stewy23 Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 I agree losing Tiki and Eli maturing helped out a lot but I strongly disagree that he adds to the Giants. If that was the case- how come the Giants played so much better when he was not in there? I live in Pats/Giants territory and have many friends that are huge Giants fans. Well every Giant fan I know thinks they are better off without Shockey- and from what I have seen- I concur I live in Giants/Jets country and most people agree that Manning played better later in the season and especially well late in the 4th quarter. A lot of people are looking at what the Giants did without Shockey instead of looking at how much better they'd be if he had been healthy. Super Bowl wins tend to make everyone forget about any of the bad times that occurred during the season. Shockey, when healthy, is a great weapon on offense and he would make just about any team better. You guys are nuts that say Eli was or is better off without Tiki and Shockey. Eli had his worst season as a starter. He had big games in the past. He has always been clutch at the end of games. People just like to look for stories and run with it. The only difference in Manning this year was he had a defense. I didn't say that Eli is better off without Tiki. Tiki is twice the running back that Brandon Jacobs/Derrick Ward/Ahmad Bradshaw combined. My point is that the coaching staff were forced to rely less on the RB position after Tiki retired. They had the guys that they needed all along. Manning wasn't ready so the offense relied strictly on Tiki as a back and as a receiver.
Bill from NYC Posted March 25, 2008 Author Posted March 25, 2008 I have to agree- if you just went through that season as a Giant and at the end of it you decided you're better off without him, who could possibly have a better perspective? At the same time, instead of having a young and below average QB, the Saints have as good a veteran QB as any team playing in the league today. Shockey in NO might be a perfect fit for him to be productive and for the Giants to try and find some of the magic once more that put them on top this past season without that risk factor Shockey always presents. The fans in NO will find some love for Shockey's act, and as long as it doesn't become a competition for air time with Bush it could play out well. At least he doesn't do the funky chicken, and throw ground balls after 4 years, so there is hope.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 I live in Giants/Jets country and most people agree that Manning played better later in the season and especially well late in the 4th quarter. A lot of people are looking at what the Giants did without Shockey instead of looking at how much better they'd be if he had been healthy. Super Bowl wins tend to make everyone forget about any of the bad times that occurred during the season. Shockey, when healthy, is a great weapon on offense and he would make just about any team better. I didn't say that Eli is better off without Tiki. Tiki is twice the running back that Brandon Jacobs/Derrick Ward/Ahmad Bradshaw combined. My point is that the coaching staff were forced to rely less on the RB position after Tiki retired. They had the guys that they needed all along. Manning wasn't ready so the offense relied strictly on Tiki as a back and as a receiver. If I was a QB I would want a RB that averaged over 5 yards a carry. But anyways, Im just saying that everyone seems to think Eli suddenly came of age. Eli Manning wasnt as bad as people made him out to be, He was young, but pulled off some great 4th quarter comebacks. People expected him to be Peyton. He did nothing different last season. The year before Eli lead a 10 point 4th quarter comeback against the Eagles in the playoffs, but the defense got pushed around and gave up the game winning field goal.
Recommended Posts