Told You So

http://www.igglesblog.com/iggles_blog/2008/12/giants-arent-the-same-without-plax.html

The only thing I would change about this post would have been to put in links to all the stories saying the Giants were going to be fine without Plaxico.  As it is now, the loss of Plax is so obvious that most people have forgotten just how predominant the "They Don't Need Plax" line of thinking was.

Here's one:  "And here's a newsflash: The Giants don't even need him."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/11/30/week13.snaps/index.html

A few more, just for fun:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2008/12/06/2008-12-06_giants_are_better_off_without_plaxico_bu-1.html?page=0

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ys-accuscoreburess120108&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/87741-ny-giants-no-plaxico-no-problem

http://www.bigblueview.com/2008/11/26/670923/do-the-giants-need-burress

And pretty much most of these:

http://www.google.com/search?q=giants+are+fine+without+plaxico&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DMUS

Comments

[dmac]

What's so great about most of these articles is how confident everyone is that the Giants don't need Burress. Honestly, I don't know how much he would have mattered yesterday -- Eli couldn't throw an accurate pass so much so the Giants were running the ball down two scores in the fourth -- but, um, really? The Giants won't miss their top receiver, the guy who caught the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl last year? And you're 100% sure of that? Okay, whatever you say.