Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One word...."toughness"

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

  • One word...."toughness"

    I believe the free agent additions bring an attitude of toughness to a talented defense. You can point at the weaknesses on the back seven or at D-tackle,
    but this team last year was plan soft. Every one from Perry Fewell to to Tom Coughlin to Jerry Reese to the average fan, knew this team was "soft." They were punched in the mouth by inferior teams. The run defense parted waves like the Red Sea. Jenkins and Conner are both thumpers. They will put their
    bodies on the line and inflict pain. Ask Wilson what type of "toughness" Jenkins brings to the Giant?

    The Giants are not the have-not they are the haves. If somebody would have manned-up last year, we would be discussing the Giants in terms of dynasties
    We have the superstars on both sides of the ball. Now, we are picking up the guys that have a blue collar, lunch pail attitude. I am excited about the
    additions and also the addition by subtraction. The "matador" aka "run my way" aka "prince umenyiora"

  • #2
    Mundy fits that label too, but I'm not sure how much he will play.

    Comment


    • #3
      If "toughness" can end the second half collapses, I'll drink to that as well.

      Comment


      • #4
        Pro football weekly talked about us as a dynasty. Point is if we win more we are a dynasty. Doesn't how many games u won when u won it all. But I do agree on the toughness point of view.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
          Pro football weekly talked about us as a dynasty. Point is if we win more we are a dynasty. Doesn't how many games u won when u won it all. But I do agree on the toughness point of view.
          We are nothing close to a dynasty.
          #80

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TennisMenace View Post
            Mundy fits that label too, but I'm not sure how much he will play.
            Agreed. I think he is just going to be a depth guy ala Tyler Sash. He's played so poorly that he might not even make it through camp.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by nhpgiantsfan View Post
              We are nothing close to a dynasty.
              . Nfl Dynasty equals 3 to 4 rings in less than ten yr. We got 2.

              Comment


              • #8
                Dynasty -- Not even close -- If we can a couple more SB's in say the next 4 years than maybe a Dynasty. Chances of winning 2 SB's over 4 years again is pretty much asking for the impossible

                Peace
                dan

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by danme View Post
                  Dynasty -- Not even close -- If we can a couple more SB's in say the next 4 years than maybe a Dynasty. Chances of winning 2 SB's over 4 years again is pretty much asking for the impossiblePeacedan
                  Doesn't have to be 2. Can be 1. That's why the cowboys and pats are considered dynasties.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
                    Doesn't have to be 2. Can be 1. That's why the cowboys and pats are considered dynasties.
                    They were both 3 in 4 years. That is a dynasty. We are not.. We are a decent team, that got hot at the right time twice..
                    #80

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by nhpgiantsfan View Post
                      They were both 3 in 4 years. That is a dynasty. We are not.. We are a decent team, that got hot at the right time twice..
                      Every team that's won the SB got hot at the right time. 2 of the steelers 70s teams each only had 10 wins. JPP, Eli , Cruz, nicks, strahan, Tuck, osi. In their prime they were much more than decent. Also it doesn't matter how few they won them. As long as it was between 10 yr.
                      Last edited by GentleGiant; 03-16-2013, 06:48 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
                        Every team that's won the SB got hot at the right time. 2 of the steelers 70s teams each only had 10 wins. JPP, Eli , Cruz, nicks, strahan, Tuck, osi. In their prime they were much more than decent. Also it doesn't matter how few they won them. As long as it was between 10 yr.
                        "You are what your record says you are."- Bill Parcells. The players you mentioned are more than decent but the record that the 2007 & 2011 teams recorded was simply decent..
                        #80

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by nhpgiantsfan View Post
                          "You are what your record says you are."- Bill Parcells. The players you mentioned are more than decent but the record that the 2007 & 2011 teams recorded was simply decent..
                          Ill take a 13-7 season and a superbowl ring every year, since thats decent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mikeq6722 View Post
                            Ill take a 13-7 season and a superbowl ring every year, since thats decent.
                            I totally agree the championship is the only thing that matters but I was speaking about the regular season and the fact that we really aren't in the middle of a dynasty
                            #80

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by nhpgiantsfan View Post
                              "You are what your record says you are."- Bill Parcells. The players you mentioned are more than decent but the record that the 2007 & 2011 teams recorded was simply decent..
                              If your record says you won the super bowl then I'm fine with that. And you cant compare records to SB wins. The packers have had a streak of great season records but only 1 ring. Obviously the packers aren't a dynasty. Point is Parcells wasn't just talking about W/L ratio. A record can say SB wins too. Dynasty doesn't mean records. Dynasty doesn't even need to mean dominance. The pats and 9ers were underdogs at the start of their runs. If you won the SB, then you beat everyone. The giants beating the 15-1 packers in 2011 means they beat a team worth 15 wins. That makes dynasties. Dynasties mean rings.
                              Last edited by GentleGiant; 03-16-2013, 09:09 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X