2009 NFL Predictions

Home of your relocated 5-time World Series champions

Moderator: Cardinals

User avatar
Astros
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: PHX
Name: Ty Bradley

Post by Astros »

Eli led 2 drives over 80 yards for touchdowns in the 4th. Make excuses all you want, you were beat by Eli AND the Giants defense
User avatar
Cardinals
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Manch Vegas, CT
Name: John Paul Starkey

Post by Cardinals »

I don't think Bren was saying Eli didn't play well in the Super Bowl, but talking about the year as a whole. If you justify paying a contract off of two drives as opposed to a whole body of work, well, I hope you become the Indy GM soon :-)
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

Pirates wrote:If you justify paying a contract off of two drives as opposed to a whole body of work, well, I hope you become the Indy GM soon :-)
Amen.

He was pretty poor early in the playoffs as well. There's a reason NY had the 21st ranked passing offense that season... Eli Manning.
User avatar
Yankees
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fulshear, TX
Name: Brett Zalaski
Contact:

Post by Yankees »

Pirates wrote:I don't think Bren was saying Eli didn't play well in the Super Bowl, but talking about the year as a whole. If you justify paying a contract off of two drives as opposed to a whole body of work, well, I hope you become the Indy GM soon :-)
I'm not sure you can find one Giants fan who doesn't believe Eli has continued to get better every year. He was at his apex in value coming off the Super Bowl, and has responded to his contract signing by having the two best years of his professional career. He plays every game, he works hard at being a great quarterback, and doesn't make excuses. His best wide receiver has been a guy who has a "passing interest" in football at best.

And you all continue to get off subject - you think the Giants win that Super Bowl with Kent Graham? Danny Kanell? Dave Brown? Hell, the Kurt Warner who couldn't throw into the wind at Giants Stadium? The answer to all of those is: "Of course not."

The Giants, from a personnel and cap management perspective are one of the most well run teams in the NFL. That won't change with whatever crap happens over the next few years.

The other thing that doesn't change is the fact that if the Giants give up Eli Manning because he's "too expensive" - THEY DON'T HAVE ELI MANNING! I'm not sure how difficult a concept this seems to be to grasp. Above average NFL quarterbacks do not grow on trees. It's a very small list that's filled with a list that looks (from a background perspective) - EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE LIST OF CRAPPY QB'S IN THIS LEAGUE! 1st round picks are sometimes great or sometimes suck. Undrafted free agents become Kurt Warner - or suck. 6th Round picks are Tom Brady or Andre Woodson.

You think after the decade of crap the Giants rolled out they wouldn't do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to avoid that shit again? Not everyone gets Peyton Manning (1st round pick) or Tom Brady (6th round pick). Most of us have to go to battle with the best hand dealt, and, sometimes, overpay for it - just so we don't have to start Danny Goddamn Kanell.

To wrap this up:
1) Did the Giants overpay for Eli Manning? Yes.
2) Has Eli Manning's contract ever impeded the Giants from going after any potential free agent? No.
3) Is Eli Manning an above average quarterback in the NFL? Yes.
4) Is he positively trending statistically as he enters his prime athletic years? Yes.
5) Have the Giants proven they can win with Eli Manning as their starting quarterback? Yes.
6) I'll answer it again, because it seems to be everyone's hang-up, "Did the Giants overpay for Eli Manning?" Yes.

JP and Bren - it's not like the Patriots came out of the Brady draft and said, "Our 6th round pick is going to win multiple Super Bowls and MVP's." They made a great pick, got pretty goddamn lucky, and got an absolute stud. If they were so sure of Brady, that wouldn't have passed him with at least 5 picks in the *hopes* he'd slide. You root for a team that's the exception - not the rule. Please remember that.
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

'I'm not sure you can find one Giants fan who doesn't believe Eli has continued to get better every year."

Sorry, but that's feakin hilarious. Gee, you mean Giants homers love Manning? SHOCKER!

You can talk about manning's stats this year all you want, but he failed to make the big plays. Hell, down the stretch, when the team needed it most, he even failed to make the above average plays. 16 points, 1 TD and 3 picks in the last two games... Even Matt Shaub had his team in contention the last day of the season. You can cry about injuries all you want (and I'm sure you will) but every team faces injury issues throughout the season, with rare exceptions.

You're right though, the Patriots certainly have been Exceptional. :)
User avatar
Yankees
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fulshear, TX
Name: Brett Zalaski
Contact:

Post by Yankees »

Before I move on, can you answer the following 3 questions:
1) Did you watch the Giants games the past 2 weeks?
2) Do you follow football on a regular basis?
3) Are you just trying to piss me off, or are you really this dumb about football?
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

1. No
2. Yes
3. It's an amusing little bonus; No, you're just that much of a Giants homer.

Two weeks, 1 td, 3 picks.
User avatar
Yankees
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fulshear, TX
Name: Brett Zalaski
Contact:

Post by Yankees »

How am I Giants homer? Because I thought my team would succeed? Because I like Eli Manning?

Here's what went wrong this year, in no particular order: The offensive line got torn to shit from injuries. Aaron Ross and Corey Webster played 1 (!) game as starting cornerbacks together. We lost Kenny Phillips for the year at the beginning of the year, and did not have adequate safety support - in fact they could not have been worse. Osi was not his explosive self in coming back from his ACL injury until the end of the season, which means Tuck was being TRIPLE teamed at times. Brandon Jacobs went to shit, and Tom Coughlin never seemed to be able to understand that that doesn't mean you still give him 15 carries a game. Ahmad Bradshaw got way too few carries - and averaged almost 5 yards a rush despite playing the end of the season with a pulled quad and TWO BROKEN FEET. Speaking of Jacobs and Bradshaw, Coughlin decided that Jacobs should be the 3rd down back despite that fact that he can neither catch nor is elusive. We had a 1st year defensive coordinator who decided it would be best if we didn't blitz as much as last year, which was odd because after all our injuries in the defensive backfield, I can't imagine a quarterback who wouldn't have wanted to throw on a secondary that included Kevin Dockery and Brown/Rouse on almost every play. For some reason that has not been explained to me, we were forced to start Chase Blackburn for 7 games last year, despite having very talented young linebackers. Speaking of linebackers, we lost Michael Boley, Antonio Pierce, and Danny Clark (our starting 3) for extended periods of time each. I would definitely say our receivers were better than advertised - but they still made many young mistakes: Nicks needs to work on his downfield blocking and finishing routes (when Manning is forced out of the pockets, Nicks struggles to find openings), sometimes Manningham thinks this is college and only gets one foot in bounds, and after a terrific pre-season I'm dumbfounded why the Giants continued to play Hixon over Moss when Moss, as a slot receiver, is a far better fit for what we need on a 4-wide set.

The last two games of the season we played the Carolina Panthers and the Minnesota Vikings - with a completely busted offensive line. If you're not familiar with the Vikings, they have the best pass rush in football. If you are not familiar with the Panthers, you'll know that despite a shitty, shitty offense, they had the 4th best defense in football. So, with no running game, no offensive line, playing against two of the best defenses in football, and with a defense that let up 85 points in two games, I totally see where you're coming from with the whole "it's Eli Manning's fault" thing.

The Giants should have fired Eli Manning, not that defensive coordinator.

Stats are paramount in baseball when it comes to looking at players - but much less so in football and basketball. Two of my favorite examples of this are players like Troy Aikman and Scottie Pippen. Neither player goes down as "one of the best players of all-time" - but who are we to say what would have happened given their own spotlight? Actually, we know with Pippen - without Jordan he took the Bulls to a 55 win, and a shot away from the Eastern Conference Finals. And that's without Jordan, without Jordan - they had no shooting guard to pick up any slack. Minus one of the greatest running backs to ever play the game, could Aikman have put on an unbelievable aerial show? He sure might have - he was a terrifically accurate passer - he just never had to throw the ball.

Other examples: Would Dan Marino have anywhere near his passing numbers with an elite running back? But, with an elite running back (see Elway/Davis), would Marino have won a Super Bowl? Would Jabbar have been the NBA's all-time leading scorer without Magic rejuvenating his career? Would Magic have had the career he had without Jabbar?

This type of "we'll never know" has only happened in baseball for 3 years to my recollection - the 2002-2004 Barry Bonds. An Albert Pujols may get pitched around slightly - but he still does not have absurd walk numbers - and none that inhibit him from picking up statistics. Sure his runs and rbi's may suffer - but I think anyone in this league would admit those numbers may be a tad outdated.

I'm open to re-thinking this - would love to hear where I'm off-base here.

To finish this off as a grander point: Eli Manning was very lucky in his first few years in the NFL to have had the most durable offensive line in the league, and a terrific defense. Should he have had better stats? Probably. Was he overpaid on a Super Bowl win? For sure. But, the thing Giants feel strong about is the fact that in the season when everything was falling apart around him, and he played almost the entire season on a bum foot (planter fascilitis - which, if you've never had it, hurts like a motherf***er), he had his best season. This season was certainly a major disappointment - but I think it would be very short-sighted to say the Giants have to "rebuild" - they need to get healthy and address holes. And it's just absurd to say Eli Manning the problem.
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

Two things:

1. You've been talking up eli's improved sats, tnw you're saying individual stats mean less in football... which is it? You're cherry picking when it suits your argument. i know I do it too, but you need to be called out on it just as I do.

2. Is Eli the problem? You yourself said eli hasn't been the solution, and if you're not art of the solution, you're part of the problem. He's a 'maybe' for a top 10 QB, and without the great O-line and dominant running game he had in the past... you have an 8-8 team.

Okay, three things...

3. Yes, you are a Giants homer. You're incapable of looking at your favorite team in an objective fashion. You try to, you try to sound like you do, but earlier in the season when you were spouting garbage about Eli being a top 5 QB, sorry, but there's no way you can be perceived as anything other than a homer. And that's fine, just own up to it. I admit to being a homer when it comes to the Sox and Pats (and Bearcats, but let's not go there right now, I'm still in pain). Nosce te ipsum.
User avatar
Yankees
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fulshear, TX
Name: Brett Zalaski
Contact:

Post by Yankees »

I'm pretty sure by admitting he's a top 10 quarterback now, that's saying he's not top 5. I'm not saying football's stats are worthless - I'm saying they're much more dependant. Eli Manning was put in a worse environment this year, and played better - and he did it playing hurt.

Listen - I never said Eli wasn't the solution. I'd say coaching, a consistent running game, depth in the secondary, and the defense in general were much more problematic than Eli. Wll Eli ever be a top NFL QB? Probably not. But he's good enough to win with - and I'd put Eli at the center of the 8 wins, more than over the 8 losses.
User avatar
Royals
Posts: 3952
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Englewood, FL
Name: Larry Bestwick

Post by Royals »

Nationals wrote:He just also was definitely NOT the answer either...
Answer/solution... same difference.

After what you have said is Eli's best statistical season, you're saying he's top 10 material, while at the beginning of the season you said he was top 5. So he performs beter and drops down the list?

You were being homerific, and you still are. You do it all the time and the funniest part about it is how steadfastly you refuse to admit your perspective is biased.
I'd put Eli at the center of the 8 wins, more than over the 8 losses
Here you are now giving him credit for the wins while diminishing his role in the losses. Did someone else start under center for those 8 games? Did someone else throw the 9 TD's and 10 interceptions over those 8 games? For most of those games, he stank, period. As a QB you're not always going to have the best O line or running game or receivers, you've got to make do with what you have. Good QB's do that. The rest go 8-8.
Post Reply

Return to “Redbird Roost”