Big Blue Huddle

Giants need to sign Mike Glennon ASAP. Problem fixed

Quote from: andrew_nyGiants on January 01, 2025, 03:56:04 PMEverything fell into place in the game against a questionable Colts team last week.

This week as much as I hate having to say this, Philly's back-ups may well be better than ours. Let's face it, most of our roster save for about six players would be back-ups for any other team.

So even if Philly sits several of its starters, they should still be able to beat us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I just can't remotely agree with you at all here.

The Colts may not be worldbeaters, but they were a serviceable 7-8 team with everything to play for last week, playing all their starters and were healthy. And we beat them somehow.

Now you're telling me an Eagles team that will be resting everyone, playing their twos and threes, and who not only has nothing to play for but would actually love to stick it to Giants fans even more than they have already for the past decade by letting us win is going to somehow win this game? Or that they have a better shot than last week's highly motivated Colts team did?

I just can't get on board with this. Anything can happen on any given Sunday obviously, but no way our odds of losing this game are higher than they were against the Colts.

Philly is sitting some first stringers, not their whole team.

The squad we put on the field vs Indy could easily lose to the one Philly is putting on the field Sunday.

They may be second stringers but it's not like they're going to lay down.

Do you honestly believe that what we did Sunday was the norm? Our 2-13 record with the lowest scoring offense in the league says no.

Lock could easily turn back in to a turnover machine.

I just don't see this as an automatic win for the Giants. Does Philly sitting starters improve the Giants chances? Yes.

But it's no guarantee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The real question is will Pickett play the entire game or will they Nate Sudfeld the the 2nd half of the game? Who is their 3rd sting QB?

No now worries for Nabers...gomma have à huge day. Oh, Isn't that special? He will love it.Told ya. Rinse and repeat. Giants are à live dog.betters. Fantasy nerds too.

The eagles tank better than the giants.

So the Eagles beat the Giants resting a lot of starters and the Giants beat the Colts who still had something to play for.  It's a not a conspiracy to hurt the Giants draft position by other teams

The Eagles beat the Giants, resting Barkley and destroying his chance for a great record.

The Eagles are duty-bound to win their first playoff game, or Barkley's sacrifice was for nothing!

Go, Big Blue!

Quote from: Torus34 on January 05, 2025, 04:30:49 PMThe Eagles beat the Giants, resting Barkley and destroying his chance for a great record.

The Eagles are duty-bound to win their first playoff game, or Barkley's sacrifice was for nothing!

Go, Big Blue!

Torus: That's one way of looking at it.

If this was the last game of a 16-game season, IMO wild horses could have kept him off the field.

Dickerson is is one of Barkley's true heroes.

Bob

Quote from: Bob In PA on January 05, 2025, 04:38:32 PMTorus: That's one way of looking at it.

If this was the last game of a 16-game season, IMO wild horses could have kept him off the field.

Dickerson is is one of Barkley's true heroes.

Bob

It's disappointing to see records stand in this way. Just my two cents, Bob, but a record should be tested by anyone within reach. That's what makes the record so special. We all know Barkley would have broken the record. In 17 games compared to Dickerson's 16 games. But it took Dickerson 15 games to break the record set by OJ Simpson in 14 games.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on January 05, 2025, 04:52:22 PMIt's disappointing to see records stand in this way. Just my two cents, Bob, but a record should be tested by anyone within reach. That's what makes the record so special. We all know Barkley would have broken the record. In 17 games compared to Dickerson's 16 games. But it took Dickerson 15 games to break the record set by OJ Simpson in 14 games.

There should be an asterisk for Dickerson's and one for whoever breaks his.

Quote from: T200 on January 05, 2025, 04:55:01 PMThere should be an asterisk for Dickerson's and one for whoever breaks his.

Why? The league wants longer seasons, not the players. It's a league created issue, not a player issue. No need to penalize the players. Same in baseball. Tons of records would need an asterisk and stats would become meaningless.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on January 05, 2025, 05:02:36 PMWhy? The league wants longer seasons, not the players. It's a league created issue, not a player issue. No need to penalize the players. Same in baseball. Tons of records would need an asterisk and stats would become meaningless.

If anyone is penalized, it's the original record holders.

Simpson should have the record for a 14-game season.

Dickerson's should be for 16.

Whoever has the most for 17 games should be recognized.

Quote from: T200 on January 05, 2025, 05:06:09 PMIf anyone is penalized, it's the original record holders.

Simpson should have the record for a 14-game season.

Dickerson's should be for 16.

Whoever has the most for 17 games should be recognized.

Different, equally treated records every time they change the number of games? That begins to get a bit messy, no?

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on January 05, 2025, 05:08:52 PMDifferent, equally treated records every time they change the number of games? That begins to get a bit messy, no?

Possibly. But it's the only fair way to do it.

If a record is set in 14 games, it should not be erased in 16 games.

If they're going to do that, then take the average over those 14 games and add it to make a 16-game total.