offs will be a good thing. NO more TC or Kill-Idiot. I dont want us to lose but at this point. Overall for the team it may best if we make the play-offs we endure this inept offensive system and mismanagment of players another 2 to 4 yrs. I just dont understand 'Shaw does nice no real touches after that. BJ cant catch a cold yet is on on 3rd & long. Moss is just dumb run away from the 1st down marker twice. Smith is better thats obvious.
Do you think new coaches will be able to fix the QB and receiving problems?
Say what you want about Moss being an idiot, which is true...but he brought in a good amount of catches and his speed was allowing him to get separation on those hitch patterns. Nobody else is going to get that much respect.
I don't much like it here, but here I am.
Amazing you have time to post.
In his brief appearance last night, Smith demonstrated he has the ability to get opening by running a route (as opposed to Moss who just runs a variation of "fake the fly and then come back") and made a reception that Moss can only dream about. Double back inside the first down marker once, that's a mistake. Double back inside the first down marker a second time in the same game, that's just stupidity coupled with poor coaching.
That Moss gets playing time over a healthy Smith is just unbelievable.
but I'm coming around to the idea that we need a new coaching staff.
Smith looks like a keeper and made a tough catch after a long layover.
I want the Giants to win, but I'm ready to lose this coaching staff.
I'll never root for them to lose, but this teams alarming penchant for coming up very small in the biggest stakes tells me its a problem with preparation and the coaching..
But now? I'm just sick of this team coming up small.
If they do make the playoffs and Coughlin does get extended, it's going to be more of the same for another few years until a season when the wheels really come off.
Even if it meant keeping the current staff I just don't think I could hope to lose. I've seen to few good times not to hope for the best.
Shep -discovered - ( New Window )
You also set up the new regime to not just make the playoffs, but improve upon TC - which means winning playoff games and/or the super Bowl. This put a great deal of pressure on somebody who might be a first time HC taking the reins.
When the Panthers made the Super Bowl and lost a lot of fans said, "That's OK - They'll win it next time", and they assumed "next time" would be shortly thereafter.
Never balk at success because you never know the next time it will come around. Panther fans are still waiting. I don't want to start waiting.
While the measure of success includes winning playoff games and ultimately the Super Bowl, the measure of an NFL team being a product that fans can really enjoy (or if you prefer, the measure of a team being a good team from a fan's perspective) is not just winning in the post season. It's whether than can go to a game, or watch/listen to a game, with the expectation that win or lose, the team will generally be prepared to play, will be composed of players that generally perform well, and will be led by a coaching staff that maximizes the potential for winning the game?
In other words, I could care less about getting in to the post season by consistently stinking less than the opposition stinks, so that when I watch or listen to a game, I get little to no enjoyment out if. Perhaps you don't mind winning by stinking less than the other guys, or have achieved some sort of Zen-like state that permits you to deal with that without eating your guts out. Lots of Giants fans don't have that going for them.
I'm realistic in my approach to the team. We all want to be the Patriots, but just changing the staff won't make that happen. But a lot of people thinks it gives us hope to be them. It also has as much of a liklihood of making us the Cardinals.
So yes, I take pleasure of not sucking more than other teams. Mainly because outside of a few teams, all of them suck. If we are consistently competitive and have a shot at going all the way, I'm happy. Making the playoffs three years in a row fits that definition.
It's funny because during the Fassel Era, people bitched about consistency. They'd ask, wouldn't you rather make the playoffs every year instead of every other. Apparently the answer has changed.
That said, I was in the minority of fans who actually thought this team would be better. No, I didn't expect 13 wins. But, I thought 10 would be a given and 12 was not that far out of the realm of possibility. They have all the weapons on offense to be much better and their D, while not great, was still an upgrade over last year. Given the level of talent in the NFC, they should be better. So, while I am pleased they still hold their own destiny for the playoffs, I am upset that games like last night make not going to the playoffs a distinct possibility as well. As far as I'm concerned, this teamis good enought talent-wise to already have accrued 10-12 wins. It is maddeining how they just come out so flat 4 or 5 times a year in big spots.
We have and abv avg to good team not good to great. But the coach staffs plan makes them avg at best given all things considered.
There's more expectation that Coughlin can snatch unemployment from the jaws of an extension, than there is expectation that we can have a meaningful playoff season.
So, I bought me a Mr. Coffee 4 cup maker over the weekend. Works well.
See ya at 6:00
I havent in my heart of hearts thought this team has the right stuff overall to be the King of the Hill. I felt more confidence in the 2000 SB run. I want them to be the man but they are posers and I'm starting to think its more cause of the coaches than the players. Both are part of the problems but its starting to become obvious that the coaches are more on the prob. See the D basically the same players yet waaayyyyy more production. I say change the O's head and see what the body does.
When Fassel was hired, it was a big deal at the time because he was an offensive minded coach. He brought in a good defensive coach, and proceeded to make mostly lemonade out of grade C lemons.
Thereafter, our ownership had an opportunity to hire a new head coach to replace Fassel, and then had a decision to make regarding hiring a new head coach to replace Coughlin. Our ownership repeated the same mistake that it made when hiring Reeves; they selected a formerly successful coach married to the "my way or the highway; my system and no other" theory of coaching. In Coughlin's case he was a Giant coaching staff alumnus, so ownership could figure that they had finally addressed the issue of failing to hire former Giants coaches (from Lombardi through Reeves to Belichick). Our ownership also hired a GM who did not have a very good resume, and tolerated him long past the time that he had made it clear that he was far better at drafting losers than winners. His chief credential was that he had been an NFL GM, not that he was highly successful at being one.
An ownership seriously committed to upgrading its NFL product to elite/near elite status for a sustained period of years can do so if it tries. Just because BBI discusses every college coach and NFL coordinator who has two consecutive seasons of winning football, and most of them turn out to be ineffective in the NFL as head coaches, does not mean that owners dedicated to selecting and signing a proven head coach who has had success winning in the NFL, is willing to bring an up-to-date system with him, and is willing to be flexible to adjust as is necessary, can't get that done. Right now there are at least two such head coaches out there, Schottenheimer and Cowher.
Getting some high caliber free agents on board to address what our QB may need to become a successful Roethslisberger-type game manager (or maybe even a Phil Simms near HoFamer caliber QB) is not that difficult. Open the checkbooks and sign the players that you need (even if more than one season is required to finish that part of it). Overpay a bit if you must. Lord knows that Synder and Jones seem to have no trouble doing that. Any problems with this approach (for Synder) seems to be in whom the Skins select; (much like our resigning of Short and the signing of Demps but on a grander scale); it doesn't appear to be in the area of getting under the cap. Belichick doesn't seem to have problems with the cap either, and turns his roster over to avoid having them. Why should the Giants have such problems?
We don't have anywhere near the same players on D.
I remember another blustery game against Joe Gibb's Redskins, that turned out much different, mostly because the coaching staff understood the value of field position in games where the conditions are not favorable.
The CB's last year were Madison and a rotating slot. This year, Ross and Dockery are in the mix. Gibril has been banged up, Demps is gone, so in case you missed it, Dahl and Johnson both started and have been in there as of late. Unless they somehow applied rookie status to Johnson, Dahl, and Ross even though they played last year, you have three people there who have contributed in the past few weeks.
Are you really trying to say that our D has a lot of players back from last year??