BRING ON THE MOTHER fargING GIANTS

Started by PoopyfaceMcGee, January 04, 2009, 07:54:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

reese125

Quotethey need to giants to hand them something or do something unusual like a trick play or two or a return td

the only advantage the Giants have in this game is the run game-- thats it. you wont find another apple to apples comparison to say differently. If the Birds stay disciplined and hold their gaps they win. they dont need the Giants to hand them anything.

youre just not as usual giving enough credit to the Eagles defense that was playing well below their caliber of play before 5 of the last 6 games...for christs sake forget the Skins loss IGY because the Eagles obviously have

rjs246

The Giants coach, OL and DL are definitely better than the Eagles'. The Eagles are better everywhere else.

Sadly, the lines and the coach are three of the four most important parts of a football team.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

shorebird

Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2009, 12:07:06 PM
the eagles played one of the worst games ever in a must win situation just three weeks ago...how is that them being hot down the stretch

For real man. It gets to me how people are saying what a roll the Eagles are on now. What, did the taterskin game not happen?? Or maybe everyone is just trying to forget about it.

reese125

Quote from: rjs246 on January 11, 2009, 12:16:51 PM
The Giants coach, OL and DL are definitely better than the Eagles'. The Eagles are better everywhere else.

Sadly, the lines and the coach are three of the four most important parts of a football team.


Ill take a wild stab and say cheerleaders are the 4th most important part?

General_Failure


The man. The myth. The legend.

rjs246

Has anyone mentioned the fact that Akers is abominable at the Meadowlands? Because he is.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

General_Failure

He's the baldest farging yeti I've ever seen.

The man. The myth. The legend.

Magical_Retard

Coughlin> Reid

Its that simple. Where as Coughlin will stick what works for his team and his personnel, Reid will try to force a passing game and neglect the running game.

I get the feeling the offense will be similar to how it came out against the Skins.
Marge: I have someone who can help you!
Homer: Is it BATMAN!!??
Marge: No hes a scientist
Homer: Batman is a scientist.
Marge: Its not BATMAN!

rjs246

I think I've used up all of the reasons I can think of that the Eagles will lose.

Now go farging win you shteinbirds.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

Magical_Retard

Oh and this could be Dawkins last game. I hope he jacks someone up at least.
Marge: I have someone who can help you!
Homer: Is it BATMAN!!??
Marge: No hes a scientist
Homer: Batman is a scientist.
Marge: Its not BATMAN!

Cerevant

                        Reid     Coughlin
W/L                 .610          .553
Playoff W/L      .600         .571
Avg Rank           2.2           2.4
Games > .500    35            22
Playoff app         7              7

Just sayin'...
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

rjs246

Championships:

Reid          Coughlin
0                1
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

SD_Eagle5

I just took my pregame dump and popped open my first beer - Go Birds

Cerevant

#208
Quote from: rjs246 on January 11, 2009, 12:36:48 PM
Championships:

Reid          Coughlin
0                1

BTW, Coughlin won in year 11.

So, according to CF, only 25 out of 442 NFL coaches have ever been "good"

I don't like Reid, but this place is just completely irrational.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.