Page 1 of 1
philly great, giants terrible?
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:14 am
by tnathan
for those of you who saw the philly/giants game on sunday, i was wondering... do you think the eagles are that good, or the giants are just that bad? maybe both... it was one of those games you somehow hope both teams lose, but the eagles looked pretty scary. what's the verdict? were the eagles that good? or was it just a good show against a lousy giants team?
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:15 am
by Justice Hog
This does not belong in "Hog Wash". I'm moving it.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:19 am
by Redskin Stouff
Probably a combination of both. Not only do the Giants stink, they hate Coughlin.
I'll reserve judgement on the Eagals until after they play Minny on Monday Night.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:21 am
by General Failure
After the first couple of drives when things started picking up I thought the scoring would never end.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:42 am
by cvillehog
I'd have to say both.
It will be interesting to see them against the Vikes.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:46 am
by MURP
I would also say both.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:51 am
by redskinz4ever
PHILLY's offense looks good, thier "D" i'm not to sure about. stopping the run ?? and if they face a team with good wideouts can they match up with them ???
the N.Y. GIANTS they're "D" is weak and looks like we will be able to really get after who ever is the Q.B. !! we will be tested this week on our run "D" !!
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:50 pm
by General Failure
Most people consider Toomer and Hilliard to be a good pair of receivers. They may not be Carter and Moss or Burres and Ward, but they're good.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:07 pm
by Redskin Stouff
General Failure wrote:Most people consider Toomer and Hilliard to be a good pair of receivers. They may not be Carter and Moss or Burres and Ward, but they're good.
Yeah they're not bad, they just don't have anyone to throw them the ball.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:14 pm
by tnathan
sorry about putting it in the wrong forum... thanks for moving it justice.
seems like the eagles looked just plain good, though. i am excited for the vikes game... all my friends are eagles fans, and i'm sick and tired of hearing about them. i need them smashed into the ground. good to see the giants and cowboys looking so weak, though.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:44 pm
by Justice Hog
People. For the love of God. Philly played the GIANTS, not the Packers!!!!
Beating the Giants does not make them GREAT!!!
McNabb/T.O. hooked up several times because of blown coverages. Yes, they were talented enough to exploit those blown assignments...but T.O. didn't have a ton of yards. He just had 3 TDs...which made him look better.
The Eagles still have a suspect run defense. When matched up against a team with a better defense and a good running game, my guess is that Philly is going down.
Philly is good.....but I'm far from convinced that they're anywhere near "GREAT".
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:06 pm
by cj17
The Giants look bad, but their offensive line wasn't nearly as bad as I thought they would look. But they don't appear to have as much talent as the other three teams in the division, and should find themselves with a record similar to last years.
Philly was scary. McNabb and Owens are already on the same page. Don't just pass that off to "blown coverages" and "not having a ton of yards" they ran their offense to perfection. They didn't do anything to stop run defense questions, but it actually looked better than last years. Remember Tiki got 75 meaningless yards on that long run.
I think they are still the team to beat.
Gotta love the Skins early season schedule.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:44 pm
by General Failure
cj17 wrote:Philly was scary. McNabb and Owens are already on the same page.
I had to ask myself when the Giants decided to let the Washington Generals play for them.