Vacchiano's Obsession with Shockey Continues

...but I think it's pretty evident every time the Giants get into the redzone that they're missing Shockey more than just a bit.

Shockey's departure well received (I get it! A pun!) by wideouts.

Really?

What about the actual, relevant article he should have penned: Shockey's departure not received well by TIGHT ENDS ON GIANTS ROSTER.

needs to really move past their respective Shockey obsessions. It's starting to become borderline creepy.

We have plenty of weapons.

But i also think we have enough talent to compensate for that missing ingredient once we tweak a few things.

The nice thing is that we have a few games left to get it all ironed out before we really need it working perfectly

But we definitely miss JS in the receiving department. But he had to go: He would have been a distraction, something he even acknowledges. I expect Reese to upgrade the position next offseason, be it FA or the draft.

but this is not a story that will go away any time soon.
The comparisons will last all year, like it or not.

I wish we had been able to keep Shockey and I hope he does well in New Orleans.

and when they've had problems its been more the results of a stupid penalty.

In 14 games last year he caught 3 TDs. Granted, all three were within the red-zone but 3 out of however many TDs we scored in the red-zone in the 14 games Shockey played last year is peanuts.

They do have to account for him, hence opening up more opportunities for others...Boss hardly instills fear at this point in time...

when I said I thought Vacchiano disliked Shockey and made it obvious in his blog. We are now 2 weeks into the season and he is still putting his name in his headlines. Its getting tp be pretty pathetic.

Ralph and others get under his skin as much as they did.

I don't think we miss Shockey in the least. The coaches have had ample time to craft an offense that doesn't use him, and they've done a good job doing so.

Hey, he gets under the skin of BBIers, why not Shockey's? :o)

Francisco Franco is still dead.

our TEs...i'd say we miss him.

as far as I'm concerned, Shockey retired at the same time Strahan did. The Giants moved on and he's not missed at all.
We have plenty of red zone weapons now.

to create this thread and me to respond to it.

RV probably feels the Giants are boring otherwise. Can't deny that it still gets to some people.

can complain about Vacchiano continuing to talk about Shockey. God knows Shockey and the Giants TE situation are still a topic here on the Forum.

OR the gameplans are diff in that the WRs are the main passing threat? The team is shifting (shifted) to WR oriented. Boss is the 3rd option at best more likely 4th. Plax, Toomer, Smith\Hixon whoever is in as the 3rd, TE\RB depending on which is the extra blocker, then 4th WR Moss. The only way Moss is bumped is if its his # being called specifically same for Boss (audible hot read blitzing LB or S).

In the long run this bodes well for Moss's chance to stay with the team after this year. Toomer takes a cut to stay or is graciously released.

Because he drew coverage. His presence in the red zone opened up other options, so how many TDs he caught is a mote point

The people who hated to see him go still can't get the taste of his dick out of their mouth (sticking with the ex-wife theme). They will defend him to the end of the earth and link to every article written about him (like the one Ralph wrote).

So why wouldn't a Giants beat reporter write about him? It will probably be the most read article today.

Who cares if it's the TE or the WR making the catches? As long as the catch is made. And we've had red zone efficiency problems for a long time - that's nothing new since Shockey left.

Ralph is just giving Giants fans what they want and this thread is evidence of it.

red zone stats from previous years or this year?

your crude post aside, the thread is not about whether message board members are interested in Shockey. It's about one reporter's pathetic obsession.

If Ralph didn't write that article, I assure you I wouldn't have started a thread related to Shockey.

But all you did was vindicate his choice. He isn't a jilted lover, he is a writer. His goal is to be read and you've assisted him in that goal.

If you wanted to ridicule him, you should've pointed out that the Giants proved they didn't miss Shockey by winning the damn Super Bowl without him. What does a 2-0 start really add to that?

p.s.-- And I apoligize for my crude remark.

at the end of the day, because that's who's production Shockey would be reducing. I think its a wash in the receiving dept, but the blocking is missed.

by giving it to bradshaw when they are 30 yards out :)

the only player or thing that kept Eli back, attention whore.

Shockey and he admitted to me in an email that he was going to miss Shockey because he made it easy to write stuff about. And comments about Shockey drive comments to his blog, which probably makes Ralph look good.

But I think it's a bit like Ralph is the nerdy kid in HS and Shockey is the big football hero who gets all the cheerleaders. All Ralph can do is write stuff about Shockey to feel he's getting some kind of revenge.

adjusted to the loss of Shockey last season and were successful. No real news that we are getting along without him now. The offense was tweaked to use the WRs and RBs more and not depend on big production from the TE in the passing game. We have moved on, Shockey has moved on. Vacchiano should move on too, unless its a personal thing. IMO.

It's nothing personal, it's his job. And the more people comment on it, the more obvious it is that not everyone has moved on. Apparently, there are people in New York who still think he is newsworthy. And my guess is that it will continue to be the case throughout the season, especially with two draft picks riding on the outcome of the Saints season.

So don't blame Ralph, blame the people who clicked on the link and commented on this thread, myself included. Back at the Daily News, Ralph is getting a pat on the back from his boss.

Shockey was a Giant. Now he's not. This type of thing is incredibly common. Yes, Shockey was a very talented and popular player, but he wouldn't be the first player with those qualities to change teams. Shockey was one of my favorite players, but now he's on a different team and it's not a big deal.

not just 'hey, we're 2-0 - who needs you!'

Hell, if you want to work it that way, you could do the same for Osi and Strahan.

I wanted Shockey gone in the end because I thought he was going to be disruptive, but even still have to believe that a player of his caliber can't be replaced that easily, that quickly.

"Ding, Ding" Jcn is spot on here

analysis from 2 weeks of football? One could easily say the red zone problems in week 1 were due to rustiness between Eli and his top two WRs.

his tight end

as if when Boss or Johnson run a route they are left uncovered. If there is a receiver running a route in the "green" zone, "red" zone, whatever the hell you want to call it that receiver will draw coverage from at least 1 LB or DB.

Is the argument that Shockey was so dangerous with all 3 TDs last season that he drew double coverage? Because if anything Toomer and Plax were the more dangerous weapons in that area and drew more coverage than Shockey.

since we are still on the subject, here's some stuff from the ESPN interview that didn't make it:

"I have some great memories of New York and that's what's really important to me: great memories, great teammates and a Super Bowl ring. No, I don't wear any of my rings I've won. I don't wear my game jersey to school anymore, either, ya know? I consider myself being on a Super Bowl team. I feel a pretty special thing to be a part of that season: the not losing on the road, to go to London and play against the Dolphins, to play in front of 80,000 people in Giants Stadium. I was part of a Super Bowl team, that's the reality of it, I just didn't get to finish the last leg, I got hurt."

"Let's be honest here: I wouldn't say I enjoy blocking as much as I like catching the ball and scoring touchdowns, but yeah, there is something about looking at a 290-pound guy and trying to win that battle."
Link - ( New Window )

Still po'd how it turned out. All over nothing.

Sensing a double-standard here. One for Shockey and one for Ralph. Was it not Shockey who was very recently on the cover of a major sports mag and rehashing all the gory details from his unique perspective and throwing the Giants org, media and fans who will believe anything in print under the bus? And when asked about this extensive interview, was it not Coughlin that said he was not aware of the article and thought Shockey had moved on? I believe I read the latter here on BBI. Shockey made rebuttals/responses fair game by his actions. He got what he wanted in his transfer to the Saints. Time for Shockey to move on.

Just let it go.

?

needlessly slammed a player who isnt here anymore, yeah, it was fine.

.

in the headline of a story who hasnt been around for since July? If you are writing a story about the emerging young WRs or how well the passing game is doing, why not give those guys credit rather than use that stupid pun? This line was stupid too: "Of course, when Shockey was here, he wanted the ball spread around mostly to him.". Ralph has made it abundantly clear that he doesnt like Shockey. Thats fine, I couldnt care less who he likes and doesnt like. But he's still writing about the guy 2 weeks into the new season. He sounds like a whiney jilted lover.

Shockey wasn't slammed at all. It is a very accurate article about the differences in our passing offense this season, which so happens to coincide with the departure of Shockey. This site is awfully critical of Ralph at times. Like a jilted lover.

Ok, time to play detective.

lends some credence to it. I mean, why use the photo of Steve Smith and mention Shockey in the headline? Of course you would mention him when citing the differences in the passing game, but Ralph has made it a point on several occasions, much more than any of the other beat writers, to mention Shockey very negatively. He's gone now, I just dont see the point.

The "double coverage" Shockey drew has long been exaggerated on BBI and elsewhere.

So, poor Jeremy Shockey should be left alone, but the Tiki threads continue unabated over a year later. I love BBI logic.

personally I think his loss will affect the passing game. A 2 game sample is ridiculously flawed to conclusively state anything. As far as the passing game is concerned we had 1 poor(imo) game followed up by one stellar game. The stellar game was against a team the Eagles could have hung 70 on the week prior. I'd the like to revisit the subject about 8 games in.

Also keep in mind that a blogger's job is to write articles that are going to generate views and stir up discussion. Not pander to the whims of your average fan.