According to the Indianapolis Star, Hakeem Nicks views himself " as the best receiver in the NFL".
Nicks has 12 catches for 94 yards thus far this year.
Could have been the best ever Jints receiver, things just didn't work out, I guess it's healthy to be confident but I think Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones might have something to say about that...
The day after he got injured by that fork in his back.
"Just have to be patient; you know it's going to be a long season," Nicks said. "Being a receiver we all want the ball every play, but we understand that sacrifice is part of being on a team. You have to understand the play, the concept, understand to play team ball and everything will work out in the end for everybody."
Changes the perspective a little.
For some reason everyone is married to the idea that he will forever have this well of untapped potential. The guy was a very good wide receiver who NEVER broke 1200 yards in his career.
I'll say it right now. If both players gave it their very best on every down... Hakeem Nicks couldn't carry Victor Cruz's jockstrap. Cruz is an elite talent and is EASILY.. I repeat.. EASILY the best wide receiver in the history of this organization.
I have the feeling that, in spite of the injuries he had and how he really didn't go too negative in the media about blaming the team, he caused enough turmoil in the locker room for the team to look at the total picture and say goodbye to him.
If he had showed he cared when he DID play he may still have been our#1WR, in an offense that shows success so far and lots more promise, AND, we may have gone 1-2 OL with Martin, and Richburg if he was still there in the draft.
For some reason everyone is married to the idea that he will forever have this well of untapped potential. The guy was a very good wide receiver who NEVER broke 1200 yards in his career.
I'll say it right now. If both players gave it their very best on every down... Hakeem Nicks couldn't carry Victor Cruz's jockstrap. Cruz is an elite talent and is EASILY.. I repeat.. EASILY the best wide receiver in the history of this organization.
Not really. It's more about the fact that Nicks was able to impose his will and be a dominant player when he was 100%. I don't know why people take it as a slight towards Cruz or get all defensive. Nicks at his best was the best WR I've seen in a Giants uni. I just didn't see enough of it, unfortunately.
At his best, when has Nicks ever gone 99 yards for the score?
When has Nicks had 1200 yards (Vick had 1500)?
Nicks has better hands than Cruz and is stronger?
Cruz is faster, shiftier, much much better route runner, better read on the defense... and it's not that he's weak. He will break out of an arm tackle in a heartbeat.
I really, really don't get where people get that crap. I really do respect your football acumen, and for the life of me I don't understand where such a thought comes from. The dude was solid, but not spectacular. Cruz is spectacular.
I'm just running thru the years right now....and the Giants go a long way back (although I go back to only 1980).
Is it Cruz? Good question.
Nope. Not yet. Toomer is the best still. Cruz is catching up and will surpass Amani soon.
For some reason everyone is married to the idea that he will forever have this well of untapped potential. The guy was a very good wide receiver who NEVER broke 1200 yards in his career.
I'll say it right now. If both players gave it their very best on every down... Hakeem Nicks couldn't carry Victor Cruz's jockstrap. Cruz is an elite talent and is EASILY.. I repeat.. EASILY the best wide receiver in the history of this organization.
He was eight shy in 2011 and missed a game.
I think Nicks was more talented, but Cruz produced consistently because of his health.
For some reason everyone is married to the idea that he will forever have this well of untapped potential. The guy was a very good wide receiver who NEVER broke 1200 yards in his career.
I'll say it right now. If both players gave it their very best on every down... Hakeem Nicks couldn't carry Victor Cruz's jockstrap. Cruz is an elite talent and is EASILY.. I repeat.. EASILY the best wide receiver in the history of this organization.
You're completely insane. Cruz is a slot guy, not a #1. Play him on the outside every game against a Peterson, Revis or Haden-type in press coverage, particularly down by the goal line. Nicks in 2011 and Plaxico could do that and win.
Watch some Giants games, then get back to me.
At his best, when has Nicks ever gone 99 yards for the score?
When has Nicks had 1200 yards (Vick had 1500)?
Nicks has better hands than Cruz and is stronger?
Cruz is faster, shiftier, much much better route runner, better read on the defense... and it's not that he's weak. He will break out of an arm tackle in a heartbeat.
I really, really don't get where people get that crap. I really do respect your football acumen, and for the life of me I don't understand where such a thought comes from. The dude was solid, but not spectacular. Cruz is spectacular.
Again, Cruz is an awesome player. It's not slighting him at all. But Cruz isn't a prototypical #1 to me. He's not the kind of dude who will go out and dominate if he's getting all the attention and not the type of dude teams will routinely shadow with their top CB. Nicks was more that guy and more of a prototypical, outside WR1.
But Nicks didn't do it long enough. Cruz has been more consistent and less injury prone so he certainly gets some credit for that.
Quote:
Cruz is a slot guy, not a #1.
Watch some Giants games, then get back to me.
Yeah, how did last year work out?
1964 3 4 82 20.5 0 30 27.3
1965 14 26 709 27.3 6 89 50.6
1966 14 48 1044 21.8 8 98 74.6
1967* 14 49 1209 24.7 13 70 86.4
1968* 14 45 1057 23.5 7 84 75.5
1969 14 42 744 17.7 1 54 53.1
If anything Cruz seems to need another WR to help him...this doesn't mean he isn't a great receiver it's just me stating my opinion.
After like 20 football games, Cruz was 3rd all time in TDs over 60 yards behind only Randy Moss and Jerry farkin Rice.
Every time the guy touches the ball with a hint of space, I feel like he has a chance to go to the distance. I have never, ever felt that way about a Giants receiver before him.
Quote:
Quote:
Cruz is a slot guy, not a #1.
Watch some Giants games, then get back to me.
Yeah, how did last year work out?
How did last year work out? In an ABYSMAL offense, he had I think 998 receiving yards while Nicks had maybe 500? And for the record, it's idiotic to compare the two players in last year's offense as everything from top to bottom went wrong... but since you're going there anyway, you are as wrong as possible. Cruz was substantially better than Nicks last year.
After like 20 football games, Cruz was 3rd all time in TDs over 60 yards behind only Randy Moss and Jerry farkin Rice.
Every time the guy touches the ball with a hint of space, I feel like he has a chance to go to the distance. I have never, ever felt that way about a Giants receiver before him.
So the tally is then:
Cruz: 9
Nicks: 1 (your photo).
So.. yeah.
Yeah... read my last post Arc. Look back on this thread and tell me who brought up 2013. Me or that other guy? I denounced bringing it up, in fact.
At peak powers, Cruz is an elite #2 receiver, whereas Nicks and Burress were #1, match-up winning, beat press when you have to WRs. It's not a knock on Cruz, it's just the way things are.
It's not a myth, it's something that was apparent to many people aside from yourself. This isn't about numbers that have been compiled. It's about pure talent. A lot of people saw it in Nicks, I guess you didn't.
At peak powers, Cruz is an elite #2 receiver, whereas Nicks and Burress were #1, match-up winning, beat press when you have to WRs. It's not a knock on Cruz, it's just the way things are.
Haha Bobby, talking to you is like talking to a child. You don't even know what you're saying. Literally in this point, you called "my obsession with numbers stupid" (I don't have one) and in your very next sentence talk about how he had less than 1000 yards in a passing league (but then don't acknowledge that Nicks had less than that).
You're just saying whatever comes to your head at this point.
Might be because he is also consistent at dropping the damned ball
Quote:
Nicks' peak doesn't compare to Cruz's. It's a myth being embraced soley on BBI at this point.
It's not a myth, it's something that was apparent to many people aside from yourself. This isn't about numbers that have been compiled. It's about pure talent. A lot of people saw it in Nicks, I guess you didn't.
Arc, I saw two very talented players with different, but equally viable skill sets. One player has grown before our eyes into an elite #1 while the other has less than 100 yards 1/4 of the way through the season in one of the league's best passing attacks after failing to cut it here.
Nicks is 26 years old!! Why is he failing (thus far) in Indy now too. Is 26 not considered a physical peak? Or did he actually peak at 23 and then forget how to play football? It's absurd the way people regard him, again, solely on this website.
You know when this came up a few weeks back I think I went with Plax on sheer talent and Cruz right there. I agree with you now. I can't speak before '77 because that when I started watching the Giants. However since then Cruz has to be tops talent wise. The moves he can make after he catches the ball are astounding. The TD catch 2 weeks ago and that catch down to the 1 last week where he made like 3 Skins miss including one literally the split second after he caught the ball were spectacular. Vintage Cruz.
Quote:
He had less than 1,000 yards in a passing league!
At peak powers, Cruz is an elite #2 receiver, whereas Nicks and Burress were #1, match-up winning, beat press when you have to WRs. It's not a knock on Cruz, it's just the way things are.
Haha Bobby, talking to you is like talking to a child. You don't even know what you're saying. Literally in this point, you called "my obsession with numbers stupid" (I don't have one) and in your very next sentence talk about how he had less than 1000 yards in a passing league (but then don't acknowledge that Nicks had less than that).
You're just saying whatever comes to your head at this point.
I'm pointing out that you are using 2013 numbers to illustrate that Cruz is the elite WR when that elite WR had less than 1,000 yards. Stupid. Forget Nicks, if Cruz was a #1, how does he end with that?
I totally understand Nicks has had his injuries, but he's supposedly healthy. C'mon he's 26, this is his peak, right? He should have taken over the league by now!
Yes! That one particular play where he made 3 Skins miss was unreal.
Give me a break.
Quote:
In comment 11897103 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
Nicks' peak doesn't compare to Cruz's. It's a myth being embraced soley on BBI at this point.
It's not a myth, it's something that was apparent to many people aside from yourself. This isn't about numbers that have been compiled. It's about pure talent. A lot of people saw it in Nicks, I guess you didn't.
Arc, I saw two very talented players with different, but equally viable skill sets. One player has grown before our eyes into an elite #1 while the other has less than 100 yards 1/4 of the way through the season in one of the league's best passing attacks after failing to cut it here.
Nicks is 26 years old!! Why is he failing (thus far) in Indy now too. Is 26 not considered a physical peak? Or did he actually peak at 23 and then forget how to play football? It's absurd the way people regard him, again, solely on this website.
Dude, Victor Cruz is awesome. But he is not an "elite #1 WR".. those are the Calvins, AJ's, Dez', Brandon Marshall's of the world. Cruz is not in that tier.
Give me a break.
Why do people keep talking about last year? Who cares? Nothing worked last year... but for fuck's sake if you want to, Cruz had a better year. What are you babbling about?
Man, how quickly things can change.
Give me a break.
The whole almost didn't score a TD last year...whats your point?
Is that really a slight on Cruz? He was an UDFA that has been a blessing for us, it doesn't mean he has to be the best WR (peak wise) in Giants history.
I don't care about stats. Dez Bryant never sniffed 1,500 yards. Are we going to claim that Cruz is a better peak #1 than Dez?
Cruz is a dynamic player with great skill...he is not an elite WR. He can not, and never has, dominated a ball game and enforced his will on other teams(Burress/Nicks). He has, however, made a ton of great plays. He also leaves a lot of plays on the field.
Quote:
happened to Cruz last year after Nicks got hurt....Christ he went almost a year without a TD.
Give me a break.
The whole almost didn't score a TD last year...whats your point?
lol and Nicks ACTUALLY didn't.
What in the Hell? Yes, yes he has. Often. Multiple times.
It did count for something. Nicks should be wearing on it his finger.
btw - it was long ago...
The difference now of course is 1)Victor is still elite and 2) Hakeem was elite.
Has everyone forgotten what Cruz did to Carlos Rogers in the NFC Championship game? He absolutely made a mockery one of the NFL's best in one of the biggest games he'll ever play.
I thought he would go to next level and be elite
the next year he had those various injuries and he was never the same
2011 numbers (including playoffs)
Cruz: 103 rec -- 1,805 yds -- 10 TD -- 20 games
Nicks: 104 rec -- 1,636 yds -- 11 TD -- 19 games
You make it sound like Cruz' 2011 stats destroy Nicks'. In the regular season, sure Cruz was better. But in the playoffs Nicks had the best non-Larry Fitzgerald run in recent memory. He was untouchable during those Packers and Falcons games. And while Cruz killed Rogers and outplayed Nicks in the 49ers game, Nicks was better in the Super Bowl.
I think you forget what an animal Nicks was in that '11 playoff run. If you're talking from Game 1 through Game 20, Nicks had the better season because he was much better in the playoffs. And that was the best season of both of their careers.
And on a smaller scale. The best statistical game of Cruz's career was Tampa Bay in '12 when he put up 11 catches for 179 yards and 1 TD. The best statistical game of Nicks' career was Tampa Bay in '12 when he put up 10 catches for 199 yards and 1 TD.
And Nicks was CLEARLY the better receiver that day, on a bum leg. The last time he showed that kind of dominant ability.
Cruz is a great player and far more consistent than Nicks was. But 2011 was the best season in both of their careers, Nicks was better. And Tampa Bay '12 was the best games of both of their careers, Nicks was better.
How's THAT for armchair psychologist???
There's a reason why the big plays are not nearly as frequent. Hopefully they will be more frequent with the Donnell emergence and ODB coming back.
Nicks was the breed of "force me the rock, I'll fight the CB for it". Cruz was more of "when you get me the ball, I'll try and make something big happen". Both are great, but one works better as a #1 WR, the other works better when he has other talent around him.
Has everyone forgotten what Cruz did to Carlos Rogers in the NFC Championship game? He absolutely made a mockery one of the NFL's best in one of the biggest games he'll ever play.
Agreed. But just for arguments sake, was it more due to scheme (meaning that you could plug and play anyone to run those option routes like Jernigan)?
SF was able to adjust and shut things down in the 2nd half.
NICKS: 13 100 yard games in 74.
You know how you referenced Nicks in the Tampa Bay game and how he was elite then? The man had 10 catches for 199 yards. Incredible. No argument there. Only problem is, in your finest example of Hakeem Nicks at his best, that game, Cruz himself has 11 catches for 179 yards. Both players had a touchdown that afternoon.
Finally, regarding Nicks breaking down at age 26 and not being the same player. Just LAST YEAR when all went to hell, Nicks had 5 grabs for 135 yards on December 8th against the Chargers. He is a player who still has game, but is just not as good as the one we currently have.
Then again - I don't think anyone would have projected a mid-30's Reggie Wayne to pop right up from ACL surgery and be on pace for 100 catches and 1,200 yards. It's a team with a lot of quality receivers (including how they're using Bradshaw in the passing game) and only so many balls to go around so he may just be caught in a distribution game. It'll be interesting to see how it works out over the course of the season.
He plays on the #1 passing offense in the league and he is like the 7th or 8th on the team in yards receiving.
Do you think its because they are double-teaming him??
NICKS: 13 100 yard games in 74.
You know how you referenced Nicks in the Tampa Bay game and how he was elite then? The man had 10 catches for 199 yards. Incredible. No argument there. Only problem is, in your finest example of Hakeem Nicks at his best, that game, Cruz himself has 11 catches for 179 yards. Both players had a touchdown that afternoon.
Finally, regarding Nicks breaking down at age 26 and not being the same player. Just LAST YEAR when all went to hell, Nicks had 5 grabs for 135 yards on December 8th against the Chargers. He is a player who still has game, but is just not as good as the one we currently have.
Guess who TB's best CB (Talib) was covering that day ( and getting completely fucking owned by) ?
Hint: It wasn't Cruz.
Osi, I'll admit that I'm going a bit overboard, but it's due to the BBI consensus that Nicks is more talented. There needs to be more firepower on my end of the argument here. Couldn't carry his jockstrap? OK overboard. Is Cruz better? Yes.
Perhap's he's not a lot better, but he is clearly better, IMO.
No disrespect to Cruz, but there was nothing like Manning to Burress.
As far as Nicks, I dunno what happened to him. I agree with arc, he was so easy to root for during his early career here. Quiet during the week, did his job, and played lights out on Sundays. Then it just all fell apart. It's sad.
Well AGF, the stats shouldn't be discounted, but I already broke down the many ways I think Cruz is a more physically talented player.
I think Nicks has MUCH better hands than Cruz (even though Nicks has had his sprouts of the dropsies too)... but you'd have to be crazy to argue Cruz on that one.
I think Nicks is a slightly stronger player, more capable of getting separation at the LOS.
I think Cruz has everything else. Faster, better big play ability, a better nose for the sticks, a better feel for finding a soft spot in zone coverage and the ability to make people miss like no other Giant ever.
He is not in the mix of Calvin, Green, Julio, Marshall, etc.... He works well in space but struggles on press outside. He doesnt win jump balls, and he does not have game breaking speed.
At this point he is a good number 2, and excellent slot WR. But he is not a number 1. His drops are very astonishing.
By the way, the attributes you just described for Nicks is prototypical #1WR skillset.
What Cruz does is fantastic, but it's not of the #1 WR mold. Again, Nicks is a fight the CB type of WR, Cruz is a if you get me the ball I might make a big play type of WR.
With that skillset, Nicks can do what he does no matter the talent around him. Cruz needs other receiving talent around him or he loses his ability to find soft coverage and big play ability.
You're really gonna make me do this? :)
The man is on his own island as far as I'm concerned. Must do work now. Enjoy your afternoons.
Dude seriously? C'mon man, read the thread if you're gonna take a shot. My point was that it's difficult to use last year's stats because everything went wrong last year (everyone agreed with this except for Bob Humphries or whatever) but then I said if you absolutely must use last year... well... Cruz's year was better.
If you want me to use last year's stats, Cruz wins. If you want me to use this year's stats, Cruz wins. If you want me to use old stats, Cruz wins.
So really, short of going on a game-by-game basis, you can't even cherry pick a period where Nicks' production was better. It wouldn't make sense for me to fight to count or discount any particular period, statistically anyway, as Cruz has had better stats throughout their careers.
Again, good point. I think the main reason that you get the peak Nicks > peak Cruz is because most fans see Nicks/Plax going up against the "#1 CB", and Cruz matching up against the nickel CB (even though Cruz was man-to-man against C.Rodgers in the NFC 'ship). Is it fair? No.
Absolutely breathtaking after the catch move by Cruz. But at the end of the day (shout outs to 'Trel) Nicks attracts the #1 CBs for good reason.
As great as stats are, they tell half the story. It matters who's covering you. Nicks only put up 20 yards that game, but he was stuck up against the best CB in the game. Cruz was not.
Absolutely breathtaking after the catch move by Cruz. But at the end of the day (shout outs to 'Trel) Nicks attracts the #1 CBs for good reason.
As great as stats are, they tell half the story. It matters who's covering you. Nicks only put up 20 yards that game, but he was stuck up against the best CB in the game. Cruz was not.
I'll give you that. It's a fair point (though it was somewhat prior to Cruz being Cruz, so to speak.
Additionally, it was Cromartie he made miss the most who on most teams is a #1 DB. Was he on Cruz? No, but he certainly got played by Cruz.
Quote:
In comment 11897103 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
Nicks' peak doesn't compare to Cruz's. It's a myth being embraced soley on BBI at this point.
It's not a myth, it's something that was apparent to many people aside from yourself. This isn't about numbers that have been compiled. It's about pure talent. A lot of people saw it in Nicks, I guess you didn't.
Arc, I saw two very talented players with different, but equally viable skill sets. One player has grown before our eyes into an elite #1 while the other has less than 100 yards 1/4 of the way through the season in one of the league's best passing attacks after failing to cut it here.
Nicks is 26 years old!! Why is he failing (thus far) in Indy now too. Is 26 not considered a physical peak? Or did he actually peak at 23 and then forget how to play football? It's absurd the way people regard him, again, solely on this website.
You're not really this dense, are you?
Again, what he did was beyond impressive. I'm not trying to cheapen that. But Cruz was able to do a lot of damage to guys that had no business covering him in the first place. Nicks never really had that luxury. It was a consistent grind for him.
It's been explained to you 12 different ways. Admiring Nicks's talent takes nothing away from Cruz. It's obvious to everyone who watched the games who drew the tougher matchups and who drew the consistent double teams. It's been beaten to fucking death.
And yet you continue your little cunty act answering your own silly questions with stupid answers.
Quote:
Nothing I said in the post you quoted is inaccurate. You are a know-nothing dipshit when it comes to football on this site.
It's been explained to you 12 different ways. Admiring Nicks's talent takes nothing away from Cruz. It's obvious to everyone who watched the games who drew the tougher matchups and who drew the consistent double teams. It's been beaten to fucking death.
And yet you continue your little cunty act answering your own silly questions with stupid answers.
Cunty, huh. Ask anyone outside of BBI and they will across the board call Cruz the better player. Fuck off.
Quote:
In comment 11897276 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
Nothing I said in the post you quoted is inaccurate. You are a know-nothing dipshit when it comes to football on this site.
It's been explained to you 12 different ways. Admiring Nicks's talent takes nothing away from Cruz. It's obvious to everyone who watched the games who drew the tougher matchups and who drew the consistent double teams. It's been beaten to fucking death.
And yet you continue your little cunty act answering your own silly questions with stupid answers.
Cunty, huh. Ask anyone outside of BBI and they will across the board call Cruz the better player. Fuck off.
Sorry Mike but you are way off here. I don't know any analyst who thinks that Cruz was the better player than Nicks. Nicks may have fallen off a cliff over the last 2 years, but he was the straw that stirred the drink, not Cruz. Cruz was the beneficiary of Nicks greatness at his peak.
Quote:
In comment 11897276 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
Nothing I said in the post you quoted is inaccurate. You are a know-nothing dipshit when it comes to football on this site.
It's been explained to you 12 different ways. Admiring Nicks's talent takes nothing away from Cruz. It's obvious to everyone who watched the games who drew the tougher matchups and who drew the consistent double teams. It's been beaten to fucking death.
And yet you continue your little cunty act answering your own silly questions with stupid answers.
Cunty, huh. Ask anyone outside of BBI and they will across the board call Cruz the better player. Fuck off.
You take up a dumb, illogical position and are summarily dismantled by everyone on the board. Then you regurgitate the same point over 50 posts and get butthurt, while trying to convince everyone what an astute football observer you are.
Just stop it already.
I truly mean it when I say only on BBI, and only with fools like yourself.
Again... you are arguing it's illogical to say Victor Cruz is more talented to Hakeem Nicks, and you are defending it to the death like an asshole. You can't be taken seriously if you actually, somehow believe this.
but your argument was this: "I'll say it right now. If both players gave it their very best on every down... Hakeem Nicks couldn't carry Victor Cruz's jockstrap. Cruz is an elite talent and is EASILY.. I repeat.. EASILY the best wide receiver in the history of this organization."
And your argument was completely wrong. Sorry.
Nicks in 2014 is a broken down shell of what he once was. Of course nobody will pay him now big $$. And if he wasn't hurt last year he dogged it. Either way he killed his market value. What Cruz DOES have over him is a superior attitude and intelligence. He is a solid citizen.
I truly mean it when I say only on BBI, and only with fools like yourself.
Again... you are arguing it's illogical to say Victor Cruz is more talented to Hakeem Nicks, and you are defending it to the death like an asshole. You can't be taken seriously if you actually, somehow believe this.
Yes. It's illogical because you focus only on stats and ignore Nicks's many injuries - that have clearly slowed him down.
Prior to the injury, Nicks was the better player.
Elite - not even close
Elite - not even close
Earnest Gray? Really? Come on. He was a drop machine. Had 1 big year when they were 3-12-1. Please..
Quote:
Victor Cruz is more talented than Hakeem Nicks. It's illogical.
I truly mean it when I say only on BBI, and only with fools like yourself.
Again... you are arguing it's illogical to say Victor Cruz is more talented to Hakeem Nicks, and you are defending it to the death like an asshole. You can't be taken seriously if you actually, somehow believe this.
Yes. It's illogical because you focus only on stats and ignore Nicks's many injuries - that have clearly slowed him down.
Prior to the injury, Nicks was the better player.
Ahh okay, gotcha gotcha. So in 2011, Nicks' best season by far, he had a better year than Cruz, right?
1. Burress
2. Toomer
3. Nicks
4. Cruz
5. Smith
As already mentioned, Cruz is a slot guy who needs a #1 to draw some attention off him. He's an outstanding receiver but he needs that help.
He will be amazing when Beckham make3s an impact. Cruz will probably go on to be the Giants best all time receiver. Right now that title belongs to Amani Toomer.
1. Burress
2. Toomer
3. Nicks
4. Cruz
5. Smith
As already mentioned, Cruz is a slot guy who needs a #1 to draw some attention off him. He's an outstanding receiver but he needs that help.
He will be amazing when Beckham make3s an impact. Cruz will probably go on to be the Giants best all time receiver. Right now that title belongs to Amani Toomer.
I actually do agree that right now the title goes to Toomer. But I think Cruz is the most talented WR to ever wear a Giants uniform and is on a fast track to pass Toomer, I think, before his 31st birthday.
Nicks' 2011 postseason was the best ever by a Giant WR. That is indisputable.
Osi, I'm glad you bring that up, because I think it's that postseason that is distorting the realty of what each player actually is (and Cruz was no slouch that postseason either. Ask Carlos Rodgers. He was the only Giant to catch a touchdown in that Super Bowl, too). Nicks picked the best month ever to have his best month as a Giant. Cruz has been the best Giant for a couple years now.
Earnest Gray should never, ever, EVER be compared to Hakeem Nicks. It is an insult to the highest degree. Mullady and Shirk were more reliable receivers. Gray was an absolute drop machine. At least a half dozen receivers the Giants have had since Gray have been better.
Cruz is just getting started. He has the same opportunity Nicks had - to go down as the single greatest receiver the Giants ever had.
But he needs several more years of very high level play to get there.
Gray - 78 catches for 1,139 yds in 1983
Nicks - 76 catches for 1,192 yds in 2011
Both were solid #2's or lower end #1's. Lets not overrate Nicks.
But if you're so insisting on being bukkaked over and over, please continue.
I think you're listing Carlos Rodgers because there are no other named CBs he has torched over the years. If Nicks had the luxury to face off against the defenders Cruz had to, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
Shit I'd take peak Steve Smith, Reggie Wayne, and Marvin Harrison over peak Nicks any day. Cruz's abilty to crest a short pass I to a back breaking play has been there. Nicks imploded mentally. He had a two good to great years but the way some people talk here I wonder if they watch any other games. Consistency has to matter. His physical gifts were never going to make him a perennial top WR.
If this isn't the best example of the pot calling the kettle back, I don't know what is.
LMAO...
You want to say that Nicks saved his best month of his career for that playoff run, well the same could be said about Eli. There's nothing wrong with that. Nicks stepped up when it mattered most and annihilated the Falcons and Packers while having an under the radar great performance in the Super Bowl.
Cruz is awesome and I hope he sets all the Giants WR records there are. But at their very peaks, Nicks was just the better player in my eyes.
Just think back to that Tampa Bay game where both Cruz and Nicks set career records for yards that day. When they both had career days, Nicks' career day was clearly more impressive. Read BBI after that game and not a single soul would say that Cruz was more impressive in that Tampa game. Nicks peaked higher, but Cruz will probably go down as the greater Giant.
You want to say that Nicks saved his best month of his career for that playoff run, well the same could be said about Eli. There's nothing wrong with that. Nicks stepped up when it mattered most and annihilated the Falcons and Packers while having an under the radar great performance in the Super Bowl.
Cruz is awesome and I hope he sets all the Giants WR records there are. But at their very peaks, Nicks was just the better player in my eyes.
Just think back to that Tampa Bay game where both Cruz and Nicks set career records for yards that day. When they both had career days, Nicks' career day was clearly more impressive. Read BBI after that game and not a single soul would say that Cruz was more impressive in that Tampa game. Nicks peaked higher, but Cruz will probably go down as the greater Giant.
Osi. I've got nothing but respect for everything in this post (and your posts in general) I just disagree entirely, mainly because everything you just said implies that their it's justified their "peaks" are over with. It has a very "boy, Nicks in his prime.. you should've seen him" attitude. The man is 26 years old and had a 135 yard game for our Giants just last December. The guy should still be performing if he truly is as physically gifted as some make him out to be.
Shit I'd take peak Steve Smith, Reggie Wayne, and Marvin Harrison over peak Nicks any day. Cruz's abilty to crest a short pass I to a back breaking play has been there. Nicks imploded mentally. He had a two good to great years but the way some people talk here I wonder if they watch any other games. Consistency has to matter. His physical gifts were never going to make him a perennial top WR.
You'd take some HoF caliber WR's in their prime over Nicks? Cool story.. you really proved a point there...
Nicks was a top #1 WR. He could attract the teams best CB and safety help and still make plays.
Cruz is the best slot WR in the league. He's not going to line up outside against a teams best CB and force coverage to tilt his way. As a pure outside WR, he's not a top 20 WR in football probably.
If I'm people, than I'm not arc. In fact, we've had a back and forth on this thread about the basics. My opinion was
Nicks: Better hands, better strength
Cruz: Faster, better big play ability, shiftier, better against zone
You disagreed on faster, which is fair.
The difference now of course is 1)Victor is still elite and 2) Hakeem was elite.
Cruz is still elite and Nicks appears to have broken down last couple years, but at their height a couple years they were not only pretty equal but they were also complimentary.
Bottom line is they Giants won the SB with a below average rushing attack but Eli throws for just under 5000 yards and that whole offense was essentially build on the fact that Cruz and Nicks could not both be guarded. Yes Cruz's #s were better but Nicks was an absolute beast and was every bit the impact player that Cruz was (I would consider that year their peek).
Nicks broke down and his mouth took over. Dude was a great player for us and provided everything you want from first round WR.
Impact
Wins
Playoff determining catches
Since we are talking 'peek' look no further than that SB playoff run
vs ATL: Nicks 6/115, Cruz 2/28
vs GB: Nicks 7/165, Cruz 5/74
vs SF: Nicks 5/55, Cruz 10/142
vs NE: Nicks 10/109, Cruz 4/25
My god... look at Nicks during that playoff run and if you want say anything bad about Nicks during his peek come back to me. What really made them great was the combo. Hopefully ODB and Cruz and duplicate that.
But pretty please... Nicks was generally the deep sideline guy opposing teams didnt want to beat them and look at that stretch. Those are Megatron Jerry Rice playoff numbers.
Glad we have Cruz, he was clearly the right guy to keep, but pretty please with sugar on top just shut up about Cruz being better at his peek. Just aint so. Feelings arent facts!
That's fine but I just do not agree. Nicks did his damage against teams best CB's regularly (and they needed safety help). Cruz still doesn't get shadowed by CB1's really at all. Nicks was a package of speed, hands and power that could go and snag balls out of the air that Cruz couldn't.
Have you ever seen the Giants throw a fade to Cruz?
Oh, and he was the leading receiver in SB46.
Can't believe how quickly people forget.
Cruz's skillset is not one of a #1 WR. You're basically agreeing with that by listing what Cruz is good at and what Nicks is better at.
Cruz is deadly as a slot when there are other receiving weapons around him to open up the field. Not so much when he's the go to #1 guy.
I know Nicks is still young and should still be in his prime, but he always dealt with injuries and I think it's clear it has taken a toll on his game. He's lost explosiveness and just isn't the same player he was a few years ago.
Quote:
And again, people are totally missing the crux of the argument. This is not about body of work, consistency. It's none of that. It's about pure talent at their peak. Nothing more.
If I'm people, than I'm not arc. In fact, we've had a back and forth on this thread about the basics. My opinion was
Nicks: Better hands, better strength
Cruz: Faster, better big play ability, shiftier, better against zone
You disagreed on faster, which is fair.
A slot receiver is better exploiting a zone defense in a league where the cover 2 is so prevalent. Brilliant analysis.
Nicks's job wasn't to find a bubble between the seams. It was the fade. It was the back shoulder. It was out - muscling the DB on a jump ball.
You would hope a Giants fan could go a little deeper than those most basic of numbers.
I don't know about playing outside, but you have to assume he's going to our opposition's best CBs a lot. But With Beckham here now, providing he's at least decent, I don't think Cruz will be playing outside all that much.
My stance is basically the same as Osi. I just think the very best of Nicks that we saw was better than anything I've seen from Cruz. Does not mean in any way whatsoever that Cruz is not a good player. I think Cruz is an excellent player. But he's not what I consider a prototypical WR1. Nicks was much more that guy.
If we're talking about overall, career stuff.. it's a totally different argument because Cruz has a consistency factor that Nicks does not. If you put these guys on graphs, Cruz would jump right up in 2011 and stay pretty linear with some minor dips... Nicks would have a spike in 2011 that surpasses Cruz' line a bit but dips down below it in early-mid 2012 and it has been on the down swing since.
Quote:
By some is rather silly. Take over games? He had a few. But his physical gifts pale in comparison to some of the real stud #1 types like Megatron, Fitzgerald, Jones, and say AJ Green. All real legit #1 studs.
Shit I'd take peak Steve Smith, Reggie Wayne, and Marvin Harrison over peak Nicks any day. Cruz's abilty to crest a short pass I to a back breaking play has been there. Nicks imploded mentally. He had a two good to great years but the way some people talk here I wonder if they watch any other games. Consistency has to matter. His physical gifts were never going to make him a perennial top WR.
You'd take some HoF caliber WR's in their prime over Nicks? Cool story.. you really proved a point there...
No. I'm saying people talk like he's that Nicks is some stud #1 due to about a year and a half production. Amd he doesn't have the physical skill set to really dominate and take over The game consistently like a true #1 does. Like the guys I mentioned. And way to take one part Of a post and misconstrue it. And there's zero surity Jones and Green are HOF caliber because that's whom I compared Nicks to.
The other guys IMO are all HOF caliber and that's where I see Cruz's ceiling. And none of those guys for that supposed physical monster supposedly #1 WR But keep being intellectually dishonest.
Nicks is being over rated here and if pretending your opinion is somehow more valid keep on keeping on.
Quote:
In comment 11897403 LauderdaleMatty said:
Quote:
By some is rather silly. Take over games? He had a few. But his physical gifts pale in comparison to some of the real stud #1 types like Megatron, Fitzgerald, Jones, and say AJ Green. All real legit #1 studs.
Shit I'd take peak Steve Smith, Reggie Wayne, and Marvin Harrison over peak Nicks any day. Cruz's abilty to crest a short pass I to a back breaking play has been there. Nicks imploded mentally. He had a two good to great years but the way some people talk here I wonder if they watch any other games. Consistency has to matter. His physical gifts were never going to make him a perennial top WR.
You'd take some HoF caliber WR's in their prime over Nicks? Cool story.. you really proved a point there...
No. I'm saying people talk like he's that Nicks is some stud #1 due to about a year and a half production. Amd he doesn't have the physical skill set to really dominate and take over The game consistently like a true #1 does. Like the guys I mentioned. And way to take one part Of a post and misconstrue it. And there's zero surity Jones and Green are HOF caliber because that's whom I compared Nicks to.
The other guys IMO are all HOF caliber and that's where I see Cruz's ceiling. And none of those guys for that supposed physical monster supposedly #1 WR But keep being intellectually dishonest.
Nicks is being over rated here and if pretending your opinion is somehow more valid keep on keeping on.
He doesn't have the skillset or didn't? If it's the former, you still don't understand what we're arguing. If it's the latter, you're wrong.
But I don't think with both players 26 and 27 respectively and on quality offenses that it's fair to talk about Nicks' peak the way its being talked about on this thread and I don't think it's fair, even if you do think the things you think, to mentally close the book on the argument as if their peaks are over with.
And Nicks was kind of a freak in his own way. He had the hands and reach of a big receiver but the lateral mobility and lower center of gravity of a smaller player.
But I don't think with both players 26 and 27 respectively and on quality offenses that it's fair to talk about Nicks' peak the way its being talked about on this thread and I don't think it's fair, even if you do think the things you think, to mentally close the book on the argument as if their peaks are over with.
I don't understand why you keep citing his age and what he is right now when that's not what I am debating.
I've said multiple times that I think Nicks stopped being the elite WR he was at his peak in 2012 vs. TB. Whether it was the knee, his ankle getting jammed into the turf.. something else.. I don't know. But his body broke down a bit then and after and he was a guy who always had trouble staying 100% healthy to begin. I think it sapped him of the athletic ability to be the dominant type of WR he was capable of being at his best and now he's pretty clearly no longer that guy.
I would 100% take Cruz over him right now. No question. At the best they've each been, head to head, I would take Nicks. That's all.
I'm well aware of what you're saying. When Nicks was at his very best and was in a position to put it all together effectively, he could do things Cruz couldn't do.
But I find this argument to be, at best, irrelevant and at worse, just flat out incorrect. The way you are defining a players peak seems very tailored to suit your argument, it's not the way others would define a "peak" (ages 24 through like 29... or any lengthly stretch of youth).
You want me to discount everything either player has done before or after a small stretch of time where Nicks put it all together very well and it's not a fai way to argue this point. That's why I keep "going back to their age" as you put it.
This is OBVIOUSLY a MASSIVE exaggeration on my part, so don't jump all over me on this as I know it's not the same, but there was a brief period in time where gold ole' Jonathan Goff was as good a run stopping linebacker as we had seen here in a while. It was a blip on the radar though because he couldn't put it together.
Now again... to be clear... Nicks > > > > > > Goff, lol. My point is that many players are capable of dominant stretches, but it doesn't make them dominant players.
I didn't make the criteria for this, either. The first thread asked who the most talented WR in Giants history was. My answer was simply "at his peak, Nicks"
I didn't say he was the best WR in Giants history. There's a difference.
If every Giant WR got to play 8-10 years without injury, it is my belief that Nicks would have been the most productive and the best. Of course that's hypothetical but so was my answer to the initial thread. Nicks wasn't great for long enough. It doesn't mean he never was.
Al Harris was one of the best press corners in the league at the time.
I just think he's physically not the same. His effort wasn't great, but even at 100% effort he's not the same Nicks.
I kind of agree that was the result. But only hindsight, as I would have done anything to get him out on field soon as well.
Quote:
How many players with a proven skillset, had such a ho-hum walk year as Nicks did? Would you say that was somewhat rare, walk-year-wise?
I just think he's physically not the same. His effort wasn't great, but even at 100% effort he's not the same Nicks.
He isn't the same physically as you say, and his effort screams of complacency as well. He has no excuses now not to perform in the situation he is in at Indy, and since he isn't, its fairly obvious his game has seriously deteriorated.
Quote:
So is Plax's 2011 NFC Championship any less impressive because it was only Al Harris? I only bring him up because Osi brought up that post season. Rogers has had a very very good career.
Al Harris was one of the best press corners in the league at the time.
I didn't even see this. Dude, what are you saying? Al Harris was a top CB at the time.
I wasn't even trying to belittle Rogers, but you brought his name up a few times as if he was Revis caliber. Nicks was facing that kind of talent or better throughout.
Nicks chewed Aqib Talib up and spit him out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cruz never had to face that kind of talent before. Ever. Rogers included.
You want to say that Nicks saved his best month of his career for that playoff run, well the same could be said about Eli. There's nothing wrong with that. Nicks stepped up when it mattered most and annihilated the Falcons and Packers while having an under the radar great performance in the Super Bowl.
Cruz is awesome and I hope he sets all the Giants WR records there are. But at their very peaks, Nicks was just the better player in my eyes.
Just think back to that Tampa Bay game where both Cruz and Nicks set career records for yards that day. When they both had career days, Nicks' career day was clearly more impressive. Read BBI after that game and not a single soul would say that Cruz was more impressive in that Tampa game. Nicks peaked higher, but Cruz will probably go down as the greater Giant.
Great post
And he should view himself as the best. You mean to tell me that when you played you thought other people were better than you or that you couldn't beat your opponent? I always thought I was the best. You need that confidence in sports.
Quote:
In comment 11897070 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
Quote:
Cruz is a slot guy, not a #1.
Watch some Giants games, then get back to me.
Yeah, how did last year work out?
How did last year work out? In an ABYSMAL offense, he had I think 998 receiving yards while Nicks had maybe 500? And for the record, it's idiotic to compare the two players in last year's offense as everything from top to bottom went wrong... but since you're going there anyway, you are as wrong as possible. Cruz was substantially better than Nicks last year.
Actually Nicks caught 56 balls for 896 yards - 16 yards/catch
Cruz 73 catches for 998 yards - 13.6 yards/catch.
Not such a big difference.
Time to get over this. Cruz is the man and we may not have seen his best yet. Beckham has to live up to his billing if our offense is going to play at the same level as the other teams in our division. (Well, Washington, who knows?) I'm going to be as nervous watching him play his first few games as I am whether we win or not.
And the most perfect and crucial play of that Superbowl, easily one of the most perfect passing completions ever executed in football, was Manning to Manningham.
But the FO could not or chose not to hold the trio together, as I suspected they wouldn't. I hate this new salary cap league that insists on reshuffling players just as they hit their prime.
Nicks could have become the best WR in the league, he had the skill set. But the context for that to develop - remaining in one system for a few more years with the same supporting cast - has been permanently stripped away from this league.
No he could not have been. He didnt have the size or speed of Megatron, Dez, Green, Julio, Marshall.
Top 10-15 WR? Sure. But nowhere close to being the best.
Cruz would not be a #1 at wide receiver...Nicks would not be a good slot receiver.....
They did what they did best at their respective positions....
We all held our collective breaths, from his rookie season, whenever Nicks went down awkwardly....He had taken some shots, and got up....but he was never the same after being stepped on....Nicks was not a guy who caught the deep ball...yes, he could out leap defenders, but to go on a deep pattern and take it to the house, was rare...his forte was the back shoulder catch.....overpowering defenders going for the ball....he was not one to go over the middle, a lot....
Giants had to make a decision on Cruz....franchise him and then see how Cruz and Nicks play that season? But the Giants were in cap hell at the time....they didn't want to lose him, and signed him....
I think Nicks felt that he should have been offered a contract, too.....higher than Cruz's.....and when it didn't come, then came the 'tude....not showing up for OTA's.....not practicing.....not going 100% in preseason....not going 100% in the regular season....late for meetings.....
What boggles most Giant fans is, it was a contract year, and you would expect Nicks to give it his all, to get a big contract from the Giants, or get one in free agency....
Instead, he looked like he was being careful out there....that it was more important to play a full season, injury free, than to put up numbers? Was it 'tude? Injuries? Or just bad advice from his agent? We kept waiting for Nicks to turn it on....instead we saw absolutely no effort in Carolina...stopping on a pattern that led to an int....the week before the Dallas game....This was a guy who thought he should be getting 60M/5years....instead all he got was 2M plus, 2M in incentives....Nicks found out, there are no mulligans in football.....
numbers. His best years seem to be behind him
He absolutely had the strength and speed of those guys, all while going up against the oppositions top CB.
Link - ( New Window )
-
Then he seemed to disappear.
Probably for the rest of his career.
You're right, how could I mistaken the objective view of Hakeem Nicks being the best WR in the NFL. I forgot that according to you that Eli was holding him back all these years from making pro bowls and all pro teams.
The body control and concentration, and then you factor in the secondary it was against, pretty impressive.
When Nicks was healthy, he was fantastic and he was better than Cruz. Look no further than how seemingly every defense prepared for the Giants. They put their best DBs on Nicks to try and shut him down. 50 million defensive coordinators can't be wrong.
I also think that Cruz was perfect for Gilbride's system in the slot because he was a very smart route runner and knew how to make the right reads. It was a fantastic bonus to have him as an un-drafted player who could wreak havoc in the middle of the field.
Funny now that the offense is functional we see Cruz looking like a legit star again. Cruz is a number one WR.
Jerry rice wasn't very big either. Neither was Marvin Harrison, Steve smith or dozens of other number 1 Wrs.
ah emotional observations
You guys are getting too hung up on outside receivers vs slot Wrs. Cruz is a little bit of both. He's a better player. He stays healthy and will probably be producing top numbers when nicks is out of the nfl.
If you want to go on labels and supposed virtues that an outside wr has over a inside guy, nicks might be a little better but it you go on productivity, big plays in big spots, health, diva pain in the ass factor and overall body of work, Cruz is the better WR. But hey, nicks plays on the outside...please.
You guys are getting too hung up on outside receivers vs slot Wrs. Cruz is a little bit of both. He's a better player. He stays healthy and will probably be producing top numbers when nicks is out of the nfl.
If you want to go on labels and supposed virtues that an outside wr has over a inside guy, nicks might be a little better but it you go on productivity, big plays in big spots, health, diva pain in the ass factor and overall body of work, Cruz is the better WR. But hey, nicks plays on the outside...please.
We're hung up on outside vs. slot? Yeah - Us and every other GM in the league. Ever wonder why guys like Dez, Megatron, Evans, Nicks get drafted higher and paid so much more than small, agile slot guys?
10) DeSean Jackson, 9.4M
9) Steve Smith, 9.4M
8) Andre Johnson, 9.6M
7) Devin Hester, 10.2M(lol)
6) Percy Harvin, 10.7M
5) Vincent Jackson, 11.1M
4) Dwayne Bowe, 11.2M
3) Mike Wallace, 12M
2) Larry Fitzgerald, 15.75M
1) Megatron, 18.8M
See a pattern here?
The bottom line is to be elite on the outside you need to be able to threaten coverage deep, either by running by your guy or making contest catches with size.
There's more to playing the outside than size. Like whether you can beat a jam at the LOS, for instance. Or how well one plays jump balls.
Odelle is only 5'11" and scouts around the league said he is an outside guy due to his strength, top end speed and leaping ability. It's pretty obvious Cruz is most effective playing the slot.
That being said, teams clearly value outside guys more than those who feast on finding cushions in zone.
Cruz has been shut down when you are able to focus on him. Nick AT HIS PEAK was not able to be shutdown because he had an elite ability to catch the ball with guys draped all over him. And he made plays after the catch.
And the argument was most talented not most productive. Both burres and nicks were more talented at their peak due to their ability to produce when doubled.
Nicks was a damn good WR during his prime. Love the guy...but he was not an unstoppable force week in week out. HE had brilliant stretches...there's a difference.
Crux actually was unstoppable for an entire seasons. But we won't talk about that because Cruz isn't an X WR. Or Z...whatever it is.
Nicks certainly helped Cruz in 2011 and if I had to bet I would say that Nicks got doubled more than Cruz...but Nicks didn't sustain his level of play long enough for me to say that his career is or was better than what Cruz did and will do. Nicks at his peak drew more doubles...I still take Cruz. HE's the more reliable player to build around.