Just getting around to answering a few questions from the comments board this week...
Tom G., regarding Eli: I have written about the Eli debate before, noting that his un-flashy personality and un-flashy play have meant more than the usual young QB criticism. It doesn't hurt that he's here in New York.
I do take issue with things like, "the media hates Eli." ESPN's group of chatty Kathys do not constitute "the media" -- in fact, the ones who voice their opinions most strongly, the ex-players, would bristle at being lumped in with the plaid-sportscoat crowd. The fact is, Eli is about to take the Giants to the playoffs his first three seasons as a starter. Yes, he's had some hideous games, but he's about to accomplish something pretty impressive.
Oh, and one more thing: Judging by Dale A.'s consistent comments on Eli, I'd say it isn't just a media bias. Some fans really don't like Eli.
On Steve Smith: I don't think he'll play today for a pretty simple fact. The Giants are 9-2 without him in the lineup, and TC has certainly proven that he'll stick with a certain lineup if it's working. Now, yes, I agree that Sinorice Moss is not a viable third WR this season, and neither Smith nor Moss do much on special teams, so there's no reason to sit Smith in favor of Moss. But I think Moss, who had two very nice catches in Philly, is ahead of Smith on the learning curve, and that settles it for TC.
On resting players against the Pats: If the Giants are in the playoffs and in the No. 5 seed, Plax won't play, Jacobs won't play and maybe Pierce won't play. If they do play, it'd be preseason-type play totals.
Now, the competitive angle is an important one, and no one wants to go into a postseason with a 40-point loss on their heads.
But I saw a thread on BBI that was generated by Francesa and Russo (frankly, if you're a big Giants fan, you have to be nuts to listen to them, just my two cents), who had a debate over whether it would mean more in the annals of football history for the Giants to have beaten the Pats, or for the Giants to have won a round of the playoffs.
The thinking, I believe, was that posterity demands the Giants try to win that game, because no one would remember them if they beat Tampa or Seattle and then got hammered by the Cowboys. Beat the Pats, and they'll be remebered forever.
It's probably one of the 5 or 6 dumbest things I've ever heard said about a sports team. Beating the Pats is nice and all, but if they go on to win the Super Bowl and the Giants have 3 or 4 guys banged up and lose the following week, I'm sure the history books will be kind to them... Huh?!?
If I were a fan, there's no debate. You play for your own accomplishments, your own season, your own legacy. And succeeding in the playoffs, even winning one measly game, is what you play for. Not to say you were the ones who beat a good team that went on to win a Super Bowl. No one cares.
You think the '85 Dolphins take pride in the fact that they managed to snap the Bears' quest for a perfect season? Uh, no. You also have to be a huge football fan to even know whom the Bears lost to that year. Because they, you know, won the Super Bowl.
In any event, I can't see how the Giants would play their injured starters. And if Dave Tollefson hits Brady and the Pats QB gets hurt, you think Belichick will be proud of that 16-0 record?
Comments (16)
Outstanding commentary, Arthur...
One thing in your favor with regards to clarity on the subject is that you're not a Giants fan. Sometimes, as you know, judgement gets clouded by loyalty.
Sometimes I envy the fact that you get to observe and comment on the Giants from the standpoint of objectivity.
By the way, is there any particular team that you do root for?
Rob
Excellent point about the 85 Dolphins. It's all about the championship. If the Giants have clinched, the only time they should care about beating the Pats would be in Arizona.
Arthur...are you and Margie dating? You guys have some great inter-play, and you seem like a great couple.
I only wish my girlfriend was into football.
Well done.
Right on, Arthur! I was listening to Francesca and Russo earlier this week talk about how the Giants would be "disrespecting" the game if they did not play their starters against the Pats. Of course the regular football fan and the NFL Network would like to see a hard-fought game, but any half-brained Giants fan or team rep/exec. knows that game means nothing for the Giants in comparison to the following week's playoff game.
Then on Friday, when they interviewed Troy Aikman, the former Cowbag QB -- who, unlike Moose Johnston, I deeply respect as an objective, knowledgeable color man -- was quick to point out that the Giants should rest and recover everybody once a playoff spot is clinched. Russo said "I guess I was wrong," while Francesca chose to disagree because, as we all know, he is NEVER wrong.
Obviously Mike and the Mad Dog are not Giants fans -- they are Giants fan antogonists by nature -- but you have to understand why we listen to them. It's the old Howard Stern effect. The people that like them listen. The people who don't listen more because they have to hear what they're going to say next.
Just by reading blog posts here and at the DN it is obvious that people like to disagree with each other -- even if they are fans of the same team.
Actually, I did (easily) remember who beat the Bears in 85. And excepting that the Giants beat the 49ers. And except for the fact that the Giants lost to the Bears in the 2nd round, I could not name any team that won a playoff game that year except the Bears.
So to that extent, I agree that it would be better, looking back, if the Giants beat the Pats and did a one-and-done than if they lost to the Pats and did a two-and-out.
However, it is a stupid discussion, because there is no way of knowing that the Giants will win exactly, no more than and no less than, one playoff game. The fewer games that remain, the better chances there are that an inconsistent team like the Giants will put a run together where they don't shoot themselves in the foot-- and that can put a team in the Super Bowl.
Do I think the Giants are going to the Super Bowl? No. Do I think they are going to beat the Pats? No. Which do I think is more likely? Probably beating the Pats, although not by a huge difference in probability. And the payoff is much better for getting to the Super Bowl-- one game where anything can happen.
Mike and Chris are condescending morons. You'd think Russo would take the time to figure out "Jason" Tuck is actually "Justin" Tuck. They get paid to a lot of money for their supposed knowledge of sports and they dont even know the name of one the Giants best lineman. I can understand not knowing about a young player out in KC, but this is from the hometwon team. And I'm supposed to take them seriously? Maybe if Russo spent less time memorizing Springsteen setlists from 25 years ago that no one cares about, he might actually learn something about football. Sorry for ranting. They bug me and I can't even listen to them.
If, and its a big if, they are able to clinch the playoffs this week, I want Burress resting even though it sounds like he doesnt want to, but I would still be giving Jacobs some touches. Maybe 10-15 a game only because, as he admits, if he misses a game he comes back dropping the ball all over the place. They cant have him rest against the Pats and then be fumbling in the wild card. I cant believe it, but I would be actually thrilled if tonites game was played at 35 degrees with wind instead of the snow and wintry mix that was predicted earlier.
t-dips-- I feel the same way about the former cowboy broadcasters. Aikman seems pretty fair.
On your Eli comments, my 16-year old has been hearing me draw parallels between the fans' treatment of Eli and Simms early in his career -- so he found the following interesting tidbit posted on Giants.com:
-- Manning has 2,790 passing yards and 18 touchdown
passes and needs 210 yards and two scoring passes to
join Phil Simms as the only Giants quarterbacks with
3,000+ yards and at least 20 touchdown passes three
years in a row. Simms did it from 1984-86.
Now, its tough to compare things two decades apart, but that's not bad compnay for young Eli to be in, eh?
Rob -- I was a big NY Rangers fan growing up (I wanted to be Jim Gordon for a long while, and it's nice to hear from those in the biz who knew him that he was a true gentleman) and I was also a big Red Sox fan (Yaz was my baseball idol)... It was nice to see them win this year, but I don't follow it all as much as I once did.
I look at it as, even if we play all our starters how can we expect to beat the Pats? We can't.
If we rest our starters for the Pats game, our chances increase to get a second chance at them for real.
And Belichick wouldn't have film with us playing them as he would with, say, the Cowboys.
Just my two cents. I want to see Wright in there in the third, and Moss being covered by Samuel.
All assuming we clinch the 5th seed by then...
Being nuts or saying dumb things is a big part of BBI.
David brings up a good point. We need to clinch that five seed, just as much as we need to clinch a playoff spot.
I would agree and say definitly want to rest some starters, including Plax. He is starting to look a little bit better playing, but resting his ankle (and knee) will only help him
Would definitly like to see Bradshaw in the final game, he's always fun to watch, might persuade the Giants to use him more in the playoffs.
Would like to see Smith in the game more, he's not really a special teams player, but him and Eli have to work on their relationship, and get some experience under his belt. At this rate he will be going into next season still considered a one-year rookie
I dont know, its hard to think about the Pats, let say they go to 15-0, and the Giants pull an upset win, then they go and win the superbowl, and the Giants loss to GB/Dallas (Dont get me wrong, i'll root for the g-men no matter who they face). Im pretty sure everyone will remember the team that shattered the Pats perfect season. But then its hard to imagine any starters getting injuried and hurting our chances even more in the playoffs
We can all make assumptions on whats going to happen, but the only thing we can do is wait and see.
"I look at it as, even if we play all our starters how can we expect to beat the Pats"
The way to beat the Pats has been shown several times now, even though no one has pulled it off.
1) Sure tackling
2) A good running attack
3) Heavy, heavy wind
4) Do not turn the ball over
So far, the teams that have almost done it have done 3 of the 4. Pull 4 of 4, it can be done.
Do the Giants have a good running attack? Yes.
Can the Meadowlands provide the heavy wind? Yes.
We have had games with good tackling, and we have had games where we don't turn it over.
Likely to do all four? No. Possible, yes. But it only matters if we have a full team playing.
Just a Note
It was funny, was watching the Pats game earlier, and brady sure does like to stare down his recievers, suprised he doesnt have more turnovers
Also, He was always looking towards Moss, always looking for that big play
Have to disagree with Arthur on the Pats game. A lot of football fans remember who beat the Bears in '85 - I certainly remember that game vividly.
But no one - I mean no one - remembers what the '85 Dolphins did in the playoffs. I'll bet even most Dolphin fans don't remember what they did in the playoffs that year. There is one and only one thing that the '85 Dolphins are remembered for: beating the Bears.
I mean - can people here tell me what the Giants did in the playoffs in 1997?
I now know that Manning will never be THAT guy for the Giants but after watching Chad earlier in the day there still might be hope for Eli.
They're both awful but Chad has got to be the worst quarterback I've seen in recent memory. Eli is a close second.
But, alas, there is hope Eli, you're not the worst!