Closed Thread
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 168
  1. #151
    All-Pro Eliscruzzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warwick NY
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by NorwoodBlue View Post
    Cruz without Nicks is not pretty. He can't handle the extra attention he gets without a healthy Nicks on the field. I don't think it's written in stone that we resign Cruz. He might cost way too much for his level of talent. I think keeping him is a 50/50 proposition at this point. He needs to understand that he's benefited from Nicks a whole bunch, and if he prices himself out of the market, he'll be playing for some team with no other good recievers, and maybe not even a viable QB. I could see his career going down the tubes if he goes to the wrong team. JR might be thinkig the same because they weren't willing to throw a pile of oey at him last year to extend his contract. He is, after all, a UFA who appears to need a Nicks type reciever on the field with him to be effective. And Reuben Randle has shown some pretty good talent. Randle and Nicks could really give people fits.
    Come dude he had a 1000 yard season...Maybe he would've been more effective with Randle out there then Nicks. It's not Cruz's fault he was double teamed almost every play.
    Last edited by Eliscruzzz; 01-13-2013 at 05:14 PM.

  2. #152
    All-Pro Eliscruzzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warwick NY
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Giantsfan241 View Post
    Without Nicks, he is not a top 5 wide reciever.. or top 7.
    Yeah ok.....

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Eliscruzzz View Post
    Yeah ok.....
    I'm starting to wonder if he's actually Giggles.

  4. #154
    Guy had 1100 yds and 10 tds...without Nicks, pretty darn impressive.

  5. #155
    All-Pro Eliscruzzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warwick NY
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by JayMas9 View Post
    Guy had 1100 yds and 10 tds...without Nicks, pretty darn impressive.
    exactly...

  6. #156
    All-Pro Eliscruzzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warwick NY
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by DIPSET_ALL_DAY View Post
    I'm starting to wonder if he's actually Giggles.
    I know right.

  7. #157
    failed to score in 8/16 games
    only scored multiple tds in a game once
    4% down in catch rate (64-60)

    welker a slot reciever like cruz had 67%.
    Only played like a top 10 wr in 5/16 games.
    ..Not worth the big money.

    Just said he had 3 of the 10 td's vs a lowly browns team in which he only got 50 yards that game.

  8. #158
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Giantsfan241 View Post
    1) marshall 4th round
    houzh 7th
    jennings 2nd
    nelson 2nd
    austin udfa
    jackson 2nd
    welker udfa
    colston 7th
    steve smith (panthers) 3rd
    And a bunch of other late 1st round picks are great recievers. it's not hard to find WR talent in the NFL.

    Doesn't matter for the rest, you basically made the same points. I don't think Cruz's play this year justifies him getting a big contract,
    If they give him 5-6 million a year with the garunteed money not huge then I'd be happy with how Reese handled it.
    You're now arguing against yourself, so it's time to shut you and your absurdity down.

    You say--in so many words--that WRs of Cruz' caliber are a dime a dozen, "not hard to find" in your very own nonsensical words. Then you say you'd "be happy" if we give Cruz $5-6 mil a year". Aside from the super stars like Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald--and a few grossly overpaid receivers like D Jackson--that's considered to be very big money for "not hard to replace WR talent".

    So, he's either good enough to warrant a large contract worth 5-6 mil per year with a guarantee, or he's an easy to replace receiver. Which is it? He cannot be both.

    As for your list of good-to great non-first round receivers--terrific, you came up with less than a dozen receivers who fit that mold--out of 12 drafts (Smith was drafted 2001).

    By the way, Cruz has had substantially more yards and more TDs in his first 3 years (2628 yds, 19 TDs) than 3rd rd Steve Smith (Panthers) had in his first 3 years (2136 yds, 10 TDs), and Cruz did that while playing in 11 fewer games than did Smith in the same time frame.

    And, Oh yeah, with 11 fewer games and 9 fewer starts in their respective first 3 years, Cruz has 4 more TDs than did Brandon Marshall, with only 271 fewer yards. UDFA has a superior 3 year beginning to his career than these 3rd and 4th rd--and long time WR super stars--spending all but his first 3-4 games rookie year on IR. And you think Cruz is easily replaceable.

    Don't like that comparison, comparing apples to oranges, maybe? Let's compare the first 3 seasons of the 2 UDFA receivers on your list, highly respected receivers today and over past several years-----

    Miles Austin--played in or suited up 37 games, 0 starts, total 354 yards in 3 years, 3 TDs

    Wes Welker--played in or suited up 31 games, 1 start, total 434 yards in 3 years, 0 TDs

    Victor Cruz--played in or suited up 35 games, 23 starts, total 2628 yards in 3 years, 19 TDs

    Cruz will get paid.
    And he will get paid by the Giants.

  9. #159
    5-6 million a year is not that uncommon this year for a player like Cruz.. he is a good slot reciever and benefits only when Nicks recieves attention. If you see I said he shouldn't a lot of garunteed money. If we gave him 4 year 20 million deal 5 garunteed i'd be happy.

    Go look at my stats, Cruz had a very off here this year.

  10. #160
    You are just a clueless "omg cruz is so good hes so explosive best slot in the league omg" when really he didnt have that good of a year, lol, a few break out games but the rest have been average or abysmall.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts