THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"]


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"]This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act
[/quote]

it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
[/quote]</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>


[/quote]

no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
[/quote]hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.[/quote]</p>


Butkus came before those guys.</p>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</p>


And the players are on board as well.</p>[/quote]Agreed to a degree. I'll use Peyton as an example. I don't know if his neck was result of any such hit, but the loss of a premiere QB like him devastated the Colt team and hurt the NFL from a spectator standpoint for fans of the Colts.[/quote]

yea but that could happen to anybody at any time

Take the aggressiveness out of defense and you'll see the NFL suffer worse than anywhere else. They have already restricted these guys as much as they possibly could without making it touch football.

[DavenIII]

[quote user="Morehead State"]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"]This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act
[/quote]

it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
[/quote]</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>[/quote]

I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.

[Morehead State]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="dezzzR"]
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</SPAN></H6>



</P>



</P>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</P>


[/quote]</P>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</P>


[/quote]

too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
[/quote]</P>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</P>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</P>


[/quote]
theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it
[/quote]</P>


He's not a #1 back, but he would be a very nice compliment to our attack. I see 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee for him on the open market.</P>


But I also see him resigning with SD. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with Sproles.</P>

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"]


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"]This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act
[/quote]

it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
[/quote]</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>


[/quote]

no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
[/quote]hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.[/quote]</p>


Butkus came before those guys.</p>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</p>


And the players are on board as well.</p>


[/quote]

its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.
[/quote]</p>


There is a difference between hard hitting and intent to injure.</p>


Hittiing someone hard who comes accross the middle to make him think twice next time...fine with me.</p>


Trying to injure a player and possibly end his career, not acceptable.</p>


But we can argue till the cows come home about this. This IS the new NFL. If you don't like it, don't watch anymore.</p>


I'll miss you though. I'm sure the tailgate parties for Austrailian Rules Football are a blast.</p>[/quote]

uhg, im so disappointed in you on this topic.

Players can get injured on any play. If you don't look to demolish your opponent on any chance you can, your going to ruin the game.

LoL - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You have somebody coming across the middle, you look to put all you can in to hit him! Its the same thing!

Your stance is what represents all that is wrong wtih this country. The pussification of america, next your going to say everybody should get a lombardi trophy just for participating.

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="dezzzR"]
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust</div></h6>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</span></h6>



</p>



</p>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</p>


[/quote]</p>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</p>


[/quote]

too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
[/quote]</p>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</p>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</p>


[/quote]
theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it
[/quote]</p>


He's not a #1 back, but he would be a very nice compliment to our attack. I see 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee for him on the open market.</p>


But I also see him resigning with SD. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with Sproles.</p>[/quote]

What kind of contract are you projecting for him?

[Morehead State]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="Morehead State"]


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"]This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act
[/quote]

it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
[/quote]</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>


[/quote]

I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
[/quote]</P>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</P>


</P>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</P>


I'm flattered really.</P>

[Morehead State]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="dezzzR"]
<H6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<DIV class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft='{"type":2}'>In Reese We Trust</DIV></H6>
<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":1}'><SPAN class=messageBody data-ft='{"type":3}'>If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</SPAN></H6>



</P>



</P>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</P>


[/quote]</P>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</P>


[/quote]

too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
[/quote]</P>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</P>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</P>


[/quote]
theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it
[/quote]</P>


He's not a #1 back, but he would be a very nice compliment to our attack. I see 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee for him on the open market.</P>


But I also see him resigning with SD. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with Sproles.</P>


[/quote]

What kind of contract are you projecting for him?
[/quote]</P>


I just said. Maybe 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee. Probably $3 MM/year but the guarantee is what matters.</P>

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="Morehead State"]


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"]This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act
[/quote]

it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
[/quote]</p>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</p>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</p>


</p>


[/quote]

I'm with matt on this one, trying to hit someone (legally) hard enough to knock them out of the game is acceptable in my opinion and if coaches want to give rewards for that as motivation I'm all for it....this is just Goodell trying to further wussifying this game.
[/quote]</p>


And BTW, this bounty thing hurts the defense. How many times have we seen guys try to make the big hit without wrapping up. Happens all the time anymore. When you wrap up you give up the "big hit" but increase the chances of making the tackle.</p>


</p>


BTW...my goal is to get as many posters as possible to have me as the star of their sigs.</p>


I'm flattered really.</p>[/quote]

bull****

big hits helped us vs the Pats in the superbowl... a couple of dropped balls could possibly of been because they knew footsteps were coming. The Hernandez drop stands out

Getting hits on Brady gives him happy feet

[Morehead State]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"]


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"]This whole saints bounty thing is such politically correct bull****. Now espn is highlighting tackles and sacks the saints have made the last 2 years and the media is trying to sell it like its some horrible act
[/quote]

it is horse ****

unless they were locking to tear somebodys knee up give REAL cheap shots to the head (im not talking about a hand grazing a face mask type thing) then they were in the wrong

But trying to hit somebody as hard as you can knock him out of the game is hwat football is all about...
[/quote]</P>


No its not Matt. Your position is horse****.</P>


The goal on defense is to stop the offense and get turnovers. Not to try to injure your opponents.</P>


</P>


[/quote]

no, its to gain an advantage fairly.

its been the way of football forever. **** back to peewee football we use to get stickers on our helmets for huge hits.

You think everytime a defender has a shot on the QB hes not trying to knock him out of the game?

I bet you didn't have this position when LT was playing
[/quote]hahaha, LT was the first pers. I thought of as well. Next was Ray Lewis.[/quote]</P>


Butkus came before those guys.</P>


The point is that the league has changed. While this kind of thing was accepted in previous eras, its not anymore. Player safety is an enormous concern for the league. I expect the punishment to be severe.</P>


And the players are on board as well.</P>


[/quote]

its part of the pussification of football..

For instance, if we're talking baout somebody getting paid for an injury like Tom Brady had that one year -i would be against that...

If there was a bounty for the hit Boley put on Romo to break his collarbone - then ****in a.

Like Nicks got LACED UP against the Saints this year... legally. If that guy got a bounty for that, then good for him.
[/quote]</P>


There is a difference between hard hitting and intent to injure.</P>


Hittiing someone hard who comes accross the middle to make him think twice next time...fine with me.</P>


Trying to injure a player and possibly end his career, not acceptable.</P>


But we can argue till the cows come home about this. This IS the new NFL. If you don't like it, don't watch anymore.</P>


I'll miss you though. I'm sure the tailgate parties for Austrailian Rules Football are a blast.</P>


[/quote]

uhg, im so disappointed in you on this topic.

Players can get injured on any play. If you don't look to demolish your opponent on any chance you can, your going to ruin the game.

LoL - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. You have somebody coming across the middle, you look to put all you can in to hit him! Its the same thing!

Your stance is what represents all that is wrong wtih this country. The pussification of america, next your going to say everybody should get a lombardi trophy just for participating.
[/quote]</P>


My stance is nothing like that. I like hard hitting as much as anyone. Thats different than try to injure players. You don't think so?. Going after a guys knees, trying to tear his ACL. Going after his head? Sorry thats not good football. I don't want to see that.</P>


And as far as "pussification" is concerned. Thats what happens when you have a bunch of Democrats in charge.</P>

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="dezzzR"]
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage uiStreamHeadline">
<div class="actorDescription actorName" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:2}">In Reese We Trust</div></h6>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{&quot;type&quot;:3}">If Brandon Jacobs is cut, should the Giants look at Mike Tolbert to be the new short yardage and change of pace backup for Ahmad Bradshaw?</span></h6>



</p>



</p>


What do you guys think about this? Should the giants bring in another bruiser or pick up a fast back in the draft. Im on the fence, I love when big backs roll over defenders and set the tone. But then again as small as bradshaw is, he can physically outmatch dbs and does so frequently. I think the giants can be very effective with bradshaw and another fast back.
</p>


[/quote]</p>


Tolbert would be a GREAT addition because not only is he a physical back, but he's great at catching the ball out of the backfield.</p>


[/quote]

too much money, i doubt we'd go for him. You say it all the time, dime a dozen position
[/quote]</p>


Probably right. But in a perfect world, he's exactly what we need.</p>


But then again if RB's are a dime a dozen, maybe he wouldn't cost as much as you think.</p>


[/quote]
theres always another *******

But I mean if he cost a 4 year 12 mil deal - i would be on the fence about it
[/quote]</p>


He's not a #1 back, but he would be a very nice compliment to our attack. I see 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee for him on the open market.</p>


But I also see him resigning with SD. They don't want to make the same mistake they made with Sproles.</p>


[/quote]

What kind of contract are you projecting for him?
[/quote]</p>


I just said. Maybe 4 years with a $4 or $5 MM guarantee. Probably $3 MM/year but the guarantee is what matters.</p>[/quote]

I dunno... he would be great. Gives us a pounding back, good goaline, good blocker, and actually is a GREAT receiving back. I just can't see us giving a contract out like that right now...

I think we are going to be in hell for the next few years cap wise... we have to extend cruz and nicks and giving a contract like that out to a 2nd RB just shouldn't be in the cards...

and did you see the deal that Stevie Johnson just got? Not a good start for us AT ALL