FlyinO Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 r u serious?i hate the g-spots as much as anyone, but this is just a dumb statement Really? They found a mean pass-rush and got hot in the playoffs, and that's abouty it. Linebackers- the worst in the East. Running Backs-the worst in the East. Secondary-the worst in the East. O-Line-can play great but is inconsistent. WRs-they are good. D-Line-incredibly overated. Osi isn't even that good. Freakin OVERATED. He owes his whole career to Winston Justice, and playing oppposite of Strahan. Without that one Eagles' game that blasted Osi into the spotlight, Andre Carter is considered a much better end than Osi, and dominates him statistically last year. It's kind of a shame Osi got hurt. He was going to get exposed this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Really? They found a mean pass-rush and got hot in the playoffs, and that's abouty it.What about 2005 and 2006. How did the Giants get into the postseason with their non-playoff caliber rosters then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinO Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 What about 2005 and 2006. How did the Giants get into the postseason with their non-playoff caliber rosters then? You mean when they got into the play-offs with an 8-8 record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 You mean when they got into the play-offs with an 8-8 record?Yeah. And when they got in with and 11-5 record as well. How did those non-playoff caliber teams make it in? How do the Giants keep doing it consistently every year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinO Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Yeah. And when they got in with and 11-5 record as well. How did those non-playoff caliber teams make it in? How do the Giants keep doing it consistently every year? Didn't they go 11-5 the year they had an extra home game due to Katrina and playing in London? 8-8 is a joke to get into the playoffs. I have never heard anyone say "Damn man, we got the Giants next week." There has only been one team to be consistently good in the East this past decade, and that is the Eagles. They have the best coach in the N.F.C. and the most talent. Just keeping it real. I can't believe I just typed that.:dallasuck:eaglesuck:gaintsuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinO Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Wow...Do you even watch football?! Yeah, 2007 Cowboys Team had 13 pro bowlers on their squad and what did we do...WE STOMPED THEIR ASSES OUT! Pro-bowl is a joke. Even sports writers allude to the fact that it is a popularity contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Didn't they go 11-5 the year they had an extra home game due to Katrina and playing in London?So? That's a disadvantage the Giants play much worse at home.8-8 is a joke to get into the playoffs. I have never heard anyone say "Damn man, we got the Giants next week."Wait until the next time Tom Brady has to play them.There has only been one team to be consistently good in the East this past decade, and that is the Eagles. They have the best coach in the N.F.C. and the most talent. Just keeping it real. I can't believe I just typed that.:dallasuck:eaglesuck:gaintsuckOver the last decade the Giants have been to the playoffs 5 times compared to 6 for the Eagles, won 6 playoff games compared to 8 for the Eagles, been NFC champions twice compared to once for the Eagles, and won the Superbowl once compared to 0 Superbowl wins(in their entire history) for the Eagles. So what makes the Eagles a consistently good, more talented, and better coached team than the non-playoff caliber Giants? Especially since the Giants have been more successful over that span. How is that keeping it real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinO Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Over the last decade the Giants have been to the playoffs 5 times compared to 6 for the Eagles, won 6 playoff games compared to 8 for the Eagles, been NFC champions twice compared to once for the Eagles, and won the Superbowl once compared to 0 Superbowl wins(in their entire history) for the Eagles. So what makes the Eagles a consistently good, more talented, and better coached team than the non-playoff caliber Giants? Especially since the Giants have been more successful over that span. How is that keeping it real? Maybe because the Eagles can actually win the division and not slide into an 8-8 playoff berth? :whoknows: By the way, 4 of those 6 playoff wins were last year, so don't try to make it sound like the Giants have been winning tons of games in the playoffs the past decade. This is a very recent and fluke-ish phenomenon. Your face = owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Maybe because the Eagles can actually win the division and not slide into an 8-8 playoff berth? :whoknows: The Giants went on the road in the playoffs last season and won each time. Then went into the Super Bowl and beat an 18-0 team. Make whatever point you are trying to make, the Giants are a solid organization. And what they did last season was amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Over the last decade the Giants have been to the playoffs 5 times compared to 6 for the Eagles, won 6 playoff games compared to 8 for the Eagles, been NFC champions twice compared to once for the Eagles, and won the Superbowl once compared to 0 Superbowl wins(in their entire history) for the Eagles. So what makes the Eagles a consistently good, more talented, and better coached team than the non-playoff caliber Giants? Especially since the Giants have been more successful over that span. How is that keeping it real? Maybe it's the fact that over that same decade the Giants have had only 4 winning seasons. Since 2000 the Eagles have had 6 including 5 consecutive seasons with 11 or more wins. The Giants haven't put together consecutive winning seasons since 1993-1994. Since 2000 the Eagles have 15 more wins than the Giants. Sorry but the Eagles have been consistently better than every other team in the division. The Giants have been the posterboy for inconsistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinO Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Maybe it's the fact that over that same decade the Giants have had only 4 winning seasons. Since 2000 the Eagles have had 6 including 5 consecutive seasons with 11 or more wins. The Giants haven't put together consecutive winning seasons since 1993-1994. Since 2000 the Eagles have 15 more wins than the Giants. Sorry but the Eagles have been consistently better than every other team in the division. The Giants have been the posterboy for inconsistency. And, he's done.:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Maybe because the Eagles can actually win the division and not slide into an 8-8 playoff berth? :whoknows:The Giants won the division in 2005 with a better record than the Eagles had in 2006, so that doesn't really answer my question. By the way, 4 of those 6 playoff wins were last year, so don't try to make it sound like the Giants have been winning tons of games in the playoffs the past decade. This is a very recent and fluke-ish phenomenon.The Giants haven't been winning tons of games in the playoffs the past decade, but neither have the Eagles. The difference is that the Giants have been more successful.Your face = owned.The Giants have won more Superbowls in the last seven months than the Eagles have in their entire history. If that's ownage, I'll gladly take some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Maybe it's the fact that over that same decade the Giants have had only 4 winning seasons. Since 2000 the Eagles have had 6 including 5 consecutive seasons with 11 or more wins. The Giants haven't put together consecutive winning seasons since 1993-1994. Since 2000 the Eagles have 15 more wins than the Giants. Sorry but the Eagles have been consistently better than every other team in the division. The Giants have been the posterboy for inconsistency.And yet the Giants have been the more accomplished team over that same time span. So what does consistently better mean to you? Empty trophy cases? The Giants have been to Superbowl more times and won more championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinO Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 And yet the Giants have been the more accomplished team over that same time span. So what does consistently better mean to you? Empty trophy cases? The Giants have been to Superbowl more times and won more championships. No doubt. But you're missing our point. The Giants have an almost zero percent chance of repeating with their roster. They havn't been dominant for any stretch of time except for four extremely important games last year. The Eagles on the other hand are a completely different story. I actually rooted for the Giants against the Pats. As much as I hate the Giants, I hate cheaters even more. But you better bet your ass that I was rooting like hell for Greenbay in the NFC Championship game. By the way, I loved it when Strahan said "We stomped your asses out." That's good stuff right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 And yet the Giants have been the more accomplished team over that same time span. So what does consistently better mean to you? Empty trophy cases? The Giants have been to Superbowl more times and won more championships. Oh come on. That's a weak argument and you know it. The point was who has been consistently better and it is not even debatable. Who has had the highest level of success? That one's easy too. But don't act like pulling a SB out of your arse last year and another one 8 years ago means that you have been CONSISTENTLY better than the Eagles. You haven't. That's like some Redskin fans claiming we had the same season as the Cowboys last year because we both went 0-1 in the playoffs. At best, at best it's a huge reach and you sound like a huge homer trying to make the claim. I'm not trying to diminish what the Giants did last year because winning 4 straight games on the road as big underdogs is a hell of a run but please don't try to tell me that equates to consistency. You can have the last 3 seasons but if you try to claim that the Giants have been consistently better than the Eagles for any timeframe longer than that in recent history you just make yourself look a Giant homer tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eli to Burress Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Maybe it's the fact that over that same decade the Giants have had only 4 winning seasons. Since 2000 the Eagles have had 6 including 5 consecutive seasons with 11 or more wins. The Giants haven't put together consecutive winning seasons since 1993-1994. Since 2000 the Eagles have 15 more wins than the Giants. Sorry but the Eagles have been consistently better than every other team in the division. The Giants have been the posterboy for inconsistency. You're joking right? Who cares about the 15 extra wins? Since 2000 the Eagles have made a playoff appearance 6 times compared to the Giants 5. The Eagles have 1 NFC Championship compared to 2 for the Giants and 0 Lombardi trophies compared to the Giants 1. Are you seriously trying to compare 15 extra wins to the Giants SB victory? I'd love to hear what other Eagles fans would prefer. I bet you're in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTikiITrust Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Really? They found a mean pass-rush and got hot in the playoffs, and that's abouty it. Linebackers- the worst in the East. Running Backs-the worst in the East. Secondary-the worst in the East. O-Line-can play great but is inconsistent. WRs-they are good. D-Line-incredibly overated. Osi isn't even that good. Freakin OVERATED. He owes his whole career to Winston Justice, and playing oppposite of Strahan. Without that one Eagles' game that blasted Osi into the spotlight, Andre Carter is considered a much better end than Osi, and dominates him statistically last year. It's kind of a shame Osi got hurt. He was going to get exposed this year. This is so laughable it isn't funny. Wow. Quoted so everyone reads it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Maybe it's the fact that over that same decade the Giants have had only 4 winning seasons. Since 2000 the Eagles have had 6 including 5 consecutive seasons with 11 or more wins. The Giants haven't put together consecutive winning seasons since 1993-1994. Since 2000 the Eagles have 15 more wins than the Giants. Sorry but the Eagles have been consistently better than every other team in the division. The Giants have been the posterboy for inconsistency. I wonder what the result would be if you asked Redskin and Cowboy fans which teams success they would rather have had over the last 8 years, the Giants or the Eagles? What do you think they would say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 ;5478179']I wonder what the result would be if you asked Redskin and Cowboy fans which teams success they would rather have had over the last 8 years' date=' the Giants or the Eagles? What do you think they would say?[/quote']I would say the Giants without a second hesitation but that still doesn't change the fact that the Eagles have been much more consistently good than the Giants over that timeframe and that is the point that was being discussed. They just have. As I said the Giants have had the higher high but that doesn't mean that they have been consistent because they flat out haven't. I don't see how anybody without Giant homer glasses could reasonably argue otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 You're joking right? Who cares about the 15 extra wins? Since 2000 the Eagles have made a playoff appearance 6 times compared to the Giants 5. The Eagles have 1 NFC Championship compared to 2 for the Giants and 0 Lombardi trophies compared to the Giants 1. Are you seriously trying to compare 15 extra wins to the Giants SB victory? I'd love to hear what other Eagles fans would prefer. I bet you're in the minority. Read the entire discussion. It wasn't which team's success I would prefer. I'd take the SB trophy in a heartbeat. But the discussion was who had been more consistently good and it has been the Eagles in a walk. The Giants have been good, very good at times, but as soon as you throw the word "consistent" into the equation their eligibility is removed. And by the way, 1 Super Bowl trophy does not equate to consistency in any way shape or form. It translates to one magical playoff run that was fun as hell to watch but let's not pretend that there was this great buildup of a team that everybody saw coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFanAnt Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 McDougle signing is most likely for depth. The Giants lost their strongest 2 players on the team this year. This is a good move because Tuck and Kiwanuka haven't played a whole season starting at DE yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.