PDA

View Full Version : A little bit shocked Barden did not get any action



appodictic
09-06-2012, 09:18 PM
Ok here me out on this one.

Nicks played well but he was not 100%. He made one move and then kinda just sat in zones. He was used in pick plays and as a decoy. Not a big deal we knew he had some pain and he did what he could. But the one thing the giants were missing last night was chemistry, and Barden seemed to have good chemistry with Eli this pre-season.

I mean Barden had a pretty good pre-season right? Including a break out type game in Chicago. Since nicks was injured I do not understand why we did not get him in the lineup. Was he injured?

RoanokeFan
09-06-2012, 10:04 PM
Barden is a third team player. He was on the field for special teams.

Moke
09-06-2012, 10:07 PM
Hixon had a pretty good game. I am not surprised that Barden wasn't on the offense.

RoanokeFan
09-06-2012, 10:14 PM
Hixon had a pretty good game. I am not surprised that Barden wasn't on the offense.

I was glad to see Hixon not seem to have any mobility issues and get through game one none the less for wear

giantsfan420
09-06-2012, 10:25 PM
i agree. i read nicks played something like 96% of the offensive snaps...i have no idea why esp cuz he came off an injury and like u said, why not use the additional weapons. nicks wasnt his usual self, so i dunno why u couldnt get more reps in there for RR/Barden but eh, first week messups

sg92
09-06-2012, 10:34 PM
i agree. i read nicks played something like 96% of the offensive snaps...i have no idea why esp cuz he came off an injury and like u said, why not use the additional weapons. nicks wasnt his usual self, so i dunno why u couldnt get more reps in there for RR/Barden but eh, first week messups

I agree with this. Nicks looked hampered and slow. He probably shouldn't have been on the field last night.

Think we would have been better off with Barden on the field instead of Nicks, not even counting the fact that Nicks will heal faster if he sits. If that's what we're going to get from him, we should shut him down for a while.

RoanokeFan
09-06-2012, 10:39 PM
I agree with this. Nicks looked hampered and slow. He probably shouldn't have been on the field last night.

Think we would have been better off with Barden on the field instead of Nicks, not even counting the fact that Nicks will heal faster if he sits. If that's what we're going to get from him, we should shut him down for a while.

If they didn't play Nicks, Hixon would have taken his place and Randle would have taken Hixon's place as the # 3

Gimaniac
09-06-2012, 10:42 PM
If they didn't play Nicks, Hixon would have taken his place and Randle would have taken Hixon's place as the # 3

Ya never know until it happens.

sg92
09-06-2012, 10:43 PM
Are we sure Randle is ahead of Barden?

CDN_G-FAN
09-06-2012, 10:47 PM
Hixon looked great. I didn't miss Barden at all.

sg92
09-06-2012, 10:55 PM
Hixon did look great. Nicks did not.

Shockeystays08
09-07-2012, 08:58 AM
Are we sure Randle is ahead of Barden?

Randle has done less than Barden and is very raw. That would be a puzzler if true.

GameTime
09-07-2012, 09:01 AM
Hixon looked great. I didn't miss Barden at all.
how could miss somethig that has never even been there!! of course you didnt miss Barden....

RoanokeFan
09-07-2012, 09:13 AM
Ya never know until it happens.

True, but that's how the depth chart is laid out

RoanokeFan
09-07-2012, 09:15 AM
Are we sure Randle is ahead of Barden?

We posted the depth chart a few days ago and, if I remember it correctly, Randle was on the 2nd team and Barden the 3rd.

Here iit is:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/depth/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants

Diamondring
09-07-2012, 10:40 AM
I agree with this. Nicks looked hampered and slow. He probably shouldn't have been on the field last night.

Think we would have been better off with Barden on the field instead of Nicks, not even counting the fact that Nicks will heal faster if he sits. If that's what we're going to get from him, we should shut him down for a while.I want my cookie cause when they first came out with a topic of Nicks, I was one of the first to say no no no Nicks, he should sit. I want to see Barden to and I don't care if he is on the third team. I also made a prediction about Reuban doing good things on the fieid but I would love to be proven wrong about Barden.

YATittle1962
09-07-2012, 11:43 AM
if Barden was a better player he would have been in the game......he just is not very good

he is limited in the routes he runs well

granted ....he runs a slant well and we could have used some quick slants to get the ball moving....but name a receiver who cannot run a slant well

the defensive schemes that the Cowboys run is not the easiest to throw a slant route against and this simple pattern becomes a very dangerous situation with all those LBs lurking

Barden is a big man who just does not run big man routes well

jomo
09-07-2012, 11:52 AM
Ok here me out on this one.

Nicks played well but he was not 100%. He made one move and then kinda just sat in zones. He was used in pick plays and as a decoy. Not a big deal we knew he had some pain and he did what he could. But the one thing the giants were missing last night was chemistry, and Barden seemed to have good chemistry with Eli this pre-season.

I mean Barden had a pretty good pre-season right? Including a break out type game in Chicago. Since nicks was injured I do not understand why we did not get him in the lineup. Was he injured?This logic would be the same as sitting Derek Jeter in the second game of a double header everytime he goes 0-4 in the first game. You would really like to sit Nicks in favor of Barden?

Diamondring
09-07-2012, 12:04 PM
if Barden was a better player he would have been in the game......he just is not very good

he is limited in the routes he runs well

granted ....he runs a slant well and we could have used some quick slants to get the ball moving....but name a receiver who cannot run a slant well

the defensive schemes that the Cowboys run is not the easiest to throw a slant route against and this simple pattern becomes a very dangerous situation with all those LBs lurking

Barden is a big man who just does not run big man routes wellBut you forgot or do not know that all dbs aren't good either so Barden should be able to beat some of them.

YATittle1962
09-07-2012, 02:01 PM
But you forgot or do not know that all dbs aren't good either so Barden should be able to beat some of them.

obviously the coaches know this and do not trust him against a DB of any level

GameTime
09-07-2012, 02:05 PM
you dont pull a #1 WR even at 90% for unproven #4/5

YATittle1962
09-07-2012, 02:10 PM
you dont pull a #1 WR even at 90% for unproven #4/5

or in the case of the Dolphins this season.....you don't pull a #4 receiver doing an impression of a #1 for a #5 receiver doing an impression of a #4

:)

that poor team

Shockeystays08
09-07-2012, 03:28 PM
We posted the depth chart a few days ago and, if I remember it correctly, Randle was on the 2nd team and Barden the 3rd.

Here iit is:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/depth/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants
The depth chart lists Jernigan ahead of Barden and JJ was inactive. I believe it also listed JJ as the #1 kick returner. Seems the depth chart is negotiable.

pacco_diablo
09-07-2012, 04:04 PM
He actually was on the field as a receiver... briefly. When Hixon got slightly hurt and was trying to get off the field, Barden was his replacement. Hixon was slow to get off the field though and Coughlin had to take a timeout. Hixon was back out there after the TO and TV break.

Diamondring
09-07-2012, 04:36 PM
obviously the coaches know this and do not trust him against a DB of any levelHow you know this? Also what you have said makes no sense. So you saying that Barden can't beat any db? You think that no db can be lower than Barden? How about other dbs in his situation?

YATittle1962
09-07-2012, 05:19 PM
How you know this? Also what you have said makes no sense. So you saying that Barden can't beat any db? You think that no db can be lower than Barden? How about other dbs in his situation?

did you see him run a route on Wed?

I saw 4 wide sets out there and did not see a #13 anywhere in sight

and I did not say he couldnt beat a DB...I said obviously the coaches dont have much trust in him

Diamondring
09-07-2012, 05:53 PM
did you see him run a route on Wed?

I saw 4 wide sets out there and did not see a #13 anywhere in sight

and I did not say he couldnt beat a DB...I said obviously the coaches dont have much trust in himMaybe the 4th wr was ahead of Barden on the depth chart. Does that make more sense than saying they didn't trust him going against any db at any level wich is like saying he can't beat any db? Barden should be able to beat the third or fouth db on the oppositions' chart.

TheAnalyst
09-07-2012, 06:16 PM
Hixon looked great. I didn't miss Barden at all.Not even after that boley int? I thought a nice play action to bradshaw, Ramses out side fade would of been nice.

YATittle1962
09-07-2012, 06:53 PM
Not even after that boley int? I thought a nice play action to bradshaw, Ramses out side fade would of been nice.

I'm curious as to why everyone loves to refer to this mystical fade to Barden in the redzone

I've never seen him catch a fade in the endzone

is it because he is tall?

because if that is all he has going for him.....which it seems like it is.....thats not going to get you catches

if this fade to Barden was at all affective.....trust me ....we would see it

TheAnalyst
09-07-2012, 07:23 PM
I'm curious as to why everyone loves to refer to this mystical fade to Barden in the redzone

I've never seen him catch a fade in the endzone

is it because he is tall?

because if that is all he has going for him.....which it seems like it is.....thats not going to get you catches

if this fade to Barden was at all affective.....trust me ....we would see it

Its only mystical because we NEVER try it. Im not sure why we dont try to get one up for the 6'6'' WR on our team when he has the physical skills to do so. Why not give it a shot? Its not like we can run it in anyway no matter how many times we try.

YATittle1962
09-07-2012, 07:29 PM
Its only mystical because we NEVER try it. Im not sure why we dont try to get one up for the 6'6'' WR on our team when he has the physical skills to do so. Why not give it a shot? Its not like we can run it in anyway no matter how many times we try.

are you under the impression that they have never thought of this before...and have not run this in practice?

the guy is 6' 6"..........someone who has never even seen a game of football would say....hey throw it up high and let the tall guy get it....and you think the coaches and Eli have not considered this?

TheAnalyst
09-07-2012, 07:34 PM
are you under the impression that they have never thought of this before...and have not run this in practice?

the guy is 6' 6"..........someone who has never even seen a game of football would say....hey throw it up high and let the tall guy get it....and you think the coaches and Eli have not considered this?

did I say that? No. But gilbride has his plays near the red zone and they do not include Barden. Like I said, do the coaches and Eli see the running not working inside the 5 yard line? And they keep trying it? Reminds me of shoving Jacobs up the gut for that yard he could never get. Our oline sucks. We cant run it. So we keep on doing it. Then throw a desperation heave. All Im saying is, playaction on 1st down, then to Barden, hell, even Bennett. Do the coaches know this? Im not sure otherwise maybe they would try...

YATittle1962
09-07-2012, 07:39 PM
But gilbride has his plays near the red zone and they do not include Barden.

if he had the ability to run and catch a fade the way some NFL receivers do ........the redzone package would indeed include Barden

until then he is lucky if he is not in street clothes on gameday

JB456
09-07-2012, 07:39 PM
Ok here me out on this one.

Nicks played well but he was not 100%. He made one move and then kinda just sat in zones. He was used in pick plays and as a decoy. Not a big deal we knew he had some pain and he did what he could. But the one thing the giants were missing last night was chemistry, and Barden seemed to have good chemistry with Eli this pre-season.

I mean Barden had a pretty good pre-season right? Including a break out type game in Chicago. Since nicks was injured I do not understand why we did not get him in the lineup. Was he injured?

I would take an injured Nicks at 70-80% a thousand times over an unproven player. Plus, with the way Hixon played, I don't see Barden getting too many reps in the next few games.

appodictic
09-07-2012, 08:51 PM
Well last year nicks was getting 150 yard games against the cowboys... so this game he got 40. this would make him a little less then 90%. Cruz also had 4 drops Barden might have added some fire to the offence like Ogaltree did for the cowboys.

Captain Chaos
09-07-2012, 09:35 PM
I thought that they may bring him in for one of the goal goal line plays or for a 4 wide out. He'll get his chance this year!

JB456
09-07-2012, 11:02 PM
Well last year nicks was getting 150 yard games against the cowboys... so this game he got 40. this would make him a little less then 90%. Cruz also had 4 drops Barden might have added some fire to the offence like Ogaltree did for the cowboys.

I get what you are saying but Hindsight is 20/20. No one knew what Nicks had in him and there was no way in hell we would start Barden over Cruz.

Also, Nicks got a tuneup in the Cowboy game and he should play better in the against the Bucs. Remember, Nicks is still rusty due to the injury.

RoanokeFan
09-07-2012, 11:06 PM
The depth chart lists Jernigan ahead of Barden and JJ was inactive. I believe it also listed JJ as the #1 kick returner. Seems the depth chart is negotiable.

Barden is still on the third team, but I am sure they can maneuver any of them whenever/wherever they want.