Name me 2 Giants who could start for the Pats

BigHoss67 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

BigHoss67 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Wildo7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Interesting topic. If I had to choose...

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?
Samuel
Harrison
Vrabel and/or Thomas
Wilfork
Seymour/Warren (as 4-3 DT)
Brady
Moss
Welker
Koppen
Light
Mankins
...

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.

bokonon said:

Interesting topic. If I had to choose...

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?
Samuel
Harrison
Vrabel and/or Thomas
Wilfork
Seymour/Warren (as 4-3 DT)
Brady
Moss
Welker
Koppen
Light
Mankins
...

Click to expand...

Turning it around? Let's turn it all around and call the Pats the Giants


I think you are selling Plax a bit short, at least for this season. I don't think you can swap or compare him to Welker either, two totally different players and positions, etc..,

What I like about Plax though, is that he could be seen as a combination of a lot of your guys.

His size, length is similar to Moss, so you could utilize him in much the same way you do Moss. He's also got the talent to go over the middle, and become a possession type receiver, to pick up those 3rd and 8 plays. BUT, I don't think you swap him for Welker. In a three wide though, he's easily your number 2, with Welker in the slot. Where he does lack is speed (his ankle probably contributes to that), and that is where Stallworth would have an edge (helps in YAC too), but overall, Plax is a better receiver than Stallworth. Anyway, I like what the Giants bring to the table, they are as good an NFC representative as any they have to offer.

C'est La Vie said:

Turning it around? Let's turn it all around and call the Pats the Giants


I think you are selling Plax a bit short, at least for this season. I don't think you can swap or compare him to Welker either, two totally different players and positions, etc..,

What I like about Plax though, is that he could be seen as a combination of a lot of your guys.

His size, length is similar to Moss, so you could utilize him in much the same way you do Moss. He's also got the talent to go over the middle, and become a possession type receiver, to pick up those 3rd and 8 plays. BUT, I don't think you swap him for Welker. In a three wide though, he's easily your number 2, with Welker in the slot. Where he does lack is speed (his ankle probably contributes to that), and that is where Stallworth would have an edge (helps in YAC too), but overall, Plax is a better receiver than Stallworth. Anyway, I like what the Giants bring to the table, they are as good an NFC representative as any they have to offer.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'm selling Plaxico short, he's a hell of a player, but he's not better than Moss or Welker. Lining Welker up in the slot does not make him the #3 receiver, hell he led the team in catches and was 2nd in TDs. Yes, Burress is better overall than Stallworth, which is why I said I'd start him if you're talking about starting a 3-WR lineup. But in a 2-WR formation, Welker is on the field most of the time, not Burress (though maybe Burress gives Moss a rest part of the time in that case).

I'm not even sure what your first sentence means. I was trying to echo the point made earlier in the thread about the relative talent on these 2 rosters. Sure a couple of Giants might start on this Pats team, but a whole lot more of their teammates would lose a job to their Patriots counterpart.

That being said, the NYFG earned their way here and I expect them to perform well...and lose.

bokonon said:

I don't think I'm selling Plaxico short, he's a hell of a player, but he's not better than Moss or Welker. Lining Welker up in the slot does not make him the #3 receiver, hell he led the team in catches and was 2nd in TDs. Yes, Burress is better overall than Stallworth, which is why I said I'd start him if you're talking about starting a 3-WR lineup. But in a 2-WR formation, Welker is on the field most of the time, not Burress (though maybe Burress gives Moss a rest part of the time in that case).

I'm not even sure what your first sentence means. I was trying to echo the point made earlier in the thread about the relative talent on these 2 rosters. Sure a couple of Giants might start on this Pats team, but a whole lot more of their teammates would lose a job to their Patriots counterpart.

That being said, the NYFG earned their way here and I expect them to perform well...and lose.

Click to expand...

Cool. No way I start Welker over Burris though. Just plain NVTS, IMO. Welker had a great year, he also had TB and Moss. Burris would be equally, if not more valauble than Welker. That's like taking Stokely over Wayne. (When Marvin was number 1)

Burress and Welker are two completely different players. Are serioulsy saying you would start Plaxico in the Slot? If you are, then I am going to fall out of my chair laughing at your stupidity.

Giants I would consider starting

Gibril Wilson - I like his range, seems to be around the ball. He is on par with Sanders

Corey Webster - This guy makes plays, solid tackler. He is as good or better than Hobbs.

Chris Snee - He is a mauler, younger and more athletic than Neal. IMO a slight upgrade

Brandon Jacobs - I love his style of running. Maroney is really coming on but Jacobs had a better season.

BostonGiant said:

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.

Click to expand...

How about comparing coaches? Ability to make in game adjustments?

This is pretty dumb. Umeniora (?) would start at OLB most def in NE but he won't be able to play a 34 end. There's no way to start Strahan because he's a pure DE in the 43 but is more talented in that position than a lot of the defenders on the Pats. Pierce would MOST DEFINITELY start at ILB. As for DB's, I'm not really sure. Both units are pretty much even. Burress would start at the #2 WR, but not because he's better than Welker, only because Welker is a slot receiver and is most effective in the slot. Shockey would start. Snee would start. Jacobs would also start but I'm just not too high on either Jacobs or Maroney. I honestly like Bradshaw over every RB on the field but he needs to improve his pass protection.

Bradshaw over Maroney. You're a funny guy.

JackBauer said:

Bradshaw over Maroney. You're a funny guy.

Click to expand...

Never liked Maroney. He played well the last 5 games but I don't know if he's so much better than the beginning of the season. I think the Giants and Pats both have similar talent at the RB position. I like Morris over Maroney earlier in the year, I just thought he was the better back. Sorry if that insults anyone. I think that Bradshaw is going to be ONE HELL of a back! I don't think he's ready to step into the spotlight yet but he'll develop into something special. As for Jacobs, I think he's exactly what you're looking for in his size and speed, but he doesn't give you anything extra. Maroney (and this is from what I"VE seen) has shown that he could get a good amount of yards but has not done it on a consistant level. He could hit the hole like a freight train but can not move the pile if there's not much to be had. Remember, this is my opinion. He danced a little bit in the backfield trying to look for something when there's not much to be had and instead of getting 3 he loses 1.

You guys are really high on Maroney, I respect that, but this is an opinionated thread and I would rather have Bradshaw and Jacobs over Maroney, although not by much. I'm not insulting anyone who wouldn't take Umenyora over Vrabel or Pierce over Seau. I understand that this is a Pat board but I did not come in here attacking anyone so keep it clean.

Dojo Chargerfan said:

Never liked Maroney. He played well the last 5 games but I don't know if he's so much better than the beginning of the season. I think the Giants and Pats both have similar talent at the RB position. I like Morris over Maroney earlier in the year, I just thought he was the better back. Sorry if that insults anyone. I think that Bradshaw is going to be ONE HELL of a back! I don't think he's ready to step into the spotlight yet but he'll develop into something special. As for Jacobs, I think he's exactly what you're looking for in his size and speed, but he doesn't give you anything extra. Maroney (and this is from what I"VE seen) has shown that he could get a good amount of yards but has not done it on a consistant level. He could hit the hole like a freight train but can not move the pile if there's not much to be had. Remember, this is my opinion. He danced a little bit in the backfield trying to look for something when there's not much to be had and instead of getting 3 he loses 1.

You guys are really high on Maroney, I respect that, but this is an opinionated thread and I would rather have Bradshaw and Jacobs over Maroney, although not by much. I'm not insulting anyone who wouldn't take Umenyora over Vrabel or Pierce over Seau. I understand that this is a Pat board but I did not come in here attacking anyone so keep it clean.

Click to expand...

Marone has run better now because the new blocking scheme has finally been implemented to fit his style. Earlier in the year it was more stretches and horizantaal principles. Now there are folds and vertical principles and Maroney is making the most of them.

Funny how before Maroney got injured, he had more rushing yards that LT...

Kareem McKenzie would start on the Pats at RT.
Chris Snee would start on the Pats at RG.
Plaxico Burress would start on the Pats at WR.

There's 3 and those are undebatable.