Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Can we still host the NFCCG?


PhillyB

Recommended Posts

That wouldn't be ironic at all.

It would be ironic because even though homefield playoff advantage was on the line, we'd win it anyway and there'd be no difference between having won and having lost on sunday. we'd play our first playoff game at home, and a giants loss would mean we'd play our second playoff game - the nfccg - at home. that's all our playoff games.

that would be very ironic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently not. The original use of the word, and the two explanations of what would be ironic were both wrong.

Irony has to be the most misunderstood concept in the english language.

noted.

wanna discuss the topic at hand with the rest of the grammar mortals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just three.

1. Win against the Saints.

2. Win against our playoff opponent.

3. Giants lose against their playoff opponent.

OR,

1) lose against the Saints, and enter playoff as a five seed.

2) Win the first two playoff ganes as 5 seed, 6 seed does the same.

3) Host 6th seed in NFCCG.

This would have happened in '05 if Washington didn't lose in the division round. However, I much prefer your scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • If we were a solid winning organization most of us would have no problems with this selection. We would have had a capable starter in place to allow him to be eased into the rotation. If were told prior to the draft that he had been completely cleared health wise, we "probably" wouldn't have a ton of reservations about this selection. If we had picked this young man on Day 3 of the draft most of us would have no problems with this selection because we wouldn't have had to use draft capital to move up and get him. Unfortunately, none of the above were true 1)  We were a terrible team in 2024 and needed an immediate impact player. 2)  He was hurt near the the end of the 2023 season. We traded up to get him even though we knew he wasn't medically cleared to play in 2024. 3) When training camp started we were hearing stories that the knee wasn't ready. That alone should have raised some red flags. I personally would have red-shirted him in 2024 in order to have him ready for 2025. We had Chubba as our lead back and other guys to fill the #2 and #3 spots on the depth chart. There was no need to rush Brooks unto the field in 2024. Here's our draft history in the 2nd round between 2021 and 2024 2021 TMJ 2022 No draft choice. We picked Matt Corall in round 3 (#94) as our only Day 2 pick. 2023 Jonathan Mingo 2024 Jonathon Brooks. We have taken 4 skill players on Day 2 of the draft for the past 4 years who have contributed absolutely nothing to the offensive side of the football. 3 are no longer on the team. Two of them are no longer in the NFL. One  could possibly never start a game due to a knee injury. This type of poor drafting is why this team has been so bad for the entire decade. 
    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
×
×
  • Create New...