Ok, you win, even though Bradshaw has been averaging 4.0 YPC this year, he is really getting 4.7 YPC. McCourty is also a top CB because he had all those INTs last year.
McCourty is a good CB. He's pretty much what play over the last year and a half would indicate, ye.
You can ignore the fact that Bradshaw has been average this year and the Giants' running game has been below average because it blows your argument, but you are arguing a BS case. This year is this year. We are halfway through it. We have a good sample on Bradshaw this year.
That's the whole point- it doesn't do anything to my argument, as I stated in my last two posts and you chose to ignore. If we can agree that Bradshaw's a whole hell of a lot better than Jacobs and Ward (who you already acknowledged are terrible), then the Giants ran the ball 30 times with crap RBs. They were far below full-strength, and where they ranked in the league prior to Bradshaw's injury has absolutely no bearing on that.
I mean't at full strength.
What does that have to do with anything? We both acknowledged that they're a very good passing team at full-strength. I pointed out that yesterday they were missing two of their top four receivers (by receptions). If your point is that the Pats' secondary won't be completely outmatched provided that every team agrees to sit its #1 WR, then I guess I agree... most of the time.
The Giants are the 11th ranked offense because they are 29th in running the ball. They are the 6th ranked passing offense. That is pretty high powered.
Not when you're missing two of your top four receivers. The personnel that the field yesterday wasn't even close to the personnel that achieved that #6 ranking. When Nicks takes the field, the gameplan revolves around stopping him first and foremost.
LOL! Name them! And I am talking about this year, not last year or over the last 5 years. It is this year that matters.
Before I do this, let me remind you of what you said in the first place: that the Giants, yesterday, had 3-4 "top receiving threats" on the field. The teams that I'm about to list off, IMO, can put 3-4 threats on the field that are as good as or better than Cruz, Manningham, Ballard, (and Ramses Barden). This year.
New Orleans: Graham, Colston, Sproles, Moore
Pittsburgh: Wallace, Miller, Lewis, Brown
New England: Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Branch
Green Bay: Jennings, Nelson, Finley, Jones
San Diego: Jackson, Floyd, Gates, Tolbert
Dallas: Witten, Bryant, Robinson, whoever else (because Austin's hurt again)
Carolina: Smith, Olsen, Shockey, whoever (Lafell, Stewart)
Philadelphia: Maclin, Jackson, Avant, Celek, McCoy
Oakland: Heyward-Bey, Moore, Ford, Boss
Buffalo: Johnson, Nelson, Jackson, Chandler
Lions: Johnson, Pettigrew, Young, Burleson/Best
Atlanta: White, Jones, Gonzalez, whoever
Cincy: Green, Gresham, Simpson, Caldwell
Indy: Garcon, Wayne, Clark, Collie
NYJets: Holmes, Keller, Burress, Tomlinson
Washington: Davis, Gaffney, Moss, Helu
Before you complain that I'm not playing fair, I left out a couple of teams because they too have injuries, most notably Houston and KC. But all of those teams have 3-4 receiving options who are better, right now, than what the Giants put out on the field against the Pats. In some cases, like with the Jets, Colts, and Skins, terrible quarterback play has made their reception and yardage numbers slightly underwhelming, but that's not what you said. You said that the Giants had 3-4 elite receiving threats on the field. The fact of the matter is that, when Nicks is healthy, you can defensibly say that they have three. When Nicks isn't healthy, Barden becomes their #3 receiver. Yesterday they had 2 good receivers (Cruz, Ballard) and one pretty good one (Manningham). And then nothing. Jacobs and Barden are generously described as JAGs.
Your ignorance of what is going on in this league this year (at least with the Giants) is astounding. You think Eli is just average eventhough he has been great.
Where did I say that? (Hint: I didn't). I think he's easily a top-10 NFL QB.
You think Coughlin is using a run first philosophy even though he hasn't.
Where did I say that? (Hint: I didn't). I pointed out that they ran the ball 30 times even without their one good running back, when you said that they wouldn't have bothered running even with him. (are you saying that they prefer to run when their #1 RB is hurt, or are you saying that 30 rushes constitutes ignoring the run game? Because you must be saying one or the other)
You think Bradshaw is an above average back when he has been average.
He is an above average back, although at this point you're quibbling over a subjective term.
You think Cruz isn't very good even though he is on pace for 1200 yards.
Where did I say that? (Hint: I didn't). I think that he's a good WR.
You think Ballard isn't even worthy to know his name eventhough he is a top 10 TE and the #1 scoring TE in the league.,
Where did I say that? (Hint: I didn't). His production speaks for itself
What I
actually did say is that the Giants had three receiving threats yesterday: Cruz, Manningham, and Ballard. That's it. Not their #1 WR, not their RB who is a threat out of the backfield. The Patriots did not play against an elite passing team yesterday.
From here on out, how about you try to argue against actual points that people actually made rather than straw men? Doing what you've done here just shows that you're unable, for whatever reason, to respond to actual points.