for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

The annual NFL.com "Giants won't make the playoffs" article

Mayhap : 7/16/2013 12:48 pm
Now the offseason is complete...
Why the Giants are worse off than you think - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 | Show All |  Next>>
Typical.  
Klaatu : 7/16/2013 12:59 pm : link
Could've easily been written by Doomster.
Well, if it was an annual article  
vibe4giants : 7/16/2013 12:59 pm : link
it would have been correct 3 out of the last 4 years. Are we meant to be outraged at The Media over this?
Excellent article  
mrvax : 7/16/2013 1:02 pm : link
Well thought out and takes pretty much everything into consideration. I wish someone could have at least let him see what players the Giants just drafted.

Could this author be the same guy that posted a BBI thread last week explaining how the 'Skins own the Giants?
I'm not trying to tell you how to feel about the article, vibe  
Mayhap : 7/16/2013 1:04 pm : link
You can be outraged, amused, indifferent or aroused...whatever floats your boat.
I do think they have  
TomTom : 7/16/2013 1:05 pm : link
made improvements on the Defense. I also think the Redskins will not be as good as last year, their secondary is bad, and RG3 will not be as good.
Well That Does It....  
Aloha Alan : 7/16/2013 1:06 pm : link
I guess I can now cancel my trips to Charlotte and KC because we should lose both games. Why waste my money and my time when it is already over and just July?

Are we now in the Jadavon Clowney sweepstakes????

These idiots..the games are played on the field.

But then again, there is always tailgating....hmmmmm...on my way to see FatMan in Charlotte and Mike in St. Louis at Arrowhead and the hell with the so-called July experts.
the way I see it  
terz22 : 7/16/2013 1:08 pm : link
yes the defense sucked last season but to say its not improved on paper is absurd. No way the Giants finish 31st in overall defense this year.
basically from a glass half empty point of view  
AnnapolisMike : 7/16/2013 1:15 pm : link
You really can't complain that much about what he says. The points are all valid to some degree. The Giants defense was horrific at times last year and if Tuck and Webster do not bounce back from sub par years. The defense may not be much improved.

I think the Giants should have a very good offense this year...probably improved over last season. The defense is the wildcard and the Giants success or failure will likely be determined by it's performance.
I think the Giants missing the playoffs 3 out of the past 4 years  
Giants11 : 7/16/2013 1:22 pm : link
is a bit mis-leading, seeing as they had winning records 2 of the 3 seasons they missed. Definitely a half empty view. I can live with his Giants points, but when he starts going on about Washington and Dallas it was a little thick. You can't point out all the injuries on one team, and then ignore the ones on the other. Washington and RGIII aren't sneaking up on anyone this year, especially with the 1st pace schedule.
I get it  
Scotty9678 : 7/16/2013 1:31 pm : link
playoffs - playoffs - playoffs

BUT - I swear people (not us) forget that the Giants were 10-6 in 2010 and lost I believe a 4 way tie break for a playoff spot.

Also they've never finished worse than 8-8 under Coughlin, that's called "always in the mix"

So F them.
Heh. Missing the play-offs is an absolute.  
vibe4giants : 7/16/2013 1:34 pm : link
It's not misleading anymore than noting that they were 9-7 and almost missed the playoffs in the most recent SB run. No one really cares if you almost make the playoffs. You either make the playoffs or you don't.

Giants11  
BigBlueinChicago : 7/16/2013 1:38 pm : link
How is it misleading?

In the history books, they don't mark an asterisk next to teams that had winning records and missed the playoffs.

If you want to go that far, our team was 8-8 and made the playoffs one year. Do we disqualify that?

You either made the playoffs or you didn't. They don't give you special points for being 9-7 and missing.

Sobering  
Ron From NYC : 7/16/2013 1:42 pm : link
Can't argue with him on the D, I do think they will be improved against the run. They acquired some servicable DT's and a 2nd rounder that looks promising. Linval Joseph is a good player. That in turn helps the LB's play better, Williams and Paysinger have upside. As far as the pass rush goes, its a big question mark. Used to be the strength of the team, not sure it is now. Is JPP healthy? Is there any gas left in Tuck's tank? Can Kiwi step up?

As far as the secondary, let's hope C-Web's performance last year was an aberration. Even if his performance is considered "average" for a CB this year, that would be an big improvement. Prince and Rolle can play, not worried about them. Stevie Brown, is he a one year wonder? We are going to find out.
Manipulating statistics  
njm : 7/16/2013 1:43 pm : link
Yes, you can say the Giants missed the playoffs three out of the last four years. Of course, you could ALSO say the Giants won the Super Bowl two out of the last five, and nobody in the league has done better.

Let me guess, this hack is based out of Washington. That's why we don't see: "Even though RGIII has made amazing progress, it's truly rare to see a player 100% back from an ACL, even though they may be on the field."
uhhh  
mattlawson : 7/16/2013 1:47 pm : link
2011 was a much better offense than 2007. I cannot believe he went there. Certainly there are run game questions this year, but Eli got a ring in 2011 behind the worst OL in memory -- not easy to do.

And the Giants and Redskins and Cowboys were all within striking distance of eachother at the end of the year.... i sense a straw man afoot.


It's not really that absurd to say the defense is not improved  
pjcas18 : 7/16/2013 1:52 pm : link
from last year.

The Giants lost Osi, Canty, Boley, Bernard, KP, etc. and JPP had a significant surgery less than a month ago.

Gained a lot of question marks (including draft picks who may or may not (probably not) contribute this year.

Granted all the losses had questions too, or were old, but it's not absurd to at least take a wait and see approach on the defense and it's perceived improvement.
I don't care that we missed the playoffs 3 of the last 4 years  
djm : 7/16/2013 1:53 pm : link
based on their record under Coughlin and their year to year consistency, it's risky in picking the Giants to miss the playoffs. They avg 10 wins a year under Coughlin and they are coming off a rough finish last season. If history is any indicator, NYG makes the postseason this coming season. I wouldn't bet against them. And that's an objective POV. Do the research and look at this team's record since 2005. Every year they are in the hunt and when they have a bad finish the year prior, they usually come out angry the following year. 2004 led to a 2005 11 win season. 2006 led to a 2007 super bowl title. 2009 led to a 2010 team that won 10 games. The brutal finish to 2010 led to a super bowl 2011 season.

The Giants are ripe for a good year.
they avg close to 10 wins a year...  
djm : 7/16/2013 1:53 pm : link
..
Lazy section on our WRs  
Gap92 : 7/16/2013 1:55 pm : link
No mention of Randle or Murphy who both will hopefully be big contributors.

Big Blue in Chicago  
Giants11 : 7/16/2013 1:55 pm : link
I didn't say it was absolutely mis-leading, just a little. I'm not asking for a participation trophy, what I'm saying is we missed the playoffs in 2010 at 10-6 and won the Super Bowl the next year at 9-7. So "missing" the playoffs is really as much based on how the other teams do, as opposed to your own team.
The Giants 'year to year consistency'?  
vibe4giants : 7/16/2013 1:56 pm : link
Factoring in the consistent collapses?

Funny as to how it's only everyone other than Giants fans whose bias is perfectly clear to Giants fans.
pjcas  
BigBlueinChicago : 7/16/2013 1:59 pm : link
You really can go both ways on that one.

Yes they lost players. But the guys they lost were mostly either injured, limited, ineffective, or in decline from their past performance.

Thus, they didn't really "lose" them. They weren't doing much or giving full performance to begin with and are being replaced by players the Giants hope (at worst) will be a suitable replacement that provides more than just average performance.
Giants did lose 6 "starters" for whatever its worth to you  
mattlawson : 7/16/2013 2:03 pm : link
so this is very much a "we'll see" year.

I think we all feel very good about the offensive potential, defense has to prove they can show up for us consistently. hopefully the new defensive line returns to Giants football form.
BigBlueinChicago  
pjcas18 : 7/16/2013 2:03 pm : link
I agree.

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?
Vibe  
djm : 7/16/2013 2:07 pm : link
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.



...  
Toth029 : 7/16/2013 2:33 pm : link
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.
6-2 starts,  
oldog : 7/16/2013 3:03 pm : link
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.
If anybody thinks  
gmen9892 : 7/16/2013 3:32 pm : link
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.
Skins aren't*  
gmen9892 : 7/16/2013 3:32 pm : link
the smartest franchise.
I thought it was an okay article.  
giantgiantfan : 7/16/2013 3:37 pm : link
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.
*correction  
giantgiantfan : 7/16/2013 3:38 pm : link
but are their opponents worse-off than he thinks? The evidence says yes.
The Giants chief consistency over the last 5/6 years  
vibe4giants : 7/16/2013 3:40 pm : link
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.
I think the problem  
McLovin28 : 7/16/2013 3:40 pm : link
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.
Rarely do I read any article on the internet where the comments  
BigBlueBuff : 7/16/2013 3:41 pm : link
are (more or less) more cogent than the article itself. This is one of those times.
Also  
gmen9892 : 7/16/2013 3:42 pm : link
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.
Heh, B3, I noticed that, too.  
vibe4giants : 7/16/2013 3:52 pm : link
To his credit, so did the author in responding to some of them.
6 of the last 7 years the giants have finished from 8-10 wins  
Scyber : 7/16/2013 4:00 pm : link
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.
vibe  
Go Terps : 7/16/2013 4:00 pm : link
I'd argue that the Giants have been extremely consistent in the last six seasons.

2007: 10-6
2008: 12-4
2009: 8-8
2010: 10-6
2011: 9-7
2012: 9-7

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.
Terps, you're really going to selectively observe how strong some  
vibe4giants : 7/16/2013 4:27 pm : link
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.
I'm with vibe  
Greg from LI : 7/16/2013 4:37 pm : link
The reliable second half collapses aren't really the kind of consistency you'd want to see.
I understand what you're saying and I agree to a point  
Go Terps : 7/16/2013 4:45 pm : link
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.
Statistically, the Giants are consistent in year-to-year comparisons  
Kyle : 7/16/2013 4:58 pm : link
but inconsistent within seasons (week to week, month to month).
Define "consistency"  
BigBlueinChicago : 7/16/2013 5:19 pm : link
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.
"Robert Griffin III will be ready by opening day"  
Exit 172 : 7/16/2013 5:20 pm : link
I wonder where this guy bought his crystal ball.
Chicago  
Go Terps : 7/16/2013 5:23 pm : link
That is not the definition of inconsistent.
Yes it is.  
BigBlueinChicago : 7/16/2013 5:51 pm : link
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.
Kyle said it more succinctly  
vibe4giants : 7/16/2013 6:24 pm : link
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.
Will people here  
Blue Grit : 7/16/2013 6:34 pm : link
really be shocked if we do not make the playoffs?
I feel we will win the division  
George from PA : 7/16/2013 6:49 pm : link
I think the offense will be very strong....and the defense although a concern...will hopefully out preform expectations
Playoffs  
stretch234 : 7/16/2013 7:24 pm : link
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
Pages: 1 2 | Show All |  Next>>
Back to the Corner