PDA

View Full Version : NFC East Division Champions


S T R I N G
08-19-2009, 08:13 PM
Who do you think is going to win the NFC East?

Respond to the poll and post your explanation here.

TitleTown088
08-19-2009, 08:17 PM
Man, the Redskins defense interests me.

Can't ignore the Giants D either.

Thumper
08-19-2009, 08:23 PM
The Eagles. Because I'm a homer.

Also because this is the most talented team the Eagles have had ever in Andy Reid's tenure and depth is very good at QB, OL, WR, CB, DE, DT and S.

But how are the Redskins even in this conversation? Their offensive line is in shambles and they figure to have the worst offense in the division by a lot. Their defense has potential to be great but who cares if the offense isn't putting points on the board.

The race is IMO between the Eagles and the Giants, the teams with the most depth, best coaching and are just IMO overall better than the Cowboys and Redskins.

Splat
08-19-2009, 08:51 PM
I have to go with the G-men their D is down right nasty.

Smooth Criminal
08-19-2009, 10:02 PM
Hardest one by far. I'm leaning toward the Giants right now, but honestly I could build an argument for any of the 4.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
08-19-2009, 10:11 PM
I went with the Giants because of Defense and there Running game. I mean there defense was beast last year and this year they get this guy back

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3BaJMgGKAmE/RwKIYqUy__I/AAAAAAAABtU/NcfflrqV4Fc/s320/Osi+Umenyiora+sack.jpg

Job
08-19-2009, 10:38 PM
Went Cowboys. I love Romo at least as a regular season QB, and that Barber/Jones tandem should go far. Hardest division to preview ever.

critesy
08-19-2009, 10:40 PM
redskins cause im a homer. and um, albert haynesworth and orakpo.

superman8456
08-19-2009, 10:40 PM
Eagles because 1) Im a homer 2) I have a mancrush on Leonard Weaver 3) Mike Vick :)

JFLO
08-19-2009, 10:49 PM
The New York Football Giants

Brandon Jacobs is bound for a monster season while I think the defense is the best in the division, maybe the best in the conference.

Thumper
08-19-2009, 10:55 PM
redskins cause im a homer. and um, albert haynesworth and orakpo.

K, you can have them. Albert Haynesworth has never been dominant when it wasn't a contract year, he is already injured and he is a pretty injury prone guy and he plays about 60% of the snaps. HAVE FUN!

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2009/8/10/984354/jason-brown-and-the-rams-interior

Jason Brown, C of the Rams said this of Big Al:
I'm so glad we're playing Washington early in the year because it's going to be hot out there, we're going to be running hurry-up offense and he's going to get fatigued. And I'm not sure if you have watched film before, but when he gets fatigued, he taps out. He just falls down to the ground and you're like, 'Oh my gosh, is he hurt? Is something wrong with him?'

No, he's just giving the guy on the sidelines enough time to mosey on out there so he can get up, go to the sidelines, catch a breather, get something to drink and then he comes right back out. And then people are like, 'I thought he was hurt.' No, he got tired.

And I like Orakpo but honestly, how well do you think he is going to do in coverage? Not very well because it will be his first year in the NFL and he is going to be making a position change, pretty easy in a 3-4 but not in a 4-3 when you have tons more coverage responsibilities.

21ST
08-19-2009, 11:15 PM
K, you can have them. Albert Haynesworth has never been dominant when it wasn't a contract year, he is already injured and he is a pretty injury prone guy and he plays about 60% of the snaps. HAVE FUN!

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2009/8/10/984354/jason-brown-and-the-rams-interior

Jason Brown, C of the Rams said this of Big Al:


And I like Orakpo but honestly, how well do you think he is going to do in coverage? Not very well because it will be his first year in the NFL and he is going to be making a position change, pretty easy in a 3-4 but not in a 4-3 when you have tons more coverage responsibilities.

Why would Orakpo be in coverge?

Thumper
08-19-2009, 11:23 PM
Because he is playing SLB.

21ST
08-19-2009, 11:44 PM
only on 1st and 2nd down and even then he is just going to be blitzing

critesy
08-20-2009, 12:14 AM
albert is not already hurt, he's hurt just like every other player is. they just dont want to over use him in camp and pre season to ware him out ya know. so good job looking that up.

orakpo has been looking amazing in camp and the one preseason game. he is probably going to be blitzing 75-80% of the time. and when he was in coverage he looked smooth in doing so, go watch the ravens and skins pre season game, he was in coverage like 3 or 4 times and did well, so good job on that one too.

D-Unit
08-20-2009, 12:17 AM
Hands down it's gotta be the Giants. They are my SB favorites in fact. Anything less is a disappointment for them.

Cowboys will be lucky to have a winning record. I fully expect Wade Phillips to lose his job as HC. We will never win with him.

Thumper
08-20-2009, 01:24 AM
albert is not already hurt, he's hurt just like every other player is. they just dont want to over use him in camp and pre season to ware him out ya know. so good job looking that up.

Hmm... that is a contradiction, he is not hurt but he is hurt like everyone else?
-So you're telling me that everyone else is missing training camp and pre-season games because of a knee injury from last year? Interesting...

But, I'm probably in no position to speak about injuries seeing as the Eagles are dropping like flies. But, still it does not bode well for Big Al when he missed time at training camp with a knee injury from last year, especially considering the last time he played a full season was his rookie year.

orakpo has been looking amazing in camp and the one preseason game. he is probably going to be blitzing 75-80% of the time. and when he was in coverage he looked smooth in doing so, go watch the ravens and skins pre season game, he was in coverage like 3 or 4 times and did well, so good job on that one too.

We'll see what happens when it counts. Orakpo is a DE making the transition to OLB in a 4-3 defense, one that is not known for being easy. Could it be done? Sure. Would I bet anything on it? Never. It is a tough transition and I can tell you that when it counts the NFL coaches are going to try and create mismatches with him and I think it can and will be done with such great playmakers at RB and TE in the NFC East. Count me as a skeptic, I believe the Redskins are making a mistake by putting him at LB but... what do I know?

Hines
08-20-2009, 01:27 AM
I chose the Eagles. They are going to have a scary offense and a very good defense although they lost Jim Johnson(RIP). Could make a case for the Giants, but I see the Eagles winning it.

Brent
08-20-2009, 01:57 AM
Eagles look good on paper, but I like the Giants more.

wogitalia
08-20-2009, 02:00 AM
I give a small edge to the Giants, but there are question marks throughout and realistically I think all but the Skins have genuine cases to win it, even the Skins can put up a case, their defense could potentially be beastly.

yodabear
08-20-2009, 02:01 AM
Eagles are gonna win the NFC.

tjsunstein
08-20-2009, 08:51 AM
Ew, I hate this division more than any other in all of sports. Got to respect it though. All teams that could finish better than .500. Yes, even the 'Skins. Cowboys lose TO, I don't see it as that big of a loss to knock them out of discussion. Eagles had a great offseason, but let's see them put it together on the field. Eagles are my paper champions of this division. The Giants are my on the field champions.

Malaka
08-20-2009, 08:59 AM
I think this will be very close, and I I'll give it by an inch to the Giants just because I am a Giants fan :P, but besides that the Giants have a stellar running game, a downright nasty defense, IMO a still developing QB, a great offensive line, and great depth. The Eagles have all my respect, they are a very good team with a very good QB albeit a choker, an excellent offensive, scary offensive weapons, and one of the best defenses in the league.

NFC East Prediction
New York Giants 12-4
Philadelphia Eagles 11-5
Washington Redskins 8-8
Dallas Cowboys 7-9

xxxxxxxx
08-20-2009, 09:01 AM
I LOVE the Cowboy doubt. Finally. Instead of hype.

Should be fun.

Brothgar
08-20-2009, 09:07 AM
I went the Cowboys I don't feel really confident in that but ...

The Eagles rely on McNabb they'll make the playoffs but not as division winner. McNabb is a win from in front horse. If you give him a lead there is no doubt he'll win the game for you. But he isn't known for many bouts of late game magic. Also his injury history scares me. He has not played 2 strait full seasons uninjured since 2000 and 2001 seasons. The Eagles also rely on Andy Reid to have a more balanced offense get it closer to 60 40 than 75 25. The Eagles aslo lost who could be considered their best D player in Dawk. If not the best then at least the leader of it. Dawk will be missed.


The Giants are relying on two rookie WRs. Historically rookie WR's do not have early impact. This will hurt the Giants.

The Skins always look good on paper. This year is no different but I picked the Skins for years just to get disappointed when the season comes around. QB and DLine sans Fat Albert are the weak points but the team is full of top names. If I was going completely on paper I might have taken the Skins but just can't do it.

cdub11
08-20-2009, 09:18 AM
This division is really tough. Every team in this division could win it.

cant pick against my team, Cowboys

Sniper
08-20-2009, 09:30 AM
orakpo has been looking amazing in camp and the one preseason game. he is probably going to be blitzing 75-80% of the time. and when he was in coverage he looked smooth in doing so, go watch the ravens and skins pre season game, he was in coverage like 3 or 4 times and did well, so good job on that one too.

Orakbeast FTW!

NY+Giants=NYG
08-20-2009, 09:35 AM
albert is not already hurt, he's hurt just like every other player is. they just dont want to over use him in camp and pre season to ware him out ya know. so good job looking that up.

orakpo has been looking amazing in camp and the one preseason game. he is probably going to be blitzing 75-80% of the time. and when he was in coverage he looked smooth in doing so, go watch the ravens and skins pre season game, he was in coverage like 3 or 4 times and did well, so good job on that one too.

You guys play a 4-3 right? I forgot..

scottyboy
08-20-2009, 10:19 AM
Obviously I went Giants BUT:

the Eagles (mainly westy) have had our number. Jim Johnson (RIP) also killed us, so we'll see how McDermott does filling his shoes. I'm still scared of Westy and Philly's overall speed on offense. Losing Dawkins hurts too.

The Cowboys: this year isn't their year, but honestly, that could be good for them. Why? then they can get Phillips the hell outta there. They've got a great foundation with 3 good RB's who can wreak havoc by committee, a good, fairly young #1 WR, and 2 kick ass TE's. Oh, and on D, they've got that Ware fellow. They've got some pieces, but this year isn't their year. Sub .500 in my book, which again, will probably help them in the future.

Skins: eh. fat Albert is nice, along with that DL (remember some skins fans saying the skins will NEVER draft a DE in the first and hadn't in like 20 years...yea, whoever that is, I hope he reads this and feels like an ass). But I'm not a fan of that OL and Campbell...I love the kid, but STOP MESSING WITH HIM WASHINGTON! 4 years, 4 new OC's or something like that. Trade rumors for Cutler and Big Taco. Like come on, show some faith. Portis is a beast, as is Santana but man, I dont see this team doing well this year at all.

<===3
08-20-2009, 10:34 AM
The Giants are relying on two rookie WRs. Historically rookie WR's do not have early impact. This will hurt the Giants.
No they're not. Steve Smith led the Giants in receptions last year. Domenik Hixon led the Giants in yards receiving last year. And that was with Toomer and Burress (for half a year) on the team. I think both will continue to lead the Giants in those respective categories.

And don't forget about Mario Manningham.

Will the rookies contribute at some point? Most likely. But, the Giants aren't relying on rookies. That's a myth.

Brothgar
08-20-2009, 10:39 AM
No they're not. Steve Smith led the Giants in receptions last year. Domenik Hixon led the Giants in yards receiving last year. And that was with Toomer and Burress (for half a year) on the team. I think both will continue to lead the Giants in those respective categories.

And don't forget about Mario Manningham.

Will the rookies contribute at some point? Most likely. But, the Giants aren't relying on rookies. That's a myth.

Well they did draft two WRs one in the 1st and one in the 3rd round. Actions like that don't scream confidence in your WR corps.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-20-2009, 10:43 AM
Well they did draft two WRs one in the 1st and one in the 3rd round. Actions like that don't scream confidence in your WR corps.

Take into consideration we changed our passing scheme as well since we no longer have Burress and Toomer. Another example is drafting an H back, hybrid TE, in Beckum. It really had nothing to do with confidence, but more to do with changing passing concepts now that we don't have two wrs like Plax and Burress.

wicket
08-20-2009, 11:00 AM
i picked the iggles over the giants by a whisker but i keep the right to change my mind if i see the giant receivers at work in proper football and playing okay.

eaglesalltheway
08-20-2009, 11:21 AM
I had a real nice post for this that I had done at work, but the internet cut out and I saved it to that computer. Hopefully I'll get it up sometime soon, but I think it was a pretty fair post.

<===3
08-20-2009, 11:55 AM
Well they did draft two WRs one in the 1st and one in the 3rd round. Actions like that don't scream confidence in your WR corps.
Don't read too much into who got drafted where. The Giants drafted Mathias Kiwanuka in the first round when they had Strahan, Osi and Tuck a few years ago.

DMWSackMachine
08-20-2009, 01:25 PM
Went with my boys in the poll, obviously, but here's how I handicap it:


1. Giants (35%)

First of all, all Giants fans need to quit making excuses for the WR train wreck. If the Giants have success this year, it will be due to a dominant defense and running game, both of which they are capable of fielding. But this WR corps is the worst in the league, and there isn't a very close second that comes to mind.

However, their excellence along the defensive line and in the secondary make them a candidate for the #1 defense. The loss of Spags will hurt them more than anything. I think their LB corps is a weakness (Pierce started to decline to my eyes last year) and could hold them hostage on that side of the ball; its also something that hasn't gotten near enough play.

Ultimately, though, I see their ability to win the division coming down to how well they can maintain their running game. With no threats on the outside, will defenses be able to stifle Jacobs, Bradshaw and Co.? If so, I can see them missing the playoffs. If they are averaging 150+ a game like last year, I think they win the division.

2. Eagles (28%)

I see the Eagles as almost 1a in this discussion. I like what they are putting together at WR. After all these years, they are finally putting some playmakers around Donovon. Again, I am not big on their LBs, especially after they lost their best player at the position. But I've heard talk about the quality of some of their young guys, so I'm willing to watch that play out.

Ultimately, I see this team being defined by the explosiveness of their offense. If Westbrook plays like himself and stays relatively healthy (plays at least 13 games), while McNabb also stays healthy (its been well documented that he hasn't played 2 healthy seasons in a row for awhile), if the retooled offensive line can get on the field together and gel quickly, and if the support players--Jackson, Maclin, Curtis, McCoy--come through, I think they are a strong threat to lead the league in scoring and total offense. If that happens, I see them winning the division for sure, no matter what the Giants or Cowboys are able to do.

However, with a defense that is likely to take a step back this year due to the loss of JJ and defection of Dawkins (not to mention losing Bradley), they are going to be heavily reliant upon those things coming to fruition in order for them to be a contender. I think in this case there are just too many "ifs". As good as this team looks now, I think it could go south really fast. I see them as having the most upside, but also being the most volatile.

3. Cowboys (25%)

So many people overlooking the Cowboys this year. After the collapse late last year, though...can't really blame them too much.

The reality remains, however, that this team still sports a very impressive roster. If you look at the starting units, the Cowboys don't have a single weakness, being significantly above average in every unit (QB, ball carriers, recievers, OL, DL, LBs, DBs) on the team.

The issue with this team, though, is depth. Not just depth, but depth at key positions. CB, LB, NT, C, G, and OT all have serious issues with the backups, issues that dont' appear to have a ready solution should a starter go down. Last season injuries to Kyle Kosier (replaced by Cory Procter, a center who is best used for spot duty), Terence Newman (replaced alternately by two rookies, Pacman, and Alan Ball), Tony Romo (replaced by the visibly decaying Brad Johnson, aka Mr Checkdown), Marion Barber and Felix Jones (capably replaced by Tashard Choice, but robbing the team of much explosiveness, grit and experience) all left the team scrambling.

This year, issues still remain each of those positions except backup QB. Should a key player or two go down, the Cowboys won't be able to recover.

Additionally, this team is coached by Wade Phillips.

Thank you and goodnight.

4. Redskins (12%)

I underestimated this team last year and got burned.

Mainly, though, the early play of Jason Campbell gave them a real boost. He fell back to earth later on, though, and that's probably the main reason why the fell off with a whimper.

You have to respect Haynesworth, at least until he proves that he will stop trying with the new big contract, and I like the Orakpo move as well. They have a lot of talent on defense, and their offense isn't too bad, either. I see them as a 7-9 type team, but they could surprise, especially if Campbell regains his early season 08 form.




If I have to pick right now, I say the Giants are most likely to win it. But we all know how crazy the NFL (not to mention the NFC East) is. This time last year we were talking about the Giants as a potential 6 or 8 win team, and they steamrolled their way to a #1 seed. The Cowboys were the universally hailed team and they fell apart and missed the playoffs. There are many twists and turns left before this resolves itself.

It should be fascinating to watch.

Geo
08-20-2009, 01:35 PM
I already put my name to the Cowboys. (http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34841)

All the stuff they went through last year, they won 9 games and could have won 2 or 3 more. Phillips is handling the defense entirely. Barber and Felix are healthy, which is the key as the running game is what will lead them back to the playoffs. Not celebrity QB Tony Romo although he will contribute to their success.

The Eagles arguably look like the best team in the NFC on paper, but I have a feeling they won't look as good on the field. But still good enough to make the playoffs, unless McNabb really gets injured in his every-other-year deal.

Giants defense looks nasty though.

Washington, I have zero faith to make the playoffs. Sorry, none. The OL is struggling badly, which means Jason Campbell will be as useless as ever and Clinton Portis is a year older. They put a pretty good defense out there, but they can't hold every opponent to under 16 points.

<===3
08-20-2009, 04:44 PM
First of all, all Giants fans need to quit making excuses for the WR train wreck. If the Giants have success this year, it will be due to a dominant defense and running game, both of which they are capable of fielding. But this WR corps is the worst in the league, and there isn't a very close second that comes to mind.
Really?

Jets
Dolphins
Rams
Bears
49ers
Raiders
Titans
Cheifs
Ravens
Cowboys

I'll take the Giants WR corp over all 10 of those teams.

Before pointing the finger, look at your Cowboys WR corp. Roy E Williams was putrid last season. Patrick Crayton is 30 years old and a mediocre #2 at best. Beyond that, a bunch of no names. For a team that passes on first, second and third down, you should be more concerned about your WRs than the Giants about theirs.

TitleTown088
08-20-2009, 04:48 PM
Really?

Jets
Dolphins
Rams
Bears
49ers
Raiders
Titans
Cheifs
Ravens
Cowboys

I'll take the Giants WR corp over all 10 of those teams.

Before pointing the finger, look at your Cowboys WR corp. Roy E Williams was putrid last season. Patrick Crayton is 30 years old and a mediocre #2 at best. Beyond that, a bunch of no names. For a team that passes on first, second and third down, you should be more concerned about your WRs than the Giants about theirs.

Haha, that user name is dank.

Bucs_Rule
08-20-2009, 06:12 PM
Jets: No, they have a few decent WRs.
Dolphins: No, Ginn is starting to emerge, close though.
Rams: About even
Bears: Yes
49ers: For this season Giants have slight edge.
Raiders: NFL worst
Titans: G-Men top them.
Cheifs: Bowe and crap beats Giants.
Ravens: About even

The Giants do have a few young receivers that could emerge. Based on potential I'd want their WRs over a bunch of other teams, but not for this season.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-20-2009, 07:10 PM
Jets: No, they have a few decent WRs.
Dolphins: No, Ginn is starting to emerge, close though.
Rams: About even
Bears: Yes
49ers: For this season Giants have slight edge.
Raiders: NFL worst
Titans: G-Men top them.
Cheifs: Bowe and crap beats Giants.
Ravens: About even

The Giants do have a few young receivers that could emerge. Based on potential I'd want their WRs over a bunch of other teams, but not for this season.

I don't see it as a big deal this season only because we normally run a 1 X 1 formation which is specifically an Ace-Double Tight formation. So all we need is an X and Z out there, with two tight ends. That's pretty much our staple formation. The I pro family is where we normally run our offense from. If we run a WCO, Air Croyell, or spread, then I agree.. We need WRs, but the fact that everything is based on the running game doesn't bother me.

wicket
08-20-2009, 07:14 PM
Don't read too much into who got drafted where. The Giants drafted Mathias Kiwanuka in the first round when they had Strahan, Osi and Tuck a few years ago.

they originally drafted kiwi to be a slb though if im not mistaking

NY+Giants=NYG
08-20-2009, 07:26 PM
they originally drafted kiwi to be a slb though if im not mistaking

No, he was a DE.. But since we had a logjam at DE, we needed to get him on the field, so that's why we converted him. Spags wanted the best 11 on the field. The emergence of Tuck was as surprise, it happened soo soon. So We had Strahan, Tuck, Kiwi, & Osi. Originally Strahan would retire and Kiwi would fill in. But Tuck tore it up, and then that's when things got interesting.

critesy
08-20-2009, 07:43 PM
Hmm... that is a contradiction, he is not hurt but he is hurt like everyone else?
-So you're telling me that everyone else is missing training camp and pre-season games because of a knee injury from last year? Interesting...

But, I'm probably in no position to speak about injuries seeing as the Eagles are dropping like flies. But, still it does not bode well for Big Al when he missed time at training camp with a knee injury from last year, especially considering the last time he played a full season was his rookie year.


i meant like.. he has bangs and bruises like everyone else so theyre not risking hurting him even more...

he hasnt missed any days of training camp either.. he practices in the morning then doesnt participate in afternoon practice but does conditioning and ****, ya know like ride the bike and what not.

21ST
08-20-2009, 07:59 PM
Obviously I went Giants BUT:

the Eagles (mainly westy) have had our number. Jim Johnson (RIP) also killed us, so we'll see how McDermott does filling his shoes. I'm still scared of Westy and Philly's overall speed on offense. Losing Dawkins hurts too.

The Cowboys: this year isn't their year, but honestly, that could be good for them. Why? then they can get Phillips the hell outta there. They've got a great foundation with 3 good RB's who can wreak havoc by committee, a good, fairly young #1 WR, and 2 kick ass TE's. Oh, and on D, they've got that Ware fellow. They've got some pieces, but this year isn't their year. Sub .500 in my book, which again, will probably help them in the future.

Skins: eh. fat Albert is nice, along with that DL (remember some skins fans saying the skins will NEVER draft a DE in the first and hadn't in like 20 years...yea, whoever that is, I hope he reads this and feels like an ass). But I'm not a fan of that OL and Campbell...I love the kid, but STOP MESSING WITH HIM WASHINGTON! 4 years, 4 new OC's or something like that. Trade rumors for Cutler and Big Taco. Like come on, show some faith. Portis is a beast, as is Santana but man, I dont see this team doing well this year at all.

It doesnt count if we draft a DE and put him at LB

scottyboy
08-20-2009, 10:08 PM
It doesnt count if we draft a DE and put him at LB

no, it counts. people gave Orakpo to the skins in mocks all the time and they bitched and moaned like crazy.

oh, and I feel that move is awful. just sayin'. but that's a topic for another time

scottyboy
08-20-2009, 10:10 PM
Jets: No, they have a few decent WRs.
Dolphins: No, Ginn is starting to emerge, close though.
Rams: About even
Bears: Yes
49ers: For this season Giants have slight edge.
Raiders: NFL worst
Titans: G-Men top them.
Cheifs: Bowe and crap beats Giants.
Ravens: About even

The Giants do have a few young receivers that could emerge. Based on potential I'd want their WRs over a bunch of other teams, but not for this season.

Jets have a few decent WRs? really, because I watch every Jets game and they've got Jericho and a bunch of young unproven guys. And Jericho's not that much better than Steve Smith or Hixon. Don't talk about stuff that you don't know about.

DMWSackMachine
08-21-2009, 01:17 PM
Jets have a few decent WRs? really, because I watch every Jets game and they've got Jericho and a bunch of young unproven guys. And Jericho's not that much better than Steve Smith or Hixon. Don't talk about stuff that you don't know about.


Or why don't you at least try to maintain some credibility and go after your boy there for making the ridiculous assertion that the Giants recieving corps is better than all those teams he listed, hmm?

The New York Giants will field a recieving corps that lacks a single reciever who has ever gone over 60 receptions or 700 yards in his career. Looking through the rosters of all NFL teams, there are only two teams that lack a reciever who has never gone over 60 receptions: Miami and Oakland. There is only one team who lacks a receiver who has ever gone over 700 yards in his career, being Chicago.

There is not a single team in the league aside from the Giants who has neither.

As much as Giants fans skeet all over Boss, he had a grand total of 33 catches for 384 yards last season.


Steve Smith is, ideally, a 3rd WR. He's a very nice option out of the slot and working the shallow zones. Try to make him carry your passing attack and you are going to be hurting pretty quick. There is a reason the Giants spent TWO OF THEIR TOP 3 PICKS ON WRs, as well as another one on a pass catching TE. They see the weakness and they are doing what they can to address it.

I'm not blaming the Giants for what they've done. Aside from TO, who was not an option for obvious reasons, there wasn't really any quality veteran talent available on the FA market, so they used the draft.

Not just that, but they appear to have a good enough ground game and defense to overcome their limitations in the passing game.


But this league is a passing league. The days of "run and stop the run" are long over, though people are so used to saying it that you still hear it bandied about on a regular basis. If those old standards had held true, the Minnesota Vikings would have won 3 Super Bowls this decade and the Colts would have never made the playoffs. Not having a single serious threat in the passing game will kill you. How can Giants fans seriously sit there and make all sorts of excuses about the DL injuries and all that when it is obvious that a SB quality team fell apart last year because of the loss of its only real threat?

I dont' want to go too far, because I have a lot of respect for what the Giants have assembled roster-wise. But a weakness like this can hold a team hostage.

DMWSackMachine
08-21-2009, 01:25 PM
Jets have a few decent WRs? really, because I watch every Jets game and they've got Jericho and a bunch of young unproven guys. And Jericho's not that much better than Steve Smith or Hixon. Don't talk about stuff that you don't know about.

Not to pile on, but the first part of this is ridiculous homerism. You say that they have "Cotchery and a bunch of unproven guys" when ALL the Giants have is unproven guys. Dustin Keller was as much of a receiving threat last year as Steve Smith was, and the Jets have guys out of the backfield that are serious receiving threats as well.


AND JERICHO COTCHERY BY HIMSELF IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING YOU HAVE, which goes a long way to establishing a competent receiving corps. He may not be Calvin Johnson, but he's capable to taking on some doubles and providing a consistent threat. His best season is almost twice that of your best recievers best season. How can you be so far removed from reality?

NY+Giants=NYG
08-21-2009, 01:25 PM
But this league is a passing league. The days of "run and stop the run" are long over, though people are so used to saying it that you still hear it bandied about on a regular basis.


I disagree with that. If you can strike a good balance or even be in a run heavy offense, with creative passing concepts, you can survive in this league. But again there are so many variables to consider, such as system, OC, position coaches, and then players. I think like everything else in the NFL there are fads and trends but overall proven systems tend to stick around. I think a running team or a passing team can survive if they can do the other to a competent level.

DMWSackMachine
08-21-2009, 01:38 PM
I disagree with that. If you can strike a good balance or even be in a run heavy offense, with creative passing concepts, you can survive in this league. But again there are so many variables to consider, such as system, OC, position coaches, and then players. I think like everything else in the NFL there are fads and trends but overall proven systems tend to stick around. I think a running team or a passing team can survive if they can do the other to a competent level.

Oh, no doubt....but what's a competent level?


In the past, the reality was simply that if you were able to run at an elite level and stop the run at an elite level, you would have a chance to win it all. Look at the Vikings and you see that model no longer bears out.



But looking at the Colts, a team that was an elite passing offense and passing defense, you see them have much more success even when they were struggling to run defend.

Not saying that run heavy teams can't win, but they still have to be able to pass the ball competently. And by competently I mean have a guy who is a threat to go for 100 yards every time he steps on the field. The last team to win without a guy like that was NE, and they had an elite QB, elite special teams, an elite run defense, and an elite pass defense. Even with all that, they needed a solid stable of WRs with 4 "decent to good" guys. And they won every SB by 3 points. Their margin for error was microscopic.

Just look at last season. The two regular season champs were both run heavy offenses that also had strong run defenses. Both lost their first playoff game.

The eventual conference champions were both pass heavy teams, as were 3 of the 4 teams that played in the conference championship game. All the evidence is there. You need to be able to pass the ball well to win at the highest level in this league.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-21-2009, 01:49 PM
Oh, no doubt....but what's a competent level?


In the past, the reality was simply that if you were able to run at an elite level and stop the run at an elite level, you would have a chance to win it all. Look at the Vikings and you see that model no longer bears out.



But looking at the Colts, a team that was an elite passing offense and passing defense, you see them have much more success even when they were struggling to run defend.

Not saying that run heavy teams can't win, but they still have to be able to pass the ball competently. And by competently I mean have a guy who is a threat to go for 100 yards every time he steps on the field. The last team to win without a guy like that was NE, and they had an elite QB, elite special teams, an elite run defense, and an elite pass defense. Even with all that, they needed a solid stable of WRs with 4 "decent to good" guys. And they won every SB by 3 points. Their margin for error was microscopic.

Just look at last season. The two regular season champs were both run heavy offenses that also had strong run defenses. Both lost their first playoff game.

The eventual conference champions were both pass heavy teams, as were 3 of the 4 teams that played in the conference championship game. All the evidence is there. You need to be able to pass the ball well to win at the highest level in this league.



Competent level to me is where you can be effective doing it, be it pass or run, so that your passing or running concepts can still produce. The Vikings suck at passing though. Against the Eagles in the playoffs, I can barely remember Jackson getting into Eagles territory. There should be some level where you can carry your own weight. It doesn't have to be your bread and butter, but you should have other stuff too, such as tendency breakers and so on.

They lost for various reasons. Don't know their gameplan and what they were trying to achieve and what the surrounding variables are or were. I think a 1,000 WR is good, but speaking specifically for our offense, things have gotten adjusted. So going on past production or stats now, in the passing scheme, doesn't really carry over. It's not like stuff is staying exactly the same. So it could work or it may not. I think because our running game is elite, that it will take pressure off the passing game. Plus we have good depth at that position and judging from the stuff installed I would guess a lot of the concepts will be run that we never ran before.

Brothgar
08-21-2009, 02:07 PM
Don't read too much into who got drafted where. The Giants drafted Mathias Kiwanuka in the first round when they had Strahan, Osi and Tuck a few years ago.

IIRC There was a lot of talk of Strahan calling it quits in the not to distant future during that draft.

Take into consideration we changed our passing scheme as well since we no longer have Burress and Toomer. Another example is drafting an H back, hybrid TE, in Beckum. It really had nothing to do with confidence, but more to do with changing passing concepts now that we don't have two wrs like Plax and Burress.

I'm confused so you changed your passing scheme because you lost Toomer and Burress. You are confident in those two guys to use this new scheme yet you drafted two WRs anyway? I think I must be reading you wrong. If they were changing it anyway then why not you know change it so that the WRs that you have such confidence in can be more effective in it?

scottyboy
08-21-2009, 03:15 PM
Not to pile on, but the first part of this is ridiculous homerism. You say that they have "Cotchery and a bunch of unproven guys" when ALL the Giants have is unproven guys. Dustin Keller was as much of a receiving threat last year as Steve Smith was, and the Jets have guys out of the backfield that are serious receiving threats as well.


AND JERICHO COTCHERY BY HIMSELF IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING YOU HAVE, which goes a long way to establishing a competent receiving corps. He may not be Calvin Johnson, but he's capable to taking on some doubles and providing a consistent threat. His best season is almost twice that of your best recievers best season. How can you be so far removed from reality?

since you love going after my posts and then once I clearly prove you wrong you stop, let's give this a whirl.

There is no doubt in my mind I've watched more of Cotchery than you have. He's a nice WR but not a #1. He is about on par with a guy like Hixon or Smith. Oh, and then there's that little fall to guys like Chansi Stuckey, David Clowney, Brad Smith, Wallace Wright, Marcus Henry, Aundrae Allison. So let's go with this, shall we:

Cotchery>Hixon
Smith> Stuckey/Clowney/Brad Smith

the gap of how much Smith is better than those guys more than makes up for the gap of Jericho and Hixon.

And when did we bring TE's and RB's into this? honestly, you're making yourself just seem like a total fool. I didn't make that claim, just correcting a kid who's wrong about the Jets WR corps. This is just hilarious.

Tell me, where's that top Dallas secondary? The one with potential to be the best of the decade?

Sniper
08-21-2009, 03:29 PM
the gap of how much Smith is better than those guys more than makes up for the gap of Jericho and Hixon.

Not even close. Smith's a good third-down option, but you're making him out to be some top-notch guy. They're very similar players and Stuckey put up very solid numbers for a guy who was the 5th passing option.

scottyboy
08-21-2009, 03:33 PM
Not even close. Smith's a good third-down option, but you're making him out to be some top-notch guy. They're very similar players and Stuckey put up very solid numbers for a guy who was the 5th passing option.

no. Cotch lost a big step last year. He was very average. Targeted a lot, but not the WR people make him out to be. Jets fans talk how they should've stayed at 17, drafted Maclin and gave Clemens a shot. Cotch and Hixon aren't too far apart in terms of talent right now. Then there's Smith against guys who caught maybe 20 in their career.

And Stuckey was more of the 3rd option. Brett loved him because his vert is incredible and he bailed him out week one against the phins.

I'm not making Smith out to be a top notch guy but he's a nice #2 option, as is Hixon. And Cotchery. Cotch's experience makes him able to run as a #1 WR, but he's far from something special.

Forenci
08-21-2009, 03:50 PM
I have to agree with Scotty on this one. Cotchery is a pretty good wide receiver, but he's not much more than a solid/good number two. He's got nice hands and is a reliable wide receiver but in an ideal situation he kind of reminds me of Steve Smith in some ways.

He's more of an underneath wide receiver who isn't a big deep threat nor is he terrific at getting separation. Granted I'd take Cotchery over Smith now, but I think this year will be interesting in comparing the two as Smith should see more footballs thrown his way as the teams number one/two wide out with the loss of Burress and Toomer.

Like Scotty mentioned Cotchery took a huge step backwards last year which is obvious to most people if you watched him. He was great with Pennington because Chad couldn't really throw it down field but with Favre he showed a significant inability to get down field and get separation.

As for the rest of the Giants vs Jets WR corps its really debatable. Most of them are unproven and haven't been that consistent. I think the Giants probably have more upside just because they have a lot of young talented guys, where as the Jets probably have more reliable and experienced wide receivers.

Sniper
08-21-2009, 03:52 PM
Smith is a #3, cut from the same cloth as Jason Avant.

Sniper
08-21-2009, 03:53 PM
And Stuckey was more of the 3rd option.

Cotchery, Coles, Keller, Washington and then Stuckey.

Forenci
08-21-2009, 03:55 PM
Yes, ideally Steve Smith is a number three wide receiver. He does an excellent job of working out of the slot.

Also, Keller completely disappeared the second half of the season too, for what its worth. Although that may because there were some reports Mangini didn't like Keller much, but who knows.

Sniper
08-21-2009, 03:57 PM
Yes, ideally Steve Smith is a number three wide receiver. He does an excellent job of working out of the slot.

I like him a lot, mainly because he reminds me so much of Avant.

Forenci
08-21-2009, 04:21 PM
I like him a lot, mainly because he reminds me so much of Avant.

Yeah, he's kind of like Avant, but I'd say Avant is a little faster and Smith is probably a better route runner.

Sniper
08-21-2009, 04:22 PM
Yeah, he's kind of like Avant, but I'd say Avant is a little faster and Smith is probably a better route runner.

Really? I'd have it the other way around. Avant's routes are crisp, man.

DMWSackMachine
08-21-2009, 04:29 PM
since you love going after my posts and then once I clearly prove you wrong you stop, let's give this a whirl.

There is no doubt in my mind I've watched more of Cotchery than you have. He's a nice WR but not a #1. He is about on par with a guy like Hixon or Smith. Oh, and then there's that little fall to guys like Chansi Stuckey, David Clowney, Brad Smith, Wallace Wright, Marcus Henry, Aundrae Allison. So let's go with this, shall we:

Cotchery>Hixon
Smith> Stuckey/Clowney/Brad Smith

the gap of how much Smith is better than those guys more than makes up for the gap of Jericho and Hixon.

And when did we bring TE's and RB's into this? honestly, you're making yourself just seem like a total fool. I didn't make that claim, just correcting a kid who's wrong about the Jets WR corps. This is just hilarious.

Tell me, where's that top Dallas secondary? The one with potential to be the best of the decade?



So....you're method of "proving" me wrong is to say, effectively, "I have seen Cotchery more than you and I he's not as good as you say he is?"

Really, is that your professional opinion, doctor?


Let's do this:


WR name...............Career Highs
Hixon....................57/574/1
Smith...................43/596/2
Cotchery...............82/1130/6


Do the math and Cotchery's best seasons are comparable or better to that of Hixon and Smith combined in both yards and TDs while he's close in receptions. And yet your oh-so-informed assesment is that they are "roughly the same" as players. Get real. Talk about making yourself look like a fool.



As for bringing TEs and RBs into it, my underlying thesis here is that the Giants are in serious danger of having their lack of a passing game hold the entire team hostage this year. They are entering the season with the least amount of proven production of any team in the league, or did you miss the part where I broke that down?


And, just for your own good, you should probably listen to Sniper on this one. Stuckey had the 6th most receptions on the team. The Jets were heavy into modified formations and RB/LB/S mismatches last year, especially in the way they used Leon Washington. They also are fielding a pass catching TE who is basically a WR, who himself--as a raw rookie--was as productive as any player on your team last year.

So, no, the Giants can't sniff the Jets jock on this one. The Giants are fielding a WR corps featuring one guy who is a borderline 2/ideal 3 with potential to become a solid 2, another guy who is a solid 3 and then a bunch of first year players and scrubs. The Jets have a potential elite pass catching TE, a very solid 2 who could be a co-1 in the right situation, an excellent pass catching back, and a guy in Stuckey who looks like a solid 3 (and then a bunch of scrubs).

NYJ's receiving corps is certainly nothing to brag on, but its far and away better than the Giants. What it ultimately comes down to is a vast over-estimation of your teams players at the position. You clearly value both Hixon and Smith far above where they should be value at, considering neither player has caught more than 2 TDs in a a season, nor exceeded 60 rec or 700 yards in a season. And neither one has done anything to suggest that they have star potential down the line, either. Just accept it, the evidence is overwhelming.

scottyboy
08-21-2009, 04:39 PM
Cotchery, Coles, Keller, Washington and then Stuckey.

eh, Favre looked to Stuckey quite a bit though. Earlier in the year he was a favorite of his. Until fatboy mangini decided to not utilize Stuckey as much in the 2nd half of the year. one of the many reasons for the Jets collapse, but that's a story for another day.

scottyboy
08-21-2009, 04:40 PM
wow, now we're using career bests! awesome, let's not bring into account age or guys on the decline who had sub-par seasons at best. no, that's fine.

you know guyz, I really think this Giants WR corps is top 10 in the league with the potential to be the best of the decade.

DMWSackMachine
08-21-2009, 04:41 PM
I have to agree with Scotty on this one. Cotchery is a pretty good wide receiver, but he's not much more than a solid/good number two. He's got nice hands and is a reliable wide receiver but in an ideal situation he kind of reminds me of Steve Smith in some ways.

He's more of an underneath wide receiver who isn't a big deep threat nor is he terrific at getting separation. Granted I'd take Cotchery over Smith now, but I think this year will be interesting in comparing the two as Smith should see more footballs thrown his way as the teams number one/two wide out with the loss of Burress and Toomer.

Like Scotty mentioned Cotchery took a huge step backwards last year which is obvious to most people if you watched him. He was great with Pennington because Chad couldn't really throw it down field but with Favre he showed a significant inability to get down field and get separation.

As for the rest of the Giants vs Jets WR corps its really debatable. Most of them are unproven and haven't been that consistent. I think the Giants probably have more upside just because they have a lot of young talented guys, where as the Jets probably have more reliable and experienced wide receivers.



All I'm hearing here is that the Jets badly misused him, no? I watched plenty of Jets last year and he didn't visibly seem to have lost anything, nor should he have at the tender age of 26. Some players have down years, that's part of the game, but I find it highly doubtful that he would have simply regressed for no appartent reason, as everything I've ever heard about the kid is that he's a hard worker who keeps his nose clean and goes about his business.

Far more likely is that he was simply being misused as a down the field receiver when he thrives more as a run after the catch guy who works the middle of the field.


And there is no way you can possibly say that its a toss up between the two. When I say recieving corps, I'm talking about all pass catchers on the team. Its really not close between these two teams.

scottyboy
08-21-2009, 04:45 PM
All I'm hearing here is that the Jets badly misused him, no? I watched plenty of Jets last year and he didn't visibly seem to have lost anything, nor should he have at the tender age of 26. Some players have down years, that's part of the game, but I find it highly doubtful that he would have simply regressed for no appartent reason, as everything I've ever heard about the kid is that he's a hard worker who keeps his nose clean and goes about his business.

Far more likely is that he was simply being misused as a down the field receiver when he thrives more as a run after the catch guy who works the middle of the field.


And there is no way you can possibly say that its a toss up between the two. When I say recieving corps, I'm talking about all pass catchers on the team. Its really not close between these two teams.

see, we're going off of what they did recently while you're living on Jericho's career best where he'd sit in curls or break in short out routes and live off Chad's lack of arm strength and love of the underneath game.

DMWSackMachine
08-21-2009, 04:58 PM
wow, now we're using career bests! awesome, let's not bring into account age or guys on the decline who had sub-par seasons at best. no, that's fine.

you know guyz, I really think this Giants WR corps is top 10 in the league with the potential to be the best of the decade.



As opposed to what?


Scottyboy's Scouting Reports Depot? Probably the biggest self-admitted homer on the board?


You are calling a 27 year old receiver with a proven pedigree as a highly productive player "in decline" after having a bit of a down year that was still 30 or 40% better than the players you are comparing him to. In this down year you mentioned he still had more receiving TDs than your two starting WRs have in their entire careers.


Numbers aren't perfect, but they do help illustrate and prove out the things that we see on the field. I'm saying that Cotchery is a superb #2 who could be a successful co#1 in the right circumstances and that he is an excellent, proven producer of receptions, yards and TDs in the NFL. I'm saying that Smith is a nice slot guy who can work the short and intermediate areas of the fields effectively as long as he is free to do his work and not being focused on by the defense and that Hixon is kind of a bit guy who is best served as a 3rd reciever for stretching the field and threatening defenses, but doesn't have the consistency in his hands, route running, or mental focus to be more than just that.

Interestingly enough, the numbers actually line up with what I'm saying, while they fly in the face of your assertions. Burden of proof is on you to explain, in a compelling manner, why.

scottyboy
08-21-2009, 05:10 PM
let's get one thing straight: I'm the self admitted biggest Rutgers homer on the board. I've never criticized them (except Mike Teel at times, but that's a whole 'nother story).

I have no problem criticizing the Giants or bringing out our faults. Pierce is a fat, slow, double chinned idiot who's only out there because of his brain.

we're relying on young WR's, most of whom unproven

our OL depth makes me cringe

Our safety depth makes me cringe as well (except CC Brown laying lumber like a lumberjack)

I'm not 100% confident in danny ware, as we all know Jacobs won't play a full season.

I can admit all these things, but I know the difference between the Jets WR's and Giants is not as big as you're making it out to be. And I'm talking full out WR's. No TE's and RB's. Keller is a freak recieving TE and LWash is one of the most dangerous players in the league if utilized properly. But strictly talking the WR position, the Giants and Jets are a toss up.

And yes, Cotch was in decline after last year. He had a pretty bad year, which is decline. I mean, Braylon Edwards was a budding stud until he caught the dropsies from Tim Carter, and now he's in the shitter in the minds of most fans. So he's in the decline. Cotch struggled mightly getting seperation and making plays last year, hence him being on the decline.

Forenci
08-21-2009, 05:15 PM
All I'm hearing here is that the Jets badly misused him, no? I watched plenty of Jets last year and he didn't visibly seem to have lost anything, nor should he have at the tender age of 26. Some players have down years, that's part of the game, but I find it highly doubtful that he would have simply regressed for no appartent reason, as everything I've ever heard about the kid is that he's a hard worker who keeps his nose clean and goes about his business.

Far more likely is that he was simply being misused as a down the field receiver when he thrives more as a run after the catch guy who works the middle of the field.


And there is no way you can possibly say that its a toss up between the two. When I say recieving corps, I'm talking about all pass catchers on the team. Its really not close between these two teams.

Not even close? Really? Come on. Now you're just trying to be overly dramatic. Both teams don't really have a great wide receivers across the board.

By the way, nice job using career numbers of a guy who has been a starter for several years (Cotchery) comparing them to Hixon who was a career special teams player until this year, and even then he was behind Smith, Burress and Toomer the first half of the year and to Steve Smith who's been a third option slot receiver his entire career. That seems like a fair and objective way to compare them instead of actually watching them play. But then again I suppose common sense and logic are pretty arbitrary.

Also, nice job misreading my post and ignoring the fact I never said Cotchery regressed from a talent stand point last year. I said he took a step backwards because the offense changed with Favre instead of Pennington which led to him having to run routes which required separation (which is something he doesn't get).

Also, Cotchery is not a 'great' wide receiver. He's good, but certainly not anything close to great. I mean how often do you see people bring up Jericho Cotchery when discussing the ten best wide receivers in the league? Uh, never.

I'd gladly take Cotchery on the Giants but I wouldn't want him as our number one, and I'd want to have a good slot receiver like a Steve Smith to help compliment him as well.

Thumper
08-21-2009, 05:40 PM
I can't believe I'm about to do this.

I actually like the Giants receivers. They have a nice collection of players who can do different things.

I REALLY wanted the Eagles to draft Hakeem Nicks in the draft but they drafted Maclin instead. Nicks is a big physical receiver with glue for hands and I really think he will be good.

They have Ramses Barden who is really raw but he has the tools. He should be a great red-zone weapon for the Giants and if reports out of Giants camp are true he could end up being very good.

Steve Smith IMO is a fine #2, he is a steady option with good hands and he runs good routes. So, he isn't explosive but there are plenty of good receivers who aren't explosive like TJ Houshmanzadeh, Hines Ward and Derrick Mason just to name a few. Just because you aren't explosive doesn't mean you can't be good.

Hixon is pretty quick and he has good size. If the Giants gave him a shot at the #1 WR spot I think he could succeed. He did lead the Giants in receiving last year I believe.

Sinorice Moss and Mario Manningham are IMO busts or if they aren't already they will be. However that isn't implying that they can't be good deep threats. Both are fast players who can stretch the field and can be thrown out on the field to complement Nicks, Barden, Smith and Hixon.

Overall I think the receiving core is in many ways similar to what the Eagles had last year when the Eagles set franchise records in scoring, I think that this will be a good receiver by committee type of deal where things are split up and each receiver has a designated role. I actually can't believe that they don't get more hype on this board.

D-Unit
08-21-2009, 05:50 PM
Well, I'm more interested in finding out why Ward voted for the Cowboys. He's usually trying to tell the Cowboys forum we've got too much optimism. That we need to be more grounded.

I voted for the Giants because everyone should EXPECT them to win. Things might change once the Cowboys start winning though. ;)

NY+Giants=NYG
08-22-2009, 10:43 AM
IIRC There was a lot of talk of Strahan calling it quits in the not to distant future during that draft.



I'm confused so you changed your passing scheme because you lost Toomer and Burress. You are confident in those two guys to use this new scheme yet you drafted two WRs anyway? I think I must be reading you wrong. If they were changing it anyway then why not you know change it so that the WRs that you have such confidence in can be more effective in it?

Yeah the passing scheme was tailored towards our X wr, which is Burress, and his skill set. These included routes, depth of routes, and certain passing concepts within the overall passing game. Now when Plax went down, we were running that offense for his skill set but with Hixon. You can't work that way.

So we chose not to re-sign Toomer, because we developed Smith, Manningham, and Plax had his issues. So we drafted two WRs and TE/H-back in Beckum. So we basically adjusted the passing game now to fit our existing wrs, and their skill set, via passing concepts and routes. We didn't,however change, the system 100%, ie WCO, Spread, Air Raid, or Air Croyell.

Number 10
08-22-2009, 12:58 PM
Two team race between Eagles and Giants. The division is still very strong, but it may no longer be the best in football as the Skins and Cowboys are not keeping up with Philly and NY. The Giants are deeper than the Eagles but if injuries are not an issue, Philly has the edge. Both could enter January with 12+ wins.

DMWSackMachine
08-22-2009, 07:10 PM
I can't believe I'm about to do this.

I actually like the Giants receivers. They have a nice collection of players who can do different things.

I REALLY wanted the Eagles to draft Hakeem Nicks in the draft but they drafted Maclin instead. Nicks is a big physical receiver with glue for hands and I really think he will be good.

They have Ramses Barden who is really raw but he has the tools. He should be a great red-zone weapon for the Giants and if reports out of Giants camp are true he could end up being very good.

Steve Smith IMO is a fine #2, he is a steady option with good hands and he runs good routes. So, he isn't explosive but there are plenty of good receivers who aren't explosive like TJ Houshmanzadeh, Hines Ward and Derrick Mason just to name a few. Just because you aren't explosive doesn't mean you can't be good.

Hixon is pretty quick and he has good size. If the Giants gave him a shot at the #1 WR spot I think he could succeed. He did lead the Giants in receiving last year I believe.

Sinorice Moss and Mario Manningham are IMO busts or if they aren't already they will be. However that isn't implying that they can't be good deep threats. Both are fast players who can stretch the field and can be thrown out on the field to complement Nicks, Barden, Smith and Hixon.

Overall I think the receiving core is in many ways similar to what the Eagles had last year when the Eagles set franchise records in scoring, I think that this will be a good receiver by committee type of deal where things are split up and each receiver has a designated role. I actually can't believe that they don't get more hype on this board.



Maybe you aren't getting my point.


First of all, what actually happens is not necessarily relevent to what I'm saying. Ramses Barden could be the new Marques Colston, Steve Smith could become Steve Smith and Hixon could turn into Torry Holt, and what I'm trying to say would still be perfectly true.

My point is that the Giants have the receiving corps with the least amount of proven success in the league. Period. They don't have a single player who has done it before, and we saw the majority of these players struggle last year in the same situation.

All they've added to that are two (albeit promsing, but still) rookies at a position that is notorious for being one of the slowest developing positions in the NFL.

We're talking about prospects here, much like the NFL draft is about prospects. Chances of success. Given the information we have, they have the worst prospects for success in the league...or at least right there at the bottom. Is Tom Brady a great NFL QB? Yes. Does that mean he was a great prospect? Hell no.

I am in no way saying the Giants are screwed for sure. What I'm saying is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they could be. Whatever your personal feelings on Nicks and Barden are, that is neither here nor there.

And comparing this group to last year's Eagles group is faulty in two ways: 1) the Eagles had a returning 1000 yard receiver as well as the best recieving back in the game and a QB who had proven time and time again that, somehow, he was able to make do with crappy targets if it came to that and 2) no one could have known that Desean Jackson was going to have the season he had. I don't care how much you thought of him as a prospect or how great he looked in camp, if you make a habit of relying on rookie 2nd round picks to anchor your pass offense you are not going to have a job for long.

And not just that, but the Eagles weren't that great a passing team, either. They may have gone for 4000 yards, but they threw the ball 600 times. Their YPA was among the worst in the league.

Thumper
08-22-2009, 09:30 PM
And not just that, but the Eagles weren't that great a passing team, either. They may have gone for 4000 yards, but they threw the ball 600 times. Their YPA was among the worst in the league.


Have you ever heard of a WCO? Apparently not. Because if you did you wouldn't knock the Eagles for having a low YPA. The West Coast offense is essentially the running game through the passing game. It is predicated on receivers catching the ball and running after the catch. Slants, quick outs, and curls are all mainstays of the West Coast Offense. Thus, the YPC is lower than teams that run a more vertical passing scheme like the Chargers and Cardinals. If you knew this you wouldn't knock them. Because the short, quick pass is the staple of the offense, which obviously will lower your YPA.

And the Eagles passing game wasn't that great? Sorry but last time I checked the sixth rated passing game in the NFL is pretty damn good. Also the Eagles had 10 players top 200 yards receiving.

And apparently you missed my point. The Giants have a group of receivers who each do something different. JUST like the Eagles, the Giants will be going with a receiving by committee, JUST LIKE THE EAGLES DID last season when 10 players had over 200 yards.

xxxxxxxx
08-22-2009, 09:48 PM
Better start worrying about the Cowboys...

DMWSackMachine
08-22-2009, 10:25 PM
Have you ever heard of a WCO? Apparently not. Because if you did you wouldn't knock the Eagles for having a low YPA. The West Coast offense is essentially the running game through the passing game. It is predicated on receivers catching the ball and running after the catch. Slants, quick outs, and curls are all mainstays of the West Coast Offense. Thus, the YPC is lower than teams that run a more vertical passing scheme like the Chargers and Cardinals. If you knew this you wouldn't knock them. Because the short, quick pass is the staple of the offense, which obviously will lower your YPA.

And the Eagles passing game wasn't that great? Sorry but last time I checked the sixth rated passing game in the NFL is pretty damn good. Also the Eagles had 10 players top 200 yards receiving.

And apparently you missed my point. The Giants have a group of receivers who each do something different. JUST like the Eagles, the Giants will be going with a receiving by committee, JUST LIKE THE EAGLES DID last season when 10 players had over 200 yards.


Ugh....I don't know why I'm responding to this drivel, but I guess I can't help it.


The West Coast offense you so smugly refer to has produced some of the highest YPA seasons in NFL history. Steve Young, probably the the prototypical WCO QB produced seasons of 9.0, 8.7, 8.6, 8.5, 8.0 during his prime in the 90s, numbers that regularly led the league. Montana did the same thing as well. Elway, in a career of lackluster YPAs, posted a career high 7.88 in his last NFL season, the third under Mike Shanahan who brought the WCO with him to Denver.

Better yet, lets compare apples to apples. The Eagles themselves have run the same scheme for McNabb's entire career. When was McNabb at his best? Obviously, the year with TO in 04 was his best year. Additionally, they were also the most dangerous early in 06 before McNabb blew out his ACL and Garcia was able to save the season. Their YPAs in those seasons? 7.7 and 7.9 respectively, with McNabb posting career highs of 8.38 and 8.26 during those seasons (vs. 6.8 last year).


You fail.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-22-2009, 10:40 PM
Ugh....I don't know why I'm responding to this drivel, but I guess I can't help it.


The West Coast offense you so smugly refer to has produced some of the highest YPA seasons in NFL history. Steve Young, probably the the prototypical WCO QB produced seasons of 9.0, 8.7, 8.6, 8.5, 8.0 during his prime in the 90s, numbers that regularly led the league. Montana did the same thing as well. Elway, in a career of lackluster YPAs, posted a career high 7.88 in his last NFL season, the third under Mike Shanahan who brought the WCO with him to Denver.

Better yet, lets compare apples to apples. The Eagles themselves have run the same scheme for McNabb's entire career. When was McNabb at his best? Obviously, the year with TO in 04 was his best year. Additionally, they were also the most dangerous early in 06 before McNabb blew out his ACL and Garcia was able to save the season. Their YPAs in those seasons? 7.7 and 7.9 respectively, with McNabb posting career highs of 8.38 and 8.26 during those seasons (vs. 6.8 last year).


You fail.



LOL.. Good post!

scottyboy
08-22-2009, 10:52 PM
Better start worrying about the Cowboys...

wait, after a preseason game? really? it's the preseason.

although, if Garret uses Barber and the 2 TE sets like he did, the Cowboys O has a bit a power. Could give LB's and safeties fits.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-22-2009, 10:54 PM
wait, after a preseason game? really? it's the preseason.

although, if Garret uses Barber and the 2 TE sets like he did, the Cowboys O has a bit a power. Could give LB's and safeties fits.

The have a sick play called steamer, where they clear out, and isolate the RB, who will be Jones, on the mike, and have him run a option route. It's a sick play and expect to see that this year.

xxxxxxxx
08-23-2009, 09:30 AM
Martellus Bennett is going to cause problems for anyone.

I love the thought that the cowboys are a distant 3rd and the eagles and giants are so much better. Maybe it's what this team needs. Finally underdogs.

We will see. But i think you will be surprised... homerism aside.

SeanTaylorRIP
08-23-2009, 10:04 AM
For the Skins I am expecting a top 5 defense and 32nd ranked offense. That should configure to around 7-9 or 8-8.

bearsfan_51
08-23-2009, 10:17 AM
Giants. But I think the Redskins will finish second.

scottyboy
08-23-2009, 10:24 AM
Martellus Bennett is going to cause problems for anyone.

I love the thought that the cowboys are a distant 3rd and the eagles and giants are so much better. Maybe it's what this team needs. Finally underdogs.

We will see. But i think you will be surprised... homerism aside.

yea but like, you have Bennett last year. This year you just lost TO, which yea yea, he's a diva and a cancer, but you can't argue his talent. you lose that, and it's not like the cowboys dominated last year...or even made the playoffs.

losing TO could be a blessing in disguise but yea, i'm not seeing it.

Todd Bertuzzi
08-23-2009, 10:25 AM
I think the Giants will win the division, but the Eagles will beat them in the playoffs :D

critesy
08-27-2009, 05:06 PM
redskins will make the playoffs.

tjsunstein
08-27-2009, 10:29 PM
Giants. But I think the Redskins will finish second.

Interesting, sir. Any reason to this crazy talk or just a hunch?