Will we force Eli to beat us?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Which runner are you going to stop and if you do then which reciever do you stop and then will you stop our pass rush,splitting hairs ...no ,just looking at things realalisticly.When you say you stop the run in the case of the Skins that would be Portis and the pass would be Moss and Cooly.The Giants have 3 running backs and 5 recievers plus Boss....Moss,Hixon,Toomer,Smith,Burrass........... and a very good Fullback Hedgecock.

I do get a little tired of assumption behind your statement; which I believe is, if a defense can stop Jacobs then one of the other two would step up. I don't believe that's the case against the Skins. When we focus on stopping a running attack, we stop can stop it regardless of which back is in. And remember, your 3 backs combined average only about 30 yds more per game than ours combined. Pure and simple stat wise what has made your team the better team this year is your ability to end drives with TDs. That is what we are missing. We probably will hold your running game in check. (note by in check, I mean you will probably have a total of 90-130 yds rushing all told.) and you will probably hold ours in check. So then the game goes back on the quarterback's shoulders which is what the starter of the thread was really asking.

One significant difference, at least as of today, is Shawn Springs will be back in the line up.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I do get a little tired of assumption behind your statement; which I believe is, if a defense can stop Jacobs then one of the other two would step up. I don't believe that's the case against the Skins. When we focus on stopping a running attack, we stop can stop it regardless of which back is in. And remember, your 3 backs combined average only about 30 yds more per game than ours combined. Pure and simple stat wise what has made your team the better team this year is your ability to end drives with TDs. That is what we are missing. We probably will hold your running game in check. (note by in check, I mean you will probably have a total of 90-130 yds rushing all told.) and you will probably hold ours in check. So then the game goes back on the quarterback's shoulders which is what the starter of the thread was really asking.

One significant difference, at least as of today, is Shawn Springs will be back in the line up.

Got it wrong,the point of the post was to point out that the Giants are a team no one person is resposable for their succsess or failure.The Giants don't have just one superstar, they have a bunch of football players.
You should never ASSUME.I know the Redskins have a team that can beat the Giants in this game, in more then one post I have said as much.This was to the point that ...we must make "ELI beat us".

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Got it wrong,the point of the post was to point out that the Giants are a team no one person is resposable for their succsess or failure.The Giants don't have just one superstar, they have a bunch of football players.
You should never ASSUME.I know the Redskins have a team that can beat the Giants in this game, in more then one post I have said as much.This was to the point that ...we must make "ELI beat us".

Oh my God man. Are you effing kidding me?? You still don't understand the meaning?? "Forcing eli to beat us," as has been repeated AD NAUSEUM in this thread, simply means take away the run as best as possible and make Eli throw much more than usual. "Forcing a QB" to beat a team is a football phrase used all the time.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. There isn't anyone on here who at any time suggested football isn't a team sport.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Oh my God man. Are you effing kidding me?? You still don't understand the meaning?? "Forcing eli to beat us," as has been repeated AD NAUSEUM in this thread, simply means take away the run as best as possible and make Eli throw much more than usual. "Forcing a QB" to beat a team is a football phrase used all the time.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. There isn't anyone on here who at any time suggested football isn't a team sport.

Many thanks Scud - i didn't think the title could really be misunderstood...

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Many thanks Scud - i didn't think the title could really be misunderstood...

I don't think I did.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Oh my God man. Are you effing kidding me?? You still don't understand the meaning?? "Forcing eli to beat us," as has been repeated AD NAUSEUM in this thread, simply means take away the run as best as possible and make Eli throw much more than usual. "Forcing a QB" to beat a team is a football phrase used all the time.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. There isn't anyone on here who at any time suggested football isn't a team sport.

And what it is I'm trying to convey to you is that you want to stop the runninng game to get us in our passing game.I don't agree with the "phrase" ,sorry.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Giantone

And what it is I'm trying to convey to you is that you want to stop the runninng game to get us in our passing game.I don't agree with the "phrase" ,sorry.

What is it exactly you don't agree with? The fact that the word "Eli" is used? Would it be better for you if the thread title was "Will we force the New York Giants football team to beat us with a team effort passing the ball?" Semantics.

If you're saying we can't stop the run, but if we do we won't be able to stop the pass, then fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

I guess I just have no idea whatsoever what your point is. You keep harping that it's a team effort despite the fact that no one here has suggested otherwise.

I can't believe I'm still talking about this.