PDA

View Full Version : THEE NYG SWAG THREAD



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 [524] 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708

dezzzR
03-02-2012, 03:18 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

dezzzR
03-02-2012, 03:19 PM
Good ball hawk but terrible in coverage....I think he's a good nickle corner
</p>


wtf....
I said this every year he played, and people wanted to burn me at the ****ing stake.
<u>"OMG, TT had such a good season! He's our best corner!"</u>

What is so good about getting ****ing torched on 70% of your plays?! He's a GREAT athlete, but he would be a better safety, or even a NB like you said.</p>


that being said though, i do like, but choosing between him and ross is hard, because neither of them are particularly awesome. Let's just hope that Prince ends up as good as we all knew he was in college! lol</p>Iv always argued against that. I always thought he was decent at best. Qbs would look right at him after the snap in 2010. 420 has it right, good ballhawk but very inconsistent in coverage. I put a lot of blame on him for the dec 19th debacle. Playing 10 yards off Maclin on your own 10?!?! That was on Perry too. My blood still boils just thinking about it.


T2 played some damn fine football for us.

Ross earned himself a real nice contract this year. Hes gone and somebody is going to pay him

Keeping T2 over ross is just because we can get a 2 year value deal off of him, otherwise its a toss up if they were at the same price. But they won't be.

QBs always tend to pick on the weaker corner.

But the dude forces fumbles, plays the run, can ball hawk - i like him. It'll be great to have him back if hes healthy
What do you consider "damn fine"?

MattMeyerBud
03-02-2012, 03:19 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

lol Pizz is gonna be pissed

JPizzack
03-02-2012, 03:20 PM
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</SPAN></H6>


</P>


what a detailed post by IRWT &gt;.&lt; lol</P>


how much?!?!</P>

JPizzack
03-02-2012, 03:21 PM
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</SPAN></H6>




lol Pizz is gonna be pissed
</P>


why would I be pissed? how much did it cost us?</P>

lttaylor56
03-02-2012, 03:30 PM
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</SPAN></H6>




lol Pizz is gonna be pissed
</P>


why would I be pissed? how much did it cost us?</P>Coming off that injury...I say 750k

dezzzR
03-02-2012, 03:31 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>




lol Pizz is gonna be pissed
</p>


why would I be pissed? how much did it cost us?</p>http://finalbossfight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/One-Billion-Dollars.jpg

DavenIII
03-02-2012, 03:39 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

lol Pizz is gonna be pissed


Nice a decent kick returner...we needed that.

dezzzR
03-02-2012, 03:51 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

lol Pizz is gonna be pissed


Nice a decent kick returner...we needed that.
plus a solid backup wr.

dezzzR
03-02-2012, 03:52 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">?Eli Manning (http://www.facebook.com/EliManning) has the 3rd top selling jersey in the NFL. Victor Cruz is 6th..</span></h6>

DavenIII
03-02-2012, 03:53 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

lol Pizz is gonna be pissed


Nice a decent kick returner...we needed that.
plus a solid backup wr.


whoa whoa...I wouldn't go that far, I don't want to see Hixon playing WR for us unless there are a slew of injuries....and lets hope that doesn't happen.

dezzzR
03-02-2012, 03:59 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

lol Pizz is gonna be pissed


Nice a decent kick returner...we needed that.
plus a solid backup wr.


whoa whoa...I wouldn't go that far, I don't want to see Hixon playing WR for us unless there are a slew of injuries....and lets hope that doesn't happen.
Thats what I ment. Back up. I really want to see JJ. BUT BUT BUT, IF he is to be the 3rd guy all he has to do is put up similar numbers to 08, which I think he is capable of.

DavenIII
03-02-2012, 04:17 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

lol Pizz is gonna be pissed


Nice a decent kick returner...we needed that.
plus a solid backup wr.


whoa whoa...I wouldn't go that far, I don't want to see Hixon playing WR for us unless there are a slew of injuries....and lets hope that doesn't happen.
Thats what I ment. Back up. I really want to see JJ. BUT BUT BUT, IF he is to be the 3rd guy all he has to do is put up similar numbers to 08, which I think he is capable of.


I see Hixon as a 5th or 6th WR on our current roster (minus Manningham) he shouldn't be on the field (even as a 3rd receiver) unless 2 or 3 guys go down.

lttaylor56
03-02-2012, 04:21 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{"type":2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

lol Pizz is gonna be pissed


Nice a decent kick returner...we needed that.
plus a solid backup wr.


whoa whoa...I wouldn't go that far, I don't want to see Hixon playing WR for us unless there are a slew of injuries....and lets hope that doesn't happen.
Thats what I ment. Back up. I really want to see JJ. BUT BUT BUT, IF he is to be the 3rd guy all he has to do is put up similar numbers to 08, which I think he is capable of.


I see Hixon as a 5th or 6th WR on our current roster (minus Manningham) he shouldn't be on the field (even as a 3rd receiver) unless 2 or 3 guys go down.
Was that his second knee surgery? I hope he can contribute to the team, but there's no guarantee.

MattMeyerBud
03-02-2012, 04:31 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">The New York Giants (http://www.facebook.com/newyorkgiants) have officially resigned Domenik Hixon</span></h6>

lol Pizz is gonna be pissed


Nice a decent kick returner...we needed that.
plus a solid backup wr.


whoa whoa...I wouldn't go that far, I don't want to see Hixon playing WR for us unless there are a slew of injuries....and lets hope that doesn't happen.


he will prob be our 3rd WR, good deep threat

bigblue4417
03-02-2012, 04:32 PM
<div class="report">


NFL Network's Jason La Canfora suspects the
Redskins' usage of the franchise tag on Fred Davis means free agent
LaRon Landry is "likely gone."</p>
</div>
<div class="impact">
The Redskins never considered tagging Landry after
he disobeyed the medical staff's recommendation to undergo Achilles'
surgery. Landry will be a high-risk signing on the free agent market
because his lower body may be breaking down. His upper body certainly
isn't, though. Recent images posted on Landry's Twitter account show
him incredibly ripped up in the arms and shoulders.
</div>

JPizzack
03-02-2012, 04:33 PM
Coming off that injury...I say 750k</P>


well that's what i said. I would never spend more than a mill on the guy. I like him....but you gotta pay for production. you dont get paid for missing 2 seasons =P
Any word yet??</P>

JPizzack
03-02-2012, 04:36 PM
<DIV class=report>


NFL Network's Jason La Canfora suspects the Redskins' usage of the franchise tag on Fred Davis means free agent LaRon Landry is "likely gone."</P></DIV>
<DIV class=impact>The Redskins never considered tagging Landry after he disobeyed the medical staff's recommendation to undergo Achilles' surgery. Landry will be a high-risk signing on the free agent market because his lower body may be breaking down. His upper body certainly isn't, though. Recent images posted on Landry's Twitter account show him incredibly ripped up in the arms and shoulders. </DIV>


</P>


juice! mm mmmm *****!! lol
whatever, that guy is terrible anyway lol</P>

dezzzR
03-02-2012, 05:03 PM
<div class="report">


NFL Network's Jason La Canfora suspects the
Redskins' usage of the franchise tag on Fred Davis means free agent
LaRon Landry is "likely gone."</p>
</div>
<div class="impact">
The Redskins never considered tagging Landry after
he disobeyed the medical staff's recommendation to undergo Achilles'
surgery. Landry will be a high-risk signing on the free agent market
because his lower body may be breaking down. His upper body certainly
isn't, though. Recent images posted on Landry's Twitter account show
him incredibly ripped up in the arms and shoulders.
</div>Maybe he feels Jacobs really ruined his image so he wants to show off how big and strong he is.
Where ever he lands hes going to be slow. Tacked on too much mass

DavenIII
03-02-2012, 05:04 PM
he will prob be our 3rd WR, good deep threat


20$ says he's not our 3rd

Barden will be third...if not then Thomas, and at the moment unless Hixon has a good camp I think Jernigan (and maybe Clayton) would all be better options for #3

MattMeyerBud
03-02-2012, 05:28 PM
he will prob be our 3rd WR, good deep threat


20$ says he's not our 3rd

Barden will be third...if not then Thomas, and at the moment unless Hixon has a good camp I think Jernigan (and maybe Clayton) would all be better options for #3


Thomas ain't even a Giant as of right now

i want an injury clause in the bet but i'll take it...

Whats the standards of 3rd wr? Do it fantasy points style between receptions, yards, TDs?

DavenIII
03-02-2012, 05:42 PM
Thomas ain't even a Giant as of right now

i want an injury clause in the bet but i'll take it...

Whats the standards of 3rd wr? Do it fantasy points style between receptions, yards, TDs?


the way I'd like to do it will be impossible...but I'd like to do it by snaps...how many snaps he gets on the field compared to the rest of the WR corps (not including Special Teams snaps)

I suppose we can justify it with receptions though and you can have your injury clause...how many weeks does he need to miss for you to take off the bet...3?

bigblue4417
03-02-2012, 05:45 PM
<div class="report">


Major League Baseball has officially
announced the addition of one more Wild Card team in the National and
American League starting in 2012.</p>
</div>
<div class="impact">
Also announced is that the winners of the
"play-in" game between the Wild Card winners will host the first two
games of the Divisional Rounds before moving on to the higher seed's
home park for subsequent games. This will only be in effect for 2012, as
MLB wanted to eliminate a travel day during the Divisional Round. A
return to the 2-2-1 format will occur in 2013. Teams from the same
division will also now be allowed to face each other in the Division
Series.



Thoughts?
</div>

MattMeyerBud
03-02-2012, 05:50 PM
Thomas ain't even a Giant as of right now

i want an injury clause in the bet but i'll take it...

Whats the standards of 3rd wr? Do it fantasy points style between receptions, yards, TDs?


the way I'd like to do it will be impossible...but I'd like to do it by snaps...how many snaps he gets on the field compared to the rest of the WR corps (not including Special Teams snaps)

I suppose we can justify it with receptions though and you can have your injury clause...how many weeks does he need to miss for you to take off the bet...3?


yea that wouldn't be the best way to do it though... players could get extra snaps in garbage time and bla bla bla.. it has to be based off results imo...

Reciever A:
30 Rec - 500 yards - 6 TDs

Receiver B:
40 Rec - 400 Yards - 7 TDs

Receiver C:
50 Rec - 440 Yards - 4 TDs

which should be considered the best WR out of that group?

MattMeyerBud
03-02-2012, 05:51 PM
<div class="report">


Major League Baseball has officially
announced the addition of one more Wild Card team in the National and
American League starting in 2012.</p>
</div>
<div class="impact">
Also announced is that the winners of the
"play-in" game between the Wild Card winners will host the first two
games of the Divisional Rounds before moving on to the higher seed's
home park for subsequent games. This will only be in effect for 2012, as
MLB wanted to eliminate a travel day during the Divisional Round. A
return to the 2-2-1 format will occur in 2013. Teams from the same
division will also now be allowed to face each other in the Division
Series.



Thoughts?
</div>

eh its alright

good entertainment but who really cares. I hate that baseball comes down to a 5 game series first round of the playoffs

DavenIII
03-02-2012, 06:05 PM
yea that wouldn't be the best way to do it though... players could get extra snaps in garbage time and bla bla bla.. it has to be based off results imo...

Reciever A:
30 Rec - 500 yards - 6 TDs

Receiver B:
40 Rec - 400 Yards - 7 TDs

Receiver C:
50 Rec - 440 Yards - 4 TDs

which should be considered the best WR out of that group?




3rd best WR isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about who get's the most play time which is why I want to use snaps but we aren't going top be able to get a consistent count on that.

for the purposes of the bet I would assume Receiver C saw the field the most making him what would likely be called in my opinion the "3rd" receiver simply because he has more receptions.

really I'd like to use most snaps though...I think it's going to be rare to see him lineup as a WR at all next year...I think Barden will get more snaps as a WR then Hixon...and I don't think Barden will be our 3rd receiver either.

MattMeyerBud
03-02-2012, 06:09 PM
yea that wouldn't be the best way to do it though... players could get extra snaps in garbage time and bla bla bla.. it has to be based off results imo...

Reciever A:
30 Rec - 500 yards - 6 TDs

Receiver B:
40 Rec - 400 Yards - 7 TDs

Receiver C:
50 Rec - 440 Yards - 4 TDs

which should be considered the best WR out of that group?




3rd best WR isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about who get's the most play time which is why I want to use snaps but we aren't going top be able to get a consistent count on that.

for the purposes of the bet I would assume Receiver C saw the field the most making him what would likely be called in my opinion the "3rd" receiver simply because he has more receptions.

really I'd like to use most snaps though...I think it's going to be rare to see him lineup as a WR at all next year...I think Barden will get more snaps as a WR then Hixon...and I don't think Barden will be our 3rd receiver either.


I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol

DavenIII
03-02-2012, 06:15 PM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$

MattMeyerBud
03-02-2012, 06:30 PM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 09:44 AM
Question for Moorehead?

We're headed up to Westfield State University for Sports this summer. How is Town of Westfield for hotel accomodations? I don't mind traveling a little bit, if Westfield is a bad area. I'm taking the kids so I don't want to book reservations and find out that it's in a slum when I get there.

Thanks.

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 10:07 AM
Question for Moorehead? We're headed up to Westfield State University for Sports this summer. How is Town of Westfield for hotel accomodations? I don't mind traveling a little bit, if Westfield is a bad area. I'm taking the kids so I don't want to book reservations and find out that it's in a slum when I get there. Thanks.</P>


First of all, I live less than a mile from the Westfield State campus, so you must come and visit. Second there is a new hotel right at the turnpike entrance. Its a Holiday Inn Express. The number is 413-564-6900. Its brand new so its in good shape.</P>


Thats less than 10 minutes from WSU. I would highly recommend that hotel. </P>


Westfield is like a lot of smaller cities in Mass. It has some really nice areas and a few crappy ones that are near or around the "downtown" area. Its a town of about 40,000.</P>


WSU is in a very nice area. Let me know if you have any other questions.</P>

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 10:18 AM
Question for Moorehead? We're headed up to Westfield State University for Sports this summer. How is Town of Westfield for hotel accomodations? I don't mind traveling a little bit, if Westfield is a bad area. I'm taking the kids so I don't want to book reservations and find out that it's in a slum when I get there. Thanks.</P>


First of all, I live less than a mile from the Westfield State campus, so you must come and visit.* Second there is a new hotel right at the turnpike entrance.* Its a Holiday Inn Express. The number is 413-564-6900.* Its brand new so its in good shape.</P>


Thats less than 10 minutes from WSU.** I would highly recommend that hotel.** </P>


Westfield is like a lot of smaller cities in Mass.* It has some really nice areas and a few crappy ones that are near or around the "downtown" area.* Its a town of about 40,000.</P>


WSU is in a very nice area.* Let me know if you have any other questions.</P>That's right, now I recall Westfield is close vicinity to where that twister touched down last year? We will def be stopping by if the Mooreheads are in town that weekend. Possibly I can break away for a bit to watch Old Gunz do a set locally too. Thanks for the info MH.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 10:32 AM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs


scrappy?

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 10:42 AM
What's good MMB?

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 10:56 AM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 11:09 AM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team
Good luck with the baseball, don't beat up on the kids too much, lol. I didn't know you were looking for new job. How long have you been at current job? It's good to move around a bit early in your career. I did it too. Hard to believe that I have been at my current job for 19 years this year. A lot of it has to to do with luck and maximizing your self worth when your hot. Because your not hot FOREVER in the eyes of your employers. I don't care what company your with, after a while personalities clash and you are looked at differently.

Why would employment be any different than a marriage? You spend a hell of alot more time at work. How many marriages last longer than 19 years? Just my opinion. Good luck with landing the new job.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 11:13 AM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team
Good luck with the baseball, don't beat up on the kids too much, lol. I didn't know you were looking for new job. How long have you been at current job? It's good to move around a bit early in your career. I did it too. Hard to believe that I have been at my current job for 19 years this year. A lot of it has to to do with luck and maximizing your self worth when your hot. Because your not hot FOREVER in the eyes of your employers. I don't care what company your with, after a while personalities clash and you are looked at differently.

Why would employment be any different than a marriage? You spend a hell of alot more time at work. How many marriages last longer than 19 years? Just my opinion. Good luck with landing the new job.

a little over 5 years. I just had enough of this place. No where to grow, they ****ed me on like 4 raises. Just had enough

I hope I get this new job, alot of new stuff I can do and the company is growing

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 11:14 AM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs


No just receptions alone, the whole point is to determine who is on the field the most...Hixon might break a few short passes for long gains and end up with more yards and TD's by the end of the season...but in terms of 1st 2nd 3rd receivers....that means absolutely nothing to me....all that matters is snaps...but since we aren't going to count snaps receptions is the next closest thing...I mean we are only talking about 40$ here matt...come on...Receptions "only" or no deal.

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 11:15 AM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team
Good luck with the baseball, don't beat up on the kids too much, lol. I didn't know you were looking for new job. How long have you been at current job? It's good to move around a bit early in your career. I did it too. Hard to believe that I have been at my current job for 19 years this year. A lot of it has to to do with luck and maximizing your self worth when your hot. Because your not hot FOREVER in the eyes of your employers. I don't care what company your with, after a while personalities clash and you are looked at differently.

Why would employment be any different than a marriage? You spend a hell of alot more time at work. How many marriages last longer than 19 years? Just my opinion. Good luck with landing the new job.

a little over 5 years. I just had enough of this place. No where to grow, they ****ed me on like 4 raises. Just had enough

I hope I get this new job, alot of new stuff I can do and the company is growing
Whats the new job? Have you reminded them that they screwed you 4 times?

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 11:16 AM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs


No just receptions alone, the whole point is to determine who is on the field the most...Hixon might break a few short passes for long gains and end up with more yards and TD's by the end of the season...but in terms of 1st 2nd 3rd receivers....that means absolutely nothing to me....all that matters is snaps...but since we aren't going to count snaps receptions is the next closest thing...I mean we are only talking about 40$ here matt...come on...Receptions "only" or no deal.


hixon is a deep threat... but no way im doing that

cuz essentially a WR could have 40 receptions for 400 yards and 3 TDs and the guy who has 39 receptions 600 yards and 6 TDs loses? no way

receptions "only", does not represent what a third WR is

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 11:17 AM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team
Good luck with the baseball, don't beat up on the kids too much, lol. I didn't know you were looking for new job. How long have you been at current job? It's good to move around a bit early in your career. I did it too. Hard to believe that I have been at my current job for 19 years this year. A lot of it has to to do with luck and maximizing your self worth when your hot. Because your not hot FOREVER in the eyes of your employers. I don't care what company your with, after a while personalities clash and you are looked at differently.

Why would employment be any different than a marriage? You spend a hell of alot more time at work. How many marriages last longer than 19 years? Just my opinion. Good luck with landing the new job.

a little over 5 years. I just had enough of this place.* No where to grow, they ****ed me on like 4 raises.* Just had enough

I hope I get this new job, alot of new stuff I can do and the company is growing
5 years is nice experience to take with you to the next employer. Is job in same industry?

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 11:18 AM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs


No just receptions alone, the whole point is to determine who is on the field the most...Hixon might break a few short passes for long gains and end up with more yards and TD's by the end of the season...but in terms of 1st 2nd 3rd receivers....that means absolutely nothing to me....all that matters is snaps...but since we aren't going to count snaps receptions is the next closest thing...I mean we are only talking about 40$ here matt...come on...Receptions "only" or no deal.


hixon is a deep threat... but no way im doing that

cuz essentially a WR could have 40 receptions for 400 yards and 3 TDs and the guy who has 39 receptions 600 yards and 6 TDs loses? no way

receptions "only", does not represent what a third WR is
I loved Hixon when he played. Sorry if Im going negative nancy a bit here. How old is he now? 2nd ACL issue? Idk. I'll hope for the best for him.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 11:21 AM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team
Good luck with the baseball, don't beat up on the kids too much, lol. I didn't know you were looking for new job. How long have you been at current job? It's good to move around a bit early in your career. I did it too. Hard to believe that I have been at my current job for 19 years this year. A lot of it has to to do with luck and maximizing your self worth when your hot. Because your not hot FOREVER in the eyes of your employers. I don't care what company your with, after a while personalities clash and you are looked at differently.

Why would employment be any different than a marriage? You spend a hell of alot more time at work. How many marriages last longer than 19 years? Just my opinion. Good luck with landing the new job.

a little over 5 years. I just had enough of this place. No where to grow, they ****ed me on like 4 raises. Just had enough

I hope I get this new job, alot of new stuff I can do and the company is growing
Whats the new job? Have you reminded them that they screwed you 4 times?


they don't care, they **** everybody and their position is: If you can find another job, go for it its a recession. The president actually says that to people.

But they just did some restructuring in my department so if they lose me they are gonna be ****ed for a while. Because they will try to get somebody cheap to do the work that I do, but they won't be able to and they'll end up spending.

Its the same thing I do now, Quality Control Inspector

egyptian420
03-05-2012, 11:21 AM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs


No just receptions alone, the whole point is to determine who is on the field the most...Hixon might break a few short passes for long gains and end up with more yards and TD's by the end of the season...but in terms of 1st 2nd 3rd receivers....that means absolutely nothing to me....all that matters is snaps...but since we aren't going to count snaps receptions is the next closest thing...I mean we are only talking about 40$ here matt...come on...Receptions "only" or no deal.


hixon is a deep threat... but no way im doing that

cuz essentially a WR could have 40 receptions for 400 yards and 3 TDs and the guy who has 39 receptions 600 yards and 6 TDs loses? no way

receptions "only", does not represent what a third WR is
I loved Hixon when he played. Sorry if Im going negative nancy a bit here. How old is he now? 2nd ACL issue? Idk. I'll hope for the best for him.
I'm definitely not going to rely on him to be the long term solution as the #3 WR, but I certainly hope (and expect) him to help out our return game on ST.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 11:23 AM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team
Good luck with the baseball, don't beat up on the kids too much, lol. I didn't know you were looking for new job. How long have you been at current job? It's good to move around a bit early in your career. I did it too. Hard to believe that I have been at my current job for 19 years this year. A lot of it has to to do with luck and maximizing your self worth when your hot. Because your not hot FOREVER in the eyes of your employers. I don't care what company your with, after a while personalities clash and you are looked at differently.

Why would employment be any different than a marriage? You spend a hell of alot more time at work. How many marriages last longer than 19 years? Just my opinion. Good luck with landing the new job.

a little over 5 years. I just had enough of this place. No where to grow, they ****ed me on like 4 raises. Just had enough

I hope I get this new job, alot of new stuff I can do and the company is growing
5 years is nice experience to take with you to the next employer. Is job in same industry?

yea same exact thing, just a different product so there is alittle bit of a learning curve. But I was on the internal audit team for my current company for this certification called AS9100 and this place is looking for somebody to help implement everything wtih it so I think that gives me a nudge to be in the running. Plus apparently he has some older Inspectors that aren't conforming to the new regulations and are just stuck in their ways so hes looking for some new blood. So I think being 27 with 5 years experience is another plus.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 11:25 AM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs


No just receptions alone, the whole point is to determine who is on the field the most...Hixon might break a few short passes for long gains and end up with more yards and TD's by the end of the season...but in terms of 1st 2nd 3rd receivers....that means absolutely nothing to me....all that matters is snaps...but since we aren't going to count snaps receptions is the next closest thing...I mean we are only talking about 40$ here matt...come on...Receptions "only" or no deal.


hixon is a deep threat... but no way im doing that

cuz essentially a WR could have 40 receptions for 400 yards and 3 TDs and the guy who has 39 receptions 600 yards and 6 TDs loses? no way

receptions "only", does not represent what a third WR is
I loved Hixon when he played. Sorry if Im going negative nancy a bit here. How old is he now? 2nd ACL issue? Idk. I'll hope for the best for him.

yea I mean it happened early enough last year that he should be good to roll this year but he is young - i think hes like 27

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 11:27 AM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs


No just receptions alone, the whole point is to determine who is on the field the most...Hixon might break a few short passes for long gains and end up with more yards and TD's by the end of the season...but in terms of 1st 2nd 3rd receivers....that means absolutely nothing to me....all that matters is snaps...but since we aren't going to count snaps receptions is the next closest thing...I mean we are only talking about 40$ here matt...come on...Receptions "only" or no deal.


hixon is a deep threat... but no way im doing that

cuz essentially a WR could have 40 receptions for 400 yards and 3 TDs and the guy who has 39 receptions 600 yards and 6 TDs loses? no way

receptions "only", does not represent what a third WR is
I loved Hixon when he played. Sorry if Im going negative nancy a bit here. How old is he now? 2nd ACL issue? Idk. I'll hope for the best for him.
I'm definitely not going to rely on him to be the long term solution as the #3 WR, but I certainly hope (and expect) him to help out our return game on ST.


na not long term, but we can defintly get some good bang for the buck on him for this year I think

egyptian420
03-05-2012, 11:30 AM
I dont think there is anywhere that tracks that. And im not doing it week to week for 25 bucks lol


I know, that's why I said receptions as the sole stat because it follows that the time you play at the WR position throughout the year the more reception you will end up with.....it's not perfect but it's good enough for 30$


$30 bucks... after cruz and nicks - whoever has the most (2 out of 3) of receptions, yards, and TDs


No just receptions alone, the whole point is to determine who is on the field the most...Hixon might break a few short passes for long gains and end up with more yards and TD's by the end of the season...but in terms of 1st 2nd 3rd receivers....that means absolutely nothing to me....all that matters is snaps...but since we aren't going to count snaps receptions is the next closest thing...I mean we are only talking about 40$ here matt...come on...Receptions "only" or no deal.


hixon is a deep threat... but no way im doing that

cuz essentially a WR could have 40 receptions for 400 yards and 3 TDs and the guy who has 39 receptions 600 yards and 6 TDs loses? no way

receptions "only", does not represent what a third WR is
I loved Hixon when he played. Sorry if Im going negative nancy a bit here. How old is he now? 2nd ACL issue? Idk. I'll hope for the best for him.
I'm definitely not going to rely on him to be the long term solution as the #3 WR, but I certainly hope (and expect) him to help out our return game on ST.


na not long term, but we can defintly get some good bang for the buck on him for this year I think

Yea he could definitely be servicable, atleast for the start of the season (much like last year before he got hurt)

I really hope we find a long term replacement in Jernigan or someone else on the bench right now who's last name isn't Barden. I love Barden's height but that's pretty much all he's got going for him.

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 11:45 AM
receptions "only", does not represent what a third WR is


Snaps is the only way to do it, the 3rd receiver is the receiver with the 3rd most amount of play time period... (all the other statistics mean absolutely nothing)

I will not allow Yardage/TD's/Yards Per Catch if you can come up with stats that reflect play time only (this has absolutely nothing to do with performance) then I'll accept those as well.

I need to be clear again cause I know you aren't understanding, I'm not betting on Hixon's performance next year...I'm betting PURELY on the amount of time he will spend playing as a WR..period...this is about SNAPS nothing else not his performance.

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 11:52 AM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 11:53 AM
receptions "only", does not represent what a third WR is


Snaps is the only way to do it, the 3rd receiver is the receiver with the 3rd most amount of play time period... (all the other statistics mean absolutely nothing)

I will not allow Yardage/TD's/Yards Per Catch if you can come up with stats that reflect play time only (this has absolutely nothing to do with performance) then I'll accept those as well.

I need to be clear again cause I know you aren't understanding, I'm not betting on Hixon's performance next year...I'm betting PURELY on the amount of time he will spend playing as a WR..period...this is about SNAPS nothing else not his performance.


well we can't review that stats from past years either to even decide whether that is true or not..

3rd receiver is based on production

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 11:55 AM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 11:58 AM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team
Good luck with the baseball, don't beat up on the kids too much, lol. I didn't know you were looking for new job. How long have you been at current job? It's good to move around a bit early in your career. I did it too. Hard to believe that I have been at my current job for 19 years this year. A lot of it has to to do with luck and maximizing your self worth when your hot. Because your not hot FOREVER in the eyes of your employers. I don't care what company your with, after a while personalities clash and you are looked at differently.

Why would employment be any different than a marriage? You spend a hell of alot more time at work. How many marriages last longer than 19 years? Just my opinion. Good luck with landing the new job.

a little over 5 years. I just had enough of this place.* No where to grow, they ****ed me on like 4 raises.* Just had enough

I hope I get this new job, alot of new stuff I can do and the company is growing
5 years is nice experience to take with you to the next employer. Is job in same industry?

yea same exact thing, just a different product so there is alittle bit of a learning curve.* But I was on the internal audit team for my current company for this certification called AS9100 and this place is looking for somebody to help implement everything wtih it so I think that gives me a nudge to be in the running. Plus apparently he has some older Inspectors that aren't conforming to the new regulations and are just stuck in their ways so hes looking for some new blood. So I think being 27 with 5 years experience is another plus.
Sounds promising to me.

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 11:58 AM
Yesterday, Rajon Rondo redefined the term "triple double"</P>


17 Rebounds, 20 Assists and 18 Points.</P>


Holy crap!!!</P>


Has anyone in NBA history ever had a triple double where the lowest total of the three was 17?</P>


I doubt it.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:00 PM
What's good MMB?

absolutely nothing. Its monday and i'm still here

I went on an interview so hopefully i get that new job so i can get the hell out of here. Only downside is I wouldn't be on the boards NEARLY as much. Especially during the day

I got roped into a last minute fantasy baseball league last night. I had an hour to look and drafted. $200 per team, but thees kids blow..

i made some mistakes but think I have a competitive team
Good luck with the baseball, don't beat up on the kids too much, lol. I didn't know you were looking for new job. How long have you been at current job? It's good to move around a bit early in your career. I did it too. Hard to believe that I have been at my current job for 19 years this year. A lot of it has to to do with luck and maximizing your self worth when your hot. Because your not hot FOREVER in the eyes of your employers. I don't care what company your with, after a while personalities clash and you are looked at differently.

Why would employment be any different than a marriage? You spend a hell of alot more time at work. How many marriages last longer than 19 years? Just my opinion. Good luck with landing the new job.

a little over 5 years. I just had enough of this place. No where to grow, they ****ed me on like 4 raises. Just had enough

I hope I get this new job, alot of new stuff I can do and the company is growing
5 years is nice experience to take with you to the next employer. Is job in same industry?

yea same exact thing, just a different product so there is alittle bit of a learning curve. But I was on the internal audit team for my current company for this certification called AS9100 and this place is looking for somebody to help implement everything wtih it so I think that gives me a nudge to be in the running. Plus apparently he has some older Inspectors that aren't conforming to the new regulations and are just stuck in their ways so hes looking for some new blood. So I think being 27 with 5 years experience is another plus.
Sounds promising to me.

yea i hope so

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:00 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:00 PM
Yesterday, Rajon Rondo redefined the term "triple double"</p>


17 Rebounds, 20 Assists and 18 Points.</p>


Holy crap!!!</p>


Has anyone in NBA history ever had a triple double where the lowest total of the three was 17?</p>


I doubt it.</p>

na that was sick

I just can't for the life of me understand why trading him would even be an option?

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 12:01 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
Exactly, agreed. I can't wait to see the Saints score 40 plus pts a game this year and have Spags on staff so their Defense will slow down opposing offenses. Spags has got to improve that team's overall def IQ.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:02 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>

no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 12:02 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">If
Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the
new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</span></h6>


</p>


</p>

What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</p>

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:03 PM
Yesterday, Rajon Rondo redefined the term "triple double"</P>


17 Rebounds, 20 Assists and 18 Points.</P>


Holy crap!!!</P>


Has anyone in NBA history ever had a triple double where the lowest total of the three was 17?</P>


I doubt it.</P>




na that was sick

I just can't for the life of me understand why trading him would even be an option?
</P>


Don't believe everything you read.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:03 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
Exactly, agreed. I can't wait to see the Saints score 40 plus pts a game this year and have Spags on staff so their Defense will slow down opposing offenses. Spags has got to improve that team's overall def IQ.

yea I wonder how they handle this punishment

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 12:03 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt.* Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.* Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


*</P>I agree, not to maliciously maim your opponents, but to hit them so hard that they remember it next time and they screw up because they don't want to get hit again. Just like LT used to do.

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:04 PM
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</SPAN></H6>



</P>



</P>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</P>


</P>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</P>

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 12:05 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt.* Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.* Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


*</p>

no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:05 PM
Yesterday, Rajon Rondo redefined the term "triple double"</p>


17 Rebounds, 20 Assists and 18 Points.</p>


Holy crap!!!</p>


Has anyone in NBA history ever had a triple double where the lowest total of the three was 17?</p>


I doubt it.</p>




na that was sick

I just can't for the life of me understand why trading him would even be an option?
</p>


Don't believe everything you read.</p>

Ainge has made too many references to it for two years now...

Im not sure im buying the "ITS MOTIVATION" theory either.

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 12:06 PM
Yesterday,* Rajon Rondo redefined the term "triple double"</p>


17 Rebounds,* 20 Assists and 18 Points.</p>


Holy crap!!!</p>


Has anyone in NBA history ever had a triple double where the lowest total of the three was 17?</p>


I doubt it.</p>




na that was sick

I just can't for the life of me understand why trading him would even be an option?
</p>


Don't believe everything you read.</p>

Ainge has made too many references to it for two years now...

Im not sure im buying the "ITS MOTIVATION" theory either.


All I know is you never hear any of this type of crap or drama surrounding the NY football giants because we are a class act org.

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 12:06 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.<u> Not to try to injure your opponents.</u></p>


</p>Nonsense. If a defense stops an offense and happens to injure a star player, its a bonus. This has been around for a long, long time. I thought mh hated change.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:06 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline"><div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"> <span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">If
Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the
new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</span></h6>


</p>


</p>

What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</p>

nope, he'll cost too much

theres a reason we've hung on to DJ Ware, carried a 4th RB in Scott, and keep bringing back Andre Brown..

if we lost Jacobs we just lose him, i doubt we sign anybody

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:07 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</P>


Butkus came before those guys.</P>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</P>


And the players are on board as well.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:09 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>I agree, not to maliciously maim your opponents, but to hit them so hard that they remember it next time and they screw up because they don't want to get hit again. Just like LT used to do.

LT has said before that they had bountys

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:09 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.<U> Not to try to injure your opponents.</U></P>


</P>


Nonsense. If a defense stops an offense and happens to injure a star player, its a bonus. This has been around for a long, long time. I thought mh hated change.
</P>


Its simply a fact of the new NFL. Deal with it. Player safety is paramount these days.</P>


Do I like it? I have never liked players who went out there trying to end fellow players careers.</P>


I saw Jack Tatum ruin Darrell Stingley's life with this attitude.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:10 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</span></h6>



</p>



</p>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</p>


</p>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</p>

too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:11 PM
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</SPAN></H6>



</P>



</P>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</P>


</P>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</P>




too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
</P>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</P>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:12 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</p>


Butkus came before those guys.</p>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</p>


And the players are on board as well.</p>

its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 12:13 PM
3rd receiver is based on production

I disagree, to me 3rd receiver designation is actually going to be whoever takes the 3rd most snaps as a receiver.

obviously Nicks and Cruz will be the #1 and #2 they will be out there whenever we have 2 receivers line up.....but when we go to the 3 WR's sets whose gonna be out there? that's who our 3rd receiver is....and it won't be Hixon...probably Jernigan....what I don't want happening is production getting in the way of the bet....Hixon might be the 4th WR he might come in on 4 WR sets and might out produce Jernigan even though technically Jernigan would still be the 3rd receiver...that's why I'm not gonna allow Yards/TD's to get involved since production has nothing to do with the 3rd receiver designation in my opinion....

Receptions only 50$ take it or leave it.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:14 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.<u> Not to try to injure your opponents.</u></p>


</p>


Nonsense. If a defense stops an offense and happens to injure a star player, its a bonus. This has been around for a long, long time. I thought mh hated change.
</p>


Its simply a fact of the new NFL. Deal with it. Player safety is paramount these days.</p>


Do I like it? I have never liked players who went out there trying to end fellow players careers.</p>


I saw Jack Tatum ruin Darrell Stingley's life with this attitude.</p>

nobody is for that... thats the way the media is trying to spin it. Infact LT is the perfect example of it...

Go see how he reacted after the Theisman hit. Thats never the intention. Stop buying the media PC bull****, your better than that

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 12:14 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt.* Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.* Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


*</P>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</P>


Butkus came before those guys.</P>


The point is that the league has changed.* While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore.* Player safety is an enormous concern for the league.* I expect the punishment to be severe.</P>


And the players are on board as well.</P>Agreed to a degree. I'll use Peyton as an example. I don't know if his neck was result of any such hit, but the loss of a premiere QB like him devastated the Colt team and hurt the NFL from a spectator standpoint for fans of the Colts.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:15 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</span></h6>



</p>



</p>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</p>


</p>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</p>




too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
</p>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</p>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</p>
theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:15 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</P>


Butkus came before those guys.</P>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</P>


And the players are on board as well.</P>




its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.
</P>


There is a difference between hard hitting and intent to injure.</P>


Hittiing someone hard who comes accross the middle to make him think twice next time...fine with me.</P>


Trying to injure a player and possibly end his career, not acceptable.</P>


But we can argue till the cows come home about this. This IS the new NFL. If you don't like it, don't watch anymore.</P>


I'll miss you though. I'm sure the tailgate parties for Austrailian Rules Football are a blast.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:16 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</p>


Butkus came before those guys.</p>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</p>


And the players are on board as well.</p>Agreed to a degree. I'll use Peyton as an example. I don't know if his neck was result of any such hit, but the loss of a premiere QB like him devastated the Colt team and hurt the NFL from a spectator standpoint for fans of the Colts.

yea but that could happen to anybody at any time

Take the aggressiveness out of defense and you'll see the NFL suffer worse than anywhere else. They have already restricted these guys as much as they possibly could without making it touch football.

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 12:16 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>

I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:18 PM
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</SPAN></H6>



</P>



</P>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</P>


</P>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</P>




too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
</P>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</P>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</P>



theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it
</P>


He's not a #1 back, but he would be a very nice compliment to our attack. I see 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee for him on the open market.</P>


But I also see him resigning with SD. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with Sproles.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:20 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</p>


Butkus came before those guys.</p>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</p>


And the players are on board as well.</p>




its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.
</p>


There is a difference between hard hitting and intent to injure.</p>


Hittiing someone hard who comes accross the middle to make him think twice next time...fine with me.</p>


Trying to injure a player and possibly end his career, not acceptable.</p>


But we can argue till the cows come home about this. This IS the new NFL. If you don't like it, don't watch anymore.</p>


I'll miss you though. I'm sure the tailgate parties for Austrailian Rules Football are a blast.</p>

uhg, im so disappointed in you on this topic.

Players can get injured on any play. If you don't look to demolish your opponent on any chance you can, your going to ruin the game.

LoL - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You have somebody coming across the middle, you look to put all you can in to hit him! Its the same thing!

Your stance is what represents all that is wrong wtih this country. The pussification of america, next your going to say everybody should get a lombardi trophy just for participating.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:21 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</span></h6>



</p>



</p>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</p>


</p>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</p>




too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
</p>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</p>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</p>



theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it
</p>


He's not a #1 back, but he would be a very nice compliment to our attack. I see 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee for him on the open market.</p>


But I also see him resigning with SD. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with Sproles.</p>

What kind of contract are you projecting for him?

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:21 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</P>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</P>


</P>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</P>


I'm flattered really.</P>

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:22 PM
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</SPAN></H6>



</P>



</P>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</P>


</P>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</P>




too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
</P>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</P>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</P>



theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it
</P>


He's not a #1 back, but he would be a very nice compliment to our attack. I see 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee for him on the open market.</P>


But I also see him resigning with SD. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with Sproles.</P>




What kind of contract are you projecting for him?
</P>


I just said. Maybe 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee. Probably $3 MM/year but the guarantee is what matters.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:23 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</p>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>

bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming. The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:25 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</P>


Butkus came before those guys.</P>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</P>


And the players are on board as well.</P>




its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.
</P>


There is a difference between hard hitting and intent to injure.</P>


Hittiing someone hard who comes accross the middle to make him think twice next time...fine with me.</P>


Trying to injure a player and possibly end his career, not acceptable.</P>


But we can argue till the cows come home about this. This IS the new NFL. If you don't like it, don't watch anymore.</P>


I'll miss you though. I'm sure the tailgate parties for Austrailian Rules Football are a blast.</P>




uhg, im so disappointed in you on this topic.

Players can get injured on any play. If you don't look to demolish your opponent on any chance you can, your going to ruin the game.

LoL - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You have somebody coming across the middle, you look to put all you can in to hit him! Its the same thing!

Your stance is what represents all that is wrong wtih this country. The pussification of america, next your going to say everybody should get a lombardi trophy just for participating.
</P>


My stance is nothing like that. I like hard hitting as much as anyone. Thats different than try to injure players. You don't think so?. Going after a guys knees, trying to tear his ACL. Going after his head? Sorry thats not good football. I don't want to see that.</P>


And as far as "pussification" is concerned. Thats what happens when you have a bunch of Democrats in charge.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:25 PM
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust (http://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Reese-We-Trust/204765974855)</div></h6>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</span></h6>



</p>



</p>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</p>


</p>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</p>




too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
</p>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</p>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</p>



theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it
</p>


He's not a #1 back, but he would be a very nice compliment to our attack. I see 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee for him on the open market.</p>


But I also see him resigning with SD. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with Sproles.</p>




What kind of contract are you projecting for him?
</p>


I just said. Maybe 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee. Probably $3 MM/year but the guarantee is what matters.</p>

I dunno... he would be great. Gives us a pounding back, good goaline, good blocker, and actually is a GREAT receiving back. I just can't see us giving a contract out like that right now...

I think we are going to be in hell for the next few years cap wise... we have to extend cruz and nicks and giving a contract like that out to a 2nd RB just shouldn't be in the cards...

and did you see the deal that Stevie Johnson just got? Not a good start for us AT ALL

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:26 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</P>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</P>


</P>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</P>


I'm flattered really.</P>




bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming. The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet
</P>


Please find me my post where I said we should have "big hits".</P>


Don't mischaracterize my position.</P>

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 12:27 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</p>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>yea, im sure any free advertisement for old guns is greatly appreciated.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:27 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</p>


Butkus came before those guys.</p>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</p>


And the players are on board as well.</p>




its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.
</p>


There is a difference between hard hitting and intent to injure.</p>


Hittiing someone hard who comes accross the middle to make him think twice next time...fine with me.</p>


Trying to injure a player and possibly end his career, not acceptable.</p>


But we can argue till the cows come home about this. This IS the new NFL. If you don't like it, don't watch anymore.</p>


I'll miss you though. I'm sure the tailgate parties for Austrailian Rules Football are a blast.</p>




uhg, im so disappointed in you on this topic.

Players can get injured on any play. If you don't look to demolish your opponent on any chance you can, your going to ruin the game.

LoL - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You have somebody coming across the middle, you look to put all you can in to hit him! Its the same thing!

Your stance is what represents all that is wrong wtih this country. The pussification of america, next your going to say everybody should get a lombardi trophy just for participating.
</p>


My stance is nothing like that. I like hard hitting as much as anyone. Thats different than try to injure players. You don't think so?. Going after a guys knees, trying to tear his ACL. Going after his head? Sorry thats not good football. I don't want to see that.</p>


And as far as "pussification" is concerned. Thats what happens when you have a bunch of Democrats in charge.</p>

its like you really don't read what I say at all

and honestly your buyiung the media spin that going after a guys knee and head is what tha twas about. I doubt it was, especially because those plays draw flags.

Like i've said for now the third time, if it was a situation like that then I agree with you...

but go reference Boley's hit on Romo a few years ago... he just caught him hard and straight - if a player got a bounty for that, then more power to him...

even the hit they got on Nicks this year, it was a clean and they ****ed him up and i was okay with that.

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 12:30 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt.* Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.* Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


*</P>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</P>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense.* How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up.* Happens all the time anymore.* When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</P>


*</P>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</P>


I'm flattered really.</P>




bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming.* The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet
</P>


Please find me my post where I said we should have "big hits".</P>


Don't mischaracterize my position.</P>haha-this is going wild....like usual, that's why we love it. I think MH is onboard with brutal hard defensive hits-so long as they are legal. Right MH?

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:30 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</P>


Butkus came before those guys.</P>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</P>


And the players are on board as well.</P>




its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.
</P>


There is a difference between hard hitting and intent to injure.</P>


Hittiing someone hard who comes accross the middle to make him think twice next time...fine with me.</P>


Trying to injure a player and possibly end his career, not acceptable.</P>


But we can argue till the cows come home about this. This IS the new NFL. If you don't like it, don't watch anymore.</P>


I'll miss you though. I'm sure the tailgate parties for Austrailian Rules Football are a blast.</P>




uhg, im so disappointed in you on this topic.

Players can get injured on any play. If you don't look to demolish your opponent on any chance you can, your going to ruin the game.

LoL - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You have somebody coming across the middle, you look to put all you can in to hit him! Its the same thing!

Your stance is what represents all that is wrong wtih this country. The pussification of america, next your going to say everybody should get a lombardi trophy just for participating.
</P>


My stance is nothing like that. I like hard hitting as much as anyone. Thats different than try to injure players. You don't think so?. Going after a guys knees, trying to tear his ACL. Going after his head? Sorry thats not good football. I don't want to see that.</P>


And as far as "pussification" is concerned. Thats what happens when you have a bunch of Democrats in charge.</P>




its like you really don't read what I say at all

and honestly your buyiung the media spin that going after a guys knee and head is what tha twas about. I doubt it was, especially because those plays draw flags.

Like i've said for now the third time, if it was a situation like that then I agree with you...

but go reference Boley's hit on Romo a few years ago... he just caught him hard and straight - if a player got a bounty for that, then more power to him...

even the hit they got on Nicks this year, it was a clean and they ****ed him up and i was okay with that.
</P>


The Boley hit was clean. he can hit the QB as hard as he wants as long as its clean. If that causes a QB to throw it early or make a bad decision later in the game thats great.</P>


But to say that Boley was trying to injure Romo is a big leap. You just play football, and football is a violent game.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:30 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</p>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>




bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming. The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet
</p>


Please find me my post where I said we should have "big hits".</p>


Don't mischaracterize my position.</p>

the point is that big hits is really what the bounties paid. Big hits. If they weren' legal, especially in todays game, they would of been flagged so I doubt that those plays would of been paying to a player.

Big Hits got you the bounty, if you were able to break the guys collarbone im sure u got a bonus...

thats football, thats the mindset you need for defense. If you take that away the game would be harmed FAR more than losing any player.

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 12:31 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</P>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</P>


</P>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</P>


I'm flattered really.</P>




bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming. The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet
</P>


Please find me my post where I said we should have "big hits".</P>


Don't mischaracterize my position.</P>


haha-this is going wild....like usual, that's why we love it. I think MH is onboard with brutal hard defensive hits-so long as they are legal. Right MH?</P>


Aren't we all? </P>


And this is what happens when Morehead gets involved with the discussion. It goes off.</P>

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 12:31 PM
The only thing thats wrong in the bounty situation is, technically, its going against the cap.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:33 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.</p>


Butkus came before those guys.</p>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</p>


And the players are on board as well.</p>




its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.
</p>


There is a difference between hard hitting and intent to injure.</p>


Hittiing someone hard who comes accross the middle to make him think twice next time...fine with me.</p>


Trying to injure a player and possibly end his career, not acceptable.</p>


But we can argue till the cows come home about this. This IS the new NFL. If you don't like it, don't watch anymore.</p>


I'll miss you though. I'm sure the tailgate parties for Austrailian Rules Football are a blast.</p>




uhg, im so disappointed in you on this topic.

Players can get injured on any play. If you don't look to demolish your opponent on any chance you can, your going to ruin the game.

LoL - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You have somebody coming across the middle, you look to put all you can in to hit him! Its the same thing!

Your stance is what represents all that is wrong wtih this country. The pussification of america, next your going to say everybody should get a lombardi trophy just for participating.
</p>


My stance is nothing like that. I like hard hitting as much as anyone. Thats different than try to injure players. You don't think so?. Going after a guys knees, trying to tear his ACL. Going after his head? Sorry thats not good football. I don't want to see that.</p>


And as far as "pussification" is concerned. Thats what happens when you have a bunch of Democrats in charge.</p>




its like you really don't read what I say at all

and honestly your buyiung the media spin that going after a guys knee and head is what tha twas about. I doubt it was, especially because those plays draw flags.

Like i've said for now the third time, if it was a situation like that then I agree with you...

but go reference Boley's hit on Romo a few years ago... he just caught him hard and straight - if a player got a bounty for that, then more power to him...

even the hit they got on Nicks this year, it was a clean and they ****ed him up and i was okay with that.
</p>


The Boley hit was clean. he can hit the QB as hard as he wants as long as its clean. If that causes a QB to throw it early or make a bad decision later in the game thats great.</p>


But to say that Boley was trying to injure Romo is a big leap. You just play football, and football is a violent game.</p>

Boley put all he could into that hit and thats the way u have to play.

He absolutely was looking to harm romo. He wasn't lookin to just "TACKLE" him.

Free shot at the QB and you think his mentality is "just get him down" or "TAKE THAT MOTHER****ER OUT"

if u think its anyhting more than to inflict pain, then YOUR in denial about the mentality of a football player.

With that said, I can say with great confidence that when they talk about this bounties nobody is talking about diving at knees and **** like that

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 12:33 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt.* Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.* Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


*</p>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</p>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense.* How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up.* Happens all the time anymore.* When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


*</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>




bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming.* The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet
</p>


Please find me my post where I said we should have "big hits".</p>


Don't mischaracterize my position.</p>

the point is that big hits is really what the bounties paid.* Big hits. If they weren' legal, especially in todays game, they would of been flagged so I doubt that those plays would of been paying to a player.

Big Hits got you the bounty, if you were able to break the guys collarbone im sure u got a bonus...

thats football, thats the mindset you need for defense.* If you take that away the game would be harmed FAR more than losing any player.
Honestly, it's part of the reason I love this game so much. I don't want to see someone get paralyzed, but a good legal hard hit that clears the players sinuses and knocks the spit out of his mouth-makes me stand and cheer.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:33 PM
The only thing thats wrong in the bounty situation is, technically, its going against the cap.



what?

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:35 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</p>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>




bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming. The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet
</p>


Please find me my post where I said we should have "big hits".</p>


Don't mischaracterize my position.</p>

the point is that big hits is really what the bounties paid. Big hits. If they weren' legal, especially in todays game, they would of been flagged so I doubt that those plays would of been paying to a player.

Big Hits got you the bounty, if you were able to break the guys collarbone im sure u got a bonus...

thats football, thats the mindset you need for defense. If you take that away the game would be harmed FAR more than losing any player.
Honestly, it's part of the reason I love this game so much. I don't want to see someone get paralyzed, but a good legal hard hit that clears the players sinuses and knocks the spit out of his mouth-makes me stand and cheer.

****in a - broken collarbone sucks, but its not serious....

snot bubbles baby

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 12:35 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</p>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>




bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming. The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet
</p>


Please find me my post where I said we should have "big hits".</p>


Don't mischaracterize my position.</p>


haha-this is going wild....like usual, that's why we love it. I think MH is onboard with brutal hard defensive hits-so long as they are legal. Right MH?</p>


Aren't we all? </p>


And this is what happens when Morehead gets involved with the discussion. It goes off.</p>Yes but what was legal 10 years ago isnt legal today. How can these refs tell if there is helmet to helmet half the time? How do you determine if a wr is "defenseless"? This game is being watered down little by little.

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 12:36 PM
And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>

Great point, I didn't really consider that...still I'm not against it...but I don't want my team doing it for the reason you just mentioned.

About the sig...many may follow but I will always be the first to have you in my sig, I'm glad you appreciate it :)

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 12:38 PM
The only thing thats wrong in the bounty situation is, technically, its going against the cap.



what?
If Vilmas knocks out Farve or someone, vilma gets money for it. Its kind of like a under the table bonus if you will, imo anyway

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 12:41 PM
I LOVE Tolbert catching out of the backfield as such a monstrocity that it's hard to bring im down. But i doubt we will spring for that. We gotta pay other players before we think about replacing a RB. Especially when we have 4 on the roster with Jacobs here lol

lttaylor56
03-05-2012, 12:46 PM
This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act


it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
</p>


No its not Matt.* Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers.* Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


*</p>




I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
</p>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense.* How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up.* Happens all the time anymore.* When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


*</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>




bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming.* The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet
</p>


Please find me my post where I said we should have "big hits".</p>


Don't mischaracterize my position.</p>

the point is that big hits is really what the bounties paid.* Big hits. If they weren' legal, especially in todays game, they would of been flagged so I doubt that those plays would of been paying to a player.

Big Hits got you the bounty, if you were able to break the guys collarbone im sure u got a bonus...

thats football, thats the mindset you need for defense.* If you take that away the game would be harmed FAR more than losing any player.
Honestly, it's part of the reason I love this game so much. I don't want to see someone get paralyzed, but a good legal hard hit that clears the players sinuses and knocks the spit out of his mouth-makes me stand and cheer.

****in a - broken collarbone sucks, but its not serious....

snot bubbles baby
Romo's broken collarbone---****--that's fine. The the stuff inscriptions are made of. Boley is on my list to get him inscribe the Romo steam roll tackle.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 12:50 PM
The only thing thats wrong in the bounty situation is, technically, its going against the cap.



what?
If Vilmas knocks out Farve or someone, vilma gets money for it. Its kind of like a under the table bonus if you will, imo anyway


na but im saying it has nothing to do wtih the cap?

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 01:00 PM
The only thing thats wrong in the bounty situation is, technically, its going against the cap.



what?
If Vilmas knocks out Farve or someone, vilma gets money for it. Its kind of like a under the table bonus if you will, imo anyway


na but im saying it has nothing to do wtih the cap?
It doesnt but at the same time it is. The team is rewarding a player (bonus) for injuring another player. Its under the table incentives. Maybe Im wrong but thats the way Im seeing it.

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 01:02 PM
Unless the players were putting their own money in a pot and said who ever gets the hardest hit, or knocks so and so out, gets the pot.

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 01:05 PM
You guys aren't getting the point here.</P>


This is the way the NFL is now. You can whine and cry like schoolgirls if you want, but it won't change. Player safety is the #1 concern of the NFL right now. They are being sued by ex players for concusions etc..</P>


They will have zero tolerance for teams putting bounties on opposing players. Its just the way it is.</P>


You're all going to either have to deal with it, or stop watching football.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 01:06 PM
The only thing thats wrong in the bounty situation is, technically, its going against the cap.



what?
If Vilmas knocks out Farve or someone, vilma gets money for it. Its kind of like a under the table bonus if you will, imo anyway


na but im saying it has nothing to do wtih the cap?
It doesnt but at the same time it is. The team is rewarding a player (bonus) for injuring another player. Its under the table incentives. Maybe Im wrong but thats the way Im seeing it.


the team isn't REALLY rewarding the players at all

its the players pooling their own money together. Money which they've already made from the cap...

I mean maybe Williams was contribuytiung to the pot, but I mean its not enough to really make any difference in terms of cap. Even with pots that went up to 50k... whats that average, like 2k per person?

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 01:08 PM
You guys aren't getting the point here.</p>


This is the way the NFL is now. You can whine and cry like schoolgirls if you want, but it won't change. Player safety is the #1 concern of the NFL right now. They are being sued by ex players for concusions etc..</p>


They will have zero tolerance for teams putting bounties on opposing players. Its just the way it is.</p>


You're all going to either have to deal with it, or stop watching football.</p>

actually we're not the ones whining and crying, that would be you...

whether the game is different or not really has no effect on what your opinion should be. The RULES have changed, but yet these hits are all within the rules that they were rewarded for. So whether you want to over exaggerate it being a different game or not is on you....

The thing we're pointing out is your hypocrisy of you condemning it now but being okay with it when LT did it.

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 01:11 PM
You guys aren't getting the point here.</p>


This is the way the NFL is now. You can whine and cry like schoolgirls if you want, but it won't change. Player safety is the #1 concern of the NFL right now. They are being sued by ex players for concusions etc..</p>


They will have zero tolerance for teams putting bounties on opposing players. Its just the way it is.</p>


You're all going to either have to deal with it, or stop watching football.</p>

actually we're not the ones whining and crying, that would be you...

whether the game is different or not really has no effect on what your opinion should be. The RULES have changed, <u>but yet these hits are all within the rules that they were rewarded for.</u> So whether you want to over exaggerate it being a different game or not is on you....

The thing we're pointing out is your hypocrisy of you condemning it now but being okay with it when LT did it.
you hit the nail on the head.

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 01:14 PM
You guys aren't getting the point here.</p>


This is the way the NFL is now. You can whine and cry like schoolgirls if you want, but it won't change. Player safety is the #1 concern of the NFL right now. They are being sued by ex players for concusions etc..</p>


They will have zero tolerance for teams putting bounties on opposing players. Its just the way it is.</p>


You're all going to either have to deal with it, or stop watching football.</p>

It's Goodell's agenda really Morehead...if someone else was Commish (and that will be the case one day) there is no telling what the NFL will turn into....right now Goodell like's the safety agenda so that's whats happening...that's all it is.

about the cap issue...I agree with Dezz...that's the only "real" problem in this situation I believe...and only if it's the owner/management paying the players...if the players are pooling their own money and doing it I don't have a problem with the situation (beyond the fact that it causes missed tackles and I don't want my team missing tackles)

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 01:16 PM
You guys aren't getting the point here.</p>


This is the way the NFL is now. You can whine and cry like schoolgirls if you want, but it won't change. Player safety is the #1 concern of the NFL right now. They are being sued by ex players for concusions etc..</p>


They will have zero tolerance for teams putting bounties on opposing players. Its just the way it is.</p>


You're all going to either have to deal with it, or stop watching football.</p>

It's Goodell's agenda really Morehead...if someone else was Commish (and that will be the case one day) there is no telling what the NFL will turn into....right now Goodell like's the safety agenda so that's whats happening...that's all it is.

about the cap issue...I agree with Dezz...that's the only "real" problem in this situation I believe...and only if it's the owner/management paying the players...if the players are pooling their own money and doing it I don't have a problem with the situation (beyond the fact that it causes missed tackles and I don't want my team missing tackles)


big hits break plays up, cause fumbles, put fear in opponents, and hurt opposing players.. .if our players have a shot at a big hit i want them to take it..

its like saying you'd rather run the ball on 3rd down because its more safe than throwing for the first down

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 01:19 PM
big hits break plays up, cause fumbles, put fear in opponents, and hurt opposing players.. .if our players have a shot at a big hit i want them to take it..

I only want them to take it if they have back up, the reason Victor Cruz had all those 70+ yard TD's this year was because people were trying to crush him and wiffed....and poof Touchdown.

I'm not saying don't big hit, but it's situational, big hit on a QB when someone else already has his feet or someone else also has a clear path at least...go ahead, but if you are the only one there make a textbook tackle....don't let him throw the ball downfield.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 01:23 PM
big hits break plays up, cause fumbles, put fear in opponents, and hurt opposing players.. .if our players have a shot at a big hit i want them to take it..

I only want them to take it if they have back up, the reason Victor Cruz had all those 70+ yard TD's this year was because people were trying to crush him and wiffed....and poof Touchdown.

I'm not saying don't big hit, but it's situational, big hit on a QB when someone else already has his feet or someone else also has a clear path at least...go ahead, but if you are the only one there make a textbook tackle....don't let him throw the ball downfield.


I disagree with that...

There were definitly players whiffing, but I don't think there was killshots going on that the misse don... i thin kthey were just ordinary tackle attempts...

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 01:26 PM
I disagree with that...

you are entitled to that opinion...but to me it's quite clear that going for big hits...while sometimes beneficial (fumbles, scared players, future hesitation blah blah blah) often lead to missed tackles...which is fine when you have backup, but not when there's no one else there.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 01:38 PM
Arian Foster bit the bullet on that deal huh?

EDIT: On guaranteed money anyway

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 01:38 PM
This is boring. lol</P>

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 01:40 PM
Arian Foster bit the bullet on that deal huh?

EDIT: On guaranteed money anyway
</P>


he got robbed. </P>

byron
03-05-2012, 01:41 PM
This is boring. lol</P> Hit them mother ****ers as ****ing hard as you can !!!!!!!

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 01:44 PM
Arian Foster bit the bullet on that deal huh?

EDIT: On guaranteed money anyway
</p>


he got robbed. </p>

They would of franchise tagged him and he would of made like 7.7 mil this year, instead hes guaranteed banking 21 mil now...

still a pretty big deal... just under 9mil a year average

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 01:45 PM
Stevie Johnson's deal is going to be a nightmare for everybody

5 years 36 mil, 20 guaranteed and its front loaded

jesus god... this was the last thing we need to dictate contracts this year

byron
03-05-2012, 02:03 PM
Stevie Johnson's deal is going to be a nightmare for everybody

5 years 36 mil, 20 guaranteed and its front loaded

jesus god... this was the last thing we need to dictate contracts this year
Its hard to get the mind around that guaranteed money its his whether he plays or nothow many years do theyneed from him to justify the20 mil...Idk man

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 02:05 PM
#howyouknowwhenyourright: When Mark Bavaro agrees with you<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td><div class="ForumPostBodyArea"><div id="_ctl0__ctl1_bcr__ctl0___PostRepeater__ctl1_PostVie wWrapper" class="ForumPostContentText"><div><div>

Bavaro recalled he and his Giants teammates always would remind one another
to “keep your head on a swivel.” Ryan’s Eagles were at the forefront of bounty
accusations, but only the naive believe the practice of cash incentives was not
widespread throughout the league.</p>


“I’m sure it happened all over the league,” Bavaro said. “I know defenses are
always looking to knock guys out of the game. If you look at it from a
common-sense standpoint, offensive players get incentives for catches and
yardage and whatever. What can your incentive be on defense other than hitting
people and hurting people? That’s what they’re out there to do. I don’t have a
problem with it.”</p>

“I remember Parcells pulling me out after a while, with the understanding,
‘Come out of the game for a few plays, they look like they know your jaw is
broken and they’re going after it,’ ” Bavaro said. “That’s the sense I got. ...
That’s why the injury reports are so secretive.”</p>

“You could gang up on a guy on the next play and give him a little message:
‘Knock it off, do it cleanly, or we’re going to come at you and blow your knee
out. If you want to be known as the dirty, tough guy, we have the ability to
take you out,’ ” he said. “Now you don’t.</p>


“You don’t want to have the reputation as a guy who goes out to hurt
everybody if everybody else has an opportunity to hurt you. They’d either shape
up and be more respectful, or they’d be gone.</p>



</p>

</div>----


****in A - handle it between the lines
</div></div></div></td></tr></tbody></table>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 02:08 PM
Stevie Johnson's deal is going to be a nightmare for everybody

5 years 36 mil, 20 guaranteed and its front loaded

jesus god... this was the last thing we need to dictate contracts this year
Its hard to get the mind around that guaranteed money its his whether he plays or nothow many years do theyneed from him to justify the20 mil...Idk man

i can't believe they gauranteed him that much... especially becuase hes kind of known as an immature player

I like his skill, but im not sure gauranteeing him that money was a good move.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 02:12 PM
Pappy -

u see that deal MArshawn Lynch got?

I say tolbert averages about 4 mil a year type deal

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 02:13 PM
Hey Daven - bets off... i just got some news about Giants working something out with a WR... Hixon won't be the #3

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 02:17 PM
You guys see that article with Santana? A reporter asked him what santana thinks of the upcoming season and Santana put a garbage pale over his head. lmao
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m09x67SAjk1qcxdlao1_400.jpg

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 02:18 PM
The new CBA kinda screwed up how contracts are worth. Maybe less so this season, but...with bad teams HAVING to pay their stars more than they probably deserves makes it VERY difficult for teams to retair their stars at decent prices.
I think the big one last year was Deangelo Williams. Panthers were just throwing money at ANYONE just to get their cap up above the minimum.
I mean...Stevie Johnson is the star of his team basically, but damn thats alot of guaranteed money. Both our starting WRs are better than him, and it's going to be hard to show that kind of dollar

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 02:19 PM
Hey Daven - bets off... i just got some news about Giants working something out with a WR... Hixon won't be the #3


no kidding, he never was going to be.

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 02:22 PM
You guys see that article with Santana? A reporter asked him what santana thinks of the upcoming season and Santana put a garbage pale over his head. lmao
</P>


Just read that the mets are having even more payouts coming and more court casescaused bythe Madoff case shenanigans.
This team going to survive??
maybe we can get rid of the mets and bring the Dodger back to Brooklyn!!! Wishful thinking, but it'd be awesome lol</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 02:23 PM
Hey Daven - bets off... i just got some news about Giants working something out with a WR... Hixon won't be the #3


no kidding, he never was going to be.


with the core we have now, absolutely was...

still even a shot he out produces this guy we're going to get...

but i wouldn't bet that... but its def a possibility

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 02:23 PM
Hey Daven - bets off... i just got some news about Giants working something out with a WR... Hixon won't be the #3


no kidding, he never was going to be.
</P>


KR/PR in my opinion.
Whos going to be 3? My guess is it's Barden's job to lose. Thoughts?</P>

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 02:25 PM
If any of you are still looking for the black GMEN shirts
http://gmenshirts.com/

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 02:26 PM
Hey Daven - bets off... i just got some news about Giants working something out with a WR... Hixon won't be the #3


no kidding, he never was going to be.
</p>


KR/PR in my opinion.
Whos going to be 3? My guess is it's Barden's job to lose. Thoughts?</p>

Probably Barden yea, but Jernigan would also get the shot before Hixon...Hixon is being signed solely as a KR/PR which is good cause we need that.

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 02:28 PM
Hey Daven - bets off... i just got some news about Giants working something out with a WR... Hixon won't be the #3


no kidding, he never was going to be.
</p>


KR/PR in my opinion.
Whos going to be 3? My guess is it's Barden's job to lose. Thoughts?</p>JJ vs Barden in camp. If JJ beats out Barden, (which I think he will) and Barden still shows something, I think the Giants will use him in the red/greenzone in 3 wr sets.

byron
03-05-2012, 02:41 PM
Stevie Johnson's deal is going to be a nightmare for everybody

5 years 36 mil, 20 guaranteed and its front loaded

jesus god... this was the last thing we need to dictate contracts this year
Its hard to get the mind around that guaranteed money its his whether he plays or nothow many years do theyneed from him to justify the20 mil...Idk man

i can't believe they gauranteed him that much... especially becuase hes kind of known as an immature player

I like his skill, but i'm not sure guaranteeing him that money was a good move.
I'm with ya to me they need at least three full seasons no injuries for this guyto be even close to worth it.....two years of guaranteed money "meaning maybe 14 mil guaranteedwould have been more in line "It just seems to me guaranteeing that much money is going to catch up with ya at somepoint cap wise... not to speak of yourputting all your eggs in one basket..and ithurts youwhen its time to pay other guys ....I don't know what the answer is butin my mind with this new CBA there has to be a leveling off of player pay....in order to stayconsistent as a team year to year ...You have to keep players/teams together...Thefronts offices really have to havetheir **** togetherwhen it come to wages or there will be to much player movementwithin the team...Certainly there area lot factors that goesinto building a winning team..and managing wages is right up there...Some of these teams/gms,owners are idotsand make it hard on those that are trying to operatewith some kind ofsanity....To me thenew CBAis acut in payfor players...lower cap means lower pay per player per team obviously....at least till it catches up to the last capped year of the old CBA...I don't remember the #'s something like 6or 7 mill difference from now compaired to then...

Morehead State
03-05-2012, 02:50 PM
You guys aren't getting the point here.</P>


This is the way the NFL is now. You can whine and cry like schoolgirls if you want, but it won't change. Player safety is the #1 concern of the NFL right now. They are being sued by ex players for concusions etc..</P>


They will have zero tolerance for teams putting bounties on opposing players. Its just the way it is.</P>


You're all going to either have to deal with it, or stop watching football.</P>




It's Goodell's agenda really Morehead...if someone else was Commish (and that will be the case one day) there is no telling what the NFL will turn into....right now Goodell like's the safety agenda so that's whats happening...that's all it is.

about the cap issue...I agree with Dezz...that's the only "real" problem in this situation I believe...and only if it's the owner/management paying the players...if the players are pooling their own money and doing it I don't have a problem with the situation (beyond the fact that it causes missed tackles and I don't want my team missing tackles)


big hits break plays up, cause fumbles, put fear in opponents, and hurt opposing players.. .if our players have a shot at a big hit i want them to take it..

its like saying you'd rather run the ball on 3rd down because its more safe than throwing for the first down
</P>


Making big hits to dislodge the ball, to tackle a player in their tracks, even to induce him to go down or out of bounds the next time is playing good defense. Its good football. Hitting a player in a certain way in order to injure them, isn't.</P>


Thats all. Hit them as hard as you can. But it has to be about making good football plays.</P>

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 03:19 PM
This is boring. lol</p>stumbleupon.com brrrrroooo

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 03:19 PM
Hey Daven - bets off... i just got some news about Giants working something out with a WR... Hixon won't be the #3


no kidding, he never was going to be.
</p>


KR/PR in my opinion.
Whos going to be 3? My guess is it's Barden's job to lose. Thoughts?</p>

Barden wasn't even suited up in the superbowl...

JJ will get a shot before him... but its Hixon. Hixon will getthe time and has a good connection with Eli

But we should be signing a free agent and if he comes in he will be the #3

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 03:20 PM
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/431590_10151350045870066_761675065_22952445_101101 2681_n.jpg

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 03:20 PM
If any of you are still looking for the black GMEN shirts
http://gmenshirts.com/



price go down yet?

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 03:22 PM
Hey Daven - bets off... i just got some news about Giants working something out with a WR... Hixon won't be the #3


no kidding, he never was going to be.
</p>


KR/PR in my opinion.
Whos going to be 3? My guess is it's Barden's job to lose. Thoughts?</p>

Probably Barden yea, but Jernigan would also get the shot before Hixon...Hixon is being signed solely as a KR/PR which is good cause we need that.


he had the job over cruz before he got hurt this year... ur fooling urself about the KR thing only...

Barden is getting nothing handed to him and he certainly hasn't earned it

If we resign Devin Thomas, i think he'd have a better shot at #3

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 03:31 PM
If any of you are still looking for the black GMEN shirts
http://gmenshirts.com/



price go down yet?
yea hoodies are 30 and t shirts are 16

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 03:33 PM
If any of you are still looking for the black GMEN shirts
http://gmenshirts.com/



price go down yet?
yea hoodies are 30 and t shirts are 16


wooorrrrd

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 03:51 PM
If any of you are still looking for the black GMEN shirts
http://gmenshirts.com/



price go down yet?
yea hoodies are 30 and t shirts are 16


wooorrrrd
</P>


Did i miss something? whats with the black ones? something special about them?</P>

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 03:51 PM
http://distilleryimage4.instagram.com/61b0dd52667911e1b9f1123138140926_7.jpg

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 03:55 PM
If any of you are still looking for the black GMEN shirts
http://gmenshirts.com/



price go down yet?
yea hoodies are 30 and t shirts are 16


wooorrrrd
</p>


Did i miss something? whats with the black ones? something special about them?</p>everyone saw cruz and stra wearing them at the parade and erybody wanted one.

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 03:58 PM
If any of you are still looking for the black GMEN shirts
http://gmenshirts.com/



price go down yet?
yea hoodies are 30 and t shirts are 16


wooorrrrd
</P>


Did i miss something? whats with the black ones? something special about them?</P>


everyone saw cruz and stra wearing them at the parade and erybody wanted one.
</P>


ohhh! cool. must have missed that. did you get one?</P>

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 04:11 PM
he had the job over cruz before he got hurt this year... ur fooling urself about the KR thing only...

Barden is getting nothing handed to him and he certainly hasn't earned it

If we resign Devin Thomas, i think he'd have a better shot at #3


you are fooling yourself if you think Hixon is going to be playing WR for an significant amount of time...he's going to be the WR with the smallest upside on our entire roster...and yes I agree, Devin Thomas would have a better chance at #3 if we resign him.

Hixon is kinda like Tyree...he's not really a receiver he's a special teams guy who happened to have a decent season with Eli once...that's all.

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 04:13 PM
This is boring. lol</p>stumbleupon.com brrrrroooo


stop that crap, go to reddit already...stumbleupon's purpose is to lead you to reddit, that's what it did for me.

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 04:21 PM
This is boring. lol</P>


stumbleupon.com brrrrroooo


stop that crap, go to reddit already...stumbleupon's purpose is to lead you to reddit, that's what it did for me.
</P>


same. i used stumbleupon for a few weeks, and then when i wanted to show someone something, and i looked it up, i realized it all came from reddit anyway....so i went to the source of the internet!</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 04:28 PM
he had the job over cruz before he got hurt this year... ur fooling urself about the KR thing only...

Barden is getting nothing handed to him and he certainly hasn't earned it

If we resign Devin Thomas, i think he'd have a better shot at #3


you are fooling yourself if you think Hixon is going to be playing WR for an significant amount of time...he's going to be the WR with the smallest upside on our entire roster...and yes I agree, Devin Thomas would have a better chance at #3 if we resign him.

Hixon is kinda like Tyree...he's not really a receiver he's a special teams guy who happened to have a decent season with Eli once...that's all.


we're defending champions, we're not looking for upset, we're looking for production


Your fooling yourself by thinking Barden is anything more than just a message board name. Hixon has a connection with Eli which would be perfect with Cruz and Nicks ahead of him...

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 04:31 PM
he had the job over cruz before he got hurt this year... ur fooling urself about the KR thing only...

Barden is getting nothing handed to him and he certainly hasn't earned it

If we resign Devin Thomas, i think he'd have a better shot at #3


you are fooling yourself if you think Hixon is going to be playing WR for an significant amount of time...he's going to be the WR with the smallest upside on our entire roster...and yes I agree, Devin Thomas would have a better chance at #3 if we resign him.

Hixon is kinda like Tyree...he's not really a receiver he's a special teams guy who happened to have a decent season with Eli once...that's all.


we're defending champions, we're not looking for upset, we're looking for production


Your fooling yourself by thinking Barden is anything more than just a message board name. Hixon has a connection with Eli which would be perfect with Cruz and Nicks ahead of him...


</P>


Youre right abotu him just kind of being a name with us....but, the guy is built like a Calvin Johnson clone....i wish he performed enough to get a shot.</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 04:41 PM
he had the job over cruz before he got hurt this year... ur fooling urself about the KR thing only...

Barden is getting nothing handed to him and he certainly hasn't earned it

If we resign Devin Thomas, i think he'd have a better shot at #3


you are fooling yourself if you think Hixon is going to be playing WR for an significant amount of time...he's going to be the WR with the smallest upside on our entire roster...and yes I agree, Devin Thomas would have a better chance at #3 if we resign him.

Hixon is kinda like Tyree...he's not really a receiver he's a special teams guy who happened to have a decent season with Eli once...that's all.


we're defending champions, we're not looking for upset, we're looking for production


Your fooling yourself by thinking Barden is anything more than just a message board name. Hixon has a connection with Eli which would be perfect with Cruz and Nicks ahead of him...


</p>


Youre right abotu him just kind of being a name with us....but, the guy is built like a Calvin Johnson clone....i wish he performed enough to get a shot.</p>

so was Anthony Mix

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 04:47 PM
Youre right abotu him just kind of being a name with us....but, the guy is built like a Calvin Johnson clone....i wish he performed enough to get a shot.</P>




so was Anthony Mix
</P>


haha word. but that guy was just roster fodder....At least with Barden we drafted with the intention of him doing soemthing maybe lol</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 04:57 PM
we franchised Weatherford

DavenIII
03-05-2012, 04:57 PM
we're defending champions, we're not looking for upset, we're looking for production


Your fooling yourself by thinking Barden is anything more than just a message board name. Hixon has a connection with Eli which would be perfect with Cruz and Nicks ahead of him...

I'm not so much Pro Barden as I am Anti Hixon.

Hixon would result in the lowest production out of any receiver on our roster as a the 3rd receiver right now in my opinion, Barden Jernigan whoever we pick up...any of them will do better.

Hixon is (and always was) a KR/PR Special Teams guy...Eli made him look like a decent WR one year...big deal...he can do that with anyone on our roster.

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 04:58 PM
we franchised Weatherford
</P>


odd. lol
whatever though, he was so good, i would like to keep him around. Punters are strange thing, you either love em, or hate em....but its still pretty hard to find a good one.</P>

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 05:04 PM
we're defending champions, we're not looking for upset, we're looking for production


Your fooling yourself by thinking Barden is anything more than just a message board name. Hixon has a connection with Eli which would be perfect with Cruz and Nicks ahead of him...

I'm not so much Pro Barden as I am Anti Hixon.

Hixon would result in the lowest production out of any receiver on our roster as a the 3rd receiver right now in my opinion, Barden Jernigan whoever we pick up...any of them will do better.

Hixon is (and always was) a KR/PR Special Teams guy...Eli made him look like a decent WR one year...big deal...he can do that with anyone on our roster.
</P>


I'm anti-Hixon as a receiver also. I remember a few years ago, I was debating with MH about this.(big ****ing surprise). He said Hixon was going to be our best receiver, and then we drafted Nicks after a terribly mediocre season from Hixon anyway, and it was "hixon who?", I said he was an ok as a filler, but clearly not the answer as the guy displayed some butterfingers. I thought he redeemed himself in the Rams game this year with the juggling catch. but uhh...he tore his ACL for the 2nd season in a row on that play, so yea, honestly...i dont want him near the ball on offense. At least as a returner, he has teh ability to show his ability, but we can use Thomas, Jerrnigan, and others on returns if need be.</P>

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 05:30 PM
You two are being silly. 08 Hixon 49 and 500 yards playing behind plax and tooms. What kind of numbers are you looking for in a number 3?
The man can run decent routes, catch, break tackles. If neither JJ or Barden are ready, Hixon is a good option.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 05:36 PM
we're defending champions, we're not looking for upset, we're looking for production


Your fooling yourself by thinking Barden is anything more than just a message board name. Hixon has a connection with Eli which would be perfect with Cruz and Nicks ahead of him...

I'm not so much Pro Barden as I am Anti Hixon.

Hixon would result in the lowest production out of any receiver on our roster as a the 3rd receiver right now in my opinion, Barden Jernigan whoever we pick up...any of them will do better.

Hixon is (and always was) a KR/PR Special Teams guy...Eli made him look like a decent WR one year...big deal...he can do that with anyone on our roster.


Na he wa sonly like that for one year when we went in with Manningham, Smith, and Cruz

This year alone he was used as our 3rd WR before he got hurt and before Cruz blew up.

This is why you always end up paying me in bets lol...

and the only reason u won the year before is cuz we had a huge bet in fantasy. You ALWAYS lose these side bets to me lol

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 05:38 PM
we're defending champions, we're not looking for upset, we're looking for production


Your fooling yourself by thinking Barden is anything more than just a message board name. Hixon has a connection with Eli which would be perfect with Cruz and Nicks ahead of him...

I'm not so much Pro Barden as I am Anti Hixon.

Hixon would result in the lowest production out of any receiver on our roster as a the 3rd receiver right now in my opinion, Barden Jernigan whoever we pick up...any of them will do better.

Hixon is (and always was) a KR/PR Special Teams guy...Eli made him look like a decent WR one year...big deal...he can do that with anyone on our roster.
</p>


I'm anti-Hixon as a receiver also. I remember a few years ago, I was debating with MH about this.(big ****ing surprise). He said Hixon was going to be our best receiver, and then we drafted Nicks after a terribly mediocre season from Hixon anyway, and it was "hixon who?", I said he was an ok as a filler, but clearly not the answer as the guy displayed some butterfingers. I thought he redeemed himself in the Rams game this year with the juggling catch. but uhh...he tore his ACL for the 2nd season in a row on that play, so yea, honestly...i dont want him near the ball on offense. At least as a returner, he has teh ability to show his ability, but we can use Thomas, Jerrnigan, and others on returns if need be.</p>

nobody disagrees with the fact that if Hakeem Nicks, Mario Manningham, and Steve Smith are on the team that Hixon wouldn't be the #3

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 05:39 PM
You two are being silly. 08 Hixon 49 and 500 yards playing behind plax and tooms. What kind of numbers are you looking for in a number 3?
The man can run decent routes, catch, break tackles. If neither JJ or Barden are ready, Hixon is a good option.


can def stretch the field too

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 05:40 PM
and just to note: before he got injured this year he wasn't even on kick return

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 05:42 PM
I was also thinking, might this bounty bs going public have anything to do with Spags coming in? Like maybe Spags said something to the wrong guy.

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 05:49 PM
You two are being silly. 08 Hixon 49 and 500 yards playing behind plax and tooms. What kind of numbers are you looking for in a number 3?
The man can run decent routes, catch, break tackles. If neither JJ or Barden are ready, Hixon is a good option.
</P>


Well....Toomer had a nearly IDENTICAL season to Hixon.
It's not like Hixon made the season or anything...in fact, he dropped that were sure things, and made us all cringe, but i digress, how quickly we forget.
Our running game and Eli Manning were the only thing that made Hixon look like a serviceable receiver.

My point: I dont want us to get to the point where Hixon is an option. Last resort maybe, sure...lol....but not an option</P>

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 05:52 PM
and just to note: before he got injured this year he wasn't even on kick return
</P>


Doesn't matter really...the year prior he tore the ACL on a punt return in camp &gt;&lt;</P>


the guy is an injury liability when he ****ing wakes up in the morning.</P>

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 05:52 PM
we're defending champions, we're not looking for upset, we're looking for production


Your fooling yourself by thinking Barden is anything more than just a message board name. Hixon has a connection with Eli which would be perfect with Cruz and Nicks ahead of him...

I'm not so much Pro Barden as I am Anti Hixon.

Hixon would result in the lowest production out of any receiver on our roster as a the 3rd receiver right now in my opinion, Barden Jernigan whoever we pick up...any of them will do better.

Hixon is (and always was) a KR/PR Special Teams guy...Eli made him look like a decent WR one year...big deal...he can do that with anyone on our roster.
</p>


I'm anti-Hixon as a receiver also. I remember a few years ago, I was debating with MH about this.(big ****ing surprise). He said Hixon was going to be our best receiver, and then we drafted Nicks after a terribly mediocre season from Hixon anyway, and it was "hixon who?", I said he was an ok as a filler, but clearly not the answer as the guy displayed some butterfingers. I thought he redeemed himself in the Rams game this year with the juggling catch. but uhh...he tore his ACL for the 2nd season in a row on that play, so yea, honestly...i dont want him near the ball on offense. At least as a returner, he has teh ability to show his ability, but we can use Thomas, Jerrnigan, and others on returns if need be.</p>

nobody disagrees with the fact that if Hakeem Nicks, Mario Manningham, and Steve Smith are on the team that Hixon wouldn't be the #3


Also the Giants would constantly change up the 2 wrs in I formations, using all four, manningham, smith nicks hixon in 09 and 10

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 05:59 PM
Also the Giants would constantly change up the 2 wrs in I formations, using all four, manningham, smith nicks hixon in 09 and 10
</P>


Hixon wasnot on the field much on offense in 09. he only caught like 15 passes
And he didnt play in 2010, so where you getting this?</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 06:01 PM
You two are being silly. 08 Hixon 49 and 500 yards playing behind plax and tooms. What kind of numbers are you looking for in a number 3?
The man can run decent routes, catch, break tackles. If neither JJ or Barden are ready, Hixon is a good option.
</p>


Well....Toomer had a nearly IDENTICAL season to Hixon.
It's not like Hixon made the season or anything...in fact, he dropped that were sure things, and made us all cringe, but i digress, how quickly we forget.
Our running game and Eli Manning were the only thing that made Hixon look like a serviceable receiver.

My point: I dont want us to get to the point where Hixon is an option. Last resort maybe, sure...lol....but not an option</p>

and theres the most over blown knock on hixon.. he had one bad drop vs the Eagles that year - that was it. Much like Nicks had against the Redskins this year.

So does that mean Nicks drops SURE THINGS?

How quickly u did forget all the sure handed grabs he had.

Hes not a last resort at all, hes going into camp if healthy as #3 right now.

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 06:02 PM
and just to note: before he got injured this year he wasn't even on kick return
</p>


Doesn't matter really...the year prior he tore the ACL on a punt return in camp &gt;&lt;</p>


the guy is an injury liability when he ****ing wakes up in the morning.</p>

riiight

well hes still our #3 WR and we just signed him... so time to start coping with it lol

MattMeyerBud
03-05-2012, 06:03 PM
Also the Giants would constantly change up the 2 wrs in I formations, using all four, manningham, smith nicks hixon in 09 and 10
</p>


Hixon wasnot on the field much on offense in 09. he only caught like 15 passes
And he didnt play in 2010, so where you getting this?</p>

he was def our 4th WR that year. And Hixon's speed if anything had him used as a decoy alot

something Daven didn't take into consideration during his "SNAPS" argument

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 06:05 PM
You two are being silly. 08 Hixon 49 and 500 yards playing behind plax and tooms. What kind of numbers are you looking for in a number 3?
The man can run decent routes, catch, break tackles. If neither JJ or Barden are ready, Hixon is a good option.
</p>


Well....Toomer had a nearly IDENTICAL season to Hixon.
<u>It's not like Hixon made the season or anything.</u>..in fact, he dropped that were sure things, and made us all cringe, but i digress, how quickly we forget.
<u>Our running game and Eli Manning were the only thing that made Hixon look like a serviceable receiver. </u>

My point: I dont want us to get to the point where Hixon is an option. Last resort maybe, sure...lol....but not an option</p>What kind of argument is this? Horrible.

You can say that about any wr, literally. And you dont have to worry but he most likely will be a last resort.

dezzzR
03-05-2012, 06:07 PM
Also the Giants would constantly change up the 2 wrs in I formations, using all four, manningham, smith nicks hixon in 09 and 10
</p>


Hixon wasnot on the field much on offense in 09. he only caught like 15 passes
And he didnt play in 2010, so where you getting this?</p>meant 08 09, add toomer to that list.

JPizzack
03-05-2012, 06:24 PM
Listen, I know we signed him, and i was all for it assuming the price was right....
I'm just saying...he's not going to be an impact player offensively, but i do hope he improves STs, which is an area we always struggle.
And listen...I hope I'm wrong, cuz that'd be awesome.

lttaylor56
03-06-2012, 09:21 AM
Listen, I know we signed him, and i was all for it assuming the price was right....
I'm just saying...he's not going to be an impact player offensively, but i do hope he improves STs, which is an area we always struggle.
And listen...I hope I'm wrong, cuz that'd be awesome.Yep, Hixon's part of the package, let's hope he can stay healthy. He could easily become the #4 receiver if the rumors hold true. And a #4 in the receiving corps that they are talking about could be lethal.

NYG will not have a problem with the passing game. We should sure up the run game to give us balance. Ab's got good hands, BJ is a surprising catcher. I hate the crap that Tiki pulled, but imagine a back like Tiki, that could move the chains and serve as a dependable receiver....omg , I'm getting a stiffy.

JPizzack
03-06-2012, 09:25 AM
Listen, I know we signed him, and i was all for it assuming the price was right....
I'm just saying...he's not going to be an impact player offensively, but i do hope he improves STs, which is an area we always struggle.
And listen...I hope I'm wrong, cuz that'd be awesome.Yep, Hixon's part of the package, let's hope he can stay healthy. He could easily become the #4 receiver if the rumors hold true. And a #4 in the receiving corps that they are talking about could be lethal. NYG will not have a problem with the passing game. We should sure up the run game to give us balance. Ab's got good hands, BJ is a surprising catcher. I hate the crap that Tiki pulled, but imagine a back like Tiki, that could move the chains and serve as a dependable receiver....omg , I'm getting a stiffy.</P>


lol</P>


yea, we really have to get that run game back to where it used to be. It makes Eli seem even better knowing our ground game sucked *** this year, and Eli destroyed defenses.
I just really hope that it's the O-line that needed improvement, and it's not 100% on our RBs. I dont think it's the RBs fault really...but, idk...that needs to change regardless</P>

lttaylor56
03-06-2012, 09:54 AM
Listen, I know we signed him, and i was all for it assuming the price was right....
I'm just saying...he's not going to be an impact player offensively, but i do hope he improves STs, which is an area we always struggle.
And listen...I hope I'm wrong, cuz that'd be awesome.Yep, Hixon's part of the package, let's hope he can stay healthy. He could easily become the #4 receiver if the rumors hold true. And a #4 in the receiving corps that they are talking about could be lethal. NYG will not have a problem with the passing game. We should sure up the run game to give us balance. Ab's got good hands, BJ is a surprising catcher. I hate the crap that Tiki pulled, but imagine a back like Tiki, that could move the chains and serve as a dependable receiver....omg , I'm getting a stiffy.</P>


lol</P>


yea, we really have to get that run game back to where it used to be. It makes Eli seem even better knowing our ground game sucked *** this year, and Eli destroyed defenses.
I just really hope that it's the O-line that needed improvement, and it's not 100% on our RBs. I dont think it's the RBs fault really...but, idk...that needs to change regardless</P>Eli did tear up defenses this season. I can't even imagine what he would do with a run game like we had in the past. Here's a bold stat rank that is a testiment to how Elite our QB is: We freaking ranked 32 in the rush this season. When I look at it that way, it can really only get better.

JPizzack
03-06-2012, 10:16 AM
Listen, I know we signed him, and i was all for it assuming the price was right....
I'm just saying...he's not going to be an impact player offensively, but i do hope he improves STs, which is an area we always struggle.
And listen...I hope I'm wrong, cuz that'd be awesome.Yep, Hixon's part of the package, let's hope he can stay healthy. He could easily become the #4 receiver if the rumors hold true. And a #4 in the receiving corps that they are talking about could be lethal. NYG will not have a problem with the passing game. We should sure up the run game to give us balance. Ab's got good hands, BJ is a surprising catcher. I hate the crap that Tiki pulled, but imagine a back like Tiki, that could move the chains and serve as a dependable receiver....omg , I'm getting a stiffy.</P>


lol</P>


yea, we really have to get that run game back to where it used to be. It makes Eli seem even better knowing our ground game sucked *** this year, and Eli destroyed defenses.
I just really hope that it's the O-line that needed improvement, and it's not 100% on our RBs. I dont think it's the RBs fault really...but, idk...that needs to change regardless</P>


Eli did tear up defenses this season. I can't even imagine what he would do with a run game like we had in the past. Here's a bold stat rank that is a testiment to how Elite our QB is: We freaking ranked 32 in the rush this season. When I look at it that way, it can really only get better.</P>


yea, that redefines pathetic. lol
Remember when we had the best rushing offense? lol, *******s. I blame Bradshaw and his inability to stay healthy.
I forget which game it was before, I THINK it was an NBC game that Costas was doing interviews for, but he asked AB if it was frustrating to think that he might never be healthy, and AB was like....yea youre right. It's been 5 years now here, and it's never happened, so yea it's a possibility i might never be healthy enough to finish a season.
when a player admits it, you know its a problem. lol
(I could be wrong about who was interviewing...i really forget)</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 10:42 AM
moral of the story: AB may never be able to finish a season and DJ Ware still doesn't have "IT" to take the reigns

lttaylor56
03-06-2012, 10:47 AM
moral of the story: AB may never be able to finish a season and DJ Ware still doesn't have "IT" to take the reigns
Right-and BJ is the ground and pound. We need that speedster kid to break out this year. Can't remember name. This is his year.

Morehead State
03-06-2012, 11:16 AM
Uh Oh!!</P>


Eli disagrees with Matt regarding bounties.</P>


I wonder if that carries any weight with Good Ol' Meyerbud.</P>

Morehead State
03-06-2012, 11:18 AM
Oh Yeah.......</P>


I also find it refreshing that Matt has gone all "homo erotic" with his new sig. I guess when you pass Harooni as the top poster. you have to emulate some of his tendancies.</P>


Maybe his "position" on bounties is an overcompensation.</P>


Not that there's anything wrong with that. </P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 11:18 AM
Uh Oh!!</p>


Eli disagrees with Matt regarding bounties.</p>


I wonder if that carries any weight with Good Ol' Meyerbud.</p>

I don't care who the QB is, i think we all know what their response is...

I'll stick with Bavaro

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 11:19 AM
Oh Yeah.......</p>


I also find it refreshing that Matt has gone all "homo erotic" with his new sig. I guess when you pass Harooni as the top poster. you have to emulate some of his tendancies.</p>


Maybe his "position" on bounties is an overcompensation.</p>


Not that there's anything wrong with that. </p>

we're here and we're queer

and bite your tongue boy, your talking about: THE FRANCHISE

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 11:21 AM
Uh Oh!!</p>


Eli disagrees with Matt regarding bounties.</p>


I wonder if that carries any weight with Good Ol' Meyerbud.</p>

I don't blame Eli after that San Fran game, that said Eli isn't a defensive player, Many Defensive players have come out saying that as long as it's a clean hit the bounty system doesn't do anything besides reward players....it's like gambling on bowling, I'm gonna bowl as good as I can either way..when there is a little extra money on it I tend to bowl a bit better but there's nothing wrong with that.

If it becomes an illegal thing...If they start going for the knee's or trying to break players and not just hit them HARD but cleanly then it's a issue.

Morehead State
03-06-2012, 11:32 AM
Uh Oh!!</P>


Eli disagrees with Matt regarding bounties.</P>


I wonder if that carries any weight with Good Ol' Meyerbud.</P>




I don't care who the QB is, i think we all know what their response is...

I'll stick with Bavaro
</P>


You've been hating on Eli all year!</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 11:33 AM
Uh Oh!!</p>


Eli disagrees with Matt regarding bounties.</p>


I wonder if that carries any weight with Good Ol' Meyerbud.</p>




I don't care who the QB is, i think we all know what their response is...

I'll stick with Bavaro
</p>


You've been hating on Eli all year!</p>

old man, don't forget who had their eyes open (me) before they juts bought into what the mainstream media told you was true (you)

JPizzack
03-06-2012, 11:39 AM
old man, don't forget who had their eyes open (me) before they juts bought into what the mainstream media told you was true (you)
</P>


glad im not the only one who picked up on that lol</P>

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 11:49 AM
by the way Matt, if I always loss the side bets to you how come you aren't taking the hixon bet...oh that's right...because you don't want to admit it but you found out I was right...we are going to sign a 3rd receiver...the Giants never intended to use Hixon as a WR this year....he's being signed as a ST guy...and that's it.

JPizzack
03-06-2012, 11:52 AM
by the way Matt, if I always loss the side bets to you how come you aren't taking the hixon bet...oh that's right...because you don't want to admit it but you found out I was right...we are going to sign a 3rd receiver...the Giants never intended to use Hixon as a WR this year....he's being signed as a ST guy...and that's it.


</P>


=O
yea, strange that Matt said "bet is off, we're signing a 3rd receiver..."
wouldnt he take the bet? lol</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 11:54 AM
by the way Matt, if I always loss the side bets to you how come you aren't taking the hixon bet...oh that's right...because you don't want to admit it but you found out I was right...we are going to sign a 3rd receiver...the Giants never intended to use Hixon as a WR this year....he's being signed as a ST guy...and that's it.




found you were right?

U said Barden and Jernigan are going to get more PT than him. The bet was as the WR core is right now.

I'll stil ltake the bet that Hixon has better year receiving than Barden and Jernigan barring injury on hixon

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 11:57 AM
by the way Matt, if I always loss the side bets to you how come you aren't taking the hixon bet...oh that's right...because you don't want to admit it but you found out I was right...we are going to sign a 3rd receiver...the Giants never intended to use Hixon as a WR this year....he's being signed as a ST guy...and that's it.


</p>


=O
yea, strange that Matt said "bet is off, we're signing a 3rd receiver..."
wouldnt he take the bet? lol</p>

and again - the whole HIXON IS A ST guy is kind of over blown.

He usually only handles half of the returning duties. As it stands Hixon will be our 3rd WR. And like I said, I still think theres a shot he could be because the signing is a question mark, but I just wouldn't put money on it...

any way u want to dice it Hixon will be more involved than Barden and Jernigan...

and yes i always win these side bets wtih you. I paid u 100 bucks 2 years ago because we had 200 on the fantasy heads up season. Hence i won 100 dollars worth of side bets. And well, we know about this past year ;)

EDIT: and on another note about why i won't do the bet, I want to go by what most would consider a third receiver, not daven standards

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 12:03 PM
and on another note about why i won't do the bet, I want to go by what most would consider a third receiver, not daven standards

most people consider whoever is playing in the slot the 3rd receiver.

3rd receiver has NOTHING to do with production, it has to do with who the 3rd option at the receiver position is....and it won't be Hixon this year...that's for sure, he probably won't even be a 4th or 5th option as I do believe either Barden or Jernigan will still contribute more to the offense then him this year.

I'll bet 20$ on either Barden "or" Jernigan producing more then Hixon this year...

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:06 PM
and on another note about why i won't do the bet, I want to go by what most would consider a third receiver, not daven standards

most people consider whoever is playing in the slot the 3rd receiver.

3rd receiver has NOTHING to do with production, it has to do with who the 3rd option at the receiver position is....and it won't be Hixon this year...that's for sure, he probably won't even be a 4th or 5th option as I do believe either Barden or Jernigan will still contribute more to the offense then him this year.

I'll bet 20$ on either Barden "or" Jernigan producing more then Hixon this year...


no they wouldn't, because that would mean Steve Smith was the # 3 WR in 09.

Your the only person that thinks production isn't what the 3rd receiver is about.

Regardless, besides your SNAPS theory you came back with JUST RECEPTIONS.

So yo would think a guy with 40 receptions, 400 yards, and 4 TDS would be the third receiver over a guy with 39 receptions, 600 yards, and 7 TDs

which would make no sense

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:08 PM
I'll bet 20$ on either Barden "or" Jernigan producing more then Hixon this year...


define production

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 12:19 PM
no they wouldn't, because that would mean Steve Smith was the # 3 WR in 09.

Your the only person that thinks production isn't what the 3rd receiver is about.

Regardless, besides your SNAPS theory you came back with JUST RECEPTIONS.

So yo would think a guy with 40 receptions, 400 yards, and 4 TDS would be the third receiver over a guy with 39 receptions, 600 yards, and 7 TDs

which would make no sense


Snaps is the only thing that makes sense...but you aren't going to sit there and count the snaps (neither am I) so the closest thing to that is pure receptions.

and I'm pretty sure you and me are the only people even discussion what makes a 3rd receiver the third receiver in the first place....so bringing up what everyone else thinks is irrelevent since no one else is even thinking about it.

your hypothetical are ridiculous by the way, answer me this who would be the third receiver.

55 Receptions 650 yards 3 TD's vs 40 Receptions 750 Yards 6 TD's

you make hypothetical that support only your opinion and don't understand that it's going to end up more muddled then that...but that's besides the point, the 3rd receiver is the receiver who takes the 3rd most snaps period...that's not debatable it's just a fact...

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 12:20 PM
I'll bet 20$ on either Barden "or" Jernigan producing more then Hixon this year...


define production


yeah well that's the problem isn't it, lets go with Fantasy Scoring alone...and fantasy scoring in OUR Fantasy league only..(the GMB one)

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 12:22 PM
So yo would think a guy with 40 receptions, 400 yards, and 4 TDS would be the third receiver over a guy with 39 receptions, 600 yards, and 7 TDs

which would make no sense


would it make sense to say a guy who had 10 receptions for 400 yards and 4 TD's was the third receiver over a guy who had 35 receptions for 399 yards and 3 TD's?

I would say the 35 reception guy was more likely the 3rd (or 4th) receiver and the 10 reception guy just got a lucky reception here or there but wasn't really a factor at all.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:24 PM
no they wouldn't, because that would mean Steve Smith was the # 3 WR in 09.

Your the only person that thinks production isn't what the 3rd receiver is about.

Regardless, besides your SNAPS theory you came back with JUST RECEPTIONS.

So yo would think a guy with 40 receptions, 400 yards, and 4 TDS would be the third receiver over a guy with 39 receptions, 600 yards, and 7 TDs

which would make no sense


Snaps is the only thing that makes sense...but you aren't going to sit there and count the snaps (neither am I) so the closest thing to that is pure receptions.

and I'm pretty sure you and me are the only people even discussion what makes a 3rd receiver the third receiver in the first place....so bringing up what everyone else thinks is irrelevent since no one else is even thinking about it.

your hypothetical are ridiculous by the way, answer me this who would be the third receiver.

55 Receptions 650 yards 3 TD's vs 40 Receptions 750 Yards 6 TD's

you make hypothetical that support only your opinion and don't understand that it's going to end up more muddled then that...but that's besides the point, the 3rd receiver is the receiver who takes the 3rd most snaps period...that's not debatable it's just a fact...


hypothetically a receiver could have 1 more reception but 300 less yards and 4 less TDs and u would consider that guy the 3rd receiver. Obviously you'd be wrong on that.

I make the hypothetical because it just shows how faulty your way could be.

Personally I would consider the 2nd the second receiver you mentioned as the hands down #3 receiver.

Just because one guy is more of a deep threat and one guy is more of a possession guy, you don't automaticaly lose because your a deep threat vs a possession guy. I mean YOU have this thought that third receiver is the slot receiver for osme strange reason even though we've had guys like Amani Toomer, Steve Smith, and Victor Cruz completely contradict your statement.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:26 PM
So yo would think a guy with 40 receptions, 400 yards, and 4 TDS would be the third receiver over a guy with 39 receptions, 600 yards, and 7 TDs

which would make no sense


would it make sense to say a guy who had 10 receptions for 400 yards and 4 TD's was the third receiver over a guy who had 35 receptions for 399 yards and 3 TD's?

I would say the 35 reception guy was more likely the 3rd (or 4th) receiver and the 10 reception guy just got a lucky reception here or there but wasn't really a factor at all.


i think it would make the most sense, but personally I think theres only one way to really address this to make it fair and thats to incorporate a fantasy points scale to it...

1 point per reception, 10 per yard, 6 per TD. Its the only fair way to account for everything the player did

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:28 PM
I'll bet 20$ on either Barden "or" Jernigan producing more then Hixon this year...


define production


yeah well that's the problem isn't it, lets go with Fantasy Scoring alone...and fantasy scoring in OUR Fantasy league only..(the GMB one)


1 per reception, 1 per 10 yards, 6 for TD

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:31 PM
and on a side note, why doing the 3 stat catagories COULD have a jaded victory, theres nobody thats ever averaged 40 yards a catch lol.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 12:36 PM
hypothetically a receiver could have 1 more reception but 300 less yards and 4 less TDs and u would consider that guy the 3rd receiver. Obviously you'd be wrong on that.

for the purposes of that bet yes I would....because we are talking PURELY about the time they spend on the field and not at all talking about production at all....like I said the only way to do it for real is snaps...but since neither of us will count the snaps receptions is the closest thing to snaps.




I make the hypothetical because it just shows how faulty your way could be.

But it's a stupid hypothetical I can do exactly the opposite....who wins if Hixon stats are 3 Rec for 200 yards and a TD vs Barden having 17 receptions for 199 yards and no TD...I'm guessing you would say Hixon? but with that stat line it's clear Hixon just had a lucky catch or two but wasn't really part of the offense at all....that shows how faulty YOUR way could be.


Personally I would consider the 2nd the second receiver you mentioned as the hands down #3 receiver.

and I would disagree I think the 55 Reception guy was the #3 because he was there for more first down receptions and likely taking more snaps from scrimmage...he was opening the field up for the #1 and #2 guys most of the time...the other guy had some longer receptions that led to TD's but that's because of the 4 wide set they were in when he came into the game....he was against the nickle CB or a safety most of the time.


Just because one guy is more of a deep threat and one guy is more of a possession guy, you don't automaticaly lose because your a deep threat vs a possession guy.

no you lose because you aren't on the field as often as the other guy.



I mean YOU have this thought that third receiver is the slot receiver for osme strange reason even though we've had guys like Amani Toomer, Steve Smith, and Victor Cruz completely contradict your statement.


Cruz played slot most of the time....so that doesn't contridict my statement at all? Toomer was a #2 receiver he was never #3 Steve Smith played Slot again...so all the names you just threw out there just prove my point even more.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 12:38 PM
So yo would think a guy with 40 receptions, 400 yards, and 4 TDS would be the third receiver over a guy with 39 receptions, 600 yards, and 7 TDs

which would make no sense


would it make sense to say a guy who had 10 receptions for 400 yards and 4 TD's was the third receiver over a guy who had 35 receptions for 399 yards and 3 TD's?

I would say the 35 reception guy was more likely the 3rd (or 4th) receiver and the 10 reception guy just got a lucky reception here or there but wasn't really a factor at all.


i think it would make the most sense, but personally I think theres only one way to really address this to make it fair and thats to incorporate a fantasy points scale to it...

1 point per reception, 10 per yard, 6 per TD. Its the only fair way to account for everything the player did



I'm fine with fantasy points scale to measure PRODUCTION...the point you aren't understand is PRODUCTION has absolutely nothing to do with what # Receiver you are....that has to do with snaps...and only snaps.

if you produce well as a 4th receiver you might get promoted to 3rd or 2nd receiver....but for example at the start of this season Cruz wasn't the 3rd or even 4th receiver...by the end of the season he was the #2 receiver (maybe still #3 behind Manningham it's arguable)

your production allows you to move around on the depth chart...but that doesn't mean the depth chart is dictated purely by your production...the coaching staff decides who will be on the field each play...and whoever is on the field the most as a WR is the #1 second most is #2 and third most is #3....production isn't even part of the discussion.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:42 PM
hypothetically a receiver could have 1 more reception but 300 less yards and 4 less TDs and u would consider that guy the 3rd receiver. Obviously you'd be wrong on that.

for the purposes of that bet yes I would....because we are talking PURELY about the time they spend on the field and not at all talking about production at all....like I said the only way to do it for real is snaps...but since neither of us will count the snaps receptions is the closest thing to snaps.




I make the hypothetical because it just shows how faulty your way could be.

But it's a stupid hypothetical I can do exactly the opposite....who wins if Hixon stats are 3 Rec for 200 yards and a TD vs Barden having 17 receptions for 199 yards and no TD...I'm guessing you would say Hixon? but with that stat line it's clear Hixon just had a lucky catch or two but wasn't really part of the offense at all....that shows how faulty YOUR way could be.


Personally I would consider the 2nd the second receiver you mentioned as the hands down #3 receiver.

and I would disagree I think the 55 Reception guy was the #3 because he was there for more first down receptions and likely taking more snaps from scrimmage...he was opening the field up for the #1 and #2 guys most of the time...the other guy had some longer receptions that led to TD's but that's because of the 4 wide set they were in when he came into the game....he was against the nickle CB or a safety most of the time.


Just because one guy is more of a deep threat and one guy is more of a possession guy, you don't automaticaly lose because your a deep threat vs a possession guy.

no you lose because you aren't on the field as often as the other guy.



I mean YOU have this thought that third receiver is the slot receiver for osme strange reason even though we've had guys like Amani Toomer, Steve Smith, and Victor Cruz completely contradict your statement.


Cruz played slot most of the time....so that doesn't contridict my statement at all? Toomer was a #2 receiver he was never #3 Steve Smith played Slot again...so all the names you just threw out there just prove my point even more.


no again we're not.. Different packages happen all the time, we've had 4 wide sets with Mario NOT on the field

You can't go by that. Your trying to make this your own thing, when we're talking in general about a #3 receiver. There is no real snaps stat unless u pay for one of those sites and quite frankly I don't trust them. They just said we need to worry about Guard for this upcoming year.

Your the only person that thinks #3 WR isn't about production. You can debate on sometimes whose #1 and #2 when it comes to stats because safteys may roll over the #1 and keep the #2 in single coverage (like we see with Cruz and Nicks), but all of that is void with the 3 receiver.

Your hypothetical would of consisted of some putting stats up that nobody has EVER came close to. I would wave the flag if that happened.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 12:44 PM
hypothetically a receiver could have 1 more reception but 300 less yards and 4 less TDs and u would consider that guy the 3rd receiver. Obviously you'd be wrong on that.

for the purposes of that bet yes I would....because we are talking PURELY about the time they spend on the field and not at all talking about production at all....like I said the only way to do it for real is snaps...but since neither of us will count the snaps receptions is the closest thing to snaps.




I make the hypothetical because it just shows how faulty your way could be.

But it's a stupid hypothetical I can do exactly the opposite....who wins if Hixon stats are 3 Rec for 200 yards and a TD vs Barden having 17 receptions for 199 yards and no TD...I'm guessing you would say Hixon? but with that stat line it's clear Hixon just had a lucky catch or two but wasn't really part of the offense at all....that shows how faulty YOUR way could be.


Personally I would consider the 2nd the second receiver you mentioned as the hands down #3 receiver.

and I would disagree I think the 55 Reception guy was the #3 because he was there for more first down receptions and likely taking more snaps from scrimmage...he was opening the field up for the #1 and #2 guys most of the time...the other guy had some longer receptions that led to TD's but that's because of the 4 wide set they were in when he came into the game....he was against the nickle CB or a safety most of the time.


Just because one guy is more of a deep threat and one guy is more of a possession guy, you don't automaticaly lose because your a deep threat vs a possession guy.

no you lose because you aren't on the field as often as the other guy.



I mean YOU have this thought that third receiver is the slot receiver for osme strange reason even though we've had guys like Amani Toomer, Steve Smith, and Victor Cruz completely contradict your statement.


Cruz played slot most of the time....so that doesn't contridict my statement at all? Toomer was a #2 receiver he was never #3 Steve Smith played Slot again...so all the names you just threw out there just prove my point even more.


And you have no clue what those receptions were because it differs for everybody. It could of been alot of NOT getting first downs since his yard per catch were so low.

Thats not true at all... a guy could be on the field just as much as the guy with 50 receptions. Obviously one guy is running under neath routes and the balls and the othe rone is running deep balls. Just curious where are most passes thrown throughout a game, withint 20 yards or past 20 yards.

You said the slot is typically the 3rd WR, Cruz played slot most of the time, he wasn't our 3rd receiver

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 12:55 PM
no again we're not.. Different packages happen all the time, we've had 4 wide sets with Mario NOT on the field

So? yes sometimes they go jumbo and don't have manningham or cruz out there also...the exception doesn't prove the rule....take every snap on offense from the whole year...look at who lined up the most as a WR...it's gonna be Nicks...look at who lined up the 2nd most it's gonna be Manningham and look up who lined up 3rd most it's probably gonna be Cruz.....that makes Cruz our "3rd" receiver last year (if you look at the year in total) if you look at just the playoffs it's possible that Cruz actually lined up as a WR more often then Manningham....in which case Cruz would be the number 2 and Manninham would be the number 3...again it has NOTHING to do with statistics...the only thing that matters is snaps.




You can't go by that. Your trying to make this your own thing, when we're talking in general about a #3 receiver.

And general #3 receiver is the 3rd receiver on the depth chart OR the receiver who lines up as a receiver the third most times.



Your the only person that thinks #3 WR isn't about production.

you are the only person saying that's the case...and actually no one else is even thinking about it and even if they were i don't care because that is the case...it's not up for debate.


You can debate on sometimes whose #1 and #2 when it comes to stats because safteys may roll over the #1 and keep the #2 in single coverage (like we see with Cruz and Nicks), but all of that is void with the 3 receiver.

first off Cruz was NEVER the #1 in our offense last year..that was Nicks 100% of the time while he was uninjured, secondly no...the way the defense plays against the #3 is note void...you would be the only person who would say something so ridiculous and you are only saying it to try and be "right"

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:00 PM
You said the slot is typically the 3rd WR, Cruz played slot most of the time, he wasn't our 3rd receiver

Umm yes, he WAS our 3rd receiver.

2 WR Set's usually were Nick and Manningham....

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:03 PM
no again we're not.. Different packages happen all the time, we've had 4 wide sets with Mario NOT on the field

So? yes sometimes they go jumbo and don't have manningham or cruz out there also...the exception doesn't prove the rule....take every snap on offense from the whole year...look at who lined up the most as a WR...it's gonna be Nicks...look at who lined up the 2nd most it's gonna be Manningham and look up who lined up 3rd most it's probably gonna be Cruz.....that makes Cruz our "3rd" receiver last year (if you look at the year in total) if you look at just the playoffs it's possible that Cruz actually lined up as a WR more often then Manningham....in which case Cruz would be the number 2 and Manninham would be the number 3...again it has NOTHING to do with statistics...the only thing that matters is snaps.




You can't go by that. Your trying to make this your own thing, when we're talking in general about a #3 receiver.

And general #3 receiver is the 3rd receiver on the depth chart OR the receiver who lines up as a receiver the third most times.



Your the only person that thinks #3 WR isn't about production.

you are the only person saying that's the case...and actually no one else is even thinking about it and even if they were i don't care because that is the case...it's not up for debate.


You can debate on sometimes whose #1 and #2 when it comes to stats because safteys may roll over the #1 and keep the #2 in single coverage (like we see with Cruz and Nicks), but all of that is void with the 3 receiver.

first off Cruz was NEVER the #1 in our offense last year..that was Nicks 100% of the time while he was uninjured, secondly no...the way the defense plays against the #3 is note void...you would be the only person who would say something so ridiculous and you are only saying it to try and be "right"




#howyouknowwhendavenknowsheswrong He cuts parts from your argument and tries to slightly change your argument...


So if by chance Hixon had more snaps on the field than Cruz last year - u would of considered him to be the #2 WR?

Manningham probably averaged more snaps per game than Cruz during the regular season - does that mean he was our #2 last year?

No, we're talking about whose the #3 receiver. And the fact you keep trying to mention this stat about SNAPS is obnoxious because before we started this debate, I could of gone around the league and asked you who was each teams #3 WR and you would have had answers without any ****ing CLUE of who had more snaps as the 3rd WR. Quite frankly, you have no clue for the WRs that are ON the team you watch. Infact, nobody really does. So to say that THATS how people judge it, would mean you are full of ****.

Whose the number 2 and 3 WR of the Saints?

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:07 PM
You said the slot is typically the 3rd WR, Cruz played slot most of the time, he wasn't our 3rd receiver

Umm yes, he WAS our 3rd receiver.

2 WR Set's usually were Nick and Manningham....


game over

i win

http://www.lobshots.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/discount-double-check-red-head-fro.png

Wheres my belt?

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:18 PM
game over

i win

Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say #1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so then the actual production you get.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:20 PM
game over

i win

Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say #1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so then the actual production you get.




X-Y-Z has no bearing on snaps or who is considered the #1 on a team.

Your alone on the fact of Cruz being the #3.

But we'll put your theory to the test.

Most would consider Cruz a #2, while i would say some considered him the #1

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:22 PM
And the fact you keep trying to mention this stat about SNAPS is obnoxious because before we started this debate, I could of gone around the league and asked you who was each teams #3 WR and you would have had answers without any ****ing CLUE of who had more snaps as the 3rd WR.

I would have guessed at who I THOUGHT had the most snaps though....



Whose the number 2 and 3 WR of the Saints?

I would think for the saints the WR order would be #1 Colston (obviously) #2 Devery Henderson (which you will say I'm wrong on) #3 Lance Moore (cause he's usually on the field at the slot) #4 Meachem

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:24 PM
lol your absolutely wrong on that cuz Meachum was DEF taking more snaps than BOTH of them.... although you had Henderson above Moore in snap count and u would def be right on that

http://boards.giants.com/forums/thread/2511702.aspx

no more debate we're taking this to TAGF

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 01:25 PM
game over

i win

Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say #1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so then the actual production you get.


X-Y-Z has no bearing on snaps or who is considered the #1 on a team.

WTF of course X-Y-Z has a bearing on Snaps....and of course it has everything to do with who is #1 on the team...the X is always the #1 receiver X-Y-Z translates into 1-2-3

what are you like New to this football thing?

and you can throw up your misleading poll on TAGF I don't give a crap about what results you get cause you always doctor it your way...just like your hypotheticals...

Going to lunch...have fun trying to convince people you are right while I'm away.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 01:33 PM
game over

i win

Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say #1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so then the actual production you get.


X-Y-Z has no bearing on snaps or who is considered the #1 on a team.

WTF of course X-Y-Z has a bearing on Snaps....and of course it has everything to do with who is #1 on the team...the X is always the #1 receiver X-Y-Z translates into 1-2-3

what are you like New to this football thing?

and you can throw up your misleading poll on TAGF I don't give a crap about what results you get cause you always doctor it your way...just like your hypotheticals...

Going to lunch...have fun trying to convince people you are right while I'm away.


i copied and pasted what u said

i simply asked what everybody thought Victor Cruz as, our #1, #2, or #3 WR

I think copied your post

nothing misleading

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 02:09 PM
truths in there daven.






Daven is suggesting
that Mario was the #2 for us and said that most would agree with him so
I'm just trying to get a grasp on what everybody thinks.
</p>


When has the majority ever agreed with Daven when it comes to WRs... Does he still want Braylon, lol?</p>

Morehead State
03-06-2012, 02:15 PM
game over

i win

Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say #1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so then the actual production you get.


X-Y-Z has no bearing on snaps or who is considered the #1 on a team.

WTF of course X-Y-Z has a bearing on Snaps....and of course it has everything to do with who is #1 on the team...the X is always the #1 receiver X-Y-Z translates into 1-2-3

what are you like New to this football thing?

and you can throw up your misleading poll on TAGF I don't give a crap about what results you get cause you always doctor it your way...just like your hypotheticals...

Going to lunch...have fun trying to convince people you are right while I'm away.


i copied and pasted what u said

i simply asked what everybody thought Victor Cruz as, our #1, #2, or #3 WR

I think copied your post

nothing misleading
</P>


Have no idea what anyone's position is here. cruz is primarily a slot receiver. Doesn't make him our 3rd best WR though. He's by anyone's standard or 2nd best WR.</P>


The notion of #1, #2, #3 have different meanings depending on who you're talking to. But simply playing the slot does not make you a #3 WR. Not if you mean that it makes him the 3rd best WR on the field.</P>


In the 2002 playoff game against us, Terell Owens killed us from the slot. He was still their best WR.</P>

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 02:24 PM
game over

i win

Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say #1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so then the actual production you get.


X-Y-Z has no bearing on snaps or who is considered the #1 on a team.

WTF of course X-Y-Z has a bearing on Snaps....and of course it has everything to do with who is #1 on the team...the X is always the #1 receiver X-Y-Z translates into 1-2-3

what are you like New to this football thing?

and you can throw up your misleading poll on TAGF I don't give a crap about what results you get cause you always doctor it your way...just like your hypotheticals...

Going to lunch...have fun trying to convince people you are right while I'm away.


i copied and pasted what u said

i simply asked what everybody thought Victor Cruz as, our #1, #2, or #3 WR

I think copied your post

nothing misleading
</p>


Have no idea what anyone's position is here. cruz is primarily a slot receiver. Doesn't make him our 3rd best WR though. He's by anyone's standard or 2nd best WR.</p>


The notion of #1, #2, #3 have different meanings depending on who you're talking to. But simply playing the slot does not make you a #3 WR. Not if you mean that it makes him the 3rd best WR on the field.</p>


In the 2002 playoff game against us, Terell Owens killed us from the slot. He was still their best WR.</p>

to me X-Y-Z translates into 1-2-3

I agree he's our 2nd "Best" Receiver MH, but I'm saying for the majority of last year he would be considered our 3rd receiver at least in my opinion.

Defenses watched Manningham more to start...Cruz was in the Slot, I think Manningham was the second option on most passing plays (for most of the year) and I think even up into the playoffs Manningham was on the field in 2 WR sets and Cruz was on the bench.

I'm not at all saying Manningham is a better WR...what I'm saying is for most of last year Manningham was the second option...the Y position also...just seems like he was what you'd call the #2 in my opinion for most of the year.

byron
03-06-2012, 02:57 PM
game over

i win

Win at what being wrong? everyone knows that Cruz was the #3 for most of the year last year...

are you really that dumb to think that just because he put up numbers that makes him the #2?

the X vs Y vs Z position (which is what we are talking about when you say #1/2/3) is determined more by the receivers physical abilities more so then the actual production you get.


X-Y-Z has no bearing on snaps or who is considered the #1 on a team.

WTF of course X-Y-Z has a bearing on Snaps....and of course it has everything to do with who is #1 on the team...the X is always the #1 receiver X-Y-Z translates into 1-2-3

what are you like New to this football thing?

and you can throw up your misleading poll on TAGF I don't give a crap about what results you get cause you always doctor it your way...just like your hypotheticals...

Going to lunch...have fun trying to convince people you are right while I'm away.


i copied and pasted what u said

i simply asked what everybody thought Victor Cruz as, our #1, #2, or #3 WR

I think copied your post

nothing misleading
</P>


Have no idea what anyone's position is here. cruz is primarily a slot receiver. Doesn't make him our 3rd best WR though. He's by anyone's standard or 2nd best WR.</P>


The notion of #1, #2, #3 have different meanings depending on who you're talking to. But simply playing the slot does not make you a #3 WR. Not if you mean that it makes him the 3rd best WR on the field.</P>


In the 2002 playoff game against us, Terell Owens killed us from the slot. He was still their best WR.</P>




to me X-Y-Z translates into 1-2-3

I agree he's our 2nd "Best" Receiver MH, but I'm saying for the majority of last year he would be considered our 3rd receiver at least in my opinion.

Defenses watched Manningham more to start...Cruz was in the Slot, I think Manningham was the second option on most passing plays (for most of the year) and I think even up into the playoffs Manningham was on the field in 2 WR sets and Cruz was on the bench.

I'm not at all saying Manningham is a better WR...what I'm saying is for most of last year Manningham was the second option...the Y position also...just seems like he was what you'd call the #2 in my opinion for most of the year.
Eplain to xyz this is all I could find</P>


X (wide receiver) lineup on the line of scrimmage about 8-yards outside the offensive tackle.

Y (tight end) lineup on the line of scrimmage next to the tackle on the other side of the same line. The side he lines up on is known as the strong side. This is because there are more linemen on his side of the formation than the other. <FONT color=#0000ff>or Slot...no?!
</FONT>
Z (is the other wide receiver) he lines up just back off the line of scrimmage. This is why he is known as the Z-back or wingback. Sometimes he is used as a third running back and or wide receiver.</P>


knowinghow our coaches view the meaning 1,2,3 and z,y,z would be important to this convo ...no?
</P>

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:03 PM
all that XYZ does is label where the player is on the field.. it has no bearing on the talent.

In most 2 WR sets we saw Cruz and Nicks.

Morehead State
03-06-2012, 03:04 PM
all that XYZ does is label where the player is on the field.. it has no bearing on the talent.

In most 2 WR sets we saw Cruz and Nicks.
</P>


I think this is right.</P>

byron
03-06-2012, 03:20 PM
all that XYZ does is label where the player is on the field.. it has no bearing on the talent.

In most 2 WR sets we saw Cruz and Nicks.
Right I said this in the other thread 1,2,3 is a talent ranking more than anything...each game dictates who sees the ball more do to the coverage being given Eli is looking for the one on ones .....Its real clear to me that MM is #3 on the talent list and or pecking order of these coaches ....

lttaylor56
03-06-2012, 03:21 PM
Nyg designated Weatherford as our Franchise player. Good Move.

That guy is comical. He was funny with the marching band drum at the parade.

dezzzR
03-06-2012, 03:28 PM
Nyg designated Weatherford as our Franchise player. Good Move.

That guy is comical. He was funny with the marching band drum at the parade.I love the guys emotion for a punter.I read he was one of the guys ripping all the jets **** that covered everything Giants right after we beat the Jets. I know the Jets dropped him but still.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:28 PM
all that XYZ does is label where the player is on the field.. it has no bearing on the talent.

In most 2 WR sets we saw Cruz and Nicks.
</p>


I think this is right.</p>

I disagree, I think for the majority of the season it was Nicks and Manningham....Cruz may have taken over some of Manningham's snaps later in the season in 2WR sets....but overall looking at the season in total...Manningham spent more time as the #2 then Cruz...that's what I think.

Matt's bringing talent and production into the equation...I'm not talking about them...they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion if you ask me.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:33 PM
Right I said this in the other thread 1,2,3 is a talent ranking more than anything

Not to me, not at all actually, 1,2,3 to mean dictates whose on the field what option they are and maybe what other teams do to stop them...talent ends up playing a part...but your most talented receiver can be your 5th receiver, Cruz is a perfect example of this...he was what on our practice squad last year? didn't make the team or did and was put on the pup whatever it was he wasn't considered much...but he was clearly one of the most talented receivers on our team even at that point...we just didn't see it.




...Its real clear to me that MM is #3 on the talent list and or pecking order of these coaches ....

Maybe by the end of the season, but for more then the first half of the season...the pecking order went Nicks Manningham (Hixon) then later Nicks Manningham then Cruz then late season it went (maybe) Nicks Cruz Manningham.....still though, the majority of the season MM spent as the #2 at least in my opinion.

dezzzR
03-06-2012, 03:40 PM
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1fKW0F/www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw/

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 03:47 PM
all that XYZ does is label where the player is on the field.. it has no bearing on the talent.

In most 2 WR sets we saw Cruz and Nicks.
</p>


I think this is right.</p>

I disagree, I think for the majority of the season it was Nicks and Manningham....Cruz may have taken over some of Manningham's snaps later in the season in 2WR sets....but overall looking at the season in total...Manningham spent more time as the #2 then Cruz...that's what I think.

Matt's bringing talent and production into the equation...I'm not talking about them...they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion if you ask me.


what are you basing the Manningham on? I mean production, targets, and would definitly say snaps go to Cruz.

No your bringing talent into the XYZ labels, which is incorrectly using them.

byron
03-06-2012, 03:53 PM
Right I said this in the other thread 1,2,3 is a talent ranking more than anything

Not to me, not at all actually, 1,2,3 to mean dictates whose on the field what option they are and maybe what other teams do to stop them...talent ends up playing a part...but your most talented receiver can be your 5th receiver, Cruz is a perfect example of this...he was what on our practice squad last year? didn't make the team or did and was put on the pup whatever it was he wasn't considered much...but he was clearly one of the most talented receivers on our team even at that point...we just didn't see it.




...Its real clear to me that MM is #3 on the talent list and or pecking order of these coaches ....

Maybe by the end of the season, but for more then the first half of the season...the pecking order went Nicks Manningham (Hixon) then later Nicks Manningham then Cruz then late season it went (maybe) Nicks Cruz Manningham.....still though, the majority of the season MM spent as the #2 at least in my opinion.
Well whatever man... I'm not going to try and figure out how orwhat this coaching bases their decisions on but Cruz out produced every wrs here and set records in the process....That tells me that perhaps a boo boo was made the his evaluation...Or there was some other screwed up reason for it.....

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:54 PM
what are you basing the Manningham on? I mean production, targets, and would definitly say snaps go to Cruz.

Production has nothing to do with #1-2-3 receivers so I don't even know why you bring that up.

My point is as it's always been from the beginning is that the first half or more of the season Mario Manningham was the #2 as in the second read in Eli's progression, the WR that got coverage from the defenses second best CB and the guy who was on the field with Nick in 2WR sets.

I know it changes later in the season...thank you for reminding me a million times...but just because it changed late season doesn't mean that the first half or more of the season didn't happen.


No your bringing talent into the XYZ labels, which is incorrectly using them.


Thank you I recognize that I was mixing up Y and Z I don't see how that matters.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 03:56 PM
] Well whatever man... I'm not going to try and figure out how orwhat this coaching bases their decisions on but Cruz out produced every wrs here and set records in the process....That tells me that perhaps a boo boo was made the his evaluation...Or there was some other screwed up reason for it.....

Well the point is Byron...if they consider Cruz a 3rd receiver he's going to be covered in some situations by linebackers while Mario is out there on a Corner Back...so obviously the production numbers are going to be skewed...that's why I'm not using statistics at all in this discussion...because they don't matter...they are unreliable.

lttaylor56
03-06-2012, 04:04 PM
Nyg designated Weatherford as our Franchise player. Good Move.

That guy is comical. He was funny with the marching band drum at the parade.I love the guys emotion for a punter.I read he was one of the guys ripping all the jets **** that covered everything Giants right after we beat the Jets. I know the Jets dropped him but still.


Weatherford was that guy? Awesome.

lttaylor56
03-06-2012, 04:08 PM
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1fKW0F/www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw/


That's a bit bizzare

dezzzR
03-06-2012, 04:15 PM
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1fKW0F/www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw/


That's a bit bizzarebaaaaaastuds. lol

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:17 PM
] Well whatever man... I'm not going to try and figure out how orwhat this coaching bases their decisions on but Cruz out produced every wrs here and set records in the process....That tells me that perhaps a boo boo was made the his evaluation...Or there was some other screwed up reason for it.....

Well the point is Byron...if they consider Cruz a 3rd receiver he's going to be covered in some situations by linebackers while Mario is out there on a Corner Back...so obviously the production numbers are going to be skewed...that's why I'm not using statistics at all in this discussion...because they don't matter...they are unreliable.


out of games played WITH each other Mario had 740 snaps and Cruz had 841 snaps...

thats not including the 3 games Mario missed where in one or two of them cruz actually played more than Nicks.

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 04:27 PM
] Well whatever man... I'm not going to try and figure out how orwhat this coaching bases their decisions on but Cruz out produced every wrs here and set records in the process....That tells me that perhaps a boo boo was made the his evaluation...Or there was some other screwed up reason for it.....

Well the point is Byron...if they consider Cruz a 3rd receiver he's going to be covered in some situations by linebackers while Mario is out there on a Corner Back...so obviously the production numbers are going to be skewed...that's why I'm not using statistics at all in this discussion...because they don't matter...they are unreliable.


out of games played WITH each other Mario had 740 snaps and Cruz had 841 snaps...

thats not including the 3 games Mario missed where in one or two of them cruz actually played more than Nicks.


good so that proves that Cruz led in snaps and was the #2 receiver at some point...but when did he over take Mario? was it past halfway through the season?

regardless you admit it was closer then you thought correct? whats Nicks vs Cruz Snap count?

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:28 PM
] Well whatever man... I'm not going to try and figure out how orwhat this coaching bases their decisions on but Cruz out produced every wrs here and set records in the process....That tells me that perhaps a boo boo was made the his evaluation...Or there was some other screwed up reason for it.....

Well the point is Byron...if they consider Cruz a 3rd receiver he's going to be covered in some situations by linebackers while Mario is out there on a Corner Back...so obviously the production numbers are going to be skewed...that's why I'm not using statistics at all in this discussion...because they don't matter...they are unreliable.


out of games played WITH each other Mario had 740 snaps and Cruz had 841 snaps...

thats not including the 3 games Mario missed where in one or two of them cruz actually played more than Nicks.


good so that proves that Cruz led in snaps and was the #2 receiver at some point...but when did he over take Mario? was it past halfway through the season?

regardless you admit it was closer then you thought correct? whats Nicks vs Cruz Snap count?


i admitted it was closer but just responded in the other thread why it wasn't close

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 04:43 PM
i admitted it was closer but just responded in the other thread why it wasn't close


in my estimation, if our coaching staff thought Mario was the #2 from games 1-12 and thought Cruz was the #2 from 13-Superbowl that gives Mario 11 games (2 of which he missed) at the #2 spot and Cruz 9 games at the #2 spot.....

and that's being generous...because I could also say that opposing defenses were late in recognizing that Cruz was the new #2...and since how the defense plays the player is a big portion of it I could say even for a few weeks after Mario could still arguably be considered the #2.


it's not cut and dry like you thought it was....I still give the nod to Mario...by a little.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:44 PM
in games played together Nicks had 1192 (he missed one) and Cruz had 933

They pushed on two games they played together and Cruz actually had more snaps than Nicks in 4 games, including the Superbowl.

Cruz's total snaps played for the year was 995

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:46 PM
i admitted it was closer but just responded in the other thread why it wasn't close


in my estimation, if our coaching staff thought Mario was the #2 from games 1-12 and thought Cruz was the #2 from 13-Superbowl that gives Mario 11 games (2 of which he missed) at the #2 spot and Cruz 9 games at the #2 spot.....

and that's being generous...because I could also say that opposing defenses were late in recognizing that Cruz was the new #2...and since how the defense plays the player is a big portion of it I could say even for a few weeks after Mario could still arguably be considered the #2.


it's not cut and dry like you thought it was....I still give the nod to Mario...by a little.


He wasn't though.. only snaps wise did he have more snaps than cruz in 7 games... 7 out of 20... and 2nd half of the season it wasn't even close. At this point Cruz was getting more snaps than Nicks...

its close because I said a quarter of the season of games it was over, it was a little more. It was more like 35% of the games Mario was getting more snaps.

Mario never topped Nicks in snaps and damn sure didn't come close statistically to Cruz

so you were wrong

ShockeyShow
03-06-2012, 04:47 PM
there should be no debate. Manningham was the #3 guy this year, and that is why he won't be in blue next season.


I just googled his name and one of the first articles states that Manningham is glad that Belichek made him #3, but now he wants to be a #1.

And you're argument about Cruz being covered by LB''s more than CB's is not valid. Defenses PRiMARILY lined up with nickel packages against us because we run 3 receiver sets so often

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:50 PM
i admitted it was closer but just responded in the other thread why it wasn't close


in my estimation, if our coaching staff thought Mario was the #2 from games 1-12 and thought Cruz was the #2 from 13-Superbowl that gives Mario 11 games (2 of which he missed) at the #2 spot and Cruz 9 games at the #2 spot.....

and that's being generous...because I could also say that opposing defenses were late in recognizing that Cruz was the new #2...and since how the defense plays the player is a big portion of it I could say even for a few weeks after Mario could still arguably be considered the #2.


it's not cut and dry like you thought it was....I still give the nod to Mario...by a little.


He wasn't though.. only snaps wise did he have more snaps than cruz in 7 games... 7 out of 20... and 2nd half of the season it wasn't even close. At this point Cruz was getting more snaps than Nicks...

its close because I said a quarter of the season of games it was over, it was a little more. It was more like 35% of the games Mario was getting more snaps.

Mario never topped Nicks in snaps and damn sure didn't come close statistically to Cruz

so you were wrong


Actually I lied it was 7 out of 17 games, i forgot so thats like 41% of the games he got more snaps

DavenIII
03-06-2012, 04:55 PM
i admitted it was closer but just responded in the other thread why it wasn't close


in my estimation, if our coaching staff thought Mario was the #2 from games 1-12 and thought Cruz was the #2 from 13-Superbowl that gives Mario 11 games (2 of which he missed) at the #2 spot and Cruz 9 games at the #2 spot.....

and that's being generous...because I could also say that opposing defenses were late in recognizing that Cruz was the new #2...and since how the defense plays the player is a big portion of it I could say even for a few weeks after Mario could still arguably be considered the #2.


it's not cut and dry like you thought it was....I still give the nod to Mario...by a little.


He wasn't though.. only snaps wise did he have more snaps than cruz in 7 games... 7 out of 20... and 2nd half of the season it wasn't even close. At this point Cruz was getting more snaps than Nicks...

its close because I said a quarter of the season of games it was over, it was a little more. It was more like 35% of the games Mario was getting more snaps.

Mario never topped Nicks in snaps and damn sure didn't come close statistically to Cruz

so you were wrong


no you are looking at it differently then me...

I'm looking at it as a timeframe in which Mario was considered #2 vs when Cruz was....I think up until week 12 our coaches and opposing coaches (maybe longer for them) considered Mario the #2 option in our WR core...if that's the case Mario was the second option (in terms of perception of our coaching staff and opposing coaches) for 11 games (12 minus the bye) I don't even care that he missed two game...missing the game doesn't change the fact that he's considered the #2 for example if Calvin Johnson is out that doesn't make someone else the #1 on Detroit...it just means CJ's out...he's still considered the #1

If you look at it that way it's 11 games to 9 games Mario over Cruz for time at the #2 receiver slot...take the 2 games out he was injured in (because I know you'll want to) that's still 9 games vs 9 games it's a tie...you want to take out the 3 games they pushed? fine that's still 6 to 6 then..it's still a tie.

now I imagine you will say...but but look Daven Cruz had so many "more" snaps then Manningham did for the whole season though...

Valid point Matt...but think about how much better we were playing later into the season and the playoffs...we were on offense more, of course he has more total snaps...to me it doesn't prove anything.

so in the end if you ask me Mario was our #2 for slightly more then half the season...to me that makes him the #2...sorry...your snaps statistics (unless I'm misunderstanding them) only proves to me more that my initial opinion is valid.

MattMeyerBud
03-06-2012, 04:57 PM
i admitted it was closer but just responded in the other thread why it wasn't close


in my estimation, if our coaching staff thought Mario was the #2 from games 1-12 and thought Cruz was the #2 from 13-Superbowl that gives Mario 11 games (2 of which he missed) at the #2 spot and Cruz 9 games at the #2 spot.....

and that's being generous...because I could also say that opposing defenses were late in recognizing that Cruz was the new #2...and since how the defense plays the player is a big portion of it I could say even for a few weeks after Mario could still arguably be considered the #2.


it's not cut and dry like you thought it was....I still give the nod to Mario...by a little.


He wasn't though.. only snaps wise did he have more snaps than cruz in 7 games... 7 out of 20... and 2nd half of the season it wasn't even close. At this point Cruz was getting more snaps than Nicks...

its close because I said a quarter of the season of games it was over, it was a little more. It was more like 35% of the games Mario was getting more snaps.

Mario never topped Nicks in snaps and damn sure didn't come close statistically to Cruz

so you were wrong


no you are looking at it differently then me...

I'm looking at it as a timeframe in which Mario was considered #2 vs when Cruz was....I think up until week 12 our coaches and opposing coaches (maybe longer for them) considered Mario the #2 option in our WR core...if that's the case Mario was the second option (in terms of perception of our coaching staff and opposing coaches) for 11 games (12 minus the bye) I don't even care that he missed two game...missing the game doesn't change the fact that he's considered the #2 for example if Calvin Johnson is out that doesn't make someone else the #1 on Detroit...it just means CJ's out...he's still considered the #1

If you look at it that way it's 11 games to 9 games Mario over Cruz for time at the #2 receiver slot...take the 2 games out he was injured in (because I know you'll want to) that's still 9 games vs 9 games it's a tie...you want to take out the 3 games they pushed? fine that's still 6 to 6 then..it's still a tie.

now I imagine you will say...but but look Daven Cruz had so many "more" snaps then Manningham did for the whole season though...

Valid point Matt...but think about how much better we were playing later into the season and the playoffs...we were on offense more, of course he has more total snaps...to me it doesn't prove anything.


in reality more like up to week 8. If they pushed in week 9 and 11, how does Manningham get creduit for that?

And he didn't even play in week 3 or 12 so how does he get credit for that?

How much more could u possibly alter your argument?

You asked for snaps, I gave you snaps. Not only total snaps, but I didn't include Cruz's snaps in the game that Mario didn't play in in which Mario was HEAVILY out numbered

And if u reflect for all you know about our season last year, we know ur davening by keeping this argument up

how bout we go with games started last year?

Cruz 14, Mario 10...

u can subtract the 3 that Mario was out and make it 11-10, but still who was starting?