TouchdownBlue.com
Welcome to Touchdown Blue!

Come join our NY Giants community along with other Great Fans of the Game!

Please take a moment to register for free to discuss NY Giants Football and more.

Your friends @ TouchdownBlue.com
Giants News Alert

Giants News Wire
Training Camp Updates
 

Shockey and Burress

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:29 pm

I can understand why Shockey and Burress are unhappy with their situations.

What I don't agree with is how they are handling it.

The Giants like to do things privately behind the scenes; the fact that both situations have spilled publically indicates to me that neither is happy with the progress of discussions behind the scenes and both are trying to up the ante.

The bottom line is whether either is on board or not, the giants will move on (without them if need be)
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:30 pm

I like this quote from Richie McCaw on his team the Crusaders (who won 7 super 14 rugby titles in 10 years) and departing coach Robbie Deans - there is some similarity with Coughlin and the Giants

“You can see with the Crusaders, no matter what the personnel, every year (we) have always moulded, believing in the same thing.

“The team comes first. The Crusaders are there to succeed, not individuals. Then individuals come second and they do succeed because of that.

“That's the thing I've learnt the most being in the Crusaders playing under Robbie.

“And I think that's been from day one and a big reason for the Crusaders' success and I'm sure that will be exercised (at the Wallabies).

“It will be interesting.''

McCaw said one of the best qualities Deans had spread throughout the Crusaders camp was treating each other as equals.

“No matter who you are as a player, whether you're a 50-Test All Black or a first-game Crusader, you're all treated the same and you all live by the same values,'' he said.

“You go out there to play for your mates, play for your jersey. We always say it's better to have a champion team than a team of champions and that's the sort of ethos that runs through the team.

“Because of that, you buy into what you do and it makes it fun.''

(btw a 50 test veteran is someone who has played 50 times for the national team)
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:45 pm

I don't buy into us needing a particular star player, no matter who they are.

If they are on board with the team that is great; if not, it opens up opporunities for talented other players to step up.

The bottom line is that you are either a part of the team or not. Coughlin's attitude (which I 100% support) is that the players conform to the team, not the other way around. That is what earned us SB42.

I think Shockey is rapidly approaching the point of no return; Burress could go either way.

The Giants will offer reasonable contracts for these guys; but it probably won't be what they could get elsewhere.
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:12 pm

Unless the situtations can be improved/resolved in the very near future, if I was Jerry Reese, I would be inclined to explore trade options; possibly with either a RFA or someone in the last year of their deal.

For example, I would see if we could trade Shockey and/or possibly Burress (maybe with picks) for guys like

  • LB/DE Terrell Suggs (Ravens)
    CB Nnamdi Asomugha (Raiders)
    CB Marcus Trufant (Seahawks)
    OT Jordan Gross (Panthers)
    DE Julius Peppers (Panthers)
    WR Roy Williams (Lions)


admittedly our offense would take a bt of a hit, but Boss could step in for Shockey and I believe Smith, Moss and Manninghan could make up for Burress; there are also solid veteran FAs we can bring in like Eric Moulds and Peerless Price.

Much like what was said about out running game without Tiki, I think our passing game could be effective without Burress and/or Shockey

unlike what some may think, the world wouldn't end without shockey or burress; Giants football would keep rolling along Smile
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  56 Crazed Dogs on Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:14 am

Just to add more fuel to the fire.

Shockey vs. Reese
Apparently Jeremy Shockey and general manager Jerry Reese got into a huge shouting match during the tight end's "visit" to the minicamp which concluded Friday at Giants Stadium. This goes with the theory Shockey helped develop last Saturday that his problems with the Giants are not involved with football but with off-the-field issues.

Shockey said last week he was upset the Giants did not allow him to stay on the field during Super Bowl XLII and instead sent him up to coowner Steve Tisch's luxury box. He also blamed the Giants for spreading the rumors that he was upset and wanted a trade.

It's a good bet these were two of the elements brought up in the argument.

Even coach Tom Coughlin admitted Friday he hasn't seen any progress in Shockey's mental state over the past three days. "There is an issue, but it is not something that would prevent him from working," Coughlin added.

Meanwhile agent Drew Rosenhaus showed up at Giants Stadium Friday apparently to speak with one of his clients, Plaxico Burress. Reese said he did not have any plans to meet with Rosenhaus.

"I’m just here to visit with my clients as they wrap up minicamp, to see the guys," Rosenhaus said. "That was my purpose for being here."


As far as mending the apparently shattered relationship between Shockey and the Giants front office, he said, "It’s an issue that we’re working on, that we’re talking to the team with. We’re just going to have to take it one day at a time."


When asked if Shockey wants to remain with the Giants, Rosenhaus said, "I don’t specifically have a way to address that at this time because Jeremy’s been very adamant about avoiding any public discussion about a situation. The best thing I can say about Jeremy’s situation is that we are talking to the team about some of the issues that exist and we hope to get that resolved."
Vinny Ditriani
avatar
56 Crazed Dogs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  deranged on Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:28 am

Big_Pete wrote:Unless the situtations can be improved/resolved in the very near future, if I was Jerry Reese, I would be inclined to explore trade options; possibly with either a RFA or someone in the last year of their deal.

For example, I would see if we could trade Shockey and/or possibly Burress (maybe with picks) for guys like

  • LB/DE Terrell Suggs (Ravens)
    CB Nnamdi Asomugha (Raiders)
    CB Marcus Trufant (Seahawks)
    OT Jordan Gross (Panthers)
    DE Julius Peppers (Panthers)
    WR Roy Williams (Lions)


admittedly our offense would take a bt of a hit, but Boss could step in for Shockey and I believe Smith, Moss and Manninghan could make up for Burress; there are also solid veteran FAs we can bring in like Eric Moulds and Peerless Price.

Much like what was said about out running game without Tiki, I think our passing game could be effective without Burress and/or Shockey

unlike what some may think, the world wouldn't end without shockey or burress; Giants football would keep rolling along Smile

I doubt anyone makes a big trade like this now. Players would be too behind. And especially for Burress and Shockey..two guys with injury histories.

deranged
mascot
mascot


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Pizan on Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:36 pm

Burress deserves a new deal. He doesn't need traded nor should he be. Shockey is better on this team then off it. I feel like Reese has developed a bit of an ego. I don't like the way he has handled the Shockey situation. Say what you will about Shocks childish acts in the past but Shockey has handled this situation better than I thought he would. Actually I respect him more for it.
avatar
Pizan
All-Pro
All-Pro


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  56 Crazed Dogs on Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:44 pm

Pizan wrote:Burress deserves a new deal. He doesn't need traded nor should he be. Shockey is better on this team then off it. I feel like Reese has developed a bit of an ego. I don't like the way he has handled the Shockey situation. Say what you will about Shocks childish acts in the past but Shockey has handled this situation better than I thought he would. Actually I respect him more for it.
Firstly, Glad you made your way over man!

Secondly I gotta disagree with ya on this one. We have nothing to base Reese's inflated ego on. It's all heresay right now.
If I was a betting man (which I'm not) I'd have to say that Shock didn't like what Reese told him and was very likely the first to raise his voice. Yes, Shock has been fairly quiet otherwise but not in a good way. From the sounds of Coughlin and Reese, it sounds like Shockey could have been more involved in mini-camp and chose not to.

I do agree however that the Giants are a better team with Jeremy than without him.

It should get interesting over the next couple weeks. Laughing
avatar
56 Crazed Dogs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Bigblue25 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:56 pm

I still have no idea why Jeremy Shockey is a Giant after draft weekend, i guy with a history of injuries and off the field issues we could of got a second rounder from New Orleans? Plus it's not like we didn't have options at TE, Kevin Boss did fine in Shockeys absence last year and their were names like Alge Crumpler out there. Now we can't get rid of him, and all the TE's are gone.
avatar
Bigblue25
mascot
mascot


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:24 pm

Pizan wrote:Burress deserves a new deal. He doesn't need traded nor should he be. Shockey is better on this team then off it. I feel like Reese has developed a bit of an ego. I don't like the way he has handled the Shockey situation. Say what you will about Shocks childish acts in the past but Shockey has handled this situation better than I thought he would. Actually I respect him more for it.

I agree with you about Burress to some extent, he does deserve a new deal; at the same time he has to meet the giants half-way and work out a deal the Giants can work with. Burress isn't going to (nor should he) get the top money he will get elsewhere, the Giants will offer a reasonable deal. What I will say is that Burress needs to get on the same page as the Giants. There is a right and wrong way to resolve issues. Burress's methods make me uneasy, particularly when he has the same agent as Shockey.

Shockey is a different case, yes he has handled it better than he would have in the past (but that doesn't mean too much); I suspect that is Rosenhaus's influence to make him more attractive to potential trade partners (and more money).


Last edited by Big_Pete on Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:05 pm

This quote pretty much sums up my current thoughts

I'm getting sick & tired about Shockey. And, I'm starting to feel the same way about Plax.

(from a LTTE at insidefootball.com)
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:22 pm

Burress is on $3.5 million this year

How much should he get? Where do you draw the line?

$5 mil?, $7mil, $9mil a year??

We don't know what is is expecting, but it is probably near the top money that others got (maybe $8mil a year); The giants are not unreasonable, but how much can they afford?

What if it means we can't resign Brandon Jacobs and/or Chris Snee who are off contract after the season. Both of those guys are much higher priority than a guy with 3 years left on his contract..

Without the exact details of what each party is (which is private) I will hold my judgement to some extent; but Plax does need to be reasonable. Like it or not, he is replaceable.

whether Plax is on board or not giants football will roll on; and thats exactly how it should be.
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  56 Crazed Dogs on Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:45 pm

Others may disagree but I see no reason to pay Plax more than 3.5 until I see his body healthy and working hard on the training field. Once I see that, then I'm willing to talk salary.
The Giants have a lot of depth at receiver. I know Plax is a special player but there are other young players on this team just dying to step in.

Same goes for Shockey. Quit hiding in your hole and be a team player. And no... your not getting a raise if that's what's been bugging you.
avatar
56 Crazed Dogs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:41 pm

Admin wrote:Others may disagree but I see no reason to pay Plax more than 3.5 until I see his body healthy and working hard on the training field. Once I see that, then I'm willing to talk salary.
The Giants have a lot of depth at receiver. I know Plax is a special player but there are other young players on this team just dying to step in.

Same goes for Shockey. Quit hiding in your hole and be a team player. And no... your not getting a raise if that's what's been bugging you.

Thats pretty much what I am thinking (although I am willing to give a small pay rise).

I have every confident that at least one (if not all) of our youngsters will step up if they are given the opportunity.

I imagine we could get a 2nd round pick for both Burress and Shockey, but I would be happy to go as low as a 3rd for each. I would rather use the $2 mil (Shockey) and $3.25 mil (Burress) that we would save against the cap to extend the contracts of our other key players; top of the list Snee and Jacobs.
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Gman329 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:04 am

Whoa! Guys, come back to me! Plax is NOT easily replaced! And, when you look at WR contracts around the league, he's drastically underpaid. Please go look at the Green Bay tape. This guy played through injuries all year and was a monster! You want to tell me you don't like how he's going about things? OK, I can see that....although sitting out a minicamp will be a small blip on the radar screen come Fall.

But don't for a minute allow yourselves to believe we could dump him and not miss a beat!

And I agree that Snee is a priority but wouldn't break the bank for Jacobs. Bradshaw will be the #1 RB and we COULD dump Jacobs and not miss a beat, going with Bradshaw & Ward.

As for Shock, the yards per carry went down a full yard without him. However, he appears determined to get out of town, so we might not have a choice....but again, replacing him will not be easy.

Gman329
mascot
mascot


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  56 Crazed Dogs on Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:14 pm

Gman329 wrote:
But don't for a minute allow yourselves to believe we could dump him and not miss a beat!
I still think Plax is a special player and demands alot of attention when he's on the field. It opens things up for other receivers as well with the respect that he is given.
Does Palx desrve a raise... yeah, but not the way he's doing it. Plax said he was good enough to practice but chose not to. If your good enough to practice then get on the field and practice, he has the next 6 weeks to come to terms on a new deal.
So now the Giants must make a decision based on not knowing how far Plax has come from his injury last season. This should play in the Giants favor.
avatar
56 Crazed Dogs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:17 pm

Gman329 wrote:Whoa! Guys, come back to me! Plax is NOT easily replaced! And, when you look at WR contracts around the league, he's drastically underpaid. Please go look at the Green Bay tape. This guy played through injuries all year and was a monster! You want to tell me you don't like how he's going about things? OK, I can see that....although sitting out a minicamp will be a small blip on the radar screen come Fall.

I don't buy that. Exactly the same was said about our running game without Tiki and our line without Petitgout; we went to the superbowl. Last year was supposed to be a rebuilidng year for the Packers.. The same was said when Shockey went down.

I think it is very clear that Reese has done an excellent job of building a deep roster with competition at every spot; that means if the top guy can't go the next guy gets his shot.

Burress is our best WR, but he isn't indispensible. Either he is with the team or he isn't; his antics lately seem to indicate the latter.

We have plenty talented WRs just waiting in the wings for their chance to show what they can do. Think about it, would we have known about Bradshaw or the Saints have known about Colston without an opportunity?

our passing game would look different, but it could survivie. It might mean it requires serveral players need to step up

Perhaps Smith, Moss, Hixon and Manningham split Plax's 1,000 yds, 12 TDs, with an extra 250 yds and 3 TD each?
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:36 pm

Another article about WRs last year - please note where Plax is

from http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=joyner_kc&id=3363084


Wayne worthy of more respect, accolades
By KC Joyner

ESPN Insider
(Archive)
Updated: April 23, 2008

This is the first in a series of articles that will use performance metrics to delve into areas of player and team performance that I haven't covered either previously or recently. In each article, I will review some metric in granular detail and list the 10 best and 10 worst in that metric from the 2007 season.

Glossary of terms

This article's topic is vertical pass receivers. Many people think of vertical passing as being comprised exclusively of deep and bomb passes (20-plus yards), but medium passes (11-19 yards) typically account for about 20 percent of pass attempts in a season. As such, this analysis will grade receivers on their combined medium/deep/bomb pass metrics. I set the qualifying mark at 32 or more vertical pass attempts for the season (i.e., at least two attempts per game). These totals do include "pass in the air" penalty attempts and yards (i.e., pass interference, defensive holding, illegal contact, etc.).

Now that we have the preliminaries out of the way, here are the top 10 vertical pass receivers of 2007 on a yards-per-attempt basis:

Player, Team, Vertical Att, Vertical Yds, Vertical YPA

Greg Jennings, Green Bay, 35, 547, 15.6
Reggie Wayne, Indianapolis, 70, 1,031, 14.7
Jerricho Cotchery, N.Y. Jets, 44, 640, 14.5
Andre Johnson, Houston, 39, 538, 13.8
Marques Colston, New Orleans, 56, 738, 13.2
Roydell Williams, Tennessee, 35, 460, 13.1
Joey Galloway, Tampa Bay, 48, 629, 13.1
Terrell Owens, Dallas, 76, 969, 12.8
Santonio Holmes, Pittsburgh, 58, 718, 12.4
Roddy White, Atlanta, 46, 564, 12.3

Reggie Wayne has been one of the best wideouts in pro football for many years now, but he still doesn't get the publicity he should because he lines up next to Marvin Harrison. To put his numbers in better perspective, consider that Wayne's 1,031 vertical yards would have ranked 21st in total receiving yards. He also had one more vertical yard than Plaxico Burress had overall receiving yards (1,030). An argument definitely could be made that Wayne is the best pass-catcher in the NFL.

Many of the other names on this list are ones that could be expected, but there are three players whose showings have to be considered surprises. The first is Greg Jennings. Jennings had some of the worst overall metrics in the league in 2006, so his best-in-the-league vertical numbers certainly would qualify him for the most improved player of the year honor if such an award were given.

Jerricho Cotchery is another player who isn't given the credit he deserves because he plays with a bigger-name receiver, Laveranues Coles. This past season was the second year in a row that Cotchery outplayed Coles in many metric areas, so it might take a move from the Empire State for Cotchery to get his due.

The third name that caught my attention was Roddy White. That he could put up these kinds of numbers with Joey Harrington, Chris Redman and Byron Leftwich pitching the ball to him is simply amazing. Most pundits overlooked Falcons players because of the Michael Vick/Bobby Petrino issues last year, but if White repeats his 2007 totals, he'll be an underdog Pro Bowl candidate.

Now that we have covered the best of the best, it's time to take a look at the worst. Here are the bottom 10 vertical pass receivers of 2007:

Player, Team, Vertical Att, Vertical Yds, Vertical YPA

T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Cincinnati, 59, 517, 8.8
Brandon Marshall, Denver, 66, 562, 8.5
Ernest Wilford, Jacksonville, 34, 288, 8.5
Mark Clayton, Baltimore, 35, 291, 8.3
Plaxico Burress, N.Y. Giants, 79, 625, 7.9
Bryant Johnson, Arizona, 44, 348, 7.9
Hines Ward, Pittsburgh, 42, 316, 7.5
Marty Booker, Miami, 45, 300, 6.7
Darrell Jackson, San Francisco, 50, 278, 5.6
Drew Bennett, St. Louis, 36, 173, 4.8

Burress is the biggest name on this list, but given that he played the majority of this past season with injuries that would have put most players in the hospital, he gets a pass from any criticism on this front.

Brandon Marshall did have some impressive outings in his sophomore campaign, and Denver certainly plans to make him its vertical threat. However, taken as a whole, his 2007 vertical pass numbers were quite poor. In fact, his 7.6 short-pass yards per attempt was nearly as good as his vertical YPA. The Broncos might want to stick with Brandon Stokley as their down-the-field player and have Marshall fill the old Rod Smith role if these numbers are indicative of his future performance.

Darrell Jackson's 5.6 YPA here shows why San Francisco wasn't very high on bringing him back, but Bryant Johnson's 7.9 YPA doesn't make it clear why the 49ers brought him in. The 49ers have Arnaz Battle to fill the possession receiver role and signed Isaac Bruce to be the intermediate route runner, so Johnson's vertical abilities are going to be the true test of his value for that team. Unless he shows dramatic improvement over last season, offensive coordinator Mike Martz might still be looking for a vertical receiver in 2009.

KC Joyner, aka the Football Scientist, is a regular contributor to ESPN Insider. His 2008 releases, Scientific Football 2008 and "Blindsided: Why The Left Tackle is Overrated and Other Contrarian Football Thoughts," are available for preorder. For more, check out KC's Web site, www.thefootballscientist.com.

Considering Burress's injury history, how sure are you that he will be healthy all year?

In the regular season Burress's stats are 70 rec, 1025 yds, 14.6 yds/rec, 64.1 yds/game, 12 TD

The fact that Burress is only averaging 7.9 yards per medium (11-20)/long (21+) pass hints pretty strongly to me that his stats are miss leading and there are an aweful lot of times where Burress was thrown to where he didn't make the reception. Indeed he had 79 med/long passes thrown to him; thats more than his total receptions and just around 62% of his yardage. Burress made the bulk of his work with passes of 10 yards or less - is that irreplacable?

It is also interesting considering both Gilbride and Coughlin have stressed they want a vertical passing game to stretch the field.
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:50 pm

I am not saying the Giants are better off without Shockey or Burress; obviously they are not.

But Shockey and Burress do need to get on the same page as the Giants.

yes there are issues that need to be resolved, but do it privately behind closed doors.

In the mean time, it should be business as usual; meaning you get on the field and do whatever is required by the coaching staff to get the team prepared for the 2008 season.

There is no real excuse for airing your dirty laundry in public. Despite accusations to the contrary, that is not how the Giants do business.


Last edited by Big_Pete on Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:54 pm

from http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=423889



For Shockey and Giants, breakup would be bad

Clifton Brown

Posted: June 15, 2008

Jeremy Shockey and the Giants need each other.

Maybe the Giants and Jeremy Shockey should seek marriage counseling. Because for both parties, making up is better than breaking up.

Shockey, who broke his leg in New York's 14th game last season, became aloof and distant after the Giants had the nerve to win the Super Bowl without him. He skipped the victory parade. He passed on the White House visit. He even stayed away from the ring presentation at Tiffany's, drawing an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty from Fifth Avenue shoppers. He has been rehabbing in Miami for much of the offseason, acting like he has needed MapQuest to find the Giants' training facility. Shockey has reportedly been running in sand to strengthen his leg, but his progress will be hard to gauge until he returns to the field.

When Shockey did finally show up at the Giants' recent minicamp this past week, controversy followed him. Shockey rankled coach Tom Coughlin by declining to come out to the field to watch practice, and the injured tight end allegedly got into a shouting match with general manager Jerry Reese.

The Giants discussed trading Shockey to the Saints during draft weekend, making Shockey's status with the team even more tenuous. Now some believe the Giants are better off without him. The theory is that Eli Manning has more freedom to blossom as the team's offensive leader without Shockey's big ego and strong personality around. Don't buy that. Trading Shockey, still one of the league's most talented tight ends, would be the wrong move for the Giants, just as trying to force his way out of New York would be the wrong move for Shockey. He is just 27 and one of only four tight ends to catch 57 passes or more in each of the past four seasons; Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates and Jason Witten are the others.

Shockey is an emotional player who sometimes implodes for no good reason. But this time, Shockey has reason to be ticked off. Phil Simms, a former Giant who now is an analyst for CBS, can relate.

"For any football player, being injured is a helpless feeling because no matter how good you are the team immediately moves on without you," says Simms, who watched Jeff Hostetler quarterback the Giants to victory in Super Bowl 25 while he was injured. "It's hard to describe unless you've been there.

"Now the stuff that Shockey's hearing, that the Giants are better without him, has to hurt. He's got to be thinking, 'Are you kidding me?' I can't speak for him, but that kind of talk makes you think about getting a fresh start somewhere else."

Even before this rift, Shockey had complained about his role in the Giants' offense. He wants to catch 80 passes a season but has averaged 62 in his six years with the team. Still, Shockey should be smart enough to realize he's in an excellent situation. Manning came into his own during the championship run, and a wide receiver unit featuring Plaxico Burress, Amani Toomer, Steve Smith, Sinorice Moss, David Tyree and rookie Mario Manningham hasn't been this deep since Shockey joined the Giants in 2002.

Shockey may never catch 80 passes with the Giants because they have too many other weapons. But that means the team is better equipped to reach more Super Bowls -- and to keep opposing defenses from loading up to stop Shockey.

Giants coaches and players have done a smart thing recently by punching holes in the perception that the team is better without Shockey.

"I think that is demeaning to both players, to Eli and to Jeremy," says Giants tight ends coach Mike Pope. "To think that one player has to be out of the picture before another player can surface, that is ludicrous."

There are valid criticisms of Shockey. He drops too many passes. Sometimes he speaks before he thinks, leading to headlines that elevate Coughlin's blood pressure. And if Shockey spent more offseason time with the Giants and less time in Florida, he would likely have better chemistry with Manning.

Yet Shockey has always been a fiery player, and his emotion could be valuable next season. Complacency can kill teams trying to repeat, but there is zero chance Shockey will be complacent, not with people questioning his worth.

When Michael Strahan did not report to training camp last season and considered retirement, Coughlin and Reese played it cool. When Strahan came back, they welcomed him and moved on.

"How'd that work out?" says Simms. "My old coach, Bill Parcells, once said, 'I'm not in the habit of getting rid of good football players.' And Coughlin reminds me more of Parcells than any other current coach."

The Giants should keep Shockey, and Shockey should do a Strahan by answering his critics with a stellar season. Some relationships are worth saving. The marriage between Shockey and the Giants is one of them.


Clifton Brown is a writer for Sporting News. E-mail him at cliftonbrown@sportingnews.com.
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Bigblue25 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:34 pm

NFC Pro Bowl Wide Recievers: Donald Driver(82 1048 12.8 47 2)
Larry Fitzgerald (100 1409 14.1 48 10) just awesome
Torry Holt (93 1189 12.8 40 7) team was 2-14 though
Terrell Owens (81 1355 16.7 52 15)
And these are Plaxico's numbers (70 1025 14.6 60 12) all on one leg, he is way ahead off Driver on TD's Just saying the other three on this list are elite. Should of went to the Pro Bowl over Driver who ain't that good, and would Green Bay replace Driver?. We can not say let's just get rid of Plex hes replacable i think he is in the elite class of recievers and showed it during the NFC Championship. Eli loves having the taller wideouts to throw to as well. Restructure his deal along with Snee's and maybe Osi's we will have a ton of cap room still, hoping to get Angelo Crowell?.
avatar
Bigblue25
mascot
mascot


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:52 pm

Perhaps it may be our perception of Burress, I think he is being viewed as a vertical threat when really he is a possession receiver.

He certainly is good for us, but I don't think the world would end if he wasn't available (for whatever reason)
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Pizan on Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:34 pm

Admin wrote:
Pizan wrote:Burress deserves a new deal. He doesn't need traded nor should he be. Shockey is better on this team then off it. I feel like Reese has developed a bit of an ego. I don't like the way he has handled the Shockey situation. Say what you will about Shocks childish acts in the past but Shockey has handled this situation better than I thought he would. Actually I respect him more for it.
Firstly, Glad you made your way over man!

Secondly I gotta disagree with ya on this one. We have nothing to base Reese's inflated ego on. It's all heresay right now.
If I was a betting man (which I'm not) I'd have to say that Shock didn't like what Reese told him and was very likely the first to raise his voice. Yes, Shock has been fairly quiet otherwise but not in a good way. From the sounds of Coughlin and Reese, it sounds like Shockey could have been more involved in mini-camp and chose not to.

I do agree however that the Giants are a better team with Jeremy than without him.

It should get interesting over the next couple weeks. Laughing

Thanks for the welcome. Very nice place you got here bro.

Its not just this situation with Shockey but others where Reese's actions and quotes have rubbed me the wrong way. I just got that feeling he's developed an ego from his success...
avatar
Pizan
All-Pro
All-Pro


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Big_Pete on Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:43 pm

Pizan wrote:

Thanks for the welcome. Very nice place you got here bro.

Its not just this situation with Shockey but others where Reese's actions and quotes have rubbed me the wrong way. I just got that feeling he's developed an ego from his success...

I think the real difference is that Reese is prepared to take a more hard line attitude with players; In general that isn't what star NFL players are used to.

We don't know what is actually going on behind the scenes; just the small snippets released by the media.

What I find interesting is that there is an excellent team culture behind the scenes now and few players have major issues with team management. I don't think Reese is likely to be a problem.
avatar
Big_Pete
Giants Legend
Giants Legend


View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  NYG Hampton 27 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:40 pm

The fact is that Burress is a top 10 (7 or 8?) receiver in the league, and he's not getting paid close to that. Like has been said he's getting a little over 3 mil a year, to me that sounds pretty damn good, but other top WRs are getting 9 or 10 mil and that is a legit reason for him to be upset. I'm not saying the Giants should drop everything and give in to him, but his contract should be renegotiated and extended.

Shockey is my boy, but from what I've read recently hes being a dick. But I won't pass too much judgement as I haven't seen him say much, its all been "anonamous sources" so far. All in all I want to see him in Blue for the rest of his career.

Back to top Go down

Re: Shockey and Burress

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum