3, but beyond that for most of the season Manningham was the second option, he was the guy given the 2nd most attention behind Nicks....Cruz over took him in that respect late in the season...but If you are talking about the season as a whole I still consider Manningham the #2 last year.

Kruunch
03-06-2012, 01:31 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.


MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz.

Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way.

Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon.

When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz.

When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2.

When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:33 PM
Your the only person that would suggest that Mario got the majority of the regular season snaps.

USing the Dallas game is ridiculous becuase the two games before the Dallas game Mario was injured. But up til before those two games he was injured Cruz had 83 targets and Mario had 66. While also Mario only got targeted more times in 2 of those 10 games.

And i'd say that the majority of the 2 WR sets were also Cruz - Nicks.

There is no doubt about it. The only debate about WR is who was the #1, Nicks or Cruz


You are the one who wouldn't take the Hixon bet before because you said receptions don't mean everything....now you are saying they do.

I'd really like to find a snaps taken stat somewhere...

I do believe Cruz will be considered #2 next year (and even kinda was in the playoffs) but while the WR is changing I still think of it as X-Y-Z = 1-2-3, but beyond that for most of the season Manningham was the second option, he was the guy given the 2nd most attention behind Nicks....Cruz over took him in that respect late in the season...but If you are talking about the season as a whole I still consider Manningham the #2 last year.


because you haveno clue what a 3rd WR is...

i don't think anybody would take the bet with u after u tell them Cruz was the 3rd WR for us last year

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:33 PM
thats the one thing I don't get in this debate, what does playing the slot have to do with it?

I mean when Steve Smith was here being our #1 he was in the Slot more than anybody - did ANYBODY consider him a #3?

Plus i'd say the 2 WR sets were mostly Cruz - Nicks


that's because to you Matt....#1 #2 #3 just equal statistical production, that's not all it means to me (and some others) you have to think about who the defense rolls coverage to...what option they for the QB on most plays, where they lineup, how many snaps they are taking (maybe that's just me)

you oversimplify everything all the time....you see higher production and just say "well obviously that's the #1" I hate that...is it the case most of the time? yes...but you just look there and stop....then talk about how stupid it is to think about anything else lol.

ny06
03-06-2012, 01:35 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:36 PM
because you haveno clue what a 3rd WR is...

i don't think anybody would take the bet with u after u tell them Cruz was the 3rd WR for us last year


that's not what turned you off on the bet...what turned you off is that I wanted to use Receptions, purely receptions...we can go back to it and use targets instead if you want but I'm not letting Yardage or TD's in there because that's not what I meant when I said Hixon would not be the 3rd receiver in our offense this year.

what I meant is he won't see the field often....if he happens to get lucky on a few long passes when he's in there (maybe) as a 4th receiver I don't want you claiming that because of his "production" that makes him the 3rd receiver even though he saw the field less then half of whoever our actual 3rd receiver is.

byron
03-06-2012, 01:36 PM
Obviouslythe coaching staff ranks their players preseason 1,2,3 based on pastproduction, performance, talent and so on... that's just an over all talent ranking you use to get your best players on the field for a season ....Game to gamewho gets the ball more/targets changesbecause of the coverage"who's covering who" and such...and there is a whole host of reasons why you would game plan with the thinking that Cruz may be open more than Nicks and vice versa ofcoarse</P>


There is all kinds of ways to look at this 1,2,3 thing if you look just at production aloneit would be ,Cruz, Nicks, Manningham for last season.... Which really has no bearing on who the better player is over all.....From the coaches stand point I think the 1,2,3 thing is simply an evaluation on the players overall talent/production ...x,y,z positions are given to the 1,2,3 wrs again based off the 1,2,3 wrsskill set...player1 plays the outside better than player 2 and so on....</P>


So I guess based on production for last year its Cruz , Nicks , Manningham "at a quick glance " you could factor in a bunch more stats and come up with something different maybe ....Howyou the rank themtalent wise I'd put Manningham at 3..and that's as far as I'll go right now ....</P>


<FONT color=#000000>They all came up pretty damn good for us this year the kind of production a coach dreams about I would think.....</FONT></P>


</P>

Kruunch
03-06-2012, 01:37 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------


EDIT: And another thing: Who do you think had more plays played for us
this year CRUZ or Mario. Who do u think had more snaps. Or rather Snaps
per game average since Mario was hurt for a little bit (just to be fair)
---------

What do you guys say?


Statistically, Cruz was our #1 receiver last year (obviously).

Read wise he became our #2 receiver in terms of read progression (first Nicks, then Cruz then Manningham).

Positionally he played the typical #3 spot (slot) for the most part but WR positions are so varied today that you don't really judge a receiver by his alignment anymore.

I'd say he became our #1 receiver by the time the post season came around and this was especially evident in the GB and SF games where he was consistantly doubled (and even tripled in the SF game).

From my point of view, Nicks and Cruz are neck and neck for the #1 spot and we literally have two bona fide play making WRs. They both are home run threats, both are consistant (Cruz improved A LOT in this area over the course of the year), both run multiple routes (slants, outs, gos, etc ...) and both are the favorite target of Eli.

thats the one thing I don't get in this debate, what does playing the slot have to do with it?

I mean when Steve Smith was here being our #1 he was in the Slot more than anybody - did ANYBODY consider him a #3?

Plus i'd say the 2 WR sets were mostly Cruz - Nicks


Like I said, in the past the slot was typically your #3 receiver. Slot receivers usually are doing outs or slants or other short yardage high percentage routes. You don't generally have your playmakers running routes that they aren't expected to produce on. Also, some WRs just can't play the slot well (MM being one of them imo).

But in this age of the fast passing game, that really doesn't apply anymore. Slot receivers often times can (and will) be home run hitters ala Wes Welker.

With regards to Steve Smith .... he was our #1 receiver statistically in 2009 but he was never considered a true #1 receiver (nor was he in actuality). He was a great possession and move the chains guy, but you didn't worry about him breaking a 60yd TD grab. A true #1 receiver should always be a threat to break that.

This was really apparent when he became our #3 receiver in 2010.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:38 PM
thats the one thing I don't get in this debate, what does playing the slot have to do with it?

I mean when Steve Smith was here being our #1 he was in the Slot more than anybody - did ANYBODY consider him a #3?

Plus i'd say the 2 WR sets were mostly Cruz - Nicks


that's because to you Matt....#1 #2 #3 just equal statistical production, that's not all it means to me (and some others) you have to think about who the defense rolls coverage to...what option they for the QB on most plays, where they lineup, how many snaps they are taking (maybe that's just me)

you oversimplify everything all the time....you see higher production and just say "well obviously that's the #1" I hate that...is it the case most of the time? yes...but you just look there and stop....then talk about how stupid it is to think about anything else lol.


thats not completely true either, or else I would of said Cruz was our #1. BUT, most of labeling a receiver as the #1 or #2 DOES come from PRODUCTION

Your trying to tell me where the lineup on the field is a better judge of who the #1 is, but Wes Welker , TJ Housmanzadah (in cincy), and Steve Smith (2009) were automatically #3s because they played out of the slot most of the time...

Thats ridiculous.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:39 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</p>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </p>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </p>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </p>

until the Falcons and Green Bay game - which didn't work out too well for them

Kruunch
03-06-2012, 01:40 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>

Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:41 PM
When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2.

When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).

I disagree, I don't think Cruz became our #2 until much later, actually I'm not sure I'd ever have considered him our #2...he's definitely our second BEST receiver but that's not what I'm arguing, what I'm arguing is that for most of the regular season teams payed more attention to Manningham then Cruz (even after the seattle game)

Cruz got more targets receptions and overall production because teams were late to recognize his talent...and lastly I still think of the X-Y-Z as 1-2-3 so since Cruz mostly played Z (or #3) it makes it even harder for me to recognize him as a #2....all that together makes me consider Cruz last year the #3, he will likely be #2 next year though.

lastly make no mistake about it Nicks is our #1, he saw #1 coverage the entire season and in the playoffs when they split it up between Cruz and Nicks...Nicks destroyed them...put up much better numbers then Cruz in the playoffs.

ny06
03-06-2012, 01:42 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>




until the Falcons and Green Bay game - which didn't work out too well for them
</P>


I have always felt Cruz got the chance to shine for numerous reasons. </P>


1. Playing on the other side of Nicks.</P>


2. Having Eli throwing the ball. </P>


3. Cruz working hard and making the best of his situation. </P>


Cruz is a great player, but what people seem to forget. Nicks has been doing this since he got into the league. </P>


</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:42 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------


EDIT: And another thing: Who do you think had more plays played for us
this year CRUZ or Mario. Who do u think had more snaps. Or rather Snaps
per game average since Mario was hurt for a little bit (just to be fair)
---------

What do you guys say?


Statistically, Cruz was our #1 receiver last year (obviously).

Read wise he became our #2 receiver in terms of read progression (first Nicks, then Cruz then Manningham).

Positionally he played the typical #3 spot (slot) for the most part but WR positions are so varied today that you don't really judge a receiver by his alignment anymore.

I'd say he became our #1 receiver by the time the post season came around and this was especially evident in the GB and SF games where he was consistantly doubled (and even tripled in the SF game).

From my point of view, Nicks and Cruz are neck and neck for the #1 spot and we literally have two bona fide play making WRs. They both are home run threats, both are consistant (Cruz improved A LOT in this area over the course of the year), both run multiple routes (slants, outs, gos, etc ...) and both are the favorite target of Eli.

thats the one thing I don't get in this debate, what does playing the slot have to do with it?

I mean when Steve Smith was here being our #1 he was in the Slot more than anybody - did ANYBODY consider him a #3?

Plus i'd say the 2 WR sets were mostly Cruz - Nicks


Like I said, in the past the slot was typically your #3 receiver. Slot receivers usually are doing outs or slants or other short yardage high percentage routes. You don't generally have your playmakers running routes that they aren't expected to produce on. Also, some WRs just can't play the slot well (MM being one of them imo).

But in this age of the fast passing game, that really doesn't apply anymore. Slot receivers often times can (and will) be home run hitters ala Wes Welker.

With regards to Steve Smith .... he was our #1 receiver statistically in 2009 but he was never considered a true #1 receiver (nor was he in actuality). He was a great possession and move the chains guy, but you didn't worry about him breaking a 60yd TD grab. A true #1 receiver should always be a threat to break that.

This was really apparent when he became our #3 receiver in 2010.

but he was absolutely OUR #1 wr in 2009... who else was our #1 WR then?

Nicks and Mario weren't getting double covered. They dind't have the numbers last throughout the year.

byron
03-06-2012, 01:42 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents). </P>


yeah ...it changes good stuff man...I tried to say similar in my post.. I rank low on the posting depth chart....</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:43 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</p>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </p>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </p>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </p>

Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.

that stopped after Green Bay, San Fran def tried to stop Nicks

but i guess Bellichek tried to double team them both so I guess your right

ny06
03-06-2012, 01:43 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</P>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:46 PM
When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2.

When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).

I disagree, I don't think Cruz became our #2 until much later, actually I'm not sure I'd ever have considered him our #2...he's definitely our second BEST receiver but that's not what I'm arguing, what I'm arguing is that for most of the regular season teams payed more attention to Manningham then Cruz (even after the seattle game)

Cruz got more targets receptions and overall production because teams were late to recognize his talent...and lastly I still think of the X-Y-Z as 1-2-3 so since Cruz mostly played Z (or #3) it makes it even harder for me to recognize him as a #2....all that together makes me consider Cruz last year the #3, he will likely be #2 next year though.

lastly make no mistake about it Nicks is our #1, he saw #1 coverage the entire season and in the playoffs when they split it up between Cruz and Nicks...Nicks destroyed them...put up much better numbers then Cruz in the playoffs.

First off, "Y" is typically heralded as the slot guy.

And he def was the guy in on most of the 2 WR routes.. your just absolutely wrong on this whole thing...

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:48 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</p>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </p>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </p>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </p>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</p>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</p>

Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1

Kruunch
03-06-2012, 01:52 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</P>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</P>

The only game that had a true double team was the NFC Championship game and that was on Cruz after Carlos Rodgers was recorded yelling in exasperation that needed help and couldn't cover Cruz in the slot.

Otherwise both had over/under brackets the whole post season.

In the Super Bowl you saw and heard Bellichick consistantly say "Nicks and Cruz are the guys ... make them throw to MM and Pascoe".

Nicks was definitely the #1 receiver at the beginning of 2011. By the end of 2011, teams didn't know who to cover more. Going into 2012, you can't honestly tell me which is #1 and #2. At this point (and as proven) they are #1 and #1a.

P.S. - This isn't meant to take anything away from Nicks who was outstanding all year, even in double coverages ... just illustrates how good both are when you can't figure out who the #1 is.

ny06
03-06-2012, 01:54 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</P>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</P>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</P>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </P>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </P>


Nicks</P>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </P>


Cruz</P>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</P>


If teams were putting there best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:59 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</p>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </p>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </p>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </p>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</p>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</p>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</p>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </p>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </p>


Nicks</p>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </p>


Cruz</p>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</p>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</p>

thats just how they chose to do it. A common gameplan when playing two nasty WRs is to take whoever you consider the #1 and give him the double team and then try and put your best Corner because you would hope he could handle who you would consider their 2nd best.

But thats exactly the point. Any time a team tried to take away one receiver, it would give the other one room to do damage.

Kruunch
03-06-2012, 02:01 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</P>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</P>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</P>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </P>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </P>


Nicks</P>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </P>


Cruz</P>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</P>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</P>

Why do you think Nicks was doing so well? You can only truly double or roll coverage to one guy on the field. Most times its going to be bracket over/under stuff.

If Nicks got coverage attention, Cruz went nuts (ala the Jets and second Dallas games). If Cruz got attention, Nicks went nuts (GB and Atlanta games).

Like I said ... we TRULY had two #1 receivers. If you want to designate Nicks as the #1 and Cruz as the #2 that's fine by me.

To say Cruz was the #3 receiver though just means you don't understand the role of the third receiver (that's for Davenhill not you).

P.S. - The Giants mostly line up in a 2 receiver set. The fact that it was Cruz out there more then MM illustrates where MM was in the pecking order (I would have thought this obvious but apparently its a debate).

Kruunch
03-06-2012, 02:03 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</P>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</P>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</P>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </P>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </P>


Nicks</P>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </P>


Cruz</P>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</P>


If teams were putting there best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</P>

And seriously if you're going throw statistics at me ...

Cruz: 86 receptions for 1536 yards and 9 TDs.

Nicks: 76 receptions for 1192 and 7 TDs.

Nuff said.

ny06
03-06-2012, 02:04 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</P>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</P>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</P>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </P>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </P>


Nicks</P>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </P>


Cruz</P>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</P>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</P>


Why do you think Nicks was doing so well? You can only truly double or roll coverage to one guy on the field. Most times its going to be bracket over/under stuff. If Nicks got coverage attention, Cruz went nuts (ala the Jets and second Dallas games). If Cruz got attention, Nicks went nuts (GB and Atlanta games). Like I said ... we TRULY had two #1 receivers. If you want to designate Nicks as the #1 and Cruz as the #2 that's fine by me. To say Cruz was the #3 receiver though just means you don't understand the role of the third receiver (that's for Davenhill not you). P.S. - The Giants mostly line up in a 2 receiver set. The fact that it was Cruz out there more then MM illustrates where MM was in the pecking order (I would have thought this obvious but apparently its a debate).</P>


When did I ever say Cruz was the #3 receiver? </P>


My point is, Nicks should be the clear #1 receiver on this team. For he has done it since he has been in the NFL. </P>


I think we are very fortunate to have two receivers who can be the guy on any given Sunday. </P>


And for the record; Manningham isn't no slouch either.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:04 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</p>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </p>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </p>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </p>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</p>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</p>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</p>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </p>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </p>


Nicks</p>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </p>


Cruz</p>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</p>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</p>

Why do you think Nicks was doing so well? You can only truly double or roll coverage to one guy on the field. Most times its going to be bracket over/under stuff.

If Nicks got coverage attention, Cruz went nuts (ala the Jets and second Dallas games). If Cruz got attention, Nicks went nuts (GB and Atlanta games).

Like I said ... we TRULY had two #1 receivers. If you want to designate Nicks as the #1 and Cruz as the #2 that's fine by me.

To say Cruz was the #3 receiver though just means you don't understand the role of the third receiver (that's for Davenhill not you).

P.S. - The Giants mostly line up in a 2 receiver set. The fact that it was Cruz out there more then MM illustrates where MM was in the pecking order (I would have thought this obvious but apparently its a debate).

Daven suggests that Mario was the 2nd WR in 2 WR sets most of the time

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:05 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</p>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </p>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </p>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </p>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</p>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</p>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</p>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </p>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </p>


Nicks</p>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </p>


Cruz</p>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</p>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</p>


Why do you think Nicks was doing so well? You can only truly double or roll coverage to one guy on the field. Most times its going to be bracket over/under stuff. If Nicks got coverage attention, Cruz went nuts (ala the Jets and second Dallas games). If Cruz got attention, Nicks went nuts (GB and Atlanta games). Like I said ... we TRULY had two #1 receivers. If you want to designate Nicks as the #1 and Cruz as the #2 that's fine by me. To say Cruz was the #3 receiver though just means you don't understand the role of the third receiver (that's for Davenhill not you). P.S. - The Giants mostly line up in a 2 receiver set. The fact that it was Cruz out there more then MM illustrates where MM was in the pecking order (I would have thought this obvious but apparently its a debate).</p>


When did I ever say Cruz was the #3 receiver? </p>


My point is, Nicks should be the clear #1 receiver on this team. For he has done it since he has been in the NFL. </p>


I think we are very fortunate to have two receivers who can be the guy on any given Sunday. </p>


And for the record; Manningham isn't no slouch either.</p>

he said that was for daven, not you

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 02:05 PM
Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </p>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </p>


Nicks</p>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </p>


Cruz</p>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</p>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</p>

or it's "why" he was eating defenses secondary alive.

honestly I think they were splitting the coverage pretty evenly between Nicks and Cruz when it comes to the playoffs.

that said our discussion should encompass the entire season...and as far as the entire season is concerned Nicks was the clear #1.

ny06
03-06-2012, 02:07 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</P>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</P>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</P>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </P>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </P>


Nicks</P>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </P>


Cruz</P>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</P>


If teams were putting there best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</P>


And seriously if you're going throw statistics at me ... Cruz: 86 receptions for 1536 yards and 9 TDs. Nicks: 76 receptions for 1192 and 7 TDs. Nuff said.</P>


That's an easy arguement. </P>


Nicks was known to be a stud in this league. </P>


Cruz on the other hand was a guy who came out of the blue. </P>


Other then the preseason game against the Jets last season no one knew who he was. </P>


So to counter that arguement, Nicks got the best corner and the double teams majority of the season. Untill cruz proved he wasen't a flash in the pan. </P>


</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:07 PM
Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </p>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </p>


Nicks</p>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </p>


Cruz</p>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</p>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</p>

or it's "why" he was eating defenses secondary alive.

honestly I think they were splitting the coverage pretty evenly between Nicks and Cruz when it comes to the playoffs.

that said our discussion should encompass the entire season...and as far as the entire season is concerned Nicks was the clear #1.


I actually think a case could be made that Cruz was treated as the #1 MOST of the time.

ATL and GB was no debate. THey said they were treating Cruz as the #1 and they did

San Fran went into the game going with Nicks as the #1 but as Cruz was eating them alive, they turned their attention to him...


Bellicheck saw Cruz and Nicks for what they were and tried to double them both lol

Drez
03-06-2012, 02:08 PM
you have to think about who the defense rolls coverage to...what option they for the QB on most plays, where they lineup, how many snaps they are taking (maybe that's just me)

</P>


If you look at what you just wrote, think about how it applied to the Giants this past year, you'd come to the conclusion that MM was our 3rd WR and that Cruz was our 2. The only argument you have for Cruz being the 3 behind MM is that Cruz lines up in the slot more.</P>


But, X-Y-Z are just spots in the formation, not a reflection of the depth chart or anything else. Cruz lined up on the outside plenty in 2 WR sets. Just because he lined up in the slot in 3 WR sets or other formations (2 wide/2 TE, 2 wide/2RB/FB) doesn't make him the 3rd. I can gaurantee you that Cruz was before Mario in the progressions for most of the season. Hell, there had been several times during the season where Eli said that MM either wasn't targeted at all or infrequently because he was furtherin the progressions than Nicks/Cruz.</P>


By midseason Cruz emerged as our definitive 2.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:10 PM
you have to think about who the defense rolls coverage to...what option they for the QB on most plays, where they lineup, how many snaps they are taking (maybe that's just me)

</p>


If you look at what you just wrote, think about how it applied to the Giants this past year, you'd come to the conclusion that MM was our 3rd WR and that Cruz was our 2. The only argument you have for Cruz being the 3 behind MM is that Cruz lines up in the slot more.</p>


But, X-Y-Z are just spots in the formation, not a reflection of the depth chart or anything else. Cruz lined up on the outside plenty in 2 WR sets. Just because he lined up in the slot in 3 WR sets or other formations (2 wide/2 TE, 2 wide/2RB/FB) doesn't make him the 3rd. I can gaurantee you that Cruz was before Mario in the progressions for most of the season. Hell, there had been several times during the season where Eli said that MM either wasn't targeted at all or infrequently because he was furtherin the progressions than Nicks/Cruz.</p>


By midseason Cruz emerged as our definitive 2.</p>

+1

and then I think a winning case could be made that he was actually our #1 in postseason

byron
03-06-2012, 02:10 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</P>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </P>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </P>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </P>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</P>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</P>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</P>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </P>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </P>


Nicks</P>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </P>


Cruz</P>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</P>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</P> Why do you think Nicks was doing so well? You can only truly double or roll coverage to one guy on the field. Most times its going to be bracket over/under stuff. If Nicks got coverage attention, Cruz went nuts (ala the Jets and second Dallas games). If Cruz got attention, Nicks went nuts (GB and Atlanta games). Like I said ... we TRULY had two #1 receivers. If you want to designate Nicks as the #1 and Cruz as the #2 that's fine by me. To say Cruz was the #3 receiver though just means you don't understand the role of the third receiver (that's for Davenhill not you). P.S. - The Giants mostly line up in a 2 receiver set. The fact that it was Cruz out there more then MM illustrates where MM was in the pecking order (I would have thought this obvious but apparently its a debate). that pecking order changed fast also ....Cruz stepped in and blew things up...like you I could care less how you # them but MM was def #3 only the blind would think different.....It was sure nice to have all three tho got us a SB....!

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:10 PM
I &lt;3 u Daven, 3 more hours

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:11 PM
So do you give up on your Mario was the #2 and Cruz was the #3 argument?

(your welcome for getting u back into TAGF)


you know I don't give up lol.

I would still contend that for the majority of the regular season (up until perhaps the 2nd Dallas game?) Manningham was considered the second option...I still also think (I don't remember clearly) that when we went into 2 WR sets (even in the playoffs) Manningham was out there not Cruz, but I can't remember that well...I was at the Atlanta game but up top...and drunk lol.

overall if you take last season as a whole I think Mario was our #2 that's my feeling...not saying Cruz didn't out perform him by the end (although Mario's catch won us that SB)

I don't know, it's a hard call, you make it seem like there is no doubt about it...

Also I think Nicks is a definitive #1 for us.
MM had 3 games in the entire year where he had more attempts then Cruz. Some games he didn't even have a ball thrown his way. Our lineup started out as Nicks, MM, Hixon. When Hixon went down in the Rams game, it became Nicks, MM, Cruz. When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2. When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).</p>


Nicks was always our #1 receiver. </p>


Cruz got the spotlight with his amazing plays and sportcenter highlights. </p>


But don't be mistaken; every opponent of the Giants puts there best corner on Nicks. </p>


Not true ... the entire post season the opposing team's primary CB was on Cruz.</p>


Could it have something to do with Nicks being double teamed?</p>




Na hes right, besides san fran - in the playoffs Cruz got treated like the #1
</p>


Other then the San Fran game Nicks was the best receiver on the team, let alone the playoffs. </p>


Look at his numbers in the playoffs. </p>


Nicks</p>


28 receptions. 444 yards. 4 touchdowns. </p>


Cruz</p>


21 receptions. 269 yards. 1 touchdown</p>


If teams were putting the best corner on Cruz, then they must have had a brain fart. Cause Nicks was eating defenses secondary alive...</p> Why do you think Nicks was doing so well? You can only truly double or roll coverage to one guy on the field. Most times its going to be bracket over/under stuff. If Nicks got coverage attention, Cruz went nuts (ala the Jets and second Dallas games). If Cruz got attention, Nicks went nuts (GB and Atlanta games). Like I said ... we TRULY had two #1 receivers. If you want to designate Nicks as the #1 and Cruz as the #2 that's fine by me. To say Cruz was the #3 receiver though just means you don't understand the role of the third receiver (that's for Davenhill not you). P.S. - The Giants mostly line up in a 2 receiver set. The fact that it was Cruz out there more then MM illustrates where MM was in the pecking order (I would have thought this obvious but apparently its a debate). that pecking order changed fast also ....Cruz stepped in and blew things up...like you I could care less how you # them but MM was def #3 only the blind would think different.....It was sure nice to have all three tho got us a SB....!

I LOVE IT BIG B!

Tell daven to get his *** some LAZIK!

Kruunch
03-06-2012, 02:15 PM
When Cruz caught 8 for 161 yards and a TD in the Seattle game, he became our #2.

When teams started doubling Cruz (Wild Card playoff against Atlanta), he became our #1 (at least in the minds of our opponents).

I disagree, I don't think Cruz became our #2 until much later, actually I'm not sure I'd ever have considered him our #2...he's definitely our second BEST receiver but that's not what I'm arguing, what I'm arguing is that for most of the regular season teams payed more attention to Manningham then Cruz (even after the seattle game)

Cruz got more targets receptions and overall production because teams were late to recognize his talent...and lastly I still think of the X-Y-Z as 1-2-3 so since Cruz mostly played Z (or #3) it makes it even harder for me to recognize him as a #2....all that together makes me consider Cruz last year the #3, he will likely be #2 next year though.

lastly make no mistake about it Nicks is our #1, he saw #1 coverage the entire season and in the playoffs when they split it up between Cruz and Nicks...Nicks destroyed them...put up much better numbers then Cruz in the playoffs.


Statistically Cruz was our BEST receiver. Let's get that straight right now. That's not an opinion.

XYZ terminology varies from team to team. The "Z" on one team can mean the #1 receiver, while on another team it means the fastest receiver.

Y is usually the slot but when offenses break out their Y wide, you have to adjust coverages (unless you REALLY want Kiwi trying cover Wes Welker) so again, the terminology differs from team to team. On some teams its a fixed position in an alignment, on other teams its a designation.

And again, Cruz was doubled and had coverage rolled to him more then Nicks during the post season (and was a large factor to Nicks' numbers). So in this regard, you are wrong.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 02:16 PM
you have to think about who the defense rolls coverage to...what option they for the QB on most plays, where they lineup, how many snaps they are taking (maybe that's just me)

</p>


If you look at what you just wrote, think about how it applied to the Giants this past year, you'd come to the conclusion that MM was our 3rd WR and that Cruz was our 2. The only argument you have for Cruz being the 3 behind MM is that Cruz lines up in the slot more.</p>


But, X-Y-Z are just spots in the formation, not a reflection of the depth chart or anything else. Cruz lined up on the outside plenty in 2 WR sets. Just because he lined up in the slot in 3 WR sets or other formations (2 wide/2 TE, 2 wide/2RB/FB) doesn't make him the 3rd. I can gaurantee you that Cruz was before Mario in the progressions for most of the season. Hell, there had been several times during the season where Eli said that MM either wasn't targeted at all or infrequently because he was furtherin the progressions than Nicks/Cruz.</p>


By midseason Cruz emerged as our definitive 2.</p>

I think it was later then mid season, that's kind of my point, take everything I said up there put it together, yes ok late season Cruz looks like the #2...but for the majority of the season it was Mario.

and if X-Y-Z doesn't mean anything anymore does that mean Gronk is NE's #2 WR even though he's a TE?

What about guys like Ray Rice...is he a #1 or 2 WR? heck go back to Larry Centers was he the #1 WR on Arizona as a Fullback?

come on...I'm not saying they mean EVERYTHING but they still hold meaning.

giantsfan420
03-06-2012, 02:19 PM
i think its fairly obvious MM started out as the #2 wr, then when he missed a bit of time, and about halfway thru the season when cruz was consistently putting up big numbers, he became the #2 and MM the #3.

but each wr played snaps at the x,y,z allotments.

by the SB, nicks was the 1, cruz was the 2, and mm the 3.

just bc cruz played a lot out of the slot doesnt mean he was the 3, he just moved to the slot bc he was the best suited of the 3 to play there.

and if u go by production, nicks was the 1 (even tho he had slightly lesser stats, he faced much more double team coverage so its actually pretty amazing he did what he did) cruz was the 2, and mm was the 3

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 02:25 PM
i think its fairly obvious MM started out as the #2 wr, then when he missed a bit of time, and about halfway thru the season when cruz was consistently putting up big numbers, he became the #2 and MM the #3.

but each wr played snaps at the x,y,z allotments.

by the SB, nicks was the 1, cruz was the 2, and mm the 3.

just bc cruz played a lot out of the slot doesnt mean he was the 3, he just moved to the slot bc he was the best suited of the 3 to play there.

I agree with all of this

(except for the fact that I do believe XYZ allotments mean a little...not everything but they do matter)


and if u go by production, nicks was the 1 (even tho he had slightly lesser stats, he faced much more double team coverage so its actually pretty amazing he did what he did) cruz was the 2, and mm was the 3

this is what I have a problem with, I'm NOT going by production...I'm going by time spent as the #2 vs #3...I think Mario was the #2 for more of the season then Cruz was...I think by the end of the season Cruz had probably taken it over...but for most of the season other teams looked at Mario as the #2 threat...I think for most of the season Mario was Eli's #2 option.

I'm not taking anything away from any of the receivers...nor do I worry about our WR core even if Mario leaves...but the point is for most of the season Mario was the #2 guy...Cruz became that late season but that doesn't make the rest of the season a moot point.

BlueSanta
03-06-2012, 02:27 PM
Just to clarify...

Where a guy lines up has nothing at all to do with his status as a #1, #2, or #3 reciever.

By mid season Cruz was clearly our #2 and caught a large percentage of his receptions for the year from the slot position.

same goes for Wes Welker, also a slot guy, but also listed as the #1 wr for the Pats.

The same could be said for Marvin Harrison in his prime. A #1 WR who often lined up in the slot.

poppa smurph
03-06-2012, 02:30 PM
If Manningham, or maybe more importantly Hixon,doesn't go down with injury, do we get to have this conversation?</P>


Question: When is an injury a good thing?</P>


Answer: When you got a guy like Cruz waiting in the wings.</P>


It's an odd realization after the numerous injuries the Giants have had to deal with.</P>


How differentley things could of been.</P>


Btw, Cruz started the year at 3 or even 4 on the depth chart, but he ended it at 2, no matter where he lines up.</P>

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 02:38 PM
Statistically Cruz was our BEST receiver. Let's get that straight right now.

No kidding :P no one is arguing against that...(but I would make the point that in the playoffs when they DID start splitting coverages between Nicks and Cruz evenly Nicks blew Cruz out of the water....statistically)


Cruz was doubled and had coverage rolled to him more then Nicks during the post season (and was a large factor to Nicks' numbers). So in this regard, you are wrong.

"during the post season" is the important part of that...how about the rest of the season, Cruz saw very light coverage up until late into the season (I said the 2nd Dallas game)

what I'm saying is that for the majority of the season Mario was the second option for Eli, for the majority of the season defenses played Mario tougher then Cruz, for the majority of last season it was Nicks and Mario out there in 2WR sets and Cruz on the bench.


did that change late season...? YES but that doesn't take away the first 3/4's of the season...if you look at the season as a whole Mario was our #2 WR.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 02:45 PM
Just to clarify...

Where a guy lines up has nothing at all to do with his status as a #1, #2, or #3 reciever.

So I guess that means Ray Rice is the Ravens #2 WR right...not their Running Back...

Where a guy lines up has a lot to do with their status, I'm sorry but it just does.


By mid season Cruz was clearly our #2 and caught a large percentage of his receptions for the year from the slot position.

Against Linebacker coverage correct...you don't think Mario Manningham could have beat line backers too? my point is it wasn't until late into the season that defenses recognized Cruz as the threat he is...I'm not saying Mario is better then cruz...what I'm saying is that for the majority of the season everyone thought he was...our coaches and opposing teams coaches as well...and he was treated as though he was the #2...that makes him the #2 even if his talent level is lower.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:50 PM
If Manningham, or maybe more importantly Hixon,doesn't go down with injury, do we get to have this conversation?</p>


Question: When is an injury a good thing?</p>


Answer: When you got a guy like Cruz waiting in the wings.</p>


It's an odd realization after the numerous injuries the Giants have had to deal with.</p>


How differentley things could of been.</p>


Btw, Cruz started the year at 3 or even 4 on the depth chart, but he ended it at 2, no matter where he lines up.</p>

I don't think anybody is disputing that Cruz didn't start the year as the #2, we all agree he didnt.

I guess now the debate comes when did Cruz firmly grasp that role, I would say MAYBE a quarter into the season... By week 5 he absolutely was our #2

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:51 PM
Statistically Cruz was our BEST receiver. Let's get that straight right now.

No kidding :P no one is arguing against that...(but I would make the point that in the playoffs when they DID start splitting coverages between Nicks and Cruz evenly Nicks blew Cruz out of the water....statistically)


Cruz was doubled and had coverage rolled to him more then Nicks during the post season (and was a large factor to Nicks' numbers). So in this regard, you are wrong.

"during the post season" is the important part of that...how about the rest of the season, Cruz saw very light coverage up until late into the season (I said the 2nd Dallas game)

what I'm saying is that for the majority of the season Mario was the second option for Eli, for the majority of the season defenses played Mario tougher then Cruz, for the majority of last season it was Nicks and Mario out there in 2WR sets and Cruz on the bench.


did that change late season...? YES but that doesn't take away the first 3/4's of the season...if you look at the season as a whole Mario was our #2 WR.


wow.. the SECOND dallas game?! I thought you said the first.

3/4 of the season, Cruz was clearly the #2 by then

burier
03-06-2012, 02:51 PM
am I only the only one failing to see the point of this discussion?

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 02:59 PM
am I only the only one failing to see the point of this discussion?

it's to pass time at work, also it originated from me betting matt that Hixon wouldn't be our "3rd" receiver this year....then turned into a discussion about what a 3rd receiver is....then turned into a discussion about whether Manningham or Cruz would be considered our 3rd receiver last year.

have you never seen THEE Thread? this is like every day stuff.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:09 PM
I guess now the debate comes when did Cruz firmly grasp that role, I would say MAYBE a quarter into the season... By week 5 he absolutely was our #2

That's it, this is what I want to talk about.

I don't think it was until LATE season Cruz took over the #2 spot (still question if he had complete control over it)

to mean Defenses have to game plan against you as the #2, you need to be the #2 option for Eli when he goes through his progression also when the offense is in a 2 WR set...you should be the out there.

I don't think the above statements were true about Cruz until the 2nd Dallas game.

if that's the case...then for the majority of last season Manningham was the #2....that's all I'm saying.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:10 PM
actually Daven I did just check and you more right than I gave you credit for.

It wasn't until week 9-11 did the snaps equal out, with the advantage going to Mario.

But then Cruz took a commanding lead and ended up playing more snaps than Nicks in a few games.

So in games played, Mario would have the slight advantage in snaps played but completely loses on Games for the year, snaps for the year, and stats for the year.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:16 PM
out of games played WITH each other Mario had 740 snaps and Cruz had 841 snaps...

thats not including the 3 games Mario missed where in one or two of them cruz actually played more than Nicks.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:19 PM
am I only the only one failing to see the point of this discussion?

do u think u could start another:

CUT TUCK THREAD

instead?

Those were legit convos

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:20 PM
actually Daven I did just check and you more right than I gave you credit for.

It wasn't until week 9-11 did the snaps equal out, with the advantage going to Mario.

But then Cruz took a commanding lead and ended up playing more snaps than Nicks in a few games.

So in games played, Mario would have the slight advantage in snaps played but completely loses on Games for the year, snaps for the year, and stats for the year.




so if Mario lead in snaps played per game until week 11 then wouldn't that make him the #2 Receiver for the majority of the regular season?

thus making him our #2 WR last season (at least in my definition of it?)

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:23 PM
Also btw I'm willing to drop 100$ on a bet on snaps played by our Receiving core for next season since apparently you found a snaps played statistic somewhere....you don't have to make your picks yet but will pick the amount of snaps played by the top 3 receivers and whoever is closest (per player average) will win...will flesh it out more as we get closer to the season...but keep it in mind.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:25 PM
actually Daven I did just check and you more right than I gave you credit for.

It wasn't until week 9-11 did the snaps equal out, with the advantage going to Mario.

But then Cruz took a commanding lead and ended up playing more snaps than Nicks in a few games.

So in games played, Mario would have the slight advantage in snaps played but completely loses on Games for the year, snaps for the year, and stats for the year.




so if Mario lead in snaps played per game until week 11 then wouldn't that make him the #2 Receiver for the majority of the regular season?

thus making him our #2 WR last season (at least in my definition of it?)


first off - no

its about how u end now how u start. We played 20 games last season (incase u missed the post season)

He got the clear snaps for weeks 1,2,4,5,6,8,10

They pushed with week 9 and 11

Week 3, 12, 16 Mario was out

Cruz had the most snaps for week 13,14,15,17, 4 playoff games.

So the reality is that when they played together, Cruz had the more snaps in 8 games while Mario had more snaps in 7 games...

And in those same games they played Cruz had 101 more snaps

i fail to see how that confirms your point

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:26 PM
Also btw I'm willing to drop 100$ on a bet on snaps played by our Receiving core for next season since apparently you found a snaps played statistic somewhere....you don't have to make your picks yet but will pick the amount of snaps played by the top 3 receivers and whoever is closest (per player average) will win...will flesh it out more as we get closer to the season...but keep it in mind.


If the WR core is like it is now and we don't add anybody I will take that bet...

I would say we can use this even for the other guys, but they don't mention the snaps of EVERY receiver, just the top 3-4....

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:30 PM
Also btw I'm willing to drop 100$ on a bet on snaps played by our Receiving core for next season since apparently you found a snaps played statistic somewhere....you don't have to make your picks yet but will pick the amount of snaps played by the top 3 receivers and whoever is closest (per player average) will win...will flesh it out more as we get closer to the season...but keep it in mind.


If the WR core is like it is now and we don't add anybody I will take that bet...

I would say we can use this even for the other guys, but they don't mention the snaps of EVERY receiver, just the top 3-4....


I wanna see that site send me it on FB or txt it to me.

Also if we do that bet I'm waiting till the last game in preseason....don't want early injuries to F it up...and it's tough to put an injury clause on a bet when we are betting on the Giant entire receiver core.

gmen0820
03-06-2012, 03:31 PM
MMB, where did you get the snap info?

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:38 PM
actually Daven I did just check and you more right than I gave you credit for.

It wasn't until week 9-11 did the snaps equal out, with the advantage going to Mario.

But then Cruz took a commanding lead and ended up playing more snaps than Nicks in a few games.

So in games played, Mario would have the slight advantage in snaps played but completely loses on Games for the year, snaps for the year, and stats for the year.




so if Mario lead in snaps played per game until week 11 then wouldn't that make him the #2 Receiver for the majority of the regular season?

thus making him our #2 WR last season (at least in my definition of it?)


first off - no

its about how u end now how u start. We played 20 games last season (incase u missed the post season)

He got the clear snaps for weeks 1,2,4,5,6,8,10

They pushed with week 9 and 11

Week 3, 12, 16 Mario was out

Cruz had the most snaps for week 13,14,15,17, 4 playoff games.

So the reality is that when they played together, Cruz had the more snaps in 8 games while Mario had more snaps in 7 games...

And in those same games they played Cruz had 101 more snaps

i fail to see how that confirms your point


It may not "confirm" it but it muddies the waters....if Mario lead in snaps from weeks 1-12 (I know he missed to games in that stretch due to injury but follow me here)

Weeks 1-12 our coaching staff looked at MM as the #2 (snaps) (11 Games)

weeks 13-17 and the playoffs our coaching staff looked at Cruz as the #2 (snaps)(9 Games)

that means for more then the first half of the season, our coaching staff looked at Mario as our #2 receiver...who knows when opposing defenses caught on it could have been 2 or 3 weeks after our own coaching staff started looking to Cruz as #2.

just saying...I think for the majority of last season Mario was considered our #2 receiver by our coaching staff and opposing teams defenses....it's clear it didn't end up that way by the end of the season....but that doesn't make the beginning of the season irrelevant.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:49 PM
actually Daven I did just check and you more right than I gave you credit for.

It wasn't until week 9-11 did the snaps equal out, with the advantage going to Mario.

But then Cruz took a commanding lead and ended up playing more snaps than Nicks in a few games.

So in games played, Mario would have the slight advantage in snaps played but completely loses on Games for the year, snaps for the year, and stats for the year.




so if Mario lead in snaps played per game until week 11 then wouldn't that make him the #2 Receiver for the majority of the regular season?

thus making him our #2 WR last season (at least in my definition of it?)


first off - no

its about how u end now how u start. We played 20 games last season (incase u missed the post season)

He got the clear snaps for weeks 1,2,4,5,6,8,10

They pushed with week 9 and 11

Week 3, 12, 16 Mario was out

Cruz had the most snaps for week 13,14,15,17, 4 playoff games.

So the reality is that when they played together, Cruz had the more snaps in 8 games while Mario had more snaps in 7 games...

And in those same games they played Cruz had 101 more snaps

i fail to see how that confirms your point


It may not "confirm" it but it muddies the waters....if Mario lead in snaps from weeks 1-12 (I know he missed to games in that stretch due to injury but follow me here)

Weeks 1-12 our coaching staff looked at MM as the #2 (snaps) (11 Games)

weeks 13-17 and the playoffs our coaching staff looked at Cruz as the #2 (snaps)(9 Games)

that means for more then the first half of the season, our coaching staff looked at Mario as our #2 receiver...who knows when opposing defenses caught on it could have been 2 or 3 weeks after our own coaching staff started looking to Cruz as #2.

just saying...I think for the majority of last season Mario was considered our #2 receiver by our coaching staff and opposing teams defenses....it's clear it didn't end up that way by the end of the season....but that doesn't make the beginning of the season irrelevant.




Its very simple Daven, 17 games total they played toegether. They pushed on 2 of them and then Cruz had more snaps in 8 and Mario had more snaps in 7.

The difference is about 100 snaps throughout those 17 games in Cruz's favor.

In this time not only was Cruz getting more time than Mario but he also had more snaps than Nicks in 4 of them including the Superbowl.

this was the only shot you had at winning the argument because statistically and defensive game planning were heavily in Cruz's favor

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:49 PM
MMB, where did you get the snap info?

PFF

lol

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 04:28 PM
Its very simple Daven,

No it's not...it's never as simple as you claim it is lol.

The point is you are looking at it in terms of total snaps...I don't care how many more snaps he had...what I care about is how many games he had more snaps in...

it seems you are right...Cruz had more snaps in 8 games Manningham had more snaps in 7 games.

so "i guess" using my own criteria Cruz was #2 but it is a toss up it's right there ... 1 game.

I want to instead look at it as Manningham was considered the #2 up until week 12...from that point on it was Cruz's if that's the case 12 out of 20 weeks Manningham would be considered the #2

it depends on how you look at it I guess.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:36 PM
Daven, Cruz has the advantage in the following in JUST the 17 games that the two played together in (i am not including Cruz's stats from the 3 games Mario missed):

Receptions
Yards
Push on TDs
Targets
Total Snaps
More games with most snaps

I have fulfilled every single requirement you've tried to back out of in saying what a #3 receiver actually is.

Theres nothing else - you've lost good sir

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 04:40 PM
Daven, Cruz has the advantage in the following in JUST the 17 games that the two played together in (i am not including Cruz's stats from the 3 games Mario missed):

Receptions
Yards
Push on TDs
Targets
Total Snaps
More games with most snaps

I have fulfilled every single requirement you've tried to back out of in saying what a #3 receiver actually is.

Theres nothing else - you've lost good sir



LOL FINE but you have to admit it's FAR closer then you thought if you don't take Receptions Yards TD's into account.

and that was my point...it's not about production that doesn't determine whose #3 for me..it's more about who defenses are playing as the #2 and who our own coaching staff puts on the field more often...

and in that respect it was quite close.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:42 PM
Daven, Cruz has the advantage in the following in JUST the 17 games that the two played together in (i am not including Cruz's stats from the 3 games Mario missed):

Receptions
Yards
Push on TDs
Targets
Total Snaps
More games with most snaps

I have fulfilled every single requirement you've tried to back out of in saying what a #3 receiver actually is.

Theres nothing else - you've lost good sir



LOL FINE but you have to admit it's FAR closer then you thought if you don't take Receptions Yards TD's into account.

and that was my point...it's not about production that doesn't determine whose #3 for me..it's more about who defenses are playing as the #2 and who our own coaching staff puts on the field more often...

and in that respect it was quite close.


it was more close than I thought it was...

but overall still not close...

Manningham was never within 15 snaps of being the WR with the most snaps

Cruz actually did have more snaps than nicks in 4 games, including the superbowl

Itlan
03-06-2012, 04:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Cruz lined up in two-wide receivers with Nicks more than Manningham did. Nicks was almost always the only receiver on the field in big packages, mainly because he's far and away the best blocker.

Cruz is basically what Anquan was in Arizona, a #2 who slides into the slot on three-wide sets.

Other notable names who do this: Welker, Colston, and Jennings.

ShakeNBake
03-06-2012, 04:43 PM
At the beginning of the season he was our #3 but has moved up to #2. As far as X-Y-Z is concerned, that's just how they line up in the formation reading left to right(alphabetical order) with Y being the slot man. So in that regard Cruz could be a Y guy or a X/Z guy. I think it is clear that he is the number two given that MM most likely will not be resigned, and Cruz is getting a raise.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 04:46 PM
it was more close than I thought it was...

Good enough for me, that combined with the fact that I got you to look at the #3 WR position in the same way I do (amount of play time defense's rolling towards them snaps etc etc) is enough to make me happy...even if I did lose on this particular occurrence.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:48 PM
it was more close than I thought it was...

Good enough for me, that combined with the fact that I got you to look at the #3 WR position in the same way I do (amount of play time defense's rolling towards them snaps etc etc) is enough to make me happy...even if I did lose on this particular occurrence.


beating u at ur own game doesn't mean that they are my standards now

gmen0820
03-06-2012, 04:52 PM
MMB, where did you get the snap info?

PFF

lol


Well I'll be damned

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 04:56 PM
beating u at ur own game doesn't mean that they are my standards now

they don't have to be your standards....but at least you understand mine now...instead of just saying WTF you are wrong like you usually do :P

BTW the Sig is very flattering thank you :)

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 05:03 PM
beating u at ur own game doesn't mean that they are my standards now

they don't have to be your standards....but at least you understand mine now...instead of just saying WTF you are wrong like you usually do :P

BTW the Sig is very flattering thank you :)


Cruz had 15% more snaps in games he played with Mario - it just further confirms how wrong u are lol...

anytime - i figured it was more flattering than pappy tellin u he loves u lol

jomo
03-06-2012, 05:04 PM
2</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 05:04 PM
MMB, where did you get the snap info?

PFF

lol


Well I'll be damned

let me make my stance about PFF very clear...

I like the concept, i like the concept of what they do

but their ranking system is horrible. Collecting Data like this is awesome, but their paid program i've had a chance to see and its completely ridiculous

Drez
03-06-2012, 05:40 PM
MMB, where did you get the snap info?

PFF

lol


Well I'll be damned

let me make my stance about PFF very clear...

I like the concept, i like the concept of what they do

but their ranking system is horrible. Collecting Data like this is awesome, but their paid program i've had a chance to see and its completely ridiculous
</P>


Did they have info on how many targets they had? I think a further breakdown of targets per snap would bear out that Cruz was more involved in the gameplan than MM.</P>


Also, are the snaps played all snaps or just passing plays?</P>

NYGRealityCheck
03-06-2012, 05:45 PM
I think for the majority of this past season, opposing teams matched up their best (No. 1) cornerback on Nicks. By that perspective, Nicks is the No. 1 WR (by position).

This is between Mario and Cruz, who was No. 3? Who was No. 2?

I agree with what was said about Cruz starting out at No. 3, but worked his way to being No. 2 as the season went on.

BlueSanta
03-07-2012, 12:40 AM
Just to clarify...

Where a guy lines up has nothing at all to do with his status as a #1, #2, or #3 reciever.

So I guess that means Ray Rice is the Ravens #2 WR right...not their Running Back...

Where a guy lines up has a lot to do with their status, I'm sorry but it just does.


By mid season Cruz was clearly our #2 and caught a large percentage of his receptions for the year from the slot position.

Against Linebacker coverage correct...you don't think Mario Manningham could have beat line backers too? my point is it wasn't until late into the season that defenses recognized Cruz as the threat he is...I'm not saying Mario is better then cruz...what I'm saying is that for the majority of the season everyone thought he was...our coaches and opposing teams coaches as well...and he was treated as though he was the #2...that makes him the #2 even if his talent level is lower.





so, when Marshal Faulk lined up slit out, which he did muberous times for the rams, he was the #2 WR? No he was just a versatile RB. Ill say it again, where a guy lines up has nothing to do with his status as a 1, 2 , or 3 WR.

There are numbnerous examples that prove that point in this thread alone.

And you seriously think Cruz was covered by LBs this season? If so, your not a Giants fan, or at least not 1 who watches the games.

MattMeyerBud
03-07-2012, 09:16 AM
MMB, where did you get the snap info?

PFF

lol


Well I'll be damned

let me make my stance about PFF very clear...

I like the concept, i like the concept of what they do

but their ranking system is horrible. Collecting Data like this is awesome, but their paid program i've had a chance to see and its completely ridiculous
</p>


Did they have info on how many targets they had? I think a further breakdown of targets per snap would bear out that Cruz was more involved in the gameplan than MM.</p>


Also, are the snaps played all snaps or just passing plays?</p>

they didn't consistently name passing plays. They did for most.

ESPN has targets if you go to game box scores, Cruz had more targets

I would think catches, yards, and TDs would show his involvement the best

DavenIII
03-07-2012, 09:54 AM
they didn't consistently name passing plays. They did for most.

ESPN has targets if you go to game box scores, Cruz had more targets

I would think catches, yards, and TDs would show his involvement the best


The problem with catches, yards and TD's is they all have too many variables affecting them...the biggest of which is who is defending them...is Nicks not as good a receiver as Manningham if Nicks has Revis covering him? obviously not he's still better he just has one of the best CB's on him in the league so it negates out.

that said he will still be out there every snap...that's why snaps more so then (TDs/Receptions/Yardage) is the best stat in my opinion to judge offensive involvement.

MattMeyerBud
03-07-2012, 10:10 AM
they didn't consistently name passing plays. They did for most.

ESPN has targets if you go to game box scores, Cruz had more targets

I would think catches, yards, and TDs would show his involvement the best


The problem with catches, yards and TD's is they all have too many variables affecting them...the biggest of which is who is defending them...is Nicks not as good a receiver as Manningham if Nicks has Revis covering him? obviously not he's still better he just has one of the best CB's on him in the league so it negates out.

that said he will still be out there every snap...that's why snaps more so then (TDs/Receptions/Yardage) is the best stat in my opinion to judge offensive involvement.


So when Cruz *****ed Rogers, who was the #1 CB on the #1 defense and forced the 9ers to not only put their best corner, but start bringing saftey and LBer help - that makes Cruz the #1 WR no?

And if it was as simple as u suggest it is then every #3 WR in the league would have the best numbers by your theory. Your putting too much into hypotheticals than what actually happened.

ShockeyShow
03-07-2012, 10:11 AM
No offense to this thread....I love this debate, but Matt with you being on the mod team, maybe you can talk to whomever locked the Tiki post a few days back. There was no direct bashing of any poster, name calling, etc.....yet it was abruptly locked, it seems, due to a Mod getting sick of it.

I was told when I first joined, and asked for a thread be locked that, "These message boards are a quorum for debates such as these."

I really don't understand the bias of the Mods sometimes. It seems vehemently hypocritical....this debate is literally going back and forth with no end in sight, just like the Tiki one. So maybe someone (A MOD) can efficiently explain to me why doesn't this thread, along with so many others, get locked in the same fashion.

DavenIII
03-07-2012, 10:15 AM
they didn't consistently name passing plays. They did for most.

ESPN has targets if you go to game box scores, Cruz had more targets

I would think catches, yards, and TDs would show his involvement the best


The problem with catches, yards and TD's is they all have too many variables affecting them...the biggest of which is who is defending them...is Nicks not as good a receiver as Manningham if Nicks has Revis covering him? obviously not he's still better he just has one of the best CB's on him in the league so it negates out.

that said he will still be out there every snap...that's why snaps more so then (TDs/Receptions/Yardage) is the best stat in my opinion to judge offensive involvement.


So when Cruz *****ed Rogers, who was the #1 CB on the #1 defense and forced the 9ers to not only put their best corner, but start bringing saftey and LBer help - that makes Cruz the #1 WR no?

And if it was as simple as u suggest it is then every #3 WR in the league would have the best numbers by your theory. Your putting too much into hypotheticals than what actually happened

None of what you just said makes any sense.

what I'm saying is it's hard to determine a WR's involvement in an offense based on Yards/TD's/Receptions....there are too many variables, it's better to look at snaps alone if what you are looking to find out is "involvement"

Involvement and Production are very different things....you are combining them but they really shouldn't be combined.

ShockeyShow
03-07-2012, 10:19 AM
And the "Peyton a Giant" thread got deleted, after I had just raised a reasonable question about Peyton becoming a QB coach for Eli after he retires.

Yet the other 2 "Peyton done" "Peyton ELI's BACKUP!" Still remain and the posts within are more idiotic than the ones within the Peyton thread that got deleted.


Asinine. Can we please have some consistency?

MattMeyerBud
03-07-2012, 10:24 AM
And the "Peyton a Giant" thread got deleted, after I had just raised a reasonable question about Peyton becoming a QB coach for Eli after he retires.

Yet the other 2 "Peyton done" "Peyton ELI's BACKUP!" Still remain and the posts within are more idiotic than the ones within the Peyton thread that got deleted.


Asinine. Can we please have some consistency?


the consistancy is when i see people making threads for attention that are ridiculous, I will delete them.

If I came across the other threads and saw them i would delete them too

MattMeyerBud
03-07-2012, 10:25 AM
they didn't consistently name passing plays. They did for most.

ESPN has targets if you go to game box scores, Cruz had more targets

I would think catches, yards, and TDs would show his involvement the best


The problem with catches, yards and TD's is they all have too many variables affecting them...the biggest of which is who is defending them...is Nicks not as good a receiver as Manningham if Nicks has Revis covering him? obviously not he's still better he just has one of the best CB's on him in the league so it negates out.

that said he will still be out there every snap...that's why snaps more so then (TDs/Receptions/Yardage) is the best stat in my opinion to judge offensive involvement.


So when Cruz *****ed Rogers, who was the #1 CB on the #1 defense and forced the 9ers to not only put their best corner, but start bringing saftey and LBer help - that makes Cruz the #1 WR no?

And if it was as simple as u suggest it is then every #3 WR in the league would have the best numbers by your theory. Your putting too much into hypotheticals than what actually happened

None of what you just said makes any sense.

what I'm saying is it's hard to determine a WR's involvement in an offense based on Yards/TD's/Receptions....there are too many variables, it's better to look at snaps alone if what you are looking to find out is "involvement"

Involvement and Production are very different things....you are combining them but they really shouldn't be combined.


thats where your absolutely wrong

but my question to you is by your standards of just INVOLVEMENT

Cruz must of been our #1 WR by end of the year

ShockeyShow
03-07-2012, 10:26 AM
And the "Peyton a Giant" thread got deleted, after I had just raised a reasonable question about Peyton becoming a QB coach for Eli after he retires.

Yet the other 2 "Peyton done" "Peyton ELI's BACKUP!" Still remain and the posts within are more idiotic than the ones within the Peyton thread that got deleted.


Asinine. Can we please have some consistency?


the consistancy is when i see people making threads for attention that are ridiculous, I will delete them.

If I came across the other threads and saw them i would delete them too


I'm not saying it was you, I just ask that there be a better format for it.

MattMeyerBud
03-07-2012, 10:35 AM
And the "Peyton a Giant" thread got deleted, after I had just raised a reasonable question about Peyton becoming a QB coach for Eli after he retires.

Yet the other 2 "Peyton done" "Peyton ELI's BACKUP!" Still remain and the posts within are more idiotic than the ones within the Peyton thread that got deleted.


Asinine. Can we please have some consistency?


the consistancy is when i see people making threads for attention that are ridiculous, I will delete them.

If I came across the other threads and saw them i would delete them too


I'm not saying it was you, I just ask that there be a better format for it.


no it was me lol, i deleted it

I don't search EVERY thread, but if I open it and its somebody with a ridiculous topic i'm going to delete it

ShockeyShow
03-07-2012, 10:56 AM
haha you acehole!

Nah, I get it....so much clutter sometimes, and often you're the only mod on here on a daily basis. Gotta keep it flowing

DavenIII
03-07-2012, 11:05 AM
thats where your absolutely wrong

but my question to you is by your standards of just INVOLVEMENT

Cruz must of been our #1 WR by end of the year


<h3 class="r g0"><span style="padding-bottom:14px;padding-right:15px">in∑volve∑ment</span><span style="font:smaller 'Doulos SIL','Gentum','TITUS Cyberbit Basic','Junicode','Aborigonal Serif','Arial Unicode MS','Lucida Sans Unicode','Chrysanthi Unicode';padding-bottom:7px">/in'všlvm?nt/</span><span class="speaker-icon-listen-off" id="speaker_icon" style="margin:0;margin-left:.7em"></span></h3><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom:5px;padding-top:5px;color:#666" valign="top" width="80px">Noun:</td><td style="padding-bottom:5px;padding-top:5px" valign="top"><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td><li style="list-style-type:decimal">The fact or condition of being involved with or participating in something.</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Involvement as a WR means being part of the play...whether that be as a blocker on a running play...or setting up a pick (even though it's sorta illegal it happens all the time) so another WR can get open, just being a distraction...etc etc....does it also mean receptions yards and TD's...yes...but that's not all it means.

This actually is quite similar to our running back discussion...about how running backs don't "just" carry the football they also block and catch out of the backfield.

WR's don't just catch the ball...that's why whether or not they are coming up with yards and receptions and TD's isn't the only factor...that's why if you are looking for involvement in the offense snaps is the best way to determine it in my opinion.

and yes Cruz was probably giving Nicks a run for his money during the Playoffs for the #1 receiver in that respect...doesn't mean it's his though....Cruz was the hot hand...Nicks is still the #1...and proved why he deserves that in the playoffs with huge games.

MattMeyerBud
03-07-2012, 12:38 PM
thats where your absolutely wrong

but my question to you is by your standards of just INVOLVEMENT

Cruz must of been our #1 WR by end of the year


<h3 class="r g0"><span style="padding-bottom:14px;padding-right:15px">in∑volve∑ment</span><span style="font:smaller 'Doulos SIL','Gentum','TITUS Cyberbit Basic','Junicode','Aborigonal Serif','Arial Unicode MS','Lucida Sans Unicode','Chrysanthi Unicode';padding-bottom:7px">/in'všlvm?nt/</span><span class="speaker-icon-listen-off" id="speaker_icon" style="margin:0;margin-left:.7em"></span></h3><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-bottom:5px;padding-top:5px;color:#666" valign="top" width="80px">Noun:</td><td style="padding-bottom:5px;padding-top:5px" valign="top"><table class="ts"><tbody><tr><td><li style="list-style-type:decimal">The fact or condition of being involved with or participating in something.</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Involvement as a WR means being part of the play...whether that be as a blocker on a running play...or setting up a pick (even though it's sorta illegal it happens all the time) so another WR can get open, just being a distraction...etc etc....does it also mean receptions yards and TD's...yes...but that's not all it means.

This actually is quite similar to our running back discussion...about how running backs don't "just" carry the football they also block and catch out of the backfield.

WR's don't just catch the ball...that's why whether or not they are coming up with yards and receptions and TD's isn't the only factor...that's why if you are looking for involvement in the offense snaps is the best way to determine it in my opinion.

and yes Cruz was probably giving Nicks a run for his money during the Playoffs for the #1 receiver in that respect...doesn't mean it's his though....Cruz was the hot hand...Nicks is still the #1...and proved why he deserves that in the playoffs with huge games.


well its not only production, but the fact that he was treated as the #1 WR for most of the playoffs except for maybe half of the san fran game, and the fact that he had more snaps than nicks did.

Nicks actually outproduced Cruz in the playoffs statistically...

/fin

slipknottin
03-07-2012, 12:43 PM
Theres no such thing as a #1.

Just positions. X, Y, Z, etc.

Nicks consistently wins at the X, Cruz consistently wins at the Y.

Patriots tried their best to take away BOTH of them. They had both of them doubled nearly all game, whenever they got away from it they got beat.

Generally you want a big play, deep threat guy at the Z. Manningham fit that role well. Now someone else has to take over that role.

MattMeyerBud
03-07-2012, 12:57 PM
Theres no such thing as a #1.

Just positions. X, Y, Z, etc.

Nicks consistently wins at the X, Cruz consistently wins at the Y.

Patriots tried their best to take away BOTH of them. They had both of them doubled nearly all game, whenever they got away from it they got beat.

Generally you want a big play, deep threat guy at the Z. Manningham fit that role well. Now someone else has to take over that role.

every offense is different. XYZ is just in reference to the way the players lineup...

OBVIOUSLY players are regarded as the #1 receiver

Are you trying to tell me Calvin Johnson isn't considered the #1 receiver in Det?

MattMeyerBud
03-07-2012, 01:00 PM
and in two receiver sets there technically isn't a "Y" receiver

ShockeyShow
03-07-2012, 01:06 PM
Theres no such thing as a #1.

Just positions. X, Y, Z, etc.

Nicks consistently wins at the X, Cruz consistently wins at the Y.

Patriots tried their best to take away BOTH of them. They had both of them doubled nearly all game, whenever they got away from it they got beat.

Generally you want a big play, deep threat guy at the Z. Manningham fit that role well. Now someone else has to take over that role.

Haha come on slip, that's the way it is delegated in a playbook, but it still correlates to the #1, #2, #3

That's like saying "NYC is technically Manhattan" or "a free-throw is actually a shot"

ny06
03-07-2012, 01:07 PM
Theres no such thing as a #1. Just positions. X, Y, Z, etc. Nicks consistently wins at the X, Cruz consistently wins at the Y. Patriots tried their best to take away BOTH of them. They had both of them doubled nearly all game, whenever they got away from it they got beat. Generally you want a big play, deep threat guy at the Z. Manningham fit that role well. Now someone else has to take over that role.</P>


So are you saying during the great 49er teams Jerry Rice was not the #1 receiver?</P>


Or Michael Irvin during the Cowboy dynasties?</P>


Is Larry Fitzgerald not the #1 receiver for the Cardinals?</P>


When I think of #1 receiver for any team I look at it's a player who the qb looks to most. A guy who gets most of the attention from the opponent. </P>


Let's not bring XYZ into the conversation, it's just football jargon. </P>


If were going to get syntagmatic I put Nicks as 1A and Cruz as 1B. (There both legitimate #1 options for any team)</P>

RoanokeFan
03-07-2012, 01:16 PM
Its a debate from THEE thread...

I say Cruz was our #2 with understanding the arguments for #1

Daven says Cruz was #3, here is his debate:

"Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the
X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say
#1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so
then the actual production you get."


------


EDIT: And another thing: Who do you think had more plays played for us
this year CRUZ or Mario. Who do u think had more snaps. Or rather Snaps
per game average since Mario was hurt for a little bit (just to be fair)
---------

What do you guys say?


Cruz has done in one seasonn what Mario hasn't been able to do and that's learn to run precise routes and read the defenses. I like Mario and he makes some great catches, but Cruz broke the single season record without starting every game. Sure, injuries to Nicks and Mario may have given him some playing time he might have not otherwise seen early on. But Crux became the go to man of the receiving corps.

I don't like numbering players. I believe you put the guys on the field who can make plays and that's what Cruz was.