Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
·
3m
The #Giants won’t know how functional Daniel Jones is until later in the week when he tries to practice, but there is hope that it’s short-term. As in, if he misses time, it may just be a game. But MRI today.
This is a winnable game if DJ plays. I don't understand people thinking we have no chance. Wilson is good but Seattle is very capable of losing to any team with a defense like that. Hope they beat Philly and get a little banged up tonight.
as much as it would suck, I'd lean toward not making him take that plane ride to SEA and let him rest for a week. 12 hours in a plane with a bad hammy can't be comfortable.
They aren't the 85 Bears. I don't buy that Seattle can't be beat, not for a second. Would I bet my life on a Giants win? No, but if I had a dollar every time a team surprises in the NFL i'd be loaded.
Defense travels. Something tells me mid way through the 3rd quarter the Giants will be in this game.
The MRI will reveal how many muscle fibers are stretched or torn
It doesn't seem that informative, but he could have learned that the trainers are hopeful based on his movements and an exam that it might not be serious.
As others say above, I'd likely sit him at Seattle too
initially considering he didn’t go to the locker room and was able to sprint/move around well but just couldn’t really plant and fire. He’s a tough kid, wouldn’t be surprised if he plays. Sit and ice for 4 days and see what Friday brings.
I got a text from a source, that the Giants expect him to miss 2-3 weeks. We shall see what happens as he is young and tough.
No offense man and you may be right but your credibility is shot when you made a thread and used someone elses report verbatim and claimed it was your source...
dont kill the messenger just posting what Rappaport said and it is the opposite of really bad..
Ignore it, always appreciate your posts.
haha damn and i just attacked you lol
pretty lame on your part as I always support you outside of your love for Julius Randle. I legit got a text from a source, that the pre MRI estimate is 2-3 weeks, but they doubt the MRI will reveal anything differently.
RE: Yes, the Hawks' D is pretty bad, but did you guys
dont kill the messenger just posting what Rappaport said and it is the opposite of really bad..
Ignore it, always appreciate your posts.
haha damn and i just attacked you lol
pretty lame on your part as I always support you outside of your love for Julius Randle. I legit got a text from a source, that the pre MRI estimate is 2-3 weeks, but they doubt the MRI will reveal anything differently.
yeah thats my bad
RE: RE: Yes, the Hawks' D is pretty bad, but did you guys
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Are there any type of shots to the hammy that can allow DJ to play?
Breaking news update......everything is exactly the same as it was last night. Stay tuned for the next update that doesn’t provide any new information!
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
I think that would have/could haves are not all that different from should haves. In all cases, it ends up being what it ends up with the bottom line being each game is its own thing.
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
I think that would have/could haves are not all that different from should haves. In all cases, it ends up being what it ends up with the bottom line being each game is its own thing.
Bill, I think the point remains that TTH and I are saying that some teams have more "what if" scenarios than others. You don't see this being the case with the Chiefs, Titans, Packers, Steelers, et al. With those teams, you are surprised when they DON'T score TDs in the RZ.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Yes, the Hawks' D is pretty bad, but did you guys
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
The point was (I'm assuming) is that the opportunity was at least there to score 30+. What ifs don't get you anywhere, but the offense had chances, when in previous years it would have been hard to imagine getting to 20+ even with "what ifs".
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Yes, the Hawks' D is pretty bad, but did you guys
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
The point was (I'm assuming) is that the opportunity was at least there to score 30+. What ifs don't get you anywhere, but the offense had chances, when in previous years it would have been hard to imagine getting to 20+ even with "what ifs".
That was NOT the point. The point was that expectations were 30 points and we made plenty of plays to prevent us from doing that. Good teams might have 1 or 2. We routinely have 4 or more.
I don't want to miller the thread any more. On the reverse, I have come to EXPECT the D to limit the opposition to 20 or less which, compared to the last few years, is a marked improvement. Our D went from "consistently ineffective" to "good" after almost no offseason.
Youy should be able to see the differences in evaluating both units. Sorry if that sounds snarky.
What if the Bengals player doesn’t drop that pick from McCoy in the
This piggy backs my fear of placing too much weight on the shot we have in the division. The fact remains we are still not a good team. We just suck a little less, right now, than the 3 other teams. There are reasons we are 4-7, haven't beaten a team with a winning record in years, etc. We seem to have a bunch of what ifs every game, win or lose. Good teams have 1 or 2 and more easily overcome them. Lesser teams have more and can't overcome them. So, what about this what if...if we weren't playing one of the handful of teams in the league worse than us, instead of thinking about us scoring 30 points, maybe we are talking about another ugly loss.
This piggy backs my fear of placing too much weight on the shot we have in the division. The fact remains we are still not a good team. We just suck a little less, right now, than the 3 other teams. There are reasons we are 4-7, haven't beaten a team with a winning record in years, etc. We seem to have a bunch of what ifs every game, win or lose. Good teams have 1 or 2 and more easily overcome them. Lesser teams have more and can't overcome them. So, what about this what if...if we weren't playing one of the handful of teams in the league worse than us, instead of thinking about us scoring 30 points, maybe we are talking about another ugly loss.
Then, you have learning teams or teams in transition...
This piggy backs my fear of placing too much weight on the shot we have in the division. The fact remains we are still not a good team. We just suck a little less, right now, than the 3 other teams. There are reasons we are 4-7, haven't beaten a team with a winning record in years, etc. We seem to have a bunch of what ifs every game, win or lose. Good teams have 1 or 2 and more easily overcome them. Lesser teams have more and can't overcome them. So, what about this what if...if we weren't playing one of the handful of teams in the league worse than us, instead of thinking about us scoring 30 points, maybe we are talking about another ugly loss.
I think we are actually saying the exact same thing. But I would take it a step further: apparently after our performance against the Bengals D, we should stop assuming we can beat teams with bad Defenses, but good offenses like the Seahawks who have an excellent offense are a bad match-up despite our good defense. In short, I am less confident in our developing offense scoring regularly against a team with a bad defense than I am in our good defense stopping a fantastic offense... i.e. this weekend's game.
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Yes, the Hawks' D is pretty bad, but did you guys
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
I accept that.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Yes, the Hawks' D is pretty bad, but did you guys
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
what was Starks? 2 for 19 on three pointers ? arghhh
Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
#Giants QB Daniel Jones underwent tests on his hamstring today and sources say he did avoid major injury. He has an outside chance at playing Sunday, though they’ll know more if he’s able to get on the field and test it in a few days. NYG will have plans with Jones & without him.
Love it! Sit this wee, rest up and back next week. That would be terrific!
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
what was Starks? 2 for 19 on three pointers ? arghhh
That was Game 7....I was referring to Game 6
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Yes, the Hawks' D is pretty bad, but did you guys
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
what was Starks? 2 for 19 on three pointers ? arghhh
That was Game 7....I was referring to Game 6
If Hakeem had clipped his fingernails before the game, the Knicks are champs.
I agree.
All it takes in a reply is to delete everything between the
Quote:
and
BBCode directives.
It would be nice if BBI admin provided a simple tutorial link on how to efficiently use some of the more arcane features of the sight.
McCoy can be a nice serviceable 17/22 for 250 2 TDs & no turnovers on avg over the next 2 to 3 games .... while the RB by committee continues to work... though I expect to see more effort to make Colt put the team on his back ... which means EE, SS, GT and Slayton need to elevate their game.
McCoy can be a nice serviceable 17/22 for 250 2 TDs & no turnovers on avg over the next 2 to 3 games .... while the RB by committee continues to work... though I expect to see more effort to make Colt put the team on his back ... which means EE, SS, GT and Slayton need to elevate their game.
That's more than serviceable. That's what we would want from Jones.
Hasn't McCoy had himself a game or two before? I mean Garrett has a ton of confidence in him throwing in the redzone on 3rd and 15 just checking in. I thought that was idiotic, but shows what he thinks of the guy. He's capable, but turnover prone. Pretty lucky that didn't show up yesterday.
McCoy can be a nice serviceable 17/22 for 250 2 TDs & no turnovers on avg over the next 2 to 3 games .... while the RB by committee continues to work... though I expect to see more effort to make Colt put the team on his back ... which means EE, SS, GT and Slayton need to elevate their game.
That's more than serviceable. That's what we would want from Jones.
Right? I would be thrilled if McCoy finishes 15-25 for 180 yards and a TD.
Hasn't McCoy had himself a game or two before? I mean Garrett has a ton of confidence in him throwing in the redzone on 3rd and 15 just checking in. I thought that was idiotic, but shows what he thinks of the guy. He's capable, but turnover prone. Pretty lucky that didn't show up yesterday.
In 2014 McCoy had a big game versus the Colts but I believe a lot of his stats were in garbage time as they lost 49-27. McCoy was 31-47 for 392 yards and 3 TD.
Hasn't McCoy had himself a game or two before? I mean Garrett has a ton of confidence in him throwing in the redzone on 3rd and 15 just checking in. I thought that was idiotic, but shows what he thinks of the guy. He's capable, but turnover prone. Pretty lucky that didn't show up yesterday.
In 2014 McCoy had a big game versus the Colts but I believe a lot of his stats were in garbage time as they lost 49-27. McCoy was 31-47 for 392 yards and 3 TD.
I believe the key will be no turnovers. He doesn't have to win a game by himself. But, he certainly can't lose it. Really, there should be more pressure on the OL, Gallman, and Morris.
He couldn't just wait until the MRI to give his take?
The Hawks have to get out of Philly first ... and that field, especially if it’s wet and rainy can wreak havoc ...
Nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" or better yet nothing at all. But that doesn't get you clicks.
He couldn't just wait until the MRI to give his take?
I agree. Fingers crossed for Jones here.
He couldn't just wait until the MRI to give his take?
Haha, that reminded me of Mr Blonde from Reservoir Dogs
Either he's alive, or he's dead, or the cops got him, or they didn't...
why didn't they ice his hamstring while he was on the sidelines?
He couldn't just wait until the MRI to give his take?
Yeah he basically told us only what our common sense already knows.
The MRI results will be the real news.
They aren't the 85 Bears. I don't buy that Seattle can't be beat, not for a second. Would I bet my life on a Giants win? No, but if I had a dollar every time a team surprises in the NFL i'd be loaded.
Defense travels. Something tells me mid way through the 3rd quarter the Giants will be in this game.
I know it was only training camp, but it sounded like McCoy did very well there. This could be his chance to prove his worth.
Perhaps more like two or three
I don’t get takes like this.
He couldn't just wait until the MRI to give his take?
My thoughts exactly. Update my ass, nothing we didn't know yesterday.
LOL, yeah kind of reminds me of the old fake news threads we used to see on April Fools Day until they started banning people for them.
Open the thread and, "Huh, really"?
why didn't they ice his hamstring while he was on the sidelines?
Ice immediately? Only after the oroper accupuncture treatment!
Then ice and hot alternating compresses....
He couldn't just wait until the MRI to give his take?
Lol, I had the same reaction. That is not an update. That's a reiteration of yesterday's update.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Ignore it, always appreciate your posts.
No offense man and you may be right but your credibility is shot when you made a thread and used someone elses report verbatim and claimed it was your source...
I don't think any of it was directed at you
Quote:
dont kill the messenger just posting what Rappaport said and it is the opposite of really bad..
Ignore it, always appreciate your posts.
haha damn and i just attacked you lol
LOL...It's more about Rappaport trying to get cheap clicks than about you my friend.
Quote:
In comment 15061106 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
dont kill the messenger just posting what Rappaport said and it is the opposite of really bad..
Ignore it, always appreciate your posts.
haha damn and i just attacked you lol
pretty lame on your part as I always support you outside of your love for Julius Randle. I legit got a text from a source, that the pre MRI estimate is 2-3 weeks, but they doubt the MRI will reveal anything differently.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Quote:
In comment 15061108 Pete44 said:
Quote:
In comment 15061106 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
dont kill the messenger just posting what Rappaport said and it is the opposite of really bad..
Ignore it, always appreciate your posts.
haha damn and i just attacked you lol
pretty lame on your part as I always support you outside of your love for Julius Randle. I legit got a text from a source, that the pre MRI estimate is 2-3 weeks, but they doubt the MRI will reveal anything differently.
yeah thats my bad
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Quote:
the incompetence of the beat writers today... or the decision of some moderator to sticky this useless thread.
LOL, yeah kind of reminds me of the old fake news threads we used to see on April Fools Day until they started banning people for them.
Open the thread and, "Huh, really"?
Similarly, my favorite is from the SNL "newscast" segment:
BULLETIN: Generalissimo Franco is still dead!
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Blondes weaken legs, not strengthen them.
Have you watched football in the last 20 years? Good throws beat good coverage all day.
Water is wet, story at noon.
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
Quote:
that's really enlightening.
He couldn't just wait until the MRI to give his take?
My thoughts exactly. Update my ass, nothing we didn't know yesterday.
Maybe he just wanted to counter Ranaan saying that they needed to amputate and provide a little relief?
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
I think that would have/could haves are not all that different from should haves. In all cases, it ends up being what it ends up with the bottom line being each game is its own thing.
...
...
KIDDING!! KIDDING!!
Quote:
In comment 15061207 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
I think that would have/could haves are not all that different from should haves. In all cases, it ends up being what it ends up with the bottom line being each game is its own thing.
Bill, I think the point remains that TTH and I are saying that some teams have more "what if" scenarios than others. You don't see this being the case with the Chiefs, Titans, Packers, Steelers, et al. With those teams, you are surprised when they DON'T score TDs in the RZ.
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
The point was (I'm assuming) is that the opportunity was at least there to score 30+. What ifs don't get you anywhere, but the offense had chances, when in previous years it would have been hard to imagine getting to 20+ even with "what ifs".
Quote:
In comment 15061207 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
The point was (I'm assuming) is that the opportunity was at least there to score 30+. What ifs don't get you anywhere, but the offense had chances, when in previous years it would have been hard to imagine getting to 20+ even with "what ifs".
That was NOT the point. The point was that expectations were 30 points and we made plenty of plays to prevent us from doing that. Good teams might have 1 or 2. We routinely have 4 or more.
I don't want to miller the thread any more. On the reverse, I have come to EXPECT the D to limit the opposition to 20 or less which, compared to the last few years, is a marked improvement. Our D went from "consistently ineffective" to "good" after almost no offseason.
Youy should be able to see the differences in evaluating both units. Sorry if that sounds snarky.
I think we are actually saying the exact same thing. But I would take it a step further: apparently after our performance against the Bengals D, we should stop assuming we can beat teams with bad Defenses, but good offenses like the Seahawks who have an excellent offense are a bad match-up despite our good defense. In short, I am less confident in our developing offense scoring regularly against a team with a bad defense than I am in our good defense stopping a fantastic offense... i.e. this weekend's game.
all good duder
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
Quote:
In comment 15061207 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
I accept that.
Quote:
In comment 15061207 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
what was Starks? 2 for 19 on three pointers ? arghhh
@RapSheet
#Giants QB Daniel Jones underwent tests on his hamstring today and sources say he did avoid major injury. He has an outside chance at playing Sunday, though they’ll know more if he’s able to get on the field and test it in a few days. NYG will have plans with Jones & without him.
Love it! Sit this wee, rest up and back next week. That would be terrific!
If you don't find the post worthwhile why are you reading and engaging?
Why are you guys such whiney pricks?
Quote:
In comment 15061271 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061207 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
what was Starks? 2 for 19 on three pointers ? arghhh
That was Game 7....I was referring to Game 6
Quote:
In comment 15061448 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061271 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061207 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 15061154 PatersonPlank said:
Quote:
In comment 15061133 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 15061121 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 15061104 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
see us trying to score against a poor Bengals team? Everybody was covered for the most part. It tooks 4 tries to run the ball in from the 1.
Our offense is scary bad in the RZ.
Actually, prior to yesterday, they were mentioning how our offense was much improved in the red zone over the last 4 or 5 weeks.
It is definitely improved....from totally ineffective, to below average at best.
We should have put up 30 yesterdasy
If Slayton catches that ball, or
MCoy doesn't throw it over Lewis's head by 10 yards, or
Engram doesn't fumble on a routine play
We score 30
Could have / should have is usually the difference between good offenses and not. Good offenses don't have a lot of could have/should have situations. The Giants are a work in progress.
Thank you!
If Scott Norwood makes that 47 yarder in Tampa and if Wes Welker catches that wide open pass in SB 46, we are 2-3 in Super Bowls.
If Mariano doesnt give up a dribbler to Luis Gonzo in 2001, the Yankees have 28 World Series.
If John Starks doesnt get blocked by Hakeem in 1994, maybe the Knicks AND Rangers win championships that year.
I like you PP, but you came up with 3 "ifs" for one game as a reason for not getting a result.
God damn Starks, we should have won that year.
I get your point. I was just saying that total points is not the end all for analyzing how the offense did
what was Starks? 2 for 19 on three pointers ? arghhh
That was Game 7....I was referring to Game 6
Then what :)
Get it together fellas! Cmon!
Then what :)
Then... you wake up!
Get it together fellas! Cmon!
All it takes in a reply is to delete everything between the
It would be nice if BBI admin provided a simple tutorial link on how to efficiently use some of the more arcane features of the sight.
That's more than serviceable. That's what we would want from Jones.
Then what :)
Then he wakes up.
Quote:
400 yards, 4 TDs, Gs win 45-42.
Then what :)
Then he wakes up.
Hasn't McCoy had himself a game or two before? I mean Garrett has a ton of confidence in him throwing in the redzone on 3rd and 15 just checking in. I thought that was idiotic, but shows what he thinks of the guy. He's capable, but turnover prone. Pretty lucky that didn't show up yesterday.
Quote:
McCoy can be a nice serviceable 17/22 for 250 2 TDs & no turnovers on avg over the next 2 to 3 games .... while the RB by committee continues to work... though I expect to see more effort to make Colt put the team on his back ... which means EE, SS, GT and Slayton need to elevate their game.
That's more than serviceable. That's what we would want from Jones.
Right? I would be thrilled if McCoy finishes 15-25 for 180 yards and a TD.
Hasn't McCoy had himself a game or two before? I mean Garrett has a ton of confidence in him throwing in the redzone on 3rd and 15 just checking in. I thought that was idiotic, but shows what he thinks of the guy. He's capable, but turnover prone. Pretty lucky that didn't show up yesterday.
In 2014 McCoy had a big game versus the Colts but I believe a lot of his stats were in garbage time as they lost 49-27. McCoy was 31-47 for 392 yards and 3 TD.
Quote:
Hasn't McCoy had himself a game or two before? I mean Garrett has a ton of confidence in him throwing in the redzone on 3rd and 15 just checking in. I thought that was idiotic, but shows what he thinks of the guy. He's capable, but turnover prone. Pretty lucky that didn't show up yesterday.
In 2014 McCoy had a big game versus the Colts but I believe a lot of his stats were in garbage time as they lost 49-27. McCoy was 31-47 for 392 yards and 3 TD.