Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;953778]Giants fans can suck the lint outa my navel.[/quote]

With their noses, I might add.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Giantone;954183]......keep drinking the cool aid.[/quote]

I don't like the Giants..................

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;954185]I wonder if Archie knew his wifes uterus was going to be a quarterback factory.[/quote]

Those two are are so abnormal and im kind of a conspiracy theorist so i got a hunch they were butt babies. Kinda Xmenish.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;954189]I don't like the Giants..................[/quote]


I understand.:food-smil

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

The legitimacy of the next few seasons for the Giants can be called into question. The cheating Giants owner illegally and unfairly took cap space from 2 out of 3 divisional opponents two straight seasons. And only got away with it because the head of the players union cared more about keeping his job rather than fighting for the players.

Cheaters like Mara and his team don't deserve positive recognition.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

Awww screw the Giants. They win a couple Superbowls recently and now they have big heads.

Why some Skins fans rooted for them in their SB's abainst the Pats is beyond me? No matter how you felt about NE the Giants are division rivals. I don't want them to do well no matter who they play. I dislike NY more than Dallas at this point. Here's hoping the Skins even the series in the rematch.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

I do agree that the NYG fan base heads have swelled because of those 2 Super Bowl wins over Brady and NE. But they met their match yesterday even though the managed to win the game.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

This must be a troll....

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;955733]I do agree that the NYG fan base heads have swelled because of those 2 Super Bowl wins over Brady and NE. But they met their match yesterday even though the managed to win the game.[/quote]


.....and that never would have happen in Washington,ever.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;954185]I wonder if Archie knew his wifes uterus was going to be a quarterback factory.[/quote]
LOL , maybe a new wing will be in the Pro Football Hall of fame . " This is were Peyton and Eli are from " :)

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Giantone;955745].....and that never would have happen in Washington,ever.[/quote]

Only if those Washington teams were great 14-2/13-3/12-4 etc. The NYG teams that won Super Bowls 42 & 46 were not great teams. They were 10-6 and 9-7 going into the playoffs those years. Especially the 2011 NYG team that at one point had a 4 game losing streak and a little luck within the post season. Their credibility in the SB comes from already have beaten the Patriots in New England during the regular season that year. But I don't see how a fan base can brag and boast about a lowly above average team that were fortunate to win out. They were nothing like the Saints and Packers in 2011.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;955785]Only if those Washington teams were great 14-2/13-3/12-4 etc. The NYG teams that won Super Bowls 42 & 46 were not great teams. They were 10-6 and 9-7 going into the playoffs those years. Especially the 2011 NYG team that at one point had a 4 game losing streak and a little luck within the post season. Their credibility in the SB comes from already have beaten the Patriots in New England during the regular season that year. [B]But I don't see how a fan base can brag and boast about a lowly above average team that were fortunate to win out. They were nothing like the Saints and Packers in 2011[/B].[/quote]

You're really not helping your case here at all.

You want Giants fans to respect our wins in strike shortened years, but you're discrediting their wins by saying they were lucky or didn't have a great W/L record? Makes no sense.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Mattyk;955787]You're really not helping your case here at all.

You want Giants fans to respect our wins in strike shortened years, but you're discrediting their wins by saying they were lucky or didn't have a great W/L record? Makes no sense.[/quote]

Mattyk, I don't like the Giants and I'm beginning to dislike them more than the Cowboys, believe it or not. You don't live up here in NYC like I do. I don't want and care for their respect. The way they see us is the way I see them.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;955791]Mattyk, I don't like the Giants and I'm beginning to dislike them more than the Cowboys, believe it or not. You don't live up here in NYC like I do. I don't want and care for their respect. The way they see us is the way I see them.[/quote]

Born and raised in NY, I've lived here for all of 2 years of my life, I know what it's like.

Either way your totally contradicting yourself in this thread.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

In my mind, the best response is this: In 1982, the Redskins beat 4 other teams, including the Cowboys who featured multiple hall of famers in the primes of their careers, in the Championship game to finish the year out at 12-1.

In 1987, the Redskins beat the Bears, a team they had also beaten in the 1986 divisional playoff, in Chicago. That Chicago team was supposed to have won multiple super bowls, but they didn't due in large part to the fact that the Redskins were simply better than they were during 1986-1987. 8-4 in non-scab games. 3-0 in the playoffs. Giants were 6-6 with their regulars that year. And the same basic nucleus formed the 1991 team, which was undoubtedly one of the greatest of all time (despite the short memories of some).

If anything, the 1982 and 1987 teams benefitted from not having to face the 49ers , in 1982 because the 49ers were a mess, and in 1987 due to the Vikings upset. That Vikings team was dangerous in 1987, but the Redskins beat them twice when it mattered (although maybe the regular season game didn't matter so much).

Anyways, I don't know where I'm going with this....

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

helmet catch schmelmet catch

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Giantone;955745].....and that never would have happen in Washington,ever.[/quote]

never, you wouldnt even know we won, because we would be so modest about it and never ever ever talk about it. ARE YOU EFFIN KIDDIN ME - my head is still big and swollen because of 70 chip!!!!! Please give me another big swollen head again - PLEASE!

are they supposed to be ashamed of it?

:confused:

edit: as for the strike teams well - only difference a full season would have made is a few more W's for us.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

As far as I know all the teams played the same amount of games and had the same opportunity to win it as we did. The only difference is we did and they didn't. Whining about it doesn't change a thing.

[QUOTE=53Fan;956770]As far as I know all the teams played the same amount of games and had the same opportunity to win it as we did. The only difference is we did and they didn't. Whining about it doesn't change a thing.[/QUOTE]

Everyonce in a while my giant friends will point this out and they always resort to the fact that the scabs made it unfair because we had better scabs (which we did). They always wind up admitting that the true team was so good that it probably would not have made a difference though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=punch it in;956773]Everyonce in a while my giant friends will point this out and they always resort to the fact that the scabs made it unfair because we had better scabs (which we did). They always wind up admitting that the true team was so good that it probably would not have made a difference though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Whether we had better scabs than they did or not, that's a front office problem that falls on the general manager. If they weren't able to assemble a team with the best players that could be located then that's their fault. Bobby Beathard was like 10 GMs in one. He's truly the reason why the Redskins were so successful during that era.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=punch it in;956760]helmet catch schmelmet catch[/quote]

Yea, where is he now?

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;956778]Whether we had better scabs than they did or not, that's a front office problem that falls on the general manager. If they weren't able to assemble a team with the best players that could be located then that's their fault. Bobby Beathard was like 10 GMs in one. He's truly the reason why the Redskins were so successful during that era.[/quote]

Dont remember enough about it to know how much work/scouting/effort went into the scabs.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

Those Super Bowls produced two of the most legendary performances in NFL history. John Riggins set a then Super Bowl record with 166 yards rushing, including the iconic 4th down go ahead 43 yard TD run in Super Bowl XVII. Doug Williams quarterbacked the single greatest offensive explosion, Super Bowl or otherwise, in the 2nd quarter of Super Bowl XXII - 18 plays, 356 yards, and 35 points, including 4 TD passes. Those performances are more memorable than any the Giants have produced in their four winning Super Bowls.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;953772]Being from Washington D.C. and living in NYC, a lot of NY Giants fans like to claim that the Redskins victories over the Miami Dolphins and the Denver Broncos in Super Bowls 17 and 22 are not legit simply because they happened only because NFL players strikes shortened those seasons. What they don't realize is that that 1982 team was good enough to not only amass the most points in a season in NFL history the next season and return to the Super Bowl, had it won it would have been considered the greatest team off all time.

As far as the 1987 team, they had made it to the NFC championship game and lost against the NYG the previous year. To be good enough to go that far and then go back the next season not only reveals how good a team the 1987 team was, but like the 1982 team, proves it's legitimacy.

The Giants fans are drunk with their chest poked out only because they've won 2 Super Bowls in the past 5 years. Their arrogance blinds them to reality, I often tell them. But their day is coming when under Coach Coughlin they will endure a miserable losing season.

I seek the true insight of Redskins Nation on this topic. Thoughts?[/quote]

Not much we can say cause 07 and 11 they had to win 4 games in order to lift the trophy. But to me it's stupid to discredit the 82 and 87 years. Actually in 87 SF and Chicago were the two best teams. SF was upset by Minn and of course everyone remembers the upset against Chicago where D. Green ran back the punt in the freezing cold. We still had to beat quality teams to just get to the SB. In 82 we had to win 4 games and again...had to beat the best teams in the playoffs, including Dexter knocking out D.White! Great memories!

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;954030]Yeah I agree with Giantone on this, and yes Eli will be a HOFer[/quote]

I don't think Eli is a HOF type QB. He's still not on the level of Brady or Brees or Rogers. He's pretty damn good but not in that class. He still makes throws that rookies make and he made a few of them last week. But at this point of his career the good outweighs the bad.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=skinsfan69;956915]I don't think Eli is a HOF type QB. He's still not on the level of Brady or Brees or Rogers. He's pretty damn good but not in that class. He still makes throws that rookies make and he made a few of them last week. But at this point of his career the good outweighs the bad.[/quote]

LOL, so 2super bowls and 2 MVPs aren't good enough for you.Wanna bet you would take them right now???

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;955785]Only if those Washington teams were great 14-2/13-3/12-4 etc. The NYG teams that won Super Bowls 42 & 46 were not great teams. They were 10-6 and 9-7 going into the playoffs those years. Especially the 2011 NYG team that at one point had a 4 game losing streak and a little luck within the post season. Their credibility in the SB comes from already have beaten the Patriots in New England during the regular season that year. But I don't see how a fan base can brag and boast about a lowly above average team that were fortunate to win out. They were nothing like the Saints and Packers in 2011.[/quote]


wow, I now understand why you are having problems up in NY,I'm done.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Giantone;957798]wow, I now understand why you are having problems up in NY,I'm done.[/quote]

Do you really? The Packers, 49ers, Saints and other NFC playoff teams were indeed good. The NYG on the other hand were lucky.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

As a Giants fan, I have never once questioned the legitimacy of the 82 and 87 titles. Had the 87 strike continued and they league used replacement players for the play-offs and Super Bowl, then there is an asterik.

As for the Giants in 07 and 11, no they were not a dominant 14-2, 13-3 type team. However, in both seasons they went on the road to beat the #1 and then #2 seed in the NFC and in both years beat the AFC's #1 seed. In 07, they even played their first play-off game on the road. Can't get a much tougher road to the title then what the Giants did.

Secondly, ANY fan who claims they wouldn't celebrate or get a big head over Championships like the Giants won because they didnt dominate the regular season, is more full of $h!t than a politician.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;958387]Do you really? The Packers, 49ers, Saints and other NFC playoff teams were indeed good. The NYG on the other hand were lucky.[/quote]

And, the Giants walked into Green Bay and totally dominated the Packers. If not for two horrendous calls the Giants win that game 50-0, then walked into San Fran and won.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;955785]Only if those Washington teams were great 14-2/13-3/12-4 etc. The NYG teams that won Super Bowls 42 & 46 were not great teams. They were 10-6 and 9-7 going into the playoffs those years. Especially the 2011 NYG team that at one point had a 4 game losing streak and a little luck within the post season. Their credibility in the SB comes from already have beaten the Patriots in New England during the regular season that year. But I don't see how a fan base can brag and boast about a lowly above average team that were fortunate to win out. They were nothing like the Saints and Packers in 2011.[/quote]

In that case the 87 Redskins were nothing like the 85 Bears, 86 Giants, 84 Niners, 89 Niners, 90 Giants, 83 Raiders, 92 Cowboys, 93 Cowboys, 94 Niners, 95 Cowboys and so forth. What is your point? Seems like it is you who needs the convincing about the legitimacy of the Skins titles, not the Giants fans. In fact, I have never in my life ever heard a Giants fan make the claim to which you are accusing.

Lets just say that every team who has ever won a superbowl was awesome and end this insanity. If you want to stake a claim of which was better that is one thing but to say any of them were lucky or not legitimate is sour grapes, jealous, and just dumb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=punch it in;959223]Lets just say that every team who has ever won a superbowl was awesome and end this insanity. If you want to stake a claim of which was better that is one thing but to say any of them were lucky or not legitimate is sour grapes, jealous, and just dumb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Agree, Great teams find a way to win when they need to win. Giants are a great team and have been for some time now. I hate the MFs but its the truth.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=Giantone;957791]LOL, so 2super bowls and 2 MVPs aren't good enough for you.Wanna bet you would take them right now???[/quote]

So Eli won them by himself? I guess Eli played defense huh? Eli's clutch, but I just don't put him in the class of the guys I mentioned. And sorry, that first SB, they should've given the MVP to the entire Giants D-line, not Eli. But as I said, when the games on the line, Eli's been money. Does that put him in the HOF? Probably since he's QB'd two SB winners. I just don't put him in the class of guys like ...Marino, Montana, Moon, ..he's a very good QB but not quite a great one.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=coggs;959176]As a Giants fan, I have never once questioned the legitimacy of the 82 and 87 titles. Had the 87 strike continued and they league used replacement players for the play-offs and Super Bowl, then there is an asterik.

[B]As for the Giants in 07 and 11, no they were not a dominant 14-2, 13-3 type team. However, in both seasons they went on the road to beat the #1 and then #2 seed in the NFC and in both years beat the AFC's #1 seed. In 07, they even played their first play-off game on the road. Can't get a much tougher road to the title then what the Giants did.[/B]

Secondly, ANY fan who claims they wouldn't celebrate or get a big head over Championships like the Giants won because they didnt dominate the regular season, is more full of $h!t than a politician.[/quote]

Agreed. G-men are mentally tough road warriors. They earned it the hard way. Enough said.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

i think eli has proven himself to be great, a hof lock.

as clutch as they come when it counts the most.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

I gotta agree with Panda. I use to thinl Eli was a bum but he's helped lead his team to two Superbowls and has delivered many clutch performances. Manning is a great quarterback. I'm not going to take that away from him just because I don't like the Giants.

Re: The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22
 

[quote=coggs;959178]In that case the 87 Redskins were nothing like the 85 Bears, 86 Giants, 84 Niners, 89 Niners, 90 Giants, 83 Raiders, 92 Cowboys, 93 Cowboys, 94 Niners, 95 Cowboys and so forth. What is your point? Seems like it is you who needs the convincing about the legitimacy of the Skins titles, not the Giants fans. In fact, I have never in my life ever heard a Giants fan make the claim to which you are accusing.[/quote]

You failed to mention the 91 Redskins. Anyway, I hear that argument in New York City all the time from NYG fans. Not all of them, but those of them who claim to really know football. Once the NFL commissioner presents the Vince Lombardi trophy to an NFL organization, that alone legitimizes the SB victory, I tell them. It's sort of like a new world leader being sworn in.