PDA

View Full Version : Has this team become Eli-dependent too much?



SuperNYGiants
09-11-2012, 12:32 PM
The defense showed up in the playoffs but not in the regular season, and looks like it's the same thing so far this season, Eli had an ok game and they lose, it takes Eli's best effort now to win games it seems and that's just not fair to Eli because he's not going to play at his best all the time and when that happens the rest of the team has to pick up the slack, and there's no indication whatsoever that they can do that.

When I saw how the Eagles pulled out a win even with a horrendous play by Vick, I said to maself, "If that were the Giants playing, the Browns probably got a blow out win against us..." I can't even imagine Giants winning a game with Eli throwing 5 INTs.

So the question becomes, has this team become way too dependent on Eli? I think it has, because Eli is covering up a lot of holes this team has. I really hope Eli the Elite will show up on every game and light it up because it looks like that's what it's going to take for the Giants to have a winning season.

Is it too much to ask Eli to carry the team and win 10 games every year like Peyton has? I don't know about that because Eli is not like Peyton where he's not going 100mph all the time like Peyton does.

The FO has to take some blame for neglecting the poor OL and not doing anything about it in the off-season by relying on Eli again.

As for the defense, I think they'll bounce back, but wow Fewell needs to do better in adjusting to the game, 2nd half vs. Dallas was just pitiful. Romo read our defense like a book.

SweetZombieJesus
09-11-2012, 12:34 PM
Last year 2/3 of the 9 wins were Eli comebacks, as were the NFC CG and SB. The answer is yes, this team needs Eli or else it's trouble.

BlueJayC
09-11-2012, 12:49 PM
When you have the last ranked running game in the league and still win the Super Bowl and an O-line this year that can't open up hole for a midget you need to be Eli dependant.......they should be more Eli dependant......use the pass to setup the run not vice versa......

Eliscruzzz
09-11-2012, 01:32 PM
I think we need to be more dependent on Eli from the start of the game then we can be ahead of teams and Eli doesn't have to pull magic out of his a** at the end of games and we can run the ball at the end of games to put teams away.

jakegibbs
09-11-2012, 01:56 PM
I think we need to be more dependent on Eli from the start of the game then we can be ahead of teams and Eli doesn't have to pull magic out of his a** at the end of games and we can run the ball at the end of games to put teams away.

+1 start out in the 2 min drill at the beginning of the game for a change. Get up 21 points in 1st quarter & then release the crackons. End of story.

YATittle1962
09-11-2012, 02:01 PM
this is football

you depend on quarterbacks and pass rushers

burier
09-11-2012, 02:06 PM
Bottom line. Our offensive line is terrible and our defense while talented is infected by lazy slackers who pick and choose which downs and which games they're gonna show up for. So Eli is gonna have to play out of his mind plain and simple.

Can't blame injuries forever.

BeatYale
09-11-2012, 02:55 PM
this is football

you depend on quarterbacks and pass rushers

Totally agree.

joemorrisforprez
09-11-2012, 03:04 PM
This team is about giving Eli weapons, and sacking the opposing QB.

So far, it's worked for 2 super bowls.

But anyone expecting the return of Rob Carpenter will be disappointed.

joemorrisforprez
09-11-2012, 03:06 PM
Bottom line. Our offensive line is terrible and our defense while talented is infected by lazy slackers who pick and choose which downs and which games they're gonna show up for. So Eli is gonna have to play out of his mind plain and simple.

Can't blame injuries forever.

I think last week was more about getting too cute (intentionally rushing inside) than just doing what the Giants do best.

Osi and JPP should be blowing by people on the outside, and the linebackers and DT should be minding the gaps.

That didn't happen.....instead, we had Romo rolling out all over the place, our passrushers clogging the middle, and Chase Blackburn waiting 5 yards beyond scrimmage waiting for running backs to jump into his arms.



But I agree....it's on Eli and the receivers. Really, that's always been how the Giants beat the Cowboys. Last week, Cruz played an awful game, and Nicks probably should have been on the bench in favor of a healthier WR.

Kruunch
09-11-2012, 03:10 PM
Name a Super Bowl calibre team in the last decade that didn't rely on their QB.

2002 Bucs I think was the last team.

burier
09-11-2012, 03:26 PM
04 steelers

nhpgiantsfan
09-11-2012, 03:29 PM
You said SB Caliber, so last years 49'ers

nhpgiantsfan
09-11-2012, 03:30 PM
and the Jets 2009, 2010

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 03:35 PM
The defense showed up in the playoffs but not in the regular season, and looks like it's the same thing so far this season, Eli had an ok game and they lose, it takes Eli's best effort now to win games it seems and that's just not fair to Eli because he's not going to play at his best all the time and when that happens the rest of the team has to pick up the slack, and there's no indication whatsoever that they can do that.

When I saw how the Eagles pulled out a win even with a horrendous play by Vick, I said to maself, "If that were the Giants playing, the Browns probably got a blow out win against us..." I can't even imagine Giants winning a game with Eli throwing 5 INTs.

So the question becomes, has this team become way too dependent on Eli? I think it has, because Eli is covering up a lot of holes this team has. I really hope Eli the Elite will show up on every game and light it up because it looks like that's what it's going to take for the Giants to have a winning season.

Is it too much to ask Eli to carry the team and win 10 games every year like Peyton has? I don't know about that because Eli is not like Peyton where he's not going 100mph all the time like Peyton does.

The FO has to take some blame for neglecting the poor OL and not doing anything about it in the off-season by relying on Eli again.

As for the defense, I think they'll bounce back, but wow Fewell needs to do better in adjusting to the game, 2nd half vs. Dallas was just pitiful. Romo read our defense like a book.

Thats the way the NFL is these days. The QB is the difference.

burier
09-11-2012, 03:46 PM
I think last week was more about getting too cute (intentionally rushing inside) than just doing what the Giants do best.

Osi and JPP should be blowing by people on the outside, and the linebackers and DT should be minding the gaps.

That didn't happen.....instead, we had Romo rolling out all over the place, our passrushers clogging the middle, and Chase Blackburn waiting 5 yards beyond scrimmage waiting for running backs to jump into his arms.



But I agree....it's on Eli and the receivers. Really, that's always been how the Giants beat the Cowboys. Last week, Cruz played an awful game, and Nicks probably should have been on the bench in favor of a healthier WR.

I think the Defense played poor no doubt. And for the life of me I dont understand why Chase Blackburn was on the field as much as he was. We need better play at the second level. But of course the offense sucked too. I was good with Nicks starting but he took too many snaps. We could have brought in Barden so he could run the only route he's good at: The slants. Especially since we couldn't block anything.

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 03:50 PM
04 steelers
It was 05. And while Ben played poorly in the SB, he played very well in the playoff games leading up. They couldn't have made it without his high level of play.

RoanokeFan
09-11-2012, 04:00 PM
How do we not depend on Eli. He ultimately has the ability to call every offensive play.

giantsfan420
09-11-2012, 04:05 PM
It was 05. And while Ben played poorly in the SB, he played very well in the playoff games leading up. They couldn't have made it without his high level of play.

the question was whens the last team to win the SB and not rely on the QB. And the Steelers of 04/05 would be an example of that. I think Ben avg'd something like 18 pass attempts a game, or they were like 10-0 when he had fewer than 20 attempts (something along those lines). He played well for most of that year, but Pitt relied much more heavily on their d and run game.

and thats not a slight at ben at all. he was a rookie. i dont think pitt even wanted to rely on him at that point. it was a few years later Ben really became that teams engine.

SuperNYGiants
09-11-2012, 04:14 PM
Name a Super Bowl calibre team in the last decade that didn't rely on their QB.

2002 Bucs I think was the last team.
Do you think Giants will win another Super Bowl with last place running game again? I don't think that formula is the norm, but an exception. When I look around the league and see that teams that depend on QBs the most, Packers lost and Saints lost, how ironic is that?

There's nothing wrong with relying on a capable QB, but when it goes over-board to cover up glaring weaknesses, the end-result is not that good, Peyton paid for it with a serious injury comes to mind when the Colts never did enough to support Peyton with a solid O-Line but only paid attention to picking sexy skill position players in the draft. Sounds familiar?

Packers neglected the defense last season then they fell apart when Rodgers was not on his game vs. Giants, that's what happens to a team that relies too much on a QB, very vulnerable when QB doesn't play good. If Packers try to go with last season's formula it won't work again because Rodgers was playing like god, and I don't think he'll play like that again. I see some similarities in the Giants also. A little more balance would be oh so nice.

Rod-Diggity
09-11-2012, 04:47 PM
You said SB Caliber, so last years 49'ers
I think he meant teams that actually got to the SB

bandwgn86
09-11-2012, 04:48 PM
Thats the way the NFL is these days. The QB is the difference. 2 pages and not one "bad Eli" comment.. this board has changed..

bandwgn86
09-11-2012, 04:52 PM
this is football

you depend on quarterbacks and pass rushersyah the NFL is quickly becoming CFL, only a few decades late :)

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 04:52 PM
the question was whens the last team to win the SB and not rely on the QB. And the Steelers of 04/05 would be an example of that. I think Ben avg'd something like 18 pass attempts a game, or they were like 10-0 when he had fewer than 20 attempts (something along those lines). He played well for most of that year, but Pitt relied much more heavily on their d and run game.

and thats not a slight at ben at all. he was a rookie. i dont think pitt even wanted to rely on him at that point. it was a few years later Ben really became that teams engine.
The Steelers were 6-10 in 03. They drafted Ben and immediately went 15-1 in 04 and 11-5 and won a SB in 05. They have been a dominant team in the NFL since, including 2 SB wins total and another SB appearance.
Ben is by far the most important player on that team and they depend on him very very much.

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 04:53 PM
yah the NFL is quickly becoming CFL, only a few decades late :)
Only with actual talented players.

giantsfan420
09-11-2012, 04:56 PM
The Steelers were 6-10 in 03. They drafted Ben and immediately went 15-1 in 04 and 11-5 and won a SB in 05. They have been a dominant team in the NFL since, including 2 SB wins total and another SB appearance.
Ben is by far the most important player on that team and they depend on him very very much.
thats fine. but they absolutely didnt depend on him his first few years and this was widely accepted by respectable analysts and fans. again, pitt was much better when ben had under 20 attempts, and iirc, those first two yrs, when he had more than 20 attempts, pitts w/l record was avg. of course im not saying thats the case now or recently. but when ben first came into the league, those first couple years, Pitt absolutely depended on their run game and D. If you want to beleve otherwise bc of ur ben boner, thats ur business. doesnt change history.

bandwgn86
09-11-2012, 04:57 PM
Only with actual talented players.i know.. its awesome.. hello sir

SuperNYGiants
09-11-2012, 04:58 PM
The Steelers were 6-10 in 03. They drafted Ben and immediately went 15-1 in 04 and 11-5 and won a SB in 05. They have been a dominant team in the NFL since, including 2 SB wins total and another SB appearance.
Ben is by far the most important player on that team and they depend on him very very much.
I see a same pattern with Steelers that I see in Packers, they both tasted success with QBs but now they rely on them way too much that both teams are not getting it done. Steelers are neglecting the O-Line and their D is not what they use to be, thus they lost in the last Super Bowl. Packers had no D last season yet thought that arrogant Rodgers and Co. would repeat only to get derailed by Giants.

As much as it is about having a star QB, you still need the support and a solid overall team to win it all. I would say Dan Marino is the posterboy of my argument.

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 05:02 PM
thats fine. but they absolutely didnt depend on him his first few years and this was widely accepted by respectable analysts and fans. again, pitt was much better when ben had under 20 attempts, and iirc, those first two yrs, when he had more than 20 attempts, pitts w/l record was avg. of course im not saying thats the case now or recently. but when ben first came into the league, those first couple years, Pitt absolutely depended on their run game and D. If you want to beleve otherwise bc of ur ben boner, thats ur business. doesnt change history.
Almost every game where a QB throws less than 20 passes the team wins.

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 05:03 PM
i know.. its awesome.. hello sir
Hey Bandy...You are missed my Canadian friend.

bandwgn86
09-11-2012, 05:09 PM
Hey Bandy...You are missed my Canadian friend.im around.. more of a spectator though. still trying to figure out this new MB. how bout dem Sox ;)

GO GIANTS

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 05:13 PM
im around.. more of a spectator though. still trying to figure out this new MB. how bout dem Sox ;)

GO GIANTS
My hope is that Bobby V is actually fired on the field. Maybe one of those big hooks coming from the dugout.
I stated my objection to his hiring when it happened and he has not failed to disappoint.

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 05:42 PM
truth is its getting to a point where it really isnt fair to eli...to ask him to bring us back from 1 or 2 tds in the 4th quarter is getting old..literally no running game at all..even the pats rushed for over 100 with ridley,,the d talks alot and they look good on paper but unfortunately every time they step on the field its a coin toss on whether they are going to show up or not...when i read the article where osi talked about they realize what they did wrong its like really? You didnt know romo was mobile by now? i just dont get this team sometimes
Not fair to Eli? Its every QB's dream to be asked to carry an offense.

SuperNYGiants
09-11-2012, 05:48 PM
Carrying an offense is one thing, carrying the WHOLE TEAM is quite another matter sir...

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 05:54 PM
Carrying an offense is one thing, carrying the WHOLE TEAM is quite another matter sir...
Well the "fair to Eli" comment was a little odd.
I think Peyton probably loved his role in Indy. And as we learned last season, he did indeed carry the entire team.

Weygand
09-11-2012, 06:03 PM
The defense showed up in the playoffs but not in the regular season, and looks like it's the same thing so far this season, Eli had an ok game and they lose, it takes Eli's best effort now to win games it seems and that's just not fair to Eli because he's not going to play at his best all the time and when that happens the rest of the team has to pick up the slack, and there's no indication whatsoever that they can do that.

When I saw how the Eagles pulled out a win even with a horrendous play by Vick, I said to maself, "If that were the Giants playing, the Browns probably got a blow out win against us..." I can't even imagine Giants winning a game with Eli throwing 5 INTs.

So the question becomes, has this team become way too dependent on Eli? I think it has, because Eli is covering up a lot of holes this team has. I really hope Eli the Elite will show up on every game and light it up because it looks like that's what it's going to take for the Giants to have a winning season.

Is it too much to ask Eli to carry the team and win 10 games every year like Peyton has? I don't know about that because Eli is not like Peyton where he's not going 100mph all the time like Peyton does.

The FO has to take some blame for neglecting the poor OL and not doing anything about it in the off-season by relying on Eli again.

As for the defense, I think they'll bounce back, but wow Fewell needs to do better in adjusting to the game, 2nd half vs. Dallas was just pitiful. Romo read our defense like a book.

Absolutely too dependent. Coughlin should bench Eli just to prove to everyone that the Giants are bigger than the QB they are paying a metric boatload of money to take us to superbowls.

"Coach....now that the Giants are 4-11, will you concede there is no way to be too dependent on a player like Eli Manning?"
"No. In fact we will now be direct snapping to Ahmad."

/sarcasm

SuperNYGiants
09-11-2012, 06:04 PM
Jim Irsay is a total fool to think he can duplicate what Peyton has done with Andrew Luck. Peyton is one of a kind. Colts will never sniff another Super Bowl for the next 5 years.

Morehead State
09-11-2012, 08:33 PM
how is it odd? how is it fair to ask a qb to lead a 4th quarter comback every single week? it cant always be on his shoulders
I would think he would cherish the chance. Do you think Eli is the kind of guy who would not like the ball in his hands at crunch time? Seems to me thats the kind of thing a competitor lives for.

jomo
09-11-2012, 08:38 PM
"Too Eli dependent" is the wrong choice of words. It sounds like Eli is the problem when in actuality, the OL is the problem. I would prefer to say thank God for Eli being the great equalizer...........and the D didn't come alive in the playoffs, they simply got healthy just before the playoffs.

Tmurda1984
09-11-2012, 09:36 PM
Reese has become an Eli-Dependent GM....Eli is Reese's easy button when he screws up in the off season. Sorry Offensive line...no cap room to sign a solid veteran like Winston..Reese is probably thinking well Eli is durable enough to withstand all the hits. If this is our GM after the Eli era, this will be like the 70s all over again.

Buddy333
09-11-2012, 10:46 PM
Take away Eli and the Giants are not the same team. Yeah, no kidding. You can say the same thing about the best teams in the NFL. Tell me another playoff team or team you would consider a contender this year that will be ok if they didn't have their QB. Do you think the Patriots would survive without Brady? Green Bay without Rogers? The Saints without Brees?

Buddy333
09-11-2012, 10:48 PM
What is with the hate of a GM that has helped build a TEAM that won 2 of the last 5 Super Bowls? Yes, Eli is the MVP, but even he can not do it himself. Who drafted Nicks? Who signed Cruz? Who drafted JPP? Lots of fans would love to have Reese as their GM.

SuperNYGiants
09-12-2012, 01:32 AM
Didn't the Patriots win 10 games the year Brady went down? Didn't Flynn throw 6 TDs in a game filling in for Rodgers?

I just like to see the O-Line muster up some type of run block, is that too much to ask? Why shouldn't I as a fan ask for the team to improve on a glaring weakness from last season? I'm not naive enough to believe that the last place in rushing team is going to win it all again.

Battyboyy
09-12-2012, 06:00 AM
Reese has done a super job as GM and last year was an example of that. But we need to get more from Bradshaw I have come to accept our O-line is hopeless we have to stop trying to fix it this year and just move on until we can upgrade

Captain Chaos
09-12-2012, 06:12 AM
I don't think that it was built that way, the O Line being as porous as it is makes it appear that way.

burier
09-12-2012, 11:59 AM
"Too Eli dependent" is the wrong choice of words. It sounds like Eli is the problem when in actuality, the OL is the problem. I would prefer to say thank God for Eli being the great equalizer...........and the D didn't come alive in the playoffs, they simply got healthy just before the playoffs.

Just so we're clear the D did not get healthy just before the playoffs. This is a myth that someone invented to try to explain away an entire regular season worth of poor play.

Prior to playoffs we got exactly 1 addition to the team and that was Prince. You could say Tuck "got healthy" but in reality he has already stated that his poor play was do to laziness and lack of desire...not health.

And now we're seeing that some of the same issues we had last season have not been addressed.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 12:08 PM
Just so we're clear the D did not get healthy just before the playoffs. This is a myth that someone invented to try to explain away an entire regular season worth of poor play.

Prior to playoffs we got exactly 1 addition to the team and that was Prince. You could say Tuck "got healthy" but in reality he has already stated that his poor play was do to laziness and lack of desire...not health.

And now we're seeing that some of the same issues we had last season have not been addressed.

Getting Boley back was huge for us late in the season. We were especially bad when he was out. Plus we got Osi back about the same time. I think those two were huge factors.

burier
09-12-2012, 12:19 PM
Getting Boley back was huge for us late in the season. We were especially bad when he was out. Plus we got Osi back about the same time. I think those two were huge factors.

Boley only missed 1 game. I wouldn't call that getting him back.

Osi was in and out of the lineup all season and the D sucked weather he was activated or not.

What really happened was guys started playing better which is frustrating. Im so sick of this crap where we pick and choose which games we're going t show up for.

Imgrate
09-12-2012, 12:19 PM
Just so we're clear the D did not get healthy just before the playoffs. This is a myth that someone invented to try to explain away an entire regular season worth of poor play.Prior to playoffs we got exactly 1 addition to the team and that was Prince. You could say Tuck "got healthy" but in reality he has already stated that his poor play was do to laziness and lack of desire...not health.And now we're seeing that some of the same issues we had last season have not been addressed.Osi got healthier, boley came back from injury. Tuck's issues were health related. Mental health is still health

burier
09-12-2012, 12:22 PM
Osi got healthier, boley came back from injury. Tuck's issues were health related. Mental health is still health

LOL "Mental health is still health" Its a reach but I'll allow it.

As far as the other two guys...See the above

Buddy333
09-12-2012, 12:26 PM
I find it amazing how people underestomate the power of he mind. The worst games they played last year where with players banged up. It's just a fact.

Imgrate
09-12-2012, 12:27 PM
LOL "Mental health is still health" Its a reach but I'll allow it.As far as the other two guys...See the above Boley was hurt during the SF game. Missed the next two games and didn't start in the cowboy game....that's not 1 game

ryan12
09-12-2012, 12:28 PM
this is football

you depend on quarterbacks and pass rushers

this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Boley only missed 1 game. I wouldn't call that getting him back.

Osi was in and out of the lineup all season and the D sucked weather he was activated or not.

What really happened was guys started playing better which is frustrating. Im so sick of this crap where we pick and choose which games we're going t show up for.
He got hurt early in the SF game and missed most of that and then the Philly game and NO game and was still not himself until later in the season.

burier
09-12-2012, 12:34 PM
Boley was hurt during the SF game. Missed the next two games and didn't start in the cowboy game....that's not 1 game

You're right. 2 games. Excuse me.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 12:41 PM
You're right. 2 games. Excuse me.
For practical purposes it was 3 games missed and more before he was healthy enough to be as effective as he was.

burier
09-12-2012, 12:43 PM
He got hurt early in the SF game and missed most of that and then the Philly game and NO game and was still not himself until later in the season.

I don't want to really want to go back and forth. Even if we say Boley missed the SF game the EAGLES game the NO Game and the Packers game...Say he missed 4 games...to claim he was the difference is wrong because the Defense was ranked near the bottom before he got hurt in the first place.

Not to mention these games where you claim he wasn't himself his stat line wasn't out of line with his stats for the rest of the season...And he managed 74 Solos on the season. He clearly wasn't all that hurt.

Kruunch
09-12-2012, 12:54 PM
Do you think Giants will win another Super Bowl with last place running game again? I don't think that formula is the norm, but an exception. When I look around the league and see that teams that depend on QBs the most, Packers lost and Saints lost, how ironic is that?

There's nothing wrong with relying on a capable QB, but when it goes over-board to cover up glaring weaknesses, the end-result is not that good, Peyton paid for it with a serious injury comes to mind when the Colts never did enough to support Peyton with a solid O-Line but only paid attention to picking sexy skill position players in the draft. Sounds familiar?

Packers neglected the defense last season then they fell apart when Rodgers was not on his game vs. Giants, that's what happens to a team that relies too much on a QB, very vulnerable when QB doesn't play good. If Packers try to go with last season's formula it won't work again because Rodgers was playing like god, and I don't think he'll play like that again. I see some similarities in the Giants also. A little more balance would be oh so nice.

Balance is always important in a team dynamic, especially one so heavily team oriented as football however you neglected to mention that both the Giants and Patriots both had horribly rated defenses going into the post season last year. The old paradigms of run game + defense don't apply anymore the way they did a decade ago and before.

With the current trend of protecting passers and receivers and the league moving towards pass oriented offenses, the QB starts to stand out as the most important piece on the team. That wasn't always the case but it certainly is today.

In other words, you most likely won't see SB caliber teams sporting Brad Johnsons and Trent Dilfers (barring a career season by an otherwise journeyman QB) with the current trend of the NFL.

Kruunch
09-12-2012, 01:02 PM
I see a same pattern with Steelers that I see in Packers, they both tasted success with QBs but now they rely on them way too much that both teams are not getting it done. Steelers are neglecting the O-Line and their D is not what they use to be, thus they lost in the last Super Bowl. Packers had no D last season yet thought that arrogant Rodgers and Co. would repeat only to get derailed by Giants.

As much as it is about having a star QB, you still need the support and a solid overall team to win it all. I would say Dan Marino is the posterboy of my argument.

Ah that brings up a great point and probably one the OP was trying to make.

While having a successful QB is paramount in todays NFL, too many teams are becoming complacent if they have one (Packers, Steelers, Giants and Colts come to mind).

Kruunch
09-12-2012, 01:04 PM
Not fair to Eli? Its every QB's dream to be asked to carry an offense.

But bound to fail more times than succeed when that becomes the norm.

Last year was a fluke statistically speaking.

MattMeyerBud
09-12-2012, 01:09 PM
Ah that brings up a great point and probably one the OP was trying to make.

While having a successful QB is paramount in todays NFL, too many teams are becoming complacent if they have one (Packers, Steelers, Giants and Colts come to mind).

Steelers actually made a committment to the run this year by bringing in haley. Even though they threw 40 times, it had more to do with the way the game played out.

Imgrate
09-12-2012, 01:09 PM
I don't want to really want to go back and forth. Even if we say Boley missed the SF game the EAGLES game the NO Game and the Packers game...Say he missed 4 games...to claim he was the difference is wrong because the Defense was ranked near the bottom before he got hurt in the first place.Not to mention these games where you claim he wasn't himself his stat line wasn't out of line with his stats for the rest of the season...And he managed 74 Solos on the season. Hearly whasn't all that hurt.Going into the playoffs we added a new starting corner in prince. A new starting mlb in chase, two of our des were as healthy as they have been all year(both of whom receieve the snaps equivalent to a starter), and our wlb was finally healthy at the same time as all of these guys.that is a huge difference in personnel when compared to any other point in the season.

MattMeyerBud
09-12-2012, 01:12 PM
Going into the playoffs we added a new starting corner in prince. A new starting mlb in chase, two of our des were as healthy as they have been all year(both of whom receieve the snaps equivalent to a starter), and our wlb was finally healthy at the same time as all of these guys.that is a huge difference in personnel when compared to any other point in the season.

+1

bandwgn86
09-12-2012, 01:19 PM
Balance is always important in a team dynamic, especially one so heavily team oriented as football however you neglected to mention that both the Giants and Patriots both had horribly rated defenses going into the post season last year. The old paradigms of run game + defense don't apply anymore the way they did a decade ago and before.

With the current trend of protecting passers and receivers and the league moving towards pass oriented offenses, the QB starts to stand out as the most important piece on the team. That wasn't always the case but it certainly is today.

In other words, you most likely won't see SB caliber teams sporting Brad Johnsons and Trent Dilfers (barring a career season by an otherwise journeyman QB) with the current trend of the NFL.balanced is for suckers, all that means is your not excellent at anything.. ;)

burier
09-12-2012, 01:29 PM
Going into the playoffs we added a new starting corner in prince. A new starting mlb in chase, two of our des were as healthy as they have been all year(both of whom receieve the snaps equivalent to a starter), and our wlb was finally healthy at the same time as all of these guys.that is a huge difference in personnel when compared to any other point in the season.

The combination of Boley Osi and Tuck were on the field together at various points throughout the season and the defense struggled.

Chase Blackburn was brought onto the team DUE TO INJURY....When you sign someone off his couch because of an injury that move can't fall under the "Got healthy" category.

Now if you want to say that we were fortunate to be close to full force for a playoff run then fine. I'd agree. But it by no means explains why we played so poorly all season long.

Boley missed Very little time.
JPP missed No Time
Kiwi Missed No Time
KP Missed No Time
Webster Missed No Time
Rolle Missed No Time
Canty Missed No Time

When you really think about it, blaming anything that happened defensively on injuries is just invalid. We were by and large very healthy, especially when it comes to our star defenders.

If we exclude T2 since we NEVER got him back and still managed to win the Superbowl the position that was most plauged by injuries was DE which just so happened to be the postion with the most depth.

Injuries are never an excuse and they certainly weren't an excuse last season.

MattMeyerBud
09-12-2012, 01:30 PM
The combination of Boley Osi and Tuck were on the field together at various points throughout the season and the defense struggled.

Chase Blackburn was brought onto the team DUE TO INJURY....When you sign someone off his couch because of an injury that move can't fall under the "Got healthy" category.

Now if you want to say that we were fortunate to be full force for a playoff run then fine. I'd agree. But it by no means explains why we played so poorly all season long.

Boley missed Very little time.
JPP missed No Time
Kiwi Missed No Time
KP Missed No Time
Webster Missed No Time
Rolle Missed No Time
Canty Missed No Time

When you really think about it, blaming anything that happened defensively on injuries is just invalid. We were by and large very healthy.

If we exclude T2 since we NEVER got him back and still managed to win the Superbowl the position that was most plauged by injuries was DE which just so happened to be the postion with the most depth.

Injuries are never an excuse and they certainly weren't an excuse last season.

so then what was the turning point. What was the reason that the Giants looked like a completely different team once everybody was back

burier
09-12-2012, 01:39 PM
so then what was the turning point. What was the reason that the Giants looked like a completely different team once everybody was back

I think rumblings about Coughlin's job helped. But mainly I'd say Justin Tuck was the turning point. I think all season the defense just followe his lead. He didn't show up so the defense didn't show up. Later on He showed up and the defense showed up.

Now his mental health is something I really don't care to comment on. If you can't walk then you can't play...but every player has personal demons to overcome and he has to produce on the field regardless.

That's why I'd like Justin Tuck removed from his leadership role. When he's playing to his potential its great...Its contagious. But When he's not playing to his potential....that's contagious as well.

SuperNYGiants
09-12-2012, 01:44 PM
Isn't it obvious why the defense showed up in the nick of time? Their backs were against the wall, and realized that one more poor game would be the end, so they played like they were suppose to.

giantsfan420
09-12-2012, 01:56 PM
I think rumblings about Coughlin's job helped. But mainly I'd say Justin Tuck was the turning point. I think all season the defense just followe his lead. He didn't show up so the defense didn't show up. Later on He showed up and the defense showed up.

Now his mental health is something I really don't care to comment on. If you can't walk then you can't play...but every player has personal demons to overcome and he has to produce on the field regardless.

That's why I'd like Justin Tuck removed from his leadership role. When he's playing to his potential its great...Its contagious. But When he's not playing to his potential....that's contagious as well.

tuck, osi, and jpp didnt get healthy and on the field at the same time until the end of the reg season. our starting D looked very diff near the end of the season...

burier
09-12-2012, 02:02 PM
tuck, osi, and jpp didnt get healthy and on the field at the same time until the end of the reg season. our starting D looked very diff near the end of the season...

We have different definitions of the word healthy. To me, if you're on the field you're healthy.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 02:40 PM
I think rumblings about Coughlin's job helped. But mainly I'd say Justin Tuck was the turning point. I think all season the defense just followe his lead. He didn't show up so the defense didn't show up. Later on He showed up and the defense showed up.

Now his mental health is something I really don't care to comment on. If you can't walk then you can't play...but every player has personal demons to overcome and he has to produce on the field regardless.

That's why I'd like Justin Tuck removed from his leadership role. When he's playing to his potential its great...Its contagious. But When he's not playing to his potential....that's contagious as well.

So a 7-7 team, coming off a loss to a 6-10 team, became a 6-0 team and a SB champ, beating the best teams in football because Justin Tuck "showed up".


..........Just asking.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 02:42 PM
We have different definitions of the word healthy. To me, if you're on the field you're healthy.
So if you are running at 70% you are the exact sme player you are running at 100%


......Just checking again.


These statements of yours are.....interesting.

burier
09-12-2012, 02:53 PM
So if you are running at 70% you are the exact sme player you are running at 100%


......Just checking again.


These statements of yours are.....interesting.

Yeah like I said..Coughlin's job was in question again, we were fighting for a playoff spot...it was do or die and hell yeah the leader of the Defense decided to show up.

70% vs 100% hmmm

If we're talking about Madden then no... a guy at 70% is 30% weaker

But in real life 100% doesn't exist. You think JPP was 100%? Hell do you think Eli Manning was 100%?

Since players don't have a health bar or energy meter I'm gonna trust that if the trainers and coaching staff allowed the player to suit up then said player is phyisically able to peform. I'm not going to make excuses.

Also Tuck just put up another brick..very similar to the bricks he was throwing up for much of last season...but meh...Maybe he was at 70%

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 03:07 PM
Yeah like I said..Coughlin's job was in question again, we were fighting for a playoff spot...it was do or die and hell yeah the leader of the Defense decided to show up.

70% vs 100% hmmm

If we're talking about Madden then no... a guy at 70% is 30% weaker

But in real life 100% doesn't exist. You think JPP was 100%? Hell do you think Eli Manning was 100%?

Since players don't have a health bar or energy meter I'm gonna trust that if the trainers and coaching staff allowed the player to suit up then said player is phyisically able to peform. I'm not going to make excuses.

Also Tuck just put up another brick..very similar to the bricks he was throwing up for much of last season...but meh...Maybe he was at 70%
Coughlin's job was in question when we quit against Carolina and Minnesota weeks 16 and 17, 2009.

Buddy333
09-12-2012, 03:13 PM
Didn't Mara already say TC was never in danger of losing his job. The media and this board had him on the way out. The owner didn't.

burier
09-12-2012, 03:17 PM
Coughlin's job was in question when we quit against Carolina and Minnesota weeks 16 and 17, 2009.

MMmmm not......reaaallly.

2 seasons removed from a Superbowl Championship (09) VS 2 seasons removed from a playoff birth (11).

Coughlin was in far greater danger this past season then he was in 09.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 03:18 PM
MMmmm not......reaaallly.

2 seasons removed from a Superbowl Championship (09) VS 2 seasons removed from a playoff birth (11).

Coughlin was in far greater danger this past season then he was in 09.
They were instructed to fire Sheridan or TC would have been fired. that was common knowledge at the time.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 03:19 PM
Didn't Mara already say TC was never in danger of losing his job. The media and this board had him on the way out. The owner didn't.
When would John Mara ever say that his HC was in danger. Many fans wanted TC's head on a platter. If not then, then he ceratainly was in no danger last season.

burier
09-12-2012, 03:20 PM
Didn't Mara already say TC was never in danger of losing his job. The media and this board had him on the way out. The owner didn't.

But Mara saying Coughlin was never in trouble could be revisionist history on his part. Its easy to say Coughling was never going to get fired after he wins the damn superbowl.

Second even if Mara didn't intend to fire Coughlin he never approached Coughlin and Coughlin never approached the players to communicate that message. A classic case of Perception becoming reality.

Furthermore...I repeat I believe that was just one aspect of the turn around. Due or Die desperation situations tend to bring the best out of talented players.

burier
09-12-2012, 03:22 PM
They were instructed to fire Sheridan or TC would have been fired. that was common knowledge at the time.

Objection! Relevance!

TC wasn't instructed to fire Sheridan during the season. Had the Giants made a run in 09 no one would have been fired.

Edit: and let me add that if The Giants had rolled over this past season who exactly was left to throw under the bus to save Coughlin's Job? Would the Giants have instructed Coughlin to fire PF (Sheridan's replacement)?. There would be no justification to fire Gilbride. His unit carried the team. Even Mara would have to at some point decide that the firing coordinators isn't the answer.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 03:25 PM
But Mara saying Coughlin was never in trouble could be revisionist history on his part. Its easy to say Coughling was never going to get fired after he wins the damn superbowl.

Second even if Mara didn't intend to fire Coughlin he never approached Coughlin and Coughlin never approached the players to communicate that message. A classic case of Perception becoming reality.

Furthermore...I repeat I believe that was just one aspect of the turn around. Due or Die desperation situations tend to bring the best out of talented players.

But you are saying that it DID get to the players last season? I'll save you the trouble. Thats just nuts.
We simply played better defense at the end of the season. Getting guys back and getting guys healthy had a lot to do with it. We also ran the ball better than earlier in the season, probably due to the O line reshuffle. Plus they probably just started to get the defensive scheme.
But the bottom line is that we simply played much better defense and it had nothing to do with Justin Tuck getting his head straight and nothing to do with rumors about TC's job.
It was about the play on the field.

Buddy333
09-12-2012, 03:28 PM
The Giants are an old school team. They don't just to conclusions. I don't think TC was ever in danger of being fired and the owner said it.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 03:31 PM
The Giants are an old school team. They don't just to conclusions. I don't think TC was ever in danger of being fired and the owner said it.
Nor was he last year.

burier
09-12-2012, 03:41 PM
But you are saying that it DID get to the players last season? I'll save you the trouble. Thats just nuts.
We simply played better defense at the end of the season. Getting guys back and getting guys healthy had a lot to do with it. We also ran the ball better than earlier in the season, probably due to the O line reshuffle. Plus they probably just started to get the defensive scheme.
But the bottom line is that we simply played much better defense and it had nothing to do with Justin Tuck getting his head straight and nothing to do with rumors about TC's job.
It was about the play on the field.


Ok you lost me.

The players don't need anyone to tell them that if they dont start winning someone's gonna get fired. They know they haven't been the playoffs in 2 years. They know how it works.

As far as the play on the field. YES absolutely. The play on the field had everything to do with it. The question is why did the play on the field improve?

And again you say we got guys back but Tuck had been back for weeks.

You're basically saying Prince and Chase Blackburn were the difference between a 28th ranked Defense and a Superbowl Calibure defense and I find that amazing.

Buddy333
09-12-2012, 03:51 PM
Oh is this so hard to understand. There have been only 2 defensive units that had more injuries in the last decade than the Giants did last year. Osi only played half the regular season games. Tuck had physical and personal issues. Their worst games of the season where when Boley and KP where injured. Prince missed most of the season and was much better by the post season.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 04:45 PM
Ok you lost me.

The players don't need anyone to tell them that if they dont start winning someone's gonna get fired. They know they haven't been the playoffs in 2 years. They know how it works.

As far as the play on the field. YES absolutely. The play on the field had everything to do with it. The question is why did the play on the field improve?

And again you say we got guys back but Tuck had been back for weeks.

You're basically saying Prince and Chase Blackburn were the difference between a 28th ranked Defense and a Superbowl Calibure defense and I find that amazing.

I didn't mention Tuck at all, nor did I mention Blackburn or Prince. I did mention Boley and Osi. But I really don't know what your point is here. All I'm saying is that we played much better defense and ran the ball better at the end of the season. Is that not what you think?
And forget the motivation thing. Guys play hard on our team no matter what. Too much to lose...like their jobs.

burier
09-12-2012, 04:59 PM
Oh is this so hard to understand. There have been only 2 defensive units that had more injuries in the last decade than the Giants did last year. Osi only played half the regular season games. Tuck had physical and personal issues. Their worst games of the season where when Boley and KP where injured. Prince missed most of the season and was much better by the post season.

So...first of all the aggregate injurie numbers were inflated due to a rash of of injuries to scrub players who wouldn't have seen the field anyway so you can put that one back in the holster.

Tuck had mental issues which goes to my point about how his play impacted the situation greatly.

Boley and KP missed what? 3 games combined?

Osi isn't even a starter and in the games he did play in the defense stunk the joint up the same way the stunk it up when he wasn't playing.

I'll give you Prince though its against my football sensibilties to blame our poor play on the absense of a rookie. But other than that we need to get with the fact that our team picks and chooses when it will play well. Last wednesday is case and point.

And the list goes on.

Miami
Arizona
Seattle
St Louis
Philly

But that same team that was supposed to be so unhealthy damn near beat the unbeatble Packers.

Boley got hurt in the SF game but we're a tipped pass from winning that game too.

Osi wasn't in the lineup when we beat down Philly week 3

Do you think the difference in the NO games was Michael Boley? I assure he was not.

There's no consistent pattern to support this health theory.

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 05:06 PM
So...first of all the aggregate injurie numbers were inflated due to a rash of of injuries to scrub players who wouldn't have seen the field anyway so you can put that one back in the holster.

Tuck had mental issues which goes to my point about how his play impacted the situation greatly.

Boley and KP missed what? 3 games combined?

Osi isn't even a starter and in the games he did play in the defense stunk the joint up the same way the stunk it up when he wasn't playing.

I'll give you Prince though its against my football sensibilties to blame our poor play on the absense of a rookie. But other than that we need to get with the fact that our team picks and chooses when it will play well. Last wednesday is case and point.

And the list goes on.

Miami
Arizona
Seattle
St Louis
Philly

But that same team that was supposed to be so unhealthy damn near beat the unbeatble Packers.

Boley got hurt in the SF game but we're a tipped pass from winning that game too.

Osi wasn't in the lineup when we beat down Philly week 3

Do you think the difference in the NO games was Michael Boley? I assure he was not.

There's no consistent pattern to support this health theory.
I really don't know what your point is. Are you saying the defense didn't play better? Are you saying having a healthy Osi, Boley and Prince didn't help?
That makes no sense.
And you say that since the SF game was close, the Boley injury had no effect, and then you suggest that since the NO game was a blowout, the Boley injury had no effect.
Which is it for God's sake?

burier
09-12-2012, 05:12 PM
I didn't mention Tuck at all, nor did I mention Blackburn or Prince. I did mention Boley and Osi. But I really don't know what your point is here. All I'm saying is that we played much better defense and ran the ball better at the end of the season. Is that not what you think?
And forget the motivation thing. Guys play hard on our team no matter what. Too much to lose...like their jobs.

We don't really disagree but I do believe that the Giants fail to bring it every week.

Name the last season the Giants didn't inexplicably lose to a far inferior opponent. I mean...I honestly can't remember a season. You've been watching alot longer than me so I'll differ to your opinion on that.

Last season we lost to Seattle..We're in dog fights with buffalo and Miami. We lost to Vickless Eagles.

The season before that We lose randomly to the Titans but was was worse was losing to Romoless cowboys AT HOME after the Cowboys just fired their head coach!

I mean I can go on. For some reason we can't get it done week in a week out.

Imgrate
09-12-2012, 05:23 PM
So...first of all the aggregate injurie numbers were inflated due to a rash of of injuries to scrub players who wouldn't have seen the field anyway so you can put that one back in the holster.Tuck had mental issues which goes to my point about how his play impacted the situation greatly.Boley and KP missed what? 3 games combined?Osi isn't even a starter and in the games he did play in the defense stunk the joint up the same way the stunk it up when he wasn't playing.I'll give you Prince though its against my football sensibilties to blame our poor play on the absense of a rookie. But other than that we need to get with the fact that our team picks and chooses when it will play well. Last wednesday is case and point.And the list goes on.MiamiArizonaSeattleSt LouisPhillyBut that same team that was supposed to be so unhealthy damn near beat the unbeatble Packers.Boley got hurt in the SF game but we're a tipped pass from winning that game too.Osi wasn't in the lineup when we beat down Philly week 3Do you think the difference in the NO games was Michael Boley? I assure he was not.There's no consistent pattern to support this health theory.that injury statline was based on snaps missed. so even though osi doesnt start he does get a great deal of snaps.so no, that gun isnt staying in the holster

Morehead State
09-12-2012, 05:24 PM
We don't really disagree but I do believe that the Giants fail to bring it every week.

Name the last season the Giants didn't inexplicably lose to a far inferior opponent. I mean...I honestly can't remember a season. You've been watching alot longer than me so I'll differ to your opinion on that.

Last season we lost to Seattle..We're in dog fights with buffalo and Miami. We lost to Vickless Eagles.

The season before that We lose randomly to the Titans but was was worse was losing to Romoless cowboys AT HOME after the Cowboys just fired their head coach!

I mean I can go on. For some reason we can't get it done week in a week out.

That happens to a lot of teams but , yes, we have always been a tad flawed in the entire TC era. Our saving grace is that we put two playoff runs together that resembled nothing we did during the regular season. I mean we had some of the worst games we ever had in the 07 season and we end up winning the SB. Same with last season.
The NFL is a different place. The Pats lost to Cleveland last season. The Packers lost to KC. Its a strange league.

Imgrate
09-12-2012, 05:24 PM
We don't really disagree but I do believe that the Giants fail to bring it every week.Name the last season the Giants didn't inexplicably lose to a far inferior opponent. I mean...I honestly can't remember a season. You've been watching alot longer than me so I'll differ to your opinion on that.Last season we lost to Seattle..We're in dog fights with buffalo and Miami. We lost to Vickless Eagles.The season before that We lose randomly to the Titans but was was worse was losing to Romoless cowboys AT HOME after the Cowboys just fired their head coach!I mean I can go on. For some reason we can't get it done week in a week out.no team in the league can get it done week in and week out. its the nfl, everybody comes to play

burier
09-12-2012, 05:34 PM
no team in the league can get it done week in and week out. its the nfl, everybody comes to play

I'm not talking about going 16-0. I'm talking about playing well and winning games you're supposed to win.

The same reason We could beat the Eagles down in week 3 and then have to stage a miraculous comback to beat the Cards in week 4 is the reason the D suddenly got better for the playoff run. They were clearly dogging it for most of the season.

I point to the Pats game where we shut out their offense in the first half..The week before Same personel was getting blown up by Miami! And I can't even remember who they had at QB.

Just look at the games we're the D just didnt show up. Its New Orleans and teams that we should have beaten hands down.

D played fine against The Pats, San Fran and Green Bay..but couldn't keep charlie whithurst under control! Its a consistency issue. not an injury issue.

GameTime
09-12-2012, 05:35 PM
We don't really disagree but I do believe that the Giants fail to bring it every week.

Name the last season the Giants didn't inexplicably lose to a far inferior opponent. I mean...I honestly can't remember a season. You've been watching alot longer than me so I'll differ to your opinion on that.

Last season we lost to Seattle..We're in dog fights with buffalo and Miami. We lost to Vickless Eagles.

The season before that We lose randomly to the Titans but was was worse was losing to Romoless cowboys AT HOME after the Cowboys just fired their head coach!

I mean I can go on. For some reason we can't get it done week in a week out.

I hear you and it goes before TC was the coach. Seems the way the Giants and the NFL are.
The Pack was 15-1 nad couldnt get it done in th playoffs. The Pats were 18-0 and couldnt get it done. It happens....
You ever hear of the saying.... "Any Given Sunday".???
That saying sums it up.....and its just not about the Giants.....

Buddy333
09-12-2012, 05:38 PM
So...first of all the aggregate injurie numbers were inflated due to a rash of of injuries to scrub players who wouldn't have seen the field anyway so you can put that one back in the holster.Tuck had mental issues which goes to my point about how his play impacted the situation greatly.Boley and KP missed what? 3 games combined?Osi isn't even a starter and in the games he did play in the defense stunk the joint up the same way the stunk it up when he wasn't playing.I'll give you Prince though its against my football sensibilties to blame our poor play on the absense of a rookie. But other than that we need to get with the fact that our team picks and chooses when it will play well. Last wednesday is case and point.And the list goes on.MiamiArizonaSeattleSt LouisPhillyBut that same team that was supposed to be so unhealthy damn near beat the unbeatble Packers.Boley got hurt in the SF game but we're a tipped pass from winning that game too.Osi wasn't in the lineup when we beat down Philly week 3Do you think the difference in the NO games was Michael Boley? I assure he was not.There's no consistent pattern to support this health theory.Um, no. They lost their starting MLB, #2 CB, #4 (most of the season), and their #5 in the pre season. In a passing league you need many CB's so these where not all scrubs. Osi started the season hurt. I don't get why people get hung up on the starter title. Osi is just as important to this team as the starters for what they want to do. At the start of the season Tuck was hurt and then had personal issues. Either way, he was hurting. How where they so healthy when they lost to Green Bay? Boley was not fully recovered yet, it was the 1st game for Chase, Osi did not play, and they lost KP in the 1st half. Now let's look at what happened the 2nd time they played. Tuck, Osi, Boley, KP, and Prince where all healthy. Chase had also put in a lot more reps by that game.

burier
09-12-2012, 05:41 PM
I hear you and it goes before TC was the coach. Seems the way the Giants and the NFL are.
The Pack was 15-1 nad couldnt get it done in th playoffs. The Pats were 18-0 and couldnt get it done. It happens....
You ever hear of the saying.... "Any Given Sunday".???
That saying sums it up.....and its just not about the Giants.....

agreed.

But without researching it Im gonna say theres something about the Giants.

I mean the Pats coasted to the playoffs for years because the AFC was weak and they'd take care of business against those weaker division opponents.

Definately any given sunday but for the Giants it seems like multiple given sundays.

GameTime
09-12-2012, 05:44 PM
agreed.

But without researching it Im gonna say theres something about the Giants.

I mean the Pats coasted to the playoffs for years because the AFC was weak and they'd take care of business against those weaker division opponents.

Definately any given sunday but for the Giants it seems like multiple given sundays.
Dont reasearch it because it will drive you crazy. I have been a fan for over 30 years and it is what it is. You cant get too caught up in it. It frustrates the **** out of me and as well as most fans but there are no hard and fast answers.
Get pissed and move on.....

burier
09-12-2012, 05:49 PM
Um, no. They lost their starting MLB, #2 CB, #4 (most of the season), and their #5 in the pre season. In a passing league you need many CB's so these where not all scrubs. Osi started the season hurt. I don't get why people get hung up on the starter title. Osi is just as important to this team as the starters for what they want to do. At the start of the season Tuck was hurt and then had personal issues. Either way, he was hurting. How where they so healthy when they lost to Green Bay? Boley was not fully recovered yet, it was the 1st game for Chase, Osi did not play, and they lost KP in the 1st half. Now let's look at what happened the 2nd time they played. Tuck, Osi, Boley, KP, and Prince where all healthy. Chase had also put in a lot more reps by that game.

What?

Again..Goff going down doesn't count because he never came back. Isn't your position that we got healthy at the end of the year? If so please remove any players who did not contribute to our so called improved health.

Like I said you get Prince for your argument. No other Corners on our roster were seeing the field with both Ross and Webby healthy. All other corners do not count toward your argument.

Not going to go around about Boley and Tuck and Osi any more. You guys baby these players like you're their mother.

Buddy333
09-12-2012, 05:57 PM
Baby them? No, just stating facts. Osi missed half the season and Tuck was dealing with issues lets say. Ou can laugh at hat all you want, but dealing with multiple injuries and personal issues can weigh a person down. He had off season surgery on his shoulder too. You can't discount the Goff injury. His injury left them with rookie in a lock out year. Then they had to all in Chase and he needed time to adjust as well.

burier
09-12-2012, 06:21 PM
Baby them? No, just stating facts. Osi missed half the season and Tuck was dealing with issues lets say. Ou can laugh at hat all you want, but dealing with multiple injuries and personal issues can weigh a person down. He had off season surgery on his shoulder too. You can't discount the Goff injury. His injury left them with rookie in a lock out year. Then they had to all in Chase and he needed time to adjust as well.

But you're not following me...Goff never came back. We ended up winning the Superbowl without Goff. He never got healthy. Im not discounting it. I think what happened to Goff sucked because I actually thought he was primed to take a step an become a legit player. But it is what it is.

Tuck had surgery in the offseason. He didn't have it prior to playoff run? So if he still needed surgery but was able to play at a high level what the hell took him so long. I'm not trying to laugh at his issues but...do we extend that courtesy to all of the players? Every guy who isn't hacking it we'll just assume they're going through a rough time peronsally and all is forgiven? Would you extend that courtesty to Eli?

Osi was out of for a little less than half the season. I grant you that, but what you refuse to acknowledge is that he didn't miss all of the games at once. He had two different injuries. If Osi was the difference then why didn't he make a difference in the games he was active for before he got the high ankle sprain?