Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi
-
Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi
posted at 2/6/2012 3:07 PM EST
- glenr
- Posts: 1985
- First: 12/16/2010
- Last: 6/18/2013
We would have won with Gronk limited as he was if we did not make mistakes. safety, INT and dropped passes lost the game. -
Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi
posted at 2/6/2012 3:47 PM EST
- BubbaInHawaii
- Posts: 3226
- First: 6/13/2008
- Last: 1/1/2013
In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:How could the coaches NOT draw a game plan not involving Gronk??? They knew he was not able to play. Using him has a decoy just doesn't cut it for a SB!!! I guess the Giants realized pretty quickly that Gronk would not be a threat. The coaches had 2 weeks to be inventive but no, they even released Underwood removing one of the few WR options they had. Bitter...
Posted by FrogLegs
True, true.
More importantly, how could the coaches not learn from previous losses against the Steelers and the same Giants to game plan for an offense that was likely to have diminished productivity in the pass game? -
Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi
posted at 2/6/2012 4:08 PM EST
- Bustchise
- Posts: 486
- First: 1/2/2012
- Last: 6/19/2013
Who is this clown that keeps bashing Brady? Here we are, playing to our strengths, having another fantastic offensive season and griswold is yapping about running the ball? We dominated teams by having a great QB and double TE threat that allowed us to occasionally have success with some running. You don't suddenly turn into a run on first and second down offense. The ability of Tom Brady is what allows the rest of the offense to click. Blaming him when the receivers can't hold on to the ball at critical times is foolish.
Question is, what happened to the D that had been able to keep the points off the board for 3 qtrs? It's the same thing we've seen all year. You cannot allow opposing QBs to pass up and down the field and then hold tight at the end. We are not the only team in the NFL that knows how to make adjustments. Coughlin has been around a long time and is pretty capable. Our D generally plays best when it can be opportunistic. In close, low scoring games, that is less likely to happen. -
Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi
posted at 2/6/2012 4:55 PM EST
- BIGAPPLEORCHARD
- Posts: 23
- First: 7/21/2010
- Last: 2/13/2012
What??? Giants beat Pats by 4 points in week 9 with a fully healthy Gronk and they beat them by 4 again in the Super Bowl. End of story. -
Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi
posted at 2/6/2012 4:56 PM EST
- BabeParilli
- Posts: 12485
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 6/19/2013
In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:How could the coaches NOT draw a game plan not involving Gronk??? They knew he was not able to play. Using him has a decoy just doesn't cut it for a SB!!! I guess the Giants realized pretty quickly that Gronk would not be a threat. The coaches had 2 weeks to be inventive but no, they even released Underwood removing one of the few WR options they had. Bitter...
Posted by FrogLegs
When you're missing a HOF caliber guy, it's just not easy to make up for that whatever your plan.
We are just very thin at the skill positions around Brady after Wes, Gronk and Hernandez. -
This post has been removed.
-
This post has been removed.
-
Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi
posted at 2/6/2012 5:01 PM EST
- prolate0spheroid
- Posts: 7024
- First: 10/5/2008
- Last: 6/20/2013
In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi : When you're missing a HOF caliber guy, it's just not easy to make up for that whatever your plan. We are just very thin at the skill positions around Brady after Wes, Gronk and Hernandez.
Posted by BabeParilli
The truth, Babe. -
Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi
posted at 2/6/2012 7:35 PM EST
- BabeParilli
- Posts: 12485
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 6/19/2013
In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:What??? Giants beat Pats by 4 points in week 9 with a fully healthy Gronk and they beat them by 4 again in the Super Bowl. End of story.
Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD
What does week 9 have to do with it?