Manning chooses Broncos

[Crimsoncrew]

I have read your post and you are even more wrong now than before; and you are now attempting to cover your tracks by just making shit up. As I said, your claim that the Giants were "markedly worse at every other position [and now] position group" is false.

You have provided zero evidence to support your claim that "the Giants were "markedly worse at every other position [and now] position group"

Perhaps you should either adjust your claim or maybe you should look up the word markedly? Just some thoughts. Do what you wish but disagreeing doesn't change the facts which I have provided to support my position.

And you have provided zero evidence to refute my claim. I guess we're even.

 

[Flyingiguana]

one thing to keep in mind about the giants. first off eli has turned it up big time.

eli and his recievers are on the same page. he knows where they will be and they get open. even if their line isn't very good he has enough time because of the above. not to mention his line is the best at holding and not getting a penalty...

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Though I feel compelled to point out that I linked to a source that rated Diehl as the worst OL in the league at two positions, and McKenzie among the bottom-thirteen at tackle. Neither of our OTs were on the list of the 20 worst OTs, or among the 20 best. That same source ranked Baas only a few spots ahead of Goodwin at center. Snyder was actually five spots ahead of Diehl at OG. That's evidence their OL was worse than ours.

I pointed out that Bradshaw had missed nearly half the season. That's evidence their RB situation was worse than ours.

I didn't really think I needed to back up Davis vs. Ballard with evidence as it is self-evident. If you disagree, share some evidence of your own to counter the claim. I'd say you're facing the uphill battle on that one.

Now, it's very likely that none of the evidence I noted above is dispositive, but it is evidence, nonetheless, and more than you've provided to support any of your arguments since you wriggled over to this site. Allow me to help you out:

Evidence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Pay special attention to definition 1b.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

[QUOTE Bemular] This season? Crimson, every 4th Qtr comeback ever engineered by any QB was made necessary because of many deficiencies and mistakes that occurred during the game - not just this season but every season.

Last time I checked, the monikers "Capt Comeback" & "The Comeback Kid" were positive labels not negative; so stop trying to make them negative - that is just desperation on your part.

That isn't to say that some comebacks are not made necessary because of the deficiencies and mistakes made solely by the QB, but that applys to ALL QB's not just Alex and THAT isn't the point as you would like to make everyone believe. The outcome is the only point. Had we lost those games then that outcome would be the point.

The point here is simply this. This year Alex demonstrated he could overcome deficiencies and mistakes, regardless of who owned them, and win games. The deficiencies and mistakes themselves belong to another conversation on a separate topic.

Oh, okay, so what you are saying is that as great as comebacks are they always reflect poorly on the QB. Thus, according to you Joe Montana should not be considered a very good QB because if we had a better QB than Montana then all those comebacks of his would not have been necessary in the first place.

Got it - Pure genius![/QUOTE]

Every game and every team is different. I guarantee that if NO had turned the ball over five times against a Joe Montana-led team - especially in his seventh season - there wouldn't have been any issue of "coming back" to win.

A comeback is always great and almost always impressive. As others have pointed out, if it's the only thing that matters, teams would now be leaping at the chance to get Tim Tebow. But it's possible that teams realize that he was in position to win all those comebacks because he wasn't doing jack shit in the first three quarters. Smith is not as an extreme an example, but it's the same basic concept. When you lead the league in turnover differential, you shouldn't need seven come-from-behind victories.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

one thing to keep in mind about the giants. first off eli has turned it up big time.

eli and his recievers are on the same page. he knows where they will be and they get open. even if their line isn't very good he has enough time because of the above. not to mention his line is the best at holding and not getting a penalty...

There might be some truth to that. But Eli will also throw into tight windows much more often than Alex. Eli throws his players open. Smith rarely does, and almost never does down the field. Re-watching the first half of the championship game, Eli repeatedly threw into tight coverage, including two early third-and-long conversions. Smith did not make similar plays in that game.

And please allow me to preempt your counter argument: Eli's receivers were not much more reliable than Alex's, with two of them dropping as many passes as Crabtree. I'm not going to take the time to look now, but I'd also wager Eli threw more INTs targeting Nicks and Cruz than Smith did targeting Crabtree (two). So there's really not much reason for Eli to have trusted those guys any more than Smith trusted Crabtree.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Oh, okay, so what you are saying is that as great as comebacks are they always reflect poorly on the QB. Thus, according to you Joe Montana should not be considered a very good QB because if we had a better QB than Montana then all those comebacks of his would not have been necessary in the first place.

Got it - Pure genius!
Every game and every team is different. I guarantee that if NO had turned the ball over five times against a Joe Montana-led team - especially in his seventh season - there wouldn't have been any issue of "coming back" to win.

A comeback is always great and almost always impressive. As others have pointed out, if it's the only thing that matters, teams would now be leaping at the chance to get Tim Tebow. But it's possible that teams realize that he was in position to win all those comebacks because he wasn't doing jack shit in the first three quarters. Smith is not as an extreme an example, but it's the same basic concept. When you lead the league in turnover differential, you shouldn't need seven come-from-behind victories.

we didn't open things up until we were behind. our offense just seemed to be hitting it's stride after the eagles/bucs game, until morgan went down. that pushed crabtree to our #1 option at wr which was a disaster.

the way our offensive gameplan was put together i'm surprised we didn't need more comebacks.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

we didn't open things up until we were behind. our offense just seemed to be hitting it's stride after the eagles/bucs game, until morgan went down. that pushed crabtree to our #1 option at wr which was a disaster.

the way our offensive gameplan was put together i'm surprised we didn't need more comebacks.

You keep echoing this fallacy. It's not accurate. We were aggressive the week after the TB game, and three weeks after that. I just discussed this at some length.

And Crabtree was our most-targeted receiver prior to Morgan's injury. He wasn't "pushed to our #1 option" because of Morgan's injury.

 

[Flyingiguana]

There might be some truth to that. But Eli will also throw into tight windows much more often than Alex. Eli throws his players open. Smith rarely does, and almost never does down the field. Re-watching the first half of the championship game, Eli repeatedly threw into tight coverage, including two early third-and-long conversions. Smith did not make similar plays in that game.

And please allow me to preempt your counter argument: Eli's receivers were not much more reliable than Alex's, with two of them dropping as many passes as Crabtree. I'm not going to take the time to look now, but I'd also wager Eli threw more INTs targeting Nicks and Cruz than Smith did targeting Crabtree (two). So there's really not much reason for Eli to have trusted those guys any more than Smith trusted Crabtree.

it's not so much being reliable in a sense of catching balls, but in a sense of getting a step on the defensive back. rogers is a decent corner and cruz can abuse him at times. u can close on crabtree if he gets a step u can't close on cruz.

 

[Flyingiguana]

You keep echoing this fallacy. It's not accurate. We were aggressive the week after the TB game, and three weeks after that. I just discussed this at some length.

And Crabtree was our most-targeted receiver prior to Morgan's injury. He wasn't "pushed to our #1 option" because of Morgan's injury.

with crabtree and morgan out there crabtree is gonna see better match ups. after morgan was gone for the year it became morgan and a bunch of back ups/practice squad guys. our passing game was outmatched.

we were conservative for the majority of the season. we constantly sat on leads with no sense of urgency. i would have liked to see us do the things we did against tampa where we took it to them in the 1st half. the combination of aggressive each drive on offense and punishing defense just made the bucs crawl into a fetal position as if it was a tampa team from the 80s.

 

[wartyOne]

Recheck the numbers.

And 15,16,17 is average or within and margin of error that isn't worth the hair splitting.

Wow. That's kind of like EXACTLY what I've been saying this whole time. How exactly does average equal "very good?"

And I don't need to recheck the numbers. Clearly you do. Here's the link: 2011 NFL Player Passing Stats - National Football League - ESPN

 

[wartyOne]

Actually, the points he makes about the failures of our offensive line and our receivers to catch the ball are solid.

No they aren't. They're halfway assessments of the overall failure.

 

[wartyOne]

If I change those to letter grades I could easily be justified in giving Smith a B/B+

You are just lashing out and not refuting the facts of the season Smith had. You can not minimize the importance of not throwing the ball away. It is a big part of being a good QB. The avg INT% of the guys above Smith in Rating was 2.1%

No you couldn't. On a bell curve he's average. Average doesn't equal very good. It's really not that complicated.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Where are people getting very good from? Aside from QB rating and completion %, Smith is below average or at the bottom of the league in every significant statistical category. I've conceded that Alex was mediocre last year - an improvement - but people are now calling his year "very good"?

If Alex Smith can be dubbed as "very good" in 2011, then so can Michael Crabtree.

 

[wartyOne]

Where are people getting very good from? Aside from QB rating and completion %, Smith is below average or at the bottom of the league in every significant statistical category. I've conceded that Alex was mediocre last year - an improvement - but people are now calling his year "very good"?

If Alex Smith can be dubbed as "very good" in 2011, then so can Michael Crabtree.

I hadn't thought about it like that, but the numbers bear out the statement.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Where are people getting very good from? Aside from QB rating and completion %, Smith is below average or at the bottom of the league in every significant statistical category. I've conceded that Alex was mediocre last year - an improvement - but people are now calling his year "very good"?

If Alex Smith can be dubbed as "very good" in 2011, then so can Michael Crabtree.

crabtree got yards because of injury. out of all the comebacks smith led, crabtree was a noshow on most of them. one good catch against the seahawks, then a waste of space in the playoffs.

 

[clyde_carbon]

crabtree got yards because of injury. out of all the comebacks smith led, crabtree was a noshow on most of them. one good catch against the seahawks, then a waste of space in the playoffs.

But he still had a very good season.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I hadn't thought about it like that, but the numbers bear out the statement.

Yep. If Alex Smith was very good, then he had a WR that was very good, a TE that was very good, a LT that was very good, a LG that was very good, a RT that was very good, and a RB that was very good. Oh, and HC that was very good.

Why are people bitching about his supporting cast again?

 

[wartyOne]

crabtree got yards because of injury. out of all the comebacks smith led, crabtree was a noshow on most of them. one good catch against the seahawks, then a waste of space in the playoffs.

Two good drives against the Saints, then a waste of space in the rest of the playoffs.

Not defending Crabtree, but if Smith is "very good" then so is he.

 

[Flyingiguana]

please pick a better example than crabtree. smith was middle of the road stats wise while crabtree's numbers put him at the bottom of the pack of starting wr's.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Yep. If Alex Smith was very good, then he had a WR that was very good, a TE that was very good, a LT that was very good, a LG that was very good, a RT that was very good, and a RB that was very good. Oh, and HC that was very good.

Why are people bitching about his supporting cast again?

the wr's were very bad. a reason why we're replacing crabtree with a guy who wasn't in the league and a 3rd stringer. can't have back ups at skill positions and expect miracles.