PDA

View Full Version : Cornerstone of Giants Dynasty



Harooni
02-19-2012, 09:57 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1054851-why-defense-not-eli-manning-is-cornerstone-of-giants-dynasty

interesting piece ,well written

lawl
02-19-2012, 10:01 PM
We arent a dynasty.

Harooni
02-19-2012, 10:04 PM
We arent a dynasty.

well 2 sb's within 5 seasons same coach ,same gm same qb and quite a few guys. i see your point as we missed 2 seasons of playoffs but still.

Voldamort
02-19-2012, 10:06 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1054851-why-defense-not-eli-manning-is-cornerstone-of-giants-dynasty

interesting piece ,well written
if you ask Kurt Warner he would say the Giants don't have a dynasty?

Voldamort
02-19-2012, 10:08 PM
If Plex stays home they would have 3?

ShakeNBake
02-19-2012, 10:09 PM
We arent a dynasty.

well 2 sb's within 5 seasons same coach ,same gm same qb and quite a few guys. i see your point as we missed 2 seasons of playoffs but still.


We aren't a dynasty yet, but we did end one this year

Harooni
02-19-2012, 10:09 PM
If Plex stays home they would have 3? possibly ,there is no right or wrong if you think we are a dynasty or not.

id like to think we are or at least knocking on that door

JJC7301
02-19-2012, 10:11 PM
If Plex stays home they would have 3?* possibly ,there is no right or wrong if you think we are a dynasty or not.*

id like to think we are or at least knocking on that door


The D AND Eli are cornerstones. We're not winning without either one.

The D is a constant, but Eli is THE constant on offense who won a SB with Plax, Toomer, SS, and Boss, and then another with Nicks, Cruz, MM, and Ballard / Pascoe.

GmenFan1980
02-19-2012, 10:33 PM
first off, Bleacher report writes terrible articles.

second Defense wins championships, too bad our defense wanted Eli and the offense to carry them into the playoffs, glad they came alive down the stretch to help make a more complete team

third - "While their defense dominated, New York's offense did nothing special. Their final offensive numbers were around their 2011 average, but they were nothing great. Not good enough to beat the New England Patriots in most games, at least."

"Just don't forget why the Giants really won this game"

that ruins any credibility as he says the Defense did all the work, which just isn't true at all.

fourth and finally it's bleacher report.....

gmen0820
02-19-2012, 10:50 PM
If Plex stays home they would have 3?Our D was not that good down the stretch. Pierce was awful, we had no WILL backer, Tuck and Kiwi were workhorses, and they appeared gassed. Robbins was playing with two casts, Cofield was hurt (both had offseason microfracture surgery).

The problem ran deeper than Plax, but Plax did hurt the offense.

nhpgiantsfan
02-19-2012, 10:58 PM
If Plex stays home they would have 3?* possibly ,there is no right or wrong if you think we are a dynasty or not.*

id like to think we are or at least knocking on that door


The D AND Eli are cornerstones. We're not winning without either one.

The D is a constant, but Eli is THE constant on offense who won a SB with Plax, Toomer, SS, and Boss, and then another with
Nicks, Cruz, MM, and Ballard / Pascoe.

The D is a cornerstone??? There was no D for the first 14 weeks of the year! If you said Eli and the D line, well ok. But I think the cornerstone moving forward is Eli and our WR's assuming and hoping we can keep all three of them.

Tuckit91
02-19-2012, 11:02 PM
Win the Super Bowl next year and yes Giants are a Dynasty!!

JJC7301
02-19-2012, 11:03 PM
If Plex stays home they would have 3?* possibly ,there is no right or wrong if you think we are a dynasty or not.*

id like to think we are or at least knocking on that door


The D AND Eli are cornerstones. We're not winning without either one.

The D is a constant, but Eli is THE constant on offense who won a SB with Plax, Toomer, SS, and Boss, and then another with
Nicks, Cruz, MM, and Ballard / Pascoe.

The D is a cornerstone??? There was no D for the first 14 weeks of the year! If you said Eli and the D line, well ok. But I think the cornerstone moving forward is Eli and our WR's assuming and hoping we can keep all three of them.

I didn't read the article, but you're correct...what I meant was the D-line, even though the entire D was playing well at the end.

TheBookOfEli
02-19-2012, 11:32 PM
Win the Super Bowl next year and yes Giants are a Dynasty!!

Agreed. No denying it.

JJC7301
02-19-2012, 11:38 PM
Win the Super Bowl next year and yes Giants are a Dynasty!!

Agreed. No denying it.
+1. Even if they win another one over the next few years, and not necessarily next year, wouldn't it still be a dynasty? Same QB, same coach, same key players such as Tuck, Snee, Webstser, AB. What exactly constitutes a "dynasty"?

Harooni
02-20-2012, 12:00 AM
I do not agree with all the writers thoughts however I do think the D gets the shaft with all the QB talk.

when you hold an offense like the pats to under 17 points. twice to win SB's . The D should be commended at least

scoopscj
02-20-2012, 12:03 AM
Did somebody say Dynasty?

http://movi.ca/im/mio/Dynasty.jpg


Good article. However, Eli and the O carried them though some games this year too. I think, in the end, it's a combination and both O, D and Special Teams pulled each other across the finish line.


That's my 2 cents anyway.


Scoops

gmen0820
02-20-2012, 12:06 AM
I do not agree with all the writers thoughts however I do think the D gets the shaft with all the QB talk.

when you hold an offense like the pats to under 17 points. twice to win SB's .* The D should be commended* at least
When successful, QB gets all the credit. When unsuccessful, QB gets all the blame. That is the way it is. I find it equally annoying when a Giants fan gives Eli all the blame when unsuccessful and not all the credit when successful than when a Giants fan gives Eli all the credit and little to no blame.

Harooni
02-20-2012, 01:24 AM
I do not agree with all the writers thoughts however I do think the D gets the shaft with all the QB talk.

when you hold an offense like the pats to under 17 points. twice to win SB's . The D should be commended at least
When successful, QB gets all the credit. When unsuccessful, QB gets all the blame. That is the way it is. I find it equally annoying when a Giants fan gives Eli all the blame when unsuccessful and not all the credit when successful than when a Giants fan gives Eli all the credit and little to no blame.

I hear you, its just fans need to realize the 3 phases and how they effect each other.

jhamburg
02-20-2012, 02:49 AM
Win the Super Bowl next year and yes Giants are a Dynasty!!

Agreed. No denying it.
+1. Even if they win another one over the next few years, and not necessarily next year, wouldn't it still be a dynasty? Same QB, same coach, same key players such as Tuck, Snee, Webstser, AB. What exactly constitutes a "dynasty"?

I feel like 3 championships is the magic number. I mean nobody really doubts that the late 70s steelers, 80s niners, 90s cowboys, and 00s patriots were dynasties. But do people talk about the Broncos as a dynasty? Or the Steelers of recent years? But if they had beaten the Packers, people would definitely say dynasty.

bansaw
02-20-2012, 06:12 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1054851-why-defense-not-eli-manning-is-cornerstone-of-giants-dynasty

interesting piece ,well written
well written? lol

Born and still living in Ohio. Unfortunately, a die hard Browns, Buckeyes and Reds fan ... safe to say he never saw how bad this Defense was most of the season

but whatever helps Harooni diminish Eli's impact on the team

stormblue
02-20-2012, 07:13 AM
Win the Super Bowl next year and yes Giants are a Dynasty!!

Agreed. No denying it.
+1. Even if they win another one over the next few years, and not necessarily next year, wouldn't it still be a dynasty? Same QB, same coach, same key players such as Tuck, Snee, Webstser, AB. What exactly constitutes a "dynasty"?

the reason the dynasty thing is highly questionable is because of the sub-par
regular season performances.
it's hard to appear dynastic when you
have to push your playoff eligibility to
the stroke of midnight of week 17 just
to qualify for a playoff berth.

dynasties win multiple rings , dominate the opposition for years and stay on top of their divisions and win 80% of their games.
they are favored every time they step on the field.they expect to win , their fans expect
them to win , pundits expect them to win and
Vegas expects them to win.
and most of the time they do win .

i am ecstatic over having another ring ,
but i am not delusional ; we have the hardware because we got hot at the right
time for SB42 and again for SB46.

we aren't even a dynasty in our own division
let alone in the NFL.

opportunistic ......yes.
dynastic.......not even close.

bgblucru5656
02-20-2012, 07:28 AM
Win the Super Bowl next year and yes Giants are a Dynasty!!
BRING THE OLD SCHOOL HELMETS BACK!!!!!

GMENAGAIN
02-20-2012, 07:31 AM
Bleacher Report . . . lol</P>


</P>

chasjay
02-20-2012, 07:46 AM
What exactly constitutes a "dynasty"?

By and large, opinions constitute a dynasty.

The Bleeeecher Report?

2007 - the D kept us in it and Eli raised his game at the end. 2011 - more Eli than D. IMHO

RoanokeFan
02-20-2012, 07:52 AM
We arent a dynasty.

well 2 sb's within 5 seasons same coach ,same gm same qb and quite a few guys. i see your point as we missed 2 seasons of playoffs but still.


I don't like the term as it puts a target on their backs lol But I'd be more inclined to lean in that direction if, in addition to 2 Super Bowl wins in 5 years we had made it well into the playoffs years for the other three years.

Still, I think we are likely never to see another Steelers' type juggernaut because of free agency and the CAP. It really does come down to economics and players want their just due from whoever will pay them the most.

If we see our free agents, like Mario, staying when they could have gotten a better financial offer elsewhere, then maybe you can start to thinking about "dynasty."

stormblue
02-20-2012, 09:47 PM
We arent a dynasty.

well 2 sb's within 5 seasons same coach ,same gm same qb and quite a few guys.* i see your point as we missed 2 seasons of playoffs but still.


I don't like the term as it puts a target on their backs* lol** But I'd be more inclined to lean in that direction if, in addition to 2 Super Bowl wins in 5 years we had made it well into the playoffs years for the other three years.

Still, I think we are likely never to see another Steelers' type juggernaut because of free agency and the CAP.* It really does come down to economics and players want their just due from whoever will pay them the most.

If we see our free agents, like Mario, staying when they could have gotten a better financial offer elsewhere, then maybe you can start to thinking about "dynasty."


actually , since 2004 (same year as Eli ) Big Ben is 80 and 33 regular season plus a 10 and 3 playoff record , 2 SB rings and 3 SB appearances.that's not too shabby.

in perspective Eli is only 69 and 50 regular season.

JimC
02-21-2012, 10:49 AM
If Plex stays home they would have 3? possibly ,there is no right or wrong if you think we are a dynasty or not.

id like to think we are or at least knocking on that door



Please!!!!! We are getting a little full of ourselves aren't we?

SweetZombieJesus
02-21-2012, 10:52 AM
We arent a dynasty.

well 2 sb's within 5 seasons same coach ,same gm same qb and quite a few guys. i see your point as we missed 2 seasons of playoffs but still.


People won't call the Parcells teams a dynasty either (although he did it with wholesale changes between the 86 and 90 teams which IMO means more traditionally as a dynasty, when you talk about dynasties the definitions are the Yankees and Celtics). You can get people to hem and haw by calling it an almost-dynasty but you need that 3rd one.

SweetZombieJesus
02-21-2012, 11:08 AM
the reason the dynasty thing is highly questionable is because of the sub-par
regular season performances.
it's hard to appear dynastic when you
have to push your playoff eligibility to
the stroke of midnight of week 17 just
to qualify for a playoff berth.

dynasties win multiple rings , dominate the opposition for years and stay on top of their divisions and win 80% of their games.
they are favored every time they step on the field.they expect to win , their fans expect
them to win , pundits expect them to win and
Vegas expects them to win.
and most of the time they do win .

I gotta take you to the woodshed here on that definition.

Given that this is no longer the 1960s Lombardi Packers or the 1970s Knoll Steelers and those days are forever gone.

Further, I think you give too much weight to regular season domination, we can reel off plenty of teams that have had many years of dominant regular seasons and then blow it in the playoffs time and time again. San Diego comes to mind. Buffalo.

The early 2000 Pats were a dynasty, right? Those teams are not today's Tom Brady teams; they were scrappy on defense and that's how they won... All 3 SB wins were by 3 points and 2 of them were won by last second Vinatieri field goals. Was that a dynasty by your definition in any sense other than the championships? The 2001 team went 11-5 (which was very poor until recently), the year after they went 9-7. That puts your definition on very, very shaky grounds. But they're definitely a dynasty, aren't they?

In the retrospect of 20 years or so, these Giants teams will certainly be enigmas -- 10-6 and 9-7 champions who tripped over their own feet most of the time but in the end shocked the world with improbable playoff runs defeating opponents with much better records, beating #1 seeds on the road, and twice beating the team of its era in the big game. Add another SB in the next few years and they belong in the discussion, despite the mediocre regular seasons, the collapses, etc. All that fades away with history and the championships still stand.

Bohemian
02-21-2012, 12:00 PM
We arent a dynasty.

I have to agree with that statement. But considering that this era; where free agency has made it almost impossible for teams to keep key players and keep under the cap, it has to be said that the very concept of dynasty should also be re-conceptualized. I would argue that if the team core and head coach win three or more championships, then a good argument could be established for the 'dynasty' labeling.

I think that at the end of it all, it is the very notion of 'dynasty' that has to be articulated. I would say that regardless of missing the playoffs during your championship runs, the championship under the same core players is the key component in the equation. It is one thing to make the playoffs in the west coast, where division in both conferences are ultra-weak, and it is quite another to do it in the NFC East. The NFC East is what soccer fans call a 'group of death'. The division alone makes the championship runs that much more sweeter.

Tommy_Ribs
02-21-2012, 12:08 PM
To win the SB, you have to get to the SB.

We don't get to the SB without Eli bailing the team out over and over again in the regular season while the defense was flat out bad.

Eli was even better in the Playoffs, playing as close to mistake-free as you can while making big-play after big-play and having a 10-1 TD to INT Ratio.

In the SB, it was a team game that won the title for us. EVERYONE Stepped up!

Tommy_Ribs
02-21-2012, 12:10 PM
We are not a Dynasty.

Over Coughlin's tenure we are one of the more successful teams in the league, but we are not a Dynasty.

TheBookOfEli
02-21-2012, 05:27 PM
We win another one in the next few years, then we should be labeled a dynasty.

jakegibbs
02-21-2012, 06:05 PM
Win 3 in 6 years & it's a done deal right? 1 more in 2012 & DYNASTY BOUND.