rockaction

If Plaxico Burress Doesn't Shoot Himself, Are The Giants A Dynasty?

50 posts in this topic

Remember when the Giants won in '07-'08 and were marching for the title in '09 when Plaxico shot himself? Would the Giants of '08,'09, and '11 have been a dynasty?  

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in this world. He was a good player, he wasn’t THAT good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giants were steamrolling teams that season.  I believe they would have won back to back.  

After that who knows, they probably don't draft Hakeem Nicks in 2009.  Nicks put up the 2nd most receiving yards, ever, in a single playoff season in 2011 with 444.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kodycutter said:

Giants were steamrolling teams that season.  I believe they would have won back to back.  

After that who knows, they probably don't draft Hakeem Nicks in 2009.  Nicks put up the 2nd most receiving yards, ever, in a single playoff season in 2011 with 444.  

True about Nicks. They were steamrolling teams that season, though. Then Burress goes down and all they see is stacked boxes. It was weird watching them. I just remember them beating the pants off of the Panthers and thinking "Super Bowl." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

Remember when the Giants won in '07-'08 and were marching for the title in '09 when Plaxico shot himself? Would the Giants of '08,'09, and '11 have been a dynasty?  

To young  to remenber you must be old

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, remember when Hakeem Nicks was a stud for one season?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gopher State said:

To young  to remenber you must be old

:gasps, clutches chest, faints aimlessly away:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dickey moe said:

Ha, remember when Hakeem Nicks was a stud for one season?

Remember the receiver crew from that draft? I thought the big 4 was going to be great. Percy Harvin, Maclin, Nicks, Crabtree. Then you had DHB, Britt, Wallace... Then way back in the 7th, Julian Edelman.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dickey moe said:

Ha, remember when Hakeem Nicks was a stud for one season?

Injuries killed that guys career. He was a talented WR who could have made NY fans happy for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt it, most dynasties have either an all-time great qb, which Eli isn't. Or so much talent on both sides of the ball and a really good quarterback, like the 90's Cowboys or the 70's Steelers. The Giants had neither. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the two SB seasons, Eli did not win a playoff game in any other season. The Giants have been only slightly better than a .500 team with Eli over his career. They got hot in the playoffs twice. But a chance for a dynasty? I don’t see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Other than the two SB seasons, Eli did not win a playoff game in any other season. The Giants have been only slightly better than a .500 team with Eli over his career. They got hot in the playoffs twice. But a chance for a dynasty? I don’t see it. 

Why does Eli matter? I was asking if the Giants were a dynasty if Burress doesn't shoot himself. Three SB titles in four years seems like enough to qualify. Who cares what Eli did?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, msudaisy26 said:

Doubt it, most dynasties have either an all-time great qb, which Eli isn't. Or so much talent on both sides of the ball and a really good quarterback, like the 90's Cowboys or the 70's Steelers. The Giants had neither. 

The Giants had so much talent on the defensive side of the ball it wasn't funny. They shut down historical offensive teams and then beat them again. 

Whupped 'em, you might say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The Giants had so much talent on the defensive side of the ball it wasn't funny. They shut down historical offensive teams and then beat them again. 

Whupped 'em, you might say.  

They had a great line and had a great run in the playoffs. They weren't a dominate defense during the season or in 2011. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Why does Eli matter? I was asking if the Giants were a dynasty if Burress doesn't shoot himself. Three SB titles in four years seems like enough to qualify. Who cares what Eli did?  

Why does Eli matter? He hasn’t been that great of a QB over his career. In one of the other Eli threads I linked an article that showed he actually has been below average or below replacement level over his career. 

So I don’t see the Giants winning another SB in that era even if Burress stayed on the field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Why does Eli matter? He hasn’t been that great of a QB over his career. In one of the other Eli threads I linked an article that showed he actually has been below average or below replacement level over his career. 

So I don’t see the Giants winning another SB in that era even if Burress stayed on the field. 

No, the QB doesn't matter. Eli may have been below average or below replacement. That doesn't impact a team. What I see is a team that could have won in '08, '09, and '11. In football, you'd have to consider that dynastic in the cap era. That's what I'm arguing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, msudaisy26 said:

They had a great line and had a great run in the playoffs. They weren't a dominate defense during the season or in 2011. 

They had two great runs that led to two Super Bowls over the Patriots. That doesn't speak to organizational competence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

They had two great runs that led to two Super Bowls over the Patriots. That doesn't speak to organizational competence? 

I forgot the s on runs. I was talking about both years, but I can't possibly believe that a dynasty was derailed by a slightly above average receiver. Plus everything else factored in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put: If the Giants win in '09, are they dynastic? What are the requirements for a dynasty? 

And they would have won with Burress. They were a juggernaut the first eleven or twelve games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

No, the QB doesn't matter. Eli may have been below average or below replacement. That doesn't impact a team. What I see is a team that could have won in '08, '09, and '11. In football, you'd have to consider that dynastic in the cap era. That's what I'm arguing.  

The hawks won back to back. Are they a dynasty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, msudaisy26 said:

I forgot the s on runs. I was talking about both years, but I can't possibly believe that a dynasty was derailed by a slightly above average receiver. Plus everything else factored in. 

I see what you're saying, but the fundamental gameplay of Kevin Gilbride was altered by Burress's absence. Teams stacked eight in the box immediately after he shot himself. It was apparent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Simply put: If the Giants win in '09, are they dynastic? What are the requirements for a dynasty? 

And they would have won with Burress. They were a juggernaut the first eleven or twelve games.  

If they won in 09 yes, but everything changes then, I don't think we see the same team in 11. Any team that wins 3 out of 4 should be considered a dynasty. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, voiceofunreason said:

The hawks won back to back. Are they a dynasty?

Blackhawks?  Or Seahawks? Not being nitpicky, just curious. I think the Seahawks lost in the SB. They're probably pretty close if they win and then win again two years later, if that's what you're asking.  

I'd say the Blackhawks are dynastic, if not a dynasty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, msudaisy26 said:

If they won in 09 yes, but everything changes then, I don't think we see the same team in 11. Any team that wins 3 out of 4 should be considered a dynasty. 

True. I was just spitballing. Slow day here. Not trying to argue for dynastic consideration, I'm just wondering. 

And as pointed out upthread and by you, the '11 team looks much different without Burress's problems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread sums up the Shark Pool IMO. :bye:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockaction has to start 14 threads a day, so let's forgive him please.  :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FishTacoTuesday said:

Rockaction has to start 14 threads a day, so let's forgive him please.  :thumbup:

Oh, Dr. D., I forgive you, too. Tuck that jersey in! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Can't believe this is actually being discussed.

Why not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Burress doesn't shoot himself, they probably/likely win the SB that year. They were far and away the best team in the league before the shooting. Does that make a dynasty? Dunno, but success can often breed success.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird. It seems like people -- not necessarily Giants fans -- that remember that team, remember how good they were before they lost Burress. While I lived in New Haven at the time and was obviously influenced by its culture, that team was the best I'd seen since the '07 Pats.  You could have had two historic dynasties operating at the same time if the number one doesn't go down for the Giants.  

Coughlin and Belichick. 

Manning and Brady. 

Strahan and Tuck and everyone else. 

And people that think this isn't thread worthy have no business on a football website. Not just saying, declaring. Plaxico's incident changed the whole complexion of the '08-'09 season, hands down.

Also, anyone remembering that route he ran on Ellis Hobbs in the '08 SB knows he was better than above average. On the right day, he was dynamic.(I edited and separated this out to make sure that msu and Anarchy don't think I'm singling them out for the above comment. I appreciate all comments other than "what, you're stupid.")  

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO

 

EOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, -OZ- said:

Remember the receiver crew from that draft? I thought the big 4 was going to be great. Percy Harvin, Maclin, Nicks, Crabtree. Then you had DHB, Britt, Wallace... Then way back in the 7th, Julian Edelman.

And forever to history was bostonfred's avatar changed.  

But seriously, yeah, that was a potentially great WR beset by injuries and weirdness. Crabtree was legendary in school at Tech under Leach. I can still remember some of his catches, actually. The phenomenal one at the end of the game at about the three was just breathtaking.  

Crabtree has proven to be good, as was Maclin before his walking papers came from Philly and he suffered under A. Reid and Alex Smith.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, renesauz said:

NO

 

EOT

Y?

Back to thread.  

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.