PDA

View Full Version : I have said, since the beginning...



redbeardxxv
01-12-2012, 05:06 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

Gunakor
01-12-2012, 05:35 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

foosball
01-12-2012, 06:08 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

The dome. The Giants are a really good road team that can play almost anywhere, the snow, the rain, the cold, the heat, they do all right in all those places. But everytime the Giants go in to that dome they get slaughtered.

BlueBlitzer
01-12-2012, 06:16 AM
The Saints will stumble out in Frisco.

foosball
01-12-2012, 06:18 AM
If the Giants beat the Packers, we gotta hope for that.

Captain Chaos
01-12-2012, 07:59 AM
The Saints will stumble out in Frisco.

I'm liking your thinking!

Pakman
01-12-2012, 02:23 PM
First of all we have to beat the Pack....IF that happens.

I hope we play the 49ers. I agree with the OP the last place I want to play is NO...we're like a turkey on thanksgiving in that damn dome.

But the Pack first

THIRDINF516
01-12-2012, 03:10 PM
I have a feeling we will beat them , after rewatching week 13.. We have a great chance..

miked1958
01-12-2012, 03:19 PM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.</P>


Oh yea. I will go u one further. I felt right away when it was offiical we were playing them that we would win by 21 pts and i am sticking to it.</P>


Giants 38-17</P>

redbeardxxv
01-12-2012, 04:43 PM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

Were you a GIANTS fan the last few times we've played the Saints? If you were, the results should be fresh in your mind. The Saints and Packers are not the same team. Brees>Rodgers , and the same can be said almost position by position across the offense. Saints Defense=GB Defense...ok... maybe. GB just doesn't scare me. Brees& co in that dome... yeah, that scares me.

BlueReign
01-12-2012, 05:51 PM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?
I think we match up better skill wise against the Packers than we do the Saints. Just a better matchup.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 12:49 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

Were you a GIANTS fan the last few times we've played the Saints? If you were, the results should be fresh in your mind. The Saints and Packers are not the same team. Brees>Rodgers , and the same can be said almost position by position across the offense. Saints Defense=GB Defense...ok... maybe. GB just doesn't scare me. Brees& co in that dome... yeah, that scares me.

I've never been a Giants fan. I respect the Giants as opponents. You guys have an outstanding football team, especially now that Eli has entered his prime. But I've never been a fan. I am a one share owner of the only publicly owned franchise in the NFL. I was born with Green and Gold blood running through my veins.

All homerism aside though, I doubt you'll find very many people even in New York in agreement that the Saints are more talented on offense at every single position than the Packers are. Brees and Rodgers are about equal, you could make an argument for either and it would have plenty of merit. Saints are perhaps a bit more talented at RB but the gap between them is smaller with Mark Ingram unable to suit up. Green Bay has a much better tight end, it isn't even close. There's 2 pro bowlers on our offensive line - neither of which the Giants saw in our matchup earlier this season but will be starting on Sunday. And the Packers boast arguably the best WR corps in the NFL.

If it's the dome, it's the dome. I completely understand that. Green Bay has been haunted by domes in the past too. During Brett Favre's run of 3 straight MVP's and for several years afterwards we couldn't win to save our lives @ the Metrodome in Minnesota. So I get it.

jhamburg
01-13-2012, 01:20 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

Were you a GIANTS fan the last few times we've played the Saints? If you were, the results should be fresh in your mind. The Saints and Packers are not the same team. Brees>Rodgers , and the same can be said almost position by position across the offense. Saints Defense=GB Defense...ok... maybe. GB just doesn't scare me. Brees& co in that dome... yeah, that scares me.
Green Bay has a much better tight end, it isn't even close.

This is where I stopped reading.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 01:28 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

Were you a GIANTS fan the last few times we've played the Saints? If you were, the results should be fresh in your mind. The Saints and Packers are not the same team. Brees>Rodgers , and the same can be said almost position by position across the offense. Saints Defense=GB Defense...ok... maybe. GB just doesn't scare me. Brees& co in that dome... yeah, that scares me.
Green Bay has a much better tight end, it isn't even close.

This is where I stopped reading.

Than the Saints? Who do the Saints have at TE that's better than Jermichael Finley?

jhamburg
01-13-2012, 01:33 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

Were you a GIANTS fan the last few times we've played the Saints? If you were, the results should be fresh in your mind. The Saints and Packers are not the same team. Brees>Rodgers , and the same can be said almost position by position across the offense. Saints Defense=GB Defense...ok... maybe. GB just doesn't scare me. Brees& co in that dome... yeah, that scares me.
Green Bay has a much better tight end, it isn't even close.

This is where I stopped reading.

Than the Saints? Who do the Saints have at TE that's better than Jermichael Finley?

Jimmy Graham has been a monster this year, one of the breakout stars of the NFL. No offense, but it's almost hard to believe you follow the NFL at all outside of your team if you don't know about him.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 01:38 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

Were you a GIANTS fan the last few times we've played the Saints? If you were, the results should be fresh in your mind. The Saints and Packers are not the same team. Brees>Rodgers , and the same can be said almost position by position across the offense. Saints Defense=GB Defense...ok... maybe. GB just doesn't scare me. Brees& co in that dome... yeah, that scares me.
Green Bay has a much better tight end, it isn't even close.

This is where I stopped reading.

Than the Saints? Who do the Saints have at TE that's better than Jermichael Finley?

Jimmy Graham has been a monster this year, one of the breakout stars of the NFL. No offense, but it's almost hard to believe you follow the NFL at all outside of your team if you don't know about him.

Actually, I do know about him. What I asked is who the Saints have that's better than Jermichael Finley. Jimmy Graham is not better than Jermichael Finley, even in his breakout season. Only 2 TE's in the NFL compare favorably to Finley. One is Antonio Gates, the other is Vernon Davis. Neither play for the Saints.

jhamburg
01-13-2012, 01:41 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

Were you a GIANTS fan the last few times we've played the Saints? If you were, the results should be fresh in your mind. The Saints and Packers are not the same team. Brees>Rodgers , and the same can be said almost position by position across the offense. Saints Defense=GB Defense...ok... maybe. GB just doesn't scare me. Brees& co in that dome... yeah, that scares me.
Green Bay has a much better tight end, it isn't even close.

This is where I stopped reading.

Than the Saints? Who do the Saints have at TE that's better than Jermichael Finley?

Jimmy Graham has been a monster this year, one of the breakout stars of the NFL. No offense, but it's almost hard to believe you follow the NFL at all outside of your team if you don't know about him.

Actually, I do know about him. What I asked is who the Saints have that's better than Jermichael Finley. Jimmy Graham is not better than Jermichael Finley, even in his breakout season. Only 2 TE's in the NFL compare favorably to Finley. One is Antonio Gates, the other is Vernon Davis. Neither play for the Saints.

Saying Finley is "much better, and it's not even close" than Jimmy Graham is in no way a valid opinion.

jhamburg
01-13-2012, 01:41 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

Were you a GIANTS fan the last few times we've played the Saints? If you were, the results should be fresh in your mind. The Saints and Packers are not the same team. Brees>Rodgers , and the same can be said almost position by position across the offense. Saints Defense=GB Defense...ok... maybe. GB just doesn't scare me. Brees& co in that dome... yeah, that scares me.
Green Bay has a much better tight end, it isn't even close.

This is where I stopped reading.

Than the Saints? Who do the Saints have at TE that's better than Jermichael Finley?

Jimmy Graham has been a monster this year, one of the breakout stars of the NFL. No offense, but it's almost hard to believe you follow the NFL at all outside of your team if you don't know about him.

Actually, I do know about him. What I asked is who the Saints have that's better than Jermichael Finley. Jimmy Graham is not better than Jermichael Finley, even in his breakout season. Only 2 TE's in the NFL compare favorably to Finley. One is Antonio Gates, the other is Vernon Davis. Neither play for the Saints.

Saying Finley is "much better, and it's not even close" than Jimmy Graham is in no way a valid opinion.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 01:44 AM
Saying Finley is "much better, and it's not even close" than Jimmy Graham is in no way a valid opinion.

All opinions are both valid and invalid at the same time, depending on ones interpretation.

You can't cover Finley with at DB, they're too small. You can't cover Finley with a LB, they're too slow. Graham does not pose nearly the same problems for a defense that Finley does, so my opinion of the two is that Finley is a much, MUCH bigger threat.

jhamburg
01-13-2012, 01:47 AM
Saying Finley is "much better, and it's not even close" than Jimmy Graham is in no way a valid opinion.

All opinions are both valid and invalid at the same time, depending on ones interpretation.

You can't cover Finley with at DB, they're too small. You can't cover Finley with a LB, they're too slow. Graham does not pose nearly the same problems for a defense that Finley does, so my opinion of the two is that Finley is a much, MUCH bigger threat.

So if it's impossible to defend him where is the production then. LBs haven't exactly been having their way with Graham this season.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 01:53 AM
Saying Finley is "much better, and it's not even close" than Jimmy Graham is in no way a valid opinion.

All opinions are both valid and invalid at the same time, depending on ones interpretation.

You can't cover Finley with at DB, they're too small. You can't cover Finley with a LB, they're too slow. Graham does not pose nearly the same problems for a defense that Finley does, so my opinion of the two is that Finley is a much, MUCH bigger threat.

So if it's impossible to defend him where is the production then. LBs haven't exactly been having their way with Graham this season.

The production is spread out amongst 6 different targets of AR's passes. Finley is just one of many lethal threats in the passing game. He's never going to be the main target or put up elite TE numbers because there's too many options available in our offense. If numbers is all you look at then you miss the story.

jhamburg
01-13-2012, 02:02 AM
Saying Finley is "much better, and it's not even close" than Jimmy Graham is in no way a valid opinion.

All opinions are both valid and invalid at the same time, depending on ones interpretation.

You can't cover Finley with at DB, they're too small. You can't cover Finley with a LB, they're too slow. Graham does not pose nearly the same problems for a defense that Finley does, so my opinion of the two is that Finley is a much, MUCH bigger threat.

So if it's impossible to defend him where is the production then. LBs haven't exactly been having their way with Graham this season.

The production is spread out amongst 6 different targets of AR's passes. Finley is just one of many lethal threats in the passing game. He's never going to be the main target or put up elite TE numbers because there's too many options available in our offense.

As opposed to Drew Brees, who threw 500+ yards to 6 different receivers?

At this point I'm really thinking that you had no idea who Graham was in the first place.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 02:10 AM
Saying Finley is "much better, and it's not even close" than Jimmy Graham is in no way a valid opinion.

All opinions are both valid and invalid at the same time, depending on ones interpretation.

You can't cover Finley with at DB, they're too small. You can't cover Finley with a LB, they're too slow. Graham does not pose nearly the same problems for a defense that Finley does, so my opinion of the two is that Finley is a much, MUCH bigger threat.

So if it's impossible to defend him where is the production then. LBs haven't exactly been having their way with Graham this season.

The production is spread out amongst 6 different targets of AR's passes. Finley is just one of many lethal threats in the passing game. He's never going to be the main target or put up elite TE numbers because there's too many options available in our offense.

As opposed to Drew Brees, who threw 500+ yards to 6 different receivers?

At this point I'm really thinking that you had no idea who Graham was in the first place.

We played the Saints this year too, remember.

Graham is to the Saints what JENNINGS is to the Packers - the biggest threat in their passing offense. Finley isn't the main threat in the Packers offense so he won't put up those kind of numbers.

Let me put it to you like this. Brees threw for 1000+ yards to Colston and Graham and 500 to everyone else. Rodgers threw for 1000 to Nelson and Jennings and 500 to everyone else. I don't see a difference other than that Graham is a favorite target in New Orleans while Rodgers prefers to throw to his WR's here in Green Bay.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 02:15 AM
Or how about I put it another way for you. If Finley wore a Saints jersey on gameday instead of a Packers jersey, nobody on the planet would know who Jimmy Graham was in the first place.

lawl
01-13-2012, 02:16 AM
Saying Finley is "much better, and it's not even close" than Jimmy Graham is in no way a valid opinion. All opinions are both valid and invalid at the same time, depending on ones interpretation. You can't cover Finley with at DB, they're too small. You can't cover Finley with a LB, they're too slow. Graham does not pose nearly the same problems for a defense that Finley does, so my opinion of the two is that Finley is a much, MUCH bigger threat. So if it's impossible to defend him where is the production then. LBs haven't exactly been having their way with Graham this season. The production is spread out amongst 6 different targets of AR's passes. Finley is just one of many lethal threats in the passing game. He's never going to be the main target or put up elite TE numbers because there's too many options available in our offense. As opposed to Drew Brees, who threw 500+ yards to 6 different receivers? At this point I'm really thinking that you had no idea who Graham was in the first place. We played the Saints this year too, remember. Graham is to the Saints what JENNINGS is to the Packers - the biggest threat in their passing offense. Finley isn't the main threat in the Packers offense so he won't put up those kind of numbers. Let me put it to you like this. Brees threw for 1000+ yards to Colston and Graham and 500 to everyone else. Rodgers threw for 1000 to Nelson and Jennings and 500 to everyone else. I don't see a difference other than that Graham is a favorite target in New Orleans while Rodgers prefers to throw to his WR's here in Green Bay.</P>


QBs tend to throw the ball to the best players. Thats why Graham has the numbers that he does. He is a complete mismatch for any player you put on him.</P>


Want to know another tight end better than Finley? Rob Gronkowski.</P>


You said that GB has 2 probowl OLinemen, well NO had 3.</P>

lawl
01-13-2012, 02:17 AM
Or how about I put it another way for you. If Finley wore a Saints jersey on gameday instead of a Packers jersey, nobody on the planet would know who Jimmy Graham was in the first place.</P>


Do you watch Jimmy Graham play?? </P>


</P>

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 02:23 AM
QBs tend to throw the ball to the best players. Thats why Graham has the numbers that he does. He is a complete mismatch for any player you put on him. Want to know another tight end better than Finley? Rob Gronkowski. You said that GB has 2 probowl OLinemen, well NO had 3.

Well if the numbers say Gronkowski is better than I guess he must be. I mean, it's not like the Pats are COMPLETELY devoid of talent at WR outside of Wes Welker or anything like that.

Be sure to ignore Finley on Sunday. Put whoever on him, it's not like he's a threat anyway. By the end of the game you'll know full well what his YOTTO is all about.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 02:24 AM
Do you watch Jimmy Graham play??

About as often as you've watched Jermichael Finley play.

lawl
01-13-2012, 02:26 AM
QBs tend to throw the ball to the best players. Thats why Graham has the numbers that he does. He is a complete mismatch for any player you put on him. Want to know another tight end better than Finley? Rob Gronkowski. You said that GB has 2 probowl OLinemen, well NO had 3. Well if the numbers say Gronkowski is better than I guess he must be. I mean, it's not like the Pats are COMPLETELY devoid of talent at WR outside of Wes Welker or anything like that. Be sure to ignore Finley on Sunday. Put whoever on him, it's not like he's a threat anyway. By the end of the game you'll know full well what his YOTTO is all about.</P>


Finley is a very good TE in this league. Not being as good as Gronkowski isn't really a knock on him. </P>


By the way, we put a rookie on Finley for most of the game earlier in the year.</P>

lawl
01-13-2012, 02:27 AM
Do you watch Jimmy Graham play?? About as often as you've watched Jermichael Finley play.</P>


You shouldn't assume things.</P>

GiantWarfare
01-13-2012, 02:30 AM
Smh at Gunakor's blind homerism.

Stop it bro.

Graham and Gronk are both better than Finley.

Both have better hands than Finley, and are just as athletic, explosive (more so Graham instead of Gronk, though Gronk is a tank)

Finley is a beast himself, but to say he's "much better" than those two, are the signs of a Packers fan wearing very dense cheese-colored glasses...

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 02:47 AM
Smh at Gunakor's blind homerism.

Stop it bro.

Graham and Gronk are both better than Finley.

Both have better hands than Finley, and are just as athletic, explosive (more so Graham instead of Gronk, though Gronk is a tank)

Finley is a beast himself, but to say he's "much better" than those two, are the signs of a Packers fan wearing very dense cheese-colored glasses...

Okay, perhaps he isn't MUCH better than Graham. Gronkowski I hold is the product of being one of the only credible options in a TE heavy passing offense in New England, and I'd agree Graham is better than Gronkowski. But take the head to head matchup between Green Bay and New Orleans in week 1 - keep in mind both defenses are equally terrible.

Graham 4-56
Finley 3-53

Or how about each TE's #'s against the GIANTS this year - NYG defense being vastly superior to either NO or GB.

Graham 5-84
Finley 6-87

The difference between them isn't as vast as I has implied. But even being close, I stil contend Finley holds the advantage being the tougher man to cover. Graham sees more opportunity and, to his credit, capitalizes on the opportunities he's given. His numbers on the year reflect that. But it's a tough sell implying that he's more talented simply because he gets more opportunity. The difference in the number of chances they get is largely subjective to the playcaller and the quarterback. So I don't put that much stock in numbers.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 03:03 AM
Yeah, so, since the focus has turned to black and white numbers on a stat sheet, I decided to look a bit deeper into them myself. My gosh, I knew the disparity in opportunity was large, but I didn't know it was THIS large.

Finley was targeted on 93 passes this season.

Graham was targeted on 149. 6th most for any player in the NFL.

So the argument here boils down to whether that disparity in opportunity is due to a difference in talent or a difference in scheme. Can we at least agree on that?

I think the offense NO runs might be a tad different than the one we run here in Green Bay. No disrespect to Graham, but he's not the only one that could put up numbers like that when he gets 150 chances.

jhamburg
01-13-2012, 03:06 AM
Smh at Gunakor's blind homerism.

Stop it bro.

Graham and Gronk are both better than Finley.

Both have better hands than Finley, and are just as athletic, explosive (more so Graham instead of Gronk, though Gronk is a tank)

Finley is a beast himself, but to say he's "much better" than those two, are the signs of a Packers fan wearing very dense cheese-colored glasses...

Okay, perhaps he isn't MUCH better than Graham. Gronkowski I hold is the product of being one of the only credible options in a TE heavy passing offense in New England, and I'd agree Graham is better than Gronkowski. But take the head to head matchup between Green Bay and New Orleans in week 1 - keep in mind both defenses are equally terrible.

Graham 4-56
Finley 3-53

Or how about each TE's #'s against the GIANTS this year - NYG defense being vastly superior to either NO or GB.

Graham 5-84
Finley 6-87

The difference between them isn't as vast as I has implied. But even being close, I stil contend Finley holds the advantage being the tougher man to cover. Graham sees more opportunity and, to his credit, capitalizes on the opportunities he's given. His numbers on the year reflect that. But it's a tough sell implying that he's more talented simply because he gets more opportunity. The difference in the number of chances they get is largely subjective to the playcaller and the quarterback. So I don't put that much stock in numbers.

OK to level the playing field let's adjust for the fact that Graham does get more targets.

Graham: 8.8 yards per target
Finley: 8.2 yards per target

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 03:13 AM
OK to level the playing field let's adjust for the fact that Graham does get more targets.

Graham: 8.8 yards per target
Finley: 8.2 yards per target

Fair enough. I didn't look at yards per target, just that Finley held the edge 13.9 to 13.2 in yards per catch.

I guess to settle the argument I'll concede that neither one is clearly better than the other. You are right, and the OP and I are both wrong.

giantyankee1976
01-13-2012, 07:29 AM
I'd like see:

the Giants knock off the Pack
the Niners "upset" the Saints

the Giants bash the Niners in the Championship

Giants beat Ravens (SB revenge baby !!!)

pipe dream? yes, not crack though. [:|]

egyptian420
01-13-2012, 07:40 AM
I'd like see:

the Giants knock off the Pack
the Niners "upset" the Saints

the Giants bash the Niners in the Championship

Giants beat Ravens (SB revenge baby !!!)

pipe dream? yes, not crack though. [:|]

I don't care who we face in the SB....I'd be happy with facing Tebow or the Texans for all I care, lets just take care of the NFC first

guardplay320
01-13-2012, 08:02 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

TE argument aside, you also are completely wrong about the Saints having no running game. They don't have the names, but they rushed for the 6th most yards in football. They spread it out and used their passing game to open up the run, something Green Bay (and the Giants for that matter) couldn't do effectively. Saints O-Line was much better this year than the Packers and Giants combined.

In terms of what is scary about New Orleans, it's that they've completely had the Giants number in recent years. This year wasn't the first time the Giants went into New Orleans and got crushed. For some reason, the Giants do match up better with Green Bay. That's not to say that they will beat Green Bay, but I like their chances better for sure.

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 09:26 AM
TE argument aside, you also are
completely wrong about the Saints having no running game. They don't
have the names, but they rushed for the 6th most yards in football.
They spread it out and used their passing game to open up the run,
something Green Bay (and the Giants for that matter) couldn't do
effectively. Saints O-Line was much better this year than the Packers
and Giants combined.

In terms of what is scary about New
Orleans, it's that they've completely had the Giants number in recent
years. This year wasn't the first time the Giants went into New Orleans
and got crushed. For some reason, the Giants do match up better with
Green Bay. That's not to say that they will beat Green Bay, but I like
their chances better for sure.




I never said they had no running game, I said it leaves something to be
desired. As it applies to the postseason this year, am I wrong? Mark
Ingram is out for the playoffs. Without Ingram the Saints don't have
the 6th best rushing attack. Or, at least, it seems highly unlikely to me that Sproles and Thomas could make up everything that they miss with Ingram. So it's fair to downgrade
that as it applies to this weekend or a potential matchup with them next
weekend, wouldn't you agree?



The OL's are comparable. NO's OL played better during the regular
season, but GB's OL was missing 2 pro bowlers for a rather large stretch
of game time. Check out the stat listed in the 8 teams/32 observations thread on PFF which was linked to on one of the threads here. I believe it was something like 2155
passing downs our projected OL starters on Sunday have combined for,
with only 9 sacks given up in that stretch. That ain't bad. Evan
Dietrich-Smith (the one Suh stomped on) and Marshall Newhouse saw a lot of playing time this
season, but barring another injury, they won't be playing a snap during
our playoff run. It'll be Pro Bowlers Chad Clifton and Josh Sitton
instead.



Again, if it's the dome, I get that. Green Bay had it's own problems
with domes not too long ago when he-who-shall-not-be-named was at the
helm.

Giants Of New Jersey
01-13-2012, 09:34 AM
TE argument aside, you also are
completely wrong about the Saints having no running game.* They don't
have the names, but they rushed for the 6th most yards in football.*
They spread it out and used their passing game to open up the run,
something Green Bay (and the Giants for that matter) couldn't do
effectively.* Saints O-Line was much better this year than the Packers
and Giants combined.*

In terms of what is scary about New
Orleans, it's that they've completely had the Giants number in recent
years.* This year wasn't the first time the Giants went into New Orleans
and got crushed.* For some reason, the Giants do match up better with
Green Bay.* That's not to say that they will beat Green Bay, but I like
their chances better for sure. *




I never said they had no running game, I said it leaves something to be
desired.* As it applies to the postseason this year, am I wrong?* Mark
Ingram is out for the playoffs.* Without Ingram the Saints don't have
the 6th best rushing attack. Not even close.* So it's fair to downgrade
that as it applies to this weekend or a potential matchup with them next
weekend, wouldn't you agree?



The OL's are comparable.* NO's OL played better during the regular
season, but GB's OL was missing 2 pro bowlers for a rather large stretch
of game time.* Check out the stat listed in the 8 teams/32 observations thread on PFF which was linked to on one of the threads here.* I believe it was something like 2155
passing downs our projected OL starters on Sunday have combined for,
with only 9 sacks given up in that stretch.* That ain't bad.* Evan
Dietrich-Smith (the one Suh stomped on) and Marshall Newhouse saw a lot of playing time this
season, but barring another injury, they won't be playing a snap during
our playoff run.* It'll be Pro Bowlers Chad Clifton and Josh Sitton
instead.*



Again, if it's the dome, I get that.* Green Bay had it's own problems
with domes not too long ago when he-who-shall-not-be-named was at the
helm.

122 attempts 474 yards... thats all ingram had...they would still very much be up there with or without ingram, sorry

TroyArcher
01-13-2012, 09:44 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34. The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league. Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?</P>


</P>


Saints have a good running game. I agree I would not want to play in New Orleans. It is an artificial environment that they have built a team around.Do you recall the score of the last two games played there? Iwould much rather play the 49ers. </P>

Landshark
01-13-2012, 09:50 AM
I take Jimmy Grahm all day over Finely...

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 10:35 AM
Okay, then I guess I concede all arguments here.

But I was at the NFL opener between these two teams. I can tell you the numerical difference between these two teams, since you like numbers. It is 1. 1 play. 1 yard. 1 untimed down. That's the difference.

As it would apply to the other arguments about rushing attack or TE talent or what have you, Graham had 1 more catch than Fin for a 3 yard advantage. Ingram had 1 more carry than Starks, but Starks had about a dozen or so more yards. As a team Green Bay outrushed New Orleans by about the same measure that Starks outrushed Ingram by. Randall Cobb broke a 108 yard TD return, Darren Sproles broke a 70 something yard TD return. Very, very close in all aspects of the game. From where I'm sitting, they're the same team. As even as you can possibly get without creating a scenario Donovan McNabb can't comprehend. (For those of you who don't get the reference, see Nov. 16, 2008)

Gunakor
01-13-2012, 10:41 AM
I take Jimmy Grahm all day over Finely...

Many would. Their choice, and after this debate I guess I can't argue against it anymore. Finley is more productive per catch, Graham makes more catches.

But in the YOTTO, Finley reigns supreme. By 7pm Sunday you'll know what I'm talking about.

barrister
01-13-2012, 11:16 AM
Gunakor, I love you man, because you're a fellow Packer fan, but I gotta tell you, I think you're wrong here. Finley has the potential to become an elite TE, but he isn't there yet. His physical abilities are undeniable. That said, he is too inconsistent, and he dropped far too many passes. Now, with a big playoff run, he could enter the elite tier, but for now, it is more elite potential than elite play & production.

Graham, on the other hand, entered the elite tier this season. The guy is an absolute beast, week after week. Grahman and Gronk put together two of the best seasons TEs have ever posted. And statistics aside, Graham has elite talent. He's a 6'6" TE with speed and great hands. He creates matchup problems for every team the Saints face.

Right now, I probably wouldn't even put Finley in the top-5. The elite tier of TEs includes Gronk, Graham, Gates, Witten and Davis. I expected Finley to make the jump this year, but it just didn't happen. Maybe he can make a case for himself in the playoffs. We shall see...

G-Man67
01-13-2012, 11:20 AM
that GB is out of the playoffs as of the first game. Lo and Behold, it's the GIANTS that play them first. I still say GB is done. NY goes into Green Bay and hands them a loss. I don't like our chances against NO in New Orleans, but I'm confident that in GB, we surprise people. I'll stick to my guns. GB is one and done. G-men 38-34.

The Saints and Packers are the same team. Elite QB, myriad of weapons around him, running game leaves something to be desired, defense is near the bottom of the league.

Not to bash your post, but I'm confused about how you could be worried about playing in New Orleans but confident playing in Green Bay. What about New Orleans scares you that Green Bay doesn't have?

i may eat these words, but the Saints have a greater home advantage than the Pack ... that dome is nuts and being indoors plays 100% into how the Saints play ... you watch, they will be slowed this week at SF



i wouldnt say they are the same team, but they do present many of the same problems and challenges

jhamburg
01-13-2012, 11:25 AM
Okay, then I guess I concede all arguments here.

But I was at the NFL opener between these two teams.* I can tell you the numerical difference between these two teams, since you like numbers.* It is 1.* 1 play.* 1 yard.* 1 untimed down.* That's the difference.

As it would apply to the other arguments about rushing attack or TE talent or what have you, Graham had 1 more catch than Fin for a 3 yard advantage.* Ingram had 1 more carry than Starks, but Starks had about a dozen or so more yards.* As a team Green Bay outrushed New Orleans by about the same measure that Starks outrushed Ingram by.* Randall Cobb broke a 108 yard TD return, Darren Sproles broke a 70 something yard TD return.* Very, very close in all aspects of the game.* From where I'm sitting, they're the same team.* As even as you can possibly get without creating a scenario Donovan McNabb can't comprehend.* (For those of you who don't get the reference, see Nov. 16, 2008)


I mean to address the larger point you're getting at, don't get too butthurt when Giants fans say they fear the Saints a lot more than the Packers. It's not because the Saints are necessarily a much better team, it's because we have literally been beat down mercilessly every time we play them. The Packers on the other hand are a fairly good matchup for us considering they are an elite team. It is what it is. If I had a choice I'd rather play neither, but the Saints are the absolute worst matchup by far in the entire league for us.

guardplay320
01-13-2012, 07:02 PM
Okay, then I guess I concede all arguments here.

But I was at the NFL opener between these two teams. I can tell you the numerical difference between these two teams, since you like numbers. It is 1. 1 play. 1 yard. 1 untimed down. That's the difference.

As it would apply to the other arguments about rushing attack or TE talent or what have you, Graham had 1 more catch than Fin for a 3 yard advantage. Ingram had 1 more carry than Starks, but Starks had about a dozen or so more yards. As a team Green Bay outrushed New Orleans by about the same measure that Starks outrushed Ingram by. Randall Cobb broke a 108 yard TD return, Darren Sproles broke a 70 something yard TD return. Very, very close in all aspects of the game. From where I'm sitting, they're the same team. As even as you can possibly get without creating a scenario Donovan McNabb can't comprehend. (For those of you who don't get the reference, see Nov. 16, 2008)


I mean to address the larger point you're getting at, don't get too butthurt when Giants fans say they fear the Saints a lot more than the Packers. It's not because the Saints are necessarily a much better team, it's because we have literally been beat down mercilessly every time we play them. The Packers on the other hand are a fairly good matchup for us considering they are an elite team. It is what it is. If I had a choice I'd rather play neither, but the Saints are the absolute worst matchup by far in the entire league for us.

Well said