Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better off without Manningham?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Better off without Manningham?

    Let me just preface this by saying I like Manningham and hope he stays, but part of me wonders if we would be better off without him. With Nicks and Cruz drawing the other team's top 2 cornerbacks and frequently double coverage, Manningham only had to beat the number 3 (sometimes even number 4 or 5) cornerback and he couldn't always do that. Maybe Jerrigan or someone else will be a able to get open more often.

  • #2
    Re: Better off without Manningham?

    lol good.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Better off without Manningham?

      [quote user="giantman8493"]lol good.[/quote]

      What kind of response is that? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Better off without Manningham?



        I don't agree we will be better without Manningham.




        Not saying we still won't be lethal in the passing game.




        But Manningham was a legitimate #2 receiver in this league.




        His knock was he was not on the same page with Eli on numerous occasions.




        That is what kept him at best on the #3 wr on the depth chart.




        And the resurgence of Cruz made it near imposible for Manningham to move up on the depth chart.




        Manningham did alot for us, he gave us a deep threat, and like Nicks and Cruz, was dangerous once he got the ball in his hands.




        I think the Giants would love to keep him, but that is just near imposible with the salary cap issues.




        I hope nothing but the best for Mario Manningham.


        Giants fan since the early 80s

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Better off without Manningham?

          [quote user="ny06"]

          I don't agree we will be better without Manningham.




          Not saying we still won't be lethal in the passing game.




          But Manningham was a legitimate #2 receiver in this league.




          His knock was he was not on the same page with Eli on numerous occasions.




          That is what kept him at best on the #3 wr on the depth chart.




          And the resurgence of Cruz made it near imposible for Manningham to move up on the depth chart.




          Manningham did alot for us, he gave us a deep threat, and like Nicks and Cruz, was dangerous once he got the ball in his hands.




          I think the Giants would love to keep him, but that is just near imposible with the salary cap issues.




          I hope nothing but the best for Mario Manningham.

          [/quote]
          Agreed, I can't imagine this passing game possibly getting any better, much less without Manningham. I hope the OP proves me wrong though.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Better off without Manningham?

            Dude HAM is easily one of the best #3s in the league......let's not start getting bitter because he's leaving.....

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Better off without Manningham?

              I would never say that a team is better off without a particular player because said player could always serve as a back up.

              That said, I do agree with you. Manningham should have been open more often.

              However, we must consider that when either Nicks or Cruz was doubled, the other team was probably not using their #1 and #2 CBs on the same WR on the same play. If Nicks was doubled he was probably doubled with the other teams #3 and #4 CBs while Cruz would be left matched up with the #1 and Manningham, the #2. Thus Manningham probably face better CBs than we may have thought.

              All things considered, Manningham should have been able to get open more frequently considering how much he faced single coverage on the other teams #2, #3, or #4 CB.

              In conclusion, while we wouldn't be a better team without Manningham he most definitely is replaceable for someone who can be paid less, someone who is better, or any combination of the 2.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Better off without Manningham?

                Yes he was against a weaker DB than Nicks or Cruz but we will not be better without him. He developed nicely with Eli and it will take time for another WR to develop that same type of chemistry.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Better off without Manningham?

                  [quote user="Giants10Joe"]Let me just preface this by saying I like Manningham and hope he stays, but part of me wonders if we would be better off without him. With Nicks and Cruz drawing the other team's top 2 cornerbacks and frequently double coverage, Manningham only had to beat the number 3 (sometimes even number 4 or 5) cornerback and he couldn't always do that. Maybe Jerrigan or someone else will be a able to get open more often.
                  [/quote]

                  MM usually had to beat a Safety over the top (or to the inside).

                  As a #3, with money not coming into the picture, MM was great in that position.

                  I don't consider us better off without him unless we can replace his talent (not as easily done as said).
                  I don't always root for the Cowboys but when I do I wear my pink Jessica Simpson edition Romo jersey. (yes I lost a bet)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Better off without Manningham?



                    [quote user="Giants10Joe"]Let me just preface this by saying I like Manningham and hope he stays, but part of me wonders if we would be better off without him. With Nicks and Cruz drawing the other team's top 2 cornerbacks and frequently double coverage, Manningham only had to beat the number 3 (sometimes even number 4 or 5) cornerback and he couldn't always do that. Maybe Jerrigan or someone else will be a able to get open more often.
                    [/quote]




                    What about 2010 when Nicks and Smith were both out andManningham averaged well over 100 yards for those 4 games.

                    Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Better off without Manningham?

                      The year before he was one of the leagues best big play WR.

                      This past season he was injured a lot and never could get into a groove until the end. Better without him? I don't see how. Not saying they won't survive, because JJ might turn out to be just fine, but Manningham is a very good WR.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Better off without Manningham?

                        [quote user="miken609"]I would never say that a team is better off without a particular player because said player could always serve as a back up.

                        That said, I do agree with you. Manningham should have been open more often.

                        However, we must consider that when either Nicks or Cruz was doubled, the other team was probably not using their #1 and #2 CBs on the same WR on the same play. If Nicks was doubled he was probably doubled with the other teams #3 and #4 CBs while Cruz would be left matched up with the #1 and Manningham, the #2. Thus Manningham probably face better CBs than we may have thought.

                        All things considered, Manningham should have been able to get open more frequently considering how much he faced single coverage on the other teams #2, #3, or #4 CB.

                        In conclusion, while we wouldn't be a better team without Manningham he most definitely is replaceable for someone who can be paid less, someone who is better, or any combination of the 2.[/quote]

                        This^



                        "...two minute drill at the end of each quarter, Ya'know with the wind like this blowing mooch and marshall into the ocean...If that's behind me I think were getting 3 from 70 so holla at your boy. IF YOU DON"T PICK ME THAT'S A JOKE RIGHT?" - Justin Tucker, Ravens kicker

                        Complain?, ain't Nobody got time for dat!

                        GO GIANTS!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Better off without Manningham?

                          [quote user="myles2424"]Dude HAM is easily one of the best #3s in the league......let's not start getting bitter because he's leaving.....[/quote]

                          With Nicks and Cruz as the #1 and #2 receivers, I could be the best #3 in the league. Manningham is replaceable just like Smith, Toomer, Shockey and Plax were.

                          Eli make the receivers better.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Better off without Manningham?

                            [quote user="miken609"][quote user="myles2424"]Dude HAM is easily one of the best #3s in the league......let's not start getting bitter because he's leaving.....[/quote]

                            With Nicks and Cruz as the #1 and #2 receivers, I could be the best #3 in the league. Manningham is replaceable just like Smith, Toomer, Shockey and Plax were.

                            Eli make the receivers better.[/quote]

                            and Boss. Anyone want to add any others to the list?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Better off without Manningham?

                              [quote user="buddy33"]The year before he was one of the leagues best big play WR.

                              This past season he was injured a lot and never could get into a groove until the end. Better without him? I don't see how. Not saying they won't survive, because JJ might turn out to be just fine, but Manningham is a very good WR.[/quote]
                              We are obviously not better without him but the fact that he's always injured does not exactly help his case.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X