Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

They did and you can't take anything away from them (nor am I trying to), but I still don't think they are a good team and I think the Pats would beat them 85 times out of every 100 contests.


I'm not sure about that. The Giants defense played very well in that game and in the playoffs.

Their D showed the other 30 teams how you beat the Pats. You put Brsdy on his ass over and over again.

They also shut down Moss which forced Brady to throw underneath.

I hate to say it but the Giants are a very good football team and will be good again this year.

My point is I don't think the Giants were the best team in the NFL last year...I don't even know if they were top 10.

They won and that is ALL that matters, but I don't see a dynasty brewing or anything.

As far as the D-line, yeah...it was amazing by the end of the year and that's a crucial piece to the Super Bowl puzzle.

I just don't like the fact that the Eagles look at that and say "see...you need to draft on the line!"

They don't take the following lessons away:

- #1 WR (Burress, acquired in FA).

- Run First offense (with a stable of quality backs).

- Willingness to play rookies early and often if need be instead of drafting replacement players that might be worthwhile 3 years from now.

They just choose to see what they want to see and ignore the rest, which is what is frustrating.

f-dallas
RE: 2008 (P)layer Movement/Rumor Thread - Continued
3/25/2008 11:40 AM

My point is I don't think the Giants were the best team in the NFL last year...I don't even know if they were top 10.



Your kidding right?

I completely agree regarding the blinders the Eagles choose to wear to see only the things about teams they want to see.

But all the things you pointed out that the Giants did well and the Eagles didn't were part of what made the Giants pretty good last year.

I also agree that I don't see a Giants "dynasty" in the making, but I do think they'll be pretty good again this year. I also think they were top 10 last year - though exactly where is hard to say.

Not kidding at all.

They were 4-4 down the stretch and only beat 1 team with a winning record all season long (the 9-7 Skins...they lost to the Skins the other time they played).

From Halloween to New Years Eve (literally) they were outscored as a team by about 20 points.

They were probably at the bottom of the top 10 teams in the league during a pretty weak season.

I should clarify that they DID beat a couple teams with winning records in the playoffs, obviously.

I could see these teams to validate your point but the Seahawks blow so that basically leaves six teams who might be better than the Giants last year.


Patriots

Chargers

Cowboys

Colts

Packers

Jaguars

Seahawks


Giants definitely crack the top ten teams. They peaked at the right time in the playoffs and played great on the road.

I can’t defend the Giants anymore I’m starting to feel nauseated.

They don't take the following lessons away:

- #1 WR (Burress, acquired in FA).

- Run First offense (with a stable of quality backs).

- Willingness to play rookies early and often if need be instead of drafting replacement players that might be worthwhile 3 years from now.

They just choose to see what they want to see and ignore the rest, which is what is frustrating.

There are other lessons - Eli played really well during the playoffs, and I can't call a team a fraud if they go up to GB in Ice Bowl II and outlast the Packers.

Even if you ignore other players playing well (and let's be frank - the front 7, and not just the lines, were able to generate pressure when they needed to), the coaching staff did a tremendous job of putting players in positions where it would benefit the team the most, and not just because they were gunning for some unobtainable potential.

Did they get lucky a few times? Sure - Moss was thisclose to getting them in FG position on the final drive, and Tyree's miraculous catch doesn't happen again, not to mention Eli pulling a Randall. But they made the plays that needed to be made, at the time.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to rinse my mouth out with bleach.

Section, I think the Seahawks were every bit as good ad the Giants entering the playoffs, I think the Steelers were better, and I don't see much difference between the Browns and Giants entering the playoffs.

They both won 10 games, had the same net points, and both beat 1 team with a winning record all year.

I'd seriously put them in a 3 way tie for 8th.

To be clear, I'm not saying they were frauds in the sense that anything was given to them. They earned each one of those playoffs games and the Super Bowl by outplaying their opponents.

I'm saying it felt a whole lot more like "any given Sunday" each one of those weeks.

f-dallas
RE: 2008 (P)layer Movement/Rumor Thread - Continued
3/25/2008 12:45 PM

Section, I think the Seahawks were every bit as good ad the Giants entering the playoffs, I think the Steelers were better, and I don't see much difference between the Browns and Giants entering the playoffs.

They both won 10 games, had the same net points, and both beat 1 team with a winning record all year.

I'd seriously put them in a 3 way tie for 8th.


I'm thinking the Browns schedule was weak and the Seahwaks play in a shitty division.

Think the Gints were a little better than those two teams. IMO

Steelers didn't impress me much either.

If your saying the VGiants can go from Super Bowl champs to last in the NFC east I'd say that is possible.

Three of the VGiants losses were in the division and wouldn't say the NFC East is weak at this point.

I have some idea of what f-dallas is saying and I agree to a point. We may not be making the same argument, but here's mine:

I think, if you look back on the past Super Bowl winners, you can make a good case for each that they were the best in teh league or had a certain unique aspect (I'm thinking of the Ravens and that crushing D) that really set them apart from the other teams.

Matching against winners of recent Super Bowls, going back to the 80s, it's tough to say that the 2007 Giants could really beat other SB winners.

I know what F-D means, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they were not a top-10 team--they won the superbowl for god's sake.

I think that they have a great front 7, an adequate secondary and an O that can keep them in games.

The lesson that I can take from the Giants season is that if your team can be dominant in one aspect, your team is going to have a chance to win. I also learned that Rookies do not need to be red-shirted.

Unfortunately, Nova, you and your knowledge don't coach the Philadelphia Eagles, but I wish you did.

The Eagles don't even redshirt rookies. They purposely draft guys who won't play.

I mean, they draft Kolb with their first pick last year. There was NO chance he was going to play. He wasn't even the BACKUP.

Their second pick was Abiamiri. What were the odds he was going to play? He was brought into a team that had a full rotation of 4 players ahead of him.

Their third pick was Bradley and that was a smart one. At least he was a guy who could play special teams right away, PLUS he provided a great insurance policy for Gocong in addition to being a LB of the future. I loved that pick.

Hunt. Again, they draft a guy who was going to be no better than a 3rd stringer for a minimum of 1-2 years. I think there's a decent chance Hunt is cut after training camp this year, as well. He's a terrible player, but that's a different story.

At any rate, they had 4 picks on the first day of the draft and only one was going to be more than a 3rd stringer. How are you supposed to get ANY help for your team right now if you draft that way?

Let's face it...Westbrook, McNabb, Runyan, Dawk, and Tra are all likely going to be retired, seriously diminished, or with another team in 3 years (some much sooner). Let's make an effort to draft for some immediate impact.

Hell, if they would have targeted 1 player with return skills, the Eagles would have been in the playoffs last year.

F-D,

You are saying 2 different things. On the one hand you want guys who can play immediately and on the other hand, you mention guys (dawk, mcnabb, etc) that you need to replace--I can't see how you can do both at the same time. I am 99% sure that they will take an OT in the draft--he is not going to play this year. If they don't take an OT, they will take someone for the defensive secondary--they too most likely will not play this season.

However, there are areas where a guy can see PT very quickly--D line comes to mind b/c they rotate the guys in and out--The Eagles seem to think that getting Rookies involved, even on a rotational basis is out of question. WR seems to be another area where they consistently fail to get production from the young guys. If they drafted a WR early, it is almost a certainty that they either will not play at all, or see very limited game action. Question to the coaching staff: If you have a young guy with talent, is it that hard to design plays that he can understand or plays that suit his skill-set?

My problem is this: I understand why a QB, OT, RB, CB, FS might not see playing time right away--these are not positions where the Eagles do much rotating and it is doubtful that a Rookie would be better than the guys they currently have. So, I have no problem with Kolb sitting last year. I DO have a problem with Abiramiri not playing much, Bradley only playing at the end of the year and the year before that, only seeing Bunkley 4-5 snaps per game. When they can rotate, they should and they do a terrible job at that in my opinion.

There are 2 positions that I think a rookie could be a starter on this team: Left Guard and Strong Safety (I would say outside linebacker too, but this group has a boner for Gocong and they don't pick LBs in round 1). I don't see many SS or guards that are going to be 1st rounders, so I don't think that this would be a likely scenario.

Hold the Disgruntledness everyone-

TE Kris Wilson is in town today for a visit at the ol' Nova Care!

Fingahs--- keep em ah-crossed!!!!!

I suppose I should give you the skinny from the EMB:

Free agent tight end Kris Wilson is visiting the Philadelphia Eagles today. He will meet with the media following his visit at 3 PM, we will have complete coverage throughout the day here on PhiladelphiaEagles.com.

The 26-year-old Wilson spent the last four seasons in Kansas City, where he caught 42 passes for 345 yards and four touchdowns as a tight end, H-back and fullback. Wilson also has 15 career tackles on special teams. In 2007, Wilson registered a career-high 24 receptions for 180 yards and one score.

Born in Harrisburg, PA, and a product of J.P. McCaskey High School in Lancaster, the 6-2, 251-pound Wilson was a 2nd round draft choice of the Chiefs in 2004 from the University of Pittsburgh.

What the hell is the point of him? Seriously?

A 3rd guy to compete at FB? A 3rd TE, presumably to replace SCHOEBOAT?

He gives FB a boner for being able to play in more than one position.

I'd hate to see his fantasy baseball team.

I think Id take him over Schoboat.

Im guessin 1st and foremost, STs help.

Secondly, if, IF LJ goes down again or isnt 100%, at least they MAY be able to still employ the 2 TE sets they like to use with hopefully SOME results.

Schoboat really limits that, when the other TE is / was the rookie Celek.

Plus he'll come cheap just to get the hell outta KC.

If you have a young guy with talent, is it that hard to design plays that he can understand or plays that suit his skill-set?

Dissent, yellow card!

Nova, cornerback is a position that rookies can definitely step right in. Plenty of good ones start strong. Of course, the philosophy is Penn State-esque where only the seniors play until their knees go bad or their contracts are unsustainable or both.

I think Id take him over Schoboat.

Im guessin 1st and foremost, STs help.

Secondly, if, IF LJ goes down again or isnt 100%, at least they MAY be able to still employ the 2 TE sets they like to use with hopefully SOME results.

Schoboat really limits that, when the other TE is / was the rookie Celek.

Plus he'll come cheap just to get the hell outta KC.

Assuming LJ is gone after year, are putting all our eggs in the Celek basket?

I'd like to see LJ, Celek, and a draft pick with some potential in there because I think Celek is a question mark and LJ is gone after this year. I don't think a never-was is worth the roster spot in this case.

Seriously, Nova, take a chill pill. You seem to be hinting that players are more important than systems, and I fail to see the logic in such a flawed philosophy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59