PDA

View Full Version : This team never gets it's due



Pa1jintfan
06-26-2012, 10:08 AM
The New York Giants might be defending champs, and the Dallas Cowboys might be everyone's preseason darlings, but the Eagles are arguably the most talented team in an NFC East that should be wide open in 2012. Better play from the linebackers might make the difference.

This is an article on NFL.com. I think this is what keeps us hungry. No love. Never. I like it actually...

Rat_bastich
06-26-2012, 10:11 AM
Truthfully, I think it is us fans that are more concerned the Giants are not getting their "due" than they are.

I don't think any of the teams or players actually buy into any of the media hype as much as we and the media do.

GMENAGAIN
06-26-2012, 10:26 AM
It's getting a little tiresome to see a new thread every time some media outlet doesn't pick the Giants to win the SB again . . . . . </P>

giantsfan420
06-26-2012, 10:51 AM
i agree op. i was reading an article about how far we've fallen behind philly and how much a sb contender philly is and how everything is perfect for them now...players have a yr under the d system, they have no more malcontents bc they paid djax and mccoy, top 5 qb, all pro's everywhere etc etc etc...

i am not a moron, i can see philly has a talented roster...so do we. as talented if not more so bc our players actually deliver...we get pushed over by the media all the time, nothing new

TuckYou
06-26-2012, 10:57 AM
This from ESPN front page NFL:</P>


http://picasion.com/pic55/a309cc7a4876bac5789495363264cdb7.gif</P>


Cool picture, but read the bottom.... Are the Giants declining? NYG could miss the playoffs.</P>


How the hell can we be "declining"? I dont get it. It just doesnt make any sense what so ever. Declining from what? Winnign the superbowl? Again? Yeah, Giants could miss playoffs, so could every other team in the NFL. Giants could also MAKE the playoffs. Great job over there at ESPN. But Gronk is a better player then any player on the Giants, even Eli. </P>


They just absolutely hate us. And I love it. </P>

Morehead State
06-26-2012, 11:09 AM
It's getting a little tiresome to see a new thread every time some media outlet doesn't pick the Giants to win the SB again . . . . . </P>


</P>


No no. You're looking at this the wrong way. It's tradition here. We must have our weekly, rediculous...............</P>


"The Giants don't get their props" thread.</P>


Didn't know you were the type to step on sacred tradition.</P>

GMENAGAIN
06-26-2012, 11:32 AM
It's getting a little tiresome to see a new thread every time some media outlet doesn't pick the Giants to win the SB again . . . . . </P>


</P>


No no. You're looking at this the wrong way. It's tradition here. We must have our weekly, rediculous...............</P>


"The Giants don't get their props" thread.</P>


Didn't know you were the type to step on sacred tradition.</P>


</P>


Ha ha . . . . </P>


It's my own fault . . . I keep opening these threads. A glutton for punishment I guess . . . . </P>

ShockeyShow
06-26-2012, 11:48 AM
The truth of the matter is that ESPN secretly loves us. They know the formula for continuous success is continuous doubt. So while they could very easily write these stories about us in a positive light, they are nice enough to instead take it upon themselves to be the "bad guy" and motivate us with a little reverse psychology.

Its going to be a fun season! Time to defend the crown!

buddy33
06-26-2012, 11:52 AM
If you think about it for a second the odds are against them against repeating.

Add to that they where 9-7, and a lot of "experts" seem like they just read stats they are makin a safe choice.

Also, ever since he was drafted they have been on Vick to be the next best thing to happen in the NFL. We will now have to deal with the same with RG3 for a long time. Dallas will always be the media hyped favorite.

Diamondring
06-26-2012, 11:52 AM
Long as Giants get Superbowl after Superbowl and they give these other teams props, then that means the Giants will be the best Superbowl Winners of all time.

buddy33
06-26-2012, 11:59 AM
Eli has done more than most QB's in the NFL have done or will ever do. He has by far done more than any QB in the NFC East.

I really don't care if ESPN or any outlet ever gives him any credit.

jimsgints
06-26-2012, 12:49 PM
It's getting a little tiresome to see a new thread every time some media outlet doesn't pick the Giants to win the SB again . . . . . </P>


</P>


No no.* You're looking at this the wrong way.* It's tradition here.* We must have our weekly, rediculous...............</P>


"The Giants don't get their props" thread.</P>


Didn't know you were the type to step on sacred tradition.</P>
This is good. I'd actually like to see this because it never ends, whether it's from friends, co-workers, media the bs never ends.

Flip Empty
06-26-2012, 12:51 PM
I don't get why fans always seem to pick up on negativity. There are plenty of positive articles; a quick Google comes up with "New York Giants ' Tom Coughlin Ranked NFL's #1 “Good Guy”" and " New York Giants : 7 Players We Trust the Most in the Clutch" on the first page. There was also an article the other week in which Jerry Rice named Victor Cruz as one of his top young WRs. But nevermind those, no, fans like to play the victim card and will find any excuse to do so

sharick88
06-26-2012, 12:56 PM
Honestly, this stuff is all white noise to me now. I used to ***** and complain about this stuff, but it will never change. It is what it is. The players in the locker room can care less about what these ANALysts or journalists say and neither should we. I think the mods should create a "***** about the media" forum so all of those that take what these people say about the giants seriously. Anyways, we have our two rings in 5 years. That tells me all that I need to know about the giants

gumby742
06-26-2012, 01:20 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us? The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008. During that year, the media was all over our jock. Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs. The media loves consistency. We aren't.

yoeddy
06-26-2012, 01:30 PM
I believe that the NFL promotes those teams because if those teams are perceived to be losers, their fans disappear and the league loses money. The Giants, on the other hand, have a consistent and loyal fan base who will support the team no matter how poorly they do...

repeatchamps
06-26-2012, 01:31 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us? The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008. During that year, the media was all over our jock. Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs. The media loves consistency. We aren't.</P>


They can keep their consistency wishes, I'll just keep taking the Lombardi trophies and Super Bowl rings while everyone in the media screaming for consistency cries in their spilled milk.</P>

repeatchamps
06-26-2012, 01:35 PM
I believe that the NFL promotes those teams because if those teams are perceived to be losers, their fans disappear and the league loses money. The Giants, on the other hand, have a consistent and loyal fan base who will support the team no matter how poorly they do...</P>


Excellent point and you may very well be correct. However, considering the popularity of this sport and how well teams the media loves like Philly, Dallas,Green Bayand New England retain their fan base and sell out the stadiums each week, there is little for these teams to worry about.</P>

buffyblue
06-26-2012, 01:39 PM
If you think about it for a second the odds are against them against repeating.

Add to that they where 9-7, and a lot of "experts" seem like they just read stats they are makin a safe choice.

Also, ever since he was drafted they have been on Vick to be the next best thing to happen in the NFL. We will now have to deal with the same with RG3 for a long time. Dallas will always be the media hyped favorite.

NY Giants are going to blasted by some analysts and praised by others. That is what analysts do and it doesn't matter because NY Giants are gonna do what NY Giants are gonna do regardless of what the media says.

The are a number of differences between RGIII and Mike Vick. RGIII is not a dog torturing sociopath, Mike Vick is. RGIII also doesn't seem to be a crybaby, Mike Vick is. The media is going to love running QBs and are always going to try and stir the controversy on whatever extraneous angle that is there. With Mike Vick they are going to try and spin the redemption piece. With Tim Tebow they are always going to try and use religion. With RGIII it is going to be can he save Washington Resdskins.

The media is the media and they picked against us for so long that it is going to be hard for them to get off that and admit they were wrong. Heck, even Prime Time's "I bELIeve in Eli" song was first used as sarcasm directed against Eli Manning.

sharick88
06-26-2012, 01:47 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't.

You should do stand up

yoeddy
06-26-2012, 01:56 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't.

No losing seasons in the last 7 years, playoff appearances in 5 of the last 7 seasons, 2 Super Bowl victories...we are at least as consistent as the Eagles and more consistent than the Cowboys.

gumby742
06-26-2012, 01:58 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us? The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008. During that year, the media was all over our jock. Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs. The media loves consistency. We aren't. You should do stand up</P>


Besides 2008, which team did we field that was consistently dominant throughout the season? I know the only year I felt good going into the post season was 2008 - which is why the first round exit hurt so much.</P>

giantsfan420
06-26-2012, 02:02 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. You should do stand up</P>


Besides 2008, which team did we field that was consistently dominant throughout the season?* I know the only year I felt good going into the post season was 2008 - which is why the first round exit hurt so much.</P>

lol

gumby742
06-26-2012, 02:36 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us? The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008. During that year, the media was all over our jock. Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs. The media loves consistency. We aren't. No losing seasons in the last 7 years, playoff appearances in 5 of the last 7 seasons, 2 Super Bowl victories...we are at least as consistent as the Eagles and more consistent than the Cowboys.</P>


Remember this is all about public perception. It's not that we win, but how we win. We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons. On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years.</P>


I don't follow baseball much, but didn't some small market teams win the World Series or at least get far in the post season a bunch of times? Like the Devil Rays, or Marlins or something? The following seasons who do you think is going to get all the attention and be favored again. The Yankees. Why? Because they've been consistently good. When the Mavs won the NBA title, who do you think were still the media favorites? Why? Same thing. While the Mavs were always winners, they weren't as dominant as some of the other teams out there.</P>


Several posters on here mentioned stuff about, "Giants magic" or "We win when it counts", etc. All very true, but stuff like taht doesn't exactly inspire media respect.</P>

burier
06-26-2012, 02:38 PM
out of curiousity. What if all of the media outlets were picking us to repeat? Then what? Will you feel better about yourself? Will you go out and buy yourself a hotfudge sunday?

The media irritates me when they offer thoughtless or biased analysis. I could care less about their predictions. (In the history of media has there ever been an accurate prediction?)

And we won 9 games last season. 30th on defense?

No one is gonna line up and jock a team like that.

One thing I do know is that if we even think about fooling around like we did last year against inferior opponents we're not even making the playoffs.

giantsfan420
06-26-2012, 02:55 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. No losing seasons in the last 7 years, playoff appearances in 5 of the last 7 seasons, 2 Super Bowl victories...we are at least as consistent as the Eagles and more consistent than the Cowboys.</P>


Remember this is all about public perception.* It's not that we win, but how we win.* We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons.* On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years.</P>


I don't follow baseball much, but didn't some small market teams win the World Series or at least get far in the post season a bunch of times?* Like the Devil Rays, or Marlins or something?* The following seasons who do you think is going to get all the attention and be favored again.* The Yankees. Why?* Because they've been consistently good.* When the Mavs won the NBA title, who do you think were still the media favorites?* Why?* Same thing.* While the Mavs were always winners, they weren't as dominant as some of the other teams out there.</P>


Several posters on here mentioned stuff about, "Giants magic" or "We win when it counts", etc.* All very true, but stuff like taht doesn't exactly inspire media respect.</P>
lol

Mohann
06-26-2012, 02:56 PM
out of curiousity. What if all of the media outlets were picking us to repeat? Then what? Will you feel better about yourself? Will you go out and buy yourself a hotfudge sunday?

The media irritates me when they offer thoughtless or biased analysis. I could care less about their predictions. (In the history of media has there ever been an accurate prediction?)

And we won 9 games last season. 30th on defense?

No one is gonna line up and jock a team like that.

One thing I do know is that if we even think about fooling around like we did last year against inferior opponents we're not even making the playoffs.

I never thought about it, but yes. I would have a sunday if that happened. Not hotfudge, but strawberry and banana.

Pa1jintfan
06-26-2012, 05:47 PM
Then don't open the page bud

FBomb
06-26-2012, 06:37 PM
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRu-J1Ie8D_00PnCF_KQ_rnwFKUsZO70JYCd4-HdsYQeZAmVWe

Dorkasaurus
06-26-2012, 07:52 PM
Who cares what the media says....last year they stroke off, jacked off, sat on the Eagles lap did that do anything for the Eagles?
</P>


I do not care of any "power rankings", top ten, projections of the media ....let them play the football ....
</P>


The Giants do that well. </P>

sharick88
06-26-2012, 07:55 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. You should do stand up</P>


Besides 2008, which team did we field that was consistently dominant throughout the season?* I know the only year I felt good going into the post season was 2008 - which is why the first round exit hurt so much.</P>
Your current track record tells me that when you feel bad about our chances in the playoffs, we win the Super Bowl. Keep up the good work. JK :)

Diamondring
06-26-2012, 08:04 PM
I wonder why Dallas or the Egals don't get tired of this or do they. I bet that every year it is a let down hahahahaaaaa.

gmen46
06-26-2012, 08:11 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. No losing seasons in the last 7 years, playoff appearances in 5 of the last 7 seasons, 2 Super Bowl victories...we are at least as consistent as the Eagles and more consistent than the Cowboys.</P>


Remember this is all about public perception.* It's not that we win, but how we win.* We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons.* On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years.</P>


I don't follow baseball much, but didn't some small market teams win the World Series or at least get far in the post season a bunch of times?* Like the Devil Rays, or Marlins or something?* The following seasons who do you think is going to get all the attention and be favored again.* The Yankees. Why?* Because they've been consistently good.* When the Mavs won the NBA title, who do you think were still the media favorites?* Why?* Same thing.* While the Mavs were always winners, they weren't as dominant as some of the other teams out there.</P>


Several posters on here mentioned stuff about, "Giants magic" or "We win when it counts", etc.* All very true, but stuff like taht doesn't exactly inspire media respect.</P>

You might have had a good point, but you completely destroy it by then comparing Giants to Dallas and the Eagles over the past decade to support your argument.

You say "We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons. On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years."

Well, you obviously forgot that Eagles have not had a "dominant" team since 2004, when, by the way, they LOST the Super Bowl.

Also, in the past decade the Cowboys have had ONE "dominant" season, 2007, when they went 13-3 then one-and-done in the playoffs--much as we did a year later with our 12-4 first seed record followed by the playoff loss.

And "on top of that", by the way, the Cowboys missed the playoffs the last couple years.

So, by all means, put more emphasis on dominant winning records for a season as your criterion for good teams. But for god's sake do yourself a favor, and don't use Eagles and Cowboys as your example of a more dominant team. You make yourself look foolish.

The truth is that over the past decade, the ONLY teams that have consistently had dominant winning records are the Colts and the Patriots. That's it.

On the other hand, what teams have won 2 Super Bowls in the last 10 years (2002-2011)? Patriots, Steelers-- and, oh yeah, those inconsistent Giants.

Further, what's the only team to win 2 Super Bowls in the last 5 years? (Not by coincidence, the only other teams to PLAY in 2 Super Bowls in the last 5 years are, again, Patriots and Steelers; of course, their respective records are 0-2 and 1-1).

But you go ahead and tout the "consistent" superiority of teams like Dallas and Philly, and justify the so-called lack of media respect.

The reality is that there are sports journalists who give the Giants their due respect for their last 5 years. We, on this board, just seem to prefer picking up on certain yahoos on espn and a few others who don't.

"

yoeddy
06-26-2012, 09:32 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. No losing seasons in the last 7 years, playoff appearances in 5 of the last 7 seasons, 2 Super Bowl victories...we are at least as consistent as the Eagles and more consistent than the Cowboys.</P>


Remember this is all about public perception.* It's not that we win, but how we win.* We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons.* On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years.</P>


I don't follow baseball much, but didn't some small market teams win the World Series or at least get far in the post season a bunch of times?* Like the Devil Rays, or Marlins or something?* The following seasons who do you think is going to get all the attention and be favored again.* The Yankees. Why?* Because they've been consistently good.* When the Mavs won the NBA title, who do you think were still the media favorites?* Why?* Same thing.* While the Mavs were always winners, they weren't as dominant as some of the other teams out there.</P>


Several posters on here mentioned stuff about, "Giants magic" or "We win when it counts", etc.* All very true, but stuff like taht doesn't exactly inspire media respect.</P>

In the last 10 years, how many "dominant" teams did the Cowboys field?

gumby742
06-26-2012, 10:31 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. You should do stand up</P>


Besides 2008, which team did we field that was consistently dominant throughout the season?* I know the only year I felt good going into the post season was 2008 - which is why the first round exit hurt so much.</P>
Your current track record tells me that when you feel bad about our chances in the playoffs, we win the Super Bowl. Keep up the good work. JK :)

Hahaha. totally true. I go into each season not feeling very good.

gumby742
06-26-2012, 10:33 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. No losing seasons in the last 7 years, playoff appearances in 5 of the last 7 seasons, 2 Super Bowl victories...we are at least as consistent as the Eagles and more consistent than the Cowboys.</P>


Remember this is all about public perception.* It's not that we win, but how we win.* We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons.* On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years.</P>


I don't follow baseball much, but didn't some small market teams win the World Series or at least get far in the post season a bunch of times?* Like the Devil Rays, or Marlins or something?* The following seasons who do you think is going to get all the attention and be favored again.* The Yankees. Why?* Because they've been consistently good.* When the Mavs won the NBA title, who do you think were still the media favorites?* Why?* Same thing.* While the Mavs were always winners, they weren't as dominant as some of the other teams out there.</P>


Several posters on here mentioned stuff about, "Giants magic" or "We win when it counts", etc.* All very true, but stuff like taht doesn't exactly inspire media respect.</P>

You might have had a good point, but you completely destroy it by then comparing Giants to Dallas and the Eagles over the past decade to support your argument.

You say "We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons. On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years."

Well, you obviously forgot that Eagles have not had a "dominant" team since 2004, when, by the way, they LOST the Super Bowl.

Also, in the past decade the Cowboys have had ONE "dominant" season, 2007, when they went 13-3 then one-and-done in the playoffs--much as we did a year later with our 12-4 first seed record followed by the playoff loss.

And "on top of that", by the way, the Cowboys missed the playoffs the last couple years.

So, by all means, put more emphasis on dominant winning records for a season as your criterion for good teams. But for god's sake do yourself a favor, and don't use Eagles and Cowboys as your example of a more dominant team. You make yourself look foolish.

The truth is that over the past decade, the ONLY teams that have consistently had dominant winning records are the Colts and the Patriots. That's it.

On the other hand, what teams have won 2 Super Bowls in the last 10 years (2002-2011)? Patriots, Steelers-- and, oh yeah, those inconsistent Giants.

Further, what's the only team to win 2 Super Bowls in the last 5 years? (Not by coincidence, the only other teams to PLAY in 2 Super Bowls in the last 5 years are, again, Patriots and Steelers; of course, their respective records are 0-2 and 1-1).

But you go ahead and tout the "consistent" superiority of teams like Dallas and Philly, and justify the so-called lack of media respect.

The reality is that there are sports journalists who give the Giants their due respect for their last 5 years. We, on this board, just seem to prefer picking up on certain yahoos on espn and a few others who don't.

"

Admittedly, the eagles and cowboys might not have been the best example. The NFL has too much parity to make a solid case. But take my other examples if you think they're more relevant. Most the time when I post, I'm at work - doing it between Alt-Tabs. =)

gumby742
06-26-2012, 10:41 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. No losing seasons in the last 7 years, playoff appearances in 5 of the last 7 seasons, 2 Super Bowl victories...we are at least as consistent as the Eagles and more consistent than the Cowboys.</P>


Remember this is all about public perception.* It's not that we win, but how we win.* We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons.* On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years.</P>


I don't follow baseball much, but didn't some small market teams win the World Series or at least get far in the post season a bunch of times?* Like the Devil Rays, or Marlins or something?* The following seasons who do you think is going to get all the attention and be favored again.* The Yankees. Why?* Because they've been consistently good.* When the Mavs won the NBA title, who do you think were still the media favorites?* Why?* Same thing.* While the Mavs were always winners, they weren't as dominant as some of the other teams out there.</P>


Several posters on here mentioned stuff about, "Giants magic" or "We win when it counts", etc.* All very true, but stuff like taht doesn't exactly inspire media respect.</P>

In the last 10 years, how many "dominant" teams did the Cowboys field?

I responded to gmen46 i think. I think the Cowboys/Eagles and the NFL in general weren't good examples to support my claim. I guess other sports are better examples. But to be fair neither the Cowboys haven't gotten respect recently either. The Eagles get their respect from their talented roster.

So that raises again why the Giants don't get their due. Something about the teams that we field, are very convincing. I'll respond more when I have more time. But I will say this again. There was only one year when I felt good about our team. And that was in 2008.

giantsfan420
06-26-2012, 11:01 PM
Realistically, who in their right mind would drool over us?* The only dominant team we fielded for the last decade was in 2008.* During that year, the media was all over our jock.* Even the 2 SB years, we whimpered into the playoffs as under dogs.* The media loves consistency.* We aren't. No losing seasons in the last 7 years, playoff appearances in 5 of the last 7 seasons, 2 Super Bowl victories...we are at least as consistent as the Eagles and more consistent than the Cowboys.</P>


Remember this is all about public perception.* It's not that we win, but how we win.* We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons.* On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years.</P>


I don't follow baseball much, but didn't some small market teams win the World Series or at least get far in the post season a bunch of times?* Like the Devil Rays, or Marlins or something?* The following seasons who do you think is going to get all the attention and be favored again.* The Yankees. Why?* Because they've been consistently good.* When the Mavs won the NBA title, who do you think were still the media favorites?* Why?* Same thing.* While the Mavs were always winners, they weren't as dominant as some of the other teams out there.</P>


Several posters on here mentioned stuff about, "Giants magic" or "We win when it counts", etc.* All very true, but stuff like taht doesn't exactly inspire media respect.</P>

You might have had a good point, but you completely destroy it by then comparing Giants to Dallas and the Eagles over the past decade to support your argument.

You say "We had a bunch of mediocre winning seasons where as the Cowboys and Eagles at least fielded dominant teams for certain seasons. On top of that, we missed the playoffs the last couple years."

Well, you obviously forgot that Eagles have not had a "dominant" team since 2004, when, by the way, they LOST the Super Bowl.

Also, in the past decade the Cowboys have had ONE "dominant" season, 2007, when they went 13-3 then one-and-done in the playoffs--much as we did a year later with our 12-4 first seed record followed by the playoff loss.

And "on top of that", by the way, the Cowboys missed the playoffs the last couple years.

So, by all means, put more emphasis on dominant winning records for a season as your criterion for good teams. But for god's sake do yourself a favor, and don't use Eagles and Cowboys as your example of a more dominant team. You make yourself look foolish.

The truth is that over the past decade, the ONLY teams that have consistently had dominant winning records are the Colts and the Patriots. That's it.

On the other hand, what teams have won 2 Super Bowls in the last 10 years (2002-2011)? Patriots, Steelers-- and, oh yeah, those inconsistent Giants.

Further, what's the only team to win 2 Super Bowls in the last 5 years? (Not by coincidence, the only other teams to PLAY in 2 Super Bowls in the last 5 years are, again, Patriots and Steelers; of course, their respective records are 0-2 and 1-1).

But you go ahead and tout the "consistent" superiority of teams like Dallas and Philly, and justify the so-called lack of media respect.

The reality is that there are sports journalists who give the Giants their due respect for their last 5 years. We, on this board, just seem to prefer picking up on certain yahoos on espn and a few others who don't.

"

well said. again, gumby misinterprets another statistic...

buddy33
06-26-2012, 11:12 PM
About getting their due, the last time they got their due they collapsed. Some act as thought the world is against the Giants. In 2008 everyone had the Giants as the best team in the NFL for most of the season. The next season they started 5-0 and the media was all over them. Again in 2010 they started hot and the media loved them.

gumby742
06-27-2012, 09:35 AM
About getting their due, the last time they got their due they collapsed. Some act as thought the world is against the Giants. In 2008 everyone had the Giants as the best team in the NFL for most of the season. The next season they started 5-0 and the media was all over them. Again in 2010 they started hot and the media loved them.</P>


This. Some act as if the Giants have never gotten any respect. We didn't get any respect in 2007 and 2011 after winning the SB because it's the way in which we won them. "Magic" and "Getting hot at the right time" doesn't exactly get respect. We did however get TONS of respect in 2008, when we just dominated opponants.</P>


In addition, if I were a betting man, I'd be betting on the Eagles to win the division next season.</P>

yoeddy
06-27-2012, 09:56 AM
About getting their due, the last time they got their due they collapsed. Some act as thought the world is against the Giants. In 2008 everyone had the Giants as the best team in the NFL for most of the season. The next season they started 5-0 and the media was all over them. Again in 2010 they started hot and the media loved them.

We can debate how hot they started in 2010...but the Giants were not predicted to win the NFc East in 2008 or 2010 (or pretty much any pre-season prediction by the majority of the media in the last 8 seasons....)

gumby742
06-27-2012, 10:15 AM
About getting their due, the last time they got their due they collapsed. Some act as thought the world is against the Giants. In 2008 everyone had the Giants as the best team in the NFL for most of the season. The next season they started 5-0 and the media was all over them. Again in 2010 they started hot and the media loved them. We can debate how hot they started in 2010...but the Giants were not predicted to win the NFc East in 2008 or 2010 (or pretty much any pre-season prediction by the majority of the media in the last 8 seasons....)</P>


I'm pretty sure that we were picked to win the NFC East in 2009 - after our dominant 2008 season. It may not have been unamimous, we certain did get our respect. I found this link online http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&amp;id=4439322&amp;spor tCat=nfl. The general trend is that if a team shows it can dominate, the media will love them.</P>


We weren't predicted to win the NFC East in 2008 because our 2007 SB win was a product of getting hot at the right time. Dallas was the team to beat that season and were really impressive Call it the Devil Rays beating the Yankees situation.</P>


In 2010, why would the analysts pick us to win the division when Both Philly and Dallas posted 11-5 records?</P>


In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact. So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.</P>

TuckYou
06-27-2012, 10:28 AM
If you think about it for a second the odds are against them against repeating. Add to that they where 9-7, and a lot of "experts" seem like they just read stats they are makin a safe choice. Also, ever since he was drafted they have been on Vick to be the next best thing to happen in the NFL. We will now have to deal with the same with RG3 for a long time. Dallas will always be the media hyped favorite. NY Giants are going to blasted by some analysts and praised by others. That is what analysts do.</P>


Oh yeah? Show me some articles of them blasting the Packers or Patriots... Show me them questioning Rodgers or Brees like they do Eli... Show me them saying the Pats or Pack are going first to worst like they are the Giants right now for no good reason other then a "tough schedule". </P>

gumby742
06-27-2012, 10:34 AM
If you think about it for a second the odds are against them against repeating. Add to that they where 9-7, and a lot of "experts" seem like they just read stats they are makin a safe choice. Also, ever since he was drafted they have been on Vick to be the next best thing to happen in the NFL. We will now have to deal with the same with RG3 for a long time. Dallas will always be the media hyped favorite. NY Giants are going to blasted by some analysts and praised by others. That is what analysts do.</P>


Oh yeah? Show me some articles of them blasting the Packers or Patriots... Show me them questioning Rodgers or Brees like they do Eli... Show me them saying the Pats or Pack are going first to worst like they are the Giants right now for no good reason other then a "tough schedule". </P>


</P>


Funny thing is that if you goto other team's forums, they all think the media is out to get their team. I really don't think that the media secretly has it out for the Giants.</P>

yoeddy
06-27-2012, 11:22 AM
In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact.* So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.</P>

I think this was the point some folks are getting at. Why do the Eagles and Cowboys always seem to get viewed as having better overall talent?

repeatchamps
06-27-2012, 12:26 PM
In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact. So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.


</P>


I think this was the point some folks are getting at. Why do the Eagles and Cowboys always seem to get viewed as having better overall talent?</P>


BINGO! This is where the media continues to make fools out of themselves. By rating their talent better than the Giants all their credibility is shot. Perhaps in many areas each team's talent is on par with each other but to continually say the Giants have worse talent than Philly and Dallas and to continually be proven wrong when it counts just makes the media lose all credibility.</P>


I'll also mention that typically the Giants team chemistry is better than both Philly and Dallas and that never gets factored in by the mediaever.</P>

gumby742
06-27-2012, 02:34 PM
In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact. So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.


</P>


I think this was the point some folks are getting at. Why do the Eagles and Cowboys always seem to get viewed as having better overall talent?</P>


lol. i must have missed it then.</P>


I think the talent of the Giants is starting to come into its own now.The dline has always gotten its due, but now Eli and Cruz have joinedthe party. I think it's safe to say that the media, up and until this year, has never been in love with Eli. But, The eagles though have more big names which is why they probably are getting the most attention.</P>


I believe the perceived Cowboys talent has been downgraded by media, a significant amount. Eagles, I can see why would be chosen over us. Cowboys? I'm not so sure.</P>

buddy33
06-27-2012, 02:42 PM
The reason why those teams keep getting over hyped is because Dallas is just simply always over hyped. The media acts as if the NFL needs them to be good. With the Eagles, the media has a thing for Vick. They made him out to be the greatest player to ever play the game before he ever took a snap in the pros and now it's like they are just trying to make people buy into it.

yoeddy
06-27-2012, 02:53 PM
In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact.* So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.


</P>


I think this was the point some folks are getting at. Why do the Eagles and Cowboys always seem to get viewed as having better overall talent?</P>


lol.* i must have missed it then.*</P>


I think the talent of the Giants is starting to come into its own now.**The dline has always gotten its due, but now Eli and Cruz have joined*the party.* I think it's safe to say that the media, up and until this year, has never been in love with Eli.* But, The eagles though have more big names which is why they probably are getting the most attention.</P>


* I believe the perceived Cowboys talent has been downgraded by media, a significant amount.* Eagles, I can see why would be chosen over us.* Cowboys?* I'm not so sure.</P>

Why were the Cowboys talent graded above the Giants in the first place? And why would the Eagles be chosen over us? I don't see the rationale...

gumby742
06-27-2012, 03:18 PM
In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact. So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.


</P>


I think this was the point some folks are getting at. Why do the Eagles and Cowboys always seem to get viewed as having better overall talent?</P>


lol. i must have missed it then.</P>


I think the talent of the Giants is starting to come into its own now.The dline has always gotten its due, but now Eli and Cruz have joinedthe party. I think it's safe to say that the media, up and until this year, has never been in love with Eli. But, The eagles though have more big names which is why they probably are getting the most attention.</P>


I believe the perceived Cowboys talent has been downgraded by media, a significant amount. Eagles, I can see why would be chosen over us. Cowboys? I'm not so sure.</P>


Why were the Cowboys talent graded above the Giants in the first place? And why would the Eagles be chosen over us? I don't see the rationale...</P>


The eagles would be chosen over us based on star power and the fact that they have talent too. Cole, Vick (flawed by very talented), McCoy, Maclin, Babin, Peters, Jackson, and god knows who else. As great as Nicks is, he's been hurt a lot and hasn't put up big stats. Cruz has been doing it for only one year. D line is arguably roughly equal. Before last season, with Vick putting up monster numbers, etc etc and before Eli and Cruz put on a show for the ages, it was deserving the eagles were the "chosen ones".</P>


As of now, I don't believe the Cowboys do have the talent advantage over us. And the media senses that too. I've only read that the media chooses the eagles to win it - which is fair. Like I was saying, if I was a betting man, I'd do the same.</P>


But in the past - prior to last year, it was fair to say that the Cowboys were a very good all around talented team - individually. In the past I definitely thought they had more talent then we did. <U>From the media standpoint , </U>many had Romo as a better QB than Eli - agree or not. Barber wasn't garbage, Jones was a talented backup, they had Witten, a good dline, and their secondary wasn't such a liability. Their oline was also very good. On top of that, hell, Romo was a good looking guy, plays golf, dates celebs, and is very marketable. </P>


To take it on step further, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, merely that I can see where the media is coming from. I Think of it this way. The media is like an NFL fanthat holds no loyalties. this means they don't know any team in much sort of depth. They'll watch some games,highlights,and look at stats. Readers/Fans like highlights. Explosive players and talented players provide highlights. Thus, the media likes highlight type players/teams with star power. Prior to this year, you can't say the Giants had much star power. We weretreated very much like the San Antonio Spurs.</P>


</P>

yoeddy
06-27-2012, 08:55 PM
In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact.* So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.


</P>


I think this was the point some folks are getting at. Why do the Eagles and Cowboys always seem to get viewed as having better overall talent?</P>


lol.* i must have missed it then.*</P>


I think the talent of the Giants is starting to come into its own now.**The dline has always gotten its due, but now Eli and Cruz have joined*the party.* I think it's safe to say that the media, up and until this year, has never been in love with Eli.* But, The eagles though have more big names which is why they probably are getting the most attention.</P>


* I believe the perceived Cowboys talent has been downgraded by media, a significant amount.* Eagles, I can see why would be chosen over us.* Cowboys?* I'm not so sure.</P>


Why were the Cowboys talent graded above the Giants in the first place? And why would the Eagles be chosen over us? I don't see the rationale...</P>


The eagles would be chosen over us based on star power and the fact that they have talent too.* Cole, Vick (flawed by very talented), McCoy, Maclin, Babin, Peters, Jackson, and god knows who else.* As great as Nicks is, he's been hurt a lot and hasn't put up big stats.* Cruz has been doing it for only one year.* D line is arguably roughly equal.* Before last season, with Vick putting up monster numbers, etc etc and before Eli and Cruz put on a show for the ages, it was deserving the eagles were the "chosen ones".</P>


As of now, I don't believe the Cowboys do have the talent advantage over us.* And the media senses that too.* I've only read that the media chooses the eagles to win it - which is fair.* Like I was saying, if I was a betting man, I'd do the same.</P>


But in the past - prior to last year, it was fair to say that the Cowboys were a very good all around talented team - individually.* In the past I definitely thought they had more talent then we did.* <U>From the media standpoint , </U>many had Romo as a better QB than Eli - agree or not.* Barber wasn't garbage, Jones was a talented backup, they had Witten, a good dline, and their secondary wasn't such a liability.* Their oline was also very good.* On top of that, hell, Romo was a good looking guy, plays golf, dates celebs, and is very marketable.** </P>


To take it on step further, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, merely that I can see where the media is coming from.** I Think of it this way.* The media is like an NFL fan*that holds no loyalties.* this means they don't know any team in much sort of depth.* They'll watch some games,highlights,and look at stats.* Readers/Fans like highlights.* Explosive players and talented players provide highlights.* Thus, the media likes highlight type players/teams with star power.* Prior to this year, you can't say the Giants had much star power.* We were*treated very much like the San Antonio Spurs.</P>


*</P>

We must have different definitions of the word "Stars"...because of the guys you listed, I would only consider Vick a "star" (and a very flawed one, as you pointed out).

And we seem to be having a circular argument here...I am asking the question "why are the Eagles and Cowboys the 'chosen ones' by the media every year?", and you are responding with "Because the media thinks they are they chosen ones".

I'll go a step further and say that I am completely mystified by the so-called experts picking the Eagles and Cowboys to finish ahead of the Giants this year...Giants are defending SB champs, have filled gaps with high-round draft picks, have every sign of team-unity in their favor...and the last time they were defending SB champs they finished the next season with the best record in the NFL (no reason to believe there will be a post-SB meltdown like some teams). Am not sure why anyone thinks the Cowboys or Eagles have surpassed them.

I will stick with my position/opinion that the league promotes certain teams like the Cowboys and the Eagles because they know that they will lose money if those teams don't have a lot of hyper around them...but that teams like the Giants who have long-standing loyal fan-bases that stick by their team even through hard times don't need the hype to make money, so they don't get the same promotion by the league (and therefore don't get the same coverage and hype by the media)

Drez
06-27-2012, 09:06 PM
As great as Nicks is, he's been hurt a lot and hasn't put up big stats. </P>


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/79698/RGC002-willis_medium.jpg (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/79698/RGC002-willis.jpg)</P>


He's only missed 5 or 6 games in 3 years and up to this point in his career has put up better stats than Calvin Johnson.</P>

yoeddy
06-27-2012, 10:09 PM
* As great as Nicks is, he's been hurt a lot and hasn't put up big stats.**** </P>


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/79698/RGC002-willis_medium.jpg (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/79698/RGC002-willis.jpg)</P>


He's only missed 5 or 6 games in 3 years and up to this point in his career has put up better stats than Calvin Johnson.</P>

Yes, seriously...especially when comparing to the Eagles' WRs, Nicks has more yards, yards per game, receptions, receptions per game, etc than either Jackson or Maclin. Still not quite understanding how those guys are "stars" and Nicks is not. Manningham is actually on-par with Jackson, and he did that as the #3 WR (not a starter).

giantsfan420
06-27-2012, 10:19 PM
In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact.* So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.


</P>


I think this was the point some folks are getting at. Why do the Eagles and Cowboys always seem to get viewed as having better overall talent?</P>


lol.* i must have missed it then.*</P>


I think the talent of the Giants is starting to come into its own now.**The dline has always gotten its due, but now Eli and Cruz have joined*the party.* I think it's safe to say that the media, up and until this year, has never been in love with Eli.* But, The eagles though have more big names which is why they probably are getting the most attention.</P>


* I believe the perceived Cowboys talent has been downgraded by media, a significant amount.* Eagles, I can see why would be chosen over us.* Cowboys?* I'm not so sure.</P>


Why were the Cowboys talent graded above the Giants in the first place? And why would the Eagles be chosen over us? I don't see the rationale...</P>


The eagles would be chosen over us based on star power and the fact that they have talent too.* Cole, Vick (flawed by very talented), McCoy, Maclin, Babin, Peters, Jackson, and god knows who else.* As great as Nicks is, he's been hurt a lot and hasn't put up big stats.* Cruz has been doing it for only one year.* D line is arguably roughly equal.* Before last season, with Vick putting up monster numbers, etc etc and before Eli and Cruz put on a show for the ages, it was deserving the eagles were the "chosen ones".</P>


As of now, I don't believe the Cowboys do have the talent advantage over us.* And the media senses that too.* I've only read that the media chooses the eagles to win it - which is fair.* Like I was saying, if I was a betting man, I'd do the same.</P>


But in the past - prior to last year, it was fair to say that the Cowboys were a very good all around talented team - individually.* In the past I definitely thought they had more talent then we did.* <U>From the media standpoint , </U>many had Romo as a better QB than Eli - agree or not.* Barber wasn't garbage, Jones was a talented backup, they had Witten, a good dline, and their secondary wasn't such a liability.* Their oline was also very good.* On top of that, hell, Romo was a good looking guy, plays golf, dates celebs, and is very marketable.** </P>


To take it on step further, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, merely that I can see where the media is coming from.** I Think of it this way.* The media is like an NFL fan*that holds no loyalties.* this means they don't know any team in much sort of depth.* They'll watch some games,highlights,and look at stats.* Readers/Fans like highlights.* Explosive players and talented players provide highlights.* Thus, the media likes highlight type players/teams with star power.* Prior to this year, you can't say the Giants had much star power.* We were*treated very much like the San Antonio Spurs.</P>


*</P>

lol

gumby742
06-27-2012, 11:01 PM
In general, Philly and Dallas were also seen as having better overall talent which also contributes to the fact.* So the years where all NFC East teams were mediocre, they media just chooses who they feel have the most talent/potential.


</P>


I think this was the point some folks are getting at. Why do the Eagles and Cowboys always seem to get viewed as having better overall talent?</P>


lol.* i must have missed it then.*</P>


I think the talent of the Giants is starting to come into its own now.**The dline has always gotten its due, but now Eli and Cruz have joined*the party.* I think it's safe to say that the media, up and until this year, has never been in love with Eli.* But, The eagles though have more big names which is why they probably are getting the most attention.</P>


* I believe the perceived Cowboys talent has been downgraded by media, a significant amount.* Eagles, I can see why would be chosen over us.* Cowboys?* I'm not so sure.</P>


Why were the Cowboys talent graded above the Giants in the first place? And why would the Eagles be chosen over us? I don't see the rationale...</P>


The eagles would be chosen over us based on star power and the fact that they have talent too.* Cole, Vick (flawed by very talented), McCoy, Maclin, Babin, Peters, Jackson, and god knows who else.* As great as Nicks is, he's been hurt a lot and hasn't put up big stats.* Cruz has been doing it for only one year.* D line is arguably roughly equal.* Before last season, with Vick putting up monster numbers, etc etc and before Eli and Cruz put on a show for the ages, it was deserving the eagles were the "chosen ones".</P>


As of now, I don't believe the Cowboys do have the talent advantage over us.* And the media senses that too.* I've only read that the media chooses the eagles to win it - which is fair.* Like I was saying, if I was a betting man, I'd do the same.</P>


But in the past - prior to last year, it was fair to say that the Cowboys were a very good all around talented team - individually.* In the past I definitely thought they had more talent then we did.* <U>From the media standpoint , </U>many had Romo as a better QB than Eli - agree or not.* Barber wasn't garbage, Jones was a talented backup, they had Witten, a good dline, and their secondary wasn't such a liability.* Their oline was also very good.* On top of that, hell, Romo was a good looking guy, plays golf, dates celebs, and is very marketable.** </P>


To take it on step further, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, merely that I can see where the media is coming from.** I Think of it this way.* The media is like an NFL fan*that holds no loyalties.* this means they don't know any team in much sort of depth.* They'll watch some games,highlights,and look at stats.* Readers/Fans like highlights.* Explosive players and talented players provide highlights.* Thus, the media likes highlight type players/teams with star power.* Prior to this year, you can't say the Giants had much star power.* We were*treated very much like the San Antonio Spurs.</P>


*</P>

We must have different definitions of the word "Stars"...because of the guys you listed, I would only consider Vick a "star" (and a very flawed one, as you pointed out).

And we seem to be having a circular argument here...I am asking the question "why are the Eagles and Cowboys the 'chosen ones' by the media every year?", and you are responding with "Because the media thinks they are they chosen ones".

I'll go a step further and say that I am completely mystified by the so-called experts picking the Eagles and Cowboys to finish ahead of the Giants this year...Giants are defending SB champs, have filled gaps with high-round draft picks, have every sign of team-unity in their favor...and the last time they were defending SB champs they finished the next season with the best record in the NFL (no reason to believe there will be a post-SB meltdown like some teams). Am not sure why anyone thinks the Cowboys or Eagles have surpassed them.

I will stick with my position/opinion that the league promotes certain teams like the Cowboys and the Eagles because they know that they will lose money if those teams don't have a lot of hyper around them...but that teams like the Giants who have long-standing loyal fan-bases that stick by their team even through hard times don't need the hype to make money, so they don't get the same promotion by the league (and therefore don't get the same coverage and hype by the media)

Well, isn't all this about the media and what they think? I already answered you, imo, the cowboys and eagles are the chosen ones because they have the most "stars" as they see it. As for who you or I think is a star and is impressive, it doesn't matter. The media obviously has different criteria. And for the sake of the discussion of public "respect", their opinion is the only one that matters.

You know that saying on any given sunday right? Well, that's why winning the SB has absolutely 0 effect on predicting the following season. The media choosing the eagles to win the division is similar to how other fans in the NFL are chalking our SB win as "luck". In short, we weren't great but turned it on when it counted. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in people. Let me ask you this. When the Devil Rays won the World Series, and you had to predict next season's winner, if you had to bet a million dollars, would you choose the Yankees or the Devil Rays? You think the media cares one lick about team unity and knowing each NFL team well enough to know how they drafted and the ins and outs that only us crazy fans know?

Your final paragraph, your nuts if you don't think the Cowboys and the Eagles have loyal fanbases. And even if it were true, they'd be hyping the crap out of Arizona and Seattle making the playoffs and advancing. But when they did, i read nothing but disrespect and not giving them their "due".

Edit: Let me link this again. After the one year where we dominated (2008), we got plenty of "respect" going into the next season. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=4439322&sportCat=nfl

gumby742
06-27-2012, 11:08 PM
* As great as Nicks is, he's been hurt a lot and hasn't put up big stats.**** </P>


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/79698/RGC002-willis_medium.jpg (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/79698/RGC002-willis.jpg)</P>


He's only missed 5 or 6 games in 3 years and up to this point in his career has put up better stats than Calvin Johnson.</P>

The media doesn't care about "at this point in his career", i'm sure all they care about that Johnson caught for a bazillion yards and a million TDs and that Nicks wasn't even in the top 10. So yeah, Nicks while impressive and productive, isn't flashy nor is he a beastly stats person.

For Giants fans, we don't care. But I'm sure for the producers of Sportscenter and their media cronies, it's very important.

Rat_bastich
06-28-2012, 06:50 AM
And, here they give them their "due"...sort of...


http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/tag/_/name/2012-nfl-hidden-treasure

buddy33
06-28-2012, 09:25 AM
Nicks stats actually are very good. I thought before the season started there was a stat that he had that put him up there with Rice and Moss. Didn't he just set a record for post season yards?

As far as hyping goes, as of last year Nicks and Cruz where far more impressive than any NFC East team.

nygsb42champs
06-28-2012, 09:26 AM
It is what it is. The giants players dont get upset so why should we.

gumby742
06-28-2012, 09:42 AM
As great as Nicks is, he's been hurt a lot and hasn't put up big stats. </P>


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/79698/RGC002-willis_medium.jpg (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/79698/RGC002-willis.jpg)</P>


He's only missed 5 or 6 games in 3 years and up to this point in his career has put up better stats than Calvin Johnson.</P>


Yes, seriously...especially when comparing to the Eagles' WRs, Nicks has more yards, yards per game, receptions, receptions per game, etc than either Jackson or Maclin. Still not quite understanding how those guys are "stars" and Nicks is not. Manningham is actually on-par with Jackson, and he did that as the #3 WR (not a starter).</P>


I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin. Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page. So it's not like he's a scrub. But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</P>


But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing. It isn't about individual vs individual. It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better". In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season.</P>


People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's not far fetched at all. The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent than we do. And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we did win the SB. The NFC East is wide open.</P>


And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and done in the post season.</P>

buddy33
06-28-2012, 09:50 AM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR.

While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.

gumby742
06-28-2012, 09:52 AM
Nicks stats actually are very good. I thought before the season started there was a stat that he had that put him up there with Rice and Moss. Didn't he just set a record for post season yards? As far as hyping goes, as of last year Nicks and Cruz where far more impressive than any NFC East team.</P>


They certainly are. But for whatever reason, he doesn't have the publicity that Jackson has. My only guess is that Jackson is a much faster and more explosive player. He's a human highlight reel that guy. Heck. Wes Welker has been one of if not the most productive WR the last many years and he still doesn't really got a whole lot of respect. He has super star numbers, but he certainly isn't treated as a super start by the media. For the most part he's under the radar - given the impressive stats he's put up. He's just not a super star, high light reel , kind of player.</P>


</P>

gumby742
06-28-2012, 10:04 AM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR. While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.</P>


It depends on how you define average. I think it's safe to say that Nicks is better at the technicalities of the position. However, once the ball is caught, few people can do what Jackson can do. Explosive scares people which garners immediate respect. Slow and steady - not as much. </P>


Here's the thing. Dallas, Philly, and Us have not been dominant in the last couple years. Although a few years ago both Dallas and Philly were 11-5. But anyway, just because the media chooses the eagles or dallas to win the east, doesn't mean they think they're a good team. They just need to choose SOMEBODY. And at this point in time, there is no clear favorite. So it's not like they have a love fest with any of those teams imo.</P>


The media does recognize the Giants have talent. They've been beating this whole "feared dline" thing to death. There waseven an article comparing our defense to a really great defense. Are they nuts?! I mean really? Our defense was ****e most the time. Eli and Cruz are getting lots of publicity as well. Someone needs to keep a list of all the positive things said about our talent, because it'd be a big list. The problem is that once the media says that the eagles/cowboys are talented and they will win the East, all of those props are forgotten.</P>

buddy33
06-28-2012, 10:09 AM
Yes, he is explosive, but speed alone does not make a great WR.

I'm not buying that the media hates the Giants, but I just do think they have a thing for a couple of other teams. I mean they make it seem like he NFL needs Dallas to be good and ever since he was drafted they have all over Vick as the greatest player to ever step on the field.

gumby742
06-28-2012, 10:27 AM
Yes, he is explosive, but speed alone does not make a great WR. I'm not buying that the media hates the Giants, but I just do think they have a thing for a couple of other teams. I mean they make it seem like he NFL needs Dallas to be good and ever since he was drafted they have all over Vick as the greatest player to ever step on the field.</P>


I'm sure the media has some bias as they're always going to go with storylines that sell the most. Everyone is going to see things differently, but it just strikes me as odd when people say that the Giants never get their due. It's like, because we won the SB, we're now the greatest thing since sliced bread.</P>

yoeddy
06-28-2012, 01:37 PM
I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin. Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page. So it's not like he's a scrub. But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</p>

Manningham is easily as fast and explosive as Jackson, with similar yards/game and TDs in 2009 and 2010, but never got anywhere near Jackson's "star" recognition. And the combination of Nicks and Manningham has been at least on-par with Maclin and Jackson...so why the Eagles are viewed as "stars" and the Giants aren't is still mystifying.
</p>




But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing. It isn't about individual vs individual. It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better". In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season. People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's
not far fetched at all. The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent
than we do. And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we
did win the SB. The NFC East is wide open.And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season
in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and
done in the post season.</p>

Well, you are the one who brought up the "star" thing, so there is no argument from me on this point. The Giants and Eagles have similar records over the last 7-8 years...the differentiating thing being that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls. The Giants are defending SB champions and the Eagles missed the playoffs in 2011, yet the Eagles are being predicted to win the division? Mystifying. The Cowboys have a losing record in the last 2 years, missing the playoffs in both years (getting swept by the Giants in 2011 to get knocked out), have only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 8 years and have only won 1 playoff game in the last 15 years, and they are being predicted to finish ahead of the Giants. Even more mystifying....and very far fetched IMHO</p>

yoeddy
06-28-2012, 01:44 PM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR. While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.</p>


It depends on how you define average. I think it's safe to say that Nicks is better at the technicalities of the position. However, once the ball is caught, few people can do what Jackson can do. Explosive scares people which garners immediate respect. Slow and steady - not as much. </p>


Here's the thing. Dallas, Philly, and Us have not been dominant in the last couple years. Although a few years ago both Dallas and Philly were 11-5. But anyway, just because the media chooses the eagles or dallas to win the east, doesn't mean they think they're a good team. They just need to choose SOMEBODY. And at this point in time, there is no clear favorite. So it's not like they have a love fest with any of those teams imo.</p>


The media does recognize the Giants have talent. They've been beating this whole "feared dline" thing to death. There waseven an article comparing our defense to a really great defense. Are they nuts?! I mean really? Our defense was ****e most the time. Eli and Cruz are getting lots of publicity as well. Someone needs to keep a list of all the positive things said about our talent, because it'd be a big list. The problem is that once the media says that the eagles/cowboys are talented and they will win the East, all of those props are forgotten.</p>

I think that in the case where there is "no clear favorite", the most rational thing to do is to pick the defending Super Bowl champion over two teams that were .500 and missed the playoffs. But that's just me...

buddy33
06-28-2012, 02:23 PM
Manningham is a better WR than Jackson but he is not as fast or explosive.

buddy33
06-28-2012, 02:32 PM
About taking the Super Bowl champs over other teams, it's very hard to repeat. They where also 9-7. So I get why the media is not favoring the Super Bowl champs.

With their schedule, if they start the season 4-2 or 5-1 you will see how much attention they will get.

gumby742
06-28-2012, 02:39 PM
I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin. Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page. So it's not like he's a scrub. But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</P>


Manningham is easily as fast and explosive as Jackson, with similar yards/game and TDs in 2009 and 2010, but never got anywhere near Jackson's "star" recognition. And the combination of Nicks and Manningham has been at least on-par with Maclin and Jackson...so why the Eagles are viewed as "stars" and the Giants aren't is still mystifying.
</P>



But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing. It isn't about individual vs individual. It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better". In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season. People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's not far fetched at all. The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent than we do. And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we did win the SB. The NFC East is wide open.And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and done in the post season.</P>


Well, you are the one who brought up the "star" thing, so there is no argument from me on this point. The Giants and Eagles have similar records over the last 7-8 years...the differentiating thing being that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls. The Giants are defending SB champions and the Eagles missed the playoffs in 2011, yet the Eagles are being predicted to win the division? Mystifying. The Cowboys have a losing record in the last 2 years, missing the playoffs in both years (getting swept by the Giants in 2011 to get knocked out), have only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 8 years and have only won 1 playoff game in the last 15 years, and they are being predicted to finish ahead of the Giants. Even more mystifying....and very far fetched IMHO</P>


</P>


Manningham as explosive as Jackson? I don't think many will agree with you there. Manningham never broke 1k yards and doesn't have the potential impact that Jackson does on the game. Jackson is a rediculous punt returner and lead the league in Avg YDS/catch in 2009 and 2010. Heck, most people didn't even know who Manningham was until his SB catch. If Manningham really was such an explosive player, he certainly would have commanded a much larger contract than what he got from the 49ers.</P>


And to expect the media to know the Giants as well as Giants fans is too much of an expectation. Like I said, not many people outside of the NFC East knew much about Manningham before the SB.</P>

gumby742
06-28-2012, 02:41 PM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR. While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.</P>


It depends on how you define average. I think it's safe to say that Nicks is better at the technicalities of the position. However, once the ball is caught, few people can do what Jackson can do. Explosive scares people which garners immediate respect. Slow and steady - not as much. </P>


Here's the thing. Dallas, Philly, and Us have not been dominant in the last couple years. Although a few years ago both Dallas and Philly were 11-5. But anyway, just because the media chooses the eagles or dallas to win the east, doesn't mean they think they're a good team. They just need to choose SOMEBODY. And at this point in time, there is no clear favorite. So it's not like they have a love fest with any of those teams imo.</P>


The media does recognize the Giants have talent. They've been beating this whole "feared dline" thing to death. There waseven an article comparing our defense to a really great defense. Are they nuts?! I mean really? Our defense was ****e most the time. Eli and Cruz are getting lots of publicity as well. Someone needs to keep a list of all the positive things said about our talent, because it'd be a big list. The problem is that once the media says that the eagles/cowboys are talented and they will win the East, all of those props are forgotten.</P>




I think that in the case where there is "no clear favorite", the most rational thing to do is to pick the defending Super Bowl champion over two teams that were .500 and missed the playoffs. But that's just me...
</P>


To each his/her own, but if you were to put money on a team winning the MLB world series next season, which team would you choose? Would you automatically choose the team that won it the season before? I doubt it.</P>

Morehead State
06-28-2012, 02:44 PM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR. While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.</P>


It depends on how you define average. I think it's safe to say that Nicks is better at the technicalities of the position. However, once the ball is caught, few people can do what Jackson can do. Explosive scares people which garners immediate respect. Slow and steady - not as much. </P>


Here's the thing. Dallas, Philly, and Us have not been dominant in the last couple years. Although a few years ago both Dallas and Philly were 11-5. But anyway, just because the media chooses the eagles or dallas to win the east, doesn't mean they think they're a good team. They just need to choose SOMEBODY. And at this point in time, there is no clear favorite. So it's not like they have a love fest with any of those teams imo.</P>


The media does recognize the Giants have talent. They've been beating this whole "feared dline" thing to death. There waseven an article comparing our defense to a really great defense. Are they nuts?! I mean really? Our defense was ****e most the time. Eli and Cruz are getting lots of publicity as well. Someone needs to keep a list of all the positive things said about our talent, because it'd be a big list. The problem is that once the media says that the eagles/cowboys are talented and they will win the East, all of those props are forgotten.</P>




I think that in the case where there is "no clear favorite", the most rational thing to do is to pick the defending Super Bowl champion over two teams that were .500 and missed the playoffs. But that's just me...
</P>


To each his/her own, but if you were to put money on a team winning the MLB world series next season, which team would you choose? Would you automatically choose the team that won it the season before? I doubt it.</P>


</P>


I can't stand the guy but Desean Jackson is a heck of a football player.</P>

Pa1jintfan
06-28-2012, 02:55 PM
The biggest thing that gets me is, the giants were chosen to go from 1st to worst in the division for this upcoming season. How could they even come up with that.

yoeddy
06-28-2012, 04:06 PM
About taking the Super Bowl champs over other teams, it's very hard to repeat. They where also 9-7. So I get why the media is not favoring the Super Bowl champs.

With their schedule, if they start the season 4-2 or 5-1 you will see how much attention they will get.

Yes it's hard to win back to back Super Bowls...but the last time the Giants followed it up with a division win and a conference-best record, so based on track record, they should be favored to win the division at least. This is a different discussion from whether they will repeat as SB champs...

galaxy10
06-28-2012, 04:08 PM
The biggest thing that gets me is, the giants were chosen to go from 1st to worst in the division for this upcoming season. How could they even come up with that.

Because they are idiots. plain and simple. I love football and used to watch anything football on TV. I stopped watching because I can't stand listening to such garbage. If I hear one more comment about how great the eagles and the cowboys are I am going to puke. The eagles have not one superbowl to there history and the cowboys have a deficient defense and a QB who chokes. Yet, they are going to win the superbowl and the Giants are going to the cellar. Yeah right.

yoeddy
06-28-2012, 04:10 PM
I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin.* Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page.* So it's not like he's a scrub.*** But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</P>


Manningham is easily as fast and explosive as Jackson, with similar yards/game and TDs in 2009 and 2010, but never got anywhere near Jackson's "star" recognition.* And the combination of Nicks and Manningham has been at least on-par with Maclin and Jackson...so why the Eagles are viewed as "stars" and the Giants aren't is still mystifying.
</P>



But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing.* It isn't about individual vs individual.* It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better".* In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season. People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's not far fetched at all.* The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent than we do.* And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we did win the SB.** The NFC East is wide open.And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and done in the post season.</P>


Well, you are the one who brought up the "star" thing, so there is no argument from me on this point.* The Giants and Eagles have similar records over the last 7-8 years...the differentiating thing being that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls.* The Giants are defending SB champions and the Eagles missed the playoffs in 2011, yet the Eagles are being predicted to win the division?* Mystifying.* The Cowboys have a losing record in the last 2 years, missing the playoffs in both years (getting swept by the Giants in 2011 to get knocked out), have only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 8 years and have only won 1 playoff game in the last 15 years, and they are being predicted to finish ahead of the Giants.* Even more mystifying....and very far fetched IMHO</P>


</P>


Manningham as explosive as Jackson?* I don't think many will agree with you there.* Manningham never broke 1k yards and doesn't have the potential impact that Jackson does on the game.* Jackson is a rediculous punt returner and lead the league in Avg YDS/catch in 2009 and 2010.* Heck, most people didn't even know who Manningham was until his SB catch.* If Manningham really was such an explosive player, he certainly would have commanded a much larger contract than what he got from the 49ers.</P>


And to expect the media to know the Giants as well as Giants fans is too much of an expectation.* Like I said, not many people outside of the NFC East knew much about Manningham before the SB.</P>

I might be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't Manningham among the league's best at plays longer than 20 yards?

yoeddy
06-28-2012, 04:16 PM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR. While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.</P>


It depends on how you define average.* I think it's safe to say that Nicks is better at the technicalities of the position.* However, once the ball is caught, few people can do what Jackson can do.* Explosive scares people which garners immediate respect.* Slow and steady - not as much.* </P>


Here's the thing.* Dallas, Philly, and Us have not been dominant in the last couple years.* Although a few years ago both Dallas and Philly were 11-5.* But anyway, just because the media chooses the eagles or dallas to win the east, doesn't mean they think they're a good team.* They just need to choose SOMEBODY.* And at this point in time, there is no clear favorite.* So it's not like they have a love fest with any of those teams imo.</P>


The media does recognize the Giants have talent.* They've been beating this whole "feared dline" thing to death.** There was*even an article comparing our defense to a really great defense.* Are they nuts?!* I mean really?* Our defense was ****e most the time.* *Eli and Cruz are getting lots of publicity as well.* Someone needs to keep a list of all the positive things said about our talent, because it'd be a big list.* The problem is that once the media says that the eagles/cowboys are talented and they will win the East, all of those props are forgotten.</P>




I think that in the case where there is "no clear favorite", the most rational thing to do is to pick the defending Super Bowl champion over two teams that were .500 and missed the playoffs.* But that's just me...
</P>


To each his/her own, but if you were to put money on a team winning the MLB world series next season, which team would you choose?* Would you automatically choose the team that won it the season before?* I doubt it.</P>

We aren't talking about who we would choose to win a championship...we are talking about predictions to win the division. I would certainly pick the prior year's world series champ to win their division the following year, assuming the team stayed relatively intact.

Giants are defending division champs. Am unclear about what the Eagles or Cowboys have done to make anyone think they have surpassed the defending division champs.

yoeddy
06-28-2012, 04:18 PM
The biggest thing that gets me is, the giants were chosen to go from 1st to worst in the division for this upcoming season. How could they even come up with that.

Because they are idiots. plain and simple. I love football and used to watch anything football on TV.* I stopped watching because I can't stand listening to such garbage.* If I hear one more comment about how great the eagles and the cowboys are I am going to puke. The eagles have not one superbowl to there history and the cowboys have a deficient defense and a QB who chokes.* Yet, they are going to win the superbowl and the Giants are going to the cellar.* Yeah right.


Ok, I can accept that...

gumby742
06-28-2012, 04:37 PM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR. While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.</P>


It depends on how you define average. I think it's safe to say that Nicks is better at the technicalities of the position. However, once the ball is caught, few people can do what Jackson can do. Explosive scares people which garners immediate respect. Slow and steady - not as much. </P>


Here's the thing. Dallas, Philly, and Us have not been dominant in the last couple years. Although a few years ago both Dallas and Philly were 11-5. But anyway, just because the media chooses the eagles or dallas to win the east, doesn't mean they think they're a good team. They just need to choose SOMEBODY. And at this point in time, there is no clear favorite. So it's not like they have a love fest with any of those teams imo.</P>


The media does recognize the Giants have talent. They've been beating this whole "feared dline" thing to death. There waseven an article comparing our defense to a really great defense. Are they nuts?! I mean really? Our defense was ****e most the time. Eli and Cruz are getting lots of publicity as well. Someone needs to keep a list of all the positive things said about our talent, because it'd be a big list. The problem is that once the media says that the eagles/cowboys are talented and they will win the East, all of those props are forgotten.</P>




I think that in the case where there is "no clear favorite", the most rational thing to do is to pick the defending Super Bowl champion over two teams that were .500 and missed the playoffs. But that's just me...
</P>


To each his/her own, but if you were to put money on a team winning the MLB world series next season, which team would you choose? Would you automatically choose the team that won it the season before? I doubt it.</P>


We aren't talking about who we would choose to win a championship...we are talking about predictions to win the division. I would certainly pick the prior year's world series champ to win their division the following year, assuming the team stayed relatively intact. Giants are defending division champs. Am unclear about what the Eagles or Cowboys have done to make anyone think they have surpassed the defending division champs.</P>


Same question applies. Change the scenario to division then. At the end of the day division champs is just a title. But hey, if you'd be willing to bet away money just based on title alone, it's your money. </P>


The eagles beat us twice. The Redskins beat us twice. We beat the Cowboys twice. We didn't dominate anyone. Hell, we won the division with a 9-7 record. that's terrible. To say those teams needs to "surpass us" is a gross overstatement.The ball could have easily bounced towards either team. We weren't exactly the Packers destroying everyone. Choosing us to win the division wasn't exactly a slam dunk.</P>

gumby742
06-28-2012, 04:40 PM
I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin. Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page. So it's not like he's a scrub. But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</P>


Manningham is easily as fast and explosive as Jackson, with similar yards/game and TDs in 2009 and 2010, but never got anywhere near Jackson's "star" recognition. And the combination of Nicks and Manningham has been at least on-par with Maclin and Jackson...so why the Eagles are viewed as "stars" and the Giants aren't is still mystifying.
</P>



But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing. It isn't about individual vs individual. It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better". In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season. People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's not far fetched at all. The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent than we do. And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we did win the SB. The NFC East is wide open.And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and done in the post season.</P>


Well, you are the one who brought up the "star" thing, so there is no argument from me on this point. The Giants and Eagles have similar records over the last 7-8 years...the differentiating thing being that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls. The Giants are defending SB champions and the Eagles missed the playoffs in 2011, yet the Eagles are being predicted to win the division? Mystifying. The Cowboys have a losing record in the last 2 years, missing the playoffs in both years (getting swept by the Giants in 2011 to get knocked out), have only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 8 years and have only won 1 playoff game in the last 15 years, and they are being predicted to finish ahead of the Giants. Even more mystifying....and very far fetched IMHO</P>


</P>


Manningham as explosive as Jackson? I don't think many will agree with you there. Manningham never broke 1k yards and doesn't have the potential impact that Jackson does on the game. Jackson is a rediculous punt returner and lead the league in Avg YDS/catch in 2009 and 2010. Heck, most people didn't even know who Manningham was until his SB catch. If Manningham really was such an explosive player, he certainly would have commanded a much larger contract than what he got from the 49ers.</P>


And to expect the media to know the Giants as well as Giants fans is too much of an expectation. Like I said, not many people outside of the NFC East knew much about Manningham before the SB.</P>


I might be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't Manningham among the league's best at plays longer than 20 yards?</P>


Are you really trying to argue that Manningham is a better and more explosive player then MeSean Jackson? Dude. Take whatever stats you want, but few people will agree with you.</P>

yoeddy
06-28-2012, 06:52 PM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR. While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.</P>


It depends on how you define average.* I think it's safe to say that Nicks is better at the technicalities of the position.* However, once the ball is caught, few people can do what Jackson can do.* Explosive scares people which garners immediate respect.* Slow and steady - not as much.* </P>


Here's the thing.* Dallas, Philly, and Us have not been dominant in the last couple years.* Although a few years ago both Dallas and Philly were 11-5.* But anyway, just because the media chooses the eagles or dallas to win the east, doesn't mean they think they're a good team.* They just need to choose SOMEBODY.* And at this point in time, there is no clear favorite.* So it's not like they have a love fest with any of those teams imo.</P>


The media does recognize the Giants have talent.* They've been beating this whole "feared dline" thing to death.** There was*even an article comparing our defense to a really great defense.* Are they nuts?!* I mean really?* Our defense was ****e most the time.* *Eli and Cruz are getting lots of publicity as well.* Someone needs to keep a list of all the positive things said about our talent, because it'd be a big list.* The problem is that once the media says that the eagles/cowboys are talented and they will win the East, all of those props are forgotten.</P>




I think that in the case where there is "no clear favorite", the most rational thing to do is to pick the defending Super Bowl champion over two teams that were .500 and missed the playoffs.* But that's just me...
</P>


To each his/her own, but if you were to put money on a team winning the MLB world series next season, which team would you choose?* Would you automatically choose the team that won it the season before?* I doubt it.</P>


We aren't talking about who we would choose to win a championship...we are talking about predictions to win the division. I would certainly pick the prior year's world series champ to win their division the following year, assuming the team stayed relatively intact. Giants are defending division champs. Am unclear about what the Eagles or Cowboys have done to make anyone think they have surpassed the defending division champs.</P>


Same question applies.* Change the scenario to division then.* At the end of the day division champs is just a title.* But hey, if you'd be willing to bet away money just based on title alone, it's your money.* </P>


The eagles beat us twice.* The Redskins beat us twice.* We beat the Cowboys twice.** We didn't dominate anyone.* Hell, we won the division with a 9-7 record.* that's terrible.* To say those teams needs to "surpass us" is a gross overstatement.*The ball could have easily bounced towards either team.* We weren't exactly the Packers destroying everyone.* Choosing us to win the division wasn't exactly a slam dunk.</P>

What does money and betting have to do with anything? I thought we were discussing why the Giants don't seem to get their due in the media...has nothing to do with betting money.

I am pretty sure the Eagles only beat us once (in a close game where the Eagles scored the go-ahead with under 3 minutes)...and in the game we won, we beat the Eagles by 13 points. And we beat the Cowboys in the season finale by 17 points (led by 21 at halftime)...does that not count as a "dominant" win?

yoeddy
06-28-2012, 06:57 PM
I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin.* Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page.* So it's not like he's a scrub.*** But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</P>


Manningham is easily as fast and explosive as Jackson, with similar yards/game and TDs in 2009 and 2010, but never got anywhere near Jackson's "star" recognition.* And the combination of Nicks and Manningham has been at least on-par with Maclin and Jackson...so why the Eagles are viewed as "stars" and the Giants aren't is still mystifying.
</P>



But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing.* It isn't about individual vs individual.* It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better".* In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season. People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's not far fetched at all.* The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent than we do.* And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we did win the SB.** The NFC East is wide open.And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and done in the post season.</P>


Well, you are the one who brought up the "star" thing, so there is no argument from me on this point.* The Giants and Eagles have similar records over the last 7-8 years...the differentiating thing being that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls.* The Giants are defending SB champions and the Eagles missed the playoffs in 2011, yet the Eagles are being predicted to win the division?* Mystifying.* The Cowboys have a losing record in the last 2 years, missing the playoffs in both years (getting swept by the Giants in 2011 to get knocked out), have only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 8 years and have only won 1 playoff game in the last 15 years, and they are being predicted to finish ahead of the Giants.* Even more mystifying....and very far fetched IMHO</P>


</P>


Manningham as explosive as Jackson?* I don't think many will agree with you there.* Manningham never broke 1k yards and doesn't have the potential impact that Jackson does on the game.* Jackson is a rediculous punt returner and lead the league in Avg YDS/catch in 2009 and 2010.* Heck, most people didn't even know who Manningham was until his SB catch.* If Manningham really was such an explosive player, he certainly would have commanded a much larger contract than what he got from the 49ers.</P>


And to expect the media to know the Giants as well as Giants fans is too much of an expectation.* Like I said, not many people outside of the NFC East knew much about Manningham before the SB.</P>


I might be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't Manningham among the league's best at plays longer than 20 yards?</P>


Are you really trying to argue that Manningham is a better and more explosive player then MeSean Jackson? Dude.* Take whatever stats you want, but few people will agree with you.</P>

I'm saying that Manningham is at least in the same ballpark as Jackson, as seen by his numbers and his contributions in key moments (eg. the Super Bowl)...and that Jackson is not so much more of a "star" as to tip the balance of predicting that the Eagles will improve enough over last year to win the division over the Giants.

gumby742
06-29-2012, 12:27 PM
Yeah he is explosive, but Jackson is an average WR. While I don't think the media hates the Giants, I do think they have a thing for the Eagles and Dallas. I mean you can say the Giants have not been dominant, but when have those other teams been dominant recently? Honestly I don see how when the media brings up the other teams they say they have so much talent yet you don't hear much about the Giants and their talent. The Gianys are a young team and have some very good players.</P>


It depends on how you define average.* I think it's safe to say that Nicks is better at the technicalities of the position.* However, once the ball is caught, few people can do what Jackson can do.* Explosive scares people which garners immediate respect.* Slow and steady - not as much.* </P>


Here's the thing.* Dallas, Philly, and Us have not been dominant in the last couple years.* Although a few years ago both Dallas and Philly were 11-5.* But anyway, just because the media chooses the eagles or dallas to win the east, doesn't mean they think they're a good team.* They just need to choose SOMEBODY.* And at this point in time, there is no clear favorite.* So it's not like they have a love fest with any of those teams imo.</P>


The media does recognize the Giants have talent.* They've been beating this whole "feared dline" thing to death.** There was*even an article comparing our defense to a really great defense.* Are they nuts?!* I mean really?* Our defense was ****e most the time.* *Eli and Cruz are getting lots of publicity as well.* Someone needs to keep a list of all the positive things said about our talent, because it'd be a big list.* The problem is that once the media says that the eagles/cowboys are talented and they will win the East, all of those props are forgotten.</P>




I think that in the case where there is "no clear favorite", the most rational thing to do is to pick the defending Super Bowl champion over two teams that were .500 and missed the playoffs.* But that's just me...
</P>


To each his/her own, but if you were to put money on a team winning the MLB world series next season, which team would you choose?* Would you automatically choose the team that won it the season before?* I doubt it.</P>


We aren't talking about who we would choose to win a championship...we are talking about predictions to win the division. I would certainly pick the prior year's world series champ to win their division the following year, assuming the team stayed relatively intact. Giants are defending division champs. Am unclear about what the Eagles or Cowboys have done to make anyone think they have surpassed the defending division champs.</P>


Same question applies.* Change the scenario to division then.* At the end of the day division champs is just a title.* But hey, if you'd be willing to bet away money just based on title alone, it's your money.* </P>


The eagles beat us twice.* The Redskins beat us twice.* We beat the Cowboys twice.** We didn't dominate anyone.* Hell, we won the division with a 9-7 record.* that's terrible.* To say those teams needs to "surpass us" is a gross overstatement.*The ball could have easily bounced towards either team.* We weren't exactly the Packers destroying everyone.* Choosing us to win the division wasn't exactly a slam dunk.</P>

What does money and betting have to do with anything? I thought we were discussing why the Giants don't seem to get their due in the media...has nothing to do with betting money.

I am pretty sure the Eagles only beat us once (in a close game where the Eagles scored the go-ahead with under 3 minutes)...and in the game we won, we beat the Eagles by 13 points. And we beat the Cowboys in the season finale by 17 points (led by 21 at halftime)...does that not count as a "dominant" win?
I mention money because it's real world thinking. People get all looney when talking about the Giants.

Ok. We beat the eagles once. 1-1 against them. 0-2 against the last place red skins. Again, explain that one of the losses was close, etc etc, but those kind of performances don't exactly inspire people

gumby742
06-29-2012, 12:28 PM
I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin.* Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page.* So it's not like he's a scrub.*** But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</P>


Manningham is easily as fast and explosive as Jackson, with similar yards/game and TDs in 2009 and 2010, but never got anywhere near Jackson's "star" recognition.* And the combination of Nicks and Manningham has been at least on-par with Maclin and Jackson...so why the Eagles are viewed as "stars" and the Giants aren't is still mystifying.
</P>



But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing.* It isn't about individual vs individual.* It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better".* In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season. People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's not far fetched at all.* The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent than we do.* And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we did win the SB.** The NFC East is wide open.And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and done in the post season.</P>


Well, you are the one who brought up the "star" thing, so there is no argument from me on this point.* The Giants and Eagles have similar records over the last 7-8 years...the differentiating thing being that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls.* The Giants are defending SB champions and the Eagles missed the playoffs in 2011, yet the Eagles are being predicted to win the division?* Mystifying.* The Cowboys have a losing record in the last 2 years, missing the playoffs in both years (getting swept by the Giants in 2011 to get knocked out), have only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 8 years and have only won 1 playoff game in the last 15 years, and they are being predicted to finish ahead of the Giants.* Even more mystifying....and very far fetched IMHO</P>


</P>


Manningham as explosive as Jackson?* I don't think many will agree with you there.* Manningham never broke 1k yards and doesn't have the potential impact that Jackson does on the game.* Jackson is a rediculous punt returner and lead the league in Avg YDS/catch in 2009 and 2010.* Heck, most people didn't even know who Manningham was until his SB catch.* If Manningham really was such an explosive player, he certainly would have commanded a much larger contract than what he got from the 49ers.</P>


And to expect the media to know the Giants as well as Giants fans is too much of an expectation.* Like I said, not many people outside of the NFC East knew much about Manningham before the SB.</P>


I might be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't Manningham among the league's best at plays longer than 20 yards?</P>


Are you really trying to argue that Manningham is a better and more explosive player then MeSean Jackson? Dude.* Take whatever stats you want, but few people will agree with you.</P>

I'm saying that Manningham is at least in the same ballpark as Jackson, as seen by his numbers and his contributions in key moments (eg. the Super Bowl)...and that Jackson is not so much more of a "star" as to tip the balance of predicting that the Eagles will improve enough over last year to win the division over the Giants.

To each her/own, but I think you're going to be alone in all this. There's a reason why Jackson got a huge contract and Manningham didn't.

yoeddy
06-29-2012, 12:41 PM
I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin.* Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page.* So it's not like he's a scrub.*** But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</P>


Manningham is easily as fast and explosive as Jackson, with similar yards/game and TDs in 2009 and 2010, but never got anywhere near Jackson's "star" recognition.* And the combination of Nicks and Manningham has been at least on-par with Maclin and Jackson...so why the Eagles are viewed as "stars" and the Giants aren't is still mystifying.
</P>



But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing.* It isn't about individual vs individual.* It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better".* In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season. People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's not far fetched at all.* The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent than we do.* And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we did win the SB.** The NFC East is wide open.And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and done in the post season.</P>


Well, you are the one who brought up the "star" thing, so there is no argument from me on this point.* The Giants and Eagles have similar records over the last 7-8 years...the differentiating thing being that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls.* The Giants are defending SB champions and the Eagles missed the playoffs in 2011, yet the Eagles are being predicted to win the division?* Mystifying.* The Cowboys have a losing record in the last 2 years, missing the playoffs in both years (getting swept by the Giants in 2011 to get knocked out), have only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 8 years and have only won 1 playoff game in the last 15 years, and they are being predicted to finish ahead of the Giants.* Even more mystifying....and very far fetched IMHO</P>


</P>


Manningham as explosive as Jackson?* I don't think many will agree with you there.* Manningham never broke 1k yards and doesn't have the potential impact that Jackson does on the game.* Jackson is a rediculous punt returner and lead the league in Avg YDS/catch in 2009 and 2010.* Heck, most people didn't even know who Manningham was until his SB catch.* If Manningham really was such an explosive player, he certainly would have commanded a much larger contract than what he got from the 49ers.</P>


And to expect the media to know the Giants as well as Giants fans is too much of an expectation.* Like I said, not many people outside of the NFC East knew much about Manningham before the SB.</P>


I might be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't Manningham among the league's best at plays longer than 20 yards?</P>


Are you really trying to argue that Manningham is a better and more explosive player then MeSean Jackson? Dude.* Take whatever stats you want, but few people will agree with you.</P>

I'm saying that Manningham is at least in the same ballpark as Jackson, as seen by his numbers and his contributions in key moments (eg. the Super Bowl)...and that Jackson is not so much more of a "star" as to tip the balance of predicting that the Eagles will improve enough over last year to win the division over the Giants.

To each her/own, but I think you're going to be alone in all this. There's a reason why Jackson got a huge contract and Manningham didn't.

I think for a guy who scores an average of 5 TDs per season, Desean Jackson is incredibly over-paid....

yoeddy
06-29-2012, 12:48 PM
I mention money because it's real world thinking. People get all looney when talking about the Giants.

I don't think anyone was talking about betting in this thread. Just focused on why the Giants are being picked to come in 3rd in the division and miss the playoffs.


Ok. We beat the eagles once. 1-1 against them. 0-2 against the last place red skins. Again, explain that one of the losses was close, etc etc, but those kind of performances don't exactly inspire people

The Eagles lost to the Bills (6-10), the Bears (8-8), the Cardinals (8-8), and the Seahawks (7-9)...and the loss to the Seahawks was by 17 points. Does that inspire people?

The Cowboys were 2-4 in the division, losing to the Eagles (8-8) twice, the Cardinals (8-8), and the Jets (8-8). This inspires confidence in people?

Yes, the Washington losses were deflating, as was the loss to Seattle. But the Giants were 9-7, with two of those losses coming from Green Bay and New Orleans....

And certainly I would think that a Super Bowl victory would provide more inspiration than anything those teams did last year.

sharick88
06-29-2012, 01:05 PM
The biggest thing that gets me is, the giants were chosen to go from 1st to worst in the division for this upcoming season. How could they even come up with that.

Because they are idiots. plain and simple. I love football and used to watch anything football on TV.* I stopped watching because I can't stand listening to such garbage.* If I hear one more comment about how great the eagles and the cowboys are I am going to puke. The eagles have not one superbowl to there history and the cowboys have a deficient defense and a QB who chokes.* Yet, they are going to win the superbowl and the Giants are going to the cellar.* Yeah right.


lmao

NYgiants141
06-29-2012, 03:02 PM
This from ESPN front page NFL:</p>


http://picasion.com/pic55/a309cc7a4876bac5789495363264cdb7.gif</p>


Cool picture, but read the bottom.... Are the Giants declining? NYG could miss the playoffs.</p>


How the hell can we be "declining"? I dont get it. It just doesnt make any sense what so ever. Declining from what? Winnign the superbowl? Again? Yeah, Giants could miss playoffs, so could every other team in the NFL. Giants could also MAKE the playoffs. Great job over there at ESPN. But Gronk is a better player then any player on the Giants, even Eli. </p>


They just absolutely hate us. And I love it. </p>

Does that say our look at the top players in 2015? 2015??? Lol. That's when you know not to pay attention to anything these writers write. And I like it better when they hate us. We're more successful that way.

gumby742
06-29-2012, 09:09 PM
I mention money because it's real world thinking. People get all looney when talking about the Giants.

I don't think anyone was talking about betting in this thread. Just focused on why the Giants are being picked to come in 3rd in the division and miss the playoffs.


Ok. We beat the eagles once. 1-1 against them. 0-2 against the last place red skins. Again, explain that one of the losses was close, etc etc, but those kind of performances don't exactly inspire people

The Eagles lost to the Bills (6-10), the Bears (8-8), the Cardinals (8-8), and the Seahawks (7-9)...and the loss to the Seahawks was by 17 points. Does that inspire people?

The Cowboys were 2-4 in the division, losing to the Eagles (8-8) twice, the Cardinals (8-8), and the Jets (8-8). This inspires confidence in people?

Yes, the Washington losses were deflating, as was the loss to Seattle. But the Giants were 9-7, with two of those losses coming from Green Bay and New Orleans....

And certainly I would think that a Super Bowl victory would provide more inspiration than anything those teams did last year.

1) Again, I'm just trying to put things in perspective. It isn't about money or betting. B ut it is about getting people to think outside of "football fan" dome. An example would be, "We won the SB, the analysts should pick us to win the division." What I'm trying to point out is that if it were a real life scenario outside of sports, people would, i hope, be a lot more objective about it. Heck, we can still stay within the realm of NFL, just apply it to another team. ie Being a neutral observer of an NFL team and looking in.

2) It's a brand new season. Bottom line is that despite our SB win, we were not an impressive team last season. And it's not just the media, but most other NFL fans out there chalking it up to luck etc etc. It takes much more then winning the SB to instill respect. You need to be convincing. ie dominant. Not jeckyll and hyde - like we were.

gumby742
06-29-2012, 09:15 PM
I think Nicks gets more press than Maclin.* Heck when Nicks was out with a foot injury, he got espn front page.* So it's not like he's a scrub.*** But if I was an outsider, I'd be more impressed with Speed and explosiveness and I think it's safe to say that Jackson is one of the best in the league in those categories.</P>


Manningham is easily as fast and explosive as Jackson, with similar yards/game and TDs in 2009 and 2010, but never got anywhere near Jackson's "star" recognition.* And the combination of Nicks and Manningham has been at least on-par with Maclin and Jackson...so why the Eagles are viewed as "stars" and the Giants aren't is still mystifying.
</P>



But I also think we're focusing on the wrong thing.* It isn't about individual vs individual.* It's about a team and why they are a whole are perceived as being "better".* In this case, it's why the eagles are seen as being favorites to win the east next season. People are acting as if it's outrageous opinion, when in reality it's not far fetched at all.* The eagles have talent - a rguably more talent than we do.* And we weren't exactly convincing last season - even if we did win the SB.** The NFC East is wide open.And to be fair, the one season that the Giants had a dominant season in 2008, we were favored the following season - even if we were one and done in the post season.</P>


Well, you are the one who brought up the "star" thing, so there is no argument from me on this point.* The Giants and Eagles have similar records over the last 7-8 years...the differentiating thing being that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls.* The Giants are defending SB champions and the Eagles missed the playoffs in 2011, yet the Eagles are being predicted to win the division?* Mystifying.* The Cowboys have a losing record in the last 2 years, missing the playoffs in both years (getting swept by the Giants in 2011 to get knocked out), have only made the playoffs 3 times in the last 8 years and have only won 1 playoff game in the last 15 years, and they are being predicted to finish ahead of the Giants.* Even more mystifying....and very far fetched IMHO</P>


</P>


Manningham as explosive as Jackson?* I don't think many will agree with you there.* Manningham never broke 1k yards and doesn't have the potential impact that Jackson does on the game.* Jackson is a rediculous punt returner and lead the league in Avg YDS/catch in 2009 and 2010.* Heck, most people didn't even know who Manningham was until his SB catch.* If Manningham really was such an explosive player, he certainly would have commanded a much larger contract than what he got from the 49ers.</P>


And to expect the media to know the Giants as well as Giants fans is too much of an expectation.* Like I said, not many people outside of the NFC East knew much about Manningham before the SB.</P>


I might be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't Manningham among the league's best at plays longer than 20 yards?</P>


Are you really trying to argue that Manningham is a better and more explosive player then MeSean Jackson? Dude.* Take whatever stats you want, but few people will agree with you.</P>

I'm saying that Manningham is at least in the same ballpark as Jackson, as seen by his numbers and his contributions in key moments (eg. the Super Bowl)...and that Jackson is not so much more of a "star" as to tip the balance of predicting that the Eagles will improve enough over last year to win the division over the Giants.

To each her/own, but I think you're going to be alone in all this. There's a reason why Jackson got a huge contract and Manningham didn't.

I think for a guy who scores an average of 5 TDs per season, Desean Jackson is incredibly over-paid....

I'm not going to discuss with you how great Jackson anymore is because i ****ing hate that guy. Justify it all you want. You're alone if you want to put Manningham along with MeSean Jackson.

yoeddy
06-29-2012, 09:27 PM
1) Again, I'm just trying to put things in perspective. It isn't about money or betting. B ut it is about getting people to think outside of "football fan" dome. An example would be, "We won the SB, the analysts should pick us to win the division." What I'm trying to point out is that if it were a real life scenario outside of sports, people would, i hope, be a lot more objective about it. Heck, we can still stay within the realm of NFL, just apply it to another team. ie Being a neutral observer of an NFL team and looking in.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you agreeing with me? A neutral observer would look at the defending champions and probably give them the benefit of the doubt to win their division, especially if they stayed relatively intact, and especially if the other teams in the division were .500 teams (or less)...one of whom hasn't see the playoffs since 2009. This would certainly be the perspective of someone looking from outside of the "football fan" dome.



2) It's a brand new season. Bottom line is that despite our SB win, we were not an impressive team last season. And it's not just the media, but most other NFL fans out there chalking it up to luck etc etc. It takes much more then winning the SB to instill respect. You need to be convincing. ie dominant. Not jeckyll and hyde - like we were.

The Eagles and the Cowboys were not impressive teams last year, either. In fact, I'd say they were FAR less impressive than the Giants...the Giants came up big when the season was on the line, sweeping the Cowboys when they needed it most. The Eagles finished strong, but the loss to Seattle pretty much took them out of contention. The losses sustained by the Eagles and Cowboys over the season against .500 or less teams makes them more jeckyll and hyde than the Giants...at least the Giants had two of their losses to division winners (GB and Saints). Are you saying that the Cowboys and Eagles were both convincing, i.e. dominant? If so, then I could not disagree more....

gumby742
06-29-2012, 09:48 PM
1) Again, I'm just trying to put things in perspective. It isn't about money or betting. B ut it is about getting people to think outside of "football fan" dome. An example would be, "We won the SB, the analysts should pick us to win the division." What I'm trying to point out is that if it were a real life scenario outside of sports, people would, i hope, be a lot more objective about it. Heck, we can still stay within the realm of NFL, just apply it to another team. ie Being a neutral observer of an NFL team and looking in.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you agreeing with me? A neutral observer would look at the defending champions and probably give them the benefit of the doubt to win their division, especially if they stayed relatively intact, and especially if the other teams in the division were .500 teams (or less)...one of whom hasn't see the playoffs since 2009. This would certainly be the perspective of someone looking from outside of the "football fan" dome.



2) It's a brand new season. Bottom line is that despite our SB win, we were not an impressive team last season. And it's not just the media, but most other NFL fans out there chalking it up to luck etc etc. It takes much more then winning the SB to instill respect. You need to be convincing. ie dominant. Not jeckyll and hyde - like we were.

The Eagles and the Cowboys were not impressive teams last year, either. In fact, I'd say they were FAR less impressive than the Giants...the Giants came up big when the season was on the line, sweeping the Cowboys when they needed it most. The Eagles finished strong, but the loss to Seattle pretty much took them out of contention. The losses sustained by the Eagles and Cowboys over the season against .500 or less teams makes them more jeckyll and hyde than the Giants...at least the Giants had two of their losses to division winners (GB and Saints). Are you saying that the Cowboys and Eagles were both convincing, i.e. dominant? If so, then I could not disagree more....

1) I'll bet you that Vegas doesn't see the Giants winning the division, but the Eagles. That's as neutral a party as you're going to get. No on in their right mind would make a judgement only based on the fact that a team was the defending champs.

2) NONE of us were dominant. i already said that. Which is why it's so wide open. The fact that we won the SB the year before is practically irrelevant. It's pretty much a crap shoot. The reason why the media chose the eagles is because they probably believe that eagles have more talent. But I'm just guessing. Agree or not, I'm not going to jab the media for thinking a certain way when in reality, their predictions for next season aren't far fetched at all.

yoeddy
06-29-2012, 09:59 PM
[
1) I'll bet you that Vegas doesn't see the Giants winning the division, but the Eagles. That's as neutral a party as you're going to get. No on in their right mind would make a judgement only based on the fact that a team was the defending champs.

There you are again with the betting. I am not talking about betting. I am talking about the media making predictions. The Vegas line is an indication of the betting public, not the media. They are not a "neutral third party" by any means...the line they set is a representation of where 50% of the betting public bets for one team vs. 50% of the betting public betting on the other team. It's not like the lines-makers are a bunch of analysts looking at the game...they are counting up the bets and estimating where that 50% line is.



2) NONE of us were dominant. i already said that. Which is why it's so wide open. The fact that we won the SB the year before is practically irrelevant. It's pretty much a crap shoot. The reason why the media chose the eagles is because they probably believe that eagles have more talent. But I'm just guessing. Agree or not, I'm not going to jab the media for thinking a certain way when in reality, their predictions for next season aren't far fetched at all.

Ok, so we agree that none of the teams were dominant. And yes...it's very obvious that the media believes that the Eagles and the Cowboys have more talent than the Giants. This entire discussion is about WHY do they think that? What is the rationale for it? What do they base it on other than some personal bias?

And ok, let's disregard the SB win and look at it this way:

- Best QB in the division: Eli
- Best coach in the division: Coughlin
- Best WR tandem in the division: Nicks/Cruz
- Best Dline in the division: Giants
- Best LBs in the division: Eagles
- Best DBs in the division: Eagles (will give it to them even thought I think it's the Giants)
- Best special teams in the division: Eagles

...the Cowboys aren't really even in the conversation, are they? Does a better secondary and specials elevate an 8-8 team above the defending division champs?

I really don't see the rationale behind a prediction of the Giants not making the playoffs behind the Eagles and Cowboys...

gumby742
06-30-2012, 12:22 AM
[
1) I'll bet you that Vegas doesn't see the Giants winning the division, but the Eagles. That's as neutral a party as you're going to get. No on in their right mind would make a judgement only based on the fact that a team was the defending champs.

There you are again with the betting. I am not talking about betting. I am talking about the media making predictions. The Vegas line is an indication of the betting public, not the media. They are not a "neutral third party" by any means...the line they set is a representation of where 50% of the betting public bets for one team vs. 50% of the betting public betting on the other team. It's not like the lines-makers are a bunch of analysts looking at the game...they are counting up the bets and estimating where that 50% line is.



2) NONE of us were dominant. i already said that. Which is why it's so wide open. The fact that we won the SB the year before is practically irrelevant. It's pretty much a crap shoot. The reason why the media chose the eagles is because they probably believe that eagles have more talent. But I'm just guessing. Agree or not, I'm not going to jab the media for thinking a certain way when in reality, their predictions for next season aren't far fetched at all.

Ok, so we agree that none of the teams were dominant. And yes...it's very obvious that the media believes that the Eagles and the Cowboys have more talent than the Giants. This entire discussion is about WHY do they think that? What is the rationale for it? What do they base it on other than some personal bias?

And ok, let's disregard the SB win and look at it this way:

- Best QB in the division: Eli
- Best coach in the division: Coughlin
- Best WR tandem in the division: Nicks/Cruz
- Best Dline in the division: Giants
- Best LBs in the division: Eagles
- Best DBs in the division: Eagles (will give it to them even thought I think it's the Giants)
- Best special teams in the division: Eagles

...the Cowboys aren't really even in the conversation, are they? Does a better secondary and specials elevate an 8-8 team above the defending division champs?

I really don't see the rationale behind a prediction of the Giants not making the playoffs behind the Eagles and Cowboys...

1) Anyway whatever. The point is obviously lost. All I'm trying to do is be as objective as possible - without Giant blinders on. Fact is, winning the SB without convincing play ie domination won't really give you that much pull in the eyes of the media and fellow NFL fans alike. Had the Packers won or the Patriots, there would have been fewer talks of "Lucky".

2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

yoeddy
06-30-2012, 07:54 AM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

gumby742
07-01-2012, 11:52 PM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.

fizzlestick
07-02-2012, 12:26 AM
<font color="#FF0000">Of course it is, I mean the Eagles have Vick. That's already 5 times the talent of the entire Giants team.
</font>

giantsfan420
07-02-2012, 02:34 AM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.
exactly. but seeing as we r sb champs, dnt u find it odd theyd slight us for teams that are near the same level in talent (i maintain we have much more talent but any analyst worth his salt should at least conclude that at the worst we all have similar levels of talent) theres not a good reason to pick those teams, these analysts arent even really picking them, they are picking against us...

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 08:56 AM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.

Again...where is the real analysis of the talent comparison? It would only be a fair point if they showed a real head-to-head comparison of the talent and came up with the Eagles and/or Cowboys being legitimately ahead....and I have yet to see such a comparison.

And my basic point is...if all the teams are relatively close in talent (as you seem to agree with), wouldn't you look at other things like who is the defending division winner, who has the most recent success, etc?

buddy33
07-02-2012, 09:17 AM
Is it really that hard to understand? The media didn't have the Giants as their favorites last year and because they where 1 play from not making the playoffs they still don't have them as their favorites. Plus, I forget the stat exactly, but I remember hearing last year that there is a huge turn around every year in the playoffs. So being as how they just made it in the playoffs I can see the media having them as possibl missing the playoffs.

The media does not have it out for the Giants. The media likes when they are good. In 2008 they where praising the Giants. In 2009 I believe they started 5-0 and the media was praising them. In 2010 they where praised again. The problem is in those 3 season they had collapsed in the second half.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 11:56 AM
Is it really that hard to understand? The media didn't have the Giants as their favorites last year and because they where 1 play from not making the playoffs they still don't have them as their favorites. Plus, I forget the stat exactly, but I remember hearing last year that there is a huge turn around every year in the playoffs. So being as how they just made it in the playoffs I can see the media having them as possibl missing the playoffs.

The media does not have it out for the Giants. The media likes when they are good. In 2008 they where praising the Giants. In 2009 I believe they started 5-0 and the media was praising them. In 2010 they where praised again. The problem is in those 3 season they had collapsed in the second half.

"1 play from not making the playoffs" is better than "not making the playoffs", no?

gumby742
07-02-2012, 02:39 PM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.

Again...where is the real analysis of the talent comparison? It would only be a fair point if they showed a real head-to-head comparison of the talent and came up with the Eagles and/or Cowboys being legitimately ahead....and I have yet to see such a comparison.

And my basic point is...if all the teams are relatively close in talent (as you seem to agree with), wouldn't you look at other things like who is the defending division winner, who has the most recent success, etc?

Not really. When things are this close, it's really a matter of opinion. Some people look at over all talent, some people look at previous championships, having more "stars". Everything is subjective. I admit, I'm a little bit of a killjoy. I don't get too high when it's high and I don't get too low when we're low. Call it being jaded by real life.

Personally, I think the eagles are just the more attractive pick. For the lack of a better term, they're more "electric". Michael Vick is a freak of nature and very entertaining to watch. Eli according to the media, just came into his own last season. imo, if he puts on another show, we just might be considered the more electrifying team. But unless you're choosing the redskins, I think any pick between the Eagles, Dallas, and Giants is a fair one.

gumby742
07-02-2012, 02:44 PM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.
exactly. but seeing as we r sb champs, dnt u find it odd theyd slight us for teams that are near the same level in talent (i maintain we have much more talent but any analyst worth his salt should at least conclude that at the worst we all have similar levels of talent) theres not a good reason to pick those teams, these analysts arent even really picking them, they are picking against us...

Yeah, i don't know. I guess i assumed when they said the Eagles had more talent, they also thought we all had similar talent. However, if they said the Eagles had MUCH more talent, then I would also disagree.

With us being similar in talent, than picking any team is fair game no?

I will say this though. Yoeddy brought up a good point in the Packers a couple years ago who also won it all as a play off team - and why the media was in love with them afterwards. The only reason that I could think of was the awesome play of Aaron Rodgers ever since he was a starter. According to the media, Eli just came into his own last year. I'm guessing that if Eli has another blow out season, the Giants just might command a little bit more sway in the media and casual NFL fans alike.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 03:00 PM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.

Again...where is the real analysis of the talent comparison? It would only be a fair point if they showed a real head-to-head comparison of the talent and came up with the Eagles and/or Cowboys being legitimately ahead....and I have yet to see such a comparison.

And my basic point is...if all the teams are relatively close in talent (as you seem to agree with), wouldn't you look at other things like who is the defending division winner, who has the most recent success, etc?

Not really. When things are this close, it's really a matter of opinion. Some people look at over all talent, some people look at previous championships, having more "stars". Everything is subjective. I admit, I'm a little bit of a killjoy. I don't get too high when it's high and I don't get too low when we're low. Call it being jaded by real life.

Personally, I think the eagles are just the more attractive pick. For the lack of a better term, they're more "electric". Michael Vick is a freak of nature and very entertaining to watch. Eli according to the media, just came into his own last season. imo, if he puts on another show, we just might be considered the more electrifying team. But unless you're choosing the redskins, I think any pick between the Eagles, Dallas, and Giants is a fair one.

Interesting that someone who has been "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "more electric" team than the one who has had more recent success, especially when you're a fan of the team that has had more recent success. Also, surprised that a person "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "entertainment" of Michael Vick rather than to view the reality of a 2-time Super Bowl MVP who has a track record of coming up big in clutch moments. But that's just imho...

gumby742
07-02-2012, 03:56 PM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.

Again...where is the real analysis of the talent comparison? It would only be a fair point if they showed a real head-to-head comparison of the talent and came up with the Eagles and/or Cowboys being legitimately ahead....and I have yet to see such a comparison.

And my basic point is...if all the teams are relatively close in talent (as you seem to agree with), wouldn't you look at other things like who is the defending division winner, who has the most recent success, etc?

Not really. When things are this close, it's really a matter of opinion. Some people look at over all talent, some people look at previous championships, having more "stars". Everything is subjective. I admit, I'm a little bit of a killjoy. I don't get too high when it's high and I don't get too low when we're low. Call it being jaded by real life.

Personally, I think the eagles are just the more attractive pick. For the lack of a better term, they're more "electric". Michael Vick is a freak of nature and very entertaining to watch. Eli according to the media, just came into his own last season. imo, if he puts on another show, we just might be considered the more electrifying team. But unless you're choosing the redskins, I think any pick between the Eagles, Dallas, and Giants is a fair one.

Interesting that someone who has been "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "more electric" team than the one who has had more recent success, especially when you're a fan of the team that has had more recent success. Also, surprised that a person "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "entertainment" of Michael Vick rather than to view the reality of a 2-time Super Bowl MVP who has a track record of coming up big in clutch moments. But that's just imho...

Well, now we're just going off topic. haha. But, being cynical doesn't mean you can't be entertained. Hold on. This has nothing to do with choosing sides. I hate the Eagles as much as anything else. All I'm saying is that in terms of pure entertainment value, the Eagles probably have the edge. And because of that, given that the teams are close to equal, it's fair the media chooses them.

I try and take off my blue blinders or not have them on at all.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 04:08 PM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.

Again...where is the real analysis of the talent comparison? It would only be a fair point if they showed a real head-to-head comparison of the talent and came up with the Eagles and/or Cowboys being legitimately ahead....and I have yet to see such a comparison.

And my basic point is...if all the teams are relatively close in talent (as you seem to agree with), wouldn't you look at other things like who is the defending division winner, who has the most recent success, etc?

Not really. When things are this close, it's really a matter of opinion. Some people look at over all talent, some people look at previous championships, having more "stars". Everything is subjective. I admit, I'm a little bit of a killjoy. I don't get too high when it's high and I don't get too low when we're low. Call it being jaded by real life.

Personally, I think the eagles are just the more attractive pick. For the lack of a better term, they're more "electric". Michael Vick is a freak of nature and very entertaining to watch. Eli according to the media, just came into his own last season. imo, if he puts on another show, we just might be considered the more electrifying team. But unless you're choosing the redskins, I think any pick between the Eagles, Dallas, and Giants is a fair one.

Interesting that someone who has been "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "more electric" team than the one who has had more recent success, especially when you're a fan of the team that has had more recent success. Also, surprised that a person "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "entertainment" of Michael Vick rather than to view the reality of a 2-time Super Bowl MVP who has a track record of coming up big in clutch moments. But that's just imho...

Well, now we're just going off topic. haha. But, being cynical doesn't mean you can't be entertained. Hold on. This has nothing to do with choosing sides. I hate the Eagles as much as anything else. All I'm saying is that in terms of pure entertainment value, the Eagles probably have the edge. And because of that, given that the teams are close to equal, it's fair the media chooses them.

I try and take off my blue blinders or not have them on at all.

I guess I am mystified by the idea of picking division winners based on "entertainment value"...

gumby742
07-02-2012, 04:24 PM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.

Again...where is the real analysis of the talent comparison? It would only be a fair point if they showed a real head-to-head comparison of the talent and came up with the Eagles and/or Cowboys being legitimately ahead....and I have yet to see such a comparison.

And my basic point is...if all the teams are relatively close in talent (as you seem to agree with), wouldn't you look at other things like who is the defending division winner, who has the most recent success, etc?

Not really. When things are this close, it's really a matter of opinion. Some people look at over all talent, some people look at previous championships, having more "stars". Everything is subjective. I admit, I'm a little bit of a killjoy. I don't get too high when it's high and I don't get too low when we're low. Call it being jaded by real life.

Personally, I think the eagles are just the more attractive pick. For the lack of a better term, they're more "electric". Michael Vick is a freak of nature and very entertaining to watch. Eli according to the media, just came into his own last season. imo, if he puts on another show, we just might be considered the more electrifying team. But unless you're choosing the redskins, I think any pick between the Eagles, Dallas, and Giants is a fair one.

Interesting that someone who has been "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "more electric" team than the one who has had more recent success, especially when you're a fan of the team that has had more recent success. Also, surprised that a person "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "entertainment" of Michael Vick rather than to view the reality of a 2-time Super Bowl MVP who has a track record of coming up big in clutch moments. But that's just imho...

Well, now we're just going off topic. haha. But, being cynical doesn't mean you can't be entertained. Hold on. This has nothing to do with choosing sides. I hate the Eagles as much as anything else. All I'm saying is that in terms of pure entertainment value, the Eagles probably have the edge. And because of that, given that the teams are close to equal, it's fair the media chooses them.

I try and take off my blue blinders or not have them on at all.

I guess I am mystified by the idea of picking division winners based on "entertainment value"...

shrug it's the media. but for me, it's possible that i'm more critical of the Giants because they're the team that close to my heart. I know more about them than the Eagles, so it's easier to criticize.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 04:30 PM
[
2) Heh. You can argue one way with the other. The eagles dline and WR tandem is also very good. There is PLENTY of rationale behind choosing the eagles and maybe the Cowboys over the Giants next year. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing. But, I've read all those articles and they all make fair points.

Can you summarize the fair points you've heard? That's all I'm asking for. All I've heard is "the Eagles and Cowboys have more talent"...but have yet to see a real analysis of the talent.

I don't have direct links for any of them.

Well, the fact that some analysts think that they have more talent is a fair point isn't it? It's not like we're miles ahead of both of them talent wise.

Again...where is the real analysis of the talent comparison? It would only be a fair point if they showed a real head-to-head comparison of the talent and came up with the Eagles and/or Cowboys being legitimately ahead....and I have yet to see such a comparison.

And my basic point is...if all the teams are relatively close in talent (as you seem to agree with), wouldn't you look at other things like who is the defending division winner, who has the most recent success, etc?

Not really. When things are this close, it's really a matter of opinion. Some people look at over all talent, some people look at previous championships, having more "stars". Everything is subjective. I admit, I'm a little bit of a killjoy. I don't get too high when it's high and I don't get too low when we're low. Call it being jaded by real life.

Personally, I think the eagles are just the more attractive pick. For the lack of a better term, they're more "electric". Michael Vick is a freak of nature and very entertaining to watch. Eli according to the media, just came into his own last season. imo, if he puts on another show, we just might be considered the more electrifying team. But unless you're choosing the redskins, I think any pick between the Eagles, Dallas, and Giants is a fair one.

Interesting that someone who has been "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "more electric" team than the one who has had more recent success, especially when you're a fan of the team that has had more recent success. Also, surprised that a person "jaded by real life" would opt to pick the "entertainment" of Michael Vick rather than to view the reality of a 2-time Super Bowl MVP who has a track record of coming up big in clutch moments. But that's just imho...

Well, now we're just going off topic. haha. But, being cynical doesn't mean you can't be entertained. Hold on. This has nothing to do with choosing sides. I hate the Eagles as much as anything else. All I'm saying is that in terms of pure entertainment value, the Eagles probably have the edge. And because of that, given that the teams are close to equal, it's fair the media chooses them.

I try and take off my blue blinders or not have them on at all.

I guess I am mystified by the idea of picking division winners based on "entertainment value"...

shrug it's the media. but for me, it's possible that i'm more critical of the Giants because they're the team that close to my heart. I know more about them than the Eagles, so it's easier to criticize.

What about the Cowboys?