PDA

View Full Version : How is cruz not the best receiver the giants has ever had?



Marvelousmik
10-16-2012, 08:19 PM
And dont get all butt hurt about the question. I know a lot of you love nicks and i do also. But there is nothing wrong with debating which player is better. And yes, i CARE who people think is better regardless of if they are both good and on the same team. And YES i am HAPPY and grateful to have both. I am happy, and satisfied.

Now that this is out of the way, can we have a friendly debate as to why some of you think Nicks is better than cruz?

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:24 PM
Nicks is the most physically dominant receiver the giants have ever had. He can go one on one on the outside against the best CBs in the game, and beat them any way he wants. He can run vertically, and has perhaps the strongest hands of any receiver in the league.

Cruz is much more finesse, he gets his two way go's inside usually against an opposing teams third corner. Cruz has great lateral movement, and can make guys miss, and he does a great job high pointing throws, but he is not a downfield threat like Nicks is, and I dont think Cruz would do that well against a more physical CB once they get their hands on him.

miked1958
10-16-2012, 08:25 PM
Well they are both valuable in their own way. I don't think I could pick one over the other

joemorrisforprez
10-16-2012, 08:26 PM
Cruz and Nicks compliment eachother like peanut butter and jelly. I can't pick one or the other.

thegiantsrule10
10-16-2012, 08:27 PM
Nicks is the better all-around receiver he can beat you with his strength or speed plus hes got some of the best hands in the nfl.

RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 08:30 PM
Either is better with the other on the field

Ruttiger711
10-16-2012, 08:31 PM
I picked Nicks as to me he fits the true #1 role... but Cruz is so much more than a #2 receiver.

We are as fortunate as it gets.

TheEnigma
10-16-2012, 08:33 PM
Cruz is the better dancer and media figure but Nicks is more smooth with the ladies.

Seriously though, I'm biased towards Nicks because I enjoy his style of play more than the slot work that Cruz does. I just love how Nicks jumps up and extends out so far to grab passes he has no business getting.

CowboysSuck
10-16-2012, 08:33 PM
I refuse to vote. They are both top notch guys.

From a different perspective, I'd say Plaxico Burress. Sorry, but the guy in his prime was a stud. Not to mention he caught a superbowl winning catch from Eli. Something Cruz and Nicks havent done.

BlueMonstaahhs
10-16-2012, 08:36 PM
When Nicks is actually on the field I think he is the best reciever the giants have ever had. That being said, Cruz is more solid of a guy i.e. doesn't get injured like uhhhhh every single other reciever we have on the roster.

Cloud57
10-16-2012, 08:36 PM
I refuse to vote. They are both top notch guys.

From a different perspective, I'd say Plaxico Burress. Sorry, but the guy in his prime was a stud. Not to mention he caught a superbowl winning catch from Eli. Something Cruz and Nicks havent done.

lol

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:36 PM
I refuse to vote. They are both top notch guys.

From a different perspective, I'd say Plaxico Burress. Sorry, but the guy in his prime was a stud. Not to mention he caught a superbowl winning catch from Eli. Something Cruz and Nicks havent done.

Both Nicks and Cruz put up better numbers than Burress ever did. And Burress had a grand total of 2 catches in the superbowl, while Nicks had probably the 2nd best playoff run any receiver has ever had.

NYGabriel
10-16-2012, 08:39 PM
Nicks is no.1 to me but Cruz is big time too.

TheEnigma
10-16-2012, 08:40 PM
Both Nicks and Cruz put up better numbers than Burress ever did. And Burress had a grand total of 2 catches in the superbowl, while Nicks had probably the 2nd best playoff run any receiver has ever had.

2nd to none other than Larry Fitzgerald himself. Nicks is just so damn impressive when you consider his physical attributes and compare them to guys like Fitz, Andre, and Megatron.

ashleymarie
10-16-2012, 08:47 PM
I refuse to vote. They are both top notch guys.

From a different perspective, I'd say Plaxico Burress. Sorry, but the guy in his prime was a stud. Not to mention he caught a superbowl winning catch from Eli. Something Cruz and Nicks havent done.

Nicks caught a hail-mary. No cigar, huh?

I know what both receivers bring, different yet "getting it done".

Rudyy
10-16-2012, 08:47 PM
Yeah...I can't choose either.

RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 08:48 PM
I refuse to vote. They are both top notch guys.

From a different perspective, I'd say Plaxico Burress. Sorry, but the guy in his prime was a stud. Not to mention he caught a superbowl winning catch from Eli. Something Cruz and Nicks havent done.

Oy

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:50 PM
2nd to none other than Larry Fitzgerald himself. Nicks is just so damn impressive when you consider his physical attributes and compare them to guys like Fitz, Andre, and Megatron.

its incredible to me how little attention Nicks gets around the league, he absolutely dominated the postseason. 28 catches for 444 yards and 4 TDs.

Fitz with the best postseason of all time had 30 for 546 and 7 TDs.

YATittle1962
10-16-2012, 08:52 PM
I guess none of you remember Homer Jones or Del Shofner

playing in a time when you could mug a receiver and still dominating defenders

well in Jones case....just blowing right past them

watching a DB try to jam Homer Jones was like watching a child try to stop a grown man from running past them

Marvelousmik
10-16-2012, 08:56 PM
Nicks is the most physically dominant receiver the giants have ever had. He can go one on one on the outside against the best CBs in the game, and beat them any way he wants. He can run vertically, and has perhaps the strongest hands of any receiver in the league.

Cruz is much more finesse, he gets his two way go's inside usually against an opposing teams third corner. Cruz has great lateral movement, and can make guys miss, and he does a great job high pointing throws, but he is not a downfield threat like Nicks is, and I dont think Cruz would do that well against a more physical CB once they get their hands on him.

But cruz IS a down field threat also. Last year he showed this ability (eagles and seahawks game comes to mind) and He's already done so again this year (might have been the bucs game). He has also soaked up the majority of the double teams this year and has definitely gone up against good corners. Last year and this year. Not to mention he is turning into a reliable red zone threat this year

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 08:59 PM
But cruz IS a down field threat also.

Cruz does not win downfield consistently. He occasionally goes downfield. More similar to welker. Dont confuse occasional big plays with consistent ability to win downfield.

Nicks gets double teamed every snap, every game, and also usually gets the best CB.

Cruz gets bracketed a lot, but does not usually face the top CB.

bigblue2088
10-16-2012, 09:05 PM
Nicks gets you better and more consistent production. His downside is the injuries he seems to be having. While Cruz will be effective too I think Nicks is more physical and faster. Cruz is showing his ability for big plays tho. Anyway love both and wouldn't trade either but I think Hakeem is better overall

bigblue2088
10-16-2012, 09:06 PM
Cruz does not win downfield consistently. He occasionally goes downfield. More similar to welker. Dont confuse occasional big plays with consistent ability to win downfield.

Nicks gets double teamed every snap, every game, and also usually gets the best CB.

Cruz gets bracketed a lot, but does not usually face the top CB.he did against the Browns...... jk but I think Cruz can still put up numbers even against the opponent's #1

NYGHooligan
10-16-2012, 09:06 PM
Cruz... Just because Nicks gets hurt often But love both

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 09:07 PM
he did against the Browns...... jk but I think Cruz can still put up numbers even against the opponent's #1

Oh Im sure he can, but not the numbers that Nicks puts up, or at least not as consistently.

Cruz thrives off that two way go in the slot. He doesnt have that outside, outside its more based on vertical routes.

BigBlue1971
10-16-2012, 09:11 PM
Cruz is a beast but i cant say hes the best the Giants ever had!

i think his running mate is the best we've had to this point! i havent seen any nfl corner cover Cruz yet

if he continues on his present path he will always be in the conversation of who the best Giants receiver ever!

bigblue2088
10-16-2012, 09:11 PM
Oh Im sure he can, but not the numbers that Nicks puts up, or at least not as consistently.

Cruz thrives off that two way go in the slot. He doesnt have that outside, outside its more based on vertical routes.yhea definitely

CDN_G-FAN
10-16-2012, 09:17 PM
if the question is who is the best WR that the giants have ever had, if you're looking over about a 2 year timeframe, which is how long we've had Cruz, it's easly Plax IMHO.

Cruz has had Nicks to take the pressure off of him.

Plax had Toomer and Shockey, and could still rack up 150 receiving yards in the NFCC against one of the games best corners at the time.

Unbelievable.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 09:21 PM
if the question is who is the best WR that the giants have ever had, if you're looking over about a 2 year timeframe, which is how long we've had Cruz, it's easly Plax IMHO.

Plax only played on the giants for 4.5 years.



Plax had Toomer and Shockey, and could still rack up 150 receiving yards in the NFCC against one of the games best corners at the time.

Nicks did the same thing. Tramon Williams went to the probowl in 2010. Nicks put up 165 yards and 2 TDs against GB in the postseason.

nhpgiantsfan
10-16-2012, 09:27 PM
if the question is who is the best WR that the giants have ever had, if you're looking over about a 2 year timeframe, which is how long we've had Cruz, it's easly Plax IMHO.

Cruz has had Nicks to take the pressure off of him.

Plax had Toomer and Shockey, and could still rack up 150 receiving yards in the NFCC against one of the games best corners at the time.

Unbelievable.

Shockey was hurt and did not pay in the 2007 playoff run. But the performance Plax put on in Green Bay that night was amazing. Tough for me to pick him over Nicks though.

ogun75672
10-16-2012, 09:33 PM
Cruz is a great slot receiver but I don't think he's a true number 1. Kinda like Boldin post Fitzgerald. I could be wrong...

Rudyy
10-16-2012, 09:36 PM
You know your team has great receivers when you are debating who is number 1 and who is number 2.

The REAL question is..who are we cutting to afford them both for next year?

bigblue2088
10-16-2012, 09:38 PM
You know your team has great receivers when you are debating who is number 1 and who is number 2.

The REAL question is..who are we cutting to afford them both for next year?eli and jpp

RoanokeFan
10-16-2012, 09:40 PM
Cruz is a great slot receiver but I don't think he's a true number 1. Kinda like Boldin post Fitzgerald. I could be wrong...

I think I read where he was more successful against the Niners on the outside. But one of his attributes is his versatility

ogun75672
10-16-2012, 09:41 PM
You know your team has great receivers when you are debating who is number 1 and who is number 2.

The REAL question is..who are we cutting to afford them both for next year?

I was thinking the same thing. This is a good "problem" to have. One that I hope we debate for the next 10 - 12 years.

ogun75672
10-16-2012, 09:43 PM
I think I read where he was more successful against the Niners on the outside. But one of his attributes is his versatility

I think that had more to do with Nick's being banged up. I love both receivers, so I'm not losing sleep over this debate...LOL! A better question is, how the heck are we going to keep both with our salary cap.

TheShouldersOf
10-16-2012, 09:47 PM
Cruz has looked a little off in some games, the 49er's being one, he ran a couple wrong routes, and just looked a bit off, not taking his talent away as he has displayed it countless times,


i would take Nicks, also Randle looks very similar to nicks, maybe a bit more 'Lanky', when he gets a dominate role on this team it will be brilliant

Captain Chaos
10-16-2012, 09:48 PM
Love them both but Nicks is a beast!

Ruttiger711
10-16-2012, 09:51 PM
Nicks seems to have the quietest BIG games - the playoff run was un freakin believable

vs ATL 115 yds on 6 catches
vs GB 165 yds on 7 catches
vs SF 55 yds on 5 catches - his low game and our "#2" tears them up for 142 on 10 catches

AND a SB performance of 109 yds on 10 catches...and you would never guess with all of the attention on the Manningham catch.

Nicks is a true beast... and Cruz can be just as beastly if you spend too much time staring at Nicks... we are very lucky fans.

BigBlue1971
10-16-2012, 09:52 PM
You know your team has great receivers when you are debating who is number 1 and who is number 2.

The REAL question is..who are we cutting to afford them both for next year?

im sure JR is asking himself the same question! but lucky for us he knows how to handle these things!

CowboysSuck
10-16-2012, 09:58 PM
lol

Whats so funny? Ask Eli who he trusted/trusts most from all of his receivers through the years. Nicks/Burress/Smith/Cruz/Boss ? Toomer? If Burress isnt in that conversation than you have a problem analyzing football.

And Slipnottin you can say whatever you want but go ahead, go back and watch every single playoff game from the '07 season and you tell me Plaxico Burress wasn't an absolute dominant receiver for us. go ahead..

BillTheGreek
10-16-2012, 10:00 PM
CRUZ is Very Good ! But saying he is the Best receiver the Giants ever had? I would say that is OVER Stating it a bit.......................I can't say any one receiver was the best, they all contributed in their era.

Marvelousmik
10-16-2012, 10:04 PM
Cruz does not win downfield consistently. He occasionally goes downfield. More similar to welker. Dont confuse occasional big plays with consistent ability to win downfield.

I dont know slip. It's starting to look like i was right. We all know cruz is a threat with the ball in his hands, but it also looks like hes a legitimate deep threat also. I dont know how many times he has to beat his man deep for people to understand this. And thats not even including the many times Eli misses him.

BrianK01
10-16-2012, 10:16 PM
And to think that before this season started there were more than a few on this board that were saying that it was possible that Cruz was a 1 year fluke and they needed to see it from him again this year before they could label him legit. LMFAO it is/was so obvious that his talent/skill not going to just disappear.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 10:23 PM
I dont see your point

inside receivers get a two way go, they can go inside or outside, skill set required for both WR and CB is very different inside.

Outside receivers dont get that luxury of having a two way go, they dont have nearly the amount of field to work with, and have to work vertically instead.

Thats why teams dont "double" Cruz, they bracket him, one defender inside, one outside.

Teams double Nicks with a CB underneath, and a safety over the top.

Really its a debate of was Randy Moss or Wes Welker the patriots #1 receiver back in 2007. Nicks and Cruz would put up similar numbers if they both played about the same number of snaps.

But having that two way go is an absolutely massive advantage for a receiver that can read coverages and do what the system/qb want him to do every play. That makes it far less about beating the man in front of him, and more about reading coverages and finding holes.

Nicks does not have that luxury, he has to beat usually the top CB every play, has to deal with a sideline, and he has a safety over the top to keep him from getting anything deep.

CowboysSuck
10-16-2012, 10:40 PM
inside receivers get a two way go, they can go inside or outside, skill set required for both WR and CB is very different inside.

Outside receivers dont get that luxury of having a two way go, they dont have nearly the amount of field to work with, and have to work vertically instead.

Thats why teams dont "double" Cruz, they bracket him, one defender inside, one outside.

Teams double Nicks with a CB underneath, and a safety over the top.

Really its a debate of was Randy Moss or Wes Welker the patriots #1 receiver back in 2007. Nicks and Cruz would put up similar numbers if they both played about the same number of snaps.

But having that two way go is an absolutely massive advantage for a receiver that can read coverages and do what the system/qb want him to do every play. That makes it far less about beating the man in front of him, and more about reading coverages and finding holes.

Nicks does not have that luxury, he has to beat usually the top CB every play, has to deal with a sideline, and he has a safety over the top to keep him from getting anything deep.

Put it this way, would our passing game perform better if Nicks was down or if Cruz was down? Thats the million dollar question and that answers the debate. I still say Burress. By far.

Burress. Lets see...lets recap. So, we absolutely dominated the 2008 season. Until BANG Burress shoots himself and we lose our premiere wideout. What happens next? I think what happened was our offense abso.....nevermind you and everyone else knows the answer

GCGiant
10-16-2012, 10:52 PM
They are both good but I pick Cruz because of his "salsa" endzone dance.

slipknottin
10-16-2012, 10:56 PM
Burress. Lets see...lets recap. So, we absolutely dominated the 2008 season. Until BANG Burress shoots himself and we lose our premiere wideout. What happens next? I think what happened was our offense abso.....nevermind you and everyone else knows the answer

They dominated teams in 2008 without Burress. And lets not forget how bad a year Burress was having. He only was averaging 45 yards a game.

And dont give me that "he was double covered" nonsense, Nicks gets doubled just as much as Burress ever did.

Diamondring
10-16-2012, 11:03 PM
Well they are both valuable in their own way. I don't think I could pick one over the otherThat is right. Both of them are needed on the field together to give us more depth.

nhpgiantsfan
10-16-2012, 11:08 PM
Put it this way, would our passing game perform better if Nicks was down or if Cruz was down? Thats the million dollar question and that answers the debate. I still say Burress. By far.

Burress. Lets see...lets recap. So, we absolutely dominated the 2008 season. Until BANG Burress shoots himself and we lose our premiere wideout. What happens next? I think what happened was our offense abso.....nevermind you and everyone else knows the answer

This argument is nonsense. The offense sucked without Plax because we didn't have a number two WR that is anything close to Cruz or Nicks. It was Toomers last year. His talent had dropped off significantly by then. You can't take away from Cruz or Nicks because this team is more balanced. I am a Plax fan. His game against the Packers in 07 was absolutely amazing, and I can understand people making an argument for him. But you cant say that because the team collapsed after he went down that it must mean he was better than Nicks. He was the only weapon in 2008. We have multiple weapons now therefore when Nicks goes down, others can step up.

NASCARBLITZ
10-16-2012, 11:16 PM
cruz is a great receiver he is reliable, hes fast and elusive has decent hands,rarely gets injured..but...to say he is in hakeem nicks leauge when nicks plays....(papa johns commercial with peyton) NO NO NO NO! nicks is a complete animal and if not for him being made from balsa wood would be a top 3 receiver...dont believe me go look at his first 3 years in the nfl..or shall i say games played, his stats are right their with megatrons..i mean the guy had 11 tds his 2nd year for christ sakes.when nicks is on the field he ups everyones game from cruz to even bradshaws running i beleive..u have to double him at all times.cruz draws alot of attention too but not like nicks...like cruz but i love nicks..gonna be a hard decision for jerry if god forbid he has to release one because of cap space.

Diamondring
10-16-2012, 11:20 PM
This argument is nonsense. The offense sucked without Plax because we didn't have a number two WR that is anything close to Cruz or Nicks. It was Toomers last year. His talent had dropped off significantly by then. You can't take away from Cruz or Nicks because this team is more balanced. I am a Plax fan. His game against the Packers in 07 was absolutely amazing, and I can understand people making an argument for him. But you cant say that because the team collapsed after he went down that it must mean he was better than Nicks. He was the only weapon in 2008. We have multiple weapons now therefore when Nicks goes down, others can step up.That is why in his last year with the Giants, I wanted the Giants to use the 3 wr set as their primary set offense and stick with it. Brian Hedge**** was only a good blocker but didn't provide any type of receiving threat so the defense can concentrate on Burress. You was right about Toomer. I wanted Hixon to be that third or second wr wich the Giants should have used him. He would provide more death and was needed so Plax can have more room.

The two back set with Hedge**** was the reason why Burress had so much trouble I bet that if the Giants would have used Hixon or even Smith in a 3 wr set with Plax, Plax maybe wouldn't have shot his foot.

NASCARBLITZ
10-16-2012, 11:30 PM
plex sucks compared to cruz and nicks guys, im sorry but the dude was great at times and flat out lazy at other times he was not a consitant threat like theses 2 are

thegiantsrule10
10-16-2012, 11:32 PM
We shouldn't argue whos better but be happy we have them on our team.

dakotajoe
10-16-2012, 11:40 PM
My vote goes to Cruz. I'd take Nicks or Cruz over Burress.

Even though Cruz is often in the slot I view him as more of a deep threat. His route running ability allows him to get a lot of separation from opposing CBs. Nicks does have the power advantage, however, Cruz is surprisingly strong for his size.

YATittle1962
10-17-2012, 12:03 AM
Nicks does have the power advantage, however, Cruz is surprisingly strong for his size.

for his size?

he is about 4 lbs llighter than Nicks and maybe an inch shorter

dakotajoe
10-17-2012, 12:37 AM
I'm aware Cruz is listed at 6ft but he plays bigger.

JayMas9
10-17-2012, 12:42 AM
I refuse to vote. They are both top notch guys.

From a different perspective, I'd say Plaxico Burress. Sorry, but the guy in his prime was a stud. Not to mention he caught a superbowl winning catch from Eli. Something Cruz and Nicks havent done.I can't stress enough how overrated of a receiver Plaxico Burress is. Nicks blows him out of the water from a physicality perspective and even though he gives up 4 inches to Burress attacks jump balls better. Heck, Cruz and his ridiculous vertical attack jump balls better than Burress.

JayMas9
10-17-2012, 12:44 AM
Both Nicks and Cruz put up better numbers than Burress ever did. And Burress had a grand total of 2 catches in the superbowl, while Nicks had probably the 2nd best playoff run any receiver has ever had.Couldn't agree more.

JayMas9
10-17-2012, 12:47 AM
Whats so funny? Ask Eli who he trusted/trusts most from all of his receivers through the years. Nicks/Burress/Smith/Cruz/Boss ? Toomer? If Burress isnt in that conversation than you have a problem analyzing football.

And Slipnottin you can say whatever you want but go ahead, go back and watch every single playoff game from the '07 season and you tell me Plaxico Burress wasn't an absolute dominant receiver for us. go ahead..Toomer led the team in receiving for 3 out of the 4 playoff games. And I don't want to hear because Burress was getting all the attention. Nicks consistently overcomes that, and gets more attention than Burress ever did. Nicks dominated every playoff game he played in. The exaggerated legend of Plax is some crazy stuff around here sometimes.

Marvelousmik
10-17-2012, 12:49 AM
inside receivers get a two way go, they can go inside or outside, skill set required for both WR and CB is very different inside.

Outside receivers dont get that luxury of having a two way go, they dont have nearly the amount of field to work with, and have to work vertically instead.

Thats why teams dont "double" Cruz, they bracket him, one defender inside, one outside.

Teams double Nicks with a CB underneath, and a safety over the top.

Really its a debate of was Randy Moss or Wes Welker the patriots #1 receiver back in 2007. Nicks and Cruz would put up similar numbers if they both played about the same number of snaps.

But having that two way go is an absolutely massive advantage for a receiver that can read coverages and do what the system/qb want him to do every play. That makes it far less about beating the man in front of him, and more about reading coverages and finding holes.

Nicks does not have that luxury, he has to beat usually the top CB every play, has to deal with a sideline, and he has a safety over the top to keep him from getting anything deep.

Yes. I just wanted to confirm your point. Basically you are saying nicks has to work harder than cruz and that cruz has the easier job.

My question to you is who is more effective "at their job" and who is more of a threat on the field? When a team game plans for the giants, which receiver scares them more? (and this is very debatable). But I think when you ask yourself which receiver is better in any instance you have to look at how good they play on the field regardless of tough their postion is. If nicks was out, (which he has been a few games this season) cruz will still put up good numbers.

What it ultimately comes down to is, does cruz play the slot better than nicks plays the outside? I can argue Cruz is the best slot receiver in the NFL. If not i dont think many would argue that he isnt at least the second best slot receiver under welker. However, when it comes to outside receivers, I dont know anyone outside of giants fans who would rate nicks as even top 5. Romo plays a tougher position than ware, but ware will be in the hall of fame.

I want to reassure everyone that this is not a knock on nicks or anything of that matter. Nicks is one of my favorite players in the NFL. This is just me trying to debate a point.

Rudyy
10-17-2012, 12:50 AM
Yes. I just wanted to confirm your point. Basically you are saying nicks has to work harder than cruz and that cruz has the easier job.

My question to you is who is more effective "at their job" and who is more of a threat on the field? When a team game plans for the giants, which receiver scares them more? (and this is very debatable). But I think when you ask yourself which receiver is better in any instance you have to look at how good they play on the field regardless of tough their postion is. If nicks was out, (which he has been a few games this season) cruz will still put up good numbers.

Basically, does cruz play the slot better than nicks plays the outside. I can argue Cruz is the best slow receiver in the NFL. If not i dont think many would argue that he isnt at least the second best slow receiver under welker. However, when it comes to outside receivers, I dont know anyone outside of giants fans who would rate nicks as even top 5. Romo plays a tougher position than ware, but ware will be int he hall of fame. Are you serious?

PRGiant
10-17-2012, 12:52 AM
Plax had 3 good years but Amani had 5 straight 1000 yards seasons. I can't comment on receivers older than Toomer but Nicks AND Cruz should be better than Plax and Toomer, just hope we get to keep them for a while. It's too soon to name either best giant WR ever thought.

Marvelousmik
10-17-2012, 12:55 AM
Are you serious?

If you are referring to typos i fixed them. If you dont agree with my points please elaborate on which ones you dont agree on and why. If you scroll up you will see i did some last minute editing.

NYGFaninILL
10-17-2012, 12:57 AM
Two words: Stephen Baker

Rudyy
10-17-2012, 01:00 AM
If you are referring to typos i fixed them. If you dont agree with my points please elaborate on which ones you dont agree on and why. If you scroll up you will see i did some last minute editing. Well the part that confused me is how you think people (outside of the Giants organization) doesn't credit Hakeem as being a top 5 receiver? I think they are both great in their own way. Victor Cruz is shifty and quick, ans Hakeem is physical. I'm not seeing where Victor triumphs Nicks in terms of skill. Cruz is a play maker, definitely, but I'm not sure if he's the better receiver. You see what I mean?

Marvelousmik
10-17-2012, 04:30 AM
Well the part that confused me is how you think people (outside of the Giants organization) doesn't credit Hakeem as being a top 5 receiver?

That's not what i said. I said
I dont know anyone outside of "giants fans" who would rate nicks as even top 5.

If someone from NFL network was to make a list of the top 5 receivers i can pretty much assure you that nicks would not be on that list. On the top 100 players last year, cruz was ranked higher than nicks if i am not mistaken. Michael Lombardi had a list of the top 5 players at each position and he had cruz on that list from what i can remember. Nicks was not even in the top 10 on his list.

The point is Cruz is all over the media right now but not many people mention nicks. Other fans i speak to who watch football feel as though nicks is good, but no where as near as good as people on here claim he is. When roddy white was asked who is the better WR duo between nicks/ cruz, and him/jones, he smiled and said the big boys play on the outside, which is a testament to what slip's point has been during this discussion and i could understand that. However, he didnt even take notice of nicks. He immediately saw cruz as the threat and made that comment regarding cruz.

Now are all those people right? Not necessarily. I mean Michael Lombardi had jody nelson on his top 5. Nelson is a good receiver, but top 5? come on now. I constantly have to defend nicks when debating with people at the park and these are die hard fans who watch the games just as much as me and you do. They just root for different teams. I think one thing we could at least both agree on is that nicks is a very underrated player.

BurnerNYG
10-17-2012, 04:41 AM
Nicks is a beast and without him we wouldn't have won the Superbowl... he's just always injured. He'll be a certified Pro Bowler if he ever stays healthy.

Marvelousmik
10-17-2012, 04:44 AM
Nicks is a beast and without him we wouldn't have won the Superbowl... he's just always injured. He'll be a certified Pro Bowler if he ever stays healthy.

he should have been in the pro bowl the last 2 years if you ask me.

BurnerNYG
10-17-2012, 04:47 AM
he should have been in the pro bowl the last 2 years if you ask me.He should've been the offensive rookie of the year as well. Percy Harvin had similar stats and Nicks played less games than he did due to injuries. Maybe that's a blessing in disguise... he can't demand a Fitzgerald type contract.

Marvelousmik
10-17-2012, 04:53 AM
He should've been the offensive rookie of the year as well. Percy Harvin had similar stats and Nicks played less games than he did due to injuries. Maybe that's a blessing in disguise... he can't demand a Fitzgerald type contract.

Its going to be interesting how this plays out. id like to keep nicks cruz for at least 6 more years. Id love to see them build even more chemistry with Eli.

FlyingTruck
10-17-2012, 04:57 AM
Nicks, hands down. Cruz wouldn't be as effective on the outside as Nicks is. They are both amazing receivers, but in reality they are asked to do different things, in terms of routes. Basically Nicks is so physical he just straight beats the CB for the ball. He adjusts to the ball so well when it's in the air. What I do like about Cruz is all the different things he can do. He's open on short routes, on routes down the field, just all the time. He needs to stop losing yards after the catch though!

Basically the way I see it: Nicks beats his defender at the end of his routes. Cruz beats his defender at the beginning of his routes.

P.S. I know Nicks is really physical, but let's give Cruz his credit. Cruz has made MANY catches where he's had to fight to make the catch.

Marvelousmik
10-17-2012, 05:00 AM
Nicks, hands down. Cruz wouldn't be as effective on the outside as Nicks is. They are both amazing receivers, but in reality they are asked to do different things, in terms of routes. Basically Nicks is so physical he just straight beats the CB for the ball. He adjusts to the ball so well when it's in the air. What I do like about Cruz is all the different things he can do. He's open on short routes, on routes down the field, just all the time. He needs to stop losing yards after the catch though!

Basically the way I see it: Nicks beats his defender at the end of his routes. Cruz beats his defender at the beginning of his routes.

P.S. I know Nicks is really physical, but let's give Cruz his credit. Cruz has made MANY catches where he's had to fight to make the catch.

Haha looks like the cruz team loses this one. 75% of voters on here say nicks. On a side note hixon and cruz is the best 3 receivers we have ever had play together. Hixon in my opinion is the speedy vertical guy. nicks is the big guy who willg o up and win the jump ball, and cruz is the one with the quickness. We have a little bit of everything in all 3 of them though. All they need to do is stay healthy

rainierjef
10-17-2012, 05:26 AM
I said

If someone from NFL network was to make a list of the top 5 receivers i can pretty much assure you that nicks would not be on that list.

This is where you already went wrong.

GiantWarfare
10-17-2012, 05:36 AM
That's not what i said. I said

If someone from NFL network was to make a list of the top 5 receivers i can pretty much assure you that nicks would not be on that list. On the top 100 players last year, cruz was ranked higher than nicks if i am not mistaken. Michael Lombardi had a list of the top 5 players at each position and he had cruz on that list from what i can remember. Nicks was not even in the top 10 on his list.

The point is Cruz is all over the media right now but not many people mention nicks. Other fans i speak to who watch football feel as though nicks is good, but no where as near as good as people on here claim he is. When roddy white was asked who is the better WR duo between nicks/ cruz, and him/jones, he smiled and said the big boys play on the outside, which is a testament to what slip's point has been during this discussion and i could understand that. However, he didnt even take notice of nicks. He immediately saw cruz as the threat and made that comment regarding cruz.

Now are all those people right? Not necessarily. I mean Michael Lombardi had jody nelson on his top 5. Nelson is a good receiver, but top 5? come on now. I constantly have to defend nicks when debating with people at the park and these are die hard fans who watch the games just as much as me and you do. They just root for different teams. I think one thing we could at least both agree on is that nicks is a very underrated player.

Simple really as to why Cruz is always mentioned over Nicks by media and non-Giant fans, he's the hot commodity, the surefire sale.

He came out of nowhere, as an undrafted FA and happened to repeatedly torch teams. He drew the eye of other superstar athletes (like Lebron James for example). He broke the Giants record for receiving yards in a single season. He's charismatic, has a chant-friendly surname, and he has the salsa.

Its quite easy to understand why Cruz gets so much love over Nicks outside of us Giants fans.

Nicks is much more reserved, quiet, doesn't have any flashy celebrations, he just goes to work and beasts on DBs. It also helps Cruz that Nicks isn't the most durable player and has missed quite a number of games.

So Cruz being the more well-regarded receiver in most football circles IMO has less to do w/ him being the better receiver and more w/ him being more popular.

TheAnalyst
10-17-2012, 02:02 PM
http://picasion.com/pic59/b1bf67257defa0de2f6eb005f0d692cf.gif

yoeddy
10-17-2012, 02:11 PM
Simple really as to why Cruz is always mentioned over Nicks by media and non-Giant fans, he's the hot commodity, the surefire sale.

He came out of nowhere, as an undrafted FA and happened to repeatedly torch teams. He drew the eye of other superstar athletes (like Lebron James for example). He broke the Giants record for receiving yards in a single season. He's charismatic, has a chant-friendly surname, and he has the salsa.

Its quite easy to understand why Cruz gets so much love over Nicks outside of us Giants fans.

Nicks is much more reserved, quiet, doesn't have any flashy celebrations, he just goes to work and beasts on DBs. It also helps Cruz that Nicks isn't the most durable player and has missed quite a number of games.

So Cruz being the more well-regarded receiver in most football circles IMO has less to do w/ him being the better receiver and more w/ him being more popular.

Cruz gets mentioned over Nicks because he came out of nowhere and ended up being 3rd in the league in receiving yardage (with a chance to lead the league going into the last week of the season). The highlights over last year's Dream Team and the Jets didn't hurt...

Marvelousmik
10-21-2012, 07:11 PM
Cruz does not win downfield consistently. He occasionally goes downfield. More similar to welker. Dont confuse occasional big plays with consistent ability to win downfield.

I dont know slip. It's starting to look like i was right. We all know cruz is a threat with the ball in his hands, but it also looks like hes a legitimate deep threat also. I dont know how many times he has to beat his man deep for people to understand this. And thats not even including the many times Eli misses him.

Tmurda1984
10-21-2012, 07:17 PM
Both these guys compliment each other sooo well. Nicks is physical and and has deceptive speed to even burn a corner. Victor Cruz reminds me alot of Percy Harvin, the guy is an all around playmaker...he can play inside or outside and is a very good threat in the open field. Both the receivers are very good and they have a very good QB throwing to them with sets them over the top. And Im really like Bennett, this guy has proven me wrong....he plays through injuries and makes big catches in traffic.

slipknottin
10-21-2012, 07:17 PM
I dont know slip. It's starting to look like i was right. We all know cruz is a threat with the ball in his hands, but it also looks like hes a legitimate deep threat also. I dont know how many times he has to beat his man deep for people to understand this. And thats not even including the many times Eli misses him.

Again no. Cruz getting a deep throw does not mean he wins consistently deep. They scheme to get Cruz deep.

Marvelousmik
10-21-2012, 07:26 PM
Again no. Cruz getting a deep throw does not mean he wins consistently deep. They scheme to get Cruz deep.

Being a deep threat means you are a threat to beat guys deep. I dont think desean jackson has been winning much deep this year, but he is still considered a deep threat and teams try their best to take that away. same with calvin johnson. What makes cruz a deep threat is his speed and quickness.

RoanokeFan
10-21-2012, 07:42 PM
Cruz and Nicks compliment eachother like peanut butter and jelly. I can't pick one or the other.

+1

Marvelousmik
10-21-2012, 07:46 PM
I think you and i both know that winning consistently has little to do with if someone is a threat on the field or not. I havent been paying much attention to the steelers, but from what i see mike wallace sure as hell isnt winning consistently on the deep ball this season. so is D jack. By your logic i guess they wouldnt be considered deep threats also. I also wouldnt use the word consistently, because no receiver catches the majority of deep balls thrown to him. Its always a much smaller percentage.

Hessian
10-21-2012, 07:49 PM
Either is better with the other on the field
Lame but true, your neutrality speaks for itself.

Hessian
10-21-2012, 07:52 PM
Since we're pickin sides here, I have to go with Nicks, the guy is out there playing solid injured. I'm guessing Cruz would nod his vote that way also.

NYG 5
10-21-2012, 08:05 PM
he's certainly the best Home Run Hero the Giants have ever had. every time the team needs a big play, fast, he makes it

Marvelousmik
12-16-2013, 10:19 AM
This thread also brings back memories.

Marvelousmik
12-16-2013, 10:20 AM
Nicks is the better all-around receiver he can beat you with his strength or speed plus hes got some of the best hands in the nfl.

:)

BParcells777
12-16-2013, 11:12 AM
Del Shofner at 18 YPC and Homer Jones at 22YPC were far far better recievers than Nicks but Nicks at 14 YPC is our best long ball threat right now

I'd say Shofner was best because his timing and reliability with YA Tittle were incomparable.....he ran very precise routes and had great hands

Jones was a blur........before coming to the Giants he was one of the best 100 Yd Sprinters in the world

Jones also had much more physicality and strength than Nicks

Toomer is our all time Yd leader but he played 13 yrs compared to Shofners 7 and Jones 6

Nicks has a lot of the attributes of Jones but Jones was way faster

BBlue4ever
12-16-2013, 11:13 AM
Plax was better than both.. So not sure why he wasn't included in the poll...

Marvelousmik
12-16-2013, 11:14 AM
Plax was better than both.. So not sure why he wasn't included in the poll...

good point, but it think it would be close between him and cruz

BParcells777
12-16-2013, 11:17 AM
Nicks is the most physically dominant receiver the giants have ever had. He can go one on one on the outside against the best CBs in the game, and beat them any way he wants. He can run vertically, and has perhaps the strongest hands of any receiver in the league.

Cruz is much more finesse, he gets his two way go's inside usually against an opposing teams third corner. Cruz has great lateral movement, and can make guys miss, and he does a great job high pointing throws, but he is not a downfield threat like Nicks is, and I dont think Cruz would do that well against a more physical CB once they get their hands on him.

Really!!!! you need to get your you tube shined up and watch Homer Jones...........Nicks isn't even close