ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Umenyiora would never start at DE for the Patriots over Ty Warren.
Warren is 6'5" 300 lbs. Umenyiora is 6'3" 261 lbs... Umenyiora doesn't have even close to what you look for in a 3-4 DE... 3-4 DEs are there to take on blockers and be stout against the run, occasionally making plays behind the line of scrimmage... Umenyiora is a "pin-your-ears-back", all-out pass rusher.
I think the comparison is based on overall talent not the literal sense of switching a Giant's player into the Patriots 3-4 or vice versa.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
GREAT post concept ... and very well defended in the ensuing dialogue.
Nice back and forth too, for that matter.
It's certainly not a one-sided argument!
Burress had a great game. Say he even had TWO fine games.
But he is the team's NUMBER ONE receiver.
It is disingenuous to compare him to Stallworth -
a #3 or #4 receiver on the 2007 Patriots.
Who would play Burress over Moss?
But if Eli could drive the '01 Pats ... i mean the '07 Giants ...
down the field in the 59th minute
and if Vini - i can't pronounce his accursed name either - i mean
Wide Right That Giants Kicker ... boots it home
... then, yes, the Giants might win against the '01 St. Louis Rams.
In Glendale they'll square off against the '07 New England Patriots.
Cute analogy ... for a brief moment.
But it fails.
Didn't the Rams have London Fletcher or somebody like that then? I'm not sure all three of the Pats LBs named would have started for the Rams that particular year, schemes even aside.
On the other hand, Damien Woody might have made it onto the Ram OL.
As for the Giants, saying their #1 receiver beats our #2/3/4 (whatever Stallworth is) doesn't prove much. But who's their #2 healthy CB now? Webster? I might take him over Hobbs on recent performance. The LB point has been made already. And the way Seymour and Warren are playing THIS YEAR, the Giants' ends may be better. (Schemes again aside.)
Maroney over their RBs, given his recent performances? Hmm. Probably. But then, if we go very short term, Burress over Moss isn't as ridiculous as it would be over a more realistic time period. So by the same logic that makes it obvious who is the better WR, let's not be so quick to anoint Maroney as the superior RB.
Antonio Pierce over Seau/Bruschi. A healthy Kiwanuka over a healthy Colvin. Snee over Neal. Ross and Hobbs are a wash. Tuck/Strahan at OLB would be great in a McGinest role. A healthy O'Hara and Koppen are a wash.
The Patriots playing the 3-4 makes a lot of it moot. The Giants front 7 aren't compatible so 1/3 of the starters are eliminated.
QB - of course not.
RB - Maroney > Jacobs, especially now that he's healthy
TE - you could argue for Shockey, but I'd take Watson. Watson outperforms him this year by Football Outsider stats by a wide margin both this year and the last two or three years combined, especially if you take into account how many passes go in each TE's direction.
Left side of OL - no
C - no.
RG and RT - Snee you could argue is better than Neal but its probably a wash (just short of Pro-Bowl level guys). Kaczur isn't good but Kareem McKenzie isn't that good either. That would probably be the spot, but its not a big difference and given the importance of OL working together...
CB - Hobbs is still better than a very average Madison or Webster
S - Harrison + Sanders (or Wilson) are better than their Wilson or Butler
Feagles > Hanson though.
So P and maybe RT.
"All we do is win Superbowls." BB to Urban Meyer
I agree but what I'm saying is I think Warren is better at what he does than Umenyiora is at what he does... I think Osi is a little bit overrated... He's too inconsistent.
I think Warren rivals Seymour as a 3-4 DE... Also, if the Pats suddenly switched to a 4-3 overnight, I think Seymour and Warren would be the best DT combo in football.
I agree, 6 of his sacks came in one game against the eagles when McNabb shoud NOT have been playing. Osi is good, but he is a sacker, that's all he does. For what Warren does, he is a better player.
To really compare anyway you would have to compare Osi too Vrabel, cause they really do the same thing. And if Osi was in NE I can guaratee he would be a outside LB. I would take Vrabel and Thomas over Osi anyday.
Fools are filled with conviction, while the truly wise are filled with doubt.
I definetly wouldn't take Shockey over Watson. Shockey's inept attempts at blocking have only hurt the Giants in the past, and it's no coincidence that they are playing better with Boss. Only player I would go with is Antonio Pierce. I love Seau and Bruschi, but this guy still can play every down at full speed. I hate myself for sayingthat, but it's true.
Fools are filled with conviction, while the truly wise are filled with doubt.
I agree with you and I disagree with the OP, but Belichick has said that about every opponent the Pats have faced this year including the Dolphins.
Anyway, I think it's kind of an apples and oranges type thing because I wouldn't want any Giants players not because they're not good enough but because the way the Pats are assembled is close to perfect and it comes down to personalities and intelligence as well as skill and talent.
Of course. 18-0 Why WOULD you want anyone else, regardless of talent. The best it could do is screw things up. The premise of the thread though is arrogant and aloof. Giants have plenty of talent on their squad to compete athletically and intellectually. If Seau or Bruschi or Hobbs were on the OTHER sideline, and Giants replaced them, would you say they could start for the Pats?
For those saying Burress over Stallworth, it's apples and oranges. Stallworth is arguably 4th on the WR depth chart right now. No way do I take him over Moss or Welker. If we're talking a 3-wide starting group, which makes sense for this year, I take him over Gaffney/Stallworth, probably.
Pierce would be great in a rotation w/ Seau & Bruschi but I don't think you'd want to subtract either of them due to big game experience and heart, so no.
No to any D-Lineman, other LBs, or secondary, though Madison/Hobbs is close, I wouldn't do that trade straight up because of Hobbs' ST abilities.
Feagles over Hansen, I guess, but I actually like the way he's punted in the post season.
Shockey, no way, he's addition by subtraction for the NYFG, and Watson is just as talented.
Jacobs would be nice to have in a Sammy Morris role but would not displace Maroney/Faulk.
On their O-line I like Snee a lot, he might beat out Neal, none of the others are tempting.
So if I have to choose I guess I'd take Snee and Burress (if 3rd WR is a "starter", if not, Feagles). But I doubt the difference in team performance would be very large.
Turning this around, how many Pats would clearly, without any argument, start on the Giants?
Vrabel and/or Thomas
Seymour/Warren (as 4-3 DT)
\"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?\"
Giants fan here, I just wanted to add my 2 cents. The last 2 weeks I saw sports sites do the whole chart where they compare 2 teams' positions and give the advantage to one or the other. The Cowboys had a better QB, RBs, WRs, TE, O-line, LBs, CBs, and S than us (12 probowlers on their side). The Packers had a better QB, RBs, WRs, LBs, CBs, and S than us as well. Basically the only clear-cut advantage we had against either team was our D-line.
I'd have no problem admitting that both those teams have more talent than us (as do the Pats). But look who won those games.
You can make plenty of cases for why the Giants don't have a chance in this game, but I don't think comparing our WRs to your WRs is a good way of going about it. Probably better to compare our WRs to your CBs.