PDA

View Full Version : Is the loss of a 3rd receiver that is a threat tough for Eli?



BlueOldSchool
05-05-2013, 02:21 AM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?

giantsfan420
05-05-2013, 02:26 AM
i think the loss of our #1 wr in nicks (he was a shell of himself all season) hurt more than the 3rd wrs production. while hixon wasnt scaring defenses, he made some plays as did barden, randle in diff games. having that MM 3rd wr woulda helped tho.

ChupacabraSmith
05-05-2013, 02:49 AM
Brandon Myers will fix that.

gmen46
05-05-2013, 04:03 AM
i think the loss of our #1 wr in nicks (he was a shell of himself all season) hurt more than the 3rd wrs production. while hixon wasnt scaring defenses, he made some plays as did barden, randle in diff games. having that MM 3rd wr woulda helped tho.

This.

Rat_bastich
05-05-2013, 04:29 AM
I think it hurt but to what extent I don't know. You figure each week there was an audition for the third spot and when Nicks was out the problem was compunded because you needed someone to also fill in the number one spot. Cruz was the only one that stayed in his spot. The receivers were obviously different and brought different skill sets so Eli probably had to adjust to them instead of them adjusting to him.

Not sure how much of a factor it was being that he is a smart veteran quarterback, but it probably didn't help things.

Diamondring
05-05-2013, 04:45 AM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?You are on the money.

Captain Chaos
05-05-2013, 06:37 AM
I think that may be why they picked up Louis Murphy, he has the speed to stretch the field and is supposed to be a solid receiver, good for a number three. Given that I think that you hit the nail on the head, the G'men just didn't have the right mix of receivers.

nhpgiantsfan
05-05-2013, 07:31 AM
I think we really did miss MM last year, but only because Nick was pretty much useless. If nicks was 100% all year, it would have been no problem. Randle will fill the number 3 role just fine.

RoanokeFan
05-05-2013, 07:52 AM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?

Bennett did a pretty good job last season. I think the whole offense was off for a variety of reasons.

nhpgiantsfan
05-05-2013, 08:26 AM
Bennett did a pretty good job last season. I think the whole offense was off for a variety of reasons.

Pretty much one reason, #88!! You had Cruz put up another real good season, a 1000 Yard rusher, probably the most productive season we have had from a TE since Shockey, and a very serviceable job from Hixon. One big piece was missing. That's pretty much it.

RoanokeFan
05-05-2013, 08:36 AM
Pretty much one reason, #88!! You had Cruz put up another real good season, a 1000 Yard rusher, probably the most productive season we have had from a TE since Shockey, and a very serviceable job from Hixon. One big piece was missing. That's pretty much it.

I think Nicks was certainly a factor as was the Oline, the running game, and Eli's inconsistency.

jomo
05-05-2013, 08:58 AM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?Hixon, was an overall better option at #3 than Manningham, We'll find his replacement this year. This is not one of our problems IMO.

Gimaniac
05-05-2013, 08:59 AM
In 2008 we had a running game, makes passing so much easier.

In 2012 we had a healthy Nicks & Cruz.

In 2013 we had Cruz

Not to take away what Manningham did, he was stellar in the playoffs.

GameTime
05-05-2013, 09:00 AM
there were many reasons for the short comings of lats season but dont forget they had the same record the season before with Manningham....

nhpgiantsfan
05-05-2013, 09:12 AM
I think Nicks was certainly a factor as was the Oline, the running game, and Eli's inconsistency.

The o-line and running game were pretty much the same as 2011. Not great at all. And I think it's pretty fair to say that a lot of Eli's inconsistencies came from not having a healthy Nicks.

Flip Empty
05-05-2013, 09:44 AM
This is what I don't get. People bang on all the time about how Eli "makes" his receivers. If that is the case, then why didn't he "make" one of the other guys on the roster?

Also, Manningham was said to be "easily replaceable". Well, where was his replacement?

Carter.525
05-05-2013, 09:45 AM
a think a combo of Randle/Murphy is gonna be great for Eli, plus Murphy.. Should be an explosive offense this season

jomo
05-05-2013, 09:54 AM
This is what I don't get. People bang on all the time about how Eli "makes" his receivers. If that is the case, then why didn't he "make" one of the other guys on the roster?

Also, Manningham was said to be "easily replaceable". Well, where was his replacement?I think you have a romanticized memory of MM elevated by that big catch in the Super Bowl. He also missed some time due to injuries and continued to run bad routes.

Here are the stats for Hixon last year and Manningham the year before:


Rec. Yards TD Yards/Game

Hixon 39 567 2 43.6

Manningham 39 523 4 43


It couldn't be much closer than that.

nhpgiantsfan
05-05-2013, 10:12 AM
I think you have a romanticized memory of MM elevated by that big catch in the Super Bowl. He also missed some time due to injuries and continued to run bad routes.

Here are the stats for Hixon last year and Manningham the year before:


Rec. Yards TD Yards/Game

Hixon 39 567 2 43.6

Manningham 39 523 4 43


It couldn't be much closer than that.

I don't think Hixon is much of a downgrade from MM.

But remember when comparing those stats, (they are almost identical), Manningham put up those numbers with a healthy Nicks on the field. I would think that if MM were here in 2012 he could've/would've put up much better numbers since Nicks wasn't getting nearly as many targets as 2011.

I guess the argument can also be made that in 2011 MM flew under the radar because 88 & 80 were getting so much of the attention. And Hixon received more attention from defenses because teams worried less about Nicks last year.

RoanokeFan
05-05-2013, 10:22 AM
The o-line and running game were pretty much the same as 2011. Not great at all. And I think it's pretty fair to say that a lot of Eli's inconsistencies came from not having a healthy Nicks. Eli has been inconsistent since Ole Miss. When he over and under throws it doesn't matter which receiver he's missing.

RoanokeFan
05-05-2013, 10:23 AM
I think you have a romanticized memory of MM elevated by that big catch in the Super Bowl. He also missed some time due to injuries and continued to run bad routes. Here are the stats for Hixon last year and Manningham the year before: Rec. Yards TD Yards/Game Hixon 39 567 2 43.6 Manningham 39 523 4 43 It couldn't be much closer than that. +1

brad
05-05-2013, 10:35 AM
This is what I don't get. People bang on all the time about how Eli "makes" his receivers. If that is the case, then why didn't he "make" one of the other guys on the roster?

Also, Manningham was said to be "easily replaceable". Well, where was his replacement?

Your first point is a valid one... the receivers make Eli as much as Eli makes them.

Your second point is a bit off, Manningham wasn't exactly stellar while with the Giants. Your comparing an offense with Nicks and Manningham to an offense without Nicks and Manningham and equating the difference to Manningham alone. Nicks is and was the #1 receiver, common sense dictates that he was the primary difference between 2011 and 2012.

DarkSaint
05-05-2013, 10:36 AM
The giants forcing less than 80% nicks on the field. This slowed down the offense more than anything.

jomo
05-05-2013, 10:46 AM
I don't think Hixon is much of a downgrade from MM.

But remember when comparing those stats, (they are almost identical), Manningham put up those numbers with a healthy Nicks on the field. I would think that if MM were here in 2012 he could've/would've put up much better numbers since Nicks wasn't getting nearly as many targets as 2011.

I guess the argument can also be made that in 2011 MM flew under the radar because 88 & 80 were getting so much of the attention. And Hixon received more attention from defenses because teams worried less about Nicks last year.I guess among all the things I worry about, our #3 WR is not one of them. We have a nice stable of receivers behind Nicks and Cruz right now. At least 2 and maybe 3 of them will be facing off for the #3 slot. Go Blue!!

B&RWarrior
05-05-2013, 10:49 AM
I think Nicks was certainly a factor as was the Oline, the running game, and Eli's inconsistency.

Yeah, watching the 2011 SB run made me realize how much needs to go right for a team to win the SB. There are a lot of moving parts.

RoanokeFan
05-05-2013, 10:56 AM
Yeah, watching the 2011 SB run made me realize how much needs to go right for a team to win the SB. There are a lot of moving parts. And don't forget luck.

B&RWarrior
05-05-2013, 10:58 AM
I think you have a romanticized memory of MM elevated by that big catch in the Super Bowl. He also missed some time due to injuries and continued to run bad routes.

Here are the stats for Hixon last year and Manningham the year before:


Rec. Yards TD Yards/Game

Hixon 39 567 2 43.6

Manningham 39 523 4 43


It couldn't be much closer than that.

This comparison is way off base. MM was an is >>>>>>> than Hixon. MM excelled at gaining separation, something Hixon could never do. The idea that Hixon is on the same level as MM is a joke. Try looking at MM's entire body of work compaed to Hixon's. I remember when ,due to injury, MM had to play slot or was the number one option and he still got open. MM was the tertiary factor that made this offense magical.

B&RWarrior
05-05-2013, 11:03 AM
And don't forget luck.

Don't even get me started on all the good bounces and fumble recoveries we had just between the San Fran game and the Green Bay game, or the drops by receivers for GB and the Pats, mind you we were playing almost mistake free ball and we still barely eeked it out.

I may get railed for saying this, but when we won I was thinking, "I'm happy we took it all the way, but this wasn't a world beating team by any stretch of the imagination."

brad
05-05-2013, 11:04 AM
This comparison is way off base. MM was an is >>>>>>> than Hixon. MM excelled at gaining separation, something Hixon could never do. The idea that Hixon is on the same level as MM is a joke. Try looking at MM's entire body of work compaed to Hixon's. I remember when ,due to injury, MM had to play slot or was the number one option and he still got open. MM was the tertiary factor that made this offense magical.

So... in your mind, the loss of MM was more of a factor than the loss of Nicks? Statistically MM and Hixon were pretty much the same, but Hixon doesn't deserve to be considered on the same level as MM?!? Can't really argue with that, because logic is clearly not part of the discussion anymore.

B&RWarrior
05-05-2013, 11:16 AM
So... in your mind, the loss of MM was more of a factor than the loss of Nicks? Statistically MM and Hixon were pretty much the same, but Hixon doesn't deserve to be considered on the same level as MM?!? Can't really argue with that, because logic is clearly not part of the discussion anymore.

Look at their entire body of work and compare the two. I said "MM's loss was a tertiary factor that made this offense magical." Tertiary would be the key word there. MM wasn't great here, but he was good, much better than Hixon ever was.

brad
05-05-2013, 11:21 AM
Look at their entire body of work and compare the two. I said "MM's loss was a tertiary factor that made this offense magical." Tertiary would be the key word there. MM wasn't great here, but he was good, much better than Hixon ever was.

I don't consider Hixon to be great, but he was decent. MM showed flashes, but never developed into a consistent receiver that you could count on.... but will concede he was very good in the SB run. That being said, the loss of MM and/or Hixon is not so significant that it would make or break this offense.

B&RWarrior
05-05-2013, 11:28 AM
I don't consider Hixon to be great, but he was decent. MM showed flashes, but never developed into a consistent receiver that you could count on.... but will concede he was very good in the SB run. That being said, the loss of MM and/or Hixon is not so significant that it would make or break this offense.

It's definitely not a make or break concern, but when Nicks, Cruz, and MM were on the field we could hit a homerun from any of those spots. If we can get a 3rd WR that has the ability to get open deep, along with our new TE, then we go from a good passing game to a GREAT passing game.

brad
05-05-2013, 11:48 AM
It's definitely not a make or break concern, but when Nicks, Cruz, and MM were on the field we could hit a homerun from any of those spots. If we can get a 3rd WR that has the ability to get open deep, along with our new TE, then we go from a good passing game to a GREAT passing game.

Agreed :) I think that Randle (with a year of NFL experience) or Murphy may provide exactly that. IMO, both provide more upside than MM or Hixon. Murphy definitely gives us the speedy deep threat.

ironfox
05-05-2013, 11:49 AM
hard to say with nicks bring hurt almost all year. there was a big talent dropoff after cruz and nicks last year. not so much with manningham and hopfully not with murphy and some improvement from randle this year

B&RWarrior
05-05-2013, 11:51 AM
Agreed :) I think that Randle (with a year of NFL experience) or Murphy may provide exactly that. IMO, both provide more upside than MM or Hixon. Murphy definitely gives us the speedy deep threat.

Yeah I think if Randle didn't take this offseason seriously Murphy could come in and take the 3 spot. I'm excited to see what can happen when you give Eli a real burner like Murphy.

brad
05-05-2013, 12:01 PM
Yeah I think if Randle didn't take this offseason seriously Murphy could come in and take the 3 spot. I'm excited to see what can happen when you give Eli a real burner like Murphy.

Hopefully Randle did take it seriously... giving the passing game a whole lot of options. I am excited to see Murphy in there too!

RoanokeFan
05-05-2013, 12:02 PM
Don't even get me started on all the good bounces and fumble recoveries we had just between the San Fran game and the Green Bay game, or the drops by receivers for GB and the Pats, mind you we were playing almost mistake free ball and we still barely eeked it out. I may get railed for saying this, but when we won I was thinking, "I'm happy we took it all the way, but this wasn't a world beating team by any stretch of the imagination." Hence the saying: "Any given Sunday!"

RoanokeFan
05-05-2013, 12:04 PM
Yeah I think if Randle didn't take this offseason seriously Murphy could come in and take the 3 spot. I'm excited to see what can happen when you give Eli a real burner like Murphy. Competition is a great motivator.

Hooligans
05-05-2013, 12:06 PM
Randle is better than Manningham......Manningham is a 1-note Johnny....run long.

B&RWarrior
05-05-2013, 02:05 PM
Randle is better than Manningham......Manningham is a 1-note Johnny....run long.

Actually when he subbed for Cruz in the slot he didn't have a problem getting open, he just ran the routes at the wrong depth several times, so we didn't pick up the first down. Randle has not proven to be better than MM in no shape or form.

Rudyy
05-05-2013, 02:13 PM
Not really. I think not having his primary receiver kinda threw the offense off rhythm. Eli needs to improve his decision making as well, but overall it was not having our go to guy.

The Notorious B.I.G BLUE
05-05-2013, 02:35 PM
I think it was a combination of Nicks being hurt & poor o-line play. IM sure not having solid #3 hurt but IMO the fact that Nicks was hurt allowed teams to cheat off him and watch Cruz, DD played like **** as well which was another major issue.

G-Men Surg.
05-05-2013, 02:36 PM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?

I wish it was that simple. For me the problems were more complex than the lack of consistent production out of the 3rd WR spot. If you add the shaky play of the Oline, RB injuries, inconsistent TE play ( not many options in the TE position for the Giants last year ) and injuries to our 1st WR was to much for Eli and the offense to handle.

BlueOldSchool
05-05-2013, 10:58 PM
I think you have a romanticized memory of MM elevated by that big catch in the Super Bowl. He also missed some time due to injuries and continued to run bad routes.

Here are the stats for Hixon last year and Manningham the year before:


Rec. Yards TD Yards/Game

Hixon 39 567 2 43.6

Manningham 39 523 4 43


It couldn't be much closer than that.

Good point!

bearbryant
05-05-2013, 11:26 PM
It wasn't just 88. The entire O wasn't the same. The running game wasn't hitting on all 8, nor was the O line. Including 88 & 80 were injured throughout the season didn't make it easy for Big Blue

Antwuan
05-06-2013, 03:47 AM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?

Rueben Randle showed flashes last season mostly towards the end of the season and I expect him to come up big in 2013.

Antwuan
05-06-2013, 03:49 AM
I think the injury to Hakeem Nicks hurt our offense last season and Eli Manning was definitely missing that but hopefully Nicks stays healthy.

Dorothy
05-06-2013, 11:06 AM
I may get railed for saying this, but when we won I was thinking, "I'm happy we took it all the way, but this wasn't a world beating team by any stretch of the imagination."[/QUOTE]

DAAH. It sure was that year. How else do you say WORLD CHANPIONS than SUPERBOWL WINNERS?

EliDaMANning
05-06-2013, 11:14 AM
When your #1 receiver gets stuffed on man coverage a 3rd option is irrelevant. Our incompetent coaching staff finally realized this in week 17. I can't stand them. Who's decision was it to finally play Randle in week 17?

gumby74
05-06-2013, 11:36 AM
Nope. Eli has shown me he can do well with a carousel of WRs.

RoanokeFan
05-06-2013, 11:39 AM
When your #1 receiver gets stuffed on man coverage a 3rd option is irrelevant. Our incompetent coaching staff finally realized this in week 17. I can't stand them. Who's decision was it to finally play Randle in week 17?

The incompetent coaching staff who has had one losing season since TC got here?

GameTime
05-06-2013, 11:45 AM
The incompetent coaching staff who has had one losing season since TC got here?
of course Ro...
Eli can't possible have any fault whatso ever in the passing game....

RoanokeFan
05-06-2013, 11:50 AM
of course Ro...
Eli can't possible have any fault whatso ever in the passing game....

I am going to have to write than down I guess

EliDaMANning
05-06-2013, 12:01 PM
The incompetent coaching staff who has had one losing season since TC got here?Must be great to have a decent team and a franchise QB if you're a coach. It masks most of your deficiencies.

RoanokeFan
05-06-2013, 12:03 PM
Must be great to have a decent team and a franchise QB if you're a coach. It masks most of your deficiencies.

That would certainly seem to be true for Steve Spagnuolo

Mercury
05-06-2013, 01:07 PM
I thought our worst was 8-8 under Coughlin. Am I mistaken?

GameTime
05-06-2013, 01:09 PM
Must be great to have a decent team and a franchise QB if you're a coach. It masks most of your deficiencies.
and all tha thappened without the coaches influence....ok riiiight

RoanokeFan
05-06-2013, 01:09 PM
I thought our worst was 8-8 under Coughlin. Am I mistaken?

The first year, 2004, we were 6 - 10

Mercury
05-06-2013, 01:17 PM
The first year, 2004, we were 6 - 10

Ah, I see. That was Kurt Warner holding on to the ball too long and Eli being a rookie.

MattMeyerBud
05-06-2013, 01:21 PM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?

na, I don't think that was the case at all.

I think it was more not having a healthy Nicks...

if you look we had a platoon of guys in that third WR spot that seemed to performed pretty much every week.

The weeks that Randle, Barden, or Hixon didn't lead the team in yards(or second best in yards) was typically either because Nicks went off or somebody else like Bennett or Bradshaw had good receiving games.

I would say we relied too much on Cruz and he didn't perform as well as we needed and the fact that we didn't have Nicks as much as we needed. Even when he was there putting up numbers he was still hampered

Giant303
05-06-2013, 01:37 PM
Losing a 3rd WR is bad but having a one legged Nicks is worse. It doesn't help that kildrive has the most unimaginable playbook in the nfl. Hopefully we'll see more 2 back sets and split wilson out into the slot. There is no LB that will be able to cover him heck even if he just runs fly routes that puts stress on the opposing defense. really really tired of that shotgun draw play haha.

Joe&Frank
05-06-2013, 01:38 PM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?

I dont think Eli and our receiving group was the problem last year.....the passing game is what kept us in games.....we couldnt run or stop the run....thats the problem! Secondary was nothing spectacular either. Eli and the WRs were probably the bright spot even with Nicks banged up!

BeatYale
05-06-2013, 03:02 PM
Was the loss of Manningham a problem for Eli... not having that solid 3rd receiver. A receiving corps of a healthy Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham was challenging for defenses. Add Hynoski or Pascoe to the mix, too... and we had production on 3rd down, especially.

I was at the 2008 playoff game at Lambeau (Steve Smith, Plax and Toomer) when Burress ate Al Harris' lunch and the 2012 playoff game at Lambeau when Nicks, Cruz and Manningham were a lot for Green Bay's defense to handle...

Last year, Barden, Hixon, and Randle never seemed to be the solution.

What do you guys think?

Well Hixon's production was about the same as MM's. He had slightly more yards (567), two less TD's (2), and the same amount of catches (39) as MM. You can't really compare the 3rd WR production from last year with the previous year though because Nicks wasn't healthy last year. Those guys you mentioned didn't get to play in the same situation as MM - who had a healthy Nicks and a burning Cruz on the field with him. Cruz probably will never match that kind of production again btw.

MM was a better WR than Hixon and Barden though. He almost hit 1,000 yards in his 2nd and 3rd seasons with the Giants. I just don't think the 3rd WR position was our problem last season. Nicks not being healthy and Eli's poor play (TD drought, too many games south of 200 yards) had more to do with our offensive struggles IMO. You can associate those problems with the '3rd WR position', but I think the point in investing heavily in an elite QB means the team shouldn't have to over spend on all 3 WR positions for him to be productive.

jomo
05-06-2013, 03:04 PM
Well Hixon's production was about the same as MM's. He had slightly more yards (567), two less TD's (2), and the same amount of catches (39) as MM. You can't really compare the 3rd WR production from last year with the previous year though because Nicks wasn't healthy last year. Those guys you mentioned didn't get to play in the same situation as MM - who had a healthy Nicks and a burning Cruz on the field with him. Cruz probably will never match that kind of production again btw.

MM was a better WR than Hixon and Barden though. He almost hit 1,000 yards in his 2nd and 3rd seasons with the Giants. I just don't think the 3rd WR position was our problem last season. Nicks not being healthy and Eli's poor play (TD drought, too many games south of 200 yards) had more to do with our offensive struggles IMO.Manningham was better than Barden but that is an awfully low bar.

dakotajoe
05-06-2013, 03:12 PM
I don't think the loss of Manningham hurt the team at all. Eli was leading the league in passing the first 2-3 weeks of the season until Nicks busted his knee.

Nicks playing hurt was a huge blow to the offense as he was extremely ineffective playing on one leg. Bennett also got hurt in Cleveland and played with a knee issue. Hixon, Randle, and Barden all stepped up when called upon and had great games. The rushing attack was better than 2011, not dominant but Bradshaw had great games against Cleveland and San Fran but played injured (starting to seem like a common theme). Wilson showed what he could do when given a chance.