Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I have to disagree. It is not the Giants job to keep the Patriots from a perfect season. It is the Giants job to do whatever it takes to win a superbowl. Which means being as healthy as possible going into the playoffs. Which means not playing Buress, Jacobs, or anyone else who is nursing an injury. Which also means not playing anyone whose health is critical to the playoffs.

    If I were Tom Coughlin, I would play Manning to practice some of the throws that he has been struggling with, but take him out if the
    • I think you misunderstand. I never implied otherwise. I said I, myself prefer the Giants give it their best shot, not that they have an obligation to the Patriots or the league or whatever. They have only an obligation to themselves, the rules of the league, and the people who pay them money (fans, sponsors, and owners).

      However, I do believe the Giants have a different obligation, to their fans and sponsors and owners, to put the best product possible on the field for every game. That is completely separate from this particular game, in its historical context. I just have NEVER liked it when teams take the last game or more off: there's only 16 games, and it costs us a ton of money to put these games on, and you're going to phone it in? Pfui to that.

      I understand about the health issue. But I don't care. I do not consider any game unimportant. Give it 100 percent all the time. That said, I understand there's different schools of thought, and I don't think poorly of Dungy for phoning it in year after year at the end of the season. I simply disagree with it. Granted, some of this may stem from the fact that the Pats have won three Super Bowls recently; while the Super Bowl is still the Most Important Thing, I have also come to see that there's a difference between ways in which you win the Super Bowl, and -- similarly to what I wrote in the original post -- going out and playing your best every single game, against the toughest competition possible, is the best way to win the Super Bowl.

      It's part of why winning the Stanley Cup is so glorious: the playoffs are so damned intense. Months of virtually nonstop action. By the end, you know you are the best around, just because you were able to outlast everyone else. The glory comes not just in winning, but in how you win. And taking a game off is not as good as not. Granted, you may decrease your chances of winning it all: but that's the point. The more obstacles in your way, the greater the risk, the worse your chances, the greater the glory.

      But again, this is completely separate from what I was saying, which was merely what I preferred for the Patriots, not whether there was an obligation for the Giants.