OT: Eli Manning tearing up the Buccs defense.

blueNorange · Post #41 » by **blueNorange** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 12:14 am

XcalibuR wrote:a little OT question, but are QBs allowed to wear visors like LT does?

LT wears a black visor because his eyes are sensitive to the light.

CDB · Post #42 » by **CDB** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 12:31 am

Wow 185 yards is really "tearing it up"

F N 11 · Post #43 » by **F N 11** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 12:40 am

CDB wrote:Wow 185 yards is really "tearing it up"

Ok I don't sign in much because im lazy, But I had to sign in to educate "You" the "FOOL" on football. Eli was tearing it up because he was completing passes on 3rd downs and making clutch throws. Tampa Bay has the #2 defense in the NFL and they were playing 8 men in the box.

They basically put the game on Eli and he showed up. 20 for 27 2 Td's and no Int against the #2 defense is Tearing it up buddy. 117.0 Passer rating is way above average. Think before you write something else stupid. :noway:

F N 11 · Post #44 » by **F N 11** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 12:48 am

XcalibuR wrote:a little OT question, but are QBs allowed to wear visors like LT does?

Ive seen it in college football

ankie000 · Post #45 » by **ankie000** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:05 am

blueNorange wrote:The problem with Gilbride is that he doesn't mix it up, he always does the same crap. Today and the game against the Patriots was the first time he mixed it up.

Those screen passes to Jacobs for a TD today and last week looked new to me.

You are right there, he has mixed it up. But I will still call the the loss in the Pats game was because of play calling. This team shouldn't be punting as often as they sometimes do if they play call the way they did today!

blueNorange · Post #46 » by **blueNorange** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:17 am

CDB wrote:Wow 185 yards is really "tearing it up"

The Giants gameplan was to let Jacobs and Bradshaw run the ball most of the game and use Eli for shortage yards.

Stop reading the boxscore, Eli played a very smart ballgame. He was poised, stayed in the pocket, and didn't rush anything despite being hurried. The only fault Eli had was not completing a 2 yard pass to Bradshaw who was all alone that could've been a HUGE yard gain with his speed.

DaGoodz · Post #47 » by **DaGoodz** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:19 am

I've told people since last year that the Giants problem wasn't Eli, it was their defense. Eli isn't a perfect QB, but he can win a lot of games if the defense keeps the other team below 21 points. We should of beaat the Eagle last year if the defense could stop the run, Westbrook killed us. Whenever we lose, people blame it on Eli when its a team game. He had 48 drops this year, most in the NFL. But people blame it on Eli. Any loss the Giants have, its on Eli. He has the most pressure out of anyone in the NFL

ankie000 · Post #48 » by **ankie000** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:21 am

DaGoodz wrote:I've told people since last year that the Giants problem wasn't Eli, it was their defense. Eli isn't a perfect QB, but he can win a lot of games if the defense keeps the other team below 21 points. We should of beaat the Eagle last year if the defense could stop the run, Westbrook killed us. Whenever we lose, people blame it on Eli when its a team game. He had 48 drops this year, mostin the NFL. But people blame it on Eli

It goes from 56% to 64% which isn't a bad number at all.

blueNorange · Post #49 » by **blueNorange** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:24 am

DaGoodz wrote:I've told people since last year that the Giants problem wasn't Eli, it was their defense. Eli isn't a perfect QB, but he can win a lot of games if the defense keeps the other team below 21 points. We should of beaat the Eagle last year if the defense could stop the run, Westbrook killed us. Whenever we lose, people blame it on Eli when its a team game. He had 48 drops this year, most in the NFL. But people blame it on Eli. Any loss the Giants have, its on Eli. He has the most pressure out of anyone in the NFL

The only reason Eli gets heat is because he was the #1 pick, he hasn't lived up to the hype of a #1 pick and might never will, but if Eli was picked between 10-15 he would'nt be getting as much heat as he is now. Eli will be that QB that won't be great but he'll always find a starting job because he's a good QB.

Some Giant fans mentioned that Eli doesn't like the cold and he does usally have great games in hot weather and poor games in the cold weather.

CDB · Post #50 » by **CDB** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:27 am

blueNorange wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

The Giants gameplan was to let Jacobs and Bradshaw run the ball most of the game and use Eli for shortage yards.

Stop reading the boxscore, Eli played a very smart ballgame. He was poised, stayed in the pocket, and didn't rush anything despite being hurried. The only fault Eli had was not completing a 2 yard pass to Bradshaw who was all alone that could've been a HUGE yard gain with his speed.

No I saw the game so nobody is reading the boxscore. But when you come up with the sense of "tearing it up" you are thinking about 25-30+ completions and over 275 yards, thats tearing it up not 185. I agree that Little Brother Manning played good and smart but when you say "tearing it up" his performance says that difference, it says he played smart.

Throwing 1 pass over 20 yards (in which Smith fought for those yards) is not really tearing it up, dump off pass to your tailbacks and tightends and curls to your WR is not really tearing it up IMO.

Supreme Commander · Post #51 » by **Supreme Commander** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:27 am

blueNorange wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

The Giants gameplan was to let Jacobs and Bradshaw run the ball most of the game and use Eli for shortage yards.

Stop reading the boxscore, Eli played a very smart ballgame. He was poised, stayed in the pocket, and didn't rush anything despite being hurried. The only fault Eli had was not completing a 2 yard pass to Bradshaw who was all alone that could've been a HUGE yard gain with his speed.

+999,999,999,999

The more telling statistic was Eli's QB rating. If someone wants to grab stats from the box score to prove a point, you might as well mention he was at 117 QB rating, had 2 TDs and no INTs, and that he had five less yards than Garcia with 1/3 less attempts.

***

As for Gilbride, the Giants have put up some major points against some quality teams this years. I think he has done a FANTASTIC job, but maybe that's the product of my environment. I'm in New Orleans now, and everyone at the sports bar loves to tell me that the Giants have inferior talent and that's why Eli struggles. I don't necessarily believe that, but there definitely isn't elite offensive talent on the Giants nonetheless.

I believe Gilbride has done a fantastic job of maximizing the team's talent. He's had five 30+ point games, nine (or 10 if you count today) 20+ point games, and the Giants have only lost three games that they scored under 20 points.

holdupstop23 · Post #52 » by **holdupstop23** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:30 am

I really thought all along that the problem was Gilbride. But it might actually be Shockey. With Shockey out, the team can have 3 WR sets and gives Eli a better options. And then as the 4th option, Boss or Matthews can get out in the field and wont complain.

I love Shockey to death but maybe its better for the team to trade him.

DaGoodz · Post #53 » by **DaGoodz** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:31 am

Its only beeen two games, but the Giants offense has looked a lot better without Shockey. I think he's lost a step before from all his ankle injuries, but now with him breaking his leg and ankle. I think he's done, and I think he was over rated anyways.

blueNorange · Post #54 » by **blueNorange** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:31 am

btw, 5 pages and nobody has mentioned what a piss poor game Ronde Barber had. You'd think if someone was gonna talk the talk he would walk the walk.

I smiled when Plaxico stiffed armed his midget self and when Eli pumped faked and had him flying. :laugh:

blueNorange · Post #55 » by **blueNorange** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:34 am

DaGoodz wrote:Its only beeen two games, but the Giants offense has looked a lot better without Shockey. I think he's lost a step before from all his ankle injuries, but now with him breaking his leg and ankle. I think he's done, and I think he was over rated anyways.

I love Shockey but I said on Giants.com forums in which I got bashed is that the Giants can trade Shockey for picks to help out the secondary, trade him for DeAngelo Hall, or trade him and the Giants 1st and 2nd rounder to the Dolphins for their #1 pick and use that pick to get Glenn Dorsey.

I'm very suprised with Boss, he doesn't drop passes. With Reese at the helm, it's gonna be a interesting offseason with the FA's, draft, and trading. And I trust him 100% :nod:

holdupstop23 · Post #56 » by **holdupstop23** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:40 am

blueNorange wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I love Shockey but I said on Giants.com forums in which I got bashed is that the Giants can trade Shockey for picks to help out the secondary, trade him for DeAngelo Hall, or trade him and the Giants 1st and 2nd rounder to the Dolphins for their #1 pick and use that pick to get Glenn Dorsey.

I'm very suprised with Boss, he doesn't drop passes. With Reese at the helm, it's gonna be a interesting offseason with the FA's, draft, and trading. And I trust him 100%

you got bashed because no way in hell the Phins trade the #1 for Shockey. :lol:

randomhero423 · Post #57 » by **randomhero423** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:42 am

shockey's overrated. he was amazing his first year and his 2nd/3rd one. he's been above average for us ever since. i love his passion and stuff, but he talks way too much. and he's not that valueable to the team. plax, toomer (althoguh a yr older), and boss/moss/smith all improving. we should be fine. not to mention our great rbs.

'fins won't want shockey for the #1 pick. bill is very smart... i think shockey can be traded to a team like the bengals or something.

maybe a 3 way.
nyg gets: raiders first round pick (#6.).. they are that stupid (they may fire kiffin).
CIN gets: Shockey
OAK gets: Chad Johnson

that would be a blockbuster..

blueNorange · Post #58 » by **blueNorange** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:45 am

holdupstop23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

you got bashed because no way in hell the Phins trade the #1 for Shockey.

Parcells wants to trade the #1 pick for draft picks.

Why not give them a TE and the 1st and 2nd draft picks.

I do feel Shockey is a gonner, he's 28 years old and has about 3-4 good years left in him. Trade him while his value is high!!

DaGoodz · Post #59 » by **DaGoodz** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:47 am

Nobody is going to trade a 1st for a TE. Also no team would trade a 1st for a player coming off a broken leg injury. And with Shockey broke his leg and ankle, unless he takes HGH or some drug. Hes not coming back to his old form anytime soon, definitely not next year. We're not going to get much trade value for him

randomhero423 · Post #60 » by **randomhero423** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:47 am

the raiders are a organization that dumb...