randoff

If we are going back a legitimate 10 years.......

 

Since no NFC East team can come close to that (the eagles had 4 losing seasons in that time, although their overall win/loss record might be better), I think some respect is due. That team worked hard and earned the hardware. The Giants? Five playoff appearances, a superbowl loss, five games over .500. Meh.

The Dallas Badeggs? 73-87, 4 playoff appearances (all one and done). Heh.

Just to cheer everyone up, did the Redskins as well: 73-86-1, 2 playoff appearances (2-2). Oops, maybe not so funny for you, Eggy.

Egg will find a 'childish' way to flip this into his 'favor'. Egg will probably say "You guys accept mediocricy" or "must be great rooting for a loser" But in reality his Cowboys are in worse shape than the Giants. That is if we are throwing out Superbowl wins. "Let's hang a banner on Giants Stadium that says we are the 3rd best team this decade in the NFC East".....isn't that crazy?

Doff said

Question? Does the Dog feel that the Cowboys are a 'successful' franchise lately?

Itailian Dog said

Not as of late...the Dog would argue that they lack consistency and have not accumulated an adequate winning percentage.

Egg? Egg? That's comin' from ya boy! Err the guy who has no NFL team. He isn't partial to the Giants like I am and even HE can see that lately your Cowboys aint that good.

Go beyond Super Bowl wins to catagorize success...consistent playoff appearances, high winning percentages - those are successful teams... As for the eagles, next to the patriots, during this decade (again, meaning since 2000), they have been to a super bowl, 4 championship games, a number of division titles, and have one of the best winning percentages...that is a succesful franchise- have there seasons ended in utter disappointment? yes. did there seasons come to a crashing halt? yes. Is that true of the giants? pretty much...

Question? Does the Dog feel that the Cowboys are a 'successful' franchise lately? That's if we are talking 'throwing out the 3 Superbowls' and talking recent success. Hmmmm?

Sorry but that is such donkey dust. Ali though a great one was beaten by Ken Norton, Larry Holmes (Knocked him out) Leon Spinks & Trevor Berbick - Joe Frazier was a great one. But Spinks and Berbick?

 

Alli was 56-5-0 with 37 KOs

 

Rocky Marciano who gets my vote was 49-0 with 43 KOs.

"Everytime they talk about boxing whites wanna pull Rocky Marciano out they ass...."

"...but he did whoop Joe Louis' ass!"

"Shit Joe Louis was 83 when he fought Rocky!"

...make it 16. I am really concerned about guys like Egg teasing our team. But it beats having a Stripper club addicted DB, a gun toting-drunk driving DL, or a Dog fighting-dog abusing QB, or a suicidal WR.....

....give me 'normal' worries like the Giants have that can be corrected on field over all of the distractions the other teams have off field. Smell me?

But if I was to pick the 1st concern, it'll be the secondary. Second would be our LB play (last yr was ugly).

WELCOME TO THE MEADOWLANDS MEDIOCRELANDS. THE HOME OF THE JETS AND THE TEAM TIED FOR NINTH IN THIS DECADE FOR WINNING PERCENTAGE. WE HAVE NO CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 1991 BUT WE ARE TIED FOR NINTH AND SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL THIS DECADE.

Question: (You know me with my 'questions')?

If you are a Dallas fan and rooted for them since 1994, are you happy with the last decade?

(I can admit that the Cowboys have been 'somewhat successful' as far as regular seasons goes....but again are you happy with that?)

Oh, Boy. This is too much. You kill me. I can see the sign on the side of Giants stadium now: Welcome to Giants stadium. Home to the team tied for the ninth winning percentage of the decade!

 

You guys should really get t-shirts printed up for the home games reading "tied for 9th, only 12 teams higher!" Make it a real marketing campaign!

 

It'll be cute, because I doubt anyone has ever heard fans bragging about a football team, at any level, being tied for 9th in anything...

Can you say LOW EXPECTATIONS?

 

Tied for 9th? God, I love this place!

 

Keep it coming...

Egg, let's not forget it's YOU that keeps talking that "cowboys" are better head to head and better overall sillyness. Now the man proves you wrong and all you come up with now is a silly Giants Staduim sign retort?

I'm gonna imagine that I am a child looking for a team to like (say I am 10) and I like winners. The choices come down to the Giants and the Cowboys. Since I like winners (as a kid) and I want to root for a winner, I would have a slight 'lean' towards the Giants. And since I'm a kid that's never seen the Cowboys win a playoff game AND I've heard and SEEN the Giants win a few. Let's throw in a Superbowl appearance in my lifetime...as a 10 yr old I was 3 when the Giants got smoked in the Superbowl. Anyway, the 'kid' should roll with the Giants given all of the facts.

It'll be cute, because I doubt anyone has ever heard fans bragging about a football team, at any level, being tied for 9th in anything

...but you 'brag' about your Cowboys winning 3 Superbowls and then never sniffing a playoff win in ages. What's the diff?

Egg, you tend to leave yourself open for a lot of controversy. Again, you are all over the board...trying to 'bash' the Giants. Get real, get a grip, and realize hat just because your Cowboys won 3 Superbowls in a row doesn't make your team so superior over the 'Low Expectation' Giants. Like I've mentioned before, I could see you tryin' to compare the Patriots or the Eagles to the Giants but the Cowboys? Your team isn't that good, for real.

Nah this is easy kiddo. Now cowturd fans you guys have it rough. I mean look at you, you've resorted to the role of anti-cheerleader for the Giants, instead of cheering for your own team. But you have my sympathies, as you really don't have anything to cheer about as of late.

 

Would you say the team that's tied for 9th highest winning percentage in this decade is somewhat successful?

I would. Only 12 teams have higher winning percentages.

 

Your team on the other hand barely edged out Oakland and San Francisco by .9%. 22 teams have done better thus far in the decade, and only 8 teams have done worse. It's really no wonder that you've given up on your team and ended up here.

 

But look on the bright side kiddo, if your team wins its next 19 regular season games without a loss, you'll just barely be beating the Giants in winning percentage. I know, I know. Winning percentage has NOTHING to do with success, right.

Ouch!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It must be tough to be a Giants fan. I really give those of you who stick it out year after year credit though...

 

I think the next time the Giants get embarrassed at home in the first round of the playoffs, NY and NJ should throw a parade with lots of streamers. It's unfair to loyal G-Men fans that all of these recent "successes" are not being recognized and celebrated...

And I can go around in circles like you do....and say "It really must be hard lately rooting for Americas team year after year" No playoff wins, QB changes, retired coaches, T.O., Romo botched snap....getting bounced out of the first round. And before you say it Egg....you know the "Oh your Giants were embarassed by Carolina" what was YOUR Cowboys doing? And to bring up old shit....YOUR Cowboys botched a sure win vs. Seattle. But oh my, you was O so close to witnessing your FIRST ever playoff win. Must be real hard.

And what would YOU expect Giants fans to do? What..."we lost a playoff game one year, so let's abandon this team and become Cowboy fans". Then we'd be like Italian HotDog.....a frontrunner.

if you want to talk about real success (winning championships) the Cowboys have done all of that more recently.

HUH??? Please (anybody) tell me what have the Cowboys won that's recent? Since Egg 'hates' when people bring up the 11 year Cowboy drought.

Nearly every thread I have started has focused on the Giants and what people are saying about the Giants THIS YEAR. And it isn't pretty.

Again I am curious into what 'magic' or credability so called experts have over a season that hasn't even started yet. And those same 'geniouses' had Philadelphia winning the NFC East last yr and representing the NFC in a Superbowl...but we all know that didn't happen. Egg, tell you what...I've got a piece of land in Arizona with Oceanfront property. The 'experts' say it's a prime spot and will be worth millions in 2008.

If you look through my posts, I don't typically start discussions talking about the past

So let's talk about last year then (the past too I do believe)...Giants 8-8, Dallas 9-7....head to head...a split. Both bounced in the first round of the playoffs. Wooo what a HELL of a difference! One game. Wow! I feel so bad for the Giants. Not even competitive huh?

The fact that you haven't won a playoff in 10 years, division title in 9 years, and are well below .500 in this decade are all valid arguments when discussing recent successes of both football teams. That would equal to comparing franchises, what else is there to compare? You aint did shit lately and that's the truth. When will you get it Egg? And the stuff you tried to prove about "well I'd rather have won 3 Superbowls and not have won a playoff game in 11 years....than be a sad Giants ffan" is the MOST ridiculous shit I've ever heard. I know my Giants aren't much better off BUT I would not be happy with a 11 year drought. I'm not real thrilled about the Giants last 6 years either but I know you cannot be happy with your team (since you've started rooting for them in 1994) either.

Now you just being silly. There is no better way to compare two franchises than by simply going by head to head competition. You don't want to go there so you pick a decade. A decade when your team is barely 500, has a losing record in the playoffs, and no championships. Now you are just being silly.

 

Are you having a bad day? You are normally better than this.

I've got a question? Are the Cowboys STILL 'America's Team'? Because IMO the 'haven't did shit lately' team should be their label. Oh yes, we ALL know that the Giants have never been 'America's Team' and he Giants haven't won 3 Superbowls in a row (I beat you to it Egg)...but why is the Cowboys labeled 'America's Team'? Sooner or later the Cowboys might not be Texas best team....and if the Oilers wouldn't have moved....who knows? My opinion of course.

P.S. My guess is that he 'picked a decade' choice, is probably because it's when YOU became a Cowboys fan...would it be fair to compare the years that you wasn't even born (ex. anything before 1994?)

You don't need a calculator Eggy, you need a CALENDAR. It's not the NINETIES anymore kiddo. If you want to compare success let's keep it in this decade with the rest of the world. We're 58-54 in regular season, 2-4 in the postseason, 2 division titles, and one NFC championship.

 

Your wonderful team is 49-63, 0-2 in the postseason, and no titles.

 

Wave off success. That's why you're here criticizing the Giants instead of on the Cowturd board praising your own team.

 

I've been sayin' (and posting) these types of facts for Egg for the longest,,,,and the funny thing is...Egg will never get it!

What happens every year? There is a football season? It rains? I mean, what the hell are you talking about? Because if your talking about the Giants season coming to a crash, sorry bro, doesnt happen EVERY year. Unless of course, your a young lad whose football life is of the last decade and you started your football life right about the time the Cowgirls were resembling a dynasty.

 

And we still kicked your ass a few times during that span.

Welcome back Blue-zy!!!! Anyway, speaking of 'crashing every year'. Let's compare the 'crash'. Egg became a fan (I assume) like in 1994 of those Cowboys. Since they haven't won a playoff since the 'dynasty' period (I was personally a fan of DALLAS "Who shot J.R." made for great t.v.)....anyway, the Cowboys have gone thru a downsizing according to Egg. Translation: a DROUGHT!

Giants on the other hand won a few playoff games since 1994-1995, made it to a Superbowl and was the first team since the 'Dallas Dynasty' to run the table in the NFC East. But I guess the Cowboys were 'downsizing' since then.

Strahan lost touch with reality a long time ago. He's such a good player that you just wish he'd stop thinking and talking.

It's all Strahan bull so HE too can 'slide' his ass into broadcasting. Entertainment factor. A la Terry 'the goof' Bradshaw...

You don't get it. I don't come on here pumping the Cowboys. I certainly expected a downswing after winning 3 in 4 years. I focus on the Giants.

.......But I have more class than that. I am all about class...

Cool! But you do a 'great' job downing the Giants.

And class? Yes, u got class. You're like school on saturday....no class.

(Expected a downsizing? O man! Very funny. Here's a typical Dallas fan convo with his buddies: "Hey guys I know my Cowboys won 3 Superbowls in a row about 12 years ago, but I didn't expect them to win shit else since..." Not a good look for your fans)

Gary Busey can play anything, do anything, teach anything.

 

 

OBEY HIM!

That's a "young" Tom C!!!! Put him on the board, Championship!!!

Gary Bussey could play the assistant coach Tom Coughlin. The 'King of Queens' guy could play Bill Belichek

Every position needs pressure and right now Eli has no pressure. Maybe Culpepper isn't Peyton but he can at least give Eli some drive to try that much harder. If he comes with a manageable salary then he is better than the three clearly bench warmers that the Giants have now. This all hypothetical because who really knows how bad his knee is or if he will want much more money than he deserves. But if he can pass a physical and comes at good price than take him and cut those scrub QBs. Maybe it's a gamble but a gamble is better than knowing the backups aren't going to be helping if Eli has to miss some games.

And I tend to agree BUT does anybody really think that Culpepper is a real threat to Eli's 'job'? I would also repeat...or ask again...does Rothlisberger have 'pressure' on him this year from a backup? Does Carson Palmer have 'pressure' on him from his backup? I for one believe the QB position should be as follows: A SOLID #1 QB (if your team believes in you), and role QB's that KNOW that they are back ups. Culpepper pops off as a 'should be starter' (see Miami when rumors were floating around about Trent Green). Why would you want a Culpepper on the Giants (at ANY price) popping of like he wants to start? That tears down the foundation of the QB situation and splits lockerrooms IMO.

IF he would agree to being a backup and IF he comes for relatively cheap, would you be willing to go after him?

I'd have to say yes. Good insurance should Eli not step it up, and is a much better QB than any of the backups we have on the roster. The knee injury is bad, but has more upside should he make a full recovery.

 

Plus, with no Petitgout or Barber, I have a feeling Eli is gonna take a LOT more hits this year than last.

Nope...I'll pass. I would not want a 'broken' QB on the roster that signs a two year deal that would spend his 1st yr on 'the Physically unable to perform list' and the next year after Culpepper looking for another deal with another team. Back to square one, Wright isn't gonna lite fires under Eli but he (nor any QB) should hafta 'lite fires' under Eli. Who lights a fire under Brett Farve when he struggles? Who lit a fire under Tony Romo when he struggled? Getting a Culpepper would make these guys play better (including Eli?). I dunno??

Boom!

Well lets hope Spag's will have that problem under controll. he should know what to expect from McChoke and Westbrook.

 

he would probley drop it anyway

 

I thought half the front line were changing tires in Stewart's pit last week.... who is this Washington team you speak of? I can't even remember their QB is it Jay Shrader still?

Hehehehehe!

QB Jason Campbell and WR Randel El....TE Cooley...

But why bother when it's easier to find the Eli satire. Every major sports network seems to be slinging the Eli "satire."

 

And I'm not pathetically grasping at "satire" to prove the Eli sucks. I don't know if he completely "sucks" yet. But if I wanted to prove that Eli has accurracy problems, questionable leadership skills, and that giving 3 players to get him was a major reach by the Giants, I would simply look at his performance as a QB. I don't need "satire" for that...

 

...He is either the QB of the future or the product of the worst move in the history of the draft... I can't wait...

The Doff (and others) often wonder why do YOU 'bother' to find all of this 'satire' on Eli? That is the whole point! If it's already out there in abundance, why do YOU feel the need to constantly point it out? The Doff would like to reach into past posts and threads where Doff had theories on Egg being a closet Giants fan. You got to be a fan of the Giants. The Doffster believes your 'Eli satire' equals true worry for the Giants. But wait, once again those Cowboys aren't really 'stable' at QB either....but that's neither here or there.

As for "worse move in the history of the draft".....no REAL football so called pro expert or fan would ever say that about the drafting of Eli. Especially when Ryan Leaf is mentioned, comon' you must have forgot Mr. Leaf. Mr Leaf didn't last 3 years in a Charger uni.

Well, Doff. For the reasons I stated above, I would always take Gates over Shockey. But what you say about TO is true. However, I am optimistic that he will not be disruptive if Romo plays well...

No doubt, Gates over Shockey...based on Gates' seasons in the NFL. But the Doff still wonders WHEN is the Terrell explosion coming?

The answer is simple. Shockey does not work out with the team and has a mouth that runs constantly. Gates does his talking on the field...Also, Gates is not injured every other play...

The Doff is pondering here on a reciever named Terrell. Now correct me if I am wrong....Terrell DOES work out with his team, no? And the Doff assumes it's safe to state that Terrelll has had numerous drops in 2006, no? So according to the 'working out with your team' arguement, shouldn't the fact that Terrell attending workouts with his team eliminate all of the drops he's had? The Doff would like to think that 'working out with the team' = Zero drops (or very few drops). Why is it that Terrell's 2006 drop total higher than Shockey's?

Doff would also like to point out the obvious. Shockey has been on ONE team and there's no true evidence (only opinion) that Shockey has disrupted a lockerroom. Now Terrell on the other hand.....Terrell is the 'mouth' that RUINS teams. That's is a fact.

oh dear...now you just have the Dog feeling guilty...please come back, and continue to engage in discussions here where everyone can share the same opinion, and it is ongoing harmony in, what did you call it earlier, the "Little Giant Land..."? Of course, this approach will digress this board back to what Giants.com became, and then it will be nothing but constant agreeing and back patting, and oh the fun that will be had...

Would it be a correct assumption to say....that it's just "Me and you"? The Doffster would LOVE to continue to discuss Giant football.

The Doff would like to repeat...that Doff will miss Blue v. Dog. Doffy would LOVE to see a freindly debate featuring Dog and Blue (minus the name calling of course).

Eggy, I guess you didn't bother reading number 40, or you just didnt' understand it.

The use of 'absurdly' and 'inane' by the author to describe his own list, shows the author's acknowledgement that the list is 'nonsense'.

Thank God someone else pointed out Egg's flawed post. The Doff grew very weary in doing so.