which is why I'm not ready to say the defense is improved or worse.
the losses were questionable, but IMO so were the additions.
Guys like Cullen Jenkins, Patterson, Connor, and Curry can work out really well or not at all. I wouldn't expect anything from the draft outside of Pugh, and even there I'm not sure what to expect.
So how has the defense definitely improved? Aaron Ross? Ryan Mundy?
the Giants haven't endured a losing season since 2004. That's consistent. I didn't say awesome. I said consistency. And to be honest, a team that wins 2 world titles since 2007 is pretty awesome, if a bit streaky, as well.
Look at the win loss records of every NFL team since 2005. You won't find many that are better than the Giants won loss mark. In the topsy turvy NFL of today, the Giants have risen above the typical on again off again marker and actually sustained a pretty consistent level of play. Their worst season was 8-8. They have struggled but they ALWAYS manage to find a way to december with a shot at the postseason and more often than not, they make the playoffs. Bet against them at your own peril. I'd rather bet on the Giants then beat on a team like Washington. One good year is nice and maybe the Skins have staying power but they need to prove it first.
1) Perhaps he's right. But we don't know for sure how these new starters at LB will be, or how guys like Tuck and Webster will rebound after terrible seasons. Getting new blood was absolutely necessary.
2) Orakpo is coming off a serious injury, and he lists him as the second best pass-rusher in the division after Ware. I suppose he forgot about #90. Whatever.
3) Dallas improved? Every team did on paper if you want to roll that way. They still have severe question marks on defense, as much as the Giants do.
4) Run game will be better, it cannot possibly be worse.
5) Mentions the holes on defense. Same can be said for the defense of Washington, Philadelphia, and Dallas. The LB's are brand new and the DT's will need to do their job to keep OL off them. Biggest question marks will be Tuck and Webster, not necessarily the LB's. The DL does its job, they'll be decent.
and then no playoffs. Observing sports teams over many years, the teams that work through their weaknesses early, and then go on a run, are generally the winners. For the Giants, it seems to turn on the connection with the coaching. No matter what, the keys for a very strong offense are there, but the defense collapsed at the end last year. Canty and Osi seemed to let themselves get hustled out the door, and we now know that JPP was injured. But the games that I saw, there was no answer for the read-option, and the Giants seemed uniqely helpless to respond. That's coaching. It seems that it will all turn on the defense becoming a team, making a real effort,developing a read-option response, and getting it done. I just hope that everyone doesn't repeat the past few years when a group of defensive personnel such as that which proved it could be effective in 2011, end up taking the blame for a coaching group that is befuddeled and has no response.
That the Skins are going to be running the read-option nearly as well as they ran it last year, you are mistaken. I know the Skins are the smartest franchise in the world, but if they have ANY sense of trying to protect RG3, they will change the offense.
The only reason that gimmick set worked was because of RG3's ability to run and pass. That also led to RG3 getting a concussion and a torn ACL in JUST his first year running that offense. That also was the main reason why Morris had such big holes to run through. You take away RG3's ability to run as well as he did and that offense takes a HUGE step back. Tons of unknowns with that offense right now and how it will look this year if they try to make RG3 a pocket passer.
Nothing he said about the Giants is untrue (except for his assessment of Andre Brown). Though I think he talked up the divisional opponents about to prove his point.
The "reigning nfc east champ" Skins have a huge question mark at QB, the dude is coming off an ACL tear. Sure they are getting there TE and DE back, but QB is far more important. It's not a given that RG3 will be ready for opener or that he will return to form. Duh.
The Cowboys were certainly in the hunt up to the end for the NFC East division title, but they're a proven choke artist. They have never shown (in recent history) that they can make it happen, when it counts. Will the change from 3-4 to 4-3 hurt them to start the season? That's everyone learning a new system, everyone.
He's spot on with his one-linger assessment of Philly, they are the unknown. Are the Giants worse-off than we think? He makes some good points, but are their worse-off than he thinks? The evidence says yes.
but are their opponents worse-off than he thinks? The evidence says yes.
has been inconsistency. Which, yes, is a kind of consistency. But in context, you were closer to suggesting 'consistency' for the Giants has been a positive not a negative, so I read you right the first time.
The article raises plenty of valid questions, without even using the F word (Fewell). There are a ton of mitigating factors to the upcoming Giants season and none of us have any idea how these will play out. My focus is exclusively on the Giants. So talking about what any of the other 31 teams may or may not do doesn't interest me much. I have even less an idea of that than I do about the Giants. (As the NFL has become more and more unpredictable I've generally seen less and less value in predictions.)
But based on all that, and the recent history of the Giants (75% failure rate on making the play-offs over the last 4 years), a 'annual article' suggesting the Giants may struggle to make the play-offs this season is hardly some outrageous, biased, thought-free insult.
A better way to come at this article would be to observe it's a bunch of obvious mixed together with some wild speculation. Which puts it right around the average deep thoughts for a June FT on BBI. Meaning, Meh, he said some stuff. And time will still tell.
But if it bothers anyone all that much, give it a minute and one of the JerseyJoe's here will explain how the Giants are going all the way this year, baby! And the balance of those who 'Don't know much, but feeling very strongly!' will be restored.
has been our inability to win games in our own division is to why we haven't made the playoffs (or barely made the playoffs).
2010 - 3-3 - lost to Philly twice and a bad Dallas team without Romo
2011 - 3-3 - Redskins twice and a Vince Young led Eagles team
2012 - 3-3 - Philly, Dallas and the Redskins.
We need to do better in our own division.
are (more or less) more cogent than the article itself. This is one of those times.
pretty funny how he left out how BOTH the Cowboys and Skins have missed the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 years. Didn't mention that when talking them up.
To his credit, so did the author in responding to some of them.
That is a pretty consistent record over the last 7 years. Now they are not consistently a playoff team, nor a dominant team in any individual year, but the overall records have been pretty consistent.
I'd argue that the Giants have been extremely consistent in the last six seasons.
They've been basically a 10-6ish team since 2007. The only real outlier is 2008, when they were a very strong 12-4 and almost certainly the best team in the league over the course of the regular season.
I believe they've started 6-2 or 5-3 in each of those seasons (except 2008) as well.
of those seasons have started, without acknowledging how poorly some of them have ended?
As I said, that inter-season roller coaster represents a kind of consistency, (strong starts, faltering endings) but it's not generally how that word is used in the best sense. In the last 4 seasons, which is what the author of the article is talking about, the Giants have won the Super Bowl once and not made the play-offs the other three times.
Given both that and the consistent late season swoons, it would be more accurate to say the Giants of the last 4 years have been about extremes , more than consistency . Great at times. Awful at others. The majority of these seasons, the awful outweighing the great as measured by the failures to make the play-offs.
Semantically, one can look only at the end of season records and say that's been 'consistent'. But I wouldn't expect smarter Giants fans to make that argument.
The reliable second half collapses aren't really the kind of consistency you'd want to see.
I think though that "consistency" has become one of the misused words in the sports lexicon. It is now used usually by ex-jocks who don't have a suitable synonym for the word "good". Consistent means consistent...not good or bad.
The truth is that the Giants have consistently started strong and finished weak, normally to a tune of around 9-7 or 10-6. Are they consistent within the context of a single season? Probably...though what we're talking about is a dip in quality is the season progresses rather than a week-to-week variation in their level of play, which would be the true definition of inconsistency. To tail off after the halfway point of each regular season is at this point a clear trend caused probably by some combination of coaching approach, scheme, weather, and schedule.
Season to season I find the Giants to be one of the teams whose record is easiest to predict in the NFL. Just say 10-6 and you've got a good shot of being either right or off by a game.
What we're seeking is to curtail that second half dropoff. I wouldn't call that a search for consistency as opposed to simply improvement.
but inconsistent within seasons (week to week, month to month).
in terms of the Giants would be my question.
If you believe the Giants are a 9 win team before the season begins and the end up with 9 wins, in that sense, they have been fairly consistent.
However, if you believe look at the Giants through the prism of a team that should win 11 to 12 games and are finishing with around 9 wins, then you would be right to say that they are in fact, inconsistent.
It's all a matter of how you view the team.
I wonder where this guy bought his crystal ball.
That is not the definition of inconsistent.
There are many fans who view the team that way. If don't believe that, I don't know what to tell you.
If you have different definition, feel free to express it.
but I really do feel like this is becoming a semantics discussion now. And of stuff we've all discussed to death. Terps, we certainly agree enough to move on.
As far as the article's concerned, it remains that it doesn't bother me. Anyone on here who doesn't have doubts about the defense, doesn't need to actually see an improved running game and OL wears a rosier shade of blue glasses than I do. I'm hopeful there's been addition by subtraction and addition by addition. But if the last 4 seasons are anything to go by, we're really not going to know what we have until after game 16. And going by that same period of time the author of the article was, nobody should be surprised by a Giants team, yes, struggling to make the playoffs. Nor should anyone be upset by that idea.
As the Giants recent history has also shown, it's not how you make the play-offs that counts. So as long as we're there, a little struggle hurts nothing but our respective life expectancies.
really be shocked if we do not make the playoffs?
I think the offense will be very strong....and the defense although a concern...will hopefully out preform expectations
Score over 20pts ad this team will win a lot of games
When this offense scores over 20 points they are very hard to beat
2010 8-1 over 20 pts 2-5 under 20 pts
2011 8-3 over 20 pts 1-4 under 20 pts
2012 9-0 over 20 pts 0-7 under 20 pts
If the offense goes less than 6 games scoring below 20 points they will win at least 10
Hopefully the Giants will be really disrespected when the predictions start coming out. That might even get the attention of Tuck.
I think that Tuck is one of the keys to this season. If he plays at Pro Bowl level then JPP and the whole defensive line will play inspired football. If he flops, especially in his contract year, then he is through and the Giants will have to start rebuilding their defense, first by playing their youngsters, under someone not named Fewell.
What you seem to be describing...a team that should win 12 games but wins 9...is not inconsistency. It's underachieving. In 6 years the Giants have been a consistent 8-10 win team with one outlier (12-4 in 2008). Those are pretty consistent results.
I wouldn't call this team inconsistent...and I also wouldn't call them an underachiever. An expectation of 11-12 wins year to year is, IMO, an unreasonable expectation if that's the mentality of the fans. The only team that has managed that consistently the past few years is New England, and I'd argue a big reason for that is incompetence in the rest of their division.
And New England has turned that consistency into 0 titles since 2005. Not a situation I find preferable to ours.
Every year he takes whatever shits he can against the G-Men. He is definitely a fan of one of our rivals. Or a Pats Fan. Not sure. But I have definitely read similar articles from this douche.
we have a lot of question marks this time of year and we have that every year. In the modern NFL, you build a team every year and you hope it comes together
If the Defense and the running game improve only slightly, we can slide in to the playoffs
Washington is on the assent and we need to play that run option offense better on defense
The Giants coaching staff is one of the best at breaking down teams and what they do and adjusting to it the next time we play them, I expect that to happen again..
I will take my chances and as long as we have Eli, we have a good chance
and the center of our defense should be much better.
Everyone knows the details -how a team did the year before, what they did in free agency, who is returning from injury, etc.
The art is not in listing the information, but in the processing and in interpretation of it. For example, he looks at the RG3 situation and instead of interpreting it as, he is a question mark as he is recovering from injury (negative consideration), he dismisses it as non-factor (he will be back by week 1: non-issue).
I read this guy and don't get any sense he has any feel for this team. He choses the facts that supports his position and lays them out. He sprinkles in a few pleasantries so as to not come off as a hater, but let's be honest, this boob is not going to be giving this team any benefit of the doubt in any year.
Yet we are a known: we aren't making it, and both Dallas and Washington are well established as improved and better than us.
im happy that they are flyng under the radar again they seam to play better when everybody writes them off
i can see manning winning number 3 this year,this draft has the touch of 2007 about it to me ,and the unique chance to win a superbowl in thier own stadium is also an extra lure.
11-5 or 12-4 beating the niners in the championship game and a possible manning bowl to boot anybody????
Stop it. Of course we're supposed to be outraged. They were right 75% of the time, but that means nothing. Seriously, WTF does NFL.com know about football? (sarcasm off)
NFL.com often produces mediocre written content. While their conclusion is reasonable in this case, their reasoning and analysis is quite weak.
is biased!!! And biased people never know what they're talking about!!!!
And I think Jenkins is an underrated signing, which will have a trickle down effect on the rest of our D. We had really poor DT play last year, IMO.
whoever they put beside him all year was thou plus they had osi ignoring any run defence to get his own bonus money up (and even failing to do that) plus a sub par tuck and an ailing jpp wasnt a good year all round for the DL
hankins,moore and jenkins plus another year back for austin = much better DL this year plus the moved kiwi back to his natural position again which also upgades the DL
I like Joseph and think his play was impaired due to the rest of the line. I agree with your post. Overall, the line wasn't particularly good and as the main driver of our defense, it hurt a lot.
That's what this article amounts to.
is we are the known quantity and that makes us ahead of everyone else. We have stability and guys are healthy now. Eagles are in the middle of an era of change. Dallas changed systems which takes time to adjust especially if you're DC is 120 years old. And Bob is coming back from injury and the rdsskjns defense, like ours wasn't that good. Still better than our 31st overall but the QBs health is a question mark.
So its a no brainer that because of the stability and lack of major injuries that wed be the number 1 in our division.
As you mentioned, all is correct.
That's part of the reason Las Vegas Sportsbooks have installed the Giants as favorites to win the NFC East, albeit slight.
Stability counts a lot and we have it while the Eagles and Dallas don't. Dallas has a new system and have to see if their guys can fit that system. On offense, we have to examine how their play calling issues sort itself out.
That's a lot of new stuff going on only surpassed by the Eagles who changed it all. Redskins are stable but their fracnise QB is a major question mark.
We should be ranked 1 in our division just based on the stuff above. Sure our older players need to play better and our defense is piss poor. But let's see how they do this year with all the DT additions. Let's see how the draft class contributes.
Our issues aren't that major to have us not be ranked # 1.
One of them being the possibility of the "close games" stat turning in our favor this season.
In '11, they had a great record in games 7 points or less. That reverted back last year as things didn't go out way. So maybe we get it back in our favor this year.
BTW bro, I ended up doing the video of the Giants defense of 30+ yards we talked about a few weeks ago since it was part of a project at my work. As it turned out, some stuff wasn't as terrible as I would've thought. It just wasn't kind to Webster though.
that was 2011, and last year it didn't go well because of injuries and our defense sucked across the board. We could do well again in close games, or if our defense sucks yet again, then we may lose close games.
So I am not sure what to make of that side of the ball until I see the new DTs, and defense play. I don't expect much from Fewell. So I am taking a wait and see approach.
they will be in the thick of things which they have been for every Coughlin led team aside from 04.
We could back into the playoffs with a 9 win season, and every other single team no matter their record, Will be worried to have to plays us.
That is a great thing for us fans