PDA

View Full Version : New York Giants win the trash-talking game, too



Toadofsteel
08-14-2012, 11:06 AM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000049916/article/new-york-giants-win-the-trashtalking-game-too

Every team that wins the Super Bowl makes a point of stressing that no one gave it any respect. This usually means the media, and it's usually not true, but this offseason the paranoia felt by the New York Giants not only was justified, it was caused by remarks made by rival players, not harmless reporters.

From Green Bay Packers linebacker Clay Matthews saying recently that "(the Giants) didn't beat us (in the playoffs); we beat ourselves," to San Francisco 49ers safety Donte Whitner saying days later that the Saints and Packers "were the two best teams in the playoffs and once they went down we felt like it was ours to lose, and we let it slip through our fingers," everyone seemed to attribute the Giants' second ring in the Tom Coughlin era to classic good luck.

How else to explain such dominating football from a 9-7 regular-season team?

Well, two longtime standard-bearers for the Big Blue, defensive linemen Osi Umenyiora and Justin Tuck, finally had enough. On Monday, they said to The Star-Ledger what all Giants fans must have been thinking for a while now.

jomo
08-14-2012, 11:43 AM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000049916/article/new-york-giants-win-the-trashtalking-game-too

Every team that wins the Super Bowl makes a point of stressing that no one gave it any respect. This usually means the media, and it's usually not true, but this offseason the paranoia felt by the New York Giants not only was justified, it was caused by remarks made by rival players, not harmless reporters.

From Green Bay Packers linebacker Clay Matthews saying recently that "(the Giants) didn't beat us (in the playoffs); we beat ourselves," to San Francisco 49ers safety Donte Whitner saying days later that the Saints and Packers "were the two best teams in the playoffs and once they went down we felt like it was ours to lose, and we let it slip through our fingers," everyone seemed to attribute the Giants' second ring in the Tom Coughlin era to classic good luck.

How else to explain such dominating football from a 9-7 regular-season team?

Well, two longtime standard-bearers for the Big Blue, defensive linemen Osi Umenyiora and Justin Tuck, finally had enough. On Monday, they said to The Star-Ledger what all Giants fans must have been thinking for a while now.Alot is made of the 9-7 record but I have seen very few people try to understand what was actually going on. It is easy (and lazy) to just say that "luck" was involved or that we were hardly dominant etc.

If you just take some time to remember what was going on last year you won't be surprised at all that we found ourselves in position to win it all AGAIN.

Let's start with this, our schedule was as tough as any out there both inside and outside the division.

It is true that we laid an egg or two but for the most part were ver competitive aganst stiff competition.

Next consider injuries, which every team has to deal with however we didn't have our starting five OL together until game 6. Even then we had a bit of a merry go round ultimately losng Beatty for the season and dealing with season long ailments to our new center Baas. It is very difficult to get any rhythm along the OL with that going on and let's face it our OL was ordinary to begin with.

Then go to the defensive side. Tuck and Osi were not themselves until the final third of the season which keys everything including pass coverage which has to hold coverage that much longer. No one should have been surprised at our run after the regular season GB game in which we took them right to the wire with the officials making bad call after bad call. Clearly GB was one of the 2 or 3 best teams in the league and we showed that night we could compete with anyone.

When we got healthy we started to dominate, yes dominate. We pounded the Cowboys and swallowed the Falcons in one bite. The road game at Green Bay was another dominant effort even more than the score would indicate. San Francisco was close on a miserable field in soggy conditions against a very good defense. However, remember that our defense was just as dominant, maybe more dominant against the the Niners offense. Then the game against the Patriots where we are playing a legendary coach and we again deliver the goods. No one should question the talent or capabilities of last year's team without understanding what was going on during the 9-7 regular season.

Toadofsteel
08-14-2012, 11:55 AM
I'm not arguing anything you're saying... it's the GB and SF fans that are.

rainierjef
08-14-2012, 02:01 PM
man... they need to grow the **** up. this is football to call that superbowl run luck is ******ed.

BurnerNYG
08-14-2012, 02:26 PM
Man I really don't care... at the end we got the hardware. As far as I see it, this should be all the motivation we need. Thanks media and dip**** players.

TheAnalyst
08-14-2012, 02:41 PM
Truth be told, if this team was healhty all season like it was during the playoff push, we would of been 13-3 or 12-4. The injuries to Tuck and Osi hurt our defense all year long. Not to mention the injuries to T2 and Goff caught us with our pants down, and we had to adjust through out the season. We didnt even have our MLB until week, what was it, 13?

You could go through every SB winning team from SB 1 and on and pick out plays they were "lucky" on and probably wouldnt of won it all without it. Tuck rule anyone? How about the Packers only being in the playoffs the year they won the SB because we melted down vs the Eagles, otherwise we have a better record and make the playoffs and they dont.

Ntegrase96
08-14-2012, 02:51 PM
Alot is made of the 9-7 record but I have seen very few people try to understand what was actually going on. It is easy (and lazy) to just say that "luck" was involved or that we were hardly dominant etc.

If you just take some time to remember what was going on last year you won't be surprised at all that we found ourselves in position to win it all AGAIN.

Let's start with this, our schedule was as tough as any out there both inside and outside the division.

It is true that we laid an egg or two but for the most part were ver competitive aganst stiff competition.

Next consider injuries, which every team has to deal with however we didn't have our starting five OL together until game 6. Even then we had a bit of a merry go round ultimately losng Beatty for the season and dealing with season long ailments to our new center Baas. It is very difficult to get any rhythm along the OL with that going on and let's face it our OL was ordinary to begin with.

Then go to the defensive side. Tuck and Osi were not themselves until the final third of the season which keys everything including pass coverage which has to hold coverage that much longer. No one should have been surprised at our run after the regular season GB game in which we took them right to the wire with the officials making bad call after bad call. Clearly GB was one of the 2 or 3 best teams in the league and we showed that night we could compete with anyone.

When we got healthy we started to dominate, yes dominate. We pounded the Cowboys and swallowed the Falcons in one bite. The road game at Green Bay was another dominant effort even more than the score would indicate. San Francisco was close on a miserable field in soggy conditions against a very good defense. However, remember that our defense was just as dominant, maybe more dominant against the the Niners offense. Then the game against the Patriots where we are playing a legendary coach and we again deliver the goods. No one should question the talent or capabilities of last year's team without understanding what was going on during the 9-7 regular season.

As fans we can rationalize and explain why our teams ended up finishing where they did, but in the end all of this stuff sort of balances out.

I could write pages about the way injuries affected the Cowboys performance in December, allowing the Giants back into the playoff picture, but I won't because in the end that's just how things happened.

I think the Giants were a 9-7 team last year. I don't think they were better than that in the regular season despite how it can be rationalized, but they were certainly better than that in the playoffs.

But to think there wasn't some luck involved is absurd. You guys were very fortunate to be in the position you were in at the end of the regular season. That doesn't mean that you guys didn't earn your superbowl win, it's just the way things are.

BurnerNYG
08-14-2012, 02:54 PM
Truth be told, if this team was healhty all season like it was during the playoff push, we would of been 13-3 or 12-4. The injuries to Tuck and Osi hurt our defense all year long. Not to mention the injuries to T2 and Goff caught us with our pants down, and we had to adjust through out the season. We didnt even have our MLB until week, what was it, 13?

You could go through every SB winning team from SB 1 and on and pick out plays they were "lucky" on and probably wouldnt of won it all without it. Tuck rule anyone? How about the Packers only being in the playoffs the year they won the SB because we melted down vs the Eagles, otherwise we have a better record and make the playoffs and they dont.We had a chance the following week and the Packers spanked us. They deserved it more but I get what you're saying completely.

EliDaMANning
08-14-2012, 02:57 PM
Luck is an overused word. There was no luck involved in winning that SB. The Giants were maybe fortunate enough not to play the Saints in NO but that's about it. Everyone on here recognized the Giants matched up well against the Packers. The NFL is all about matchups and throughout the year the Giants hung with every team they played against except the Saints.

The Better team did win in GB, SF and Indy believe it or not. I don't care what people have to say. I find it even more hilarious that a packer comes out to say it though. Score should've been 44-6 LOL!!! What a clown.

Toadofsteel
08-14-2012, 02:58 PM
We had a chance the following week and the Packers spanked us. They deserved it more but I get what you're saying completely.I have a feeling they spanked us because we were still trying to absorb what the hell happened after that eagles meltdown. I know that bit of time was almost surreal for me, and definitely a giant blur... the fact that i finished college around then and didn't get a job straight out of college didn't help either...

gmen46
08-14-2012, 04:35 PM
As fans we can rationalize and explain why our teams ended up finishing where they did, but in the end all of this stuff sort of balances out.

I could write pages about the way injuries affected the Cowboys performance in December, allowing the Giants back into the playoff picture, but I won't because in the end that's just how things happened.

I think the Giants were a 9-7 team last year. I don't think they were better than that in the regular season despite how it can be rationalized, but they were certainly better than that in the playoffs.

But to think there wasn't some luck involved is absurd. You guys were very fortunate to be in the position you were in at the end of the regular season. That doesn't mean that you guys didn't earn your superbowl win, it's just the way things are.

You're right. Some luck is involved. With every championship, some luck is involved. You need talent, good coaching, and superior management/ownership. But, especially in the NFL of today where in truth there is not a huge disparity between the "best" and the "worst" NFL teams in talent, some "luck is involved (a bounced ball into a player's arms, a recovered fumble, lights in the eyes, etc) for the team that wins it all.

But that does not diminish the accomplishments of the champ, as you say. It is just the way things are.

Nonetheless, of all the teams that the Giants defeated in 2011 and in the 2011 post season run, the Packers were the least effected by "luck" on the part of the Giants. The Packers had their collective asses handed to them in that playoff game. And for Mathews to cry about it 7 months after the fact, in public, shows they have a psychological disadvantage when they play the Giants this Thanksgiving weekend. :biggrin:

TheAnalyst
08-14-2012, 04:48 PM
Mathews is just pissed the refs didnt give them 2 or 3 more TDs to help beat us.

Ntegrase96
08-14-2012, 05:01 PM
You're right. Some luck is involved. With every championship, some luck is involved. You need talent, good coaching, and superior management/ownership. But, especially in the NFL of today where in truth there is not a huge disparity between the "best" and the "worst" NFL teams in talent, some "luck is involved (a bounced ball into a player's arms, a recovered fumble, lights in the eyes, etc) for the team that wins it all.

But that does not diminish the accomplishments of the champ, as you say. It is just the way things are.

Nonetheless, of all the teams that the Giants defeated in 2011 and in the 2011 post season run, the Packers were the least effected by "luck" on the part of the Giants. The Packers had their collective asses handed to them in that playoff game. And for Mathews to cry about it 7 months after the fact, in public, shows they have a psychological disadvantage when they play the Giants this Thanksgiving weekend. :biggrin:

Absolutely. I don't want you to take my post the wrong way-- like I said the Giant earned the superbowl win and they took advantage of the situation they were in. This happens with every championship team, especially in today's NFL.

My overall point is that while there are good reasons that the Giants went 9-7 last year, I still think they finished right about where they should have, because in the end, over the course of a 16 game season, things usually tend to balance out.

GameTime
08-14-2012, 05:06 PM
Absolutely. I don't want you to take my post the wrong way-- like I said the Giant earned the superbowl win and they took advantage of the situation they were in. This happens with every championship team, especially in today's NFL.

My overall point is that while there are good reasons that the Giants went 9-7 last year, I still think they finished right about where they should have, because in the end, over the course of a 16 game season, things usually tend to balance out.
I agree about the what was said about championship runs but as far as the reg season there is no way the Giants, even with their injury issues, should have lost to the Skins twice, the Hawks, and the being beaten by the eagles with Vince Young at QB was a joke as well. HOWEVER.....that set the script for what ultimately happened so I guess I am cool with it....:)

Ntegrase96
08-14-2012, 05:13 PM
I agree about the what was said about championship runs but as far as the reg season there is no way the Giants, even with their injury issues, should have lost to the Skins twice, the Hawks, and the being beaten by the eagles with Vince Young at QB was a joke as well. HOWEVER.....that set the script for what ultimately happened so I guess I am cool with it....:)

I don't now about that one.

One key difference between Dallas and New York traditionally is that Dallas will take care of business and beat the you know what out of lesser teams, but will flounder against the stronger teams, while the Giants are the opposite and will rise to the occassion and win big games but falter against lesser teams.

No, the Giants had no business losing to those teams. But also I think it's kind of par for the course with big blue. But hey I could be wrong.

GameTime
08-14-2012, 05:53 PM
I don't now about that one.

One key difference between Dallas and New York traditionally is that Dallas will take care of business and beat the you know what out of lesser teams, but will flounder against the stronger teams, while the Giants are the opposite and will rise to the occassion and win big games but falter against lesser teams.

No, the Giants had no business losing to those teams. But also I think it's kind of par for the course with big blue. But hey I could be wrong.
I hear what you are saying. I guess I was just trying to say they were better than a 9-7 team IMO. But I am bias most likely.

gmen46
08-14-2012, 09:55 PM
I don't now about that one.

One key difference between Dallas and New York traditionally is that Dallas will take care of business and beat the you know what out of lesser teams, but will flounder against the stronger teams, while the Giants are the opposite and will rise to the occassion and win big games but falter against lesser teams.

No, the Giants had no business losing to those teams. But also I think it's kind of par for the course with big blue. But hey I could be wrong.

I agree with your comparison of both teams' tendencies. I think a lot of Giants' fans would agree, actually. It drives me crazy, yet I'm glad we have the tendency to rise to the challenge presented by the better teams, rather than the reverse.