giants vs skins opening game (1 Viewer)

[bluesclues]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

 

[mad sweeney]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

 

[Lancer4Hire]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

 

[buster c]

when last seen at the Meadowlands, the Skins were killing the vagiants.

expect more of the same

 

[PinkydaPimp]

when last seen at the Meadowlands, the Skins were killing the vagiants.expect more of the same

I was at that game. and i will find a way to get to this one!!

 

[mad sweeney]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article clearly says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. So unless that phrase means something other than what it says, it pretty much tops off the irony of reporting I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. If he meant it the way you've clearly misread it as, he would say the Giants hosted a previous Thursday night opener in 2002 but were not SB champs at the time, or something like that. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that. If only there was a rule about being excellent to each other...

 

[SayWhat?]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. That pretty much tops off the irony I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade reading skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that...

Sweeney, read it again. It's very clear that the tradition of the defending champ opening the season in the Thursday night game dates back to 2004, whereas the Thursday night season openers in general date back to 2002.

 

[mad sweeney]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. That pretty much tops off the irony I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade reading skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that...

Sweeney, read it again. It's very clear that the tradition of the defending champ opening the season in the Thursday night game dates back to 2004, whereas the Thursday night season openers in general date back to 2002.

The Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". I rest my case. If he had not included that part, I would agree with you. But when the reporter added that the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002" it pretty much can't mean what you're saying it means.Anyway, arguing semantics is useless because too many here don't have the background for proper language usage. I was pointing out a reporter's conflicting statement and got some jerk response that was all the more sad because it was wrong.

 

[SayWhat?]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. That pretty much tops off the irony I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade reading skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that...

Sweeney, read it again. It's very clear that the tradition of the defending champ opening the season in the Thursday night game dates back to 2004, whereas the Thursday night season openers in general date back to 2002.

The Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". I rest my case. If he had not included that part, I would agree with you. But when the reporter added that the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002" it pretty much can't mean what you're saying it means.Anyway, arguing semantics is useless because too many here don't have the background for proper language usage. I was pointing out a reporter's conflicting statement and got some jerk response that was all the more sad because it was wrong.

I agree it's not exactly concise. But I bolded what you should be focusing on. "It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002."

Meaning, the Giants hosted the first such game (i.e. "Thursday night opener" from the sentence preceeding the statement) in 2002. The first ever Thursday night opener, in 2002, had nothing to do with a defending champ opening on Thursday nights because that tradition didn't begin until 2004.

 

[mad sweeney]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. That pretty much tops off the irony I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade reading skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that...

Sweeney, read it again. It's very clear that the tradition of the defending champ opening the season in the Thursday night game dates back to 2004, whereas the Thursday night season openers in general date back to 2002.

The Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". I rest my case. If he had not included that part, I would agree with you. But when the reporter added that the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002" it pretty much can't mean what you're saying it means.Anyway, arguing semantics is useless because too many here don't have the background for proper language usage. I was pointing out a reporter's conflicting statement and got some jerk response that was all the more sad because it was wrong.

I agree it's not exactly concise. But I bolded what you should be focusing on. "It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers."

Meaning, the Giants hosted the first such game (i.e. "Thursday night opener" from the sentence preceeding the statement) in 2002. The first ever Thursday night opener, in 2002, had nothing to do with a defending champ opening on Thursday nights because that tradition didn't begin until 2004.

The red part is in the original article. Which is not congruent with the rest of the preceding statement. Which therefore throws into confusion which "such game" he is talking about. In addition to confusing when the Skins and Giants played in an opener, which they didn't.Anyway, my main point was that it's a poorly written article and that there's no need to be an ### when replying.

 

[Knight who says Ni]

Not that I wish to continue the hijack, but like Sweeny I too was a little confused by the wording of the article. Specifying that the opener was on Thursday in the first sentence threw me off (as it relates to the tradition)

Ni

 

[shadyridr]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article clearly says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. So unless that phrase means something other than what it says, it pretty much tops off the irony of reporting I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. If he meant it the way you've clearly misread it as, he would say the Giants hosted a previous Thursday night opener in 2002 but were not SB champs at the time, or something like that. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that. If only there was a rule about being excellent to each other...

Are you serious here? The article clearly states "the tradition of the defending champ opening the season started in 2004". But that the first Thursday night game was in 2002.

 

[Lancer4Hire]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. That pretty much tops off the irony I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade reading skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that...

Sweeney, read it again. It's very clear that the tradition of the defending champ opening the season in the Thursday night game dates back to 2004, whereas the Thursday night season openers in general date back to 2002.

The Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". I rest my case. If he had not included that part, I would agree with you. But when the reporter added that the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002" it pretty much can't mean what you're saying it means.Anyway, arguing semantics is useless because too many here don't have the background for proper language usage. I was pointing out a reporter's conflicting statement and got some jerk response that was all the more sad because it was wrong.

I agree it's not exactly concise. But I bolded what you should be focusing on. "It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers."

Meaning, the Giants hosted the first such game (i.e. "Thursday night opener" from the sentence preceeding the statement) in 2002. The first ever Thursday night opener, in 2002, had nothing to do with a defending champ opening on Thursday nights because that tradition didn't begin until 2004.

The red part is in the original article. Which is not congruent with the rest of the preceding statement. Which therefore throws into confusion which "such game" he is talking about. In addition to confusing when the Skins and Giants played in an opener, which they didn't.Anyway, my main point was that it's a poorly written article and that there's no need to be an ### when replying.

Well, you were so quick to bash the "reporting" being done here, when all it takes is a little bit of reading comprehension to understand what the writer is saying. Wasn't trying to be an ###, just point out that you read the article incorrectly, and clarified your mistake for anyone else who was having problems.

 

[Lancer4Hire]

The Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". I rest my case. If he had not included that part, I would agree with you. But when the reporter added that the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002" it pretty much can't mean what you're saying it means.Anyway, arguing semantics is useless because too many here don't have the background for proper language usage. I was pointing out a reporter's conflicting statement and got some jerk response that was all the more sad because it was wrong.

The author is simply stating that NYG was in the first Thursday opener, there is no conflicting statement. As for the "jerk" response, I was just poking a little fun at your sarcastic response, not trying to wind you up.

 

[dgreen]

Not sure how mad sweeney could be more wrong here.

 

[AB in DC]

Nice reporting.

Anyway, my main point was that it's a poorly written article and that there's no need to be an ### when replying.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Meanwhile.....

They are not the "Giants."

The are the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants

Can I get an AMEN!

 

[Golden Mike Tomczak]

 

[mozzy84]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. That pretty much tops off the irony I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade reading skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that...

Sweeney, read it again. It's very clear that the tradition of the defending champ opening the season in the Thursday night game dates back to 2004, whereas the Thursday night season openers in general date back to 2002.

The Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". I rest my case. If he had not included that part, I would agree with you. But when the reporter added that the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002" it pretty much can't mean what you're saying it means.Anyway, arguing semantics is useless because too many here don't have the background for proper language usage. I was pointing out a reporter's conflicting statement and got some jerk response that was all the more sad because it was wrong.

 

[jurb26]

Hopefully mad sweeney can put his tail between his legs and move on here so we can actually talk about... you know the game.

Should be interesting knowing how last years 2 played out. Is there a spread yet?

 

[wharf rat]

Hopefully mad sweeney can put his tail between his legs and move on here so we can actually talk about... you know the game.Should be interesting knowing how last years 2 played out. Is there a spread yet?

NYG +12

 

[jurb26]

Hopefully mad sweeney can put his tail between his legs and move on here so we can actually talk about... you know the game.Should be interesting knowing how last years 2 played out. Is there a spread yet?

NYG +12

Yikes! Gotta take Wash and the points for sure.

 

[Chachi]

Not very excited for this game. Last years Indy/New Orleans game had me much more interested.

 

[dgreen]

Not very excited for this game. Last years Indy/New Orleans game had me much more interested.

And it turned out to be a dud.

 

[jurb26]

Not very excited for this game. Last years Indy/New Orleans game had me much more interested.

Yeah, that turned out well.....

 

[redman]

Unfortunately, I've got my doubts about my 'Skins this year. I actually have to project them for last in that division at this point given Philly's clear commitment to making one more run with Donovan, the Cowboys losing nobody and likely improving on defense, and the Giants, well, winning the Super Bowl. Tough division.

 

[Team Legacy]

Not sure how mad sweeney could be more wrong here.

can you say... backpedal ???

 

[Marvelous]

Unfortunately, I've got my doubts about my 'Skins this year. I actually have to project them for last in that division at this point given Philly's clear commitment to making one more run with Donovan, the Cowboys losing nobody and likely improving on defense, and the Giants, well, winning the Super Bowl. Tough division.

I agree with this. The NFL is a coaches league, although the Redskins have shown that there are plenty of opportunities for the owner to screw up too.If Jim Zorn needs time to adapt to be a head coach, the Redskins could be in for a long season. If he is in over his head, they could be looking at a 4-12 season. The only scary article I read on Zorn so far is he delagate the Greg Blache the job of delagating the coaches assignments/work. I thought the HC would do that to ensure everything he thought was important would be covered.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Continuing with a tradition that dates all the way back to 2004, the defending Super Bowl champions will host the Thursday night regular-season opener. For the first time, however, the champs will play a division rival.

According to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post, the Redskins will visit the New York Giants to start the season.

The game typically begins at 8:30 p.m. EDT, but likely will be moved to 7:00 p.m. EDT to avoid a conflict with the final night of the Republican National Convention, which will feature the formal nomination acceptance speech from Senator John McCain.

It’s the second time that the ‘Skins and the Giants will be involved in the Thursday night opener. New York hosted the first such game in 2002, against the 49ers. The next year, the Redskins played the Jets.

Nice reporting.

Nice reading comprehension. The tradition of the defending champ opening the season, dates to 2004.

The first Giants game to open the season on a Thursday, was in 2002.

Two different things.

The article says the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". They were not the defending Champions then. That pretty much tops off the irony I was pointing out at no expense to the poster by clearly singling out the reporter who wrote the conflicting statements. Thanks for playing and keep up that reading comprehension (both the shtick as well as 5th grade reading skills). Oh and the jerk mentality, the SP really needs that...

Sweeney, read it again. It's very clear that the tradition of the defending champ opening the season in the Thursday night game dates back to 2004, whereas the Thursday night season openers in general date back to 2002.

The Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002". I rest my case. If he had not included that part, I would agree with you. But when the reporter added that the Giants "hosted the first such game in 2002" it pretty much can't mean what you're saying it means.Anyway, arguing semantics is useless because too many here don't have the background for proper language usage. I was pointing out a reporter's conflicting statement and got some jerk response that was all the more sad because it was wrong.

Not to mention tradition being ALL THE WAY from 2004

 

[southeastjerome]

Unfortunately, I've got my doubts about my 'Skins this year. I actually have to project them for last in that division at this point given Philly's clear commitment to making one more run with Donovan, the Cowboys losing nobody and likely improving on defense, and the Giants, well, winning the Super Bowl. Tough division.

I'm surprised by your negativity. I'm not saying the 'Skins will win it all, but did anyone really think the Giants would win it all this time last year? The Giants helped themselves out in the draft, filled in the pieces and made up what would eventually be the super bowl champs. A lot has to go right for that to happen in Washington, but if the oline stays healthy, and they get an impact player or two out of the draft, I see no reason why they cannot be a playoff team again next year. That said, I agree with you that the overall division is extremely tough. The Eagles seem convinced to be contenders again, dallas is scary and obviously the Giants are the defending champs.

 

[pillowpants]

Meanwhile.....

They are not the "Giants."

The are the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants

Can I get an AMEN!

A-MEN!!!!I really can't wait until this game so the Giants can avenge that late season loss too!

 

[redman]

Unfortunately, I've got my doubts about my 'Skins this year. I actually have to project them for last in that division at this point given Philly's clear commitment to making one more run with Donovan, the Cowboys losing nobody and likely improving on defense, and the Giants, well, winning the Super Bowl. Tough division.

I'm surprised by your negativity. I'm not saying the 'Skins will win it all, but did anyone really think the Giants would win it all this time last year? The Giants helped themselves out in the draft, filled in the pieces and made up what would eventually be the super bowl champs. A lot has to go right for that to happen in Washington, but if the oline stays healthy, and they get an impact player or two out of the draft, I see no reason why they cannot be a playoff team again next year. That said, I agree with you that the overall division is extremely tough. The Eagles seem convinced to be contenders again, dallas is scary and obviously the Giants are the defending champs.

Don't get me wrong - I think last in that division is no worse than 6-10, and is likely better. I'm not predicting a disaster, just growing pains from a largely new coaching staff with a new system on offense.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Meanwhile.....

They are not the "Giants."

The are the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants

Can I get an AMEN!

A-MEN!!!!I really can't wait until this game so the Giants can avenge that late season loss too!

I think you mean G-MEN

 

[Ghost Rider]

So, discussion over the opening game next season has turned into an argument over semantics? Marvelous!