|
Post by ritzinfxbg on Sept 14, 2006 13:02:05 GMT -5
guess I jumped to conclusions on Arrington being invisible: "But in this case, Arrington feels the criticism was unwarranted. He claims he was simply playing his part in a more conservative game plan that didn't ask him to pressure Colts quarterback Peyton Manning. And for a player who was blasted during his time in Washington for being a "freelancer," getting ripped for doing the opposite is clearly frustrating. "Over the years, I've seen opportunities and tried to seize them to make a big play," Arrington said. "And people tried to put my head on a serving platter, kind of attacking me for going out and making a play. And you're labeled whatever you're labeled. "Then, you stay within the scheme and it's like, 'Well, you're not doing anything.' It's a no-win situation, honestly." In this case, defensive coordinator Tim Lewis' game plan mostly called for Arrington to play off the line and drop into coverage rather than blitzing off the edge. " www.nj.com/giants/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1158210007172790.xml&coll=1&thispage=1another quote "You'll be like, 'Well, he didn't do this, he didn't do that,' but he was doing his job," defensive end Osi Umenyiora said. "He was doing exactly what he was told to do." Umenyiora admitted he didn't know what Arrington's specific duties were because he didn't study the linebackers' game plan. "But I know he was doing it or else we would have heard about it in the meeting room," he said. "And we didn't."
|
|
|
Post by rellascout on Sept 14, 2006 13:45:20 GMT -5
I can see that. I think Arrington learned a hard lesson here in DC. Stick to the game play or you don't play.
I think it is good that he is playing within the system. In the long run he will be better off for it. The G men really didin't create much upfront on Sunday Night.
I think he will play well for your guys but I think his best years maybe behind him. I think you over paid but I htink he can be a solid player for you.
|
|
|
Post by ritzinfxbg on Sept 14, 2006 13:49:06 GMT -5
I dunno if I'd say overpaid only because the contract doesn't have a whole lot of guaranteed money. It's mainly based on incentives.
|
|
|
Post by ritzinfxbg on Sept 14, 2006 13:52:12 GMT -5
oh.. and I do think Arrington will get more chances to create pressure on Sunday. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that the Colts don't have much of a run game anymore. With Westbrook I'd expect to see a little bit of run blitzing which of course would give more chances for a QB sack if it ends up being a pass play.
If the Giants win there will be a three way tie in the East. It's only the second week but I'm still excited about how competitive this division is now
|
|
|
Post by Clay Jones on Sept 14, 2006 15:52:04 GMT -5
Let's judge the Giants/Eagles game based on last week.
The Eagles man handled the Texans.
The Giants went to the wall with the Colts and lost.
My pick: Giants.
|
|
|
Post by Clay Jones on Sept 14, 2006 15:54:11 GMT -5
Oh...and my wild Super Bowl pick:
Ravens Vs Bears. You read it here first.
|
|
|
Post by rellascout on Sept 14, 2006 15:59:56 GMT -5
Let's judge the Giants/Eagles game based on last week. The Eagles man handled the Texans. The Giants went to the wall with the Colts and lost. My pick: Giants. I hate to say it with Stallworth the Eagles really upgraded in my book. Before that trade I would have put them in to finish last in the division. The Texans suck but Giants are not going to be able to run over the Eagles like they did against the Colts. As much as I hate to I think the Eagles will win at home.
|
|
|
Post by rellascout on Sept 14, 2006 16:03:30 GMT -5
Oh...and my wild Super Bowl pick: Ravens Vs Bears. You read it here first. That really is not that wild. Most people believe that the NFC North is a cake walk for the Bears. The Packers suck and Vikes are just okay. When you have defenses like those teams do if you can crete any offfense you can win games in the playoffs. I would love to see the SUCK BOWL Cinncy vs Arizona. !!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Clay Jones on Sept 14, 2006 16:29:41 GMT -5
Arizona may not be that bad. But they did let the 49'ers run wild on 'em. I predict the Cardinals will barely miss the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by ritzinfxbg on Sept 15, 2006 7:55:16 GMT -5
Arizona has crazy offensive weapons but their defense is pretty weak.
Boomer Esiason picked the Giants to win and I agree. It's only the second week and I think this is a must-win game. Giants definately can't afford to go two games down on the Eagles with the Eagles softer schedule and the Giants tough schedule. Hopefully all the players are as fired up as Antonio Pierce who's looking for a little revenge
|
|
|
Post by ritzinfxbg on Sept 15, 2006 7:56:45 GMT -5
Boomer also picked the Cowboys to win. What say y'all? I have to agree.. i think TO, as much as I hate him, is going to have a big game.
|
|
|
Post by rellascout on Sept 15, 2006 9:48:19 GMT -5
It really depends on what type of pressure we can get on Bledsoe. Bledsoe is so stiff that he can't get away from any real pressure.
I think that we are going to attack him and make him throw early. I think TO will have a good game but that if we run the ball well and keep TO off the field we can win.
Portis is the key to us winning. If he plays well we win. If not it will look a lot like the Vikings game.
|
|
|
Post by Last Man Standing on Sept 15, 2006 9:50:27 GMT -5
Boomer also picked the Cowboys to win. What say y'all? I have to agree.. i think TO, as much as I hate him, is going to have a big game. You may be right there. If the Skins can't get to Bledsoe (like they couldn't get to Johnson), this is going to be a long season for them. They didn't have a pass rush at all last week and with as bad as their secondary has played, that's bad news. ESPN's panel of experts on their Fantasy Football show picked Bledsoe to have a big game this week - for whatever that's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Last Man Standing on Sept 15, 2006 9:51:31 GMT -5
Portis is the key to us winning. If he plays well we win. If not it will look a lot like the Vikings game. Did you hear any word as to why Portis didn't play at the end of Monday night's game?
|
|
|
Post by rellascout on Sept 15, 2006 10:14:57 GMT -5
I did not hear anything specific. I think that thye put too much faith in Betts. I think late in the 3rd and 4th quarter they though Betts would get it done and we could save Portis from taking more hits. Portis reported being sore all over which makes sense because this was his first real contact of the year. The part that really pissed me off is that we traded for Duckett and then didn't play him. My understanding is that he dressed for the game but was inactive s the Skins only active 3 RBs and he was wthe odd man out because we used Cartright to return kicks? ? He should have been in the game when we kicked 3 field goals inside the red zone. That is what he is good at. He isa red zone machine.
|
|