Patrick vs. Eli

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:34 pm

check out the henson highlights tonite. :lol:

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:37 pm

First real action in the NFL was a ground ball :lol:

1-10-DAL22 (10:35) D.Henson sacked at DAL 14 for -8 yards (M.Douglas). FUMBLES (M.Douglas), RECOVERED by BLT-T.Suggs at DAL 1. T.Suggs to DAL 1 for no gain (D.Nguyen).

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:45 pm

aside from that play, he seems to be pretty accurate.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:49 pm

He is moving the chains and 4 for 4

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:32 pm

I guess I was wrong. Scratch it. I think I want to see him start on Thursday :shock:

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:52 pm

Primetime42 wrote:I guess I was wrong. Scratch it. I think I want to see him start on Thursday

Starting is better than trying to play catch up

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:46 pm

I think the Giants have seriously dashed their playoff hopes by strating Eli. How unfortunate. They looked like they could have an impressive run. Kurt was due to break out of his slump. I guess t. Coughlin DOESN'T know everything.

Patrick just goes to show that a change at one position is NOT what would solve the team's woes.

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:53 pm

Here's to the future... :mrgreen:

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:03 pm

...target for the Skins defense, that is!!! :lol:

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:48 pm

BTW, I think the fact that he fumbled on his first play and came back 6-6 against the Ravens D (Albeit a loose D, but still had RayLew, Reed and others on the field) speaks volumes for his composure. What say you?

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:51 pm

¿Quién? ¿Patrick or Eli?

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:59 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:¿Quién? ¿Patrick or Eli?

A quien tu crees? :lol:

curveball · Post by **curveball** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:25 am

Primetime42 wrote:
Also, Henson has a clause in his contract that says if he plays a certain number of snaps in this first year, the last three years are voided. Tuna is saving the 'Boys a little cap space by holding off Henson.

Just want to make a correction so that people understand that this statement has no basis in fact.

There are no salary cap implications in Henson's contract as to whether or not he receives playing time. The ill-informed are confusing guaranteed money with a bonus.

Also, while technically correct, playing time this season (15% of offensive snaps excluding punts and field goal attempts) will void the final three years of Henson's deal, is also ill-informed, because year's 2-4 also have void clauses of 30%.

If the "quarterback of the future" cannot take 30% of the snaps by his fourth season, "of the future" is out the window.

Henson's deal is really for 4 years from the start.

1fan4ramsey · Post by **1fan4ramsey** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:31 am

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:I think the Giants have seriously dashed their playoff hopes by strating Eli. How unfortunate. They looked like they could have an impressive run. Kurt was due to break out of his slump. I guess t. Coughlin DOESN'T know everything.

Patrick just goes to show that a change at one position is NOT what would solve the team's woes.

Putting Patrick in, at this point, was not to change the teams woes, it was to develop him for the future, our season was over last week, hence the start of the Patrick era, kind of an early preseason for next years season.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:41 am

curveball wrote:There are no salary cap implications in Henson's contract as to whether or not he receives playing time. The ill-informed are confusing guaranteed money with a bonus.

If Henson meets the playing time clause that's in his contract it will raise his base salary which is the rookie minimum right now so this would have cap implications this would not be a bonus it would be salary. However he was only guaranteed $3.5 million which would be spread out over 4-8 yaers for cap purposes so the length of the contract is really no concern for that team in Texas. And the voidable years can be voided by either party

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:34 am

curveball wrote:
Primetime42 wrote:
Also, Henson has a clause in his contract that says if he plays a certain number of snaps in this first year, the last three years are voided. Tuna is saving the 'Boys a little cap space by holding off Henson.

Just want to make a correction so that people understand that this statement has no basis in fact.

There are no salary cap implications in Henson's contract as to whether or not he receives playing time. The ill-informed are confusing guaranteed money with a bonus.

Also, while technically correct, playing time this season (15% of offensive snaps excluding punts and field goal attempts) will void the final three years of Henson's deal, is also ill-informed, because year's 2-4 also have void clauses of 30%.

If the "quarterback of the future" cannot take 30% of the snaps by his fourth season, "of the future" is out the window.

Henson's deal is really for 4 years from the start.

Is what I said false?

I knew about the implications of the other years, but I'm talking about THIS YEAR!

...so quick to knock someone, aren't you? :roll:

wonker · Post by **wonker** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:36 pm

The problem that I see is that the Cowboys really don't know if Henson's their guy. He's only going to play what? Six games.

OK be an optimist. Let's say Henson wins three of them? I have news for you. So did AJ Feeley and he's just dreadful. You need a full year to evaluate a QB in live situations.

What's the problem with that? Well, it's looking like the Cowboys will have two picks in the first half of the first round (Buffalo is coming on...) and NOW is an opportune time to draft a QB.

HTTR

wonker

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:45 pm

wonker wrote:The problem that I see is that the Cowboys really don't know if Henson's their guy. He's only going to play what? Six games.

OK be an optimist. Let's say Henson wins three of them? I have news for you. So did AJ Feeley and he's just dreadful. You need a full year to evaluate a QB in live situations.

What's the problem with that? Well, it's looking like the Cowboys will have two picks in the first half of the first round (Buffalo is coming on...) and NOW is an opportune time to draft a QB.

wonker

Who the hell was AJ Feeley before he got lucky? :roll:

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:31 pm

The only luck AJ's ever had was convincing Heather Mitts to sleep with him. Other than that his luck has been average to poor.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:52 am

What I seen out of Eli Manning against the Falcons Impressed the hell out of me.He has an awsome Quick release seems to read defenses fine and for his very first game I must say he seemed poised for most of the game.I think Eli will Be just as good as his brother he seems more positive.Mark my words Peyton Manning will go down in history just like Marino Great Qbs but never winning the big one.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:00 am

HEROHAMO wrote:seems to read defenses fine

Except the zone blitz.

Gene · Post by **Gene** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:16 am

It goes without saying that hindsight has 20-20 vision. My beef with the Giants is that they didn't turn things over to Manning earlier in the season.......

While it's not fair to pin all of the Giants offensive woes on the shoulders of Kurt Warner, as the weeks rolled on it was apparent that this guy just doesn't have any gas left in the tank......

Poor decision making, no mobility, far to many turnovers, and the inability to come up big against such power houses as Detroit, Chicago, & Arizona sealed his fate. Warner was a horse that the Giants rode as far as he was going to take them......

There was no reason for Warner to continue playing. As I've alreadsy said it's a classic 2nd guess on my part but Manning should have been in after the Detroit debacle........

I hope people around these parts take a deep breath and relax when it comes to Manning......let the kid get a few games under his belt before making any decisions on whether or not he's going to be a bust.

It's crazy around here how everyone seems to be in a panic after Manning crapped out last Sunday vs Philly. For the life of me I don't underdtand why they're ripping into him. He was starting his 2nd game in the NFL vs a defense that has confused and battered far more experienced and far better QB's than Manning (at this stage of his career) over the last several years.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:51 pm

Gene, I may be showing my bias toward Warner in my cquestion, but do you SERIOUSLY think they would have been in a position to male the playoffs had Manning started from the get go?

In my opinion, the Giants flushed away their season. They're still mathematically in the run for the playoffs, but I think the Manning Era will result in the Giants missing the playoffs for another year.

THAT should make New Yorkers happy, right? :roll:

Primetime42 · Post by **Primetime42** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:18 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Gene, I may be showing my bias toward Warner in my cquestion, but do you SERIOUSLY think they would have been in a position to male the playoffs had Manning started from the get go?

In my opinion, the Giants flushed away their season. They're still mathematically in the run for the playoffs, but I think the Manning Era will result in the Giants missing the playoffs for another year.

THAT should make New Yorkers happy, right?

Believe it or not, most New Yorkers will be, because they got the chance to see their boy develop :lol:

Gene · Post by **Gene** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:01 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Gene, I may be showing my bias toward Warner in my cquestion, but do you SERIOUSLY think they would have been in a position to male the playoffs had Manning started from the get go?

In my opinion, the Giants flushed away their season. They're still mathematically in the run for the playoffs, but I think the Manning Era will result in the Giants missing the playoffs for another year.

THAT should make New Yorkers happy, right?

Redeemedskin that's a fair question to ask, but one I can only anwswer with a "Who Knows"?

I can definitely tell you that there wasn't one game the Giants won because of the play of Kurt Warner. And I can tell you that there were two games (Detroit & Chicago) that one could fairly argue the Giants lost because of a couple of his momentum killing turnovers that changed the course of the game.......

When the QB battle started back in mini-camp Kurt Warner never delivered any sort of knockout blow to prove he was head and shoulders above Manning.......that should say something right there about a QB with the resume Warner has. Both QB's were neck and neck and I believe Warner got the start only because of his experience.....plus Coughlin was smart enough to keep Manning away from the Eagles in week 1. :wink:

As for the playofs.....well no one (including myself) thought the Giants would be in any playoff race this year coming off a 4 & 12 season. So while it may be disappointing because the team went 0 for November the season is far from over.....which says a lot about the state of the NFC right now.
[/i]