Manning chooses Broncos

[JPurthe1]

manning has had to face some good teams in the past, so i highly doubt it was a concern. think it came down to elway, who seemed to push pretty hard for manning.

I think Manning knew there was no guarantee he makes it with the SF 49ers to the big dance. He had the Giants, Eagles, Packers, Saints all in his way. The 49ers are a good team but those teams will be formidable even with PM at the helm.

He took the Broncos because more money, less pressure and a chance to control the whole offense (his way). More control, money over more pressure, less money.

I think Tennesse should have been his choice. He had more money, control, and pressure but with a contract that gave him control in his state.

Dumb, dumb!!!

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Mort and Schef seem to think Elway was the difference.

 

[TobyTyler]

Mort and Schef seem to think Elway was the difference.

I get the feeling, they, and a lot of other writers are trying to cover for Manning.

 

[JPurthe1]

I get the feeling, they, and a lot of other writers are trying to cover for Manning.

Ding ding ding we have a winner here!!!

 

[Crimsoncrew]

False Equivalency. There are irrational people or people who are lazy/ignorant and fail to use reason.

Crabtree has some talent and is OK. The dipshoots like Cazic would position Smith as a complete failure of a QB no shade of gray.

Overall Eli drop % was middle of the pack. 49ers 2nd to last.

Eli is better anyhow. But Eli's WRs would also from time to time make awesome plays.

Victor Cruz had 4 plays of 60+ yards. 319 yards with just 4 catches.
Nicks had 3 of his own.

We had a couple 50+ plays total.

Part of that is Smith and the offense. But I have little reason to believe Crabtree has that extra something to be great or even very good. Usually with the non QB positions you just occasionally need to see a spark of brilliance even in a bad situation to have a clue of potential.

No, it's not a false equivalency. The worst offenders, Iguana in particular, are every bit as bad as Cazic when it comes to Crabtree. And the blatantly incorrect information is right out of Cazic's playbook.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

And yes, Eli's WRs were better. But that offense was worse at every other position. Markedly worse. It makes Iguana's argument about Smith lacking talent pretty dubious IMO.

 

[BINGO]

Originally Posted by ViperVisor

"But I have little reason to believe Crabtree has that extra something to be great or even very good. Usually with the non QB positions you just occasionally need to see a spark of brilliance even in a bad situation to have a clue of potential."


I don't know about you, but I've seen the spark of brilliance:
Michael Crabtree *NFL Highlights* [Lightwork] - YouTube

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You are either a hater or ignorant.

He was very good last year. Admit that fact and we can debate how likely it is he repeats that vs. a better or worse year and is the investment worth it.

And this offense was was never gonna be new hottness in 2011. But you are Miss-identifying the main reason for the severe pull back. The preseason pass protection was horrible. QBs were getting sacked 13% of the time.

I'm playing catch-up here, so I'm sure I'll repeat some things. Sorry in advance.

Smith was very good, even elite (if there can be such a thing), at limiting turnovers last year. In virtually every other area, he was below average.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Who said Great? He was just below below Great.

Reg+Post season

He completed 60% of his passes.
3639 Yards
22 TDs
5 INTs
+ a little bit of rushing

Very Good. Not Great. But no doubt Very Good.

Yes, in 18 games, he did put up those numbers. Of course, he also averaged 7.1 YPA and took 51 sacks. He was solid and he had his moments. He was not very good. If he had been very good, we wouldn't have needed seven late-game comebacks.

 

[Bemular]

And yes, Eli's WRs were better. But that offense was worse at every other position. Markedly worse. It makes Iguana's argument about Smith lacking talent pretty dubious IMO.

What? Markedly worse at every other position? I'm not even sure it was even worse at every other position let alone markedly worse at every other position.

How many Giants games did you watch this season besides the two. Is it possible you are getting carried away with your adjectives.

 

[Bemular]

Yes, in 18 games, he did put up those numbers. Of course, he also averaged 7.1 YPA and took 51 sacks. He was solid and he had his moments. He was not very good. If he had been very good, we wouldn't have needed seven late-game comebacks.

This is getting hilarious - So now late game comebacks are a sign of being not very good? Well, if that is the case then Joe Montana must be pretty bad.

 

[jayviabay]

Originally Posted by ViperVisor

"But I have little reason to believe Crabtree has that extra something to be great or even very good. Usually with the non QB positions you just occasionally need to see a spark of brilliance even in a bad situation to have a clue of potential."


I don't know about you, but I've seen the spark of brilliance:
Michael Crabtree *NFL Highlights* [Lightwork] - YouTube

Didnt someone post the fact that the Giants receivers had the same amount of drops as crabtree?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

smith played well enough to win that game. the giants adjusted their coverage to take vernon out. it was a defensive battle on a wet field. turnovers were the difference.

if we had moss and manningham in that game, smith completes more passes.

No, Smith played well enough not to lose that game. He didn't do anything to win it when we had the chance. He had three good plays in the game. In the final 20 minutes, he did absolutely nothing throwing the ball. That's not playing well enough to win the NFC Championship game.

 

[wartyOne]

Straw man Straw man Straw man Straw man Straw man Straw man Straw man Straw man Straw man Straw man

And stop lying about him being subpar is everything but INTs. It was TDs and was avg to above avg in Yards Per and Comp%.

His TD's ranked 17th (bottom half of the league).
His Yards Per Attempt ranked 17th (bottom half of the league).
His Completion Percentage ranked 11th, 10 points lower than first, and 11 points lower than last (not counting Tebow, because he's not actually a QB).

How do any of those numbers make him above average?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

What? Markedly worse at every other position? I'm not even sure it was even worse at every other position let alone markedly worse at every other position.

How many Giants games did you watch this season besides the two. Is it possible you are getting carried away with your adjectives.

Markedly worse at every other position group. OL as a whole was terrible. TE was well below average. RB was only ok when Bradshaw was healthy, and he missed half the season. Without him it was a debacle. Baas, when healthy, was probably slightly better than Goodwin. I didn't scrutinize Chris Snee, but he was probably better than Snyder. But Diehl and McKenzie were criminally bad.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Can someone please explain to me how our awful numbers on 3rd down, and Smith's bad numbers in particular, is a straw man when discussing how good he was this season? Haven't figured this one out yet.

 

[threelittleturds]

Markedly worse at every other position group. OL as a whole was terrible. TE was well below average. RB was only ok when Bradshaw was healthy, and he missed half the season. Without him it was a debacle. Baas, when healthy, was probably slightly better than Goodwin. I didn't scrutinize Chris Snee, but he was probably better than Snyder. But Diehl and McKenzie were criminally bad.

If you're talking just about the regular season, I'm with you on saying that the Giants O-Line was worse than the 49ers line. When it comes to the playoffs, the NFL took away that weakness for pretty much every single team. A high portion of the media, and the fans themselves were commenting on how the NFL was letting people play and focusing a lot on non-calls against the O-lines.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

But Diehl and McKenzie were criminally bad.

Crimson, I respect your football knowledge, but I will go with Tuesday Morning QB here.......I mean, if there's one thing Gregg Easterbrook knows its OL play, and Diehl was his "Non-Quarterback-Non-Running Back-MVP" last year

It's time to present the Tuesday Morning Quarterback Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back NFL MVP - ESPN

And this may sound like typical "me", but you have a growing tendency to exaggerate Smith's faults and downplay other QBs faults, like the other haterz have always done.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

iblame kyle williams

And Kyle Williams bears a lot of the blame. Of course, when we had four minutes left in regulation and a drive in OT, needing only a FG to win it, Smith went 2-7 for 14 yards (11 of that was one pass on 3rd and 12) and took two sacks for -11.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This is getting hilarious - So now late game comebacks are a sign of being not very good? Well, if that is the case then Joe Montana must be pretty bad.

This season, absolutely. The late game comebacks are a sign that we didn't take control of games we should have earlier. That's not the case in every game, of course, but it is in many of them, including the Saints game. The D forced five turnovers, yet we only put up 20 points in the first 50 minutes of the game. We should have been LEADING by 20 points by that point. Instead, we let NO hang around.

The reality this season and throughout his career is that Smith rarely makes plays unless he absolutely has to. Without a great D and very good STs, that approach is difficult to sustain. Consistent play in the second and third quarters is a huge problem for Smith.