RotoWire Partners
RotoWire Blogs
All Sports
Baseball
Football
Basketball
Hockey
Golf
Recent Comments
Featured Bloggers
Chris Liss
Jeff Erickson
Dalton Del Don
Andre' Snellings
Erik Siegrist
Jason Thornbury
Peter Schoenke
Multi-Media
About RSS
Podcasts
More info
FANTASY LEAGUES
Baseball Commissioner
FANTASY FOOTBALL
Fantasy Football News
Fantasy Football Draft Kit
Fantasy Football Magazine
Football Draft Software
FANTASY BASEBALL
Fantasy Baseball News
Draft Kit
Magazine
Draft Software
Email Reports
Email Preferences

RotoWire.com Football Blog
Search All of RotoWire.com Blogs:

BlogsAll Sports   Baseball   Football   Basketball   Hockey   Golf  

bill simmons disses brady
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060113

Four-and-a-half sacks for the great Willie McGinest, who might be the second-greatest New England Patriot of all-time at this point (right behind John Hannah). Tom Brady probably passes them both someday. For now? Willie is No. 2. Andre Tippett is No. 3. And Duane Starks is No. 345,653.

Brady probably passes them both someday? Bite your tongue. Wash your mouth out with soap. You need a mulligan on this. You're wrong. Brady's outdistanced all of these guys and it's not even close. He's earned the right to be compared to Montana and Elway and guys like that at this point, not Willie McGinest and Andre Tippett and John Hannah.

Look, I like Willie, and I think all Pats fans like Willie. He's, well, likeable. Wear a Pats-55 shirt and walk down Lansdowne Street and random people will high-five you. He's a big-game player. He's Dwight Evans - a borderline Hall of Famer guy who probably falls a little short.

I know Hannah was a dominant lineman and he made the cover of SI with the "greatest ever" tag and he made the Pro Bowl every year and all that jazz. But he's still a lineman. There's a reason linemen don't make QB money. They're still a link in the chain, a brick in the wall, not the guy steering the ship.

Say Brady and McGinest both walked away from football after this year (let's assume they lose before the Super Bowl). Twenty years pass. If McGinest isn't in the Hall of Fame by then, it might get under your skin for a while, it might bug you. You'd mention it in a column from time to time, as a throwaway item. Maybe you'd write a half column on it. It probably wouldn't be enough for a full column.

If Brady were to miss Canton, you'd flip out. First you'd pull a full-out Steve Dunne after the train project didn't go through (we can only assume you'll be divorced by then), but eventually you'd take action. Letters. Petitions. You'd try to blackmail Peter King (threatening to take down Starbucks and all women's sports if he didn't meet your demands) Eventually you'd have a tech friend hack into ESPN 13 and you'd do a half-baked simulcast, demanding that the Hall of Fame be closed indefinitely until a special veteran's committee re-evaluated Brady's candidacy, on the spot.

I could just point to the three rings Brady has won, but it's more than that. He changed everything. He took a river current running one way and he turned it 180 degrees. Brady is a once-a-generation type of guy. We're just lucky he fell into our team's lap, somehow, someway. So many weird things had to happen just for Brady to make it to the Pats and have this run, keep in mind. A brief review of what fell our way:

- Village Idiot Lloyd Carr (Michigan head football coach) insisted on platooning Brady as a senior, which is why Brady went in the second day of the draft, not the first. Everyone seems to forget this. Every Patriots fan should write a hand-written note to Carr and Drew Henson for screwing Brady so much over those Michigan years - it's the only way the Patriots were able to luck into Brady. Drew Bledsoe was just 28 when New England drafted Brady, and there's no way the Patriots would have taken a first-day QB back in those days.

- The Bledsoe injury in Week 2, 2001. It's creepy to think about it, but Brady's emergence came shortly after 9-11.

- The Tuck Game. Jan. 19, 2002. This really was the game that changed everything. Talk about sliding doors, if the Pats don't win that game, you wonder if everything else happens as it did. Remember what you said that night and what any weather-beaten Pats fan said that night - "We NEVER win games like this." Somehow, they did. Brady really did throw for 312 yards in a snowstorm (remember the "That's a GREAT drive" sound byte on the sidelines?). The Pats really did overcome a 10-point deficit (and somehow the crowd didn't completely turn on them when they fell behind - let's not forget the climate of things prior to the Brady Years). Vinatieri really did make that impossible game-tying 45-yarder in the muck (I don't care what anyone says, that's the hardest kick he ever made, and nothing's even close). Jermaine Wiggins really did catch 10 passes for 68 yards. The Raiders really did make every possible mistake possible after the tuck play, almost like they wanted to lose after a call they couldn't understand went against them (of course, the play was called right - it's the tuck rule itself that's kind of hard to understand).

January 19 should be a holiday in New England. It's a shame "Patriots Day" is already taken because that's what it should be. We should stop and thank Brady and Vinatieri and Wiggins and Walt Coleman and all the Raiders who tanked after the tuck came down. This is the most significant game in team history, literally the night everything changed. Remember, all of New England was *confident* the next week at Pittsburgh, and they were 9-point underdogs! The tuck game changed everything. Pats fans didn't sweat the Rams in the Super Bowl - we knew anything was possible.

Next Thursday is January 19, 2006. Mention this in your column. It's four years since everything changed. People forget how depressing New England sports fans were just four years ago. We were a bunch of virgins, in the sporting sense, without a chance to ever see the sun. The Bruins were and still are a lost cause, the ultimate tease, good enough to get your hopes up, but too cheap to close the deal. The Celtics had a mini-curse, the Red Sox had the curse to end all curses. And the Patriots were arguably the biggest joke in the NFL (since people overlook the Bengals went to two Super Bowls, and people refuse to admit the Cardinals are in the league). No one saw this wave coming, this change of fortune, this run of improbable things happening that look random and scattered but they're really all connected. It was impossible to really grasp at the time.

We can grasp it now. Without Tom Brady, none of this happens.

He's the most important person in Patriots history, period, end of story. Get it right. Apologize if you have to. Or just take a mulligan, people do it all the time.

Let's not take for granted how lucky we are that he found our team as he did. Please don't do that. I know so many people fall into the trap of over-valuing current stars to the point that people get glorified before they've really done all that much, but this is not one of those cases.

Happy 2006. Happy Tuck Day.

- Scott Pianowski

Physically in 48072, but forever emotionally in 01824



Posted by scott pianowski at 1/13/2006 3:40:00 PM

Comments (0)



Posted by at 1/13/2006 3:38:00 PM
Comments (1)

The Steelers run is the best so far...
When you consider that the Steelers won 4 titles in 6 years and got screwed another year (Denver beat them in `77 on a phantom fumble in the AFC playoffs and were subsequently blown out by Dallas). Pittsburgh should have won five times in six years as they showed in those Super Bowls that they owned that great Dallas team.

Posted by Peter M. at 1/13/2006 6:18:00 AM
Comments (4)

If the Pats Win Three More Games...
It's not going to happen considering they'd be the underdog in two games (unless Pittsburgh wins, and that won't happen) and still have to win the Super Bowl, but if it does, could there be any doubt about three things:

(1) This would be the greatest NFL dynasty in the Super Bowl era, given the unprecedented four titles in five years. (Pittsburgh had 4 in 6, but there was no salary cap back then, and there were fewer teams (26 at the beginning, and 28 at the end).

(2) Bill Belichick would be the greatest Super Bowl era coach - Don't forget he won two Super Bowls as the architect of the Giants defense, and it was that defense that won those Super Bowls. Moreover, Bill Parcells has had success since, but both his championship game run with the Jets in '98 and his Super Bowl run with the Pats in '96 came with Belichick as his defensive coordinator.

(3) Tom Brady would have to be on the short list of greatest quarterbacks ever - he'd be 13-0 in playoff games with four rings in five seasons. He's Joe Montana to Peyton Manning's Dan Marino and Donovan McNabb's John Elway.



Posted by Chris Liss at 1/12/2006 4:44:00 PM

Comments (1)

Kudos to Mike Carey
I really like the way referee Mike Carey handled the Sean Taylor spitting incident over the weekend. Too many times we focus on the poor job done by the officials during a sporting contest. A good referee is like a good offensive linemen in most cases, you know they did their job when you don't notice them during the game. But Mike Carey handed out the correct penalty, and even ignored the umpires call for a retaliation roughing penalty on spitee Michael Pittman. He just handled it perfectly, when fellow safety Omar Stoutmire asked how Pittman got away without a flag, Carey again had the perfect answer: "What would you have done?" So far Taylor has denied spitting on Pittman, but I think the video evidence will eventually come out. And Taylor better be ready with an apology once it does. Kudos to Mike Carey, I hope he is the referee at the Super Bowl. You couldn't ask for a more professional official.

Posted by Dennis Crowley at 1/12/2006 2:53:00 PM
Comments (1)

Mistake?
You're right. His mistake has been magnified because of who he is. It also has been magnified because (1) it allegedly was assault with a deadly weapon, (2) it was not his first mistake, and in fact was just the latest in a litany of mistakes, and (3) (the kicker for me) it happened only a couple days after the potentially career-crippling move of getting kicked off the Hokies. Pointing a gun at someone is bad enough as it is, but that's not why I'm calling him an idiot. I'm also not calling him an idiot, as you said I did, because he has athletic ability. I'm calling him an idiot for doing it a day or two after his chances for earning his desired livelihood took a serious hit, further disabling him from doing that. If Joe Schmoe got disciplined for acting up at his high-paying job, was told by management that he'd better fly right, and then threatened a co-worker the next day (maybe even by pointing a gun at him), then I would call that guy an idiot too. It is completely independent of his status of an athlete. But yes, it has been magnified because he's an athlete. And because he's an athlete, and in the public eye, that's the way it's going to be. That's the way media attention toward public figures has happened for all time, and that's the way it will continue to be. And trust me, it'll go away. He's not big enough. It'll resurface every once in a while when/if he's drafted or if he does something idiotic again. He won't be addressed ad nauseum, and we won't be hearing about him in another week (unless something else newsworthy comes up).

Posted by Bret Cohen at 1/11/2006 7:20:00 PM
Comments (0)

Mistake
I feel Marcus Vick made a mistake like many other people make mistakes. His mistake has been magnified because of who he is. You've assumed that because he has athletic ability and a shot at the NFL that he shouldn't or won't make mistakes and that if he does, he is an idiot. In many ways, this is very similar to the way Yao Ming is treated. Because the expectations have been built so high, anything he does is sub-par/wrong/whatever. Frankly, every athlete is held to a higher standard. But, when people like Clarrett and Vick make mistakes, we scrutinize their every move and make the world out of every mis-step.

You actually understand my point quite clearly, I reserve judgment. You just don't agree with it because you want to call these young men idiots and you have a right to. I don't feel the need to do that, when the guy is facing jail time. It is so blatant that he made a mistake that there's no need for me to say anything. When someone dies, we send them off with something short and sweet reminiscing on their lives. Vick and Clarrett's careers have metaphorically died, why beat a dead horse? If you want an example of how I think these situations should be handled, watch OTL Nightly. I like how they give you background behind incidents, look at it from multiple perspectives, and allow the viewer to soak in the situation without really adding much opinion (unless its a Jeremy Schaap piece). I think many people spend days and hours on talk radio or ESPN bashing these troubled youths because people have a need to build hierarchies and be above someone else. It makes us feel better sometimes to point someone out as an idiot. I think we have beaten this horse to death and will not be posting about this topic any longer.

Posted by Eddie at 1/11/2006 6:55:00 PM

Comments (0)

On what are you reserving judgment?
I don't understand. What more information do you need? Just because I don't know him, he wasn't objectively an idiot because of what he did? Maybe your point is not to use such vivid loaded words -- would you feel better if I and Jim Rome said "Vick made a rather unintelligent decision?" Or maybe: "even though his tough background may have made him more likely to brandish a gun at the youths who insulted him, many others who have been in his situation would not have done so."

I guess I'm just not sure of your point; what other courtesies should we be providing him? Given the circumstances, he did something idiotic. I know I have the right to say what I want or think what I want, but I'm curious: how would you classify what he did? All you've said so far is that you're "reserving judgment." If you can't classify it, how does your views on him materially differ from those who, in your mind, are judging him?

Posted by Bret Cohen at 1/11/2006 6:25:00 PM

Comments (0)

Bret
Well, you made your point, Marcus Vick is an idiot in Bret's book. But, what exactly have you been arguing for over the last two posts? Your right to call these people idiots? I don't believe I ever challenged that, I just suggested we should reserve judgment even though we have the right to say what we want about these people. Just cause you have a right doesn't mean you must exercise it. Your comments have been free of any sort of cultural motivation and are actually well thought out, but I just don't know what the purpose is.

Posted by Eddie at 1/11/2006 4:32:00 PM
Comments (0)

Idiots
For the record, I do think Marcus Vick is an idiot, and not in a "booksmart" sense. Maybe not for some of the previous things. But the guy gets kicked off his college team and his only shot to make it to the pros right away is to convince an NFL team that he's really not such a bad guy and will work hard for them. And then just a day or so later he does this? Idiot.

Also, as qualified before, **if** Maurice Clarett did rob those people, and if according to his agent he was just about to sign with an NFL team to play in NFL Europe and perhaps make his way over to the pros, and his chances are dashed because of that incident, I think he's an idiot too. Not necessarily because those people were held up. But that, like Vick, he helped quash the only chance he had to do what he wanted to do. And once again, this is only if he actually did what is alleged.

My statements here have nothing to do with race. They have to do with common sense, especially in Vick's case when he **just** got kicked out of school. And apparently it was because someone was ragging on him about getting kicked out of school. I don't think he can hide behind the cover of his childhood environment for that. What did he think, that they wouldn't turn him in when they knew who he was? Idiot.

Posted by Bret Cohen at 1/11/2006 2:39:00 PM

Comments (0)

Hey Bret
It's nice to get this dialogue going, I think discussions like this are what will in the end improve our society. You are absolutely correct that Vick and Clarrett must admit their own fault for their actions. That is a given. I probably did not do a good job pointing that out since I assumed it. Environment plays a role, but in the end we make our own decisions (unless you want to get descarte-like philosophical, but we'll save that for rotomatrix.com). When I say reserve judgment, I mean that people should think twice before saying things like, "What an idiot? How could he do that?" And I'll be honest here, in the last couple days, I've heard a lot of anti-African American culture rhetoric in response to these incidents. I'm not going to go there and I do not think that issue has affected the debate over this topic in the media, but I've just heard it A LOT in the private sector. All that I am promoting is that we refrain from labeling them as idiots, outcasts, etc., when in fact, many people, in Vick or Clarrett's situations, with their experiences, may have done the same or worse. All in all, I think we're actually on the same page here Brett, just in differing degrees.

Posted by Eddie at 1/11/2006 1:49:00 PM
Comments (0)

Bad News from Seahawksville
Dave Brown, an original Seahawk and one of nine men enshrined in the NFL team's Ring of Honor, died Tuesday of an apparent heart attack while playing basketball at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. He would have turned 53 on Monday.

That is awful. Dave Brown had 50 INTs as a Seahawk and 62 for his career, ranking No. 7 all-time. I happened to be at the game in 1984 when he returned two INTs for touchdowns. RIP, Dave.

Posted by Jason Thornbury at 1/11/2006 1:34:00 PM

Comments (0)

"Judgment" of Vick and Clarett
Eddie, what do you mean "reserve judgment of them as individuals?" I mean, there are certain incidents (like the Clarett gift scandal or Vick galavanting with underaged girls) that could have reasonable explanations, but what about Vick pulling out a gun on people in a McDonald's parking lot? I'm supposed to still believe that he's a good person? That he didn't have a choice? And **if** the allegations about Clarett turn out to be true, (which I am completely reserving judgment on), we're not supposed to infer anything about him as a person? What about Jeff Reardon (despite the talk of medication and depression)? Mike Tyson (no one can have more issues than him)? Bill Romanowski (should we excuse him for roid rage)? Lawrence Phillips? Jay Howell? There are certain lines that can't be crossed. If you want to take unique circumstances into account, OK, but don't completely take their objective decisions entirely out of their hands.

Yes, I think it's valid to consider where they came from. And yes, some sports media is over-the-top in order to attract viewers/listeners/readers. But for every Marcus Vick waving around his gun I'd vouch there are numerous Warrick Dunns or Caron Butlers who came from bad situations and have not only made it, but have become upstanding members of the community. Hell, the best example is Mike Vick. I don't want to hear about the pressure of playing in his brother's shadow causing all these problems. I'm no psychologist, but there's gotta be something different going on there. Something we can attribute to Marcus and not the town of Newport News.

I don't want to downplay how the environment played a role in the behavior that's now being discussed. Especially regarding the financial allegations against Clarett. I'm also a proponent for giving people second chances; give them a chance to turn it around (see my Butler example). But for now, the onus is on them. **If** Clarett did hold those people up, as a quasi-public figure, if both these players want to get back into football and make a living that way, they have to convince the owners they'll be a benefit rather than a distraction to the team. And the owners therefore will have to convince the fans. Many have learned the hard way (Adrian McPherson is working on it). Others don't learn (Phillips). Yes Eddie, I agree others shouldn't summarily dismiss them and should reach out to help them. I hope they reform. For now, however, and as much as it's qualified, in some shape or form I'm going to judge these guys.

Posted by Bret Cohen at 1/11/2006 1:15:00 PM

Comments (0)

Gene Wojciechowski
Gene had a great article on ESPN.com concerning Maurice Clarrett and Michael Vick. Here is the article: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2287414

While I do not condone in any way, shape, or form, what Marcus Vick or Maurice Clarrett do, it was refreshing to see Gene step outside the box and grapple with these sensitive cultural issues. He is a responsible journalist in this way. Many journalists will take the easy road and join the rest of society in stigmatizing Clarrett and Vick as misfits. While there is plenty of evidence to support these labels, we should dig deeper. Do any of us really know Clarrett or Vick? I for one refuse to judge. We talk about being humble, polite, understanding, etc. Yet there's this urge in the public domain to identify "bad" or "sucky" people. So, Marcus Vick brandishes a firearm, report the news, let the authorities deal with it. Why does Jim Rome have to spend 30 minutes saying he is a knucklehead with 10 minute pauses in-between sentences? In many ways, it is the converse situation in regards to touchdown dances. We don't want people to dance, we don't want excess celebration, we just want them to hand the ball over. Yet, we indulge in excess when there is a troubled young man that people want to criticize.

I hear people at bars, on the radio all the time talk about, "I would kill so and so, etc". Just the other day on "The Herd" with Colin Cowherd, people were saying that if someone spit in their face like Sean Taylor did to Michael Pittman, "It was go time." Many said they would be in jail. Well, it was obviously "go time" for Marcus, but none of us know why. I'm not saying set the guy free, he should do his time obviously, but it actually does not benefit society to label him an outcast, while not dealing with the core issues. The guy is from Newport News, VA, in the tidewater region of Virginia and it's one of the downright nastiest places to grow up in America. As for Clarrett, we all know about Youngstown.

Clarrett and Vick have radically different reference groups than the rest of America because of the environments they were raised. It obviously doesn't give them a free pass to go brandishing firearms at Mickey D's, but it doesn't give us the right to crap on them when they make mistakes either. We had the PRIVILEDGE to grow up in better neighborhoods and probably recieved better education growing up. Clarrett went to 10 friends' funerals before stepping foot at OSU, I had 2 friends from my high school class die and it certainly didn't make my life any easier. Instead of calling these guys idiots, knuckleheads and laughing at their misfortune, we should probably do our part to help educate the inner-city youth. Many talking heads complain all the time about athletes these days and the disrespect they have for coaches/the media/the commissioner/etc, but really, how much respect could you have for "suits," when they only come to your neighborhood after someone runs a 4.2 40.

I apologize if I have taken this issue personally, but I know how it feels to be outcasted and stigmatized. For years in high school, I was branded an underachiever/troublemaker and went from an honor student taking geometry in 8th grade to a senior taking integrated (farm) math with anger management problems. I have since rehabilitated myself and won things like the Zora Neale Hurston Award for improving racial relations in my community, but I would not have done these things if people didn't reach out to try and understand what I was going through. All I ask is that we at least try to understand these young men before passing judgment. You would ask the same thing if it was you. And at the end of the day, is it that hard to let the ESPN ticker pass by without calling someone an idiot? You're not giving up that much. Now that I think about it, maybe we denounce dancing and condone bandwagon criticism since any old dog can pile, but only a few can dance much less score TD's. Like Goodie Mob said, "People don't dance no mo, all they do is diss."

Posted by Eddie at 1/11/2006 11:15:00 AM

Comments (0)

nice points Jason
But, lets be honest. If you are a defensive coordinator, and you keep Shaun Alexander under a hundred yards, you'd take that every game, especially when he averaged 5.1 a carry for the season. Of his 98 yards, he got 34 of them on one carry. Take that out of the equation and he got 64 on 19 carries. If the skins can do that, they got a chance. Obviously being at home helps the Seahawks this week and Bobby Engram/Darrell Jackson did get hurt, but Jackson was still healthy enough to score a touchdown with 2 minutes left in the 4th. How do you think the teams match up otherwise? For instance the Washington DB's v. the Seattle WR's?

Posted by Eddie at 1/10/2006 1:15:00 PM
Comments (1)

Hawks-Skins
Alexander rushed for 98 yards in their first meeting, averaging 5 yards a carrry. Eddie, if that's your definition of "keeping Alexander under control," I'll take it. Also, while Darrell Jackson played, that was the game he hurt his knee, so he obviously wasn't as effective as he normally is. Bobby Engram played the whole game with broken ribs, cracking them on his first catch. And Jerramy Stevens dislocated his finger in the game. So, the Seahawks had significant offensive weapons ailing in that first meeting. (And still lost by the width of a goal post.)

Posted by Jason Thornbury at 1/10/2006 10:24:00 AM
Comments (0)

Eli Manning and the seahawks line
I definitely agree with you about Eli's maturation, Chris. He has more than enough starts under his belt to play adequately in a playoff game. I think his biggest problem is still the bad habit of backpedaling when he sees the rush. He still doesn't step up or step to the side enough and instead retreats. Many times, he throws off his backfoot trying to make something happen and it is frequently picked off. If you look at tape of the San Diego game early in the season where he went nuts, he was stepping up in the pocket or to the side. If someone can work with him on the footwork, he'll be fine, but the longer the habits linger, the harder they are to break.

I will preface by saying that I am a Redskins fan, but I expected the line for the game to be (-7) Seattle. The Redskins beat the Seahawks at home in week 4 and while many point to a field goal missed off the post by Josh Brown, the Redskins were in control the entire game. The Seahawks also had Darrell Jackson in that game while the Redskins did not play Lavar Arrington. Additionally, the Seahawks have a nice offense, but if anyone matches up with them, its the Redskins (and the Bears of course). While the Skins have trouble with smaller speedier recievers, the secondary has a lot of size with players like Sean Taylor, Carlos Rogers, and Shawn Springs, who should be back this week as well. Seattle usually takes advantage of smaller secondaries, but they will not be able to do that against the Redskins. The front seven also kept Alexander under control in the last meeting, but they will have to do it without Renaldo Wynn this week. A key point to remember though is that Lavar is back and he has really turned it on the last few weeks.

On offense, the Redskins should bounce back. Last week, they wanted to take advantage of the cover-2 and run the ball, but Portis' shoulder flared up and the Bucs speed really gave the offensive line problems. While Seattle has Bryce Fisher and Lofa Tatupu who can really move, they are a far cry from Simeon Rice and Derrick Brooks.

Posted by Eddie at 1/9/2006 9:30:00 PM

Comments (0)

Gadget Plays
I remember an old interview with Bill Walsh where the guy asked him what was the one thing he always wished he could try in an NFL game, but never did. With full conviction, he told the interviewer that an across-the-field lateral would work like a charm if exectuted even close to properly. Not counting freak plays where a guy was in full desperation mode simply trying to avoid being tackled, I've seen this tried twice. Once was yesterday, with the Steelers pulling it off so well you almost couldn't fault any one Bengal (even though the coaches had warned them to watch out for Pittsburgh's gadget plays), like the slugger who simply gets burned on the nastiest breaking ball. This Buffalo guy can't remember the other one, but I think that one worked too. But Walsh was right, those two plays were works of art.

Posted by Tim Schuler at 1/9/2006 6:08:00 PM
Comments (0)

Seahawks (-9)?
Are the Seahawks really 9 points better than the Redskins? That early lines seems a little high to me.

Posted by Jason Thornbury at 1/9/2006 5:02:00 PM
Comments (2)

Giants Are a Disgrace
Yeah, they had linebacker injuries, etc., etc., but really, the problem was that their offense couldn't sustain a drive and keep the Panthers offense off the field at all. Carolina only scored 10 points in the first half, and 3 of those were off a punt that hit Gabril Wilson. And their only score in the third quarter was a 12 yard run by Steve Smith after Eli Manning threw the pick. Basically, the defense even with their linebackers bent a lot but didn't break, and if the offense had shown up and kept the defense off the field, it might have been enough.

But the offensive line, Eli Manning, the Giants coaches, etc. - they weren't prepared for this game at all. Carolina's defense is good - not great. Their running game was below average. The Giants were at home. There's no excuse for being that unready to play, especially on offense where they were largely healthy. If this were baseball, Eli would be sent back to the minors - he's clearly not ready for a game of this magnitude.

Also, the announcers on the radio (I left the sports bar after the last pick) pointed out it was only Eli's 23rd start. Only 23 starts? I think that's enough to play a legitimate playoff game against anyone but the 2000 Ravens or 1985 Bears. Not necessarily be Tom Brady, but be competent against a decent defense.

And some of this has to fall on Tom Coughlin - it was a disgraceful showing at home - put the Texans or 49ers out there, and I guarantee you would have seen more effort - more life. Coughlin didn't get his team up for this game, and that's a serious issue. As enraged as I was watching the game, I couldn't believe that the team itself didn't show more fire. They took it lying down. They stayed on the mat and didn't get up.

Posted by Chris Liss at 1/8/2006 12:50:00 PM

Comments (1)

Archives
10/19/2014 - 10/25/2014
10/12/2014 - 10/18/2014
10/5/2014 - 10/11/2014
9/28/2014 - 10/4/2014
9/21/2014 - 9/27/2014
9/14/2014 - 9/20/2014
9/7/2014 - 9/13/2014
8/31/2014 - 9/6/2014
8/24/2014 - 8/30/2014
8/17/2014 - 8/23/2014
8/10/2014 - 8/16/2014
8/3/2014 - 8/9/2014
7/27/2014 - 8/2/2014
7/20/2014 - 7/26/2014
7/13/2014 - 7/19/2014
7/6/2014 - 7/12/2014
6/29/2014 - 7/5/2014
6/22/2014 - 6/28/2014
6/15/2014 - 6/21/2014
6/8/2014 - 6/14/2014
6/1/2014 - 6/7/2014
5/25/2014 - 5/31/2014
5/18/2014 - 5/24/2014
5/11/2014 - 5/17/2014
5/4/2014 - 5/10/2014
4/27/2014 - 5/3/2014
4/20/2014 - 4/26/2014
4/13/2014 - 4/19/2014
4/6/2014 - 4/12/2014
3/30/2014 - 4/5/2014
3/23/2014 - 3/29/2014
3/16/2014 - 3/22/2014
3/9/2014 - 3/15/2014
3/2/2014 - 3/8/2014
2/23/2014 - 3/1/2014
2/16/2014 - 2/22/2014
2/9/2014 - 2/15/2014
2/2/2014 - 2/8/2014
1/26/2014 - 2/1/2014
1/19/2014 - 1/25/2014
1/12/2014 - 1/18/2014
1/5/2014 - 1/11/2014
12/29/2013 - 1/4/2014
12/22/2013 - 12/28/2013
12/15/2013 - 12/21/2013
12/8/2013 - 12/14/2013
12/1/2013 - 12/7/2013
11/24/2013 - 11/30/2013
11/17/2013 - 11/23/2013
11/10/2013 - 11/16/2013
11/3/2013 - 11/9/2013
10/27/2013 - 11/2/2013
10/20/2013 - 10/26/2013
10/13/2013 - 10/19/2013
10/6/2013 - 10/12/2013
9/29/2013 - 10/5/2013
9/22/2013 - 9/28/2013
9/15/2013 - 9/21/2013
9/8/2013 - 9/14/2013
9/1/2013 - 9/7/2013
8/25/2013 - 8/31/2013
8/18/2013 - 8/24/2013
8/11/2013 - 8/17/2013
8/4/2013 - 8/10/2013
7/28/2013 - 8/3/2013
7/21/2013 - 7/27/2013
7/14/2013 - 7/20/2013
7/7/2013 - 7/13/2013
6/30/2013 - 7/6/2013
6/23/2013 - 6/29/2013
6/16/2013 - 6/22/2013
6/9/2013 - 6/15/2013
6/2/2013 - 6/8/2013
5/26/2013 - 6/1/2013
5/19/2013 - 5/25/2013
5/12/2013 - 5/18/2013
5/5/2013 - 5/11/2013
4/28/2013 - 5/4/2013
4/21/2013 - 4/27/2013
4/14/2013 - 4/20/2013
4/7/2013 - 4/13/2013
3/31/2013 - 4/6/2013
3/24/2013 - 3/30/2013
3/17/2013 - 3/23/2013
3/10/2013 - 3/16/2013
3/3/2013 - 3/9/2013
2/24/2013 - 3/2/2013
2/17/2013 - 2/23/2013
2/10/2013 - 2/16/2013
2/3/2013 - 2/9/2013
1/27/2013 - 2/2/2013
1/20/2013 - 1/26/2013
1/13/2013 - 1/19/2013
1/6/2013 - 1/12/2013
12/30/2012 - 1/5/2013
12/23/2012 - 12/29/2012
12/16/2012 - 12/22/2012
12/9/2012 - 12/15/2012
12/2/2012 - 12/8/2012
11/25/2012 - 12/1/2012
11/18/2012 - 11/24/2012
11/11/2012 - 11/17/2012
11/4/2012 - 11/10/2012
10/28/2012 - 11/3/2012
10/21/2012 - 10/27/2012
10/14/2012 - 10/20/2012
10/7/2012 - 10/13/2012
9/30/2012 - 10/6/2012
9/23/2012 - 9/29/2012
9/16/2012 - 9/22/2012
9/9/2012 - 9/15/2012
9/2/2012 - 9/8/2012
8/26/2012 - 9/1/2012
8/19/2012 - 8/25/2012
8/12/2012 - 8/18/2012
8/5/2012 - 8/11/2012
7/29/2012 - 8/4/2012
7/22/2012 - 7/28/2012
7/15/2012 - 7/21/2012
7/8/2012 - 7/14/2012
7/1/2012 - 7/7/2012
6/24/2012 - 6/30/2012
6/17/2012 - 6/23/2012
6/10/2012 - 6/16/2012
6/3/2012 - 6/9/2012
5/27/2012 - 6/2/2012
5/20/2012 - 5/26/2012
5/13/2012 - 5/19/2012
5/6/2012 - 5/12/2012
4/29/2012 - 5/5/2012
4/22/2012 - 4/28/2012
4/15/2012 - 4/21/2012
4/8/2012 - 4/14/2012
4/1/2012 - 4/7/2012
3/25/2012 - 3/31/2012
3/18/2012 - 3/24/2012
3/11/2012 - 3/17/2012
3/4/2012 - 3/10/2012
2/26/2012 - 3/3/2012
2/19/2012 - 2/25/2012
2/12/2012 - 2/18/2012
2/5/2012 - 2/11/2012
1/29/2012 - 2/4/2012
1/22/2012 - 1/28/2012
1/15/2012 - 1/21/2012
1/8/2012 - 1/14/2012
1/1/2012 - 1/7/2012
12/25/2011 - 12/31/2011
12/18/2011 - 12/24/2011
12/11/2011 - 12/17/2011
12/4/2011 - 12/10/2011
11/27/2011 - 12/3/2011
11/20/2011 - 11/26/2011
11/13/2011 - 11/19/2011
11/6/2011 - 11/12/2011
10/30/2011 - 11/5/2011
10/23/2011 - 10/29/2011
10/16/2011 - 10/22/2011
10/9/2011 - 10/15/2011
10/2/2011 - 10/8/2011
9/25/2011 - 10/1/2011
9/18/2011 - 9/24/2011
9/11/2011 - 9/17/2011
9/4/2011 - 9/10/2011
8/28/2011 - 9/3/2011
8/21/2011 - 8/27/2011
8/14/2011 - 8/20/2011
8/7/2011 - 8/13/2011
7/31/2011 - 8/6/2011
7/24/2011 - 7/30/2011
7/17/2011 - 7/23/2011
7/10/2011 - 7/16/2011
7/3/2011 - 7/9/2011
6/26/2011 - 7/2/2011
6/19/2011 - 6/25/2011
6/12/2011 - 6/18/2011
6/5/2011 - 6/11/2011
5/29/2011 - 6/4/2011
5/22/2011 - 5/28/2011
5/15/2011 - 5/21/2011
5/8/2011 - 5/14/2011
5/1/2011 - 5/7/2011
4/24/2011 - 4/30/2011
4/17/2011 - 4/23/2011
4/10/2011 - 4/16/2011
4/3/2011 - 4/9/2011
3/27/2011 - 4/2/2011
3/20/2011 - 3/26/2011
3/13/2011 - 3/19/2011
3/6/2011 - 3/12/2011
2/27/2011 - 3/5/2011
2/20/2011 - 2/26/2011
2/13/2011 - 2/19/2011
2/6/2011 - 2/12/2011
1/30/2011 - 2/5/2011
1/23/2011 - 1/29/2011
1/16/2011 - 1/22/2011
1/9/2011 - 1/15/2011
1/2/2011 - 1/8/2011
12/26/2010 - 1/1/2011
12/19/2010 - 12/25/2010
12/12/2010 - 12/18/2010
12/5/2010 - 12/11/2010
11/28/2010 - 12/4/2010
11/21/2010 - 11/27/2010
11/14/2010 - 11/20/2010
11/7/2010 - 11/13/2010
10/31/2010 - 11/6/2010
10/24/2010 - 10/30/2010
10/17/2010 - 10/23/2010
10/10/2010 - 10/16/2010
10/3/2010 - 10/9/2010
9/26/2010 - 10/2/2010
9/19/2010 - 9/25/2010
9/12/2010 - 9/18/2010
9/5/2010 - 9/11/2010
8/29/2010 - 9/4/2010
8/22/2010 - 8/28/2010
8/15/2010 - 8/21/2010
8/8/2010 - 8/14/2010
8/1/2010 - 8/7/2010
7/25/2010 - 7/31/2010
7/18/2010 - 7/24/2010
7/11/2010 - 7/17/2010
7/4/2010 - 7/10/2010
6/27/2010 - 7/3/2010
6/20/2010 - 6/26/2010
6/13/2010 - 6/19/2010
6/6/2010 - 6/12/2010
5/30/2010 - 6/5/2010
5/23/2010 - 5/29/2010
5/16/2010 - 5/22/2010
5/9/2010 - 5/15/2010
5/2/2010 - 5/8/2010
4/25/2010 - 5/1/2010
4/18/2010 - 4/24/2010
4/11/2010 - 4/17/2010
4/4/2010 - 4/10/2010
3/28/2010 - 4/3/2010
3/21/2010 - 3/27/2010
3/14/2010 - 3/20/2010
3/7/2010 - 3/13/2010
2/28/2010 - 3/6/2010
2/21/2010 - 2/27/2010
2/14/2010 - 2/20/2010
2/7/2010 - 2/13/2010
1/31/2010 - 2/6/2010
1/24/2010 - 1/30/2010
1/17/2010 - 1/23/2010
1/10/2010 - 1/16/2010
1/3/2010 - 1/9/2010
12/27/2009 - 1/2/2010
12/20/2009 - 12/26/2009
12/13/2009 - 12/19/2009
12/6/2009 - 12/12/2009
11/29/2009 - 12/5/2009
11/22/2009 - 11/28/2009
11/15/2009 - 11/21/2009
11/8/2009 - 11/14/2009
11/1/2009 - 11/7/2009
10/25/2009 - 10/31/2009
10/18/2009 - 10/24/2009
10/11/2009 - 10/17/2009
10/4/2009 - 10/10/2009
9/27/2009 - 10/3/2009
9/20/2009 - 9/26/2009
9/13/2009 - 9/19/2009
9/6/2009 - 9/12/2009
8/30/2009 - 9/5/2009
8/23/2009 - 8/29/2009
8/16/2009 - 8/22/2009
8/9/2009 - 8/15/2009
8/2/2009 - 8/8/2009
7/26/2009 - 8/1/2009
7/19/2009 - 7/25/2009
7/12/2009 - 7/18/2009
7/5/2009 - 7/11/2009
6/28/2009 - 7/4/2009
6/21/2009 - 6/27/2009
6/14/2009 - 6/20/2009
6/7/2009 - 6/13/2009
5/31/2009 - 6/6/2009
5/24/2009 - 5/30/2009
5/17/2009 - 5/23/2009
5/10/2009 - 5/16/2009
5/3/2009 - 5/9/2009
4/26/2009 - 5/2/2009
4/19/2009 - 4/25/2009
4/12/2009 - 4/18/2009
4/5/2009 - 4/11/2009
3/29/2009 - 4/4/2009
3/22/2009 - 3/28/2009
3/15/2009 - 3/21/2009
3/8/2009 - 3/14/2009
3/1/2009 - 3/7/2009
2/22/2009 - 2/28/2009
2/15/2009 - 2/21/2009
2/8/2009 - 2/14/2009
2/1/2009 - 2/7/2009
1/25/2009 - 1/31/2009
1/18/2009 - 1/24/2009
1/11/2009 - 1/17/2009
1/4/2009 - 1/10/2009
12/28/2008 - 1/3/2009
12/21/2008 - 12/27/2008
12/14/2008 - 12/20/2008
12/7/2008 - 12/13/2008
11/30/2008 - 12/6/2008
11/23/2008 - 11/29/2008
11/16/2008 - 11/22/2008
11/9/2008 - 11/15/2008
11/2/2008 - 11/8/2008
10/26/2008 - 11/1/2008
10/19/2008 - 10/25/2008
10/12/2008 - 10/18/2008
10/5/2008 - 10/11/2008
9/28/2008 - 10/4/2008
9/21/2008 - 9/27/2008
9/14/2008 - 9/20/2008
9/7/2008 - 9/13/2008
8/31/2008 - 9/6/2008
8/24/2008 - 8/30/2008
8/17/2008 - 8/23/2008
8/10/2008 - 8/16/2008
8/3/2008 - 8/9/2008
7/27/2008 - 8/2/2008
7/20/2008 - 7/26/2008
7/13/2008 - 7/19/2008
7/6/2008 - 7/12/2008
6/29/2008 - 7/5/2008
6/22/2008 - 6/28/2008
6/15/2008 - 6/21/2008
6/8/2008 - 6/14/2008
6/1/2008 - 6/7/2008
5/25/2008 - 5/31/2008
5/18/2008 - 5/24/2008
5/11/2008 - 5/17/2008
5/4/2008 - 5/10/2008
4/27/2008 - 5/3/2008
4/20/2008 - 4/26/2008
4/13/2008 - 4/19/2008
4/6/2008 - 4/12/2008
3/30/2008 - 4/5/2008
3/23/2008 - 3/29/2008
3/16/2008 - 3/22/2008
3/9/2008 - 3/15/2008
3/2/2008 - 3/8/2008
2/24/2008 - 3/1/2008
2/17/2008 - 2/23/2008
2/10/2008 - 2/16/2008
2/3/2008 - 2/9/2008
1/27/2008 - 2/2/2008
1/20/2008 - 1/26/2008
1/13/2008 - 1/19/2008
1/6/2008 - 1/12/2008
12/30/2007 - 1/5/2008
12/23/2007 - 12/29/2007
12/16/2007 - 12/22/2007
12/9/2007 - 12/15/2007
12/2/2007 - 12/8/2007
11/25/2007 - 12/1/2007
11/18/2007 - 11/24/2007
11/11/2007 - 11/17/2007
11/4/2007 - 11/10/2007
10/28/2007 - 11/3/2007
10/21/2007 - 10/27/2007
10/14/2007 - 10/20/2007
10/7/2007 - 10/13/2007
9/30/2007 - 10/6/2007
9/23/2007 - 9/29/2007
9/16/2007 - 9/22/2007
9/9/2007 - 9/15/2007
9/2/2007 - 9/8/2007
8/26/2007 - 9/1/2007
8/19/2007 - 8/25/2007
8/12/2007 - 8/18/2007
8/5/2007 - 8/11/2007
7/29/2007 - 8/4/2007
7/22/2007 - 7/28/2007
7/15/2007 - 7/21/2007
7/8/2007 - 7/14/2007
7/1/2007 - 7/7/2007
6/24/2007 - 6/30/2007
6/17/2007 - 6/23/2007
6/10/2007 - 6/16/2007
6/3/2007 - 6/9/2007
5/27/2007 - 6/2/2007
5/20/2007 - 5/26/2007
5/13/2007 - 5/19/2007
5/6/2007 - 5/12/2007
4/29/2007 - 5/5/2007
4/22/2007 - 4/28/2007
4/15/2007 - 4/21/2007
4/8/2007 - 4/14/2007
4/1/2007 - 4/7/2007
3/25/2007 - 3/31/2007
3/18/2007 - 3/24/2007
3/11/2007 - 3/17/2007
3/4/2007 - 3/10/2007
2/25/2007 - 3/3/2007
2/18/2007 - 2/24/2007
2/11/2007 - 2/17/2007
2/4/2007 - 2/10/2007
1/28/2007 - 2/3/2007
1/21/2007 - 1/27/2007
1/14/2007 - 1/20/2007
1/7/2007 - 1/13/2007
12/31/2006 - 1/6/2007
12/24/2006 - 12/30/2006
12/17/2006 - 12/23/2006
12/10/2006 - 12/16/2006
12/3/2006 - 12/9/2006
11/26/2006 - 12/2/2006
11/19/2006 - 11/25/2006
11/12/2006 - 11/18/2006
11/5/2006 - 11/11/2006
10/29/2006 - 11/4/2006
10/22/2006 - 10/28/2006
10/15/2006 - 10/21/2006
10/8/2006 - 10/14/2006
10/1/2006 - 10/7/2006
9/24/2006 - 9/30/2006
9/17/2006 - 9/23/2006
9/10/2006 - 9/16/2006
9/3/2006 - 9/9/2006
8/27/2006 - 9/2/2006
8/20/2006 - 8/26/2006
8/13/2006 - 8/19/2006
8/6/2006 - 8/12/2006
7/30/2006 - 8/5/2006
7/23/2006 - 7/29/2006
7/16/2006 - 7/22/2006
7/9/2006 - 7/15/2006
7/2/2006 - 7/8/2006
6/25/2006 - 7/1/2006
6/18/2006 - 6/24/2006
6/11/2006 - 6/17/2006
6/4/2006 - 6/10/2006
5/28/2006 - 6/3/2006
5/21/2006 - 5/27/2006
5/14/2006 - 5/20/2006
5/7/2006 - 5/13/2006
4/30/2006 - 5/6/2006
4/23/2006 - 4/29/2006
4/16/2006 - 4/22/2006
4/9/2006 - 4/15/2006
4/2/2006 - 4/8/2006
3/26/2006 - 4/1/2006
3/19/2006 - 3/25/2006
3/12/2006 - 3/18/2006
3/5/2006 - 3/11/2006
2/26/2006 - 3/4/2006
2/19/2006 - 2/25/2006
2/12/2006 - 2/18/2006
2/5/2006 - 2/11/2006
1/29/2006 - 2/4/2006
1/22/2006 - 1/28/2006
1/15/2006 - 1/21/2006
1/8/2006 - 1/14/2006
1/1/2006 - 1/7/2006