Conference hbahba::cam_sports

Not to turn this into a Giants topic, but...

What was Young to do?  You can argue that he should go 
after Parcells, but is he to blame if his first two choices
choose to go elsewhere?  From the sounds of it, it's not
a matter of Young blowing the offers to Coughlin and Wannestadt.

Mike

I think Young should hire da holy trinity  - Parcells, Dikka and
Ryan to be his coaching staff.   Parcells as head coach, Dikka
offensive guy, Buddy defensive guy.

Talk about SNL skits.

JD

    I'd reverse Ditka and Parcells.
    
    Let Parcells run the offense, let Ditka handle the media!
    
    No way New York would settle for a Mike Ditka offense.
    
    I miss Mike.
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

Yeah, I know I was a bit hard on George.  Both Wanndstat and Coughlin
had legit reasons for not wanting NY.

But I cannot see Georgy NOT going after the likes of Ditka and Parcells...
That ranks right up there with taking another TE in the 5th round when
what you desperatley need is defense.....  DUH!


'Saw

    Parcells already did the Giant thing.  Why would he want to go back?
    
    I forget, was Parcells fired or did he resign?

Parcells left of his own accord. His contract may have been up, but
I am not sure about that one.

The Crazy Met

    
    By all reports I've read, Bill Parcells would coach the Giants starting
    tomorrow, if asked.  It's a control/ego/pride thing with George Young 
    at this point, where Young feels betrayed by Parcells' retirement late
    in the game before the 1991 season and subsequent waffling (for
    legitimate health reasons, to some extent).  I think that in this case,
    where in my mind the best potential coach/GM in the country is available, 
    Young can definitely be held accountable.
    
    I sure hope that the Pats decide that Parcells is their man over Ditka
    and Ryan and can convince him to come to New England.  That would be a
    major coup, and Parcells is apparently very willing to listen.
    
    glenn
    

I personally think that Parcells got out because of health.  He had
accomplished what he wanted to, was having heart trouble, and figured
he'd get out before he was carried out in a box.

Now, I think that coaching is still in his blood.  Many broadcasters
have said that Parcells has made great strides as a commentator, but that
they can tell he is first and foremost a coach.

I agree with Glenn -- Parcells would go back in a second if asked.
Georgy is just too stubborn to ask.   

And in my opinion, that's a BAAAAAAAADDDDDD call....


'Saw

>    *by my count that's the 12th different spelling of his name here in
>    SPORTS.

That was a typo.  Sorry about that.

I think it is Wannestadt, but I'm not sure......

    
    And the Giants again will be forced to choose between Ron Erhardt or
    Dan Reeves, otherwise known as sloppy seconds.
    
    

I'd love to see them take Ditka.  I think he'd be GREAT.

'Saw

    I never understood the Ditka hype when it here in Phoenix.  I think he
    is one of the most overated coaches of all time.  He won exactly one SB
    with a team that was as talented as any team has been at the time.  He
    was in what has probably been one of the two weakest divisions over the
    last 10 years, and still made it to only that one SB.  Hail, how many
    NFC Championship games did the Bears go to, besides '86?  One, maybe? 
    He seemed to have a knack for pissing off some key players enough
    (McMAhon, MArshall, Duerson) that they left the team.  Besides, he's a
    jerk.
    
    brews

    Buddy Ryan may still be available.

>    Buddy Ryan may still be available.


Personally, I like Ditka better than Ryan.

I don't think Ditka is so bad.  I think he'd be good for the Giants.

JMHO tho....


'Saw

    Buddy Ryan? Stabilize?  The two don't go together.

re: .12

>  otherwise known as sloppy seconds.

That is not necessarily bad, can be quite good.

The Crazy Met

    Can't believe that I'm agreeing with Brews but I also feel that Ditka
    is overrated.  Although he is an ex-Cowboy, he has not caught the world
    on fire after the SB win.
    
    Some possible coaches for the Joints are:  Shell-on-a-Burger (Louiville
    coach), Reeves, Sherill, and how about Osborne ?
    
    John "D Cowboys" R. 

    Heard on CNN today that Reeves is the man in New York.

>    Heard on CNN today that Reeves is the man in New York.

Bummer of bummers.........

    
    sloppy seconds, like I said.
    
    Brews

	Sawman!

   Look at it this way. Here's a coach that took a mediocre team and had an 
 average of 9 wins a year for 12 years and made 3 stupid bowl appearences.
 not many coaches around the league can make that claim. WHat would he have
 done with a good team!!!

  

Well, he definitely WANTED the job.

He should be pretty much used to the media, since for all intents
and purposes Denver is a one horse town when it comes to sports.....


Well, we can only see what happens come draft day -- that's the day
of the FIRST big conflict between Georgy Young and Dan Reeves...


This might be interesting afterall......


'Saw

I wonder if Reeves will bring Charley Waters with him as DB (or
whatever) coach.  That would really be interesting, now that Reeves
will be playing Dallas twice a year.  I realize that today's Cowboys
don't have any real links to those of Reeve's era (not sure about
Waters, though), but it still should provide a little extra incentive
for both men.

Jerry

> He should be pretty much used to the media, since for all intents
> and purposes Denver is a one horse town when it comes to sports.....

True (at least until now), but there's still no way the Denver media is as
critical as the NY media.  He has a subtle way of being sarcastic with the 
press, and I'm sure he'll be like that even more so in NY.

RE: Waters
I've heard a little bit of talk that suggested Waters could be a candidate for
Denver's defensive coordinator, but it's a longshot.  If Shanahan gets the head
coaching job as expected, chances are that Phillips would go elsewhere - maybe
the Giants now that Reeves is going there.


Joe

I heard a rumor on WFAN that Phillips might be headed to Houston
as the defensive coordinator.  He could then get the head job when
Pardee goes.

Mike

>I heard a rumor on WFAN that Phillips might be headed to Houston
>as the defensive coordinator.  He could then get the head job when
>Pardee goes.

I heard last night that Bolen might try to keep him there in Denver.

What a time of year, eh?  The rumors be flying!



regarding Reeves and the media:

	Well, even subtle sarcasm with the press would be better
	than that Boob Ray Handley.....




'Saw

      REeves has had problems beating NFC east opponents,  wonder what this
    may mean for the jints?
    
      MikeC has to be happy about this!

I haven't heard it's official yet, so there's still hope. 

Unbelievable the talk in NE now that Parcells is the coach. At the Firehouse
yesterday before the UMASS game, people were all talkin' Patsies. WHo'd have
thunk it?

mike

>
>I haven't heard it's official yet, so there's still hope. 
>

Yeah, I hear ya Mike, but I think he's it.

There was talk, however, on WFAN on Saturday that people are puzzled with
the timing of this thing.   The speculation is that the Giants won't
announce this week, during all the Super Bowl Hype, and if they wait
till next Monday, it's not going to give a lot of time (or opportunity)
to hire new assistants.

I can't figure out what George Young is up to -- I wonder if he's
losing it?????


>Unbelievable the talk in NE now that Parcells is the coach. At the Firehouse
>yesterday before the UMASS game, people were all talkin' Patsies. WHo'd have
>thunk it?

Yeah.  Season tickets sales are going nuts.


'Saw

    re-1 Season tickets saled goin nuts = fair weather fans;^)

    
     I don't think so Tim...
    
     It's not fair to call the current noter patsie fans of for tha matter
    ex-noter patsie fans fair weather (John Hendry comes to mind). 
    Parcells has one hell of a long road to travel to get the patsies a 
    championship.  Dan reeves will bring one to NY first.  
    
     Childs & `Saw...
    
     The Midget could have done alot worse that Dan.  He's taken a team
    that was amoung the top ten (but surely not the top) to the superbowl
    3 times.  With the midgets,  his style may well prove to be even more
    successful.  Good Luck
    
    BG

    Eagle's Reggie White was at the Knicks game last night.  Seems like both
    the Giants and Jets are making a play for him.
    
    Redmen Phil
          

Wellington Mara was actually making overtures to White.  Either Mara
is disatisfied with "Shamu the General Manager", or else he figured he
needed to woo White himself.....


'Saw

    Been awful quiet in here 'bout Hoss going to the faids. I was reading
    up on Hoss in ::Sports_91, and it seems like he was playing pretty good
    when he stepped in for an injured Simms just prior to the playoffs, and
    he (Hoss) led them to the Superbowl champeenship. Some jints fans were
    surprised he didn't pull a choke (ala Elway or Kelly), others weren't.
    Then steps in Ray Handley, and single handley destroys the defending
    champs....Hoss included. Now, being a Raider fan, I know Hoss cain't be
    any worse than Shredder, but what I'm wondering is.... was Hoss' poor
    performance lasted year more to blam on a poor coaching staff, or was
    Hoss' Playoff & Superbowl winning performance a couple of years ago a
    fluke? How do youze Giant fans out there feel about all this?
    
    Carloski
    

I'm one of the pro-Hoss Giants fan so you can take what I say with a grain
of salt...

Hoss has a very good arm and good touch. Hoss isn't a pocket passer and has
trouble finding second and third receiving options. Hoss' scrambling ability
is excellent. Hoss isn't the best of leaders and has trouble handling
criticism. Hoss is a gamer who will play hurt and never quits. He led the
Giants down the field very effectively in many cruicial situations. He does
seem to have trouble finding the endzone but you want a guy who can get
you in Field Goal range he's a-ok. Handley screwed him up badly by trying
to make him what he wasn't. Hoss will not live and die football. Sometimes
this is a good attitude sometimes it isn't. Hoss could bever play Jimmy
Johnson....

BTW Jimmy Johnson (who I used to like) SUCKS!!!!!!!!!


mike     

    �                      -< no repeat TG!!!!!!!! >-
    
    Huh?...what's TG?
    
    Also....I was wondering...how did lasted years OL compare to the one
    the year before? 
    
    Carlitos

    Carlos -
    
    Go and analyze Hoss' performance the Sper Bowl year.    They barely
    beat a bad Phoenix team.  Barely beat a horrendous Pats team, cooked
    the Bears, beat San Fran on the strenght of *5* field goals, and just
    beat the Bills.   Hoss ain't the answer to anyone's problems.  He has
    trouble getting across the goal line.  He gets happy feet.  He can't
    pick out secondary receivers....
    
    JD

Hoss laser-beams in on his primary receiver, completely blanks out one
half of the field, and runs at the first sign of trouble.

Under Hoss, the average points for went way down.

Hoss is NOT a leader.  He does not have that quality to go out on the
field and be a general, to demand from his teammates, and get them to
produce.

His arm is suspect (I disagree with Mike Childs) and he makes poor 
decisions.


All of that said, he will take a beating for you, and when the pressure
of having to lead is removed, he can be a fair QB.   That's why my 
contention is that he is a great backup QB but is not startnig material.



JMHO,
'Saw

    
    MikeyC,
    
    	They ain't made a grain of salt big enough to take when 
    	reading your replies! ;^)
    
    Claybroon

    
    Yabbut Claybroon,
    
    Ain't ya ever heard the phrase
    
    
    		"LICK ME"  ??????
    
    
    howabout trying that with Mikey's salt?
    
    I remain,
    remembering when the Roman's used to pay lEe in that currency!
    Kev
    

    Heard 2day where LT has agreed on a 2 year, incentive packed contract
    wif the Giants.
    
    Short retirement, eh??
    
    JaKe
    

>    
>    Short retirement, eh??
    
LT did not want to go out of his last game on a stretcher.  Even before they
got rid of Handley, he was talking about coming back.

Once Handley was gone, LT definitely was coming back.

In fact, I'm betting that LT was talking about retirment ONLY because it
looked like the boob was gonna be around for a while......

'Saw    

    
>>looked like the boob was gonna be around for a while......
    
    
    What's Dolly Parton have to do wif this???   OOps, that'd be "boobs"
    not "boob".
    
    Nevermind
    
    JaKe
    

    
    Yabbut I thought i heard on the radion that LT's contract was
    worth $4+M for the two years!
    
    I wonder if'n he's still worth it?
    
    I remain,
    willing to settle for the interest on $4M!
    po_Kev
    

>    Yabbut I thought i heard on the radion that LT's contract was
>    worth $4+M for the two years!

I think it's closer to 5, at least that's what they were saying on the FAN
yesterday.

    
>    I wonder if'n he's still worth it?

From a single-handed rush around the end, juke the tackle out of his
shoes and plant the QB into the cement under the fake turf, a threat on
EVERY play point of view?  No.

From a constant pressure, give him some help with a DE, force to be
reckoned with at a certain time, point of view?  Yes.

From a leader, contributor, definer of the Giants personality?  Yes.

    
JMHO,
'Saw    

At 2.5 million a year LT is a steal.....Hell they'll make that back in
paraphanelia alone never mind wins....

mike

    
    Yabbut in some parts in town, $4+M could be interpreted/
    accepted to be "close to $5M".
    
    so there.....
    
    I remain,
    close enuf 4 me!
    Kev
    

    LT signed a contract today.
    

    with who?

With the Jints of course.

He hadn't signed it before this because he didn't want to be fined for
not attending mini-camp, which he never attends anyway....


'Saw

    So much for his much ballyhooed retirement announcement.

>    So much for his much ballyhooed retirement announcement.

I don't believe there was one Giant fan in the world, who, upon seeing
LT injure his ankle, ever believed it was his last game.

If he had gone out un-injured, it might have been.  But there's no way
LT was going to leave the game on a stretcher like he was.   Hell, even
Mike Utley plans to walk off that field in Detroit, even if it's with
the aid of crutches.


Nope, LT might have retired had he not been injured...



'SAw

    The injury might have confirmed the need to retire.

    OK so the Jints have an over the hill LT ( still good I know),
    and Carl Banks is gonzo. Who do they have to hep LT at LB?
    
    MikeL
    

    Didn't they get someone from Denver?

    The Giants have Pepper Johnson, Carlton Bailey (from the Bills),
    Michael Brooks (from Denver) to go along with LT.  There are also
    a few 2nd stringers left over from last year.
    
    Mike

    
    >>The Giants have Pepper Johnson, Carlton Bailey (from the Bills),
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Wasn't "Pepper Johnson" Angie Dickinson's character in the ol lousy TV
    show "Policewoman"???????????????????
    
    JaKe
    

    That's Pepper Anderson...

    Oh, sorry.
    
    I knew it was Pepper something or other.
    
    JaKe
    

    
    It's not like Jake to get his johnson's confused.

    I thought Pepper Johnson was the one who depanted Crispy in
    Charlotte no?
    
    Whar's dan'l?
    
    8^)
    MikeL
    

    
    >>I thought Pepper Johnson was the one who depanted Crispy in
    
    >>Charlotte no?
    
    
    Nah, I think that was Pepper Jalapeno.
    
    Schnortt Schitt Schlepps
    
    BTW, I weren't getting my Johnson's confused, I was gettin my Peppers
    confused.
    
    JaKe
    

Just a little exchange that was posted in Giants, courtesy of Jim McFall....


	The press asked Phil Simms what the difference was between this
	year's camp and camp the past two years.


	Simms answered, "One more question like that and I'm walking out!"



Almost herniated myself laughing......


'Saw

    I guess ya had to be there.

	Mac,

	It does lose something in the translation - it was a press conference,
and the question brought up the incident that seemed to quantify the boob that 
was Ray Handley, who walked out of the press conference last year when he
didn't like the question that was asked of him. 

	Jim M.

Yep.

A Jints fan would pick right up on it.

Handley used exactly those words just before walking out of a press conference
last year.  It made him look totally like the boob that he was.


Every Giants fan knew in his or her heart that Simms just absolutely
HATED Handley, and was better than Hoss, but he kept his mouth shut in a
very classy way and didn't badmouth the Boss.

To me, Simms could give no better answer than the one he gave.  It was
able to confirm what we all thought, and was a backhanded shot at Handley
using his own words.   Too cool.....


'Saw

>     Gee, now that you explained it, it sure is a real knee-slapper.

Well, don't slap it too much, or you'll need some aspirin to handle
the inflammation.

Seriously, it's really only something a Jints fan could really appreciate...
;^)

With the pitiful receiving corps in Giant land and DANNY "run da bawl" 
Reeves I expect phil to to his best hand offs game after game after game...


I'd rather watch baseball.

the good old 3' and a cloud of dust 2nd down 9 to go. 4' and a cloud of dust, 
Shovel pass from Simms.

Actually, Mark Jackson and Phil had been quite the combination in camp.
Jackson says he likes catching now, because he knows where Phil is gonna
be throwing from.  He said that you never knew with Elway because he was
all over like hores-hooey....

'Saw

    Did you hear about the honest brakeman?
    
    He never stole a freight car

    I already wrote this in the NFL conference, but WTF...
    
    I sat nexted to a 'Ants man from NYC to Cincy last night.  Really nice
    guy, said he wuz a guy who coordinated all the logistical stuff fer
    the Giants who'd been wif 'em since '56 (guy named "Mr. Power").
    
    (The ants take on the Bengals this weekend)
    
    I noticed immediately upon being seated, his Superbowl ring, which to
    my delight, he let me slip on.  (I told my dad I'd wear a SB ring one
    day, I was right!)
    
    He spoke very highly of Huff, Tiddle, and especially Simms. (Also Ditka, 
    to my pleasure, and Reeves)
    
    He said that Phil Simms coulda put up HOF stats had he not been such
    a team player, and that he felt Simms could have put on a better 
    show that Fouts, career-wise, had he been more selfish.
    
    He also had a "Wilson" briefcase made of the same pigskin as a
    football, which I liked better than the ring!   ;-)
    
    Any Giants fans know of a staffer named "Power"?
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

If anyone would, Chip, it'd probably be Jim McFall....

I'll be that was a mighty interesting ride!


'Saw

Congrats Chip I think you met JD. 

    A lot of big names among the giants' cuts,but many are expected to be
    reclaimed today. The big name was Pepper Johnson and he isn't expected
    back. Reeves and Pepper didn't hit it off. 
    
    This story dominated the sports talk shows in NY yesterday.   

    the Cards are talking about picking him up since Eric Hill is still
    AWOL.  They probably better hurry before the line gets too long.

What's the explanation for Reeves' dumping Pepper Johnson?  He's
led the team in tackles four of the last five years.  And it's
not as if they some depth at the linebacker spot.  What are they
saying down New York way?

Ken

    Didn't fit into his new defensive scheme.  Conflict over
    responsibilities...
    

      They picked up Brooks from Denver, and Peppy said he ain't playing
    outside, so that peeved Reeves and now the rest is history...
    
      Does that sound about right?
    
      Tim

>      They picked up Brooks from Denver, and Peppy said he ain't playing
>    outside, so that peeved Reeves and now the rest is history...
    
>      Does that sound about right?
    
 
 Nope. Reeves is a jerk sounds right to me....Reeves didn't like Johnson's
 attitude plain and simple and now he's gone. Now we have "Choker Treadwell"
 and Delweasel here too. Thanks for nothing Dan.......

 mike

      Collie brought in Delauiso?  Cut Tread and keep Del.
    
      Have a good season (read sarcasim)
    
      Tim

    the sad part for Pepper now is that Collie put the word out that he has
    problems getting along with teammates and coaches.  Probably end up on
    the Raiders since everyone else will be afraid to take a chance.
    
    Mike

�                         -< Pepper will help any team >-
    
    Hmm, I wonder if his old coach Bill Parcells may take him in.

    Well Tippet and Pepper would really shore up the LB crew.

    	Linebacker is the strongest area of the defense Mike.  The line and
    secondary are pathetic.  I would still take Johnson though.
    
    				/Don

    THey brought in Daluiso to?  I thought it was just Treadwell and cut
    Bahr...
    

    Looks like it will be the same setup the Broncos had - Treadwell
    won't be doing the kickoffs.  Did Daluiso (spelling?) handle long
    FG attempts as well?
    
    Mike

 Did Daluiso (spelling?) handle long FG attempts as well?
    

Good question. Yes but I think he was 0-3 from greater than 45, and 1 or 2 were
blocked. 

    Whoever said PEpper was going back to his old coach, was right.  He
    signed with the NY Giants-West, in Cleveland.
    
    
    brews

	RE: a few back aboput the guy named Power in Cincinnati -

That was Tom Power, the Director of Promotions for the Giants....

	Jim M.

Anyone know if Hampton is going to play this week against Dallas ?

Anyone know if Hampton is going to play this week against Dallas ?


Dan "run da ball" Reeves will be sharing time between both Tillman and Hampton
just to assure the NY giants fans that the loss is because we couln't run 
da ball. I am sure that neither player will be worth a damn the remainder of the 
season because of Danny boy. 

Jeff

    can you say "sllllliiiiiddddeeeeee"
    
    Dallas will crush the girly_mon Giants...chalk up 2 losses in a row.
    See what happens when the Giants have to play good teams...they LOSE!
    
    JoJ
    

    
>    Dallas will crush the girly_mon Giants...chalk up 2 losses in a row.
>    See what happens when the Giants have to play good teams...they LOSE!
    
 or even mediocre teams as was the case last week. When the hell are the J-E-
 S-T-E-R-S going to realize Coslett ain't HC material?????    

 mike

    
    
     re .103
    
      Hey Regina,
    
      You must be having a tough time. You love the Giants, but
    hate Dan Reeves.
    
      It appears that you actually want the Giants to lose, if
    only so you can say Reeves is a vacuum child too.
    
      You should be a real fan, suck it up, and root for Reeves and the
    Giants.
    
      
    

 Mr. X, I'm touched you've actually talked to me again....

 your absolutely right this is a tough season for me. Your sadly mistaken
 if you think I'm rooting against the Giants just to expose Danny for the
 flimflam man he is. I still bleed blue on sunday with some black and gold
 mixed in there. If the Giants succeed it won't be because of Reeves it'll
 be because Simms is back at the helm...........

 mike

re: .105

I'm disappointed in how you phrased that. You really should have said:

> If the Giants succeed it won't be because of Reeves (it will be in spite
> of him); it'll be because Simms is back at the helm...........

Not enough negative in .105 to be a real MikeC note.

The Crazy Met

    Mikey,
    
    The Giants were playing way over their heads. The Jets just reset them
    and now they'll begin to drift towards the cellar.
    
    re: .104
    
    Hey Stevie_boy, how's it going?
    
    JoJ

>    
>    The Giants were playing way over their heads. The Jets just reset them
>    and now they'll begin to drift towards the cellar.
>    


Like the Jets are going anywhere.....

    Hey Frank....can you say SSSSLLLLLIIIIIIIDDDDDDEEEEEEEE!!!
    
    hahahahahaha
    
    
    JOJ

>    Hey Frank....can you say SSSSLLLLLIIIIIIIDDDDDDEEEEEEEE!!!
>    
>    hahahahahaha
    
Hey Marie,

Tell JOJ I said "Do Gerry"


8^)

    Mighty quiet in here...where's all the Giants fans? Still trying to
    figure out if the Giants will ever win another game?
    
    JoJ_NOT_a_Giants_fan

>
>    Mighty quiet in here...where's all the Giants fans? Still trying to
>    figure out if the Giants will ever win another game?
>    
>    JoJ_NOT_a_Giants_fan


It's quiet here because all the Giants fans do their noting in the Giants
file.....

DUH.....

You know better than that!

    The Giants should win there next 3 in a row.  Washington is still
    not a match for the Giants, and the Giants should rebound after
    the dallas loss.  There next 3 games are Wash, Indy, Phoe and to
    lose one of the gimmes would say alot about the NYG...  There next
    test will be Miami, even without Marino they have been playing very
    well, but I seem to recall theyve lost several Defenders as well so
    Miami may be on a down swing (I hope not) and then the Giants play
    indy again(should be a W) and then NO.  So with the Gimmes (I know
    nothing's a gimme) but if the NYG just beat the teams they should
    and lose to Miami and NO (there only tough games) they'll be at 9-5
    going into Pho and Dallas.  The Pho win puts them at 10-5.  So either
    the Giants have to win some of the Non-Gimmes (Mia, NO, Dal) or hope
    Dallas loses 3 games between now and Jan 2nd.  I think Dallas will
    take the Division, but I also think Dallas and the Giants have good
    enough teams/coaches to not let a GimmeGame slip away... Aikman's 
    absense could give Dallas another L, Kosar could be a hero for 1 or 2
    wks down in Texas....
    
    There not a giants fan but You wanted less quietness...
    
    Beside's no reason to harp on the fact that the Cowboys whipped the
    Giants good last week....

    	I agree with Brooksie.  The Cowboys are head and shoulders above
    the Giants in talent.  The Giants will overachieve right into the
    playoffs because of the fantastic job Dan Reeves has done coaching this
    team.  Kudos Mr. Reeves!
    
    				/Don

>    	I agree with Brooksie.  The Cowboys are head and shoulders above
>    the Giants in talent.  The Giants will overachieve right into the
>    playoffs because of the fantastic job Dan Reeves has done coaching this
>    team.  Kudos Mr. Reeves!
    
 >   				/Don


	Bait for Mike Childs if I ever saw it :^)

	BTW, Giants play AT Philly this coming week - NEVER a "gimme" game
for the Giants.  In fact, it's usually disastrous.  

	Jim M.

    The Giants will beat the Eagles. The Eagles are starting Ken "hands on
    his helmet" O'Brien. A total stiff. What idiot coach would start him???
    
    re: Frank
    
    I realize the Giants note is the place to drool over the Giants. But,
    isn't it a closed conference? 
    
    JOJ_NOT

>    
>    I realize the Giants note is the place to drool over the Giants. But,
>    isn't it a closed conference? 
    
You've had membership there forever.

And it won't be closed much longer -- I just need time to do some maintenance
and stuff, and it'll be opened up.....

Perhaps next week when I'm off.....


'Saw

PS  Jets are a mediocre team in a weak division....

    	Reeves' coaching genius once again will come to the fore as the
    Giants overachieve to yet another victory.
    
    				/Don

    re: Ok, Frankwa, you axed for it, you got it...JOJ_NOT will re-enter
    the Giants conference at your request.
    
    JOJ_NOT

	All those Midget fans who compared the hiring of Dan (Genius) 
Reeves to a plague of locusts should be served up a helping of crow 
Thursday with their turkey.  Consider the difference in talent between last 
year's Giants and last year's Patriots.  Definitely not a sizable gap, but 
Slick Dan made some moves (dumping Hoss and Banks, signing Brooks) that, 
along with his coaching acumen have made the Giants a serious playoff 
contender, while the hapless Pats are a serious Marshall Faulk contender.  
Personally I would rather have Slick Dan patrolling the Patriots' sideline 
than having Parcells waddle around in his (tidal) wave Patriots shirt 
making faces like he's constipated because a fourth down and one play that 
even the peanut vendor knows is coming doesn't work.  Kudos to George Young 
for having the courage to stand up to the fans and media and doing what it 
took to bring the Giants back to respectability.

				/Don

    
    /er, I've never had a bad thing to say about you, heck you even have my
    alma mater in your p.n., but the diatribe that followed forces me:
    
    May a plague of soccer fans infest your Thanksgiving dinner.
    
    brews

    	Come on B.O.S.S. be a main and belly up to the bar for your much
    deserved crow!  Reeves is to coaching what Coltrane was to jazz.
    
    				/Don

 Reeves sucks Don. You know it, I know it, heck even Johnny Smellway knows
 it.....how about his ace kicker treadwell? A good coach might know how to
 handle a blitz but not Good Time Danny...Half of Philly's defense is out
 and all they get is 7 points? Some kind of coaching there....

 mike

	/Don

	:^)  :^) :^)

	Remains to be seen if Mike C. will take the bait......

	Reeves is to coaching what Michael Bolton is to "the classics" :^)

	ie:  semi-talented - but original ideas are hard to come by....

Giants won in spite of Reeves.

What kind of a__hole calls a reverse inside your own 10?  Danny Boy.

Treadwell has got to go.....


'Saw

    He's no Sisson...
    
    Murph
    

    Mebbe they shoulda kept Handley_Coach.
    
    JoJ_NOT

    Is this Cardinal team a NFC copy of the Pats or what...
    Something always seems to happen to this team as well...
    
    Awful questionable false start penalty on the Cards with two
    minutes to go with third and one.. The refs called the penalty
    on the Cards' offensive guard, replay showed the man never moved.
    Jints get a break.
    
    But Cards still sip..
    
    MikeL
    

>    Awful questionable false start penalty on the Cards with two
>    minutes to go with third and one.. The refs called the penalty
>    on the Cards' offensive guard, replay showed the man never moved.
>    Jints get a break.
>    
>    But Cards still sip..
    

The officiating in that game was terrible.    

Even though I'm a Jints fan I can't see why that Cardinal player was
ejected.  He never touched the ref -- another player did bump him as
he was coming on the field.   

And there were too many conferences.  If the league can't get guys who
can make a call and be sure of it, then they're in bad shape.....


'Saw

    ...and the blown call when Anthony Edwards (who was later ejected)
    downed the punt on the 1-yard line.
    
    Cards are in every game, but still can't win.

    
    I listened to the last 5 minutes of the game on the radio on the way
    home from golf.  Never doubted that the Giants would win.
    
    brews

    brews, what does boC think?

There were lots of Giants fans who were on the edge of their seats, believe
me.

Daluiso came through, although a lot of us thought he wouldn't.

The officiating sucked, totally.....


But an UGLY win is still a win.....


'Saw

   > brews, what does boC think?
    
    boC only lives in #132.  You gotta go there to ask him (he's responded
    by now).
    
    brews

    nice win against Miami for the surprising Giants. But the Giants
    better hope they lead Dallas by 2 games beofre they meet the Cowboys
    again.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    	THE GENIUS becomes the first NFC East coach to beat Shula and the
    Dolphins down in Miami.  Congrats!
    
    				/Don

	That's the first NFC east team to beat Shula in Joe Robbie Stadium.
                                                        ------------------

	Which isn't that big a deal because JRS has only been open what
5 years? During those 5 years the fish didn't have to play the NFC east,
in 2 or 3 of those years? So it comes out that the Giants stopped about a
10 game win streak for the fish in JRS against the NFC east.

Ron

�So it comes out that the Giants stopped about a
�10 game win streak for the fish in JRS against the NFC east.
    
    11, but who's counting.

    This is the gods giveth the gods taketh away :-)  They got a gift
    last week VS Dallas so they had to earn it this week and the 3rd
    string QB led Dolphins werent up to the task.   Congrats on the NYG
    finaly facing and beating a  contender (now there 1-3 vS real teams).
    Now that it appears the NYG have a true shot at the division do they
    get the tie breaker VS San Fran ?  SF whould end up 12-4 or maybe
    even 13-3 so if the NYG and SF end up tied (no head to head) who has
    the Tie Breaker (Today) ?  The Giants with HFA could pull an upset
    and the AFC Will be preying for that because if you were an AFC coach
    and got to chose your NFC foe out of Dallas, NYG and SF who would you
    pick.  I still thing the OldJoeTeam VS NewJoeTeam is the odds on 
    favorite :-)
    
    Congrats, and even though many people dont think he's much, Sherrard
    would have made a huge difference come playoff time (Any chance he'll
    be back ???).  Should be intresting, Ive never seen so many upsets in
    one weekend...
    								Mab

	As of Today, the Giants have the best Conference record at 8-1. Dallas
is 6-2 and the 49'ers are 7-2. The Giants are 1 game up in all tie breaking
category's, except division record at 5-1. A Dallas win tonight gives them a
division record of 5-1.


>>> 11, but who's counting -- It was a close guess....

Ron

    (hey Ron whats up)
    
    What's the next Tie Breaker, if NYG sweep thru and lose to Dallas they
    end at 10-2 if SF ends at 10-2 is it points scored in the division or
    common opp ?  HFA will be a HUGE difference this year, no matter what
    anyone say the NYG get the edge over Dallas and SF on a wet cold snowy
    icy field :-) (not that this will be enough but will be a HUGE factor).
    
    Man if it comes down to SF VS NYG in the NFC I wont know who to root
    for :-)
    
    								mab

    
    	Repent MikeyC. while there's still time!  :*)
    
    Claybone

    Hey Claybone stop stealing lines from MikeH :-)
    
    The Crazy Met
    

 I doubt it Claybone.....Finally after 12 Games Reeves wakes up and calls
 a good game plan and I'm supposed to bow down? Reeves will have to win it 
 all before I change my mind. I got a better chance of sleeping with Bo
 Derek than that happening..........

 mike

> all before I change my mind. I got a better chance of sleeping with Bo
> Derek than that happening..........

Dammit Mikey, who told you what the guys from GIANTS were chipping in to
get you for Christmas!??

Now the surprise is gone....8^(

    	Gievn the fact that the Giants are probably 5th in the NFC
    talentwise (49ers, Cowboys, Saints and Packers ahead of them) having
    the best record after 12 games is quite an accomplishment by coach
    Reeves (a.k.a. GENIUS).  If the Midgets were to win it all Reeves would
    enter the pantheon reserved for names like Halas, Warner etc.
    
    				/Don

>
>    	Gievn the fact that the Giants are probably 5th in the NFC
>    talentwise (49ers, Cowboys, Saints and Packers ahead of them) having
>    the best record after 12 games is quite an accomplishment by coach
>    Reeves (a.k.a. GENIUS).  If the Midgets were to win it all Reeves would
>    enter the pantheon reserved for names like Halas, Warner etc.
>    
>    				/Don


And this is /Don on peyote.......

    	Maybe you should try some 'Saw.  It would expand your mind and
    possibly even allow to see the obvious truth that Dan Reeves is a
    GENIUS and the only coach in the NFL that would have the Midgets
    knocking on the door of the mighty and talented Cowboys and preparing
    to snatch the Lombardi Trophy from their grasp.
    
    				/Don

I thought that Jerry Glanville had the title of GENIUS....

Nope Jerry Glanville's mmonkier is GENGUS.

                    
> I thought that Jerry Glanville had the title of GENIUS....
    
    No, that was "jeenyus".  Completely different thing.  The coveted
    "jeenyus" title was passed from Buddy Ryan to Sam Wyche to Glanville 
    and now probably most logically resides with Belichek.  In other 
    words, 50 cents and "jeenyus" qualifications will get you...
    
    glenn
    

I though Glanville was a PENIS?

Metz

    
    	Alright then Mike.  If the Gnats win it all, you can't claim
    	to be a fan and enjoy their (and Reeves) success then.  Deal?
    
    	Here's hoping Dan wins his much deserved champeenship!
    
    Claybone

 Why can't I be a fan of the team but not the coach? You guys were all still
 broncos fans when you were calling for Reeves' head. Some kind of double
 standard colorado style? Or maybe you guys really aren't fans of the team
 just Elway fanatics????

 mike

    
    	You never heard me call for Reeves head.  It was a mistake on
    	Bowlen's part to fire him.  Period.
    
    	Are you trying to say that if the Gnats win the big'n, that Reeves
    	will not have had anything to do with it?  You're slipping badly
    	there MikeyC.  Swallow your pride man!  
    
    Claybone

>    	You never heard me call for Reeves head.  It was a mistake on
>    	Bowlen's part to fire him.  Period.
>    
>    	Are you trying to say that if the Gnats win the big'n, that Reeves
>    	will not have had anything to do with it?  You're slipping badly
>    	there MikeyC.  Swallow your pride man!  
    
Like Mike, I've questioned quite a few of the things that Reeves had tried
to do this year.  Some of them I've been wrong about, some of them Reeves
has been wrong about.

I still wonder if Reeves can win the whole enchilada.

The Giants have overachieved this year, and right now the loss of
Sherrard has hurt them, but they are overcoming it.   

The last games should be interesting, to say the least.....


'Saw


PS  Reeves is head and shoulder and belly button and thighs and knees
    and toes above the last guy (TRBC)....

�Like Mike, I've questioned quite a few of the things that Reeves had tried
�to do this year.  
    
    'Saw question a new head coach?  I don't believe it.  Whatsa matter,
    falling for the hype?  Being impatient?  Shut up an enjoy it, you're
    going to the playoffs.

>    
>    'Saw question a new head coach?  I don't believe it.  Whatsa matter,
>    falling for the hype?  Being impatient?  Shut up an enjoy it, you're
>    going to the playoffs.
>

For the most part I've been very satisfied with the things that Reeves
has brought to the Giants.

He took an undisciplined team that had a country club atmosphere (kind
of like Coach MacPherson's Patriots I'd imagine) and brought discipline
and hard work back into focus.

He resolved the QB controversy by getting rid of Hostetler, and he
caused some controversy by getting rid of some fan favorites.  When he did
that I sucked it up, and said, "well, let's see what old Dan is doing
here".   At any rate, compared to the last two years of Giants history,
he's been a genius.

I don't agree with every call he makes.  Recently, he sat Deluiso for
a game.  Not one of Treadwell's kickoffs made it inside the 10.  I thought
he was dumb for doing that, but next game, Daluiso was back and WHAMMO,
kicks a 54 yarder to win it.

I don't agree with running a reverse inside your own 10.  We dodged a
bullet on that one.



As to me being impatient, not a chance.  I guess I'm luckier than you
Mac, because the Giants situation was different - we had decent competitive
talent, and that boob TRBC was mishandling it and underutiltizing it, and
not coaching it.

All I expected this season out of Reeves was a decent effort and some
discipline on top of that.  Anything else is gravy.   We might make the
playoffs, but after that....who knows.  I don't see us taking Lombardi's
Trophy if that's what you mean.   

I'd rather have us bow out in the early rounds though, than to see us
come up short in the Big Game.....

'Saw

>
> No kidding. If the Jints were 1-11 right now, Reeves'd need police prot-
> ection and Saw would be leading one of the hit squads.
>

Not really.  

The first year that Parcells was on the Giants, I wasn't expecting much.
Sure I saw some bonehead stuff, but I was smart enough to realize that
a lot of the late losses were due to lack of talent.   I got pissed, and
I moaned, but I knew this guy had something.

Over the years, Parcells did something that hadn't been accomplished in
30 years.  He got the Giants to the top of the hill.


Handley was a different story.  He was inept, undisciplined, and he
ran a country club.   I would have gladly led a hit squad against him.
Mainly because his club HAD talent, and Handley was not utiltizing it.


Reeves isn't 1-11 and it's highly unlikely with the talent he's got that
he would be.  Even the worst coach in Giant history (Handley) could
only manage to lose 8 with this bunch, so Reeves wouldn't have come close
to 1-11.   


Parcells had squat to work with.  If the Pats had the Giants talent and
Parcells took them over, they'd probably be 9-3, or even 10-2.  They just
didn't have the players.



But, you are right about the police protection.  Handley needed that
an all he ever did was 8-8.....

'aw

�I'd rather have us bow out in the early rounds though, than to see us
�come up short in the Big Game.....
    
    No way.  It is better to have tried and lost than to have never tried
    at all.

>    
>    No way.  It is better to have tried and lost than to have never tried
>    at all.

No, that's not the way I feel.

The one big worry I've had about Reeves is that he can't win the Big One.

If he's gonna lose, then lets lose early....Otherwise....8^)

> The one big worry I've had about Reeves is that he can't win the Big One.
    
    Sure, but if we're being honest with ourselves and are not just out to 
    bash Donk fans, in at least two of three of those SBs Reeves really had 
    no business being there.  Reeves has generally made the most of what he's
    been given to work with, even if he's not capable of masterminding the
    brilliantly-conceived upset victory.  Put a Cowboy-programmed Landry 
    protege like Reeves at the controls in Dallas and he'd be capable of
    accomplishing what JJ has.  I think I'd be more dissatisfied with Marv
    Levy if I were a Bills' fan, for example, and he doesn't seem to catch
    half the heat that Reeves has for his supposed big-game failures... 
    
    glenn
    

    	Attaboy Waugamain!  Glad to see you come around.  Plenty of room on
    the DAN REEVES bandwagon.
    
    				/Don

    
    I can see it now:
    
    'Saw hoping Treadwell misses a 19 yd FG with 1 sec left in the NFC
    Champ. game vs. the 'boys.  The winner gets to play a red hot KC team
    that has demolished the opposition.  Yep, I can picture 'saw wearing a
    Troy jersey.
    
    brews 

    Hey Bruce I thought you were a 9ers fan.  You doin' some serious
    drugs if you think that the 9ers won't be one of the teams in
    the nfc championship game. 
    
    Frank "decsale" Mendez
    

    9ers, Giants, Cardinals, it all depends on where bo* lives...

    
    I've always been a Giants fan first.  You seem to remember that after
    we talk on the infrequent occasions you decide to answer the phone,
    Frank.
    
    brews

the reason Reeves and the donkey's get so much more flack than Levy and the
bill is because Donkey fans are more obnoxious than Bills fans and The  donkeys
have the man you love to hate in Mr. Ed.


Metz

C'mon Bruce what do you want quick response in notes or from a 800 number ?


By the way I know that Reeves is a good motivator and there is no doubt he can 
get the talent he has to play above their god given abilities. Fact is that the 
team will lose crucial games because of DR ability to overlook a opponent. 
It's always true that he isn't into a game but he's more into the game plan. 

The win against Phoenix was the first time I've seen DR jump for joy, but the 
crucial factor was he didn't hug anyone on the team they all were a good 5 yrds
from Reeves just in case Daliso(sp) missed. 

Jeff

   > C'mon Bruce what do you want quick response in notes or from a 800
   > number ?
    
    I'd be happy with either one.  8^)

    Bruce.......I wasn't aware you needed our help anymore.  Actually if
    you don't have network questions you'll probably never talk to Jeff
    or myself.  Anyway those Giants look pretty good with Reeves at the
    helm.  But as a 9er fan the Giants don't look nearly as tough now,
    as when Parcells was there.  
    
    Frank Mendez
    

What till I get my new gun, Brews, I'm a comin' fer ye, and I'm gonna
call ye out for that remark about wearing a T*** jersey.   I'd rather be
boiled in oil than to EVER wear ANY piece of Sowboy paraphernalia...

And I'd never route against the Giants, ever.   


So there...

Actually, the scenarios most often presented on WFAN have the Giants
playing the Cowboys in the second round, not the Championship game....


'Saw

    
>    'Saw hoping Treadwell misses a 19 yd FG with 1 sec left in the NFC
>    Champ. game vs. the 'boys.  The winner gets to play a red hot KC team
>    that has demolished the opposition.  Yep, I can picture 'saw wearing a
>    Troy jersey.
    
 
	Wouldn't surprise me either Brews with all the complements he's
 been dropping on the JJs' and crew. 

	Yes, Claybone if the Giants win it all I'll have to suck up to
 the bar and order a large black electric fence whizzed on Crow with a
 side plate of droppings from one of Reeves' collies but it ain't going
 to happen. He's not smart enough and the Giants gawdy record has been
 a by product of a Broncos type schedule, with a sudden and drastic drop
 in the division talent due to injuries and age. I certainly hope I'm wrong
 but I doubt it...

 mike

>	Wouldn't surprise me either Brews with all the complements he's
> been dropping on the JJs' and crew. 


Mikey Childs, I'm hurt man.  That one cut right to the bone.


I said I respected JJ and the Boys for the rebuilding that they did.  
I guess that's because I like to see a good rivalry continue between 
New York and Dallas (one of the best in football for my money) and it was
getting too easy there for a couple of years.    

You know, there's no satisfaction in kicking a dead cat.

I don't like the Cowboys (never have, never will) and ain't that fond
of JJ.   But they did a good job rebuilding, that's for sure.


True blue,
'Saw

�the reason Reeves and the donkey's get so much more flack than Levy and the
�bill is because Donkey fans are more obnoxious than Bills fans and The  donkeys
�have the man you love to hate in Mr. Ed.
    
    Seeing how Digital has a major manufacturing facility in CO, and
    nothing up in Buffalo, the Bronco fans also have a much better chance
    of coming in here and being obnoxious.

    
    	That's two notes defending the Broncos/Broncos fans by Mac.
    	Am I in the right conference?
    
    Claybone

>    What till I get my new gun, Brews, I'm a comin' fer ye, and I'm
>    gonnacall ye out for that remark about wearing a T*** jersey.  
    
    My comment was made, tongue-in-cheek, saw.  You oughta know better.
    
    > You know, there's no satisfaction in kicking a dead cat.
    
    How do you know?  ever try it?
    
    brews

>    
>    My comment was made, tongue-in-cheek, saw.  You oughta know better.
>    

Okay, pardner, we'll let it go this time....  (It was still pretty
heinous, even in jest 8^))


>    How do you know?  ever try it?
    
yeah, and I got maggots all over my boots....8^)

�    	That's two notes defending the Broncos/Broncos fans by Mac.
    
    Where?  

    
    > You know, there's no satisfaction in kicking a dead cat.
    
    
      Dead_Cat soccer is cool.  huh  huhuhuh huh huh huh 
    
    

>    No way.  It is better to have tried and lost than to have never tried
>    at all.
    
>    Seeing how Digital has a major manufacturing facility in CO, and
>    nothing up in Buffalo, the Bronco fans also have a much better chance
>    of coming in here and being obnoxious.

	Right there.  All of us obnoxious Bronco fans salute you!

Claybone

    You're taking me out of context, Claybone.  Bailiff....

    po, po, Mac - someone taking HIM out of context.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

      I won't defend Reeves when it comes to motivation and drafting/buying
    key players.
    
      He did well is some aspects,  but screwed up in others...
    
      Tim

Well, I watched the game of the year yesterday, and certainly Dallas and
NY didn't disappoint.

Not thrilled with the outcome, but all-in-all it was a good game.

It was blatantly obvious that the Giants missed Sherrard a lot more yesterday
than we've seen in recent weeks.   Aaron Pierce has taken the title
"Hands of Stone" away from Howard Cross, who, finally this season, has
added some receiving skills to his fine blocking skills.

Had to agree with Madden -- can't remember a game where both running backs
had such good days.


Now, one of two things will happen -- either the Giants are so spent from
yesterday's effort that they suck against Minny nexted week and lose, or
else the Giants and Dallas meet up again in two weeks in Dallas.  Could the
3rd time be the charm?  I sure hope so.....


'Saw


PS  When do Oates leave the game?  I didn't see him get injured, but Williams
    finished it up.....

>Now, one of two things will happen -- either the Giants are so spent from
>yesterday's effort that they suck against Minny nexted week and lose, or
>else the Giants and Dallas meet up again in two weeks in Dallas.  Could the
>3rd time be the charm?  I sure hope so.....

 Or a third thing, which IMHO is even more likely:
 Green Bay over Detroit on Saturday, Giants over Minnesota on Sunday,
 which sends New York to San Fransisco and Green Bay to Dallas the following
 week.

> Or a third thing, which IMHO is even more likely:
> Green Bay over Detroit on Saturday, Giants over Minnesota on Sunday,
> which sends New York to San Fransisco and Green Bay to Dallas the following
> week.

Yeah, that's a distinct possibility, but I figured Detroit to beat Green Bay,
even though I'd root for Green Bay.


Next season they're going to have to do something about the playoffs system
because there's a lot of potential this year to have repeat games.

We've already got two -- Denver v. LA and Detroit v. Green Bay.   The
Giants could be playing the Cowboys for a 3rd time and it won't even be for
the NFC Crown, and IMO, that sucks.


'Saw

> We've already got two -- Denver v. LA and Detroit v. Green Bay.   The
> Giants could be playing the Cowboys for a 3rd time and it won't even be for
> the NFC Crown, and IMO, that sucks.


 What really sucks is we'd have to face them with chickenshit Reeves as our 
 coach again...

 How many folks thought Reeves was right not to even take a shot at the
 endzone and the win in regulation?

 mike

> What really sucks is we'd have to face them with chickenshit Reeves as our 
> coach again...

We wouldn't have even been in that position, playing for the NFC East
title if we'd have still had the bonehead we had last year, or if we'd
had Wannstadt.


> How many folks thought Reeves was right not to even take a shot at the
> endzone and the win in regulation?

Except for the fact that Cross was open all day, the Sowboys had the
receivers pretty well covered.  If Pierce, who SUCKED all day, had had the
brains to be about three yards farther up on his pattern, then the point
is moot.

'Saw


btw, did I mention that Pierce SUCKED all day?

> Except for the fact that Cross was open all day, the Sowboys had the
> receivers pretty well covered.  If Pierce, who SUCKED all day, had had the
> brains to be about three yards farther up on his pattern, then the point
>  is moot.


 or if that Donk castoff Jackson held on to that 3rd down pass at the 5 yard
 line. What about a screen pass Danny????

 The record was built against inferior teams Saw. If Reeves can duplicate
 the record next year, I'll give him credit but I doubt it. How many times did
 Denver ride a last place finish to a division title the next? Reeves's
 stats are way overblown by easy schedules and Pile it High........

 mikey

    Yo Jints fans!
    
    Has Derek Brown taken the gaspipe in Joisey? Does he play at all??
    
    MikeL
    
    Here's hoping he don't add fuel to Childsay's fire about ND players
    
    

    
>    Has Derek Brown taken the gaspipe in Joisey? Does he play at all??
    

    Brown has done ok when given the oppurtunity to play but with Cross
 firmly established as the TE , Reeves' fondness for a two back offense
 and Pierce's versatility as the HB, Brown has been left out in the cold...

 mike    
    

	Reeves should be fired for being the spineless bum that he is.
That entire last series he played for the friggin tie. Once the ball was
inside the 25yrd line. He should have taken a shot at the endzone. You
can't win the game in regulation if you don't try.

Ron

Brown is pretty good, but he blocks better than he catches at this point.

BTW, did I mention how much Pierce SUCKS?


8^)

    
    
      re .191
    
     >> How many times did Denver ride a last place finish to a 
     >> division title the next?
    
    
     I don't think that ever happened. While Reeves was at Denver, they 
    never finished last in the division. For the repeat years they won 
    the AFC, they were playing a 'first place' schedule, the same thing
    that Buffalo has been doing the last 4 or 5 years.
    
    
     

    
    	Quit confusing MikeyC with facks(tm) Steve!
    
    Claybone

>>           <<< Note 76.188 by CAM3::WAY "You can't polish a turd" >>>

>>The
>>Giants could be playing the Cowboys for a 3rd time and it won't even be for
>>the NFC Crown, and IMO, that sucks.


'Saw,

Are you sure about this?  I thought that the NFL had some sort of rule
that prevented teams within the same division playing each other in
a playoff game if it could be avoided.  I sure hope it does, 'cause
I don't want to see the Cowboys playing the Giants again.

Jerry

>
>Are you sure about this?  I thought that the NFL had some sort of rule
>that prevented teams within the same division playing each other in
>a playoff game if it could be avoided.  I sure hope it does, 'cause
>I don't want to see the Cowboys playing the Giants again.

Yes.  That rule kind of fell out the window when they went to 3 wildcards
and their seeding formula.


Dallas, as #1 seed will play the lowest seeded wildcard after next
week's games.  If NY beats Minny, and Detroit beats Green Bay, then the
Giants will be the lowest seeded of the remaining wildcards (ie the ONLY
WC left) and will play Dallas.

If Green Bay beats Detroit, then they will play Dallas and NY travels
to San Fran....


GO Green Bay!

    Yup, that's right...
    

    The rule concerning two teams from the same division meeting before
    the championship game went out this year.
    
    Mike

nope that rule went out when they went to 3 wildcard teams.

The Crazy Met

    Cheer up you Midget fans ... 2018 ain't that far off!!
    
    -- JB

    Well if Barry Sander's is back I have to say Go Lions but if not then
    I say Go GB, I want to see if NY is for real enough to get by SF before
    playing Dallas again.  Like stated in here before it takes more then
    being the better team and skill to beat an opponent 3 out of 3 tries in
    one year, You need some luck too.  And Dallas is 2-0 vs NY but may have
    to play the Giants again in 2 weeks....
    
    Now that will be a tough game for Dallas, All the pressure will be on
    dallas at that point and the Emmitt Factor (even though I think its
    mental) may play a part.  With Aikman and the quality receiver's he has
    I dont understand why that cant pick apart any defense.. Even if it is
    the #1 defense in the leauge (NYG Held there opponents to 209pts for
    the season, I call that #1)....
    
    So the Defense is there, but can the offense get the job done, minny
    will be a good test, there playing fairly well lately and should be a
    good game (Challange) for NYG.  No more cake wakes this is were the
    boys are separated from the men (Prove me wrong and show me your a real
    team :-) ...)
    
    									mab

�                -< the NYJ are a faux, fake, girlyman team... >-
    
    I thought you liked the Jets.  Don't worry, they didn't make the
    playoffs.

The Giants don't have the defense they had in 1990, and that's
a worry.  The offensive line is banged up -- Elliot is doubtful
for the rest of the year.

Saw a VERY interesting clip on the news last night.  The did
an offensive line isolation on the "chop block" penalty in
OT.  Not only did Williams NOT chop anyone, neither did anyone
else in the o-line.   Elliot did fall down however.

Guess the refs really blew that call....

And on the subject of Reeves not trying for the win (ie going
to the end zone once) I've changed my mind after reviewing the
tape myself...  He should have tried at least once -- so MikeC
I'll give you that one....8^)

'Saw

    Hey JimBob Dallas Denver etc, etc, etc, almost...
    
    So, do any of you Giant fans (or fans of other teams) think the Giants
    are ripe for a opening loss to my MightyVikes this Sunday?  I just have
    a feeling that the Vikes match up well with them.  The Vikes D is
    probably a little better and they have the big RB in Graham just as the
    Giants do.  If it stays close and low scoring, I see my Vikes pulling
    it out.  
    
    
    Spud

The biggest problem I see Spud will be getting the team back
up after the Dallas game.  Plus the line is hurting on the 
left side.

I hope the Giants win, but I'm not positive that they will.

'Saw

    it was a chop block that injured Russ Maryland. That one wasn't called
     but should have been. It worked out for the best anyway.

      Go Vikes...My other team.....
    
      Tim

    I do like the Jets in the AFC, I much rather see them then Buffalo
    (Again) or Denver.  Plus Pitt without Foster is no fun to watch.
    The Raiders I dont know if they can do it, so its houston and KC.
    We all no KC is 1 hit away from being average at best and Houston
    has to get over the mental disaster they suffered last year.....
    
    Im going to root for KC (Marcus Allen is still awsome), and in the
    NFC who else is there, Dallas...
    
    								mab

    	Hey Childs, if this team still had Handley as the coach the Midgets
    would've been lucky to win five games.  The Giants are an 11-5 wild
    card team because of DAN REEVES.  The coaches who could've done the
    same job with the Giants that REEVES did can be counted on one hand. 
    The Giants will crush Minnesota this weekend, so lay the points.
    
    				/Don

I just read a UPI article that says Jumbo Elliott is out for the
remainder of the year.  His back is just too bad for him to continue
playing.  Also, his backup, Eric Moor, has a badly sprained right
ankle and his status is unknown.  Doesn't sound good.

Jerry

I see /er and Spud are ready for a p_name bet.

The Crazy Met

They were speculating on WFAN that he was out for the rest of the
season yesterday afternoon.  I'm not surprised.  I was really surprised
that he was in there at all.....

Oh well....


'Saw

    /Don
    
    What makes you think the Giants will crush the Vikes Sunday?  From what
    I've heard, their offense is as inept as the Vikes and the Vikes D is a 
    little better.  Maybe the difference in records comes from the teams
    you've played vs. the first place schedule the Vikes played this
    season?
    
    
    Spud

    If the Vikes were playing Dallas or at San Fran I could see it, but the
    Giants don't impress me to that level.  They're not in the elite status
    this year.  That's not to say they won't win, I just feel the Vikes are
    on their level and have a decent shot.
    
    
    Spud

    	I'll give you the 6� Spud, for a P-Name that is .  I would
    never gamble for money 'cuz that would be illegal (unless the
    government gets a big chunk of course).
    
    				/Don

> never gamble for money 'cuz that would be illegal (unless the
> government gets a big chunk of course).

well not really. but certainly would be against policy to put any
such posts in this notesfile.

The Crazy Met

    So, whatta we do, pick a P-name for each other?  I've been away from
    SPROTS too long.  :*)
    
    
    Spud

    Just to add a little fuel to my position, I received some interesting
    stats this morning comparing schedules, records, etc between the Jersey
    Giants and my MightyVikes.
    
    The Vikes played the fourth toughest schedule in the NFL overall. 
    Their opponents compiled a 134-122 record while the Giants faced teams
    that finished 120-136.  The Vikes played nine games against teams that
    qualified for the playoffs (most of anyone) while the Giants played
    three.  The Vikes went 5-4 in those games, while the Giants went 0-3.
    
    In an article in this morning's St. Paul paper a good point was brought
    up.  The two teams compare quite constantly at most everything except
    one area.  The Vikes are head and shoulder above at wide receiver. 
    Providing the weather doesn't factor, that could be the difference. 
    But that's a major if right now.
    
    
    Spud

Mr X, and Claybrooon,  I'll grant you the back to back year they did do it
against a 1 st place schedule but when other years they earn their way by
a fifth place schedule thus enhancing Reeves' record. Besides Pile it High
I failed to mention the fact that the CLEMSON REFS(tm) were trained at
Pile It High.

Please Don, spare me the crap, Handley was an out and out boob. There's
plenty of coaches out there who could have produced an 11-5 record with
the Giants' schedule besides Dannyboy. But it's NY so he's shoo in for
COY..

I went back yesterday and watched the Superbowl against Denver and while
it was great to see the Giants pound the Donks, I also had to live through
Reeves' gutlessness to attack the endzone, his sweeps, Mark Jackson's
disappearing act and total lack of motivation on the part of the Denver
players. 

Yes Spud we're ripe but we still got Phil, LT and the crowd so we're
not out of it. If we can get to Jimmy Mac early and hard, the game should
be ours..........

mikey

Giants are really banged up.  No way would I bet on them.

It's gonna be a good game, but I'm not confident that the Giants will win.
I think it's a toss-up.....


'Saw

>    The Vikes played the fourth toughest schedule in the NFL overall. 
>    Their opponents compiled a 134-122 record while the Giants faced teams
>    that finished 120-136.  The Vikes played nine games against teams that
>    qualified for the playoffs (most of anyone) while the Giants played
>    three.  The Vikes went 5-4 in those games, while the Giants went 0-3.


     I take it that includes for Minnesota 2-0 against Green Bay and 1-1
     against Detroit, teams so bad it's hardly worth bragging about compared
     to the remaining playoff teams.  I take it the Giants 0-3 record is
     0-2 against Dallas and 0-1 against Buffalo, the teams with the best
     record in the NFL.  Minnesota wasn't too sharp against the Cowboys,
     either, as I recall.

    I may be wrong, but I think you'll be surprised to see one of the NFC
    Norris teams still alive after the second round.  If I had to play
    Detroit, I'd be a little worried right now.
    
    
    Spud

    It's ironic considering the days of Bud Grant and his "no heaters"
    philosophy but playing outside in cold weather may be the decisive
    factor in the Giant's favor this week.
    
    I've underrated the Giants all year so I'll pick em to edge the Vikes.
    The comment about JimmieMac (getting to him) is probably true and his
    ability to air it when he's not indoors is in doubt.
    
    Bill

    Jumbo Elliott is gone for the playoffs.
    
    BTW - Was that Lou Holtz moonlighting on the Giant sidelines when they
    went for the tie?

    Re. .225
    
    If you take away the games vs. the Vikes this year, both Detroit and
    Green Bay went 9-5 against the rest of the NFL.  Call it whatever you
    want, that ain't too shabby.
    
    
    Spud

�    So, whatta we do, pick a P-name for each other?  I've been away from
�    SPROTS too long.  :*)

	Basically.  The winner gives a P-Name for the loser for a week.  
Unlike some in here who "don't deal in points", I'll lay the 6� (because 
it's the mainly thing to do).  We got a bet?

		 		/Don

    
    	"Points" are for weenies!
    
    Claybone

    /Don
    
    We've got a bet.  You don't have to lay the points though, I'll take
    you on straight up.  I think it'll be a 3-4 point game - either way.
    
    
    Spud

    	Hell Bob, I'm still trying to get that BabyBlueBrews to pay up!
    
    				/Don

    
    MikeyC,
    
    	Any comments on your favorite coach getting COY?  :*)
    
    Claybone

    	A well deserved award Claybone.
    
    				/Don

    -1,
    Wait till the 'offs. Jints takin' a dive better than Greg Louganis.
    
    MikeL
    

    ok, MikeC what was that FLA - NECCJ??
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    
    
     North East Corridor Circle Jerk

    
    
>>     North East Corridor Circle Jerk


 correct. they're the ones who voted for Reeves for coach of the year instead
 of a more deserving Jack Pardee, Bill Parcells, or Tom Flores.....

 mikey

  >> correct. they're the ones who voted for Reeves for coach of the 
  >> year instead of a more deserving Jack Pardee, Bill Parcells, or 
  >> Tom Flores.....

     You Giants fans really ought to let this [anti-Reeves] thang that you 
    have die. All the guy did was take a mediocre team and bring it to the
    playoffs and almost beat mighty Dallas for the division crown. If he
    wasn't affiliated with those Elway-led Denver teams that got crunched 
    in too many Super Bowls, you Giants fans would be petitioning for a rules
    exemption to get him into Canton. The only person that even came close
    to doing the job Reeves did was Parcells. Jack Pardee did a great job of
    staying the hell out of Buddy Ryan's way. And Flores did a creditable job 
    but he's a good defense up there and the best rookie qb in the league. 
    Reeves did one hell of a job and the Giants and their fans are reaping 
    the benefits. I don't what the hell you're complaining about, Mikey.

cause he didn't beat any good teams Tommy. Because he doesn't motivate
his players. because his gameplans generally suck and are too conservative.
That's why I don't like him. Toss in the Dallas connection to Landry and
there's no way I can stomach this guy. I still say given the easy schedule
they had many other coaches could have doen the same. Look at Bobby Ross
last year. If Reeves repeats his performance next year then I'll owe him
an apology. Until then.....

mikey

Chicken hawks were around 18th in the league in defense this year and saying
that they had the best rookie QB (1 out of 2) is pretty faint praise...

Neither Flores or Parcells deserved coach of the year for leading teams to last
place finishes again...

Reeves is had the most dramatic  turnaround (despite the last place schedule)
but I might be convinced to give it to Dennis Green for the job he did  with
the Vikings despite losing almost every running back on the roster and having a
couple of inadequate QB's and still got them into the playoffs...

Shula would be the sentimental favorite excpet the fish pulled off one of the
biggest el-foldo's ever...

Metz

    I second the denial of Parcells as CoY.  They made a nice little run
    after the season was a total loss, but CoY?  No way.  If they make the
    playoffs next year, then he's a strong canidate.  
    
    In my mine it goes to Pardee.
    
    
    Spud

Tommy, I think you'll find very few Giants fans that share
Mike's Anti-Reeves Bias.

I, for one, am very pleased with the season's results.  I'm 
not forgetting what that Boob did last year (6-10) and how
much better 11-5 feels.

Reeves restored discipline to the team, and I think he
deserves COY.   He's not my favorite coach of all time,
I still would rather have Parcells, but for the most
part, I think Reeves has done an outstanding job.

So please, give a listen to the FAN, or even one of
the Hartford stations before you classify all Giants
fans as being Anti-Reeves....

JMO,
'Saw

    Even tho I agree with Parcells not deserving any COY thoughts,
    would anyone care to project which coach seems to be moving
    according to plan and has his team primed ( omitting the
    obvious BS)??
    
    I dunno about y'all, but I'd rather have Tuna than ANYONE else at
    this point.
    
    MikeL
    
    

the Pats were less than 5 mistakes or 20 points take your pick from being
10-6 instead of 5-11. 

Reeves may instill discipline but that will only get you so far as he has
proven time and time again....

mikey

    
    
     After watching the Vikes-Giants game the only thing that came
    to mind was its to bad somebody had to win.
    
    Jerry

First half sucked.

Second half was pretty good -- nice run by Rodney Hampton.  That was
the longest touchdown run in Giants playoff history, I believe.....


'Saw

    Vikes shot themselves in the foot too many times to win.  The errors
    seemed endless - the three offsides that gave the Giants automatic
    first downs, Ismails screwups on the third quarter kickoffs, Randall's
    holding after Scottie's big run had gotten us out of the hole, CC's
    fumble deep in Giant territory on the tying drive... ugh.
    
    Vikes certainly had their chances.  They held it close enough in the
    third and had the wind in the fourth.  The Giant fans were biting their
    nails the whole fourth, but give their D credit, they held us off.  It
    was a very winable game.
    
    Jimmy Mac really hung tough, even after that senseless out of bounds
    hit.  I don't care what Madden said, it was flagrent.
    
    Ok /Don, gimmie my punishment,
    
    
    Spud
    

>    Jimmy Mac really hung tough, even after that senseless out of bounds
>    hit.  I don't care what Madden said, it was flagrent.
    
Nope, don't agree with you there.

They were still inbounds when Hamilton had him by the back of the shoulder
pads at his neck.  Hamilton's body was completely off the ground at that
point, so there was no way he could not pull McMahon down.

In the ref's defense, it did take a slo-mo replay to see that, but it was
still a bogus call....


'Saw    

A few obeservations about this game:

	* I still think McMahon is a stiff.  He seems to dissapear at critical
	  times, like yesterday.  It's no coincidence taht he got "injured", for
	  a "tough guy" he's more fragile than Tony Easyon (tm).

	* Rodney Hampton would be a great back if he could follow his blockers.
	  In this day and age of run blockign beign a matter of "screening" 
	  your man from the runner, Rodney went to the wrong side of the screen 
	  several times.  Maybe it was just yesterday, because his numbers say 
	  that he had a great year.

	* Yes, Spudster, the Vikes were better than I thought, and gave the 
	  Giants a run, particularly in the first half.  It was mistakes that
	  did them in, not the Giants.

	* That said, I cain't wait it see what Slash comes up with...

=Bob=

    
    Spud,
    
    	That's not the play to complain about.  The cheapshot, IMO, was
    	when Jimmy Mac took the forearm to the head.  The first guy to
    	hit him made a clean play (he got there within one step of Mac
    	throwing the ball).  The second guy, who delivered the forearm
    	to his haid, hit him WAY after the ball had been released.  
    
    MikeyC.,
    
    	Didn't Reeves make an adjustment on Hampton's TD run which
    	sprung him?  Pure genius!
    
    	Can I be a Giants fan for the rest of the playoffs?  Pretty
    	please?
    
    Claybone
    

>
>	* Rodney Hampton would be a great back if he could follow his blockers.
>	  In this day and age of run blockign beign a matter of "screening" 
>	  your man from the runner, Rodney went to the wrong side of the screen 
>	  several times.  Maybe it was just yesterday, because his numbers say 
>	  that he had a great year.

His numbers say he had a pretty good day yesterday too, gaining over 100
I believe....

I do notice that every once in a while, he picks the wrong hole....8^)


'Saw

    
    It seems that Mac gets hurt on a lot of hits that aren't that hard.  I
    know players have accused him of not being tough in the past, and I'm
    wondering about it myself.  A good example was on the last play of the
    game, when he finished on his back, laying there like he couldn't get
    up.  Suddenly he hears that a flag was thrown, and he immediately jumps
    up, as if he was never hurt.  When he was told the penalty was against
    the Vikes, I was waiting for him to collapse again.
    
    The Vike's running game was effective at times, which surprised me. 
    Green should be COY for what he has done with this team.  You can'r
    forget that the Cowboys plundered thisd team's future 3-4 years ago,
    and they are still competitive.  I figured then that they would be
    looking like Tampa Bay by this time.
    
    brews

    
    	This is the only game of the weekend that went the opposite way I 
    	has wished.  The Giants show me nothing!
    
    	hw

  I was thinking the same thing as Brews about McMahon. The one hit where he
 went out with a concussion did look tough but for the rest of the afternoon
 after every play, he was writhing on the ground like he was trying to pass a
 kidney stone. Half the time it didn't even look like he'd been touched. I guess
 Dennis Green wanted to dance with the one that brung him, but he should have
 bailed on McMahon and gone with Salisbury. 

�His numbers say he had a pretty good day yesterday too, gaining over 100
�I believe....
    
    He broke the 100 yard mark in the 3rd quarter with his 51 yard TD run.

Didn't Hampton end the day with 160+ yards and 2 TDS?  How much
more before he's considered a "good back"?

Jerry

Hampton is an excellent back.

On his TD run yesterday, a lot of it was his own efforts, especially the
nice straight arm of the Viking LB.  He also got a good downfield block
from one of the wideouts I think.....


'Saw

�On his TD run yesterday, a lot of it was his own efforts, especially the
�nice straight arm of the Viking LB.  He also got a good downfield block
�from one of the wideouts I think.....
    
    Yeah he did and I'm surprised Madden missed it.  He said that Hampton
    got the last 20 yards on his own.  Yeah, he did evade a tackle with a
    nice stiff-arm, but the WR kept a guy off of Hampton for a good 5-10
    yards.

             <<< Note 76.258 by SUBPAC::WHITEHAIR "BILL MUST GO!" >>>                              
    -< what a bummer >-            
    
   > This is the only game of the weekendthat went the opposite way I         
   > has wished.  The Giants show me nothing!   
    
    Well they could show you a couple of Superbowl rings, or the record for
    most playoff appearances, neither of which the Browns have.
    
    brews

    The out of bounds late hit on Jimmy Mac was a good call, yes the
    defender made initial contact with him in bounds but when they were
    clearly out of bounds he could have let him go instead he pulled him
    down driving him into the ground.  Thats what got the flag, the
    defender could have let him go and chose to continue the hit even
    though they were clearly out of bounds by 4 or 5 feet when Jimmy hit
    the ground.  Good call, I also agree that the first hit on jimmy should
    have brought a flag.  He got rid of the ball but the tackler was
    already on top of him, the second defender drove a fore are into his
    head and bent his head and neck back, this is uncalled for and stupid.
    He could have suffered a perm injury.  Maybe this is why I dont
    appreciate the Giants.  Next week will be a tough game to watch, SF
    is the better team but I dont want them to gain momentum on Dallas,
    NY would be an easier game for dallas but Id rather see them eliminated
    next week... Oh well I can root against them both.... I hope both
    defenses go after the opposing team's QB the way NY did last week :-)
    
    Dallas SF Rematch will be an incrediable game.. Have to see who in the
    afc steps up and takes out Buffalo, or will they travel to the SB in an
    attempt to catch denver and minny for Most SB Loses...
    
    								mab

�    He could have suffered a perm injury.  
    
    What's a perm injury?  The ultimate in bad hair days?

>    The out of bounds late hit on Jimmy Mac was a good call, yes the
>    defender made initial contact with him in bounds but when they were
>    clearly out of bounds he could have let him go instead he pulled him
>    down driving him into the ground.  Thats what got the flag, the
>    defender could have let him go and chose to continue the hit even
>    though they were clearly out of bounds by 4 or 5 feet when Jimmy hit
>    the ground.  


Watch the replay again.   When Hamilton first grabbed MacMahon, he was
about 5 yards inbounds.  Hamilton was completely off the ground (check it
in slo-mo and you'll see it).  Their momentum carried them out of bounds
and as Hamilton came down, MacMahon came down with him.

Watch the reply again, and tell me that he could have not pulled him down.

If Hamilton had any part of his body on the ground, then I might accept
your premise.  But he didn't.....


'Saw

    But instead of letting go he continued to pull him down as hard as
    he could even though he was out of bounds.  Are you telling me a
    defender even up in the air doesnt know the difference of in bounds and
    out.  He knew where he was and he could have let go, but instead he 
    continued to pull jimmy down as hard as he could driving him into the 
    ground, maybe the odds of an injury arent great on this play but he
    was still making an attempt, and was clearly out of bounds.  Thats why
    the flag was late had he just let go once out of bounds theyre would
    have been no flag....
    
    This happens all the time and should draw a flag every time, granted
    the QB could cut back up field and if he does then the Defender should
    nail him, but when its very clear were the QB is heading this late
    take downs are very unnecessary.  There goal should not be to injure
    a player and when they do this out of bounds I cant see any other
    reason then there intent is to injure the player....
    
    Of course I think any player on the sideline that takes part in any
    play should be banned a year, who was the idiot that got in a fight 
    that was in street close ? (Not in the NY game).
    
    								mab

>    But instead of letting go he continued to pull him down as hard as
>    he could even though he was out of bounds.  Are you telling me a
>    defender even up in the air doesnt know the difference of in bounds and
>    out.  He knew where he was and he could have let go, but instead he 
>    continued to pull jimmy down as hard as he could driving him into the 
>    ground, maybe the odds of an injury arent great on this play but he
>    was still making an attempt, and was clearly out of bounds.  Thats why
>    the flag was late had he just let go once out of bounds theyre would
>    have been no flag....
    
When was the last time you tried that?

McMahon was still going down even if Hamilton lets go.  If you're in the
air you've go no leverage to slam someone.  I've tried it, you can't
do it.  (And I wanted to do it that day too... I got the guy back another
way later in the game though).

And further, I'd put forth the premise that when you're holding someone
at arm's length, and you're not on the ground yourself, you can't generate
enough leverage to drive someone into the ground.

The ref saw McMahon go down, out of bounds, but clearly had not seen the
start of the action that saw him go down.  

Bottom line, it wasn't an egregious foul.

But it didn't matter anyway........


'Saw

    What was obvious was that the Giants were after MacMahon with intent to
    injure.  Several late hits that weren't necessary at all.  In the
    Chicago paper, one of the Bears defensive players stated that there was
    a "bounty" out on MacMahon.  It sure seemed that way, anyway.
    
    For those of you claiming MacMahon couldn't take punishment, maybe we
    weren't watching the same game.  From what I saw (and everything I've
    read) that was one of the guttiest performances a QB could give.  Did
    you happen to notice what the first play was after Mac suffered the
    consussion?  A QB draw.  
    
    As for the neck injury, MacMahon was quoted as saying that for the
    first time in his life on the football field he felt overwhelming fear.
    His body went numb from the neck down for about two minutes and all he
    could think about was what had happened to Utley and Byrd.  Finally he
    started to get some feeling back in one leg and eventually the rest of
    his body.  Later, on that out of bounds hit they crunched his ankle and
    you could see even handing the ball off the next two plays he was
    really limping badly.  Basically by the end of the game he was a
    sitting duck.  Green kept putting him back in, because MacMahon
    requested it.
    
    The guy has been injury prone all his career including this year, but
    I wonder how many other QB's would have come back a second or even
    third time in that situation.  I'm not saying that was the smartest
    thing, but as Vike 13 year vet OL vet Tim Irwin said afterward, "he's the
    toughest SOB I've ever seen."
    
    
    Spud
        

I'll be the first one to take his hat off to McMahon.  He was pretty
gutsy in any case.....


'Saw

   McMahon is 3-3 lifetime in the playoffs. All three wins came in the Bears'
  Super Bowl year.

�    What was obvious was that the Giants were after MacMahon with intent to
�    injure.  Several late hits that weren't necessary at all.  In the
 
Awe c'mon Spud.  It wasn't obvious to me, and I have NO rooting interest in 
either team.  Maybe because of his tendancy to be fragile, they wanted to
create some fear in his mind, but I didn't see anyone trying to injure him.

Also, being tough and beign injury prone aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
McMahon is both.

=Bob=

            
    >�    What was obvious was that the Giants were after MacMahon with intent to
    >�    injure.  Several late hits that weren't necessary at all.  In the
 
> Awe c'mon Spud.  It wasn't obvious to me, and I have NO rooting interest in 
> either team.  Maybe because of his tendancy to be fragile, they wanted to
> create some fear in his mind, but I didn't see anyone trying to injure him.

    I think it was certainly true on that first big sandwich hit that
    McMahon took, the one that caused the temporary numbness, but that's 
    not really saying anything.  Every other team including the Vikings 
    would take the same shot at the QB in that situation.  They sure
    weren't looking just to stop forward progress there.  They were 
    looking to put him out, which is life in the NFL.
    
    After the game Lawrence Taylor said that McMahon stood as a man amongst
    men in the NFL or something to that effect.  Coming back from just that 
    one hit was enough to convince me.  Joe Montana would've been killed... ;-)
    
    glenn
     
    

>>  I wonder how many other QB's would have come back a second or even
>>  third time in that situation. 

	Can you say Terry Bradshaw?  I knew that you could.


	billl

    
    	Bradshaw was too stupid to know better.  :*)
    
    Claybone

	I said "gutsy" not "smart".


	billl

    I'll agree that it's most every teams intent to get the other QB out of
    there.  But this really seemed to be in the front of the Giants plans. 
    I could pull the quote from Collins (or another Giant player) from last
    Sat/Sun Chicago Sun-Times before the game.  He said they were out to
    get MacMahon and knock him out of the game.
    
    Well, they accomplished what they wanted.  I just didn't think they had
    to go to the lengths they did.  MacMahon isn't Joe Montanna.
    
    
    Spud                                                        

�Awe c'mon Spud.  It wasn't obvious to me, and I have NO rooting interest in 
�either team.  Maybe because of his tendancy to be fragile, they wanted to
�create some fear in his mind, but I didn't see anyone trying to injure him.
    
    I didn't see much of the game, but I did see the hit that gave Jim the
    mild concussion.  IMO that was intent to injure and completely
    unneccessary.

    	Midgets to cover and possibly win against the 49ers.
    
    				/Don

    Does Simms plan to retire after this year?
    
    
    Spud

>    Does Simms plan to retire after this year?
    
I don't believe so.

Prior to the Minny game he said that he wanted to put the rumors to rest
and that he would be back next year.

Even if Simms is not the starter next year (which I would doubt) I think
he'll be invaluable for imparting knowledge to Brown and Graham, the
two young QBs behind him on the depth chart....   

Whatever else folks may argue about Simms, you cannot say that he isn't
a savvy QB....


'Saw

The way Young's been throwing up the interceptions this year I hope
the Giants just plan to ruff him up a little...

and let's face it Phil Simms got screwed for MVP. This team was supposed
to do nothing, The Sowboys did nothing more than what was expected of them
but hey that Sowboy merchandise sells like hotfire. Funny thing is most
of the time it ends up in the closet....

mikey

>>>and let's face it Phil Simms got screwed for MVP. 
    
    Mike, you forgot the smiley there.  Surely you can't be serious. 
    Emmitt Smith had one of the greatest years I've ever seen by a back. 
    The man missed 3 1/2 games and still managed to win his 3rd consecutive
    rushing title.  Pretty impressive.  BTW, take away Troy Aikman and
    Smith doesn't win MVP.  The Cowboy offense is brilliant in its
    simplicity and takes what the defense gives it.  For instance in the
    Giants game, NY was doubling on Irvin and Harper all day.  Dallas took
    advantage and ran Smith up the gut all day long.  Had NY concentrated
    on Smith, Dallas would've gone deep to Irvin and Harper.
    
    I'm predicting a Giant upset of San Fran this weekend.  The 49ers are
    last against the rush, and Hampton should have a field day.
    
    - Rope
    

    
    
    	Yabbut,
    
    got some 'trons from JD.  He says "...Giants over Niners."
    
    fyi - 
    He's presently on assignment in Philly at Boeing
    
    hth,
    
    I remain,
    one who keeps in touch.....
    Kev
    

 Yabbut if Barry doesn't miss the games he missed no way Emitt wins the
 title. So without Aikman you say Emitt doesn't win it, ok, I'll give you
 without Hampton, Simms doesn't win. We can say the O-line are a wash no
 compare WR and TE, Dallas has far more weapons in their arsenal as you
 pointed out so who did more with less? Simms so he's the MVP right? no smiley
 necessary imo.......

 mikey     

    >> ... so who did more with less? Simms so he's the MVP right? ...
    
    I don't think so.  Simms had a very good offensive line providing him
    plenty of time to throw.  His receivers aren't exactly chopped liver
    either.  That coupled with the fact NY faced a weak schedule leaves
    Simms w/ no MVP.  Phil is a solid QB, no doubt.  However, I don't know
    if he's ever had a season worthy of MVP consideration.
    
    - Rope

 >> and let's face it Phil Simms got screwed for MVP. This team was supposed
 >> to do nothing, The Sowboys did nothing more than what was expected of them
 >> but hey that Sowboy merchandise sells like hotfire. Funny thing is most
 >> of the time it ends up in the closet....

    C'mon, Mike. Here you are saying that Dan Reeves didn't deserve the COY 
    because all this team did was beat everyone it should have and yet Phil
    Simms deserves the MVP because this team was supposed to do nothing? 
    Isn't that a little inconsistent?

    
>    C'mon, Mike. Here you are saying that Dan Reeves didn't deserve the COY 
>    because all this team did was beat everyone it should have and yet Phil
>    Simms deserves the MVP because this team was supposed to do nothing? 
>    Isn't that a little inconsistent?
    
    Not only that, the offense was supposedly too conservative so Simms is
    apparently rewarded for *not* throwing the ball as much as he should
    be.  I agree, please 'splain, MikeC...
    
    glenn
    

    Steve Grogan of Pat's impressed me tremendously in this regard, of
    course the comparison to "skirts" Eason may help in this regard.
    
    In fact I composed a little doggerel in honor of one of Steve's
    performances ('86) which I might be able to find (off line) in case
    anyone is interested in that sort of thing.
    
    Since it was a "Casey" takeoff I don't expect any mail from Tommy.
    
    But then again I don't expect any mail at all... (I from the school of
    realism)

      Thanks for the laugh Mike!!!   You can't be serious.  Simms has
    proven he is consistent when the running game is working for the jints,
    but other than that, forget it.
    
      Emmitt deserved it.  Without him, the cowgirls arguably wouldn't have
    won 1/2 the games they did, since sooner or later Aikman would have
    been hurt worse than he did get hurt with the shoulder...
    
      Tim

Geez you guys slay me..asking me to explain myself.
What are you guys like the systems these keyboards are
connected to (ie without hearts). Must every opinion or
statement made in here have a fact or a stat?

I frigin hate the Dallas Cowboys what more need I say....

Reeves sucks, Hampton got hurt, anybody who thinks Mark Jackson
is a good receiver has rocks in his head, or that any of the Giants
receivers are equal to the Dallas isn't thinking clearly. I never
said the Giants had a bad line. Going into the season the
Giants weren't even supposed to make the playoffs, Dallas is right
were everyone expect them to be as the top seed and the favorite.
Given that all the Giants did go down to the wire for the division
the only constant I see in the whole equation is Simms........

mikey 

    So lets see your MVP (simms) who was rated below Aikman and Young
    and was unable to stop Emmitt from single handedly beating his giants
    twice, was unable to win the NFC East title and won a couple games 
    against teams with good records... I say your not speaking with you
    mouth or heart but something a little lower :-)
    
    And as far as Barry Sanders rushing for more yrds then Emmitt had he
    not missed games, not... Barry had a 101.36 yrd/per game average to
    Emmitt's 114.3 yrds/per/game This is including the games that they
    missed, Barry played more of the game he first missed then the 1/2
    game emmitt played in.  So had emmitt played in 16games barry would
    have needed to play in 19 games to beat him :-)  Of course with gary
    Brown of the Houston Oilers average had he played all year would have
    rushed for 2012 yrds :-)
    
    Emmitt had an incredible season, and won his 3rd straight rushing title
    and has a HUGE part of many of the Giants Wins... Hampton is the Giants
    MVP so why would simms be the league mvp ?
    
    Simms is a great QB and without him, Hampton and for that matter Reeves
    they would not be were they are today, But League MVP, I would think
    youd at least have to be the MVP of your position before you could be
    MVP of the League, I think there's 5 or 6 QB's more important to there
    overall teams performance then Simms... Look at KC without Montana or
    Houston without moon...  Simms MVP thats really stretching reality a
    way to bit.... :-)
    
    Of course I did think of picking him up on my FFL team but he just
    doesnt score enough FFL pts...
    							Mab

>    and was unable to stop Emmitt from single handedly beating his giants
>    twice, 

Uh, last time I checked, the QB plays on offense.


>    Look at KC without Montana or
    
Interesting discussion of this on the FAN the other day.  The basic
idea was that, without Rice and Taylor, Montana doesn't have the cast
to make KC was SF was, and that he's just not good enough to single-handedly
carry this team.

He's also pretty fragile, and they figure that this is his last year.


'SAw

Hah MAir, how can I value your opinion when you ratings are in the toliet 
due to your Fryar lovefest?????????

Emitt wishes he was as good as Sanders....

>
>Emitt wishes he was as good as Sanders....
>

Yeah.  Because Dennis Hopper sees Sanders moves in his head, and the
only Sowboy he sees is Michael Irvin....

'Saw

  >        <<< Note 76.296 by CNTROL::CHILDS "Phil Simms the real NFL MVP!">>>
  >
  >  Hah MAir, how can I value your opinion when you ratings are in the
  >  toliet due to your Fryar lovefest?????????
    
    Mike, I told you not to get in these kind of arguements with M.Airhead. 
    Now youre startin to right and spel like him.
    
    brews

>  >  toliet due to your Fryar lovefest?????????
      ^^^^^^


Isn't that a prison in Illinois?

    Not a lovefest but #'s dont lie, its that easy, he was 4rth in Rec
    Yrds and had 5TD's this season, not bad with no Marino and was 
    picked for the ProBowl.. But ya your right, he Sips big time..
    (plus he had 1000 yrd season)
    								MairB

                 <<< Note 76.300 by MR1PST::CBULLS::MBROOKS >>>
          -< He played with Heart this year, he has a few years left >-
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Now that is definitely the KINKIEST thing I've ever heard.  In fact,
it's probably the kinkiest thing in the history of mankind......

    Did Ann and Nancy add a player this year?
    
    
    Spud

>                            -< The Wilson sisters >-
>
>    Did Ann and Nancy add a player this year?
    

Yeah, the heiffer, uh, er, girl from Wilson-PHillips....

� Yeah, the heiffer, uh, er, girl from Wilson-PHillips....

	Yeah but 'Saw, this probably wouldn't prevent her from being a fine 
baseball player...

				/Don

    
    Looked more like the Donks .vs. the 49ers in the SB yesterday than the
    GIants in a playoff game, didn't it?????
    
    JaKe
    

Pathetic. A simple game plan: Stop the running game and make the 
all-pro beat you. Works damn near every time.

daryll

    
    	Too bad Giant fans.  Honestly didn't think you had a chance.  Put
    the Giants at the bottom of the rack...AFC has better teams than the
    NFC anyway.  I think your schedual was too weak for a real contender.
    We'll all see how good you were this year by your record next year when
    you play lots better teams.
    	I will have to say you could have given Lawence Taylor a better
    send off.
    
    	hw

>    NFC anyway.  I think your schedual was too weak for a real contender.
>    We'll all see how good you were this year by your record next year when
>    you play lots better teams.

So this means that next year, when the Browns play a patsie schedule and
do well, we can keep reminding you, huh?

We beat Miami, who at the time was leading the AFC east, and we took
Dallas to OT in the last game, which was not bad at all.  We lost to Buffalo,
just barely.   I'm not dissatisfied with this season at all.




Ok, now to get serious.

Giants were simply outgunned on Saturday.  I didn't expect them to win,
but I didn't expect them to get annihilated either.  The biggest statistic
that comes to mind is a measly 2-12 third down conversion rate.  One of those
was late in the game too.  That's so contrary to what the Giants are usually
able to do.

Things that hurt -- missing Elliot and having a less than 100% Moore at
Left Tackle.  The line was one of the best in football mid-season, but with
the injury to Elliot, it went seriously downhill.  

The Giants secondary, for some reason, was not bumping the SF receivers
at all.  As Madden kept saying, that was crucial, and they weren't doing
it.  

The Giants DL was man-handled, and it seemed that most of the tackles made
all day were made by Mark Collins.  Not good.


Personally, I think the Giants were pretty beat up, and had nothing in the
old gas tank.  I think that they left everything that they had on the
field against Dallas on the last week of the season.  They didn't look good
against Minnesota but managed to win.  Saturday, well, what can I say.

On the bright side, the last time I felt this down about a Giants performance
was after the 21-0 drubbing against the Bears in the 1985 playoffs.  That
loss was a catalyst for the next season, the Super Bowl season....  So, who
knows....


Still, given a choice, I'd have to say that I'd have rather have had this
season and lost ast this point than to have played another year under
Handley....


'Saw

        
> On the bright side, the last time I felt this down about a Giants performance
> was after the 21-0 drubbing against the Bears in the 1985 playoffs.  That
> loss was a catalyst for the next season, the Super Bowl season....  So, who
> knows....
    
    I don't know.  I haven't followed what the Giants have been doing in
    much detail, but I think this season may have been a one-shot rebound
    to the glory days, with another relapse to come as they continue to
    rebuild.  Have to admit, though; what they accomplished this year shocked 
    the hell out of me...
    
    glenn
     

    I thought Lupica took a cheap shot at LT on the Sports Reporters
    Sunday.
    
    Reeves vs. SF the last two play off games:  99-13.
    

I don't see a relapse.  They have a lot of young guys.

True, the offense has to open up a bit more, but I'm not dissatisfied.


And for all the folks who keep saying the Giants played a week schedule,
I don't hear them saying that about Dallas.   Dallas played the same
schedule as the Giants, with the exception of three games:  SF, Atlanta
and Green Bay.  

I guess Dallas is America's team and is exempt from such criticism.....


'Saw

 and dallas beat two of those teams which were in the playoffs plus the Giants.
 that's why the sowboys are above critcism here....

 mike

> and dallas beat two of those teams which were in the playoffs plus the Giants.
> that's why the sowboys are above critcism here....

That's BS, Mike and you know it.

They played the same NFC East teams.  If the Giants are so weak, then you
could make the point that 8 of the Dallas wins came over weak teams....


'Saw

    
    OK, who told Reeves this was the Superbowl?  I think he looked, saw an
    NFC on the other sidleine, and figgered it was the time to tank it.  It
    seemed like he paniced much too early, and abandoned the running game. 
    I thought there was still time to establish it in the second quarter,
    but he seemed to have given it up after the first offensive series b
    the Giants.
    
    brews
    
    PS  Hal, take note. Giants lost this weekend.  The Giants fans showed
    up the next morning.  

> I don't see a relapse.  They have a lot of young guys.
    
    I guess my biggest concern would be with Phil Simms, the erstwhile MVP.
    He'll be back next year and there might not even be much of a dropoff
    in his performance, but sooner or later and most likely sooner he'll 
    be done.  I've grown to have a lot of respect for Simms, and don't see 
    his replacement Graham or whoever just stepping right in and providing 
    the mistake-free steady play that Simms has.  This year was almost a
    tradeoff against the development of a young QB, a tradeoff that can't
    be argued with given the results but a tradeoff nonetheless...  
    
    glenn
     

>    I guess my biggest concern would be with Phil Simms, the erstwhile MVP.
>    He'll be back next year and there might not even be much of a dropoff
>    in his performance, but sooner or later and most likely sooner he'll 
>    be done.  I've grown to have a lot of respect for Simms, and don't see 
>    his replacement Graham or whoever just stepping right in and providing 
>    the mistake-free steady play that Simms has.  This year was almost a
>    tradeoff against the development of a young QB, a tradeoff that can't
>    be argued with given the results but a tradeoff nonetheless...  
    
I think Simms will play next year, and what I'd like to see is some
working of Dave Brown (the real heir apparent) into the lineup.

I think Simms can impart a lot of knowledge to this kid and develop his
leadership ability.  Brown has a gun of an arm, he needs some playing time
though.

I think that is where Phil can contribute the best.  

'Saw     

      Mike,  How come your MVP didn't get the ball in the endzone this past
    weekend?  I only watched about 15-20 minutes of this game, and the
    jints looked outcoached (not ready to play).
    
      My hats off to one of IF NOT THE BEST LB to play the game, LT!!!
    The man revolutionized his position.
    
      Enjoy your well deserved retirement.
    
      Tim

�We beat Miami, who at the time was leading the AFC east, 
    
    A team that eventually finished 8-8.  The question of "Are the Giants
    for real?" was finally answered on Saturday.  The questionable run
    defense of the 49ers held Hampton to what, 12 yards?
    
�and we took
�Dallas to OT in the last game, which was not bad at all.  We lost to Buffalo,
�just barely.   
    
    I really didn't take you for an Excellent_Loss type of guy.  You forgot
    the Giants loss to the Jets.
    
�So this means that next year, when the Browns play a patsie schedule and
�do well, we can keep reminding you, huh?
    
    You're starting to sound like Tommy did after the ND/FSU game.  And of
    course Hal is going to get reminded of anything he says regarding the
    Browns.
    
�Personally, I think the Giants were pretty beat up, and had nothing in the
�old gas tank.  I think that they left everything that they had on the
�field against Dallas on the last week of the season.  
    
    They did have enough left after that game to at least win their first
    playoff game.

 >   The question of "Are the Giants    for real?" was finally answered on
 >   Saturday. 
    
    I disagree Mac.  They won a playoff game, were one of the final eight, and
    played this weekend.  That was when the question was answered.  If you
    mean by for real, were they going to win the SB, I don't think anyone
    was counting on it.  But for the most part this season, they played
    well.  I think that if they had won the Jets game, they would have had
    HFA, and things could have been very different.  Thanks for that, Dan.
    
    brews 

    
> They played the same NFC East teams.  If the Giants are so weak, then you
> could make the point that 8 of the Dallas wins came over weak teams....
    
    Dallas went through a lot of turmoil earlier this season, though, 'Saw,
    and that put them in the hole.  That much just can't be denied, and it 
    has little bearing on where the team sits at present.  Don't get me wrong, 
    I'd love to see 10 times the amount of crap flying around the Cowboys
    next year and in the future, starting with JJ's immediate resignation
    at the end of this season, but I'm not counting on that or anything
    else destroying this team as I hope it will.  Right now I think there's 
    still a talent (and age) gap between these teams, which even the close OT 
    loss at home doesn't hide...
    
    glenn
    

	All I can say is why aren't the Giants looking for a new #$%^&*(
coach today? Reeves should have been canned right after the game. Totally
unexceptable for a team to be unprepared for a playoff game. The Giants
were playing like they were afraid to get there uniforms dirty. They had
no emotion and didn't play physical.
	San Franciso is not as good as the score indicated. Its pretty easy
to score at will, when the other team is giving you your whole playbook.
San Fran's receivers were so wide open all day long. The Giants should have
been blizing, because the DB's weren't covering anybody anyways.

Ron

>    A team that eventually finished 8-8.  The question of "Are the Giants
>    for real?" was finally answered on Saturday.  The questionable run
>    defense of the 49ers held Hampton to what, 12 yards?

Yeah, but they weren't in that position when we beat them.

As to the questionable run defense, they were middle of the pack.  They
knew what they had to do and prepared to do it, and did it.

The Giants were hurt up front, which was evident, and for a long time
this season the Giants line was one of the best in football.  With Elliot
out and Moore hurting that just wasn't the case.
    
>�and we took
>�Dallas to OT in the last game, which was not bad at all.  We lost to Buffalo,
>�just barely.   
>    
>    I really didn't take you for an Excellent_Loss type of guy.  You forgot
>    the Giants loss to the Jets.

No I didn't.  We lost to the Jets.  It sucked and cost us the NFC title,
all other things being equal.
    

|�Personally, I think the Giants were pretty beat up, and had nothing in the
|�old gas tank.  I think that they left everything that they had on the
|�field against Dallas on the last week of the season.  
|    
|    They did have enough left after that game to at least win their first
|    playoff game.

Yeah, and played like shit in it too.  It was just a matter of time.


'Saw

A season that ends the way the Giants season ended can't be 
considered a good one, IMO. A well played loss could certainly be 
seen as a building point for next season. A crushing humiliation 
helps to validate all the "not for real" talk. Comparisons to the 
Cowboys regular season schedule are moot. The fact is, the 
Cowboys took care of business this weekend, convincingly. The 
Giants, after skating by the Vikings, were totally dominated by a 
team that limped through the final month of the season and 
allowed opposing teams to run at will. The Giants weakness', 
especially the lack of anything resembling a passing game, were 
highlighted by the Niners. NY had better look for some meaningful 
improvement in that area during the off-season, and getting back 
Sherrard ain't it.

They were defenseless. This was rape.

daryll

yabbut Giants crushed the 49'ers 49-3 in a playoff game 7 years ago.
Not necessarily a big deal, games like this happen.
49'ers won the SB 2 years later. 

The Crazy Met

�And for all the folks who keep saying the Giants played a week schedule,
�I don't hear them saying that about Dallas.   
    
    That's because Dallas played a First Place, Defending Super Bowl Champ
    schedule.

>    That's because Dallas played a First Place, Defending Super Bowl Champ
>    schedule.

Duh, that's  the dumbest thing you've ever said Mac, especially in light
of the fact that with three exceptions, the Giants played the same schedule.

What it amounts to is that a couple of the teams we thought would be
really tough this year turned out to  patsies (Washington and Philly
especially).


btw, there is no "Defending Super Bowl Champ" schedule.  If a team
finishes in second place, and get to the Bowl as a wildcard as the
raiders did one year, they still play a second place schedule the next
year.  Just FYI.....

Dallas played SF, played Atlanta and played GB.  They lost to Atlanta.
They lost to that lowly 8-8 team from Miami.  They played the same
Patsies that the Giants did in the NFC East.

Dallas is probably going to go to the Super Bowl, but don't tell me they
walked on glass on their naked knees to get there....


'Saw

>>     <<< Note 76.323 by CAMONE::WAY "Horseshoes and hand-grenades, man" >>>

>>No I didn't.  We lost to the Jets.  It sucked and cost us the NFC title,
>>all other things being equal.
    
'Saw,

You're wrong on this one.  If you had beat the Jets, and everything
else had stayed the same, you would have been tied with the Cowboys
for the NFC East, but Dallas would have the tie-breaker advantage
with a 2-0 record in head to head competition.  Maybe you would have
technically been co-champs, but you would have still entered the
playoffs in the same wild-card position.

FWIW, I'm one Cowboys fan who is convinced that the Giants are for
real.  11-5 is a for-real record, regardless of who you played.  Two
years ago, the Cowboys went 11-5 against a not-so-tough schedule,
won it's first playoff game and got humiliated in the next one.
We all know what happened the next year.  

What the Giants did this year stands on its own, and doesn't need
any apologies.  You also don't need to slam the Cowboys.  It doesn't
strengthen your argument and makes you look petty.  Be proud of
what your team accomplished this year and let everyone else pound
sand.

Let me ask one question and I'll shut up.  You stated the the Giants
and the Cowboys played the same schedule with the exception of three
teams, the 'Niners, the Pack and the Falcons.  What teams were different
for the Giants?

Jerry

> You're wrong on this one.  If you had beat the Jets, and everything
> else had stayed the same, you would have been tied with the Cowboys
> for the NFC East, but Dallas would have the tie-breaker advantage
> with a 2-0 record in head to head competition.  Maybe you would have
> technically been co-champs, but you would have still entered the
> playoffs in the same wild-card position.
    
    That's where the "would have tried against the Cardinals" logic comes in.
    And, seriously, I think there's something to that rationale; if it had
    meant something I think the Giants would have decided to actually come 
    out of the locker room for the second half and won that game.  But, on 
    the other side I think you can say that it's no great sin to have lost
    the one game to the Jets, as embarrassing as that might be.  It's just 
    one "down" game; almost everyone has them, and the Giants were not so 
    powerful that an upset is unthinkable...
    
    glenn
    

�Duh, that's  the dumbest thing you've ever said Mac, especially in light
�of the fact that with three exceptions, the Giants played the same schedule.
    
    3 exceptions amounts to 20% of the schedule.  The difference in quality
    within those exceptions was big.

                     <<< Note 76.329 by NAC::G_WAUGAMAN >>>
    
  >  That's where the "would have tried against the Cardinals" logic comes in.
  >  And, seriously, I think there's something to that rationale; if it had
  >  meant something I think the Giants would have decided to actually come 
  >  out of the locker room for the second half and won that game. 

   What starters sat out the 2nd half? I think it's a bs reason 
   to explain away a game that NY fans think they should've won. 
   Fact is, if not for Daluiso's only FG of the season, NY stood a 
   very good chance of getting swept by the Cards.

   daryll

    I don't think the Jets defeat of the Giants was an upset.  Simply two
    teams, both with weaknesses and the game decided, quite accurately,
    which of the two was better.
    
    Fortunately for the Giants there strength, or least weakness, is
    consistency and the ability to win close games.  That was the major
    thing responsible for their fine record which again speaks for itself
    just like the Jets game.
    
    Bill

>    
>    3 exceptions amounts to 20% of the schedule.  The difference in quality
>    within those exceptions was big.

You're reaching now....  really reaching.  Next thing you know you'll be
proposing a dastitikal enquiry.

    Get over it, 'Saw.  They played over their heads for most of the
    season, and then their luck ran out and they got their butts kicked.

>You're wrong on this one.  If you had beat the Jets, and everything
>else had stayed the same, you would have been tied with the Cowboys
>for the NFC East, but Dallas would have the tie-breaker advantage
>with a 2-0 record in head to head competition.  Maybe you would have
>technically been co-champs, but you would have still entered the
>playoffs in the same wild-card position.

You're right.  On the basis of the last loss against the boys we'd have
ended up tied with them and lost it on head-to-head.   I forgot that
part....

Oh well.....

'Saw

'Saw why even bother arguing with MtM; it mostly isn't worth the
aggravation.

The Crazy Met

>'Saw why even bother arguing with MtM; it mostly isn't worth the
>aggravation.

Mac is suffering from RCI.  That's pretty evident.  That and a healthy case
of having nothing to root for any more.

Listen to the people who KNOW, Mac.

Bottom line, what counts is the score on any given Sunday.  You take those
scores and determine whether it's a win or a loss, add 'em up, and you get
a record.  Compare that record with every other teams record and you get
standings.

In fact, the NFL thinks so little of strength of schedule it ranks just
above the coin toss on a tie-breaker charts. 

Bottom line, the Giants won 11, lost 5, won a playoff game, and lost
a playoff game.

Bottom line, they had a good season, and I don't know any Giants fan
who'd trade this season for either of the two under Handley.

When it's all added up at the end, no one says that played over their
heads or didn't.  

So, get a step-ladder and reach some more......


'Saw

    
    My point on that is thet the Giants would have won the next to last
    game against the Cards.  It was clear from the start that that game
    meant nothing to them.  Even boC agrees with me on this.
    
    brews

> Even boC agrees with me on this.

I wouldn't advertise that too much.

The Crazy Met

�Mac is suffering from RCI.  
    
    RCI?
    
�That and a healthy case
�of having nothing to root for any more.
    
    You've got TCM running around saying "Hooray so-and-so and their
    obnoxious fans are out of it!!!!" and you're slamming me?  Oh, that's
    right, TCM said "too bad about the jints".
    
�Bottom line, what counts is the score on any given Sunday.  You take those
�scores and determine whether it's a win or a loss, add 'em up, and you get
�a record.  
    
    This from the guy crowing about playing Buffalo tough and losing in OT
    to the Cowboys.
    
�In fact, the NFL thinks so little of strength of schedule it ranks just
�above the coin toss on a tie-breaker charts. 
    
    The NFL thinks alot of strength of schedule.  Why do you think first
    place teams play first place schedules and last place teams play last
    place schedules?  It's to help those last place teams attract more fan
    interest by giving them a better chance to get into the playoffs the
    following year.
    
�When it's all added up at the end, no one says that played over their
�heads or didn't.  
    
    I guess all those things I've read in the papers, heard on the sports
    reports, heard discussed in the hallways, read in here and other notes
    conferences was just my imagination.

Mac, think of it this way you would probably be pretty happy if the Yankees
made it to the playoffs and were knocked out early.

The Crazy Met

>�Mac is suffering from RCI.  
>    
>    RCI?

Rectal-Cranial Insertion.
    
    
|�Bottom line, what counts is the score on any given Sunday.  You take those
|�scores and determine whether it's a win or a loss, add 'em up, and you get
|�a record.  
|    
|    This from the guy crowing about playing Buffalo tough and losing in OT
|    to the Cowboys.

yeah, but I never said they didn't lose those games.  Bottom line, they
did.  They played them tough and lost.
    
>�In fact, the NFL thinks so little of strength of schedule it ranks just
>�above the coin toss on a tie-breaker charts. 
>    
>    The NFL thinks alot of strength of schedule.  Why do you think first
>    place teams play first place schedules and last place teams play last
>    place schedules?  It's to help those last place teams attract more fan
>    interest by giving them a better chance to get into the playoffs the
>    following year.

But NOT for determining placement in the standings.  They place far more
emphasis on results - win/loss/tied, in games, even going outside of the
conference, before they look at strength of schedule.

    
>    I guess all those things I've read in the papers, heard on the sports
>    reports, heard discussed in the hallways, read in here and other notes
>    conferences was just my imagination.

I haven't read where anyone said they were playing over their heads.
I've read a lot about how Brooks and Bailey turned out to be nice prospects.
I've read a lot about how ineffective LT was compared to his old self, but
was still earning double teams.  I've read a lot about how the Giants
missed Sherrard once he went down and would he be back.


Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, this season was a helluva lot more
than I thought it would be, and light years better than anything Handley
could have produced.  I enjoyed the wins, I was disheartened by the
losses, and saw the Giants go farther than they have in the last two years.


'Saw

    All I know is this past Weekend The NYG Met up with a real team in a
    real important game.  They played a championship team in a game to go
    onto the NFC Championship game and the outcome was what was expected
    by many, many fans around the NFL.  Only I didnt even expect them to
    get blown away as bad as they did, the final score left a :-) on my
    face for the rest of the weekend.  Of course if Buffalo had lost as
    well Id still be smiling....
    
    The Bad thing is I hate Repeat champions (Except for the Bulls) but at
    this point I have no one to root for but Dallas in the NFC and KC in 
    the AFC, I hope its the Old Dallas Chiefs (I beleive thats were they
    started) vs The Dallas Cowboys, and I'll have to root for the underdog
    Cheifs to win it all (Marcus Deserves another SB ring for playing with
    LA the past 5 or 6 years)...
    
    								Mab

re: .343

Thankfully I'm in slightly better shape. I can root for 3 of the 4 teams.

The Crazy Met

    The Chiefs used to be the Dallas Texans.
    
    

re: .345

when? and so what?

The Crazy Met

    Let me get this straight, 'Saw.  You don't think the Giants were
    playing over their heads/overacheiving yet you think "this season was a
    helluva lot more than I thought it would be".

	It's obvious to me that the Giants had nowhere near the talent of 
the 49ers (quite frankly even the Vikings had better personnel) and that 
this is just a verification of the outstanding job that DAN REEVES did in 
bringing the team into the playoffs.  Now the Giants could fire REEVES and 
contend for the first round draft choice next year or they could keep him 
and contend for the playoffs.  But take it from a Pats fan who watches his 
team flounder almost every year it's better to try for the playoffs than 
the first round pick.

				/Don

    	Hey Craze the Chiefs started out as the Dallas Texans in the old
    AFL.  
    
    				/Don

so what??

The Crazy Met

 >   Now the Giants could fire REEVES and contend for the first round draft
 >   choice next year
    
    This will happen with or without Reeves.  
    
    brews

�so what??
    
    So, somebody asked.

    TCM has a bad case of granpaphobia - that's fear of hearing that events
    occurred prior to 1970 or thereabouts.  As I mention the famous
    overtime game between the Dallas Texans and Houston Oilers which was
    decided by ? Haynes winning the coin flip and choosing "to Kick" which
    left the Texans defending the wrong end and the Oilers receiving the
    ball.  Note that I am using Brydie run on style here so as not to allow
    TCM a chance to next-unseen.
    
    For those still with me the Texans went on to win the game thus saving
    Haynes bacon but not the Texans who were forced to Kansas City where I
    noticed they booked 75k out of 77k seats average on attendance this
    year.
    
    The grinding in the background is TCM's teeth
    
    youngerblood

>>    decided by ? Haynes winning the coin flip and choosing "to Kick" which

    re: .353
    
    hold on there. I'm happy to hear about the 1969 Mets, 1969-70 Knicks,
    1968-69 Jets.
    
    The Crazy Met
    
    :-)
    

>    Let me get this straight, 'Saw.  You don't think the Giants were
>    playing over their heads/overacheiving yet you think "this season was a
>    helluva lot more than I thought it would be".


Yes.  And there's a very simple logical explanation.

Before the season I had a lot of doubts.  I wasn't sure about some of the
ex-Broncos that Reeves had pulled in, and I wasn't sure about whether the
team could pull together after all of the bullshit of the past two years.

Then guys started playing as a unit, and Reeves was coaching better than
I thought he would.  Like MikeyC I'm not a big Reeves fan, but the man
did prove some things to me.

When they were healthy, the Giants o-line was right on.  The d-line 
needs some work, but the LBs are coming into their own as a unit.  Sherrard
was missed, and the secondary needs some work, but on the whole I felt
the team played well, with a few notable exceptions all year.

A team doesn't play over it's head consistently over the course of a season.
I don't care how much anti-NY bias you have, you can't, in all honesty,
say that this team was as bad as last year's team.  I think they had a 
really good season, better than a lot of us could have expected, with 
some very pleasant surprises, and I think there is a nucleus there to build
on.  

Now if we can just get Reeves to loosen up a bit in certain situations.....


'Saw

    Tcm,
    	The Jets coming of age was the final game in '66 when Joe Willie
    knocked the Pat's out of the championship.  It also signalled the end
    of patchwork teams like Boston competing with draft built, big budget
    teams with long range plans.
    
    	Your right though, make '68 your New York beginnings and don't even
    bother going back earlier for football,basketball or baseball unless
    you go back to 63-64.  Rangers only started to become good about 68,69
    too, I believe.
    
    	Didn't I hear it said that from '57 Celtics Boston had at least one
    of the four sports teams with some kind of divisional or better banner
    right on thru to 92-93?
    
    bte

Hmm, interesting possibility.

Celtics won through 1966.

After that years I can't figure out would be

1971, 1973,1977-1980

B's might have won divisions, C's might have.

Can someone fill in the blanks?

The Crazy Met

    Celts also won in '74 and '76.  B's were Stanley Cup champs in '70 and
    '72 I think.  They were also in the Cup finals against the Flyers in
    '74.

Sox had division or better in 67,75,86,88,90

The Crazy Met

    Remember a while back when Michael Jordan was interviewed on TV about
    his gambling?  Remember all the mudslinging that started up in here
    because the guy wore sunglasses during the interview?  Guess what I saw
    LT wearing while announcing his retirement.  You got it -- shades.

    
    	"My future's so bright, I gotta wear shades!"
    
    Claybone

    Of course, LT was seen crying on the sidelines... what was MJ crying
    about...
    

       <<< SWECSC::DISK$OILERS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]AMERICAN_FOOTBALL.NOTE;4 >>>
                   -< American Football all over the world. >-
================================================================================
Note 30.10                        Good Quotes!                          10 of 10
CSC32::J_HENSON "Who elected Hillary?"                7 lines  23-FEB-1994 15:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I got drafted in the 1990s and I walk into a fight, a serious
dogfight.  So, I don't know what it is about Philadelphia and the
Cowboys.  They hate us.  I mean, I have a great deal of respect for
every player over there, and they treat me like I stole something
off their kitchen table."

 Emmit Smith, on being asked about the Cowboy/Eagle rivalry.

Congrats Giants fans, You still cain'nt get over the Bronco factor. 

Arthur Marshall and Mark Jackson at WR Hahahahahaha


Nexted guy you'll pick up will be Orson "Wells" Mobley at TE. 


Jeff 

Giants just cut Phil Simms today.

I'm not sure if this is a salary cap move or what.....

Just heard it on the radio.....


'Saw

    Dave Brown and Kent Graham, right?
    

    And Jim McMahon is a notch above?
    

    He led his team to the playoffs last year.

|    He led his team to the playoffs last year.
        ^^^

That's EXTREMELY generous to say.

|    He led his team to the playoffs last year.
        ^^^

> That's EXTREMELY generous to say.

 well it certainly wasn't Reeves who got them there and Hampton was hurt quite
 a bit last year. Simms and a soft schedule would be more accurate.

 one thing's for sure Simms has given his all for this team and doesn't deserve
 this kind of treatment. They need salary room get rid of the Denver Giants aka
 Reeves' buttbuddies.........

 mike

    
    MikeyC,
    
    	It's not just the Giants doing this.  The Broncos are forcing (if
    	they accept it that is) Mecklenburg and Dennis Smith to take huge
    	cuts in salary to stay with the team.  It's happening all over...
    
    Claybone

I'm bummed.

Phil is in my all-time favorite Giants book right next
to Chuck Connerly. He is a QB who can do whatever it takes
to win, without grabbing headlines or playing ego games.
Someone will be lucky to sign him.

josh

Agreed Claybone but Phil and a lot of other vets deserve better but the
scumbag owners who are just short of the church when it comes to money
are sticking it to them.....

business is business but something should go beyond business.......

mike

Simms was always a favorite of mine.  I don't know many players in the NFL
who were more competitive and harder working.

I'm beginning to get very down on the Giants coaching and GM functions.
I think Fat George Young has outlived his usefulness and Dan Reeves got
lucky last year but showed his true colors in the 'offs....

Oh well, I lived through the late 60s and 70s with the Giants, I guess I
can get through the 90s as well.....


'Saw

PS  I heard one report say that Simms is expected to announce his retirement.
    Farewell #11.....

	Considering that most flights from the Meadowlands to Foxboro
	have been packed lately, is there any chance of is there any
	chance of another of Bill P's buddies to make the trip?


	billl

||    He led his team to the playoffs last year.
        ^^^

|> That's EXTREMELY generous to say.

| well it certainly wasn't Reeves who got them there and Hampton was hurt :quite
| a bit last year. Simms and a soft schedule would be more accurate.

| one thing's for sure Simms has given his all for this team and doesn't deserve
| this kind of treatment. They need salary room get rid of the Denver Giants aka
| Reeves' buttbuddies.........

| mike


I was referring to McMahon, one of the all-time most overrated stiffs in NFL 
history.

Simms had a good year lasted year, and has been a good QB for his whole career.
Good, mind you, not HOF material.

As far as Simms playing for the Pats for short money - hmmm, possible...

=Bob=

>As far as Simms playing for the Pats for short money - hmmm, possible...

If Parcells wants a savvy vet to counsel his young QB, Simms would be a likely
candidate....

    
     Simms ain't coming here and we don't want him. Parcells has his three
    QBs set, Simms makes too much money and he probably doesn't want to
    spend his last year or two watching Bledsoe blossom into the kind of
    QB that he never was. Old Phil will probably end up starting for 
    soemone but it won't be us.

>    QB that he never was. Old Phil will probably end up starting for 
>    soemone but it won't be us.


Phil said last year that he was content and looking forward to tutoring
a young QB, and wouldn't mind that role.

That could have just been rhetoric, I don't know....

    
    MikeyC,
    
    	The owners are sticking it to them via the agreement that the
    	players union signed!  Talk about cutting your own throats.  The
    	salary cap is taking it's toll on a bunch of aging NFL stars.  I
    	hate to see these guys go too, but it's not solely the owner's
    	fault.
    
    Claybone

	I'm a die-hard Giants fan and I don't blame them for cutting Simms.
Simms has been around since '79 and is 38 yrs old. He is also coming off of
elbow surgery. Combine his age/salary/injury and it doesn't make good
football sense to keep him at his current salary.
	I agree that Young is a moron. The biggest blunder had to be taking
Brown the QB in the supplemental draft. Therefore forfeiting your 1st round
draft choice. Brown isn't worth a 4th round pick and is a stiff. The Giants
have no QB, they should have been going after Bono from S.F. IMO teams
have better backup QB's then the Giants have for a starter.

Ron

 haha good one Tommy. Bledsoe got's a long way to go to be compared to
 Simms. He might have the tools but he probably doesn't have the heart.
 Simms was on a 3 yards and a cloud of dust team that's why he doesn't
 have the stats of some of his contemperies. When asked to he could
 throw for 400 yards but that wasn't the gameplan or he could go 22-25
 in a superbowl. Of course the superbow record does comes with an asterik
 cause it was achieve against the Broncos........

 mike

� haha good one Tommy. Bledsoe got's a long way to go to be compared to
� Simms. He might have the tools but he probably doesn't have the heart.
� Simms was on a 3 yards and a cloud of dust team that's why he doesn't
� have the stats of some of his contemperies. When asked to he could
� throw for 400 yards but that wasn't the gameplan or he could go 22-25
� in a superbowl. Of course the superbow record does comes with an asterik
� cause it was achieve against the Broncos........
    
    You beat me to it Mike. Well said. 
    

    
      Simms played behind a monster offensive line. The Giants had
     a great running game. They also had a great defense so scoring
     wasn't at a premium. Phil wasn't nothing but Steve Grogan with
     a supporting cast.

    Grogan might've won a ring too if the Pats weren't robbed by the refs
    in '76.

I'm laughing so hard Tommy about the Grogan comparison I can't even think
of a reply.........

mike

    
     You're right. Steve had a better arm.

 yeah and so doesn't Elway but both of them are about as smart as a guy who
 writes his name on his hand so he gets it right on his SAT's.

 mike 

> yeah and so doesn't Elway but both of them are about as smart as a guy who
> writes his name on his hand so he gets it right on his SAT's.

	ie a Giants fan?

    The local rumor is that the Jets are talking to Phil....Mike, would
    that make you a Jets fan?
    
    JoJ

 nope. I'd just pull out all my Steelers' gear. I'd sooner root for the
 Pats than the Jets.........

 ;^)

 I'd be interested in the manis, so I can throw somew fruit at Reeves...

> I'd be interested in the manis, so I can throw somew fruit at Reeves...

Did anyone see that movie 'In the Line of Fire'????

I'd be up for the manis if i can sit WAY up in the meadowland, with a
good clean, clear view of TFGC.....

    I saw the movie... good flick.  I liked Malkovich a lot...
    

>    I saw the movie... good flick.  I liked Malkovich a lot...

He's a great actor -- and his eyes.  Man, his eyes scare me.

His play of crazy folks, IMO, ranks right up there with Dennis Hopper and
Sir Anthony Hopkins...
    

    
    
    	Yabbu tis there any more information on the date of the Manis?
    
    Is MikeC coordinating the tee shirt stuff?
    
    I remain,
    making a legitimate note so I can......

 I haven't coordinated anything yet. I have hard time dealing with the
 treatment of Simms, and the deflationary style of the TFGC & GY. If
 there's enough interest I'll get it together and naturally I will
 make tee shirts for the event.......

 probably in black because of TFGC................

 mike

> I haven't coordinated anything yet. I have hard time dealing with the
> treatment of Simms, and the deflationary style of the TFGC & GY. If
> there's enough interest I'll get it together and naturally I will
> make tee shirts for the event.......
>
> probably in black because of TFGC................

Count me out this time around Mikey.  I've just got too much stuff going
on between now and Halloween it seems....

Have a brew for me, but let me know if you make shirts....

    Dan Reeves strikes again! Last year he cut Pepper Johnson on the eve of
    the regular season. This year it's Carlton Bailey who gets banished to
    the bench and MLB Michael Brooks get moved to OLB with untested Corey
    Widmer going to the middle.
    
    Also,Jarrod Bunch a #1 pick in 1991 from Michigan got cut. Expect
    Pittsburgh cut Rick Treadwell to resurface as Giants placekicker.
    
    Brad Daluiso,who can still reach the endzone,has been too inconsistent
    to use as a fulltime kicker.
    
    

    That's Dave Treadwell, right?
    
    Who's the FB for Hampton?
    

    Kenyon Rasheed is the starting FB.  Gary Downs will back him up.
    
    Mike

    Keith Elias,a rookie from Princeton, also made the team. He is a
    running back,who has been a monster on the special teams.
    
    Dallas looks so far ahead of the division.
    
    My prediction:
    
    Cowboys 13-3
    Eagles 8-8
    Arizona 8-8
    Washington 7-9
    Giants 6-10

    BTW,with the exit of Bunch and the dim future for 1992 #1 Derek
    Brown,it really makes you question George Young's drafting talents.

Giants-haters moan again.  All this jints bashing is just another case of
wishful thinking.

Now let me guess, who will be first in here to say that they won because:

	1- they were at home
	2- they got lucky
	3- Philadelphia stinks

...and that they're going to get their asses handed to 'em at Arizona this
week ?

	This was the only game I could find on the AM radio up in the
	sticks of Vermont.  It sounded like a pretty good game.

	Meggit was the real deal that day.


	billl

    Anybody that plays against a Rich Kotite team should look good. His
    playcalling in the red zone was awful, his game plan was worse and in
    15 more games, he won't be the coach of the Eagles anymore. 
    
    Even with those problems (and more... don't get me started on the
    special teams!!), the Eagles came within a recovered onside kick (which
    was very close) to pulling it out.
    
    Dennis Faust
    

The Giants got lucky.  There you wanted to hear it, you heard it, from one 
of the Giants Blue faithful.

If you took away Dan Reeves gadget plays, he wouldn't know what to do.

The Giants "beat" up a Philadelphia team that played like shit (from the
highlights I saw) and should've put 40 points up on the board.

Whoever predicted 6-10 for the Giants was pretty accurate as far as I'm 
concerned.

Further, George Young is a MASSIVE liability.....


'Saw

>    
>      There you have it. The only 'Giants bashers' are so-called
>     Giants fans who will never give Dan Reeves credit even after 
>     a victory over a division rival. Nope, Dan can only do wrong.
>     That Denver loss Sunday was his fault too, wasn't it?
>


C'mon Tommy, you'll have to try harder than that.....

   > C'mon Tommy, you'll have to try harder than that.....

     Not a try at all. You can't find a note in here ragging on the
     Giants that's written by anyone but a Giants "fan". Whether it's
     a case of a good coach following a great one or young and/or new 
     Giants fans not being able to remember when the Giants were the
     very essence of mediocrity year after year is up for debate. But
     not many folks would gripe aout a coach who turns a team around
     and goes to the playoffs his first year and then wins the season
     opener the next. 
    

 Tommy when Reeves beats somebody good when it counts comeback and talk to
 us will ya......The man's track record is worst than Dean Smith. 

 mike

    NYG Win, ya they won, but PHilly had 5 more 1st downs, over 100yrds
    more total offense (.02 seconds less in time of possesion).
    
    Philly turned the ball over 1 to NYG 2, punts kickoffs pretty close.
    
    Philly's QB/WR totaly outplayed NY's, megget single handidly won this
    game for NY, any special teams score is a huge bonus, but his 26yrd
    scatter for a TD was awsome.
    
    Oh ya Philly had twice as many Penalties called against them for 3
    times the yardage :-)
    
    NY Should kill PHoenix, did you see there first game, they stink...
    The only team that looked worse then phoenix was the RAMS and pho
    still lost...
    
    NY/DALLAS will both start out 2-0
    								mab

Tommy, I've been a Giants fan since 1966 when I started watching football.

My two favorite teams were Green Bay and the Giants.

I've known the horrendous Giants teams of the 70s, and I've known the
Superbowl champs.


Dan Reeves came into New York following the person who was without a doubt
the WORST coach in Giants history.   I could have coached that team better
than Ray Handley.  Forrest Gump could have coached that team better than
Ray Handley.  Anyone could have coached the team better than Ray Handley.

So in comes Reeves.  He adds a little discipline, true, but also benefits
hugely from playing a patsie schedule....   He manages to coach his teams
to wins over all the teams they played who had losing records, and lose to
all the teams he played with winning records.   

Then he takes his team to the playoffs and gets his head handed to him
by the Niners, looking for all the world like Dean Smith, looking for all
the world like he did in the 1987 SB against the Giants.

And he wins his season opener.


Like Mike Childs say -- when he wins a solid victory against one of the
powerhouse teams, then I'll start thinking that maybe he has something.

Instead, what we have right here right now is one of the greatest chokers
in the history of the NFL......


'Saw

>My two favorite teams were Green Bay and the Giants.

'Saw, this is totally unacceptable. As a lifetime Giants fan I am
only now getting over my compulsion to puke and get my shotgun when
I hear the names HORNUNG and TAYLOR. I doubt YA Tittle will *ever*
be able to enjoy Wisconsin beef. This was one of the most intense
rivalries ever! And you didn't care who won? I think we have detected
a serious character flaw here...;)

josh

>
>'Saw, this is totally unacceptable. As a lifetime Giants fan I am
>only now getting over my compulsion to puke and get my shotgun when
>I hear the names HORNUNG and TAYLOR. I doubt YA Tittle will *ever*
>be able to enjoy Wisconsin beef. This was one of the most intense
>rivalries ever! And you didn't care who won? I think we have detected
>a serious character flaw here...;)

As a kid, I picked a team from each division.

Besides, as a lifetime Giants fan, you of all people should know the
connections between the Giants and the Packers.   If I had been following
the sport since the mid-50s I would naturally followed the Packers anyway,
for obvious reasons.


You get 10 lashes with Andy Robustelli's wet shoelace.....8^)

                    <<< Note 76.419 by VAOP28::Rice "UP!" >>>
>>My two favorite teams were Green Bay and the Giants.

>This was one of the most intense rivalries ever! 

  Are you sure about that? If you are talking about the late 50's and early
60's when they both had good teams they hardly ever played against each other. 

  The Giants were in the Eastern conference and the pack was in the west so
they seldom met during the season and for some reason they didn't seem to meet
in the Championship game. At least now while I was watching.

  I remember the Giants playing the Colts and Bears in the Championship game
and I remember seeing the pack play against the Browns but I don't remember
the Giants and Packers going head to head in anything that mattered much.

  Now the Giants and the Browns, that was a rivalry. Jimmy Brown breaking free
with only Sam Huff between him and paydirt. That alone was worth the price of
a ticket.

  George

    The Giants and Green Bay met in the 1961-2 championship games with the
    Packers winning 37-0 and 16-7(at Yankee Stadium in brutal cold).
    
    

   > The Giants and Green Bay met in the 1961-2 championship games with the
   > Packers winning 37-0 and 16-7(at Yankee Stadium in brutal cold).

Thanks for reminding me. I was at both of those games - the second one I
thought I'd die. I was in the end zone, and all I can remember is Jimmy
Taylor, frozen solid, breath steaming like a bull, running RIGHT AT ME,
with Giants bouncing off him in every direction. Unstoppable on a frozen
field. I have hated the Pack ever since.

It wasn't so bad when the Browns played - at least if you lost you knew
you'd been beaten by the greatest running back in the history of the
universe. I have never enjoyed watching a football player as much as Jimmy 
Brown.

josh

But while we're on the topic - 

My all-time favorite Giant team was '57, with Connerly, Jimmy
Patton, Schnelker, Giff, Kyle Rote, etc. I have a white football
at home signed by everyone on that team - my Mom was dating Ben
Agajanian at the time, the one-toed place kicker. 

josh

Well, you know, when you're a kid (I was eight in 1966) you don't think
about that.

I just know that I liked that guy Vince Lombardi and what he did with that
team, and that Bart Starr was my first favorite football player, followed
closely by Ray Nitschke and Herb Adderly.

On the Giants I liked Homer Jones and Fran Tarkenton, although that might
have been a bit past 1966.  It's a LONG time ago....8^)


'Saw

    Josh don't you mean the '56 team which beat the bears for championship.
    
    I was always a Connerly man myself.  And except for '67 Sox I've never
    rooted as hard for a team as those Giants.  Not understanding the new
    way of doing business and seeing them let the old team go after the
    second green bay loss I finally swithed to the Pats.
    
    The kicker was their cutting Joe Morrision and by the time they
    resigned him I was gone.

    The Giants' defensive line should have a field day against the Cards'
    "offensive" line.

   > Josh don't you mean the '56 team which beat the bears for championship.
    
Same team, basically. My football says '57 on it, which is how I remember 
the approximate time zone. What a cast of characters! The greatest defensive
line I ever saw, with Robustelli, Grier and Dick Mo(mumble) (the guy was
SQUARE)....

>    I was always a Connerly man myself.  

Phil Simms has always reminded me of Connerly, and is my favorite Giant 
QB since then. Some guys just know how to win without being flashy or
obnoxious. 

josh 

>line I ever saw, with Robustelli, Grier and Dick Mo(mumble) (the guy was
>SQUARE)....

Some FINE specimans.  With Huff at LB, right?


I think you mean Dick Modelewski (no, not May-wee-ski 8^)).  Don't know the
spelling of his name and don't have my encyclopedia here....



'Saw

>>line I ever saw, with Robustelli, Grier and Dick Mo(mumble) (the guy was
>>SQUARE)....

>Some FINE specimans.  With Huff at LB, right?

Right. Who remembers the rest of the defense? Reynolds and Patton
at DB, but I can't recall the rest. The other DE is really bothering me.

>I think you mean Dick Modelewski (no, not May-wee-ski 8^)).  Don't know the
>spelling of his name and don't have my encyclopedia here....

You're close, maybe right on. I didn't even attempt it. He was my favorite, 
5 feet tall and 5 feet wide, like a brick, he could NOT be moved.

josh

I caint spell em but the line was called Ro Lo Mo Co for Robustelli,
Lovetier, Moduleski and Catcavage (poetid licesne, I guess).

TTom

    Modjelevski(still sic but we're getting there) was known as Little Mo to
    distingush him from his brother Big Mo who played for Browns.
    
    Little Mo and Robustelli were the ends , Roosevelt Grier one tackle.
    
    Emlen Tunnell (hof) was one safety, Tom Landry and a few others that
    were household names but , well, you understand (see monniker)
    
    Billthe(elder)

>    Modjelevski(still sic but we're getting there) was known as Little Mo to

Make the "v" a "w" and I think we're there...



>    Little Mo and Robustelli were the ends , Roosevelt Grier one tackle.

Catcavage was definitely the other.  

Robustelli owns travel agencies now -- some in CT, some in NY.

I thought that Catcavage had some auto dealerships, or possible auto repair
franchises in the tri-state area, but could be mistaken...

    
>    Emlen Tunnell (hof) was one safety, Tom Landry and a few others that
>    were household names but , well, you understand (see monniker)
    
Dick Lynch played cornerback I think, but forget when (might be early 60s
not late).....


Well, I just came across this from 1963.... a friend had sent me this:
Note the correct spelling of Modzelewski


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The coaches:  Head Coach - Allie Sherman
                      Assistants - Ken Kavanaugh, Ed Kolman, Jimmy Patton,
                                   Kyle Rote, Emlen Tunnell
        The team:
                        Eddie Dove(PR)
                     SS-Dick Pesonen    FS-Jimmy Patton
    Alan Webb(HB)
CB-Erich Barnes                                              CB-Dick Lynch

        Jerry Hillebrand     Mickey Walker(C)        Al Gursky
        OLB-Tom Scott(DE)       MLB-Sam Huff    OLB-Bill Winter

      Bob Taylor
   DE-Jim Katcavage  DT-Dick Modzelewski DT-John LoVotere DE-Andy Robustelli

OT-Rosey Brown  OG-Bookie Bolin  C-Greg Larson  OG-Darrell Dess OT-Jack Stroud
   Lane Howell(DT) Lou Kirouac                     Ken Byers(DE)

WR-Del Shofner                    QB-Y.A. Tittle            FL-Frank
Gifford(HB)
   Aaron Thomas(TE)                Glynn Griffing              Louis Guy(DB)
                                   Ralph Guglielmi

TE-Joe Walton           HB-Joe Morrison(WR)     FB-Phil King
                           Hugh McElhenny          Alex Webster
                           Johnny Counts(KR)
                           Charlie Killett

                        P/PK-Don Chandler(HB)
=

>   DE-Jim Katcavage  DT-Dick Modzelewski DT-John LoVotere DE-Andy Robustelli

Yeah, that's the Ro Lo Mo Ko guys.

TTom

>   DE-Jim Katcavage  DT-Dick Modzelewski DT-John LoVotere DE-Andy Robustelli


OK, Catcavage was the other DE. But Rosy Grier retired and was replaced
by LoVotere around '60....

Linebackers: Scott and Winter don't sound right for '56-'57, but I can't
remember anyone else.

DB's: Dick Lynch, fer sure, and Jimmy Patton. I think Tunnell mighta been
there, and Landry. I'll check my ball tonite.

And of course the placekicker was Ben (One-toe) Agajanian. He had a special
shoe that looked like a croquet mallet - big fat flat end on it. And he
played a helluva game of gin rummy.

josh

    Wasn't Don Chandler the kicker?
    He later kicked on the Packers'  Super Bowl champions.
    

Don't forget, though, we're talking about two teams 6-8 years apart.

Chandler was the kicker in 1963, but ol' One-Toe was back in the 50s...


'Saw

    Chandler was the punter on the early teams and I believe he was good
    enough to also place kick after Ben A. left.  Pat Summerall kicked for
    several years and was extremely good in the clutch.
    
    Lynch was ex-Irish and played a key role at running back in Notre Dame
    stopping Bud Wilkinson and Sooner's winning streak circa '53.
    
    Johnny Counts was a great kickoff returner from Illinois who later had
    some good seasons with da bears.
    
    Kirouac was an end at bc
    
    

>    Lynch was ex-Irish and played a key role at running back in Notre Dame
>    stopping Bud Wilkinson and Sooner's winning streak circa '53.
    
    See SI, October 1957, "Why Oklahoma is Unbeatable"... ;-)
    
    
    glenn
    

 against sub 500 team...nothing unusual there........

 mike

    	Right On Thomas!  The man's a GENIUS!
    
    				   /Don

    I think that Denver kinda wishes they had Dan "collie boy" Reeves
    back.
    
    

      Thats a big negatory!

    DA VIKES!!!
    
    
    Spud

I was off in the score by 10 points.  I had the Vikings picking up 37
in my prediction last week, and they only got 27.

The real Giants have finally shown up to play.


'Saw

> I was off in the score by 10 points.  I had the Vikings picking up 37
> in my prediction last week, and they only got 27.

> The real Giants have finally shown up to play.


 or you could say the real Danny Reeves' coaching style has shown up and
 failed..........

 mike

>
> or you could say the real Danny Reeves' coaching style has shown up and
> failed..........
>

I saw some of the game last night, and I listened to some of it on the
radio.

I wasn't impressed with Reeves effort last night any more than I was
with the players effort....


'Saw

    
    
    I think Denny Green may be one of the best coaches in the NFL.  After
    the Vikes were raped by Dallas in the Herschel deal, most people agreed
    that this team would be Bengal-like in the early to mid 90's.  Green
    has come in and done a great job by keeping these guys in contention.
    
    brews

Oh yeah, the Vikings were a fine team last night -- no doubt about that.

What sickened me as a Jints fan, and amazed me about the Vikes was that
their d-line is small, and the Jints o-line should have plastered them.
But they didn't.,.......



Oh, and by the way, I take back what I said about Dallas being the Giants
biggest rival.   I do remember some fine contests, and I do remember feeling
up about the odd Giants win in the early years, but I heard the OFFICIAL
word yesterday from Mr. Giants himself (Wellington Mara).

According to Wellington, his, and by extension the Giants, two main rivalries,
are the Washington Redskins and Philadelphia Eagles.  As he said "we've been
together for so long"


Just thought I'd belly up to the bar and admit that I was wrong.....


'Saw

    Green has said that he'd rather have a DL with speed and quickness over
    size.  It has served him pretty well the past couple years.  Not only
    has Denny done a good job rebuilding, but they've had a decent overhaul
    from just last year or two.  Gone are starters Carl Lee, Steve Jordan, 
    Chris Doleman, Anthony Carter, Gary Zimmerman and Herschel himself.
    
    To lose that many top players and still be as good (and probably
    better) is quite a statement.  The Vikes should take off from here.
    Their schedule is quite favorable down the road:  Bye week, Green Bay
    (home) @Tampa Bay, New Orleans (home) @ New England, NJ Jets (home)
    Tampa Bay (home) Chicago (home).  I liked to think they're capable of
    winning six out of seven of those.  We'll see.
    
    
    Spud

>      Could someone point out something *specific* that Dan Reeves could 
>     have done to win this game with his under-talented team? Face it, Jints 


Uh, if I could, I'd be coaching football instead of writing software for
DEC.....

hth,
'Saw

Ain't no Dan Reeves team gonna win a damn thing in the NFL.

 Tommy, Reeves' biggest problem is imo his refusal to adapt his gameplan to
 the situations. He'll continue to run the same basic plays in the 4th quarter
 that didn't work in the first quarter. He can prepare a team and he can
 usually beat lesser teams but against good teams he doesn't adapt to the
 situations and is usually out-coached. While the defensive coach is res-
 ponsible for the defensive calls during the game the head coach might be
 able to suggest to him to play man to man a bit more often when it's obvious
 the zone is getting eaten alive. Like his mentor Landry he relies on his
 computer too much. 

 mike

    
    I think Giants' fans just need another 20-year stretch of coaches like
    John McVay and Ray Perkins to remind them of what they really have. 
    There is only one Bill Parcells (and he had some good fortune in New
    York, too).  There is only one Bill Walsh.  You can get real spoiled
    and fail to realize than anything less than that isn't necessarily 
    garbage...
    
    glenn
    

 Well we through 2 years of Handley and we're in our second year of Reeves
 so I guess we only got 16 more years to go. How about if you guys give
 me some reasons why you think Reeves is good other than his W-L record.

 mike

> How about if you guys give
> me some reasons why you think Reeves is good other than his W-L record.
 
    I guess I was under the silly impression that W-L record is what it is
    all about.  Even with regard to the "big games", a while back I made 
    the argument to the 'Sawmain in Reeves' behalf that of all the teams 
    that had a crack at the mighty Cowboys last year, the _only_ one that
    came close to delivering the death blow was the Giants.  I know that
    "almost" isn't much of a consolation, but nor can that effort be
    accurately described as "failure to adapt", "choking in the big one",
    etc.  The Giants, with a decidedly Parcells-like gameplan but far 
    inferior talent, had a hell of a season and came a hair short of
    getting the job done.  And yet somehow it is Reeves that's keeping 
    them down, short of the Cowboys.  Reeves and 26 other NFL head 
    coaches...
    
    glenn
     
                                                

     It would have hardly been a "death  blow" albiet it would have made it
    lots  harder to get to the SB.

Re Tommy and backing it up:


	Okay, it's fairly obvious, even though I listened to most
	of the game as opposed to watching it.

	First off, Hampton was not getting it done.  Not like he should
	be.  Make the switch back to Megget, give him the workload.  If
	the Vikes prepared for Hampton, switching to Megget throws them
	off a bit.

	Get rid of Horan.  The only reason Horan is employeed this
	season is because he must've spent most of the off-season on 
	his knees.

	Blitz a little more with the LBs.  The d-line ain't getting it
	done and the secondary is weak, so you need pressure from somewhere.


Bottom line, Reeves is as cement-headed as Snuffy Smith when it comes to
modifying or adapting to what another team is doing.

Yes, his players work hard, yes they are disciplined (something sorely
lacking in the Handley era), but bottom line, as a game day coach, he gets
his head handed to him every time he plays a decent team.....


'Saw

 I tend to think last year's record had more to do with the fact that he
 played a 5th place schedule more than getting the most of his talent.
 Last year he still had Simms and Taylor and Kratch and Oates and Collins
 and Jackson etc. This year with decidely less talent and a tougher schedule
 I said (not here but in Giants' notefile) that if he can win 10 ballgames
 I would reverse my thinking about him. He also did the same thing in
 Denver where he rode a last place schedule to a winning season the following
 year. Yes there were a couple of good seasons back to back in Denver but
 it was during a time when the AFC was in general rather weak.

 Yes they did almost topple Dallas last year but given the stakes at the
 time (homefield through out the playoffs) and the homefield advantage
 for the game, it would have been hard for the team not to be at a fever
 pitch and put forth a top notch effort. 

 mike

	>>What could Reeves do.....

	He could blitz more, he could try a pass on *gasp* first down, 
	if he's gonna take three quarter, and a 17 point deficit to 
	establish the run, I think he would consider a "play-action" pass, 
	I hear there quite the rage with the other 26 teams...

	The man needs an imagination implant

	Turk

Well, I watched the Giants play poorly enough to lose their 4th straight
yesterday.  I have to keep laughing at folks on the FAN who think that there
are actually Giants fans out there who got excited over their 3-0 start.
I know two that didn't (me and Mike Childs).....


Interesting graphic on how the Giants score their points -- lots in the
first half, zilch in the second.  To me that points to a lack of coaching
ability on the Giants -- someone can't adapt once the other team gets
on to their game plan....

Interesting point also made about how the Giants lost more folks to FA than
anyone else.  Thanks to Fat George Young, no doubt....


It's going to be a very interesting week coming up.  What's Danny Boy
Reeves going to do with Dave "Here Rod pat your stats with an inty" Brown?
Will he have the balls to bench him?  Or will he worry about Dave's ego?
Who does he have to replace him?  No one that I can think of?

And, like Bob Trumpy said, "why isn't Megget in the offense more?"  He blocked
a lot yesterday, but any Giant fan knows that if you don't work him in, 
you're losing a lot....   Guess nobody thought to tell that to Collie Lover....


'Saw

Reeves now has a dilemna on his hands concerning Dave Brown.

Firsted of all, the refs call a fumble on Brown at the 1 when it was
extremely obvious that both knees were down with contact. Then Cross
drops a pass that I could catch. 

So Dan has gotta make up his mind if'n Brown played well enough to keep
on playing or poorly enough to bench him.

TTom

>So Dan has gotta make up his mind if'n Brown played well enough to keep
>on playing or poorly enough to bench him.

From what I saw, there were two Dave Browns playing yesterday.

The one in the first half looked poised, confident, a leader.  The one in 
the second half looked broken and beaten....

I cain't figure it out, that's for sure!


'Saw

    
    And where are those people (TB) who were in here when the (TB) Giants
    were 3-0 (TB) and ragged the Giants fans about not being (TB) more
    supportive of the team (TB) and coach?
    
    brews

I've given Dan Reeves credit for returning an atmosphere of discipline
and hard work to the Giants after their two-year tailspin under Ray Handley.

However, I think that the season is playing out about the way I figured
it, given Reeves proven lack of ability in making "run-time modifications"
to his game plan.

'Saw

 Tommy 1 first down against the Steelers in the second half on sunday and
 no first downs in the second half against the Rams the week before can't
 all be blamed on Brown. Reeves is calling the plays and I would think a
 decent coach even with a green a QB could generate a bit more offense.
 Especially someone who's forte is supposed to be offense. Reeves' true
 colors are showing and you want to blame the QB. Shame on you. Most of
 the blame lies with George Young though who didn't think we needed
 Simms...........

 mike

On WFAN yesterday afternoon, they were discussing the fact that the Giants
have not scored a point in the second half in the last three games.  

The point that they came up with is that Reeves has such a rigid game plan
that by the start of the second half, the opponents have figured out how
to shut it down, and then Reeves doesn't make adjustments.

At that point the debate became one where the reason he didn't adjust
was because of his rookie QB (Francesa's point) and the fact that
he just doesn't adjust (Russo's point).   

Right after that I got to the Armory and couldn't listen any more.


I see two major problems here.  One is that Dan Reeves doesn't adjust
or adapt during a game.  Look at every big game he's been in, and you'll
see the same thing.  In Denver, he just had a QB who was just "mental"
enough to improvise when things got tight down the stretch.

The other major problem is that the Giants have lost the mentoring factor
they'd have had with Simms still on the staff.   Big mistake by Fat George.

Fat George couldn't hold onto anyone, and I think it's time we stopped
holding onto Fat George with the too small eyeglasses......


'Saw

Saw,

I agree with a lot of what you said but the one George shouldn't let go
was Hostetler. Simms' career is obviously over. Obvious to everyone
except ol' Phil. Since he's left about all he's done is whine. He whined
when Hoss replaced him a couple of years ago and led the Gints to their
second SB win.

TTom

    
    The Giants' situation on offense isn't a whole lot different than the
    Pats' last year when under a first-year starting QB they had absolutely
    no offense through the first 10-11 games.  Was it a question of Bill 
    Parcells being completely inflexible in his coaching?  Of course not.  
    When your young QB is really struggling like Brown is, you're dead.
    You've got to stick with him, but you're going to take your lumps.
    People are questioning why the Giants only picked up one first down in
    the second half.  When Dave Brown is unable to pick up a wide-open Rod
    Woodson in his read of a short pass, anything is possible.  He was 
    horrible the entire second half, that much was obvious, and there are 
    no work-arounds in the NFL to bad QBing.  It's pretty specious to lay 
    that at the feet of the coach.
    
    What it boils down to is that Giants' fans are generally spoiled and
    impatient.  If a mistake was made (and I don't think it was that big a
    deal), it was letting Simms go a year early.  Fine, it's done.  Let it 
    go, and give the next guy more than a month before you bury him under
    claims that his ego can't handle a benching, etc.
    
    glenn
    

Tommy, take your ridalyn.

Glenn, relax.



First off, Simms.  Simms would be the more logical choice to keep for a couple
of reasons.  First off, Simms was a leader on the Giants, Hoss wasn't. 
That was very evident in the QB controversy under Handley.

Simms is quite capable and was very willing to mentor Brown.  That was
plain from the start.  I heard several interviews with him where he said he
was looking forward to that part of his career.


Now, Reeves, the QB, and Brown's ego.....

First off, Reeves lack of ability to adjust is mutually exclusive of
whether or not he has a rookie QB.  Dan Reeves sucks at making adjustments
during the game.  I'm surprised at that because he's a Landry disciple.
Landry made exquisite adjustments sometimes, and his other disciple, Mike
Ditka did too.   Reeves can't, or won't, do it.

Dan Reeves had a solid, veteran QB last year, and an easy schedule, and
in the one game where he needed to make adjustments, he didn't.  Period.


Dave Brown.  He can't always read the defenses, and he is wicked inexperienced,
but I think long term he's got what it takes.  I'm not really concerned,
because, thanks to George Young's ineptitude, the rest of the team basically
sucks anyway.

No one is really concerned about his ego.  He's in the NFL.  If they bench
him, it's part of being an NFL QB.  I think it might be good for him, actually,
but who do the Giants go with then?  Graham?  Whoa boy.....8^(



As to the Giants fans being impatient -- yeah, we are.  But it started
four years ago.  George Young had lots of opportunity and time to get someone
to coach the team.  As it was, at the time, George Young's abilities were
becoming suspect.  Time has just borne out the suspicions....


For my money, it's a rebuilding period, starting with the o-line.  


'Saw

|    >> First off, Reeves lack of ability to adjust is mutually exclusive 
|    >> of whether or not he has a rookie QB.          ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
|    
|       Improper use of the term! I hereby sentence you to ten whacks on
|       your dangling particple.
|    

But I like it when my participle dangles.  It makes me feel more "natural"....



|       Next week maybe at halftime, Reeves will venture to Oz and come back
|       with some experience for Brown, some hands for Brown, some holes to
|       run through for Hampton and some chill pills for Giants fans.

No, but perhaps he could move away from his Snuffy Smif Beat his Haid
against Da WAll routine....

If you run the 43 and they stop you all game when you run the 43, why
oh why are you still trying it on 3rd and 4 late in the 4th quarter?

Gee, Dan, how bout some play action passing?  Gee, Dan, how bout that
lil' ol' halfback option play?  Might keep the D kinda sorta honest if
you get Megget out to the outside the next time....


    
>       If things don't work, keep trying other things until you find
>       something that does? Is that it? Wouldn't it be wiser to stick
>       with what you know should work and keep at it until you can
>       execute properly? Parcells spoke to this last year when he said
>       that this wasn't Mr Goodwrench where you swap out parts and
>       throw things out until it's fixed. 

Depends.

I'm not talking wholesale changes.  You can't do that.  But Parcells
adjusted really well when he was in New York.  My gawd, I even saw him
call a pass play on first down once.

As to sticking with what you know will work until you can execute it
properly, that depends.   How long before you know it doesn't work.
If the defense stops it every time, do you do a Forrest Gump and stand
there and say "Well, it should work", or do you say, "Hmmm, maybe I can
try something a little different".


|     >> Dan Reeves had a solid, veteran QB last year, and an easy schedule,
|     >> and in the one game where he needed to make adjustments, he didn't.  
|     >> Period.
|
|        Dan Reeves only had to make adjustments in one game all of last
|        year? Pardon me, if I call that statement irrational.

No, you know that's not what I'm saying, so don't play that game with me.



>        George Young and company brought two Super Bowls to New York. I
>        know hardcore Giants fans who were ready to deify Perkins for a
>        10-6 season but now you face a little adversity and it's time to
>        scuttle the ship. Please. You're spoiled.

Nope.

You're not a Giant fan, so you probably haven't been quite so close to it.
I think Mike Childs can back this up, and Jim McFall could if he was still
with the company.

We were questioning George Young as far back as 1987.   Yes, he built the
team that won the 86-87 Bowl, and he had enough good fortune to ride the
crest of that to the 90-91 Bowl.   

But, from about 1987 on, his draft choices were questionable, and there's
no question in a lot of our minds that the major conflict between Young
and Parcells, despite whatever was publically said, was that Parcells and
Young couldn't agree on draft picks.

We're just now at the tail end of all of that.


As for calling Giants fans spoiled, you're way off.  Most of the Giants
fans I know lived through the extremely dry spell of the late 1960s through
the 70s, and into the early 80s.   Being a Giants fan during those years
took a lot of good humor, and a lot of being able to just say f*** it
and laugh.

We're not Dan Reeves fans -- except for the fact that he has returned some
discipline to the team.  No one that I know was happy when George picked
Dan.   It seemed to a lot of us that Fat George was getting desperate....
Who knows, maybe he was.....


    
    
    

    
> As for calling Giants fans spoiled, you're way off.  Most of the Giants
> fans I know lived through the extremely dry spell of the late 1960s through
> the 70s, and into the early 80s.   Being a Giants fan during those years
> took a lot of good humor, and a lot of being able to just say f*** it
> and laugh.

    You guys were bitching all through last season, which was a
    surprisingly successful one, schedule or no schedule, for no other
    reason than that the Giants (due to the coach's ineptitude, according
    to Giants' fans) were less than Super Bowl-caliber.  Now Mike Childs 
    says that despite a loss of some talent and a tough schedule he'll 
    grudgingly give Reeves some credit if he wins 10 games _again_ this 
    year.  That's realism?  Ha!  Pats fans should start applying such 
    ridiculous standards to Parcells, then, as the situations the 
    respective teams are in are not markedly different.  Parcells even 
    has the superior, more experienced QB.  The Pats melted down in the 
    second half of the Raiders and Jets games.  Clearly that's coaching, 
    a failure to adapt to changing game situations.  It's only through 
    stubbornness that Parcells eschews the shotgun, the halfback option, 
    and the Statue of Liberty play needed to keep defenses honest!
    
    glenn
    

 so what if we're spoiled. That has nothing to do with Reeves' lack of 
 coaching ability. Actually I'll rephrase that maybe Reeves isn't a bad
 head coach but he suck pondwater as the offensive coordinator. 

 mike
 

    >>  -< Giant fan response: we lost, someone must die! >-
    
    	Glenn, being a non-native New Englander, I'd have to say this 
    is pretty generic to most sports fans in this part of the country.
    
    
    billl

>
>     I have no idea what the 43 is but this is the same type of
>     complaint that we heard about Pracells and unsuccessfully
>     trying to run it in from the 4 yard line on six successive
>     plays (with penalties). If you can't run it in on short yardage
>     then you just ain't good enough yet and adjusting and throwing
>     trick plays ain't going to make you better. There are fundamental
>     things that you must be able to do to win football games and if
>     you can't do them you will not be successful.
>

Well, it's been an awfully long time, and I used to play defense, but
if I remember right, a 43 is the halfback running off the left guard.
At least in the system we used....

There's degrees of adjustment, and they should be used.  If you go into
the game planning to run left, and you find that left is not working,
you try running right.  

Beyond that, it is possible to set up the run with the pass (which works,
but not nearly as well as setting up the pass with the run).

If the run isn't there, there are always quick pass plays (quick outs,
swings, screens) etc which you can use to open things up.

Bill Walsh used to script the first 25 plays -- then he'd ad lib it from
there based on what he learned.   Dan just beats his head against the wall.



>     You'll just have to write what you mean more clearly then because
>     when I read " and in the one game where he needed to make adjust-
>     ments, he didn't. Period." whacky me assumes that you mean that in
>     the one game that he had to make adjustments, he didn't. What the
>     hell am I thinking!?

Well, if you're going to take every thing I say so literally, then 
perhaps I will have to start writing everything down more clearly.
I just figured that, since most of the time you pick up on what I'm
saying anyway, that I didn't have to be explicitly literal on every point.



>     And now you turn up your nose at a 10-6 season and rag all over
>     the coach for sticking by his young qarterback. No, you're not
>     spoiled at all.

I haven't been ragging on Reeves for sticking with Brown.  He really has
no choice, since I feel that going with Graham would be a step back.
It might do some good if Reeves benched Brown for a series or two, sometime
during (but not at the start) of the Detroit game.  But he can't afford to
bench him -- not without a veteran to step in.

I have been ragging on Young for letting Simms go a year too early.


A 10-6 season would be nice, but we're not going to see it this year.
Last season was gained mostly on the basis of the schedule they had to
play, not on any great coaching ability.
    
    

    

>    You guys were bitching all through last season, which was a
>    surprisingly successful one, schedule or no schedule, for no other

Yeah, so.  What does it matter?

I've bitched about the Red Sox every August since 1966, excepting 1967, 
1975 and 1986.  Does that matter?

I bitched plenty about the Giants in the 70s....


I'm bitching now, because, since Parcells left, George Young hasn't done
a good job in three distinct areas:  a) finding a new coach, b) drafting,
c) hanging on to free agents.

Dan Reeves will prove to something to me when he brings the Lombardi Trohpy
back to the Giants.   He's already proven that he can bring in discipline
and hard work.  

Win the big one Dan, and I'll be the first one in the crow note eating
a helping for doubting you.  In fact I'll be in there BEFORE I talk about
the Giants in teh Super Bowl note.....


'Saw

>
>   Look out, folks! There's a new 'Jeenyus' in town!
>


Hey, if that was the case, don't you think I'd be pulling down the big bucks
in the NFL, gettin' my big ol' butt on TV each week in some bitchin'
NFL Pro-Line duds, walkin' around with a headset, and a clipboard, and
my reading glasses?

Nope, never professed to be a Jeenyus, or a Genius, or anything else like
that.  

I'm just trying to show some "relatives" while you keep trying to force
me into "absolutes".  

T'ain't gonna work, Tommy, you should know that by now....
    

> I'm bitching now, because, since Parcells left, George Young hasn't done
> a good job in three distinct areas:  a) finding a new coach
    
    Let's just put this statement into perspective.  Dan Reeves, all things
    considered, is probably one of the top 5 most successful NFL head 
    coaches of the last decade.  He has his faults, but that rank is 
    based on proven track record, not subjectives around his philosophy.
    Giants' fans are upset because they got the #5 guy instead of someone
    from #1 through #4.  That's what I meant by spoiled.  You're saying 
    essentially the same thing yourself when you claim that you'll only be 
    convinced when Reeves picks up his Lombardi Trophy.  Well, it doesn't 
    just work that way.  This is the reality of "relatives" versus 
    "absolutes".  Like I said before, bring back John McVay...
    
    glenn
    

    Denver wishes they had Collie-boy Dan back.

    Denver wishes they had a QB.
    
    JaKe
    

    
    
    Denver wishes they had a team!!

    re a few back by Glenn:
    
    So you are surprised that Giants fans have higher standards then Pats
    fans?
    
    brews

  >  Until Parcells, you guys stunk or were    happy to make the playoffs. 
    
    No Tommy, we just stunk.  Making the playoffs was ecstacy.  I don't
    think most old time Giants fans consider the playoffs a birthright.
    
    But we do have higher standards than Pats fans.  8^)
    
    brews
    
    

    
> so what if we're spoiled. That has nothing to do with Reeves' lack of 
> coaching ability. Actually I'll rephrase that maybe Reeves isn't a bad
> head coach but he suck pondwater as the offensive coordinator. 
    
    At least you're honest, MikeC.  But now that I think of it, wasn't Ron
    Earhardt the offensive coordinator almost the entire time under Bill 
    Parcells?  And didn't he take a pretty fair banging from you Jints' 
    fans who had to find someone to blam for all but those two years the 
    Jints won the Super Bowl?  Maybe that's the solution; bring back 
    Earhardt so that he can take the heat when Reeves does all the same 
    stuff Parcells did...
    
    glenn
    

 Actually Glenn, while we did ride Ron hard, I laided the ultimate blame
 with Parcells who either ran Ron's suggested play or one of his own.
 To keep the honesty streak going, as a member of the 60's counter culture
 I'll always look to blame someone who's in an authoritative posistion.

 mike

Dan Collie boy is gonna get John -Boy back

I don't consider a Super Bowl a birthright, nor do I expect the playoffs.

I'm still happy to make the playoffs, and getting to the Super Bowl
would be really great.

My main gripe is that they picked a guy who's managed to get there a couple
of times but been made mincemeat out of when he did......


I don't see that it's any sin to want my team to go all the way, and 
to gripe about one's team is the First Ammendment to the Bill of Fan's
Rights.  I can gripe as irrationaly as I'd like because I'm a Giants
fan.....


'Saw

    SOmetime you have to look at what the coach has done with what talant
    he had.  Reeves has got a Denver team to the superbowl on the strong
    arm of John Elway but could never win the big one... He may have one
    of the top 5 records over the past decade, but You look at say Philly
    and what there coach has done playing a tough schedule every year and
    with all the injuries and lossed the team has suffered over the past
    few years....
    
    								mab
    

> I can gripe as irrationaly as I'd like because I'm a Giants fan..... 
    
    I think that was the original point... ;-)
    
    
    glenn
    

Uh, I'd take Don Shula.  At least he's been to the promised land a couple
of times....

Actually, any one of thoses coaches seem fairly adept at making game time
changes in their game plans....

But we're beating a dead horse here anyway.  Nothing you say is going to
get me to like Dan Reeves, or think he's God's Gift to coaching.  Nothing
I say is going to change your mind, so let's stop wasting 'trons on it.....


'Saw

    SO does anyone think Brown is an NFL QUality QB ?  NYG's are now
    below .500, have the 30th Ranked offense (Ok 28th but I think we
    should give credit to the 2 expansion teams and assume there off's
    are better :-)..).  Meggett is there leading scorer with 4TDs and
    He got them at least 1 win...
    
    NYG VS Detroit, loser of this game is in HUGE trouble... Like pack it
    up your going home early this year...
    
    								mab

    	Didn't see the finish of this one because of the Patsies games
    	on channel 4. However, I saw enough during regulation play
    	to notice some badly-called penalties. One was on the Giants
    	for pass interference, even though the ball had already gone
    	through the receiver's hands. I forgot the other one that
    	stood out. However, as I said, some badly-called penalties.
    
    	Scott

I watched most of the game up until about 4 minutes left in regulation.

Brown looked inconsistent at best.  He has talent, no doubt, but he needs
some experience.  He looks at his receivers way too much and opponents
are keying on it.

Nice to see him come back after throwing the poor inty, but if he doesn't
throw that one, Giants win.

Bad call, I thought, on the Detroit receiver not being down in OT -- saw
that part on the news -- would have liked to have seen it in the game.


The Giants didn't play well enough to win.  If it wasn't for Megget with
his TD return, the Giants aren't close late.

Dan Reeves is calling the plays -- some of them look abominable.  What's
on his mind?

'Saw

    Herman Moore received 2 gifts yesterday.  That was no TD and his knee
    did touch the turf in OT.

It seems the refs have a hard time calling knees down in games in which the
Giants play this season.  First Brown on the fumble in the Pittsburgh game,
now Moore....

Oh well, a good team will overcome bad calls.  If Treadwell hits the
41 yrd attempt earlier in the game, it's a moot point....


'Saw

Quite a hit on ol' Dave Brown last night... the boy went down and hit
the turf like a 225lb sack of potatoes.

I heard it on the radio.

They were saying it was a late hit that wasn't called, but I didn't see
the play....

>     Meanwhile...
>    
>     Big Dan just keeps on winning.

You forgot the "h" in there.....8^)


Yep, he keeps amassing meaningless victories to pad his personal stats.....

    I was watching this impersonation of a game, and the hit was right on
    the edge of being late.  I really think it could have been called
    either way.
    
    JaKe
    

>    I was watching this impersonation of a game, and the hit was right on
>    the edge of being late.  I really think it could have been called
>    either way.
    
The refs have had a hair-trigger on those calls this year.  I'm surprised
they didn't call it.....    

    WOW THE GIANTS WON ONE... :-)
    
    Houston is fighting for the #1 pick, someone should remind them it
    will only be the #3 pick :-)  Good news is the Expansion teams may
    not take a QB and Houston desperatly needs one...

That hit definitely fit into the late definition that has been used
all year long. Very surprised that it was not called.

The Crazy Met

    Denver is still wishing they had him back.

>    
>      Big Dan just keeps on winning.
>

Yep, amassing those meaningless wins in a meaningless season.

My dead grandmother (and Jake's for that matter) could have beaten the
Redskins Sunday.

Big Dan the Collie Man shows his incredible coaching talent by letting
Treadwell attempt a field goal at the extreme limit of his range on a 
wet grass field.  Bright move, Big Dan.....


This guy can't even play for a decent draft pick for George Young to waste....

>     Meanwhile...
>    
>     Big Dan just keeps on winning.



To what end?

He surely did his best to lose that game yesterday, in the best Snuffy
Smith tradition.


Like Burnside at Fredricksburg, who sent charge after charge up the
hill towards the stone wall, Dan sent ol' Dave Brown rolling right, smack
into the arms of the safety, who in the words of that twit Jerry Glanville,
"dogged the formation".

You'd think Dan would learn.

And what was with that punt?  Put some points on the board Dan, and you
won't be playing poker for that last field goal with :19 left....


Dan Reeves didn't win that game yesterday -- his players won it in spite
of him.....


'Saw


PS  Oh yeah, let's get rid of Treadwell while we're at it, and that stiff
    Arthur Marshall.....

Please, oh please, keep winning Dan and please, oh please, stay with the
Giants!

BTW, does anyone know who the Gints played? ;-)

TTom

 Cinncy, Dallas and Philly.........

 mike

  >       <<< Note 76.523 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove!" >>>        
  >
  >  Meanwhile...         
  >
  >  Big Dan just keeps on winning.
    
    I realize being a long time Patsy fan has addled your brain, Tommy, but
    a 6-7 record is not hte record fo a coach that "keeps on winning."
    
    brews

    I do believe that Dan Reeves has above .500 average while coaching the
    Giants.
    

    
    We're talking about this season.  You stay outa this note and I'll,
    stay outa the doncs note.  8^)
    
    brews

    As long as you keep Reeves in NY...   I'll stay out of this note!!!
    BTW   How 'bout them 9ers?????
    
    

    	I thought the Midgets had the talent to win about 3-4 games
    this year. tops.  I forgot about the DAN REEVES factor.
    
    				  /Don

>    "To what end"? "To what end"? I thought winning was *the* goal.

Nope.

Winning, in and of itself, is no goal at all.  It's akin to killing lots
of the enemy, but taking no ground.


>     Man, Parcells really spoiled you Giants fans. Now, you're
>     turning up your noses at wins over division leaders. 


It's a nice win, and was kind of sort of enjoyable to watch, but the Giants
won in spite of some of Dan's poor decisions.


>Poor unappreciated Big Dan Reeves is on the verge of taking the
>     mediocre Giants to the playoffs for the second year in a row
>     and perhaps win the Coach Of The Year in the process and all
>     you Giants fans can do is take potshots at him. You all deserve
>     Ray Handley.


Tommy, if you SERIOUSLY think the Giants have anything but the narrowest
of mathematical chances for the playoffs, then you and I have to talk about
you buying some land from me in Florida.

All day yesterday that Fox broadcast team kept trying to impress upon the
viewers that the Giants were in the playoff hunt.  Well, if the Giants
are in the playoff hunt, then I'm appearing at the next Ladies Night at
the Golden Banana!


Danny Boy made some of the poorest decisions yesterday I've ever seen.
I swear to gawd that on most plays, he was like Burnside sending his
divisions against the wall at Fredricksburg.  

No way in hell was that toss play going to work, no way.  But Danny boy
runs it and runs in during that little 4 and out stretch in the second
half.   That, and sending Dave Brown to the slaughter on the rollout right
play -- that's CoY-Wannabe Danny Boy in action.


The Giants won this game because the Browns coughed up the ball close enough
to their own goal line enough times that Dan Reeves unimaginative offense
could move it and hope that DaLuiso could punch it through.   He did it,
and the Giants got lucky twice that way.....  If they hadn't the final
would've been 13-6, Cleveland....


'Saw
    

>  >> Winning, in and of itself, is no goal at all.  
>
>     That statement makes no sense to me. If winning ain't 
>     the goal then what is? To lose with grace? To have the
>     snazziest uniforms? Winning is everyone's goal, that's 
>     why they keep score.

Which would you rather do -- have your team win the most games over
a period of ten seasons, yet win no championships, or win the important
games that need to be won, do the best you can in all the rest, and
bring home a few pelts?

It's probably a question of personal preference, but winning with no
championships is like dating a Playboy centerfold but never consumating
the relationship -- lots of folks look at you and go "wow", but you're
never getting the full potential....



>     That statement tells me that you're more anti-Reeves than 
>     pro-Giants. If the Gnats win out then chances are very good
>     that they're in. You almost sound like you hope that they
>     lose so you can rag on poor under-appreciated Big Dan.

I don't see the Giants as winning out -- They MIGHT go 2-1, which puts
them at 8-8, and for all intents and purposes, that's a Ray Handley
season.  The pivotal game is the Eagles -- and somehow I don't see the
Eagles, despite all their controversy over there right now, blowing a 
game against the Giants down the stretch when they need every win to make
the 'offs themselves.

Giants will lose readily to Dallas, but mop up on Cincy.  So we're looking
at 8-8 (no 'offs) or 7-9 (definitely no 'offs)......


>     Nice analogy except Big Dan won with inferior forces. 

Nope.  The Giants won in spite of Danny Boy.  I guess I really should
have come up with a better analogy, except that in the limited sense
I used it (vis-�-vis the toss play and the roll right) it worked....


'Saw
    

    

>It's probably a question of personal preference, but winning with no
>championships is like dating a Playboy centerfold but never consumating
>the relationship -- lots of folks look at you and go "wow", but you're
>never getting the full potential....
    
    that's the story of Tommy's life.

>It's probably a question of personal preference, but winning with no
>championships is like dating a Playboy centerfold but never consumating
>the relationship -- lots of folks look at you and go "wow", but you're
>never getting the full potential....

Maybe you could do better if'n you dint hold the magazine with both
hands.

TTom

    
    This:
    
    > Winning, in and of itself, is no goal at all.  
    
    doesn't really have anything to do with:
    
    > Which would you rather do -- have your team win the most games over
    > a period of ten seasons, yet win no championships
    
    I can't even fathom the first comment, but the followup is unapplicable.
    
    The second question is about as fair as asking you whether you'd like
    to win ugly or lose pretty.  Probably shoud defend the first comment 
    before you change the subject.
    
    - Sean

|    > Winning, in and of itself, is no goal at all.  
|    
|    doesn't really have anything to do with:
|    
|    > Which would you rather do -- have your team win the most games over
|    > a period of ten seasons, yet win no championships
|    
|    I can't even fathom the first comment, but the followup is unapplicable.

Did I say that it did?  

Could it be possible that I might have been making a different point?

Gee, what a concept.


Nowawadays, pure winning doesn't mean much.  About the only thing that
winning a lot of games, but no championships translates into, is money
in the owners pocket, since folks will still pay to see a winner.

You don't hear teams saying "Our goal this season is to win 10 games"

It's always "our goal is to win at least ten, make the playoffs and
go to the championship game and win that too"


Nowadays, a coach who amasses a lot of victories, but no championships,
is looked down upon as lacking something.


Does that help you fathom the first comment, or should I send you a set
of Cliff Notes?

    
>    The second question is about as fair as asking you whether you'd like
>    to win ugly or lose pretty.  Probably shoud defend the first comment 
>    before you change the subject.
    
I don't have to defend anything.  

>  >> Nowawadays, pure winning doesn't mean much.  
>    
>     It's statements like that that got you into trouble in the first 
>     place. 

Who's in trouble?  

Winning games is important because it keeps the fans in the seats, which
puts money in the owners' pockets.  That's about it.

The Jets have won games for the last 25 years, but haven't gone very far
in the playoffs since their big upset SB win.  Listen to their fans to
see how much that kind of winning means to them.

No matter how you cut it, winning (especially in relation to a coach's
personal stats) doesn't really mean that much.

I don't care how much Dan Reeves wins -- until he wins The Big One, he's
always going to be one of the guys (along with Marv Levy, and Bud Grant)
who couldn't win The Big One.



>Just flat out admit that you hate Dan Reeves
>     because he was the Broncos coach and he'll never replace Bill
>     Parcells and be done with it. 

But I don't hate Dan Reeves because he was the Broncos coach.  I hate Dan
Reeves because he's not a great coach.  He can't deal with adjustments during
the game, he's not very imaginative beyond a few gadget plays, he's good but
not great.   

Look at the Giants statistics for the second half this season.  Once the
other team figures out what Dan is doing, they own him, and he's incapable
of adjusting to present a new facet to the opponent to baffle him.

Very few coaches can do that and win.  Obviously, the greatest of all
time, Lombardi, took that philosophy to the highest point -- EVERYONE knew
that the Packers were going to do X, Y, and Z.  They just outexectuted.



>But also be man enough to admit that
>     if he takes this particular team to the playoffs (unlikely, I know)
>     that he will have done a hell of a job.

Dan Reeves will take this team to the playoffs on the day I have a sex change.

If he does take this team to the playoffs, it will be in spite of him,
rather than because of him.   Just look at the second half versus Cleveland.
Except for a couple of lucky plays by Dave Brown, the Browns win the game.
If it was up to Dan Reeves they'd still be running the toss play right now.

Quite simply, Dan Reeves was outcoached by Bill Belichick on Sunday.  Only
problem was, Bill's boys couldn't execute without turning the ball over
five times.....



The Giants are falling into Jets Disease.  Reeves will win just enough
(especially next season with an easier schedule) to hang around here for
years, turning the franchise into a mediocre WINNING team -- but they won't
win the big one....   

The Patriots will win a Super Bowl before the Giants even GET there....

>    For someone who likes to boast about his writing ability, your meaning is
>    often unclear because I till don't know what you're talking about. The

What I'm saying is that you can win a lot of games, and if you don't
cap it off, it isn't really worth much more than putting fans fannies into
seats.


>    erence title and finally a Super Bowl. You can't progress if you can't
>    win that much should be intuitively obvious.

So you win a lot of games, but you don't progress through those steps.
What have you got?  A lot of wins, but nothing to show for it...
A franchise that'll make money for the owners....


> >> The Jets have won games for the last 25 years,
>
>    The Jets are a perenial .500 team. Their best years in recent memory 
>    were under Joe Walton when the would start out like a ball of fire 
>    and burn out after 10 or so games. You want a team that has won
>    consistently look no further than the Niners.

I'm not talking about the Niners.  They've won, progressed, capped it
off as being the best team in the 80s.

Let's talk about the Broncos or the Bills.  They've won a lot.  Whoopee.



| >> No matter how you cut it, winning (especially in relation to a coach's
| >> personal stats) doesn't really mean that much.
|
|    I really hesitate to call that statement dumb but it is. 

Why is it dumb?  Dan Reeves might have a great personal record, but he's
still a coach who can't win the big one.  Just like Snuffy Smith....

And ultimately, what does that get you?

    

Oh yeah, as to the writing ability, it's there.  I just don't use it in
here -- it's not worth the effort  ;^)

    
    'Saw last time I checked, the comment "winning is everything" was a 
    superset, and not mutually exclusive , of the coment "winning 
    championships."
    
    I don't think anyone meant that winning some games was more important 
    than winning championships.  Nor did they mean that they didn't care
    about winning the Big One.  
    
    They just meant winning (all the time) *is* everything - it is the only 
    goal.  Which you seemed to be refuting.
    
    - Sean
    

RE    <<< Note 76.546 by WONDER::REILLY "Sean / Alpha Servers DTN:223-4375" >>>

>    They just meant winning (all the time) *is* everything - it is the only 
>    goal.  Which you seemed to be refuting.
    
  The tape I saw was Lombardi giving a speech at rookie camp. He was telling
the rookies "you have to block and you have to tackle. If you don't block
and you don't tackle you won't win and in this league, winning is everything."

  I think that the idea was not so much that society in general should think
winning is everything but rather the Green Bay rookies shouldn't think that
just because they made the big time they can forget basic fundamentals. 

  George

    
    I think there were 3 or 4 different versions of the same speech, but
    with different messages.  Was "winning isn't everything, it's the only
    thing" Lombardi or George Allen?
    
    brews 

|  I think there were 3 or 4 different versions of the same speech, but
|  with different messages.  Was "winning isn't everything, it's the only
|  thing" Lombardi or George Allen?

Lombardi is generally credited with saying this.  He probably
did, too, but in his book "Run to Daylight" he claimed that
the "real" quote was "Winning isn't everything, it's how
you react to losing".

=Bob=

Sean,

I was talking from the point of view of a coach who keeps on
winning, padding personal stats, while never getting a team
to the promised land.

Make no mistake about it -- everyone wants to win, but some
coaches just can't win the big one and probably never will
(ie Dan Reeves)



And re Run to Daylight I'd strongly recommend that for any
football fan -- best book I ever read about footbal....


'Saw

    To say in advance that a priori if a team like the Giants makes
    into the playoffs (for the second year in a row no less) that'll be 
    _in spite_ of their coach is pure nonsense.  To my experience in a 
    highly technical, highly emotional game like football it is not 
    possible for a talent-strapped, inexperienced team to overcome both 
    that disadvantage _and_ poor coaching and achieve consistent success.
    Give credit where it's due _if_ Reeves can revive the Giants franchise.
    To do otherwise regardless of the results (probably even if he wins a
    Super Bowl someday, with or without the Giants) is just setting him up
    with a unreasonable preconceived definition of failure and more than 
    just a little dishonest.
    
    glenn
    

>    To do otherwise regardless of the results (probably even if he wins a
>    Super Bowl someday, with or without the Giants) is just setting him up
>    with a unreasonable preconceived definition of failure and more than 
>    just a little dishonest.
>    


Geez, Glenn, what are you, auditioning for a Sport Opinion column for the
Globe???? 8^)


I don't see Dan Reeves reviving this franchise.  Mainly because of ONE
reason -- Fat George Young.   George Young, the man who wouldn't know how
to retain a free agent if the manual for it bit him in his rather ample
behind, is ultimately going to wind up at odds with Danny Boy.  I've heard
through some Giants sources that it has started already.

Wouldn't it be nice, as the Beach Boys used to say, if we could can
Georgy Porgey and Dan Dan the Collie-Lovin' Man, and get us Jimmy Johnson.
That'd be what I ask Santa Claus for for Christmas.

But I've also heard through Giants sources that George wants to stay on
another three years.  Happy Happy Hurl Hurl....

Personally, I don't believe Reeves will ever win the big one -- it is too
easy to outcoach him, and without an Elway-clone to bail his butt out of
his second half messes, he'll never do it.


'Sa    

> Wouldn't it be nice, as the Beach Boys used to say, if we could can
> Georgy Porgey and Dan Dan the Collie-Lovin' Man, and get us Jimmy Johnson.
> That'd be what I ask Santa Claus for for Christmas.

    Yeah, but then it would definitely be hold-your-nose time in New York
    (not that it isn't already as far as I'm concerned ;-).  Some things 
    just aren't worth it, and just don't fit.  Hiring JJ truly would come
    as close as possible to your notion of "winning of itself is no goal".  
    More than likely what'd happen would be that lightning wouldn't strike 
    twice for JJ (everyone needs _some_ luck to go all the way), and the 
    Jints would become permanently and irrevocably hateable...
    
    glenn
    
    

I dunno.

I've heard a lot of opinions of JJ and most of them tab him as a great football
coach and evaluator of talent.

I know that the Jets fans are squirming in their seats, hoping that their
ownership cans Steinberg and goes after JJ with both barrels.

I'm seriously dissatisfied with George Young over these past bunch of years.
His draft picks have fizzled, and his ineptitude in getting his free agents
signed has cost the Giants mightily.  I don't see Dan Reeves as being
any saviour -- after all, he was the THIRD choice, after George got slapped
in his pudgy face twice.

I could easily deal with JJ, or even Joe Gibbs, but I don't think Joe
Gibbs wants back in....


'Saw

With a little help from the Zebra's. Hail of a pass interference call
near the end.

TTom

    
    
    
    	Looks like the NFL has named the Giamts has the designated New York
    City TV Market team to make the playoffs this year.... :-(
    
    JimH
    

Yep, another meaningless win to pad Dan "I Can't Win The Big One" Reeves
personal stats.....


The Interference Call was as bad as most of the calls that went against
the Giants earlier in the year.


'Saw

    Against the tough bengals.  He oiutghta be hiding his head in shame
    that he needs a bad call by the refs to set up a last minute td to beat
    the bengals.
    
    brews

One of the guys in the Jints notesfile saw the game, and said that Reeves
was outcoached and that some heads up play by Brown saved his worthless butt.

As to the playoff hunt, PLEASE.  I have a better mathematical chance of
winning the lottery.

The only team in existence that has less of a mathematical chance and is
still eligible is the Jets....

    I Would say they have a tremendous shot at beating the Eagles next
    week, with that rocket scientist Rich Kotite at the helm.
    
    Dennis Faust
    

>    I Would say they have a tremendous shot at beating the Eagles next
>    week, with that rocket scientist Rich Kotite at the helm.
    
That may be, but I don't see them getting past the Cowboys. 

I don't have this list here, but if they do go 1-1 from here on out, there
are three distinct things which have to happen, it revolves around other
teams losing their games.




Borrowed from the Jints file:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Giants beat the Eagles and lose to the Cowboys 
than FOUR of the following must occur:

1. Cards lose at least one game
2. Saints lose at least one game
3. Falcons lose two games
4. Packers lose two games
5. Bears lose two games

Only 1 of #3 and #4 can occur since they play each other so #1, #2, and #5 would
have to occur.

Cards play Bengals and Falcons.
Saints play Cowboys and Broncos
Bears play Rams and Patriots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



I just don't see it happening.  I'd win the Connecticut Lotto first....
    

> I just don't see it happening.  I'd win the Connecticut Lotto first....
    
    Then you'd be able to pay for that sex-change operation too...
    
    
    glenn
    

    
    That list also means the Cards need to lose to the Bengals nexted week. 
    Cain't see that happening.
    
    boC

Glenn,

I decided against the sex change, and just opted for buying a complete
woman's wardrobe should Dan Reeves get them in the playoffs.....8^)

    Starting to have  doubts Fank?????   That Reeves is a great coach!!!
    
    

>                        -< Some say Reeves is a Genius >-

Puh-leeze!  If he's such a genius, then why was he polling his players
as to what plays to use the past few weeks?


>    Starting to have  doubts Fank?????   That Reeves is a great coach!!!

Nope, not at all.  I stand by my original statement that Dan Reeves is a 
coach of the Snuffy Smith school, who will amass a lot of victories for
his personal stats, but will also choke in the big game.

Further, he is very often outcoached by his opponent, and does not adjust
well in game situations.


'Saw
    
    

    I think E is incorrect. Pretty sure the Giants were favored in the SB
    against Denver.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

Reeves wishes he had the talent that ol' Dean gets down Chapel Hill way.

And, according to my records, the Giants were a 8� point favorite over
Denver.

TTom

    	DAN REEVES has taken a team with two pathetic quarterbacks, serious 
    weaknesses and has them contending for the playoffs.  Could be looking 
    at another Coach Of The Year award for BIG DAN.
    
    				   /Don

    What?!  Tommy, was actually wrong about something?!

 you got love this place. Where the heck where you guys when he was loosing 7
 straight? Not a peep. Did Saw or I or Brews come in here every week with a
 Dan Reeves keeps on loosing note? But boy the Giants manage to catch a break
 in the schedule and beat a few teams that should beat despite there lack
 of talent and you guys are trumping him up for coach of the year...hahahaaq

 that said I will admit that I'm coming around on him. He's cut down his
 whinning act and while his consevatism drives me insane it maybe a by
 product of the talent that he has. Anyways I really expected the team to
 fold up like a cheap suit after the 7 game loosing streak but they didn't.
 He certainly deserved credit for that.

 mike

    Hey hey hey...Tommy
    
    Just remember wins do not mean anything.  Big wins mean something.
    Remember when you want to label someone a choker, It is possible to
    come up with anything.  For example...What has Joe Montana done
    with the Chiefs?  Didn't Joe choke last year in the "big" game with the
    Bills?  Also what about Schottenheimer?  How many "big" games has he
    chicken boned?
    
    This sprots bar is so much fun!!!!
    
    

    
    
       My book says they were 9 1/2 pt Favs

Re: 574

Couldn't you make the same arguement for Fran Tarkenton?

daryll

It's pretty simple Mike.  

Tommy cain't be happy unless he's stirring the pot, getting lots and lots
of agitation going.   Tommy could really give two shits about Dan Reeves or
the Giants -- he just knows that you and I can't stand Dan Reeves, so he's
gonna be a Dan Reeves proponent in here.

Bottom line is simple -- Dan Reeves ain't never one the big one, and will
never win the big one, because he's overrated.

Yeah, so I was wrong about the Giants being favored.  Big Deal.  So sue
me already.

But Dan Reeves has been outcoached, he's never won the big one and never
will.  John Elway got the Broncos to the Super Bowl with The Drive.


So, Dan Reeves can keep on winning and winning and winning, padding his
personal stats.  


But I've got a really good friend who put it about the best, I guess:

	It doesn't matter what Dan Reeves does. Parcells got us
	two Super Bowls, and that won't change no matter what
	Reeves does or doesn't do.


'Saw

 that's all well and fine Saw but what really bothers me isn't Tommy's 'tude
 it's Slasher. He's been fawning all over Good Time Danny for the last two
 years while at the same time Parcells has been working magic up in foxboro
 yet he slams Tuna every chance he gets and can't understand why we slam 
 GTD?????????

 mike

> But I've got a really good friend who put it about the best, I guess:
>
>	It doesn't matter what Dan Reeves does. Parcells got us
>	two Super Bowls, and that won't change no matter what
>	Reeves does or doesn't do.
    
    This comes dangerously close to saying "I'm not a Giants fan 
    if Bill Parcells isn't the coach".  What's the point to such a
    statement?  Reeves could bring all kinds of glory to the Giants
    franchise (so far he's done nothing but a good, solid job) up to and 
    including winning a Super Bowl, but he'd still be a bum because he's 
    not Parcells.  I guess in New York you've probably got oldtimers 
    sitting around grousing about how it doesn't matter what Parcells 
    did because Steve Owen brought us two championships, and that 
    doesn't change no matter what Parcells has done.
    
    Besides, and I've said this before, the consensus I've heard from NY
    media types and the like are that George Young deserves as much credit 
    as anyone for rescuing the franchise from the bickering, fractured Mara
    family and for producing those teams, but damned if he or anyone else 
    but one man, Bill Parcells, is going to get it in here...
    
    glenn
     

My buddy was a Giants fan from the days of Allie Sherman.  Like me, he has
seen them go from bad, to worse, to stanky, to absolutely stanky, to almost
there, to there, to the very top, and down again.

What my friend Mitch tells me, in a nutshell, is "Chill, you've gotten to the
Super Bowl, you've seen them win championships, don't sweat it"

It makes sense.  I can remember years (as a kid) when I NEVER thought the
Giants would win the Super Bowl -- to us they were the Washington Senators,
always last in the League.

I can now remember when they were on top.


Personally, I don't think Dan Reeves is a great coach.  He can't win the
big one.  That's the tag on him.  I don't think Marv Levy is a great coach.


Look at most of the games this season -- his second half is atrocious, because
once the other team figures him out, he can't adjust.


As to having the Giants in the playoff hunt -- yes, mathematically, they
are, I can't deny that, but to me it's more network and journalistic hype,
especially since the Jets took the gaspipe, than any real chance at being
a playoff contender.

You can tout Dan Reeves all you want as being a phenom because he took this
team almost to the playoffs, but I'm also not forgetting that this Dan
Reeves team lost SEVEN games in a row. either.....


'saw

        Tommy Brydie - SPORTS Official Maytag Agitator(tm)

    You'all missed the content of 76.569 which was to wit 
    
          Which of these statements is untrue:
     
    And E said Denver was favored which was untrue therefore it fell under
    "F" all above are true meaning all above are untrue which is correct
    assumming the rest were likewise untrue such as
       A) Dan Reeves is a coach of the Snuffy Smith school, who will
           amass a lot of victories for his personal stats,
      
    which according to Tommy is untrue (debateable).
    
    So as tb would say, catch up on your reading comprehension the above
    should have been perfectly clear
    
    billte

>    So as tb would say, catch up on your reading comprehension the above
>    should have been perfectly clear
    
As clear as mud in my eye on a foggy night....8^)

    	What's the matter Childs?  Truth hurst, don't it?  Somebody's
    got to be objective in here.
    
    				   /Don

Tommy, it's nothing so grand or complex.

Plain and simple, Mike and I have never liked Dan Reeves.  I'm not saying
he isn't a good coach, but he's not a great coach, and for my money, he's
lacking in a few areas.

Further, George Young must've had a major brain cramp when he hired him,
third choice and all.  There was an atmosphere of "gotta get someone quick,
the first two stiffed us", and there was Dan Reeves, pimping himself to
George.

In my book, Dan Reeves is to football what Emile Francis was to hockey -- he
might get you to the prom, but you'll never end up as prom king.


Just an opinion,
'Saw

 I still don't get it. Why can't we root for the team and hate the coach.
 You said you can't stand Parcell's attitude but that doesn't stop you
 from rooting for the team si why can't we despise Reeves but not root for 
 the team??????

 mike

>     There was nothing grand or complex about it. It's actually quite
>     simple - if the Giants-Dallas game comes to actually mean something,
>     you Giants "fans" will miss out on the fun all because you can't
>     get past Dan Reeves.

Won't miss out on the fun.  No matter what the potential meaning of the
game, I'll root for the Giants to beat the Cowboys.  Any day the Giants
can beat the 'boys is a good day in my house....

 
|  >> he might get you to the prom, but you'll never end up as prom king.
|
|     Man, that's awful, Saw.

It's a bitch, ain't it?  8^)



And I agree with Mikey, we can root for the team and hate the coach.  Believe
me, it wouldn't be the first time in my Giants fandom career that I've rooted
for the team and hated the coach.....


Saw
    

    
>    And I agree with Mikey, we can root for the team and hate the coach. 
    
    When 11-5 seasons (second-best record in the NFC last year) with a
    playoff win included and more recently a big win over Cleveland (how
    often do you hear fans complain that the team won _in spite_ of the
    coach after a difficult road win like that?) and a realistic shot at 
    the playoffs are completely dismissed, you begin to wonder.  There's 
    cynicism (healthy) and then there's cynicism (New York, NY Post, 
    WFAN-fueled).  In certain instances, I understand where frustrated fans 
    would rather see their team lose than have the coach keep his job.  I
    can't see that with a guy like Dan Reeves.  He's not some bozo out
    there on the sidelines like Ray Handley or Bruce Coslet.  He may not be
    everyone's absolute #1 preference but when a competent head coach
    becomes the game-in-game-out overriding focus of the fans something's 
    seriously out of whack.
    
    glenn
    

>    Mike and Saw, can you point out where any Giants "fans" have rooted 
>    for this team all season beyond a few kind words early on about Dave
>    Brown? Mostly what I've seen is quite the opposite of rooting and
>    almost a wish that they fail just to spite Dan Reeves. It's been
>    flat out stated that some "fans" don't care what they do with Dan 
>    Reeves is coach.

Yep.  Every game I watched or listened to this season I was hoping they'd
win.  I got incensed at the bad calls (New Orleans on Calloway, Detroit
the TD and Moore's knee), and I agonized over them starting Kent Graham.

I can't speak for Mike, but I was definitely pulling for them, even though
I didn't logically think they'd win certain games.

Fortunately, no beer bottles went through my TV screen, but the air was
blue with swearing a couple of time.


 
>    I meant that it doesn't make sense. If you don't end up as prom king
>    that doesn't reflect on your coach, your date or anyone else but your-
>    self. This Giants team won't end up as "prom king' but that's because
>    it's butt ugly not because of Dan Reeves. Don't tell me that you've
>    been blaming your date all these years for you not getting to wear the
>    crown. 


Well, don't analyze everything so, then.  I mean, this isn't Debating 101,
it's a loose forum for us to express our POPBs(tm).

I can't always come up with whiz-bang rock solid analogies....

'Saw
    

    

>    When 11-5 seasons (second-best record in the NFC last year) with a
>    playoff win included and more recently a big win over Cleveland (how

I don't believe they had a playoff win.  I think they got absolutely
blasted by San Francisco in their first playoff game.

I could be wrong, but as the second best record in the NFC, they would
have been the top wildcard and would not have played in the wildcard
game.....


'Saw    

> I could be wrong, but as the second best record in the NFC, they would
> have been the top wildcard and would not have played in the wildcard
> game.....
    
    The third division winner and all three wildcards play in that round.
    The Giants beat Minnesota, no mean feat...
    
    glenn
    

>    The Giants beat Minnesota, no mean feat...
    
Yes, I remember now.  You're right.  It was no big deal either, I mean,
Jim McMahon was the Minnesota QB.    

Parcells should be given a lot of credit for the Giants' two SB wins, but
all of it ?  Not in my opinion.  Young built the team...many very good
players.  Parcells had a very good staff.

To me, Parcells gains a lot of respect because he looks like he's in
total control on the sidelines, and is super-arrogant during press
conferences.  Let's see what he does in NE.  He's got no excuses.
He guaranteed a SB winner, and is in charge of the total operation.

As for Reeves, he's more than a 'good coach'.  He may not be great,
but he's closer to that end of the spectrum than he is to just plain
ol' good.  Immediately after Parcells left the Giants fell to the
bottom.  Without major changes in personnel, Reeves came in and put
them in the playoffs...and they were no fluke.  He's now got them
in the hunt for the playoffs again, with an inexperienced, young
QB, and after enduring a 7-game losing streak.  Look at the ship
sinking in Philadelphia in the midst of a losing streak.  The
coach is getting killed 'cause it doesn't look like he can right
the ship.

Giants fans should write Reeves a Thank You card just for having
them in this position on December 14th.

>ol' good.  Immediately after Parcells left the Giants fell to the
>bottom.  Without major changes in personnel, Reeves came in and put
>them in the playoffs...and they were no fluke.  He's now got them

Yeah, because Ray Handley took over.  

Ray Handley was a living, breathing illustration of the Peter Principle...


I'll send Dan Reeves a Christmas card when he earns it....

> I'll send Dan Reeves a Christmas card when he earns it....
  
    Hey 'Saw, not to just keep picking on you ol' buddy ol' pal, but
    looking back did the aliens get to you before or after you wrote this
    note on Reeves last year?:  ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
                <<< CAM::$1$DUA5:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPORTS.NOTE;1 >>>
                                  -< SPORTS >-
================================================================================
Note 76.246                 New York Football Giants                  246 of 600
CAMONE::WAY "Mississippi Queen, u know what I mean"  18 lines   7-JAN-1994 18:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy, I think you'll find very few Giants fans that share
Mike's Anti-Reeves Bias.

I, for one, am very pleased with the season's results.  I'm 
not forgetting what that Boob did last year (6-10) and how
much better 11-5 feels.

Reeves restored discipline to the team, and I think he
deserves COY.   He's not my favorite coach of all time,
I still would rather have Parcells, but for the most
part, I think Reeves has done an outstanding job.

So please, give a listen to the FAN, or even one of
the Hartford stations before you classify all Giants
fans as being Anti-Reeves....

JMO,
'Saw

    
  >> I can't always come up with whiz-bang rock solid analogies....
    
>>     I'd settle for just once.    

 In a swimsuit competition Reeves would be Jane Hathaway and Bill Walsh
 would be Ellie Mcpherson........
    

    

>     I'd settle for just once.    


Wait till the novel comes out then 8^)



Glenn, I'll admit I said that.  Ask Mike and he'll tell you that he
and I went round and round last year on Dan Reeves.  When Handley left and
they picked Reeves after Wannstadt and Coughlin said no, I was livid, but
I figured even Judas Iscariot would be good after Ray Handley.

So, I decided to keep an open mind.  Mike will back me up on that.

All through the season I saw flashes of what I hated about Dan Reeves -- his
inability to be make adjustments during the game, and having his players
bail him out of poor coaching decisions.  He amassed a good record by playing
a 4th place schedule.

He DID restore discipline, and he did get them to the playoffs, and I was
pleased with that.

Then, in the biggest game in his Giants tenure, the qualities of Dan Reeves
I find most objectionable came to the fore.


Granted, George Young stiffed Danny Boy this season by his own brand of
ineptitude (can you say the parade has passed him by?) but Dan Reeves is
still only a good coach, not a great one.

This season I saw more of the Dan Reeves I dreaded when they hired him
(3rd choice - getting desperate was old George) and I voiced that.


Did that explain it to you?  I'm sure Mike will corroborate what I've said.


'Saw
    

    

    
    	How much you payin' MikeyC?  :^)
    
    Claybone

 you think it's funny in here you should have seen us battling in Giants::. 
 IN Giants::  as Saw says he was keeping an open mind but the rest of the 
 Giants followers in there were beating me like a red-headed stepchild except
 for Brews who's been with my all the way in the anti-Reeves crusade. Now
 while I'm kinda of begrudgingly throwing the guy a few compliments, the
 rest of the guys are tearing him apart.

 mike

>     And yet at the end of the season you announced that you were quite
>     pleased with what had transpired and still saw fit to pronounce
>     him the COY. Go figure.

Well, DUH.

If you had the coaching equivalent of Forrest Gump, and then he left
and you got someone who could turn the team around, in the spirit of 
keeping an open mind, of course you'd support him.

I was trying to ignore what I didn't like about him.

Obviously, it didn't work.....

> In a swimsuit competition Reeves would be Jane Hathaway and Bill Walsh
> would be Ellie Mcpherson........          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MikeC you're killin' me....you Georgetown fan you....  %^)


re:  the Reeves report card

Maybe he'll be CoY again if he beats Philly and Dallas !