News Archives

New York Giants’ Justin Tuck: “I Plan on Being Here a Very Long Time”

January 1st, 2013 at 3:36 PM
By Paul Tierney

By all accounts, New York Giants defensive end Justin Tuck had a tremendously disappointing 2012 campaign. He only sacked the quarterback four times, which was his lowest total since 2006 (when he only appeared in 6 games).  Tuck averaged just 3 tackles per game this season, which was also his lowest mark since 2006. His body language was questionable, as he often appeared frustrated and dejected on and off the field this season.

'Justin Tuck: Calm Before the Storm.' photo (c) 2009, Heath Brandon - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Save for the final six games of 2011, Tuck has been completely ineffective over the last two seasons. He has trouble beating offensive linemen after initial contact and he rarely wins his individual matchup anymore. Whether it's a product of age, injury, motivation or all of the above, Justin Tuck's reputation and past accomplishments are the only keeping him on this roster. Despite his lack of production over the last two seasons, Tuck does is not ready to entertain questions regarding a departure from New York.

"Listen, man," he said flatly. "I’ll be very frank and honest in saying this: I plan on being here a very long time. And that’s pretty much all I have to say about it."

Tuck may plan on being with the Giants for a long time, but he will be entering a contract year in 2013. He's done a great service to Big Blue for playing his prime years at well below market value. It's not often that a Pro Bowl caliber defensive end is willing to play for an average of $6 million per season. However, if he doesn't return to form next year, the Giants are not going to resign a 31 year old defensive end who has not produced in three seasons. 

It's unfortunate that Tuck is entering a make-or-break season just a year removed from leading the Giants defense to a Super Bowl victory. He could retire right now and go down as one of the most talented, beloved Giants to ever step on the football field. He represents the organization with pride, dignity, class and has been the unquestionable leader of the defense for the last three or four seasons. Furthermore, Tuck says that he will be the first one to hang it up if he doesn't think he can play at a high level anymore.

"Confidence in myself will never be lacking," he said. "Believe me, when I feel like I can’t do it anymore, I’ll be the first one to go up to Jerry Reese and tell them. I’m not going to be one of those guys who will stick around in the league just to get a paycheck. When I can’t play this game at a high level, you’ll know it, and I’ll gracefully bow out."

Justin Tuck has been the quintessential professional for the Giants for his entire career. His hard work, leadership and character are major reasons why the Giants have won two Super Bowls with him on the roster. However, the NFL is a business and if Tuck can not prove next season that he's still capable of being a productive member of the football team, the Giants are going to be in a precarious position next offseason.

Also…

Facebook Twitter Plusone Pinterest Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Posterous Email

Tags: Football, Jerry Reese, Justin Tuck, New York, New York Giants, NFL, Super Bowl

No related posts.

56 Responses to “New York Giants’ Justin Tuck: “I Plan on Being Here a Very Long Time””

  1.  Valid says:

    I’ll say what I’ve been saying about Tuck: he is a class act and a great guy, and the notion around here that he “quit” this year is just wrong. Unfortunately, Tuck is a mere shell of the player he once was.

    It’s not easy going through all of the injuries he has had, and we have no idea what he feels when he wakes up every Monday morning during the season. I’m sure it’s tough for him to even get out of bed. That is what makes it look like he is playing sluggish out there. Some of you may think he is quitting, when in reality, his body just can’t hold for every snap anymore.

    That’s why I think this team desperately needs some more pass rushers to take the onus off of Tuck. If he is a part of a rotation, I think he’ll be fine, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him have a resurgence due to the fact that he’ll be fresh. The problem this year was that he had to play nearly every single snap.

    I still think Tuck can be a productive player. The situation just has to be right.

    •  Krow says:

      The best possible scenario is for him to return to form. No one questions that. But there are times when it looks like he’s had enough football. I’m optimistic that he turns it around. 50% of it is 90% mental.

    •  kinsho says:

      Tuck is without a doubt a true class act.

      But one question that should be making the rounds around the coaching staff is whether he’s still fit to be captain of the defense. If you ask me, I’d say it’s high time Rolle takes over that mantle. And I do agree in that we should be willing to rotate more defensive ends in and out of the game, much like what Philly did against us in our first match-up earlier in the season.

  2.  Dirt says:

    Offensively, I think the biggest reason for the step back this year was the substitution of Hixon/Barden/Hixon/Randle/Hixon/Randle for Manningham. Roddy White, through the trash talk, had a good take on Cruz – he’s more of an inside guy. He took a step back on the outside this year, matching up with better corners and drawing safety help when other teams had no fear of Hixon.

    I think with a fully integrated Randle and Wilson, returning Bennett and having Cruz and Nicks do their thing, I think this offense is gonna be explosive next year. Absolutely dominant. Hell, they had how many 30+ and 40+ (and 50+) point games this year?

    Next year is gonna be fun.

    •  kinsho says:

      I think one guy we shouldn’t forget about in the coming months is Adrien Robinson. If he really comes through as the ‘JPP’ of tight ends, then we’ll have two sick tight ends to compliment our main trio of Nicks, Cruz, and Randle/Hixon. Throw in a great trio of running backs in Bradshaw, Andre Brown, and David Wilson and we could have a great season next year.

      You know what? In many ways, losing out on the playoffs this year might not be so bad. It could give our team the emotional fire they need to win back the Lombardi —on home turf— next year.

    •  demo3356 says:

      I think you are partially correct Dirt. I think Loosing Manningham hurt indeed but a bigger reason was the loss of the real Hakeem Nicks due to his injuries. When Nicks is healthy he absolutely has to be doubled or he wil torch opposing corners. That frees up Cuz. When it became obvious to teams that Nicks was nothing more than a shell of himself they started putting either a lock down corner or double team on Cruz. That meant Eli’s top two targets were taken away from him. Losing Mario to SF meant that he had no true threat at the #3 option. He wil next year in Randle but kid wasn’t ready this year and Hixon scares no one. Bennett was looking like he would become a good #3 option but he had a pretty debilitating knee injury early on that limited his effectiveness . Next year with a healthy Nicks and Bennett and a prepared Randle this offense will be back to form. through in a game breaker like Wilson out of the backfield and this offense could be elite once again. The key is getting the RT position fixed and getting Cruz and Bennett resigned

      •  demo3356 says:

        *throw in

      •  Krow says:

        We went from the ‘best deep threat WR trio in football’ to ‘Victor Cruz playing out of position and 2 JAGs’. Apologies to Nicks, but hurt as he was he was just a JAG.

        That’s a tremendous comedown.

      •  Dirt says:

        You’re right. A better opening statement would have been “Besides the obvious impact of injuries to one of best receivers in football…” because it was Huge with a capital H. But I think no 3rd option to stretch the field was huge with a lower case h, for Cruz in particular.

        •  Valid says:

          It’s certainly gonna be fun next year with Cruz, Randle, and a (hopefully) healthy Nicks.

          I am very high on Randle. I think the kid has a chance to be something very, very special.

          •  Dirt says:

            2013 could be the year that blows us all away offensively, health permitting. And to lock up home field and to play the Super Bowl in our elements would be unreal.

            However, I think as I said in the last thread, this first must be addressed:

            I think a strategy I’d like to see is setting the bar higher. “We need to win at least 10? isn’t a really lofty goal for such a talented team.

            I’d like to see “Next year our goal, with this talented, veteran team who knows how tough it is to win, we’re looking to secure home field in the playoffs to get the best path possible to another championship. It’s not just about winning our division, it’s about needing to play our best football every single week and winning as many games as we can.”

            That type of attitude removes complacency and general lack of urgency about losing games. That type of attitude makes you ice cold.

            I found the 2007 Patriots attitude so awesome. Like “we’re going out to murder every team and we’re going to be the best ever.” They fell 3 points short to a better team, but their attitude won them 18 straight games, many in dominating fashion.

            I want that same assassin like attitude.

            In the preseason I heard numerous team leaders like Manning and Coughlin speak about how importnat it was to play your best football at the end of games and the end of the season.

            My, wouldn’t they loved to have played their best game in Week 1 and Week 4 and not had to worry about needing help at the end, when they finally did play their best game in Week 17.

            —-

            Demo’s talking about starting 6-2. They should have started 8-0. They had the talent to do it.

  3.  demo3356 says:

    I watched a very interesting piece with Chirs Carter last weekend which bought me back to something FF55Yrs and I were discussing a few years ago.. In 17 seasons as a head Coach Tom Coughlin has only had one team win more than 13 games and that was his 14-2 Jaguars. While he seemingly ALWAYS churns out winning season, he rarely ever has dominating ones. Carter pointed out that Tom Coughlin is one of the most demanding coaches in the NFL and wears out players both physically but more so mentally with all the mental preparation he demands. This would explain why the giants come screaming out of the gate every single season, as they are always in better shape and more prepared then their opponents but by week 9-10 every season seem to be drained and banged up all to hell. I posted something similar a few seasons ago with Coughlin’s first half and second half records both in Jax and NY. In 07 the team caught a boost from 6-8 rookies pressed into service late in the season like Ross, Braddie, Smith, Boss and Alford and last year it seemed like the entire team got healthy just in time to gel and catch fire. I’m thinking Coughlin’s hesitance to play rookies early also may wear down the vets throughout the year..
    I want to add that I am in no way slamming Coughlin as I am and always have been the biggest Tom Coughlin supporter on this site. Just pointing out that while he is one of the 3 best coaches in the NFL, he is not perfect and this aspect of his coaching strategy may need to be looked at by himself and his staff.. It is great to start out 6-2 every single year but not if it means he wears out the vets and has them running on fumes down the stretch. This is another reason I am hoping the team gets significantly younger this off season. The younger players need to be worked in earlier and more often to take a burden ff the vets.

    •  kinsho says:

      I read this in the other thread when I was catching up. I have doubts about this theory. For one thing, we fell a-s-s backwards into a 6-2 record at the halfway point this season. We struggled to beat the Redskins and nearly blew a double-digit lead again the Cowboys if it wasn’t for Dez’s finger going out of bounds.

      •  demo3356 says:

        Really? Barely beating the NFC East Champs is falling azz backwards into a 6-2 start?? Beating the Cowboys in a game where the offense had NOTHING but the defense caused 6 turnovers and scored a TD? How bout the other 6 times the team started 6-2 or better and failed to have a winning record in the second half?

        •  kinsho says:

          Yes, the Super Bowl champions not being able to put a Redskins team that wasn’t all that impressive at the time followed by an absolutely pathetic showing by an offense against a division rival is falling a-s-s backwards into a 6-2 start.

          You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Giants always had a progressively harder schedule in its past seasons. You also seem to be ignoring the 2008 season where we were on top of the NFC in the regular season.

          •  demo3356 says:

            I ignore nothing..
            2008- 11-1 start then lost 4 of 5..
            The Redskins LIKE IT OR NOT are the Divisional champs and absolutely deserve it. They have one of the least talented rosters in the NFL yet laid it all out on the field and won their final 7 while we went 3-4
            Dallas like it or not wass a very tough match up for us particularly on defense due to having speed rushers off the edge and lock down corners on the outside. Before losing 17 LB”s to IR and signing guys off their couches their defense was as good as any
            I am the biggest O on this site and the biggest Coughlin supporter as well. ANYONE that has been around here knows this.. However starting evry year 6-2 or better and never having a winning record in the 2nd half (besides 2008) is not a coinsidence

            •  kinsho says:

              Definitely not a coincidence, but to me, it’s hard to figure out who to blame here. I’m not willing to excuse any of the players for the way they played against Atlanta, Baltimore, or Cincy.

              To me, this year was doomed thanks to a few key injuries and just a sheer lack of willpower.

              •  demo3356 says:

                This year.. Ok, explain 2004,2005, 2006, 2009 and 2010. Also 2007 and 2011 were 6-2 starts with a 4-4 finish and a 3-5 finish respectively.. There is more to it and as someone who has followed Coughlin for 10+ years I believe my theory (and Chris Carters) to be true

  4.  Barbarossa says:

    So overall I am a fan of the job Reese has done as GM, but with the advantage of hindsight…man do I wish we had found a way to hold onto Barry Cofield. With the play we got from our DT’s this year you have to wonder what a guy like Barry could have done to energize and improve our D-line. He has really blossomed into one of those key veteran presences in Washington, and between him and Bob Griffin I find myself actually liking the Washington Redskins. I’m young enough that I can’t remember when Washington was actually competitive in the division so I don’t have the same deep seated disgust for them that I do for the Cowboys and Eagles. I think they will be a fun team to watch this year in the playoffs (unfortunately they will also likely be a thorn in our side for the foreseeable future).

    •  demo3356 says:

      I think Barry and super Mario are the only two losses that really hurt. The problem was that we were right up against the cap and Washington in little Danny’s perpetual desperation laid out some pretty big bucks to pry him away. We had big money invested in Canty and had just spent a 2nd round pick on Landfill. This is the challenge of keeping a really talented team together. JR did a GREAT job of locking up all our young talent during /right after the 2007 run. He locked up Tuck, Eli, Webster, Snee, Deihl, Suebert, and Jacobs. Then he added key pieces like Canty, Boley and Rolle through Free agency. The combination of all thoss signings meant that there wasn’t going to be enough money to resign all of the next batch of home grown free agents. Guys like Smith, Boss, Coefield, Ross and Mario left for more money because we were cap stricken. Guys like Bradshaw and Kiwi who were deemed less replaceable were retained. This is why I have been predicting such a bloodletting this off season. We are right up against the cap, have 25 free agents and several over paid vets that have produced diminishing returns. Something has to give. We are either going to have to lose out on several of our own free agents our trim some fat around the rosters. Restructures will hep but are not going to be enough

      •  Barbarossa says:

        Agreed, I think most people would agree that this off-season will see a bit more turnover than usual, and some high profile releases/restructures.

      •  Eric S says:

        Kiwi was offered a team-friendly-prove-your-healthy deal and took it. When he proved his worth they extended him. The Giants would have let him walk coming off his injury if he wanted to push for more money at the time. Bradshaw was not deemed less replaceable. They let him shop around the league for that big money deal. Nobody wanted him and he came back, tail between his legs and got a fair deal from the Giants. Bradshaw will most certainly have to restructure his deal as many others will have to.

    •  godzilla says:

      You should have lived in DC for a while (1969-1971) as an expatriate New Yorker and Giants fan I was subjected to a lot of razzing when the 4skins beat the Giants. I do not like any of the other reams in the NFC East…HATEM!

  5.  demo3356 says:

    Looks like Andy Reid feeling Bad about the way he “stole” from Arizona in the Kevin “Cornhole” on the Kolb trade may be working off his debt to them as head Coach..
    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/01/report-cardinals-very-close-to-hiring-andy-reid-as-head-coach/

    •  Barbarossa says:

      Talk about an awkward reunion between a coach and player. “So remember how you thought I wasn’t good enough to be your QB and you traded me away?”

  6.  kinsho says:

    Not sure if somebody brought this up already in an earlier thread, but here’s our match-ups for next year:

    Home – Packers, Vikings, Seahawks, Broncos, Raiders, Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles
    Away – Chicago, Detroit, Carolina, Kansas City, San Diego, Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles

    Couple observations I wanted to make:
    - The only easy home game comes against the Raiders.
    - We lucked out facing the Seahawks in the Meadowlands.
    - The only easy away games come against the Chiefs and the Chargers.
    - This is the third year in a row in which we face the Packers on our turf in the regular season.
    - Manning vs. Manning showdown in the Meadowlands could be a preview of the Meadowlands Super Bowl
    - Panthers actually finished second in the NFC South this year, which explains why we’re facing them again next year. Where the **** did they come from?

    Still not as bad as this season though. But with games against the likes of the Redskins and their run-happy offense, MVP Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, LaSean McCoy, Cam Newton, Marshawn Lynch, and DeMarco Murray, we better shore up our run defense through the draft and FA.

    •  Valid says:

      Yeah. To be perfectly honest, I’ll take that schedule and run with it, especially compared to the schedule we had this season.

      It’s very rare you get any “easy” games in the NFL anymore. However, having teams like Detroit, Chicago, Carolina (again), and San Diego on the road is much, much better than having to go to San Fran, Atlanta, and Baltimore like we did this year.

      I know it’s very, very, VERY early, but I really like our chances with that schedule.

      •  Valid says:

        In addition, it’s good that the toughest teams we play outside of our division (GB, SEA, DEN) are all at home.

    •  GmenMania says:

      At the Panthers isn’t a tough game, we just dismantled the Eagles in their house, we always win in Jerruh World, Detroit was 4-12, and the Bears have one of the worst offenses in the league. At Chargers and Chiefs are certainly not the only easy away games; almost all of them are relatively easy away games.

      At home, we were much better this year, and we should easily be able to take the Seahawks, a very mediocre road team.

      The opponents are MUCH easier than this year.

      •  Barbarossa says:

        No need to stress about too many easy games Giants fans! Our beloved Gmen will undoubtedly find a way to loose some of those games in a truly embarrassing and mind-boggling fashion. We can only hope that they don’t loose enough of them to keep us out of the playoffs next year. Let the bi-polar run continue! With the way the end of this season turned into a blow-out or be blow-out extravaganza I’m excited to see what new ways they will think of to surprise and delight us next season.

    •  demo3356 says:

      couple of thoughts…
      1)That schedule HAS to be wrong.. Unless their is some extenuating circumstances… The Giants should be hosting KC and traveling to Oakland. Maybe I’m wrong but I think Giants.com screwed that up. In 09 we went to KC and hosted Oakland. In 05 we hosted KC and went to Oakland,. In 2001 we went to KC (first game after 9/11) and hosted Oakland.
      2) Looking at the scedule for 2013 now and predicting what games will be hard or easy is foolish at best. Last offseason Indy, Washington, Minnesota and Seattle were dumpster fires, while Philly Dallas, Detroit, Pittsburg and the New Orleans were feared. Lots will change between now and next season.
      3) I do like that we are not going to Denver. I don’t think I ever remember us winning there, while we have 2 memorable wins vs them at home

      •  Dirt says:

        I was at the 2005 win over Denver and it was something awesome, like a rebirth of the team. The kid had arrived.

      •  kinsho says:

        True, it is pretty foolish to guess at what teams would be hard or easy for next year. For all we know, Oakland could be the new red hot team next year.

      •  TonyMW says:

        Demo, it has something to do with the rule pertaining to travel to the West Coast. If it stayed KC at home, we’d have to travel to San Diego and Oakland. I’m not sure of the exact language of the rule, but that’s the gist of it.

        •  Dirt says:

          ? We played at SF & Ari in 2011.

          Demo continues to be correct here. You host interconference opponents every 8 years.

        •  Dirt says:

          I stand corrected, Tony is right – I missed a rule change a couple years ago:

          “West Coast” modification
          Under the original 2002 formula, half of the teams scheduled to play all the AFC West clubs had to travel to both Oakland and San Diego in the same season, while half of the clubs playing the NFC West had to make their way to both San Francisco and Seattle. In years in which a division was scheduled to play both AFC and NFC West clubs, two clubs (such as the the New England Patriots and New York Jets in 2008) each had to make cross-country trips to all four of the aforementioned west coast teams.

          As a result, after all of the teams had cycled through playing against each other both home and away by the end of the 2009 season, the NFL tweaked the pairings to relieve teams from having to travel to the west coast more than twice in a season. Under the modifications implemented in 2010, clubs now have to travel to play only one team based on the west coast (either Oakland or San Diego) in years they play the teams in the AFC West, and only one such team (either San Francisco or Seattle) in years they play the NFC West.[6]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_regular_season#.22West_Coast.22_modification

          •  demo3356 says:

            wow, didnt know they changed that rule.. Guess you learn something new everyday. Not sure I agree with it though. Teams have been traveling back and forth forever. The Rams used to be in LA making 5 west coast Teams.. Why change it now? That means the Chiefs game back in 05 at the meadow lands where Tiki went for like 200 yards will be their last trip to NY till 2017? And the new years eve game in 05 where Tiki had a 90+ yard TD run and Plax had a 90+ yard TD catch wil be the giants last trip there till 2017?

  7.  rlhjr says:

    If anyone in the Jet corporate office has half a brain, Marc Ross will be working for them as GM in the next five minutes. He would bring much needed football acumen and class to an organization that needs both desperately.

    I am not too sure that Ross would want anything to do with Ryan as a coach.
    I also do not think Woody is smart enough to hire Ross. He is however forced to interview him due to Roney. Otherwise I would think none in the Jet organization would even know the young man existed.
    Be warned, the Jets do crave all things Giant blue. It might happen.

    As for Mr. Tuck; He speaks like a man who knows something the rest of us don’t
    Hopefully he is able to split time with Tracy and others and maintain his stamina throughout the season. Tuck like Bradshaw would benefit from letting the youngsters take a lions share of snaps. It would make for a better ball club.

    •  demo3356 says:

      The Jets have to know what Ross is capable of. He is much more tha a Rooney rule for them. I see Ross going to Carolina. Not sure anyone wants to get inolved in that circus that is the Jets if given a choice

  8.  GOAT56 says:

    I think everyone good points about Nicks being far from the player that we expected. It’s also a fair point that Hixon/Randle was clearly a drop from MM. But I still think the key issue offensively was Eli wasn’t as good this year. Eli IMO had better protection, clearly a much better running game and even a better threat at TE. While I understand the downgrade at WR hurt Eli I don’t think explains his drop in play. I think there were too many poor decisions more like 2010. These poor decisions didn’t result in as many interceptions as 2010 but too many of the interceptions this year were of the poor decision variety. Eli also seemed to have a drastic regression in pocket mobility. Eli was brilliant in his pocket mobility in 2011 but wasn’t nearly the same this year with better protection overall and a better running game. It’s a little bit like Mark Sanchez. Clearly Sanchez this year had little talent at the skill positions but still made too many poor decisions. So while clearly our WR group wasn’t nearly as good this year it doesn’t excuse the poor decisions by Eli this year on too many occasions.

    There are not many games that Eli cost us per say this year. Only really Philly #1 and Pitt games could be argued as games he cost us. But Eli also didn’t bail us out of any games this year with great late game play except Washington game 1. Eli to me is the player we most need to revert to 2011 form with JPP a strong second. Eli played beyond his numbers in 2011 and almost lessor than his 2012 numbers. We need Eli to play like an elite QB consistently to win at the highest level in 2013.

    •  Valid says:

      I still maintain that Nicks’ injury was the biggest thing that affected Eli.

      Comparing and contrasting his numbers from last year, the completion percentage was nearly the same (61 percent last year to 59.9 percent this year), the TDs were roughly similar (29 last year to 26 this year), and he actually threw MORE interceptions last season (16) than this year (15).

      Now, look at his yards per completion. He averaged 8.38 last year and then 7.37 this year. That may not look like much, but it resulted in nearly a 1,000-yard overall difference (Eli threw for 4,933 yards last season and only 3,948 this year).

      To me, that is a direct result of his receivers being unable to stretch the field. Nicks was extremely limited all season and just couldn’t get any sort of separation from defenders. Because Nicks wasn’t the threat he usually is, this allowed defenses to pay more attention to Cruz and take away the deep ball to him.

      I’m not saying Eli played up to his level of capability this season, because he certainly didn’t. I just think the essential absence of Nicks (let’s face it; we did not have Hakeem Nicks this year) is a much bigger problem than some are saying.

      •  GOAT56 says:

        I think using purely numbers isn’t really telling the Eli story this year. He really built good numbers this year based on maybe 5-6 games. But the rest of the games he was average or worse. Watching the game and the type of interceptions Eli threw this year is no comparison to last year. Sometimes like in 2010 a QB is lucky or unlucky interception wise. I thought this Eli was was probably lucky unlike the last few years and made decisions more in line with a 20 interception year. To me the diffence in WRs in more in line with the yards he threw for and the yards per attempt. I think we have in some ways underplayed Eli’s drop in performance. While other factors are certainly legit it still doesn’t explain what I consider very poor decisions on too many throws. In addition to not getting rid of the ball as he had done in 2011.

    •  wrdag says:

      with all due respect, you need to review some games from this past year and compare them to 2011 in terms of the protection Eli received this year. For starters let me put this out there…of all the elite QB’s in the league,Eli by far has had the worst protection over his career mostly due to the fact that he has never had a pro-bowl tackle. This is the Ernie Acorsi legacy that JR adopted which is to skimp on the o-line both in the draft and free agency. The few times we spent some resources in this area they paid off…McKenzie was a stable force for many years at RT and Will Beatty looks to be one now at LT. But for the most part Eli has dealt with a cheap acceptable Lt in Deihl who at his best was always a problem versus any elite rusher and scrap heap guards (outside Snee).
      This year,as I stated before, turned for the worse the moment Locklear was taken out of the line-up and was replaced by Turnstile Deihl. It cost us two or three games before the coaching staff came to their senses but then Locklear went down and that was probably the death knell of the season. Would anyone like to play the games over with Locklear staying in the line-up???
      All QB”S need elite protection to be successful, even those named Brady. Several weeks ago we dismantled Rodgers when his o-line couldn’t handle our rush. This year we saw a fall-off by Brees due to his issues on the o-line afer the Saints lost 2 all pro lineman. At this point Phillip Rivers looks more like David Carr after 2 years of terrible protection. Eli is no different, he was running for his life in Atlanta and Baltimore and then gets good protection versus the Saints and the Eagles and the same guy puts up 50 plus and 5 TD’s. How do you miss the obvious connection. I know we all think he should play just as well with a rush in his face or he should overcome it but thats not reality. You must in this league give your QB protection or your not scoring the points needed to win games in the 2012 NFL.
      The number one priority for this team even before Cruz n Nicks is to get a real bona fide answer for the RIGHT Tackle POSITION..PERIOD END OF STORY. there is nothing more important. If you dont give ELI protection worthy of his talents you can resurrect Jerry Rice,Randy Moss and Michael Irvin at their career best and it wont make a difference if Deihl is whiffing on the likes of Kroy Biermann and his 3 sack career average.
      Right Tackle first then Cruz n Nicks and with the remaining talent on the offense you now have an offense that can put up 28 plus a game, then worry about the defense. This is how its done in the current NFL, just ask a Patriot fan.

      •  GOAT56 says:

        Have you forgotten last year? That turnstile in the Diehl you refer to was the LT for much of last year. At RT McKenzie started the whole year and was worse than Diehl this year. Last year Eli had worse protection. Not all elite QBs have great protection. They make decisions and throws that make the OL look better than they are. Peyton in 2010, Eli in 2011 and Rodgers in 2012 all had very poor OLs but still produced great years. Our OL wasn’t as bad as some think this year. Could it be better? Yes But is it to blame for Eli’s performance I don’t think so.

        Our offense was 6th in the NFL in ppg. Our RT position was still better than last year and our LT position was clearly better. Eli is supposed to be good enough that these excuses shouldn’t be made. Eli as an elite QB just has to be better. Better is not always making the great play it’s not making the big mistake which Eli did at key times this year.

  9.  turkish says:

    “I definitely didn’t work as hard as I should’ve last year,” Justin Tuck

    Would love to see him get it back together, but he’s just not the same player he was 3 yrs ago.

  10. Anthony Raiaaxr29 says:

    In a non football note, did my first polar bear plunge for charity this afternoon. It’s awesome, if you can stand the cold I recommend doing it at least once.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: