PDA

View Full Version : Haterzzzz



appodictic
06-26-2012, 10:42 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829a3eae/article/could-the-new-york-giants-go-from-first-to-worst

When they should say is from first to Dynasty.

TuckYou
06-26-2012, 11:53 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of.

Flip Empty
06-27-2012, 12:23 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of.
Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence.

Yankees807
06-27-2012, 12:32 AM
I think they're unpredictable at times, but imo they're an ELITE franchise. Right up there with Pitt and GB. 4 SBs in 4 Straight decades prove just how Consistent they are. Some teams have yet to make it to a SB while others have yet to win one. So nfl.com,espn,and every other so called analyst/expert can continue to bash em.In the end....we win.

The Giants are not only 5-0 in championship games,but 4-1 in SBS. I'll take that any day of the week compared to the rest of the teams in the league. (Alla Jets,Eagles,Cowboys who havent done anything since the 90s. Even the 49ers).

Do they drive me nuts at times...of course,but theyre CONSISTENTLY making it to Superbowls and winning them!

jjj45
06-27-2012, 12:32 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of.
Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence.Well, we also kinda won the Superbowl.

So it just goes to show you all that other stuff doesn't matter when it comes to the Giants.

MikeIsaGiant
06-27-2012, 12:40 AM
They obviously want us to win SBs

The more they hate, the more we win.

It's either
1) They hate us and just keep talking
2) They pretend to hate us so we can win SBs

I'm starting to think it's the latter

THE_New_York_Giants
06-27-2012, 01:19 AM
Well when the Giants do have a losing season, these pundits will come out and say "see we told you the Giants weren't really that good." It could be 40 years and 30 superbowls, when they lose everyone will be like "yeah luck can only bring you so far. They only won 30. If they were really skilled they would have won 40 in a row plus the 42 before that.

yoeddy
06-27-2012, 03:22 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of.
Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence.

Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?

rainierjef
06-27-2012, 04:08 AM
reread the article and not just watch the video.
nfl.com writer disagree's with what heath evans said, heath evans much like teddy bruischi hates the giants for that pats undefeated upset.

"It's an interesting forecast from Evans, but we respectfully disagree, and here's why:"

and the writer goes on to list why evans is wrong in his assessment

Captain Chaos
06-27-2012, 05:57 AM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829a3eae/article/could-the-new-york-giants-go-from-first-to-worst

When they should say is from first to Dynasty.


C'mon, how long have you been a Giant's fan, this is the standard affair, no respect!

Rat_bastich
06-27-2012, 06:17 AM
reread the article and not just watch the video.
nfl.com writer disagree's with what heath evans said, heath evans much like teddy bruischi hates the giants for that pats undefeated upset.

"It's an interesting forecast from Evans, but we respectfully disagree, and here's why:"

and the writer goes on to list why evans is wrong in his assessment


I second this. There was more to this than the video.

GMENAGAIN
06-27-2012, 07:24 AM
Maybe next time actually read the article before you start a thread about it???? Just a thought . . . . .

Die-Hard
06-27-2012, 07:27 AM
The Giants won the Super Bowl LAST SEASON

It was awesome beyond words, yes, but it will do them absolutely no good this season. This team is very up and down, and totally unpredictable(not always in a good way), and most people have figured this out. Take into account the upcoming schedule, coupled with the uneven play, and the logical thing to do is to have at least <u>some</u> doubt.

Who cares if people don't respect the team? Is it seriously that important? Kind of ridiculous from where I'm sitting. Let them play the games, because last year doesn't mean squat.

gumby742
06-27-2012, 10:31 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either. If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent. Let's face it. The NFC Eastwas very mediocrelast year. If I was to bet, I'd probably bet on the eagles also. In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to. Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

TuckYou
06-27-2012, 10:36 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence.</P>


Check out the team's record since 2005. 8-8 is the worst we did the past 7 seasons, and we had some bad teams. </P>

JimC
06-27-2012, 11:10 AM
It's just silly fun stuff. There is no way you can predict with any kind of certainty who is going to be good or bad. YOU CAN'T TAKE PREDICTIONS AS GOSPEL. How about lets just enjoy the season and hope our team makes the playoffs. That is all....jut get to the playoffs!!!

Diamondring
07-01-2012, 12:23 PM
I think ihere is a big chance that the haters are from Packer Fans, Cowboy Fans and fans of other team that some how got jobs at ESPN and other news and sports networks.

SweetZombieJesus
07-01-2012, 02:13 PM
Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence.

When the 10-6 Giants won a championship in 2007, they followed that up with 12-4 and #1 seed.

Granted they flamed out, but there you have it.

SweetZombieJesus
07-01-2012, 02:17 PM
This team is very up and down, and totally unpredictable(not always in a good way), and most people have figured this out.


Actually, when you examine Coughlin's regime, they're very predictable.

<ul> 6-2 start late season swan dive either first round bounce or go all the way[/list]


</p>

Write it down, you heard it here first ;)
</p>

Roosevelt
07-01-2012, 02:27 PM
Here's the rest of the article:
</p>

It's an interesting forecast from Evans, but we respectfully disagree, and here's why:</p>

1. Eli Manning (http://www.nfl.com/players/elimanning/profile?id=MAN473170):
We present to you the division's best quarterback. Manning blossomed in
January, when other passers crumbled. His sometimes awe-shucks demeanor
belies a cold-blooded knack for the big moment. Nothing about Eli's
play suggests a letdown is on the way in Gotham.</p>

2. A dangerous defensive line: New York's front four might be the league's best. They've solved their Osi Umenyiora (http://www.nfl.com/players/osiumenyiora/profile?id=UME444955)
problem, and while the end would start on other teams, he isn't even in
New York's first wave. The line has shown an ability to peak late in
the season, when this division will be decided.</p>

3. Tom Coughlin: New
York’s coach was on the hot seat last season. Today he's seen among the
best in the business. That speaks to the fickle nature of the media,
but it says more about who Coughlin has been all along: one of the last
old-school coaches; a man who's walked through the fire; a winner.</p>

Look around the NFC East. It's a nasty division, we agree, but the Giants were crowned king for a reason.</p>

gumby742
07-01-2012, 02:48 PM
Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence.

When the 10-6 Giants won a championship in 2007, they followed that up with 12-4 and #1 seed.

Granted they flamed out, but there you have it.


Exactly, and we were predicted to win the division again in 2009. But no one remembers that.

gmen46
07-01-2012, 03:58 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

BeatYale
07-01-2012, 03:59 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of.

Probably because they have had a lot more consistency from their QBs.

fourth&forever
07-01-2012, 05:09 PM
Maybe next time actually read the article before you start a thread about it????* Just a thought . . . . .

Just having four z's in the title should make it a good tread.

giantsfan420
07-01-2012, 06:16 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

jomo
07-01-2012, 06:19 PM
They are just talking suits and skirts people. If they were really smart and analytical they's be doing something other than expressing opinions. Right? Don't let them get toyou. [B]

SweetZombieJesus
07-01-2012, 07:57 PM
Maybe next time actually read the article before you start a thread about it???? Just a thought . . . . .

Just having four z's in the title should make it a good tread.

Maybe he fell asleep thinking of this thread

http://loric88.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/snoring.jpg

Die-Hard
07-01-2012, 10:03 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either. If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent. Let's face it. The NFC Eastwas very mediocrelast year. If I was to bet, I'd probably bet on the eagles also. In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to. Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]

yoeddy
07-01-2012, 10:33 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


But why would two 8-8 teams in the same division get so much more respect?

gmen46
07-01-2012, 10:47 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

Die-Hard
07-01-2012, 11:11 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either. If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent. Let's face it. The NFC Eastwas very mediocrelast year. If I was to bet, I'd probably bet on the eagles also. In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to. Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


But why would two 8-8 teams in the same division get so much more respect?

Why does it matter so much for the Giants to get respect?

You have to know by now that Dallas is ALWAYS going to get overhyped by the media every year. The Eagles are a very talented team, and as much as I despise them, I understand why most people are picking them as one of the top teams in 2012. The Giants are a very talented team as well, but they are looking at a horrible schedule upcoming, and they are, no matter who wants to deny it, still very much an up and down team. The Super Bowl from last season will do nothing for them this season, so why should people pick them over Philly and Dallas without question?

yoeddy
07-01-2012, 11:12 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

Die-Hard
07-01-2012, 11:21 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either. If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent. Let's face it. The NFC Eastwas very mediocrelast year. If I was to bet, I'd probably bet on the eagles also. In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to. Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

15-1&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;9-7

The Giants were the better team THAT DAY when they beat them in the playoffs, but overall, GB's offense is executed miles above the Giants' offense. You don't win 15 games by being mediocre.

As I said, the Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. They got hot at the perfect time. It doesn't mean they were the better team overall compared to GB, or even SF. Its not a knock on them. Relax

Die-Hard
07-01-2012, 11:29 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either. If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent. Let's face it. The NFC Eastwas very mediocrelast year. If I was to bet, I'd probably bet on the eagles also. In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to. Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist

gumby742
07-01-2012, 11:37 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

Exactly, comparing the Cardinals experience and the Giants experience are exactly my arguments. Just because you aren't smart enough to figure it out, doesn't mean it's wrong. So let me break it down for you and maybe you won't ignore my explainations like you normally do.

The Cardinals were not impressive during the regular season. The Giants were not impressive during the regular season. Both went to SBs. The Cardinals got 0 respect the next season. Did you cry foul for them? If you didn't, then you're holding a double standard.

Edit: I try not to get too personal even though I tend to come off as an elitist *****, but you started it. lol.

gumby742
07-01-2012, 11:44 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A division being competitive doesn't mean it's a strong division. Last season, the NFC East was a bunch of evenly matched mediocre teams duking it out.

Pre-salary cap, you had completely stacked teams. Winning the SB/winning the division was a lot more predictable and actually meant more than today's parity laden seasons. So yes, saying "SB champs" pre 1992ish" actually held more sway than this age.

The team that wins the SB may not always be the best team. It's the team that's playing the best at the point in time. This whole mind set that "We're the SB champions, and for the reason alone we're a freaking awesome team" has got to go.

In my opinion, the only team worthy of a next season "props/respect" is the 2008 team. We actually dominated that year.

giantsfan420
07-02-2012, 01:20 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A division being competitive doesn't mean it's a strong division. Last season, the NFC East was a bunch of evenly matched mediocre teams duking it out.

Pre-salary cap, you had completely stacked teams. Winning the SB/winning the division was a lot more predictable and actually meant more than today's parity laden seasons. So yes, saying "SB champs" pre 1992ish" actually held more sway than this age.

The team that wins the SB may not always be the best team. It's the team that's playing the best at the point in time. This whole mind set that "We're the SB champions, and for the reason alone we're a freaking awesome team" has got to go.

In my opinion, the only team worthy of a next season "props/respect" is the 2008 team. We actually dominated that year.

so the division that had the SB winner, that was competitive, wasnt any good?

and to ur point with gmen, ur ignoring HIS premise. yeah, there are similarities in that az didnt have a great reg season and neither did we, and az didnt get picked to do anything the next season (thats ur claim i dont even know if thats factually true, bc i believe warner retired and there could be other factors that arent similar to the giants)however, we won a sb in 2007 and just won one in 2011. AZ shouldnt get the respect we deserve bc they a-didnt win the SB and b-hadnt won a sb in recent history, which is relevant bc we won one with the same qb, coach, and dline (jpp swapped with strahan)
gmens point is that bc of those differences, its foolish to claim that this giants situation with getting little to no respect for the next season is like the az situation.

and im not even gonna address the whole "winning the sb doesnt mean anything anymore" statement, its too ridiculous to even try and make sense of

gmen46
07-02-2012, 03:56 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A division being competitive doesn't mean it's a strong division. Last season, the NFC East was a bunch of evenly matched mediocre teams duking it out.

Pre-salary cap, you had completely stacked teams. Winning the SB/winning the division was a lot more predictable and actually meant more than today's parity laden seasons. So yes, saying "SB champs" pre 1992ish" actually held more sway than this age.

The team that wins the SB may not always be the best team. It's the team that's playing the best at the point in time. This whole mind set that "We're the SB champions, and for the reason alone we're a freaking awesome team" has got to go.

In my opinion, the only team worthy of a next season "props/respect" is the 2008 team. We actually dominated that year.

I agree that the NFC East was not at it's best, overall, for most of the season.

And I really haven't seen any post here that has argued "we're a freaking awesome team" just because we won the last Super Bowl. That's your hyperbole speaking.

But your argument that Super Bowls pre 1993 (pre salary cap) "actually held more sway than this age" is ****ing ridiculous.

Yes, before salary cap and the modern FA you had 1 or 2 or 3 "stacked" teams and the SB winners were more predictable.

Apparently, to you that meant more than today's more balanced league, where the teams getting to the championship are NOT predictable, and the winners are NOT preordained.

You know, you can watch football of the kind you prefer, even today.

It's called College football. Stacked teams playing unstacked teams.

The fact that a Super Bowl is less predictable today than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago makes it mean less ONLY in YOUR mind. You conveniently forget that before 1990 most people were beginning to criticize the Super Bowl as one of the most over hyped and BORING sporting events of the time.

That was due to the "stacking" of 3-4 teams out of the entire league that you value so much.

In fact, this dreaded parity in the NFL that you like to belittle makes the fact of Patriots 3 consecutive Super Bowl victories (and 5 SB appearances in 11 seasons), the Steelers 2 SB wins and 3 appearances in 6 seasons, along with our 2 SB victories in 5 seasons much more impressive than the dominant teams of the 70s thru the early 90s--BECAUSE there is parity due to the salary cap and FA.

All teams are given the same level playing field, in terms of resources. It's up to ownership and management to make the right coaching and player personnel decisions. The SMART and SAVVY owners/managers field the better teams on a more consistent basis, not the ones who have the most money.

gmen46
07-02-2012, 04:08 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

15-1>>>>>>>>9-7

The Giants were the better team THAT DAY when they beat them in the playoffs, but overall, GB's offense is executed miles above the Giants' offense. You don't win 15 games by being mediocre.

As I said, the Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. They got hot at the perfect time. It doesn't mean they were the better team overall compared to GB, or even SF. Its not a knock on them. Relax


I'm perfectly relaxed.

You're right.

The Giants were the better team THAT DAY when they beat (Green Bay) in the playoffs.

As the Giants were the better team THAT day when they beat the Jets in Week 16.

And they were the better team than Dallas THAT day when they beat Dallas.

And, oh yeah, Giants were better than the Falcons THAT day, the next week.

The better team THAT day of the NFC Championship when they beat the Niners.

And, of course, the Giants were the better team THAT DAY of the Super Bowl.

So, what's your point again? The win was a fluke, a "one of"? Which win? Just the Packers game? Or the Packers and the Niners game? Or all 6 games?

BTW, 13-7>>>>>>>>15-2, as it turns out.

Sometimes numbers lie.

rainierjef
07-02-2012, 05:29 AM
in the post season everyone starts are 0 wins 0 loses. the regular season is no longer in account for what transpires hence forth, the giants have proved this twice. why is this an argument?

SweetZombieJesus
07-02-2012, 07:34 AM
A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


I'm surprised I have to say this to another fan, but the key to the Giants false image caused by the 9-7 record is twofold; (1) the two losses to Washington, which I cannot explain; and (2) the 4 game losing streak.

It was yet another year of a 6-2 start (which no matter what is not weak in any division). And the win in New England was certainly the most impressive win of the regular season, snapping NE's home winning streaks of 21 and 31 games, and marking the first time Tom Brady lost at home to an NFC opponent since 2002. That's the good.

The bad is the 4 game losing skid.

<ul> Of the 4 games only the Saints truly demolished the Giants They had the undefeated, defending world champ Packers tied 35-35 with 0:53 left in the game A comeback drive against the 49ers died inside the 49er 20 yard line on a 4th and 2. The Eagles game was a quagmire for 95% of the game that somehow Vince Young pulled out the win.[/list]


</p>

Also of note is the Seattle loss, in which Cruz's bobbled catch for an interception resulted in a 14 point swing that lost the game instead of putting up a big lead. One play.</p>

The team (and/or fate) could have swung one or each of those games into the win column, they were super close. If they got all of them, that's 13-3.
</p>

Bill Parcells famously said "You are what your record says you are" but in the case of the 9-7 Giants it isn't true, they were much more than what 9-7 said they were. At very least it deserves an asterisk.
</p>

Now, as to the rest of the divison and how competitive it was, here's how they did out of the division, you are right:</p><ul> Giants: 6-4 (swept AFC East)
Eagles: 3-7 Cowboys: 6-4 Redskins: 3-7[/list]

Overall 18-22
</p>

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 07:48 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist


As I pointed out in the other thread, the Giants swept the Cowboys in two critical games for the playoff hunt, and the Eagles lost to more .500-and-less teams than the Giants. Two of the Giant losses were to Green Bay and New Orleans...

It's not a huge gap, but I am saying that there's not nearly enough happening in the offseason for any of these teams to say that the incumbent division winner should come in 3rd place in the upcoming season.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 08:59 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist


Btw - If you're going to give the Eagles credit for "coming on strong at the end", wouldn't you also have to give the Giants credit for "coming on strong in the playoffs" when the competition level elevated both in quality and intensity?

And wouldn't you have to give the Giants credit for *not* making any mistakes down the stretch to secure their playoff spot?

JimC
07-02-2012, 09:02 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either. If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent. Let's face it. The NFC Eastwas very mediocrelast year. If I was to bet, I'd probably bet on the eagles also. In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to. Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist


As I pointed out in the other thread, the Giants swept the Cowboys in two critical games for the playoff hunt, and the Eagles lost to more .500-and-less teams than the Giants. Two of the Giant losses were to Green Bay and New Orleans...

It's not a huge gap, but I am saying that there's not nearly enough happening in the offseason for any of these teams to say that the incumbent division winner should come in 3rd place in the upcoming season.

9-7.....yes we were 9-7. Not very good.....I often say this to myself, but I just can't get over the playoff run against playoff caliber teams. I think you have to take that into consideration with the 9-7.

Somehow this team plays pretty darn good football when they are HEALTHY and their backs are against the wall. Do whatever it takes to get us to the playoffs each year and I will be very happy. Because as we know.....anything can happen. GO GIANTS!!!!!!!

Diamondring
07-02-2012, 09:51 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist
You sure aint lying.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 11:53 AM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist
You sure aint lying.

Actually, a "strong division" is usually marked by season records that are fairly close to each other. Divisions that had 1-2 teams with dominant records and 2-3 teams with losing records usually signifies a very unbalanced and uncompetitive division....

gumby742
07-02-2012, 12:04 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A division being competitive doesn't mean it's a strong division. Last season, the NFC East was a bunch of evenly matched mediocre teams duking it out.

Pre-salary cap, you had completely stacked teams. Winning the SB/winning the division was a lot more predictable and actually meant more than today's parity laden seasons. So yes, saying "SB champs" pre 1992ish" actually held more sway than this age.

The team that wins the SB may not always be the best team. It's the team that's playing the best at the point in time. This whole mind set that "We're the SB champions, and for the reason alone we're a freaking awesome team" has got to go.

In my opinion, the only team worthy of a next season "props/respect" is the 2008 team. We actually dominated that year.

I agree that the NFC East was not at it's best, overall, for most of the season.

And I really haven't seen any post here that has argued "we're a freaking awesome team" just because we won the last Super Bowl. That's your hyperbole speaking.

But your argument that Super Bowls pre 1993 (pre salary cap) "actually held more sway than this age" is ****ing ridiculous.

Yes, before salary cap and the modern FA you had 1 or 2 or 3 "stacked" teams and the SB winners were more predictable.

Apparently, to you that meant more than today's more balanced league, where the teams getting to the championship are NOT predictable, and the winners are NOT preordained.

You know, you can watch football of the kind you prefer, even today.

It's called College football. Stacked teams playing unstacked teams.

The fact that a Super Bowl is less predictable today than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago makes it mean less ONLY in YOUR mind. You conveniently forget that before 1990 most people were beginning to criticize the Super Bowl as one of the most over hyped and BORING sporting events of the time.

That was due to the "stacking" of 3-4 teams out of the entire league that you value so much.

In fact, this dreaded parity in the NFL that you like to belittle makes the fact of Patriots 3 consecutive Super Bowl victories (and 5 SB appearances in 11 seasons), the Steelers 2 SB wins and 3 appearances in 6 seasons, along with our 2 SB victories in 5 seasons much more impressive than the dominant teams of the 70s thru the early 90s--BECAUSE there is parity due to the salary cap and FA.

All teams are given the same level playing field, in terms of resources. It's up to ownership and management to make the right coaching and player personnel decisions. The SMART and SAVVY owners/managers field the better teams on a more consistent basis, not the ones who have the most money.

The statement I was responding to was that we should be favored to win the division because we won the SB.

And <u>along with other reasons I gave</u>, I also said that winning the SB in this age doesn't means much as before, <u>within the context of justifying a team's relatively good play</u>. The parity that exists is a perfect reason why.

I never went into what age I think is better along with all the other stuff you went into afterwards. I never addressed any such thing so I'm not sure where you got that from. But I do agree with your opinions there.

And for the record, I think the 2000s Patriots might be the most impressive dynasty in the history of the NFL - because of the salary cap all that needs to go into running a franchise alone. Remember that I was one of the few defending JR and ALL of his moves going back to when we lost Burress. I was one of the few that understood the salary cap and it's implications. The league is much better for it.

gumby742
07-02-2012, 02:31 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A division being competitive doesn't mean it's a strong division. Last season, the NFC East was a bunch of evenly matched mediocre teams duking it out.

Pre-salary cap, you had completely stacked teams. Winning the SB/winning the division was a lot more predictable and actually meant more than today's parity laden seasons. So yes, saying "SB champs" pre 1992ish" actually held more sway than this age.

The team that wins the SB may not always be the best team. It's the team that's playing the best at the point in time. This whole mind set that "We're the SB champions, and for the reason alone we're a freaking awesome team" has got to go.

In my opinion, the only team worthy of a next season "props/respect" is the 2008 team. We actually dominated that year.

so the division that had the SB winner, that was competitive, wasnt any good?

and to ur point with gmen, ur ignoring HIS premise. yeah, there are similarities in that az didnt have a great reg season and neither did we, and az didnt get picked to do anything the next season (thats ur claim i dont even know if thats factually true, bc i believe warner retired and there could be other factors that arent similar to the giants)however, we won a sb in 2007 and just won one in 2011. AZ shouldnt get the respect we deserve bc they a-didnt win the SB and b-hadnt won a sb in recent history, which is relevant bc we won one with the same qb, coach, and dline (jpp swapped with strahan)
gmens point is that bc of those differences, its foolish to claim that this giants situation with getting little to no respect for the next season is like the az situation.

and im not even gonna address the whole "winning the sb doesnt mean anything anymore" statement, its too ridiculous to even try and make sense of

No, I said that a division that's competitive doesn't mean the teams in that division are good teams. Remember when the <u>Seahawks were 7-9 and won the division</u>? You can't say any of those teams were good. I'm sure that division was competitive though. Remember we're talking <u>within the confines of the division, not outside</u>.

What part of gmen46 argument didn't I touch upon? AZ and NY while not exactly identical, there are some definite parallels there. If that's not a good enough example, also, what about Seattle winning the division a couple years back at 7-9? Were they the automatic pick to win it again? Similar scenario.

What I'm trying to get at is something Die-Hard already said - probably in a less esoteric manner. SB or not, we were not a convincing team. And that was recognized by media and NFL fans outside of Giants land alike.

gumby742
07-02-2012, 02:33 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist
You sure aint lying.

Actually, a "strong division" is usually marked by season records that are fairly close to each other. Divisions that had 1-2 teams with dominant records and 2-3 teams with losing records usually signifies a very unbalanced and uncompetitive division....

Seattle's division 2 years ago. They won with a record at 7-9. Do you think that was a strong division?

gmen46
07-02-2012, 02:38 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A division being competitive doesn't mean it's a strong division. Last season, the NFC East was a bunch of evenly matched mediocre teams duking it out.

Pre-salary cap, you had completely stacked teams. Winning the SB/winning the division was a lot more predictable and actually meant more than today's parity laden seasons. So yes, saying "SB champs" pre 1992ish" actually held more sway than this age.

The team that wins the SB may not always be the best team. It's the team that's playing the best at the point in time. This whole mind set that "We're the SB champions, and for the reason alone we're a freaking awesome team" has got to go.

In my opinion, the only team worthy of a next season "props/respect" is the 2008 team. We actually dominated that year.

I agree that the NFC East was not at it's best, overall, for most of the season.

And I really haven't seen any post here that has argued "we're a freaking awesome team" just because we won the last Super Bowl. That's your hyperbole speaking.

But your argument that Super Bowls pre 1993 (pre salary cap) "actually held more sway than this age" is ****ing ridiculous.

Yes, before salary cap and the modern FA you had 1 or 2 or 3 "stacked" teams and the SB winners were more predictable.

Apparently, to you that meant more than today's more balanced league, where the teams getting to the championship are NOT predictable, and the winners are NOT preordained.

You know, you can watch football of the kind you prefer, even today.

It's called College football. Stacked teams playing unstacked teams.

The fact that a Super Bowl is less predictable today than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago makes it mean less ONLY in YOUR mind. You conveniently forget that before 1990 most people were beginning to criticize the Super Bowl as one of the most over hyped and BORING sporting events of the time.

That was due to the "stacking" of 3-4 teams out of the entire league that you value so much.

In fact, this dreaded parity in the NFL that you like to belittle makes the fact of Patriots 3 consecutive Super Bowl victories (and 5 SB appearances in 11 seasons), the Steelers 2 SB wins and 3 appearances in 6 seasons, along with our 2 SB victories in 5 seasons much more impressive than the dominant teams of the 70s thru the early 90s--BECAUSE there is parity due to the salary cap and FA.

All teams are given the same level playing field, in terms of resources. It's up to ownership and management to make the right coaching and player personnel decisions. The SMART and SAVVY owners/managers field the better teams on a more consistent basis, not the ones who have the most money.

The statement I was responding to was that we should be favored to win the division because we won the SB.

And <u>along with other reasons I gave</u>, I also said that winning the SB in this age doesn't means much as before, <u>within the context of justifying a team's relatively good play</u>. The parity that exists is a perfect reason why.

I never went into what age I think is better along with all the other stuff you went into afterwards. I never addressed any such thing so I'm not sure where you got that from. But I do agree with your opinions there.

And for the record, I think the 2000s Patriots might be the most impressive dynasty in the history of the NFL - because of the salary cap all that needs to go into running a franchise alone. Remember that I was one of the few defending JR and ALL of his moves going back to when we lost Burress. I was one of the few that understood the salary cap and it's implications. The league is much better for it.

I agree with your comment about the Patriots of this past decade -- and actually, is there any other team in the league that can boast 6 Super Bowl appearances in a 16 year stretch, as have the Patriots?--and that the league is much better because of the modern FA / salary cap age.

That's why I am perplexed by your insistence on saying a Super Bowl victory of today doesn't mean as much as it did prior to 20 years ago. It makes no sense saying that. It certainly makes no sense HEARING it.

In this era, most teams that make the post season STILL need to win enough games during the reg season to qualify. And that means that MOST of the post season games are between teams playing at a higher level than others during the season.

In addition, in order for a team to make it to the Super Bowl today, it still has to play and defeat (in post season) at least 2, sometimes 3, other teams playing at that higher level.

Getting to the Super Bowl today is no more a fluke--or less meaningful-- than it was in the 70s and 80s.

And, as I pointed out earlier, the fact that there have been only 4 teams to make it to the SB multiple times (only 1 NFC team, btw) the last 12 years--in this age of salary caps and Free Agency--underscores the reality that even in this Age of Parity, quality ownership and management wins out as it usually did in the "old days" of the NFL.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 02:42 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist
You sure aint lying.

Actually, a "strong division" is usually marked by season records that are fairly close to each other. Divisions that had 1-2 teams with dominant records and 2-3 teams with losing records usually signifies a very unbalanced and uncompetitive division....

Seattle's division 2 years ago. They won with a record at 7-9. Do you think that was a strong division?

Of course not (although that Seahawks team did beat the Saints in the playoffs that year). But that was more the exception than the rule...

gumby742
07-02-2012, 02:46 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist
You sure aint lying.

Actually, a "strong division" is usually marked by season records that are fairly close to each other. Divisions that had 1-2 teams with dominant records and 2-3 teams with losing records usually signifies a very unbalanced and uncompetitive division....

Seattle's division 2 years ago. They won with a record at 7-9. Do you think that was a strong division?

Of course not (although that Seahawks team did beat the Saints in the playoffs that year). But that was more the exception than the rule...

I completely agree. But it's hard to argue that a division isn't a mediocre one when the winner is 9-7.

Diamondring
07-02-2012, 02:48 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</p>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</p>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A 9-7 team won the NFC East. No matter how you want to spin it, be it with records against the other division teams, or any other myriad of excuses, the division was far from being impressive overall. Within the division, yes, it was competitive, but show me a season when it wasn't. Last year, it was most definitely weak overall compared to years past. Winning a Super Bowl has nothing to do with it. The Giants were still a 9-7 team at the end of regulation, and 9-7 is not impressive, which is largely why most of the talking heads don't give the Giants the credit that so many people think they deserve. The whole division was average. Its just that one of those teams happened to go all the way. Fortunately, it was our team[;)]


Gotcha.

So, Green Bay's 15-1 (and 0-1 in post season) was more impressive than Giants' 9-7 (and 4-0 Super Bowl - winning post season).

Regular season record is more important and impressive than winning a Super Bowl following a winning regular season.

O-O-O-KAY, then.

I think the point being made is that playoff success in one year is not a great indicator of regular season performance the next year...and I actually agree with that point. Something like 50% of teams that make the playoffs one year don't make it the next year.

That being said, I continue to be mystified by how many in the media think that the Giants will trail both the Eagles and the Cowboys in the division...I can't really understand the rationale beyond predicting either of those teams finishing ahead of the Giants in the division this coming season given how poorly both teams did last season.

The Giants finished one game ahead of Philly and Dallas. Taking the Super Bowl out of the equation, did Philly and Dallas really play that much worse than the Giants? As I said, the division as a whole was very mediocre. 9-7, 8-8, 8-8, 5-11.

Philly came on very strong at the end. Any mistakes by the Giants in the last 2 games would have almost certainly knocked the Giants out of the division race, and very likely the playoffs, while Philly likely would have won the division.

I'm just saying that the huge gap that most people want to beleieve is between the Giants and the rest of the division simply doesn't exist
You sure aint lying.

Actually, a "strong division" is usually marked by season records that are fairly close to each other. Divisions that had 1-2 teams with dominant records and 2-3 teams with losing records usually signifies a very unbalanced and uncompetitive division....Yet things can be kind of complicated.

gmen46
07-02-2012, 03:09 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A division being competitive doesn't mean it's a strong division. Last season, the NFC East was a bunch of evenly matched mediocre teams duking it out.

Pre-salary cap, you had completely stacked teams. Winning the SB/winning the division was a lot more predictable and actually meant more than today's parity laden seasons. So yes, saying "SB champs" pre 1992ish" actually held more sway than this age.

The team that wins the SB may not always be the best team. It's the team that's playing the best at the point in time. This whole mind set that "We're the SB champions, and for the reason alone we're a freaking awesome team" has got to go.

In my opinion, the only team worthy of a next season "props/respect" is the 2008 team. We actually dominated that year.

so the division that had the SB winner, that was competitive, wasnt any good?

and to ur point with gmen, ur ignoring HIS premise. yeah, there are similarities in that az didnt have a great reg season and neither did we, and az didnt get picked to do anything the next season (thats ur claim i dont even know if thats factually true, bc i believe warner retired and there could be other factors that arent similar to the giants)however, we won a sb in 2007 and just won one in 2011. AZ shouldnt get the respect we deserve bc they a-didnt win the SB and b-hadnt won a sb in recent history, which is relevant bc we won one with the same qb, coach, and dline (jpp swapped with strahan)
gmens point is that bc of those differences, its foolish to claim that this giants situation with getting little to no respect for the next season is like the az situation.

and im not even gonna address the whole "winning the sb doesnt mean anything anymore" statement, its too ridiculous to even try and make sense of

No, I said that a division that's competitive doesn't mean the teams in that division are good teams. Remember when the <u>Seahawks were 7-9 and won the division</u>? You can't say any of those teams were good. I'm sure that division was competitive though. Remember we're talking <u>within the confines of the division, not outside</u>.

What part of gmen46 argument didn't I touch upon? AZ and NY while not exactly identical, there are some definite parallels there. If that's not a good enough example, also, what about Seattle winning the division a couple years back at 7-9? Were they the automatic pick to win it again? Similar scenario.

What I'm trying to get at is something Die-Hard already said - probably in a less esoteric manner. SB or not, we were not a convincing team. And that was recognized by media and NFL fans outside of Giants land alike.

Cmon, Gumby, now you're just going out of your way to reach for the sake of continuing your argument.

There's no parallel between Seattle and the Giants' situation, much less the AZ/Giants. And you know it.

Seattle never made it to the SB, not even past the Divisional Playoff game. And, unlike the TWO "lucky" Giants SB victories over the Patriots, that Seattle win over the obviously superior 2010 Saints WAS a fluke.

Cardinals had never even come CLOSE to the Super Bowl in the 42 seasons prior to their 2008 run; they had not even played in more than 1 or 2 Playoff GAMES in those 42 years.

That hardly compares to the historic and current experience of the Giants regarding playoff and Championship games. Even most non-Giants fans recognized the difference between the two, which is why no one expected or predicted the Cardinals would return to the Super Bowl anytime in the foreseeable future--especially after Warner retired the year following their SB appearance.

The Cardinals had their "lightening in a bottle" opportunity, very nearly won the SB, but ultimately blew their chance.

The Giants, on the other hand, followed up on their so-called 2007 "lightening in a bottle" opportunity with not only a SB win that year, but with another SB win 4 years later.

You honestly think AZ will be in the Super Bowl next year? How about Seattle?

Seriously.

gumby742
07-02-2012, 03:51 PM
So, NFL.com, ESPN, and CBS all basically are saying we could be horrible next year. Why didn't they say this about the Packers last year or Saints the year before? Doesn't make sense. They hate NY. Only thing I can think of. Maybe because the Giants have a history of being erratic? They were 9-7 last season, that hardly inspires confidence. Eagles and Cowboys were both 8-8 last season...how does that inspire more confidence than 9-7 and a SB victory?</P>


I don't see where the Cowboys are getting any "love" either.* If anything people are choosing the eagles because of their talent.* Let's face it.* The NFC East*was very mediocre*last year.* If I was to bet, I'd probably* bet on the eagles also.* In this day and age, with the parity that goes on, winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to.* Heck, when Arizona went to the SB that year, no one gave them any respect the year after either.</P>

So.

Comparing the Cardinals' experience to the Giants' history of Super Bowl experience, and your stated belief --incredibly-- that "winning the SB doesn't mean as much as it used to"*are your arguments?

Any wonder why so many have little respect for so many of your opinions here?

and also, the nfc east being weak is such an incorrect statement.

we split with philly, swept dallas, and got swept by DC, 3-3. We went onto win the SB. So that should let you know that at the least the NFCE is extremely competitive...

and i cant believe some one could mention "winning the sb doesnt mean as much as it used to" and actually be serious lmfao

A division being competitive doesn't mean it's a strong division. Last season, the NFC East was a bunch of evenly matched mediocre teams duking it out.

Pre-salary cap, you had completely stacked teams. Winning the SB/winning the division was a lot more predictable and actually meant more than today's parity laden seasons. So yes, saying "SB champs" pre 1992ish" actually held more sway than this age.

The team that wins the SB may not always be the best team. It's the team that's playing the best at the point in time. This whole mind set that "We're the SB champions, and for the reason alone we're a freaking awesome team" has got to go.

In my opinion, the only team worthy of a next season "props/respect" is the 2008 team. We actually dominated that year.

so the division that had the SB winner, that was competitive, wasnt any good?

and to ur point with gmen, ur ignoring HIS premise. yeah, there are similarities in that az didnt have a great reg season and neither did we, and az didnt get picked to do anything the next season (thats ur claim i dont even know if thats factually true, bc i believe warner retired and there could be other factors that arent similar to the giants)however, we won a sb in 2007 and just won one in 2011. AZ shouldnt get the respect we deserve bc they a-didnt win the SB and b-hadnt won a sb in recent history, which is relevant bc we won one with the same qb, coach, and dline (jpp swapped with strahan)
gmens point is that bc of those differences, its foolish to claim that this giants situation with getting little to no respect for the next season is like the az situation.

and im not even gonna address the whole "winning the sb doesnt mean anything anymore" statement, its too ridiculous to even try and make sense of

No, I said that a division that's competitive doesn't mean the teams in that division are good teams. Remember when the <u>Seahawks were 7-9 and won the division</u>? You can't say any of those teams were good. I'm sure that division was competitive though. Remember we're talking <u>within the confines of the division, not outside</u>.

What part of gmen46 argument didn't I touch upon? AZ and NY while not exactly identical, there are some definite parallels there. If that's not a good enough example, also, what about Seattle winning the division a couple years back at 7-9? Were they the automatic pick to win it again? Similar scenario.

What I'm trying to get at is something Die-Hard already said - probably in a less esoteric manner. SB or not, we were not a convincing team. And that was recognized by media and NFL fans outside of Giants land alike.

Cmon, Gumby, now you're just going out of your way to reach for the sake of continuing your argument.

There's no parallel between Seattle and the Giants' situation, much less the AZ/Giants. And you know it.

Seattle never made it to the SB, not even past the Divisional Playoff game. And, unlike the TWO "lucky" Giants SB victories over the Patriots, that Seattle win over the obviously superior 2010 Saints WAS a fluke.

Cardinals had never even come CLOSE to the Super Bowl in the 42 seasons prior to their 2008 run; they had not even played in more than 1 or 2 Playoff GAMES in those 42 years.

That hardly compares to the historic and current experience of the Giants regarding playoff and Championship games. Even most non-Giants fans recognized the difference between the two, which is why no one expected or predicted the Cardinals would return to the Super Bowl anytime in the foreseeable future--especially after Warner retired the year following their SB appearance.

The Cardinals had their "lightening in a bottle" opportunity, very nearly won the SB, but ultimately blew their chance.

The Giants, on the other hand, followed up on their so-called 2007 "lightening in a bottle" opportunity with not only a SB win that year, but with another SB win 4 years later.

You honestly think AZ will be in the Super Bowl next year? How about Seattle?

Seriously.

Well yeah. AZ was definitely a more extreme case. No doubt. So if you don't think it compares to the Giants current scenario, it's all good and my bad. If you don't see it, you don't see it. Perhaps I could have come up with a better scenario. But what I was trying to get across was that unconvincing OVERALL performances, regardless of outcome, won't convince people to give you "respect".

But you can say that we got hot at the right time or "lightning in a bottle" for both 2007 and 2011.

Harooni
07-02-2012, 04:56 PM
I think we are a good scrappy team that never quits and has a good coach. however i do not think we are the best team in the nfl. the ball has to bounce your way we seemed to recover our fumbles and win games by less than 4 points as time was closing to an end in some of those games.

it was great and I will take it but i see why we arent feared as a dynasty.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 04:59 PM
I think we are a good scrappy team that never quits and has a good coach. however i do not think we are the best team in the nfl. the ball has to bounce your way we seemed to recover our fumbles and win games by less than 4 points as time was closing to an end in some of those games.

it was great and I will take it but i see why we arent feared as a dynasty.


Do you think we are the 3rd best team in the NFC East?

Harooni
07-02-2012, 05:03 PM
I think we are a good scrappy team that never quits and has a good coach. however i do not think we are the best team in the nfl. the ball has to bounce your way we seemed to recover our fumbles and win games by less than 4 points as time was closing to an end in some of those games.

it was great and I will take it but i see why we arent feared as a dynasty.


Do you think we are the 3rd best team in the NFC East? I think we are the best team in NFC east, I side with homers on that one. I do think the cowboys have under achieved and need the right coach. i think the egals need vick to play a full season before they can talk about them being a huge threat. and the skins well , added something but they may take a few seasons to improve.

Joe Morrison
07-02-2012, 06:26 PM
I think we are a good scrappy team that never quits and has a good coach. however i do not think we are the best team in the nfl. the ball has to bounce your way we seemed to recover our fumbles and win games by less than 4 points as time was closing to an end in some of those games.

it was great and I will take it but i see why we arent feared as a dynasty.
Do you think we are the 3rd best team in the NFC East? I think we are the best team in NFC east, I side with homers on that one. I do think the cowboys have under achieved and need the right coach. i think the egals need vick to play a full season before they can talk about them being a huge threat. and the skins well , added something but they may take a few seasons to improve.
</P>


Cmon now, Vick just got married, if he doesn't play well she'll KHA!</P>


GMEN go 12-4 this year, no one shoots themselves and they win again, will that make them a Dynasty?</P>

Harooni
07-02-2012, 06:39 PM
I think we are a good scrappy team that never quits and has a good coach. however i do not think we are the best team in the nfl. the ball has to bounce your way we seemed to recover our fumbles and win games by less than 4 points as time was closing to an end in some of those games.

it was great and I will take it but i see why we arent feared as a dynasty.
Do you think we are the 3rd best team in the NFC East? I think we are the best team in NFC east, I side with homers on that one. I do think the cowboys have under achieved and need the right coach. i think the egals need vick to play a full season before they can talk about them being a huge threat. and the skins well , added something but they may take a few seasons to improve.
</p>


Cmon now, Vick just got married, if he doesn't play well she'll KHA!</p>


GMEN go 12-4 this year, no one shoots themselves and they win again, will that make them a Dynasty?</p>
perhaps all depends on how we win I think.

Die-Hard
07-02-2012, 07:46 PM
I think we are a good scrappy team that never quits and has a good coach. however i do not think we are the best team in the nfl. the ball has to bounce your way we seemed to recover our fumbles and win games by less than 4 points as time was closing to an end in some of those games.

it was great and I will take it but i see why we arent feared as a dynasty.


And that is basically my point. I see a lot of people around here complaining about the Giants not getting enough respect by the media and other teams' fans. Yes, they won the Super Bowl. Yes, they're obviously a very good team, because bad teams don't win Super Bowls. Yes, they beat some teams who were very strong, and on the road no less, to go all the way. Many people have given them a ton of respect for doing what they did, and a lot of those people had not always been so easy to give the Giants props for anything.

However...

.....the bottom line is, no matter how much is pains anyone to admit it, they were far from being the best team in the NFL from top to bottom. I realize that no one here has claimed as much, but people are ALWAYS going to see 15-1 as being better than 9-7, and the 15-1 team, no matter how unfair or stupid it may seem, will ALWAYS garner more attention and respect from media types and other fans. 9 wins is nice, but 9 times out of 10, 9 wins will not win a division, especially the NFCE. 9 wins is not impressive. I know, I know....it was the regular season, and the playoffs were all that mattered, but again, they got hot at the perfect time, and no matter how much you want to complain about a lack of respect, 9 wins is what most people will see when discussing what may happen this coming season. With the schedule, its quite possible that we wont see 9 wins, which is also something that people are probably considering. Again, I'm sorry, but if you step back and really look at it objectively, they may not be that far from the truth. The '11 Giants were not a powerhouse worthy of the kind of praise you guys want them to have.

Harooni
07-02-2012, 08:10 PM
I think we are a good scrappy team that never quits and has a good coach. however i do not think we are the best team in the nfl. the ball has to bounce your way we seemed to recover our fumbles and win games by less than 4 points as time was closing to an end in some of those games.

it was great and I will take it but i see why we arent feared as a dynasty.


And that is basically my point. I see a lot of people around here complaining about the Giants not getting enough respect by the media and other teams' fans. Yes, they won the Super Bowl. Yes, they're obviously a very good team, because bad teams don't win Super Bowls. Yes, they beat some teams who were very strong, and on the road no less, to go all the way. Many people have given them a ton of respect for doing what they did, and a lot of those people had not always been so easy to give the Giants props for anything.

However...

.....the bottom line is, no matter how much is pains anyone to admit it, they were far from being the best team in the NFL from top to bottom. I realize that no one here has claimed as much, but people are ALWAYS going to see 15-1 as being better than 9-7, and the 15-1 team, no matter how unfair or stupid it may seem, will ALWAYS garner more attention and respect from media types and other fans. 9 wins is nice, but 9 times out of 10, 9 wins will not win a division, especially the NFCE. 9 wins is not impressive. I know, I know....it was the regular season, and the playoffs were all that mattered, but again, they got hot at the perfect time, and no matter how much you want to complain about a lack of respect, 9 wins is what most people will see when discussing what may happen this coming season. With the schedule, its quite possible that we wont see 9 wins, which is also something that people are probably considering. Again, I'm sorry, but if you step back and really look at it objectively, they may not be that far from the truth. The '11 Giants were not a powerhouse worthy of the kind of praise you guys want them to have.

good post. this is why I like baseball playoffs, in the nfl you can catch a better team on a bad day and beat them. maybe we could do a best out of 3 nfc/afc champ game and SB. lol

Harooni
07-02-2012, 08:46 PM
hi , did i violate the sig policy? or did the board glitch? not sure if it was too big and what the guide lines are ,sorry if i did. thanks

Die-Hard
07-02-2012, 08:55 PM
No idea. Is it just not showing up, or was it removed from your account?

Harooni
07-02-2012, 09:12 PM
No idea. Is it just not showing up, or was it removed from your account?

seems removed, maybe it was too big. it was not offensive or anything.

yoeddy
07-02-2012, 09:44 PM
I think we are a good scrappy team that never quits and has a good coach. however i do not think we are the best team in the nfl. the ball has to bounce your way we seemed to recover our fumbles and win games by less than 4 points as time was closing to an end in some of those games.

it was great and I will take it but i see why we arent feared as a dynasty.


And that is basically my point. I see a lot of people around here complaining about the Giants not getting enough respect by the media and other teams' fans. Yes, they won the Super Bowl. Yes, they're obviously a very good team, because bad teams don't win Super Bowls. Yes, they beat some teams who were very strong, and on the road no less, to go all the way. Many people have given them a ton of respect for doing what they did, and a lot of those people had not always been so easy to give the Giants props for anything.

However...

.....the bottom line is, no matter how much is pains anyone to admit it, they were far from being the best team in the NFL from top to bottom. I realize that no one here has claimed as much, but people are ALWAYS going to see 15-1 as being better than 9-7, and the 15-1 team, no matter how unfair or stupid it may seem, will ALWAYS garner more attention and respect from media types and other fans. 9 wins is nice, but 9 times out of 10, 9 wins will not win a division, especially the NFCE. 9 wins is not impressive. I know, I know....it was the regular season, and the playoffs were all that mattered, but again, they got hot at the perfect time, and no matter how much you want to complain about a lack of respect, 9 wins is what most people will see when discussing what may happen this coming season. With the schedule, its quite possible that we wont see 9 wins, which is also something that people are probably considering. Again, I'm sorry, but if you step back and really look at it objectively, they may not be that far from the truth. The '11 Giants were not a powerhouse worthy of the kind of praise you guys want them to have.


The Eagles and Cowboys were 8-8, not 15-1. No one is predicting that the Packers will win the NFC East...

Die-Hard
07-02-2012, 10:51 PM
It was an example of why some teams get more "respect" than others

Die-Hard
07-02-2012, 10:54 PM
No idea. Is it just not showing up, or was it removed from your account?

seems removed, maybe it was too big. it was not offensive or anything.


Was it football related? The only rules for sigs are that they can't be too big, and they have to be football related. Too many people were crossing the line, which is why we had to sort of crack down a bit. I didn't see your sig, so I don't know why it was removed.

T-Murda84
07-03-2012, 06:08 PM
Yea its obvious that the Packers will not win the NFC East. Like an earlier poster said....we are not getting picked because we was 9-7 and inconsistent at times during the season. Yea we hear a lot of talk about the Eagles because they finished the regular season strong and looked like a team coming together. And Dallas is always overrated...they are the so called America's Team, half of us is probably Yankee fans so we can understand that b.s.

We were the superbowl champs so why are we worrying about what analysts are thinking.

Harooni
07-04-2012, 12:00 AM
No idea. Is it just not showing up, or was it removed from your account?

seems removed, maybe it was too big. it was not offensive or anything.


Was it football related? The only rules for sigs are that they can't be too big, and they have to be football related. Too many people were crossing the line, which is why we had to sort of crack down a bit. I didn't see your sig, so I don't know why it was removed.

oh it was one of ****eys Knuckle balls

prob thats why thx bro