Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

14 Aug 2006

Portis, Clemons Injured in Washington Opener

Ah, Southeast Jerome, we hardly knew ye. Now, Washington halfback Clinton Portis will be out at least the rest of the preseason with what has been diagnosed as a subluxation (partial dislocation) of his left shoulder in the Redskins' 19-3 loss to the Cincinnati Bengals on the NBC Sunday Night Football debut. In addition, Washington linebacker Chris Clemons suffered a sprained knee ligament in the first quarter.

Posted by: Doug Farrar on 14 Aug 2006

53 comments, Last at 22 Aug 2006, 1:44am by Travis

Comments

1
by BlackThunder (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 9:44am

First?

Great, now we have to hear, yet again, how the NFL should shorten pre-season and expand the regular season.

2
by Sam! (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 9:59am

Eliminate the preseason! Because CLEARLY the Washington Offense is prepared to start the season already.

3
by Crushinator (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 10:26am

I do think one less game of preseason really wouldn't kill anyone.

4
by Drew (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 10:30am

Re 3

The problem with that is that with 3 preseason games, some teams would have 1 home game and others would have 2. The owners would fight over that. You have to decrease (or increase) games by even amounts. And only 2 preseason games is, in my opinion, not enough to evaluate your players and get ready for the season.

5
by Fnor (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 10:36am

Indeed. The roster is so tight you need those games to get looks at those random UFAs you picked up and such.

6
by Pat (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 10:58am

I do think one less game of preseason really wouldn’t kill anyone.

I think it would: it'd kill the chances of at least a few 'bubble' players each year.

Portis whined about the preseason being too long - of course he would. He gets paid millions of dollars, and that injury risk costs him a lot of money.

What you never hear about, though, are the guys who don't get paid millions of dollars, and who are lucky to get signed to a practice squad. Those guys are more than happy to play in preseason.

If Portis really didn't need any time in the game, they could've kept him out. The coaches obviously disagreed.

Of course, I think the whole argument's bunk anyway. Portis could've gotten injured in training camp, or the first play of the first game in the regular season. Injuries happen. Deal with it.

7
by Ray (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 11:37am

I heard Madden make an interesting comment last night regarding the preseason games. He said players don't get paid for them. Because of this, the owners love preseason games where they can charge full price for tickets, but not have the labor expense to go along with it. What owner would vote to cut down on these salary-free games?

8
by noah's ark (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 11:41am

#4 You could have each team play 2 home games one year, and one the next. That way it's even.

9
by Theo (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 11:48am

#8 true.
#7 If enough Clinton Portisses get injured, the owners will vote for less pre season.

10
by Fnor (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 11:49am

#8: How is that even? You have a different team each year. What about the team that is good at the beginning of one year, falls apart near the end of that year, and looks to be terrible the next? Given that system, the team/owner/fans would be screwed over if said team had their away preseason games in year one, and the home games on year two.

11
by Pat (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 11:53am

#7 If enough Clinton Portisses get injured, the owners will vote for less pre season.

If enough Clinton Portises get injured, the owners will stop playing Clinton Portis.

Which they could've done anyway. Most injuries reported in preseason never would sideline players in the regular season (this one would've, obviously) but if a player's healthy, I guarantee that the coaches put the player in because they want to see what they do - or better, they want to see what they can do with other players who they haven't worked with before.

Portis's comments just come off as a rich-boy elite in the NFL type to me.

12
by GlennW (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 11:55am

> If Portis really didn’t need any time in the game, they could’ve kept him out. The coaches obviously disagreed.

They might be re-thinking this opinion right about now. And sure, Portis could get hurt at any point of any game, but holding him back when there's nothing to be gained slightly reduces the risks. I also think there's a problem when the player is out there half-heartedly going through the motions, and based on Portis' postgame comments, that's what he was doing, basically playing with a priority only of not getting hurt.

For an experienced player of Portis' stature, three preseason games of limited action is plenty enough. Two is enough. If you need to sell tickets and such (not an issue with the Redskins though anyway) do so at your own peril.

13
by Evan D. (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:03pm

Is it just me, or is this a FREE ROCK CARTWRIGHT! situation?

14
by Sophandros (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:06pm

#8: So should the Saints have 4 preseason games next year?

15
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:19pm

I also think there’s a problem when the player is out there half-heartedly going through the motions, and based on Portis’ postgame comments, that’s what he was doing, basically playing with a priority only of not getting hurt.

Because players who are playing half-heartedly run down long interception returns and slam the players to the ground.

I think Portis is upset that he's hurt... but that's why the 1st string offense are only playing 2 series' anyway.

We'll see how the MRI is though.

16
by Bill (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:32pm

#6 - While it's true Portis could have gotten injured during training camp, it's highly unlikely he'd sustain a camp injury tackling someone on an interception return.

I do wonder - what % of UFAs are actually retained each preseason? If it's

17
by Bill (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:34pm

If it's less than 10%, is it really necessary to have all these games to determine what order you are cutting your UFAs in?

18
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:45pm

Re: 16 & 17

Philly have an UFA WR (Baskett) that is not only going to be retained, but he's actually challenging for a significant role in the offense this year. I'm sure he's probably very happy to have 4 chances to make an impact.

19
by GlennW (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:47pm

I understand that Portis wasn't hurt on a play in which he wasn't giving 100% (apparently at least). On the INT return football instincts took over, and that's to his credit. In any case, I don't think Portis is in a position to be questioning why these games are played at all (unless he's willing to give up a corresponding cut of his annual salary), but I can completely understand why he's upset about playing and then getting hurt in such a game.

Before coaches get down to the relatively important business of evaluating their second- and third-string talent, it seems that they want at least one possession for the first string to show success, accomplish something, build a foundation etc. But they're only calling basic plays in basic formations and at least in the first preseason game (and maybe in the last one) it all seems rather pointless. I think they could and probably should adequately work out their veterans and first string in one half of each of two preseason games, and that'd be fine.

20
by Pat (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 12:56pm

#6 - While it’s true Portis could have gotten injured during training camp, it’s highly unlikely he’d sustain a camp injury tackling someone on an interception return.

The question then becomes why is he tackling someone on an interception return in a preseason game that means just as much as a scrimmage?

I've got a feeling he would've been tackling someone in scrimmage as well.

Injuries happen. Portis just dislocated his shoulder. The Browns and Falcons already have sustained worse injuries.

I do wonder - what % of UFAs are actually retained each preseason?

I know the Redskins actually keep a bunch of UFAs each preseason as well - that's essentially how they make up for the lack of draft picks.

I think they could and probably should adequately work out their veterans and first string in one half of each of two preseason games, and that’d be fine.

This is Joe Gibbs we're talking about - I think a Hall of Fame coach probably knows slightly more than Clinton Portis about how much preseason work his team actually needs.

21
by Basilicus (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 1:44pm

I think we've got the perfect balance of pre-season and post-season. I liked what Bill Parcells did in playing Tony Romo the entire game, though. I've always wondered, if the first string is going to play just two series with no backups in line to see how they play with the starters, why play the starters at all? If there are four pre-season games, treat two as total JV games and screw the 'two series' thing. If they ever do lessen the number of pre-season games, though, they should raise the roster limit of players so that teams can keep more players they haven't had as much of a chance to test.

22
by Sam! (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 4:02pm

OK, shorten the preseason... Portis didn't get hurt in his 3rd of 4th game, he got hurt on the first series of the first game. So shortening the preseason wouldn't have helped him.

Also, I will point out as a fan of the Jaguars since their inception, that this looked like a vintage Mark Brunell freak-out-turned-interception. If I were Mr. Portis, I'd blame Brunell for throwing a terrible ball.

23
by Pats on the Potomac (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 4:30pm

They're not getting paid? Madden really is a blowhard. They don't get paid anymore if they play than if they don't, but the players are under contract, and teams use these games to evaluate players and schemes.
True, the owners rip off season ticket holders by making them buy the preseason games as well, but do we really want teams going into the regular season not knowing if their rookie RB can break a tackle?

24
by GlennW (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 4:51pm

> True, the owners rip off season ticket holders by making them buy the preseason games as well

I've never really bought this argument either though. I've always looked at it as buying a 10-game package at the fair market price (or even below a free market rate in some instances). The owners could just as easily make it an 8-game package and raise the price on the individual regular-season games; either way they're going to look to recoup all their money, at least in any markets where games sell out (which is most of them).

No, I don't object to there being four preseason games (which seems about right) or to fans having to pay the same price for them. Nor do I hold the common opinion that the preseason games are a ripoff because the stars may only play one series, or none at all. As a devoted fan I think you want to see how the new players are faring and who ends up making the team. But for an established team at least I don't think more than two games/halves of going all-out with the starters is really necessary (I agree with the comment on the approach that Bill Parcells just took, and deciding to play the game straight with the starters or not at all, and not somewhere in between.)

25
by Becephalus (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 5:24pm

I would like to hear a black and blue report on this one. I dislocated my shoulder playing hockey about 2 months ago and played in a game the very next night? Granted my shoulder strength was probably reduced 70%, but that wasn't cripppling, and within 2 or 3 weeks (during which time I played probably 6 hockey games 3 football games (throwing even) and 3 soccer games) it felt 100% again. I did do rehab excercises I downloaded...

IDK I guess I was under the impressiona dislocated shoulder was not a big deal at all other than the pain?

I could be very very wrong.

26
by Jon Fuge everybody (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 6:20pm

As long as coaches have the right to bench their starters, I don't see why the preseason is a bad thing. If a marquis player gets hurt it's because he was in the game. He's going to start in the regular season so why put him in there if it doesn't help? It must be worth the risk just to get him some full speed reps. Coaches aren't stupid and neither are the owners or the players. The quality of football by week one would have to suffer. If the sum of team improvement was less than the player injury risk, that risk wouldn't be taken. It improves quality of play and provides me with 4 more weeks of entertainment.

27
by Tom Kelso (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 6:47pm

#14 --

Very true, Sophandros; also, the Saints should have nine home games this year, and the Giants seven.

28
by Black Thunder (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 10:34pm

Ahh jeez, can we let the extra home game thing go already with the Giants? They didn't decide to do that, the league office did, and the Giants would have kicked the Saints ass in New Orleans just as much as they did in New York anyways.

29
by Pat (not verified) :: Mon, 08/14/2006 - 11:48pm

They didn’t decide to do that, the league office did

No. The league office decided to hold the game in New York, where the Giants said they'd make the Saints the home team.

Except the Saints weren't given the home team locker room. Nor were the decorations on the field made as if the Saints were the home team. Nor were any of the scoreboard animations/music/etc. made as if the Saints were the home team. Oh, and just to make things even sillier, the Gamebook actually says "Giants Stadium" - not the Meadowlands. The Meadowlands is how it's referred to by the Jets - because they don't want to call it Giants Stadium.

You know what's funny, though? The Jets played there the previous day, and the next week. Which means they can't even claim they just left things the same. They actually had to change the decorations from the Jets to the Giants, then back again.

So while I agree that the league decided where they were going to play, the Giants sure as hell were dicks about the whole thing. So I don't see any reason to let it drop.

30
by Oldcat (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 12:37am

Also, I heard the Giants sold the tickets to that game to their season ticket holders exclusively, instead of offering open sales to all. The Cardinals did that when SD was burned out of their stadium a few years ago.

Thus, instead of a chance of some sympathetic fans for the Saints, they assured themselves of a hometeam crowd.

31
by Flux (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 6:00am

shoulder separations vary greatly. I did my right shoulder years ago snowboarding, and could not lift the arm for two weeks. Hurt so badly I couldn't sleep for three days, had to wear a sling, etc. It healed faster than a break, at least, and was servicable in less than a month.

32
by BlackThunder (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 9:29am

Pat, re:#29.

Please stop being an Eagles homer. Thanks.

33
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 10:46am

Please. I hate the Cowboys, dislike the Redskins, and couldn't give a crap about the Giants.

Present the facts to anyone, and I doubt you'll find anyone except a Giants fan saying they weren't jerks. Especially when you hear the comments of the team and Haslett. It was just crass.

34
by Travis (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 11:20am

Also, I heard the Giants sold the tickets to that game to their season ticket holders exclusively, instead of offering open sales to all.

Not really. The tickets were offered first to Saints season ticket holders, then to Giants season ticket holders, then to people on the Giants' waiting list, and finally to the public at-large. The game was about 10,000 short of a sellout, so tickets were available, had people wanted them.

Except the Saints weren’t given the home team locker room. Nor were the decorations on the field made as if the Saints were the home team. Nor were any of the scoreboard animations/music/etc. made as if the Saints were the home team. Oh, and just to make things even sillier, the Gamebook actually says “Giants Stadium� - not the Meadowlands. The Meadowlands is how it’s referred to by the Jets - because they don’t want to call it Giants Stadium.

True, although one end zone was painted with "Saints" and the Saints' logo. Worse, the Saints, though the "home" team, called the coin toss.

35
by Oswlek (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 11:34am

I posted this in the Monday Night Football Thread due to a discussion between JT and TK. I thought it might be more relevent here.

I always wonder why people try to make the preseason out to be a disaster waiting to happen. It seems to me that most people who side with Kornheiser overlook a few things, namely:

* Practice alone will not bring a team up to game speed. If teams did not have preseason to work on their games, I would wager that early season injuries would increase due to many players not being in “game shape.� More likely than that is teams would hold more informal scrimages, which would have just as many injuries as preseason games.

* Players are hurt all the time in team practices. In the past few weeks Brian Finneran and Tedy Bruschi both sustained major injuries. Neither occured in a preseason game.

* But the point that is ignored most often is that preseason games are the absolute best medium for evaluation, which is their primary use anyways. The top 22 guys are pretty much known, but the bottom 10-15 guys will make the club based on their play in the preseason. Sure, how well the practice is typically a good indicator as to how well they will play, but that isn’t always the case. Again, I find it likely that even if preseason is eliminated, teams will just hold scrimages for evaluation.

36
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 11:43am

What I want to know is why the players who want fewer preseason games don't argue against the interteam scrimmages that are held.

The Redskins even held one of them, against the Ravens. So if he really wants fewer preseason games, he should've complained at Gibbs. He's the one who scheduled one of them.

37
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 12:22pm

Portis is just pissed that he got hurt, and probably made because he was dinged up last season near the end too.

I prefer the current preseason method because there's no way to evaluate all your players in 2 games. If you have 2 preseason games, you can get to the first cut... but once the regular season games start you'll never give extended time to the players contending for the final 10 roster spots or so.

How many Saints fans cared about football after their lives were wrecked by a damn hurricane? It's no wonder none of them wanted to buy a ticket to a football game... so they would have to buy the tickets, and also coordinate travel out of the area... and maybe some of them weren't even in the area to get tickets. Bottom line... the Giants ended up with a free home game, it was a complete sham.

38
by mactbone (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 12:24pm

IIRC, players are paid some kind of minimum salary for the Pre-Season games. All of them are paid the same and it's not counted toward the player's actual salary (it's probably contained within the league minimum anyway). So, they're getting paid but not their regular salary, but these games don't reduce their actual salary for real games. It least that's how I understand it.

39
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 12:35pm

How many Saints fans cared about football after their lives were wrecked by a damn hurricane?

Quite a bit, actually. They showed the first Saints game on a huge screen at one of the shelters, and there were tons of people watching. They had videos of people cheering when the Saints beat the Rams.

The main problem, I would guess, would be the travel issue. But that doesn't mean they weren't watching the game.

That's kindof why I thought it was so crass the way the Giants organization behaved. There were Saints fans watching the game... and what they got to see are the players and coaches pissed off because they were treated like crap. Which makes the people watching feel like the whole city of New Orleans was treated like crap.

40
by Travis (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 3:04pm

Which makes the people watching feel like the whole city of New Orleans was treated like crap.

Not to get political here, but wasn't it?

You know what’s funny, though? The Jets played there the previous day, and the next week. Which means they can’t even claim they just left things the same. They actually had to change the decorations from the Jets to the Giants, then back again.

Blame the Jets here, not the Giants. The Jets spend about $750,000/year putting up and taking down those banners, and (I think) took them down themselves after their game that Sunday. Also, the Jets originally refused to run in-stadium ads and sell tickets for the Giants-Saints game, and only did so when the New York Post broke the story.

41
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 3:57pm

Not to get political here, but wasn’t it?

Yes, it was. Which is what makes it even worse.

and (I think) took them down themselves after their game that Sunday.

Why would they? They had home field next week, too. The only reason they would've taken them down is if the Giants asked them to. Which I'm sure they did - and then promptly did absolutely nothing to make the Saints feel as if they were the home team.

Even if you ignore the decorations part, though, the scoreboard, coin toss, and locker room fiascos were still over the top. Especially the locker room. Who the hell denies a request like that from a team whose city was just destroyed?

I really, really thought that the Giants would go through a fair bit of effort that week. I was shocked when not only did they do basically nothing, the only thing they did do (paint SAINTS in one end zone) they went and painted GIANTS in the other one. Good call, there.

The pregame reports suggested they were going to deck the walls out with black and gold banners. There were like 3 or 4. You could only rarely see them on TV.

42
by Travis (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 4:26pm

First off, let me say that I completely agree that the Giants should have done more for the Saints. A couple of quibbles:

Why would they? They had home field next week, too. The only reason they would’ve taken them down is if the Giants asked them to. Which I’m sure they did - and then promptly did absolutely nothing to make the Saints feel as if they were the home team.

I really don't know on the banners; the most relevant article I found about the Jets' banners (from 2004) said only that they put them up every Friday and take them down after gamedays. I wonder what they did between Weeks 16 and 17, when the Jets had consecutive home games.

Even if you ignore the decorations part, though, the scoreboard, coin toss, and locker room fiascos were still over the top. Especially the locker room. Who the hell denies a request like that from a team whose city was just destroyed?

The scoreboard, lack of Saints banners, and locker rooms were clearly the Giants' fault, but the coin toss was the officials'.

For me, the biggest problem with putting a Saints "home" game at Giants Stadium was the lack of crowd support. The crowd was louder than normal (probably because it was the only opportunity for many Giants fans to get tickets without paying scalper prices, and only the die-hards would go to a game where they were guaranteed to get home at midnight on a worknight), and almost everyone was rooting exclusively for the Giants once the game started. The Saints had to use a silent snap count at various times in the game, something they would never have to do at a home or neutral site.

43
by GlennW (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 6:16pm

> For me, the biggest problem with putting a Saints “home� game at Giants Stadium was the lack of crowd support.

Bingo. "Home field advantage" means having tens of thousands of vocal fans supporting your team. End zone logos, team banners, scoreboard animations, the Gamebook location description (wow, that one really hurts) and even the the locker rooms don't amount to squat. I fail to see how any of this was classless and crass, and that the Giants were "dicks" because of these arrangements. That's just completely, wildly out of line with the level of the supposed offense. What the Saints players and coaches were pissed off about was having to play the game on someone else's home field, period. If the game should have been played in San Antonio or wherever, that's fine, your beef is with the league. Saints' banners plastered across the stadium would not have lessened the ire of the Saints in having to play in front of 50,000 fans of the opposing team.

44
by JRM (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 6:59pm

If the Giants really wanted to be dicks, they could have argued for a forfeit.

I remember Cowboy fans complaining that the Giants got nine home games, which was both true and an absurd thing to complain about.

45
by JRM (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 7:03pm

Re: the preseason

It was a night I'll never forget. On a hot August night, I was watching the Patriots play an exbibition game (that's what they were called back then). Jack Tatum lowered the boom and Darryl Stingley was permanently paralyzed.

Logically, I know it doesn't matter how it happened. But somehow the fact that it occured during a pre-season game makes it seem worse.

46
by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 7:49pm

I fail to see how any of this was classless and crass, and that the Giants were “dicks� because of these arrangements.

The crowd noise is essentially unfixable. They couldn't deal with that - at least, they could've tried, but I can understand that they didn't. I mainly blame the NFL for that part. The Giants organization couldn't fix that part.

What makes the Giants organization dicks about the whole thing is that they went out of their way to make it worse for the Saints. The Saints asked for the home locker room. The Giants said "no" - never mind that the Giants occasionally have to use the away locker room if the Jets are the home team, and they're playing the Jets. So there's simply no excuse, whatsoever. When they repainted the field, they painted the Giants logo on one end of the field. There was no point to do that whatsoever. They just needed to paint the Saints, and that's it.

There was no way for the Giants to really fix the crowd, although they could've tried. They can't really be faulted for not trying, though. They can be faulted for not giving the Saints the home locker room, for the crap decorations, and the scoreboard stuff. And yes, even the little stuff like the Gamebook location. It just shows that the Giants didn't give a crap.

That’s just completely, wildly out of line with the level of the supposed offense.

No, it's not. If one of these things happened, I'd say "eh". But all of them? The Giants organization clearly didn't care that it was supposed to be a Saints home game. And that's the classless and crass part of it.

Part of me blames the NFL for it, because other games have been relocated to neutral sites - see the Chargers game that was relocated to Arizona due to wildfires.

But it could've made sense for it to be in New York, one of the largest markets in the NFL. Why? Because they gave proceeds to Katrina relief, so it helps the city more if it's in a popular area. So I can understand the NFL's decision. The team gets hurt a little bit by the crowd noise, but it helps the city. OK. That's fair.

Someone - anyone at all - explain to me how it makes any sense for the Giants to do the things they did. You can't. There's no reason. No benefit. No sense. They clearly just didn't care. And that's crass, and classless.

If you still don't think so, think of all of the people in the Saints organization who were themselves displaced by Katrina - not just the players, but the interns, the trainers, etc. They might understand why the game needed to be in New York. But when the team tells you "Well, we asked for the home locker room, but they said, no, we're using the visitor's" - what does that tell you? It tells you this isn't a home game like it should be. Because you don't have a home.

It's just plain mean. Did it have an effect in the game? Probably not, no. But it's just mean.

47
by Travis (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 9:12pm

The Giants said “no� - never mind that the Giants occasionally have to use the away locker room if the Jets are the home team, and they’re playing the Jets.

The Giants and the Jets have permanent, separate locker rooms at Giants Stadium/The Meadowlands. There is another locker room for visiting teams, which the Saints used.

48
by JRM (not verified) :: Tue, 08/15/2006 - 11:08pm

I don't see why a dispute over which locker room was used is such a big deal.

If you're displaced and I invite you to stay at my house, am I obliged to sleep in the guest bedroom?

49
by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 08/16/2006 - 12:45am

If you’re displaced and I invite you to stay at my house, am I obliged to sleep in the guest bedroom?

That's not a decent analogy at all. There's a difference between saying "you can stay here" and "use my house as your own."

The Giants weren't inviting the Saints to stay. Any of the teams in the NFL with stadiums available would've done so, including ones much closer to New Orleans. The Giants were saying "you can use our stadium as your home stadium."

50
by GlennW (not verified) :: Wed, 08/16/2006 - 12:43pm

So we have an answer to the locker room question-- logistically the Giants are already set up to use a fixed locker room, and they didn't make changes based on these special circumstances (for a visiting team that is going to be in unfamiliar surroundings anyway, is there even a substantial difference in locker room accomodations?). Pat, I still think you're making much ado about nothing. In a transient, fast-moving situation, the Giants chose not to bend over backwards in turning the Meadowlands into Superdome North. They opened up the place to play a game and made Katrina donations with the proceeds, but they didn't go overboard. I suppose if they had it might have made someone somewhere feel just a little bit better, but in the entire scheme of things, well, not really.

51
by The Ninjalectual (not verified) :: Mon, 08/21/2006 - 5:58pm

True, although one end zone was painted with “Saints� and the Saints’ logo. Worse, the Saints, though the “home� team, called the coin toss. (34)

No, the Giants, the "away team," called the coin toss. I don't recall either end zone being painted in Saints colors. There is no reason to predict that the Giants still would have defeated the Saints anywhere in Louisiana, as the Saints were coming off of a victory themselves.

52
by Travis (not verified) :: Tue, 08/22/2006 - 1:36am

Re: 51

No, the Giants, the “away team,� called the coin toss.

My mistake here; the original articles I found only referred to the referees' mistake. Eventually the Giants called the coin toss, but originally, the officials forgot who the "away" team was supposed to be. AP Article, 9/20/2005:

When the Saints' captains went out for the coin toss, Haslett said, the officials asked New Orleans players to call heads or tails.

NFL decorum dictates that visiting teams call the coin flip.

I don’t recall either end zone being painted in Saints colors.

Go here, click on the video for the Giants/Saints game, and go to the 45 second mark. You'll be able to see the "Saints" end zone.

There is no reason to predict that the Giants still would have defeated the Saints anywhere in Louisiana, as the Saints were coming off of a victory themselves.

I don't think anyone in this thread argued this.

53
by Travis (not verified) :: Tue, 08/22/2006 - 1:44am

Correcting 52:

One poster (28) argued that the Giants would have won regardless of where the game was played, but he didn't take part in the discussion that followed.