Why are the the late 80's Giants D's never mentioned among the best?

[NewEra]

56 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Yeah - but the like jolt of energy you get lasts like 10 minutes.  You get a bit of a sustained high, but mostly that just keeps you up all night at a craps table.  Honestly, i think you're more alert after smelling salts than coke.  

 

I would think amphetamines would be more beneficial to performance since it lasts longer.  Germans used them in WW2, and from what i remember it was pretty popular in baseball in the 60s.  

I played with guys that took several bumps a game.  Each of them were all league.  Each of them is were noticeably better while high.  Each of them would try and convince me how much better I’d be if I was high.  
 

 

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Rico said:

Yeah, I know people put them there, but I don’t think were close to being as scary as the other 2. I’m sure Rich Gannon wouldn’t agree.

poor Rich they let the Ravens jump on him way after the play was over to take him out of the playoffs his best season 

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Pretty sure Bruce has nothing to do with why the Giants D isn’t being regarded as one of the best ever.  That’s the discussion.

 

I do believe that the Giants D gets an asterisk in many peoples eyes due to being led by a crackhead.  They get an asterisk in my book as does he.  Not many tend to talk about him being a “cheater” but it’s in the back of their mind.  They know the crack helped him become an X-men type mutant on the football field.  He was truly unbelievable out there.

 

The discussion has turned into whether drug use taints the determination of a player or Defensive unit's greatness

.  Smith also used cocaine.  So he can be part of the conversation.

 

For anyone to claim that coaches, GMs, owners, other players, media at that time...would discount the Giants as a great defense because of Taylor's drug use in particular is a joke.  Every player, GM, coach, owner and member of the press understood that PED and cocaine use was rampant at that time.

9 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Those two Giants SBs were sealed by knocking Montana out of their playoff games

 

the Burt one the Giants were the best team but the Marshall one the Niners had the lead but Young couldn’t do the job

 

funny how nobody remembers SF was the better team that year the Giants upset the Bills

 

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[row_33]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The discussion has turned into whether drug use taints the determination of a player or Defensive unit's drug use.  Smith also used cocaine.  So he can be part of the conversation.

 

For anyone to claim that coaches, GMs, owners, other players, media at that time...would discount the Giants as a great defense because of Taylor's drug use in particular is a joke.  Every player, GM, coach, owner and member of the press understood that PED and cocaine use was rampant at that time.

sports ill did a feature article on the Saints lighting up crack pipes in the locker room at the half in the early 80s

 

the media would never have dared to expose drug use for active players, especially LT ruling in NYC, the media got real brave after arrests or forced rehabs though 

 

[NewEra]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

So, in an era in which drug use in sports, including the NFL, was rampant-- you have singled out the Giants as particular offenders because... they "had the best supply of the highest quality being in NY in the 80s"?  The Bears didn't have the same quality of drugs to use?  How do you know this?

 

You said that current "people in the know" don't highly regard the Giants D back then ONLY because of drug use.  That's ridiculous. 

 

Every team had a drug problem. Every team had a steroid problem.  Knowing all that, my questions remains...

So you ruled OUT LT’s drug use as a reason why people don’t often regard the giant D as an all time great D...........

 

Meanwhile, there are more than a few here that don’t bring up the Giant D in the conversation because of LTs drug use.  This option is ruled out because we aren’t “in the know”?  Do we not have brains like the people that are “in the know”?  

I’m certain that part of your answer lies in LTs drug use.  There is no ONE answer to such a general question.  Each person that doesn’t discuss that D amongst the best ever have a reason for it.  Some of those reasons are sure to be different.  My reason is LTs drug use

 

[NewEra]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The discussion has turned into whether drug use taints the determination of a player or Defensive unit's greatness

.  Smith also used cocaine.  So he can be part of the conversation.

 

For anyone to claim that coaches, GMs, owners, other players, media at that time...would discount the Giants as a great defense because of Taylor's drug use in particular is a joke.  Every player, GM, coach, owner and member of the press understood that PED and cocaine use was rampant at that time.

Sorry, you bolded my reply with regards to Bruce.  I have nothing to say regarding Bruce’s drug use except he cheated.  

regarding the bottom paragraph, it’s pretty obvious to me that many feel similarly (to me) regarding the giants D.  If no one is talking about them with such high regard, even though they produced championships and dominated......there’s a reason.  You say that it’s ridiculous to think that people “in the know” discount their greatness some due to the drugs, yet offer no other reasonable explanation.  Meanwhile I know many people that discount them due to the drug use.  

[row_33]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The discussion has turned into whether drug use taints the determination of a player or Defensive unit's greatness

.  Smith also used cocaine.  So he can be part of the conversation.

 

For anyone to claim that coaches, GMs, owners, other players, media at that time...would discount the Giants as a great defense because of Taylor's drug use in particular is a joke.  Every player, GM, coach, owner and member of the press understood that PED and cocaine use was rampant at that time.

I think it was all over at that point, give us the Marshall hit when the Niners should have sealed off the win with Young replacing Joe....

[Mr. WEO]

10 minutes ago, row_33 said:

sports ill did a feature article on the Saints lighting up crack pipes in the locker room at the half in the early 80s

 

the media would never have dared to expose drug use for active players, especially LT ruling in NYC, the media got real brave after arrests or forced rehabs though 

 

 

Taylor wrote a book about his cocaine addiction---it was published in 1987.  So your statement doesn't make much sense.

17 minutes ago, NewEra said:

So you ruled OUT LT’s drug use as a reason why people don’t often regard the giant D as an all time great D...........

 

Meanwhile, there are more than a few here that don’t bring up the Giant D in the conversation because of LTs drug use.  This option is ruled out because we aren’t “in the know”?  Do we not have brains like the people that are “in the know”?  

I’m certain that part of your answer lies in LTs drug use.  There is no ONE answer to such a general question.  Each person that doesn’t discuss that D amongst the best ever have a reason for it.  Some of those reasons are sure to be different.  My reason is LTs drug use

 

 

Why single out LT?  That's the point.

 

7 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Sorry, you bolded my reply with regards to Bruce.  I have nothing to say regarding Bruce’s drug use except he cheated.  

regarding the bottom paragraph, it’s pretty obvious to me that many feel similarly (to me) regarding the giants D.  If no one is talking about them with such high regard, even though they produced championships and dominated......there’s a reason.  You say that it’s ridiculous to think that people “in the know” discount their greatness some due to the drugs, yet offer no other reasonable explanation.  Meanwhile I know many people that discount them due to the drug use.  

 

Sure I did.  Drug use was pervasive.  Yet only a few Defenses dominated throughout that time.  So claiming that the Giants success (or one player) in particular was due to "drug use"  isn't credible. 

[BuffaloSol]

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Taylor wrote a book about his cocaine addiction---it was published in 1987.  So your statement doesn't make much sense.

 

Why single out LT?  That's the point.

 

 

Sure I did.  Drug use was pervasive.  Yet only a few Defenses dominated throughout that time.  So claiming that the Giants success (or one player) in particular was due to "drug use"  isn't credible. 

I think after this discussion on a Bills board it is pretty clear your opinion is not shared with most.

 

The Giants D was good but the only top ten list they should be near the top of is the "top in franchise history."

[NewEra]

18 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Taylor wrote a book about his cocaine addiction---it was published in 1987.  So your statement doesn't make much sense.

 

Why single out LT?  That's the point.

 

 

Sure I did.  Drug use was pervasive.  Yet only a few Defenses dominated throughout that time.  So claiming that the Giants success (or one player) in particular was due to "drug use"  isn't credible. 

I didn’t actually read your OP til now.  It seems like you’re talking about 2 different things here.  The title, imo, asks why the giants aren’t mentioned when discussing the the best defenses ever.  I take that as “why aren’t they in the discussion for the THE BEST ever?”

 

the body of the post asks why they aren’t mentioned in being a top 10 defense.  Well.....they are widely regarded as one of the top 10 defenses ever.  I haven’t seen many lists (can’t recall one actually, but I’m sure there are) that don’t include them.

 

I think I’ve replied to both the title and the post over the course of the thread.  They are mentioned as a top 10 all time d.  They aren’t viewed as the best, in part to other defenses viewed as having more dominant seasons as well as being led by a superstar that admitted to being being a crack head in season.  His play on the field was partly fueled by this performance enhancing drug.  People do realize that.  It’s hurts his case as being the best.  Analysts and people “in the know” don’t discuss that because it’s not in their best interests. They have literally nothing to gain for calling out the great LT.  He’s a legend.  With an asterisk imo

 

i think this question should pertain to the 2002 bucs.   Not being the best ever, but one of the best ever.

[Mr. WEO]

11 minutes ago, BuffaloSol said:

I think after this discussion on a Bills board it is pretty clear your opinion is not shared with most.

 

The Giants D was good but the only top ten list they should be near the top of is the "top in franchise history."

 

Of the respondents, yes.

 

As for your never ending patrol for thread topic purity "on a Bills board", I don't need to inform you that, at this very moment, there are active threads about CJ Anderson, Ravens "in trouble", Ray Guy, Big Ben (done with football??),  Adam Gase, Beastmode signing, Jalen Ramsey and at least 4 different patriots threads.

 

Get back to work!!

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

I played with guys that took several bumps a game.  Each of them were all league.  Each of them is were noticeably better while high.  Each of them would try and convince me how much better I’d be if I was high.  
 

 

 

Interesting - seems rather expensive too (at least at a non nfl level paygrade).  I would think amphetamines used to treat like ADHD (ritalin) would be really helpful for football though.  Laser focus, little to no fatigue, and they're engineered to last longer.

 

Not sure the NFL was testing for it at the time, was super easy to get a script for too.  

[Don Otreply]

The sporting press is only gonna talk about stuff that gets clicks, that’s the top to bottom of it. Oh, and Football player are notorious users of Peds in the past and in the now... some fans like to lie to themselves about it but Peds use is rampant in football, and other sports.

 

Go Bills!!!

Edited December 26, 2019 by Don Otreply

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Interesting - seems rather expensive too (at least at a non nfl level paygrade).  I would think amphetamines used to treat like ADHD (ritalin) would be really helpful for football though.  Laser focus, little to no fatigue, and they're engineered to last longer.

 

Not sure the NFL was testing for it at the time, was super easy to get a script for too.  

Drug dealers get paid pretty well.  There were more than a couple drug dealers on the teams I played on

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Just now, NewEra said:

Drug dealers get paid pretty well.  There were more than a couple drug dealers on the teams I played on

 

Yeah - thats a good point i guess.  Just seems like it'd be easy to get away with taking a couple of pills than blowing lines off the urinal at halftime.  

 

I guess it also depends on what results in more success on the field.  

[BuffaloSol]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Of the respondents, yes.

 

As for your never ending patrol for thread topic purity "on a Bills board", I don't need to inform you that, at this very moment, there are active threads about CJ Anderson, Ravens "in trouble", Ray Guy, Big Ben (done with football??),  Adam Gase, Beastmode signing, Jalen Ramsey and at least 4 different patriots threads.

 

Get back to work!!

You're hired, it looks like I might have just found my assistant. I will not be paying anything but, the respect you will earn will be invaluable. 

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I didn’t actually read your OP til now.  It seems like you’re talking about 2 different things here.  The title, imo, asks why the giants aren’t mentioned when discussing the the best defenses ever.  I take that as “why aren’t they in the discussion for the THE BEST ever?”

 

the body of the post asks why they aren’t mentioned in being a top 10 defense.  Well.....they are widely regarded as one of the top 10 defenses ever.  I haven’t seen many lists (can’t recall one actually, but I’m sure there are) that don’t include them.

 

I think I’ve replied to both the title and the post over the course of the thread.  They are mentioned as a top 10 all time d.  They aren’t viewed as the best, in part to other defenses viewed as having more dominant seasons as well as being led by a superstar that admitted to being being a crack head in season.  His play on the field was partly fueled by this performance enhancing drug.  People do realize that.  It’s hurts his case as being the best.  Analysts and people “in the know” don’t discuss that because it’s not in their best interests. They have literally nothing to gain for calling out the great LT.  He’s a legend.  With an asterisk imo

 

i think this question should pertain to the 2002 bucs.   Not being the best ever, but one of the best ever.

 

 

Nope. Just one the best--top 5 for instance.

 

They did have other dominant seasons.  The '90 D (13 ppg) was even better than  the '86 D (  14.7 per game).

 

With regard to Taylor, how did that make him unique amongst so many of his peers?  Anyone who cites that as THE reason for giving high props to that D either wasn't alive at that time or didn't/doesn't understand how pro sports worked at that time.  You can put an asterisk next to his career if you want, but you can't put it on the D--or logically use it in any argument against them. 

 

Teams were filled with guys on PEDs and coke, yet few dominated.  They did.

 

 

Just now, BuffaloSol said:

You're hired, it looks like I might have just found my assistant. I will not be paying anything but, the respect you will earn will be invaluable. 

 

Nah, I don't have talent for it.  I just goof on the serially redundant threads.

 

But I'm sure the mods could use a guy with your zeal. 

[BuffaloSol]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Nope. Just one the best--top 5 for instance.

 

They did have other dominant seasons.  The '90 D (13 ppg) was even better than  the '86 D (  14.7 per game).

 

With regard to Taylor, how did that make him unique amongst so many of his peers?  Anyone who cites that as THE reason for giving high props to that D either wasn't alive at that time or didn't/doesn't understand how pro sports worked at that time.  You can put an asterisk next to his career if you want, but you can't put it on the D--or logically use it in any argument against them. 

 

Teams were filled with guys on PEDs and coke, yet few dominated.  They did.

 

 

 

Nah, I don't have talent for it.  I just goof on the serially redundant threads.

 

But I'm sure the mods could use a guy with your zeal. 

Thanks for the glowing review but unfortunately the best position I can offer you is my assistant in an unofficial capacity. A job like this might make you a happier person, ya never know.

[Prickly Pete]

I have never heard anyone talk about the Giants of that era as being notable for their drug use (Lawrence Taylor? yes), or that their accomplishments should be downgraded because of it. But then, I have half of you blocked ? 

 

The only football team I have seen anything like that about is the 70's Steelers because of their steroid use.

 

No shortage of cocaine use throughout the NFL at that time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by 32ABBA

[row_33]

43 minutes ago, 32ABBA said:

I have never heard anyone talk about the Giants of that era as being notable for their drug use (Lawrence Taylor? yes), or that their accomplishments should be downgraded because of it. But then, I have half of you blocked ? 

 

The only football team I have seen anything like that about is the 70's Steelers because of their steroid use.

 

No shortage of cocaine use throughout the NFL at that time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I only have 123 blocked so far, all from PPP

 

Lyle Alzado opened up about NFL steroid use for his last months on earth

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by row_33