Why do we, as fans, constantly berate those that make us great? Why do we focus so much negativity on the people that are probably most directly responsible for our success?
Are we spoiled? Fickle? Is it a New York thing? I know the Redskins fans are extreme homers who will prop up any crap player, coach, owner, or scout player they have unanimously, but we're like the polar opposite of that.
We tear down the people most responsible for our success at every turn. Why?
This isn't an accusatory question, I'm genuinely curious about what people think about this topic. Don't say it doesn't exist, it absolutely does.
Why can't we appreciate this team for what it is? I vividly remember being a Giants fan between 1990 and 2007. The older guys here can remember how awful the 70's were. It will happen again. I don't know why we can't appreciate what we have while it's here.
In 2010 and 2012, we missed the playoffs by one game....
It's not like this team has greatly underachieved.....it's just not a consistent team, that seems to get snake bitten with injuries, at inopportune times...
I hate losing, ever, at anything that goes for the teams I follow and when I see a loss I like to figure out whodunnit. It's from too many Encyclopedia Brown books and Mattel Football as a kid.
The fun in anything is competing and getting better at what you. I don't really like winning because that means the game is over. Losing makes me want to play again and since I love to compete, its great motivation. It also means that I'm playing against someone better, so I have a great chance to learn how to improve.
Took me a long time to get here, but very happy with it.
Joe Torre won 4 of 5 championships and was berated on a daily basis here, it was sickening.
...Bugs Meany and his Tigers?
He'll carry water for the Nosepicker until the end of time. Jeff Weaver forever!!
having two superbowls is extremely misleading. He did not hire the coach or the quarterback which are the two most important parts of the team.
I don't care who ran the draft when Eli was drafted. Eli is Accorsi's player not Reese'
I often wondered if you read the site! Now we know.
there are a few outliers, but this thread is a mix of a strawman, and a dash of appeal to authority. Best part about this, this thread was started by someone who lost his shit over David Wilson.
but I feel like once again you've whiffed on the context.
That's cool, though. We can just agree to disagree.
and miss out on how your OP reads. The general tone comes off as whiney.
|As an aside...
Homersimpson : 12:13 pm
For as brutal as BBI has been this week, threads like this keep me coming back. Some great discussion from posters who I wish posted more. Nice job, folks
And I don't know what Britt thinks about Wilson, but I'm very concerned that he is just not smart enough to pick up ball security, blocking, and following his blockers.
He's not a rookie any more. Why didn't he learn from last year's season opener? Instead he fumbles x 2 and probably costs us the game. Let him return kicks. He does that well.
Too often we assume we know what we are seeing when in fact we haven't the foggiest clue. Many times we see what the camera shows us in real time, but don't really understand what we saw. I think we often forget that the other team gets payed to make plays as well.
I'll give an example of last weeks game and the first interception. When you saw the play in real time it appeared as if Eli threw it right to Ware. Then, days later someone put up a time lapsed picture and it showed that Wilson was open and Ware made a hell of a play, grabbing it with one arm and pulling it in. I'm not absolving anyone on that play or another just stating that too often we think we know more then we do.
Too often we see a play go wrong and criticize the play call and rarely do we know why it went wrong. We don't know what the reason for the play call was, was it called in from the sideline or an audible, did everyone do what they were supposed to, etc... I also think we over value a lot of our players, but thats a whole other argument.
You mean after he fumbled once and then didn't fumble again for another 135 touches?
was that '07 was pretty legit. We went 10-6 and got in as a Wild Card. Totally reasonable. Got on a roll, won the whole thing. The fast start in '08 (which I still think was 90% ruined by Plax shooting himself and that we otherwise would have had a deep playoff run, at the very least) proved that the '07 team was no fluke.
To me, the '11 season was winning the lottery. Winning the NFC East at 9-7 had never been done before. 9-7 team winning the SB - never been done before. Off the top of my head I'm guessing that over the last 10 years 9-7 gives you a little bit less than a 50% chance of even getting into the playoffs. It also featured a 6 game awakening by the D, which played at a level that we hadn't seen since '09. And unlike our '07 SB wining team that was sandwiched by 3 years of playoffs, our '11 SB team has been sandwiched by 3 years of no playoffs. Highly unusual, if not unprecedented.
So I factor that all in - average W-L of 9-7 over the last 4 seasons (side question, is that what you should expect from a HoF HC/QB combo), one lottery jackpot, sprinkle in a blown 3 TD 4th quarter lead here, a 6 TO game there, a record setting (for the Giants) poor season for the D over there, and it makes me wonder if this is the right business model for sustained, future success.
Do you want to be going 9-7 every year when you have a franchise QB in the last third of his career? And what happens after that? Do I hate Coughlin as a HC? No. Do I wonder if, if this season is another playoff-less season, that it might be time to look in another direction? Yeah, I don't see that as being unreasonable.
you wasted your time today. David in LA doesn't get it, therefore the discussion wasn't worthy.
did you not just come onto a thread that had been discussed thoughtfully, and civily all day, and start bitching about the topic and threadstart? I bet you didn't even read the thread. It was a good discussion.
after Boley and Wilson.
Yeah, since Wilson got benched with a lot of publicity last year, learning ball security should have been priority one.
And now he's fumbled three times in 78 rushing attempts.
that doesn't mean I misread it or misunderstood it. Yeah, there has been some good contributions on here, but at the end of the day it's just as fickle on the business end as it is on the fan's side. Fans will find things to critique, and naturally find a whipping boy. You clearly mentioned that there's a large majority that thinks on the extreme end, but that's not based in any actual reality. Eli, TC, Reese, and Gilbride are pretty much untouchable around here, because fans know how important each one of them are to the success of the team. So where is this majority? Other than some choice posts you remember more than most...
There are times, however, when it seems as if Reese makes some glaring mistakes. This year, I think there was a huge one at linebacker, as Eric has noted in the game review. We went into this season without enough decent quality linebackers to make an entire starting unit, let alone to allow for substitutions or injuries. I don't think there is any rational reason that happened.
I have no criticisms in particular for the others on Britt's list. or Fewell. I think Gilbride and Fewell are both middle of the road. Gilbride runs a complex offense, and that may not always permit younger player to show their talent. It's nice when it works. Eli does so many things well that it balences out his mistakes, plus plus plus.
Fewell looks worse than that in part because of injuries to dbs, the collapse of DL play last year, and the ongoing lack of decent LBs. Many other teams have players on the back seven that are superior blitzers, who can help out the DL. I can't remember the last time we did, other than Pierce. (Kiwi doesn't count.)
"logic and reason sets in" - No it doesn't. Quite the opposite. Logic & reason dictates that reality should be looked at every once in awhile, if not always. In like, it is what it is, & that is that the NFL is set up to create parity. The folks who created a hard salary cap & free agency truly hope every single team goes 8-8 every single year so every single team has an equal shot at winning the SB. That SHOULD make every fan of every team happy, rather than be like fans of the Lions, Browns, Vikes, Jets, Eagles & a few other teams that may not win a SB in the next 30 years.
"we supposedly have a HOF QB in his prime, a HOF coach, and one of the smartest GMs in the league" - Guess what, so MIGHT (emphasis on MIGHT depending on the next few seasons) or do some other teams: Pats, Steelers, GB, 49ers, Ravens, Saints. The Giants have won more SBs in the last 6 years since Reese has been GM than all of them. The Pats, 1 of the best teams ever, haven't won any & the Giants beat them in the SB twice, tho some people seem to somehow forget or totally ignore that as an accomplishment. The Negative Nancy/Glass Is Always Empty/Chicken Little posters who bitch & moan constantly & never seem happy no matter what the Giants do SHOULD BE happier that the Giants have done better than comparable teams, but they're not.
"Shouldn't we be consistently better over the regular season than "a notch above the average"?" - If you want to discount/ignore widespread or clustered injuries or those to very key players such as Nicks, Tuck, JPP,a few bounces this way or that, other teams improving (like the Skins last year), then yes, they should be. Otherwise, shit happens to every team. The people who say injuries aren't an excuse are out of their minds IMO. Also, the Giants have had a much better than average record & haven't had a losing season since 2004. I'm pretty sure only 2 other teams can say that: Steelers & Pats. Their fans can be screaming from the top of rooftops that they should've won more SBs in that time frame.
Is that our offensive scheme is too difficult for rookie skill players to pick up. - In the NFL, rookies on every team have a hard time picking up the playbook & adjusting to bigger, faster, more experienced players. Period. The Giants playbook may be be somewhat more difficult but I doubt it makes much of a difference. According to players' interviews, they think the offensive scheme gives them a decided advantage to beat any kind of D that's run & that they like the trust that's placed upon them. There might be some trade-off in the added difficulty for rookies, but given that despite all sorts of OL injuries & crappy players, it still has been the best O in Giants history over numerous seasons & they've won 2 SBs. I'll take that tradeoff.
"Cowboy fans..Constantly reminding everyone that they have 5 rings..Even thought it's been almost 20 years, they still make the argument. So the question is, how long can the " we got a ring" statement end any debate?" - Well, the Giants have won 2 in 6 years & 4 altogether. It'll be a few seasons w/out winning that Giants fans can still make that argument w/out sounding like an ass about it. It was easier to win multiple SBs back then as well minus a hard cap & free agency. Giants fans can make that argument a little longer given how much harder it is to repeat now.
"I don't like what the league has become." - Tough. Get over it & move on because it's not going to get any better. Or you can continue to bitch & moan about it & be unhappy all the time. If you like being unhappy all the time, good for you, but only similarly-minded people will be happy reading about it or being around you.
"the depth of this team has been weak" - The depth of every team has been weak. Thank the hard cap, free agency & having to pay a 2-time SB MVP QB every year til he retires. You can substitute great depth for that or more stars at other positions of less importance (such as many BBI favorite, LBs) if you like, but I'll take the highly paid star QB every time. Why? Some perspective.
NFL MVP since 1957:
1 LB (LT in 1986)
1 DT (Alan Page in 1971)
1 PK (believe it or not, Mark Moseley in 1982).
"it's fair to question why this team is only 18-15 in the regular season since 2011, when they've proven that their ceiling as a team is as high as anyone's." - It definitely is perfectly fair to question that, although I find it hard to even consider wondering about it in 2011 when the team won the SB b/c someone's priorities are more than a little fucked up. Nevertheless, I think the answer to that is simply injuries & lack of comparable depth at the positions & players injured the most. In 2011: SIX CBs TT (missed whole year), Prince (7 games), Coe, Johnson, Witherspoon, Tryon; Tuck (played 12 games), Goff (missed whole year), Hixon (2 games), AB (12 games), MM (12 games), Osi (9 games), Austin.
Last year: Nicks (HUGE), AB, A Brown, Baas, Rivers, Hosley, Canty, Williams, KP, Austin, Kuhn. JPP, Webster & Tuck didn't miss games but played hurt all year. A couple of winnable close games in which a bounce or FG attempt in the right or wrong direction (see the perfect bounce to RG3 on a fumble & missed 30 yard FG in the Skins loss last year) makes a huge difference in the record in a small sample size.
"Oh we have won 2 of the last 13 Super Bowls!" - Some perspective is in order, again. ONE team, the Pats, has won more than that & the Giants beat them twice. Only the Ravens & Steelers have won 2. So the Giants have done better than 28 other teams in 13 years, but that's still cause for a bunch of BBIers who expect them to win the SB every year to bitch & moan incessantly.
"[Wilson is] just not smart enough to pick up ball security, blocking, and following his blockers." You know he's not smart enough how exactly? Have you ever met him? Spoken to him? Talked about this with his coaches & the GM, who definitely have an infinitely better clue than you do about his intelligence? If & when he does pick up ball security, blocking, and following his blockers, what could possibly be the reason if he's just so fucking stupid? Brain cell implants that suddenly made him smarter? Or maybe you're just too stupid to realize that some players take longer to develop those skills than others.
"He's not a rookie any more. Why didn't he learn from last year's season opener?" - He had 1 fumble the rest of last year. Maybe he did learn & just forgot, or better yet, maybe in the heat of the moment he was somewhat careless & shit happens even to the best players no matter how much they've learned. Eli, as of 5 days ago, still makes idiotic throws 10 years into his career. Why didn't he learn from the last TEN years of making the same idiotic throws? Players aren't perfectly calibrated to be perfect all the time like machines, which also still fuck up occasionally.
It gets brought up multiple times on this thread and on BBI in general that "we have the most knowledgable fan base in football."
Madden said this once about Giants fans on Monday night football (I think- it may have been a late game when he was with Summerall.) If you read BBI regularly, you could easily buy into this idea.
The problem is, BBI is extremely insular and attracts folks that have an above average understanding of the game (if you don't, you get killed for posting stupid shit.)
I've met plenty of Giants fans over the years that couldn't even name the starting O-line, much less try to explain an option route.
And of course we are biased in our views of other fan bases.
I think the "knowledgable Giants fan base" is essentially a myth. BBI is very knowledgable overall- but this is just a small cross section of Giants fans, and is absolutely self selecting.
Sometimes I'd like to punch Madden in the mouth for saying Giants fans are the most knowledgable in sports.
actually our record was 13-7 for 2011, not 9-7.. Matters not that NO ONE has won the SB with a 9-7 record going in, anymore than it mattered that a division winner 7-9 Seattle team knocked off the defnding SB champion Saints in the playoffs..
Records NO LONGER MATTER other than to the purist in today's sports. They stopped mattering when Wild Cards were introduced into sports or when "99%" of NBA and NHL teams make the playoffs..
In 2007 and 2011 we PROVED to be the BEST team in football, by beating the best when it mattered..
Your record is what gets you into the playoffs and determines seeding so, yeah, records do still kinda matter.
Most of us are strong supporters of "Eli/Coughlin/Gilbride/Reese/etc". But to treat any of them as though they are immune from criticism would be just stupid.
|The wording of the threadstart is a play off of...
Britt in VA : 9/13/2013 9:38 am
some current threads on the board.
"When does Reese answer" and "Eli haters".
|Just to clarify again, "hater" is not my word...
Britt in VA : 9/13/2013 12:24 pm
The thread title is just a play off a couple of current Corner Forum threads.
That's how the NFC East played out that year. The same way our 10-6 in 1988 and in 2010 played out the way it did..Parity will do that more often than not as you know..
Years ago, before FA, when teams had their squads together for many years, the power teams, the very good teams usually emerged year in and year out..With parity and with some obvious exceptions, many times it's HOW you close the season that has determined who the last team standing was..Pre-FA(not really counting Plan B) teams that were consistently strong throughout the season generally did not necessarily have or need a strong finish to win it all. The Bye mattered a lot then because homefield advantage was huge then. Nowadays, not nearly as much imo..
Ideally you want to have the 10-12 wins to almost ensure entry into the playoffs, but again due to parity, more and more teams are getting in with 9 wins, imo..
You'll remember this I'm sure, but back in pre-FA days, didn't it seem that as a rule, a team getting that bye, more often than not was able to re-group enough to re-assert their (mostly) year-long dominance?
Today, if you've had a great regular season record and enter the tourney either playing meh to lousy ball or are simply coasting, it seems as though more and more of those teams are getting upset after their byes..
in re-reading my post you responded to, I realize I should have said very good to excellent records don't matter all that much in today's NFL.
parlaying a "once in every four years" playoff appearance into a SB run is anything that resembles a sustainable, successful model for the future.
It would be great to win a half million dollars. Who wouldn't be elated by that? But it would be a pretty bad idea to count on winning the lottery every 4 or 5 years to be able to provide for yourself.
And if people are going to insist that Eli and TC are both Hall of Famers, Then we absolutely should be doing better than we have been.
as Eli's peer, Eli's the one that's been unlucky enough to play in the toughest division.
Brady plays in a 1-team division, and always makes the postseason.
Peyton played in a 1-team divison for the Colts, and now for the Broncos, and always makes the postseason.
Ben only really ever had to compete with the Ravens for most of his career, and always makes the postseason.
Philip Rivers, when he was still good, played in a junk division.
Each one of those players was always the best quarterback on the best team in their division, and it wasn't really close.
and certainly a factor to be considered
since you quoted me twice, it's fair to say that a lot of your post was directed at me.
While the Giants have been snakebitten at times with certain positions, the idea that the GIants are the only team that has injuries each season is absurd. Nearly every team suffers a number of injuries (aside from the 9ers last year). We just think that we have it worse because we pay more attention to every one of our players.
Winning the Super Bowl requires getting hot at the right time and a lot of good fortune. But you don't have the opportunity to get hot and make a SB run if you can't make the playoffs.
And yet there's still not a logical or rational rebuttal for why a team with a "HOF QB" "HOF Coach" and one of the top GMs in the league cant make the playoffs as frequently as the other top teams do. Not only that, but our "HOF QB" hasn't missed a single start since he became the starter.
We have had a leg up on every team in that regard. But we don't capitalize because our team has massive let downs more than other great teams.
And you are begging the question in assuming that the only thing that matters is SB wins. It's not the case for a lot of fans. There's more to watching the NFL than just winning the final game of the season.
There is an enjoyment in watching your team perform each week and there is enjoyment in the anticipation of your team performing well in the postseason.
And with the postseason being a lot of luck/health/fortune, the best way to evaluate a team is by how well they do over the big picture. And the big picture includes the regular seasons.
And when the Giants struggle to make the playoffs each season, and we have the knowledge how much good fortune is required to win the Super Bowl, it tempers the optimism and belief in future success.
Just because I would rather have two SB championships with missing the playoffs in other seasons, it doesn't mean that I can't be critical or think that the Giants aren't realizing their potential.
It's not as if the Giants have won 4 of the last 5 Super Bowls. They went to two and they won two, which happen to be the only two years in which they've won a playoff game during Eli/Coughlin's tenure.
With a team that we think is as strong and well-run as the Giants, I think that the Giants aren't living up to their potential in the seasons in which they didn't make the playoffs, let alone win anything in the playoffs.
The Patriots may only have 3 rings, but they have been to 5 Super Bowls under Brady/Bellichick and they made the playoffs every year except for the one where Brady was out for the entire season and they still went 10-6 and missed the playoffs on tiebreakers.
There is a lot of pride and value and pleasure in consistent winning year after year.
still would have made the playoffs if Giants beat the Eagles.
All three teams finished 10-6, Giants were odd team out.
Had Giants beaten Eagles, Giants would have been 11-5, GB 10-6 and Eagles 9-7.
2010 Packers were in like Flynn.
Peyton also left and then the Colts went from a playoff team to a team hard pressed to win a game.
Of course, our illustrious, current backup QB had something to do with that also.
I'm sure Eagles, Bills & Vikes fans are just thrilled shitless to have made the playoffs a bunch of years in a row but never won a SB. Guarantee every last 1 of those fans would have traded a few playoff-less years for just ONE championship. If the Yankees had never won a championship I wouldn't have been at all happy they made the playoffs something like 19 out of the last 20 years. Losing playoff games sucks even more than regular season games as far as I'm concerned & losers are in the same damn spot as every other team that doesn't win the SB.
Marino/Shula, Tarkenton/Grant, Kelly/Levy were HOF QB/coach combos that NEVER won a SB & Marino was in only 1, so the expectation that HOF QB/coach combos should win SEVERAL SBs or more than they've already won is completely nuts. There are 52 players & about a dozen more coaches on a team than a HOF QB & coach. Believe it or not, they do enter the equation of how successful a team is.
As far as injuries, no champion ever lost 6 CBs in a season or had their star WR shoot himself @ the end of one.
If you & a bunch of other fans want to seemingly never be satisfied w/ the Giants no matter how successful they are, have at it. If you & they would rather seemingly prefer to concentrate more on & bitch & moan endlessly about the years they don't win championships & those you think are responsible, have at it. I get over shit & move on. If you prefer not to, that's your prerogative. I'm just glad I don't have to have anything to do with you except for BBI & even that's wearing ridiculously thin.
That whole lottery analogy kinda went over your head, didn't it?
Dylan fan. You're right. No champion has had their star wide receiver shoot himself in the leg.
The Patriots have made the playoffs every year since 2001 except for the year Brady missed the entire season. They went to five Super Bowls and won three of them. How were they able to do this? Because they were a great franchise with a HOF coach, a HOF quarterback as well as many other pieces that made for a consistently successful team. That isn't new information. It's history.
But let's say that instead of going 3-2 in Super Bowls, the same model franchise only won 2 Super Bowls, never won a playoff game outside of those two Super Bowls, and missed the playoffs three years in a four year window of Brady's prime. So in this alternate, hypothetical reality, this Patriots dynasty instead had the resume that the Giants had. Patriots fans wouldn't be allowed to express disappointment for not living up to potential? Patriots fans wouldn't be allowed to think: "we have an amazing coach, quarterback, owner and franchise. We've beaten the best and won it all twice showing that we can be dominant. Why are we such busts in the other seasons? Couldn't we be achieving greatness? Couldn't we become a dynasty?"
I think you should stop rooting for the Giants. There's no point for you to be excited about them for at least another decade. They've already won two Super Bowls in this tenure, and so nothing else matters. They could lose every game for the next five years, and by your statements, it wouldn't matter because they won two Super Bowls and that's more than other franchises can say. In fact, you've set yourself up that you can't complain about a single play call, a single bit of execution, a single draft pick, a single pass, or missed tackle, or penalty. You're false dichotomy has made it impossible for you to levy any criticism against the team.
I guess it did, because I'm happy with my life w/ nowhere remotely near half a million bucks, I'd still be happy with it if the Giants had never won a SB & I'm sure I'd be way happier that I could live the rest of my life way more comfortably than I am now if I did win half a million bucks only once. My guess is that YOU wouldn't be happy unless you won it every 4 or 5 years.
I seem to be a tad more realistic than you & Paul & your ilk b/c I can see that there are other very talented teams in the NFL that have even better HOF QBs than Eli, as good if not better HOF coaches than TC & a whole bunch more players better than the rest of the Giants' players not named ELI Manning. You seem to think that the be-all & end-all of football success is a HOF QB & coach. I don't think it's even close to idiotic to think that 52 other players on the team might have something to do w/ a team's success or lack of it.
One last thing & I'm not even reading this thread any more b/c I've wasted enough time already: Aside from the undeniable FACT that Eli & TC are not actually in the HOF & there's at least somewhat of a chance they may never even be in the HOF, the Giants are not the only team that has a potential HOF QB & coach. Using your own so-called logic, that means those other teams have just as much as a chance of making the playoffs & winning the SB as the Giants. Considering only 6 teams in the NFC make the playoffs every year, there MAY be some potential HOF QB/coaches that don't make the playoffs & win the SB. The Giants could be one of those teams every year. As the saying goes, the other guys get paid as well.
was the Tuck rule with Brady. Clearly a fumble, they're eliminated from first SB participation and who knows, perhaps any momentum gained from that first SB win under Brady, is lost and there is no 3 out of 4..
Not to mention the SB missed opportunity for the Ravens gone with the Evans drop and the chip FG miss. Two unlikely events that would (most likely) never occur again in a similar time span..Another should have been missed SB opportunity for the Pats..
Point is, take what you have, make do with that opportunity..The Giants have. TWICE in recent past..I don't give a flying fu*k HOW they got there and neither do the players and coaches..TWICE we beat out 31 other teams to win it all, because at the end, at the right time, we beat the best to become the best..
I'd hve no problem finishing 8-8 or 9-7 as long as we got into the ONLY tourney that matters..
But if we can stop for a moment(never happen) and realize WHAT must go right (Key injuries healing up at the right time, breaks for and against, near misses and so on) in order to take home the hardware..We beat out 31 other teams the last two SBs..That's extraordinary in the FA/parity era..Extraordinary..
The Celtics won 11 out of 13 championships in the Bill Russell era, but HOW MANY teams were there in the league then?
The Canadiens won how many Stanley Cups when it was just a 6 team league?
How about MLB and many of the 27 World Series titles?
And when the Giants were going to the championship games from 1956-1963, how many teams did they have to pass? How about 6?
I will NEVER diminish(or I will try not to) a championship, but PERSPECTIVE is paramount if you want to fairly assess things..
32 team league and we were the only ones standing at the end..TWICE...WOW!
I'm not exactly sure, but I think you just came up with the 21st century version of "Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on Third."
And for the record, I became a fan of the team in the 70s when they had been a doormat for more than a decade. So your theory that I expect a SB win every 4 or 5 years is just showing your ignorance.
why do you think it APPEARED as though teams who were on a playoff bye(no matter how they were playing heading into said bye) seemed to hold "homefield serve" better than they appear to do now?
I don't know the answer to that
Again, an operating model that has you catching lightning in a bottle by going 9-7 and generating a SB win off a late season run every 4 years or so is not sustainable. The idea is to produce a record good enough to get you in and then go from there.
And my problem - and it's not like this is keeping me up at night, believe me - is that since 2009, I think we have had a roster that should have gotten us into the playoffs at least 4 of the 5 years (including this upcoming year, where the jury is obviously still out). I see a pattern of underachievement and as great as '11 was, I don't see us winning in that fashion again any time soon.
Now if your viewpoint is "We won 2 SBs in 5 seasons, anything we get in the next 10 is gravy" then that's fine. For me it's more about playing to your potential. If you're the Jaguars, you have to accept the fact that you suck and deal with it. But we're not in that boat.
I don't know the answer to that question either. Could be a short term trend. You would think that, as beat to Hell as teams are now at the end of the season, that the extra week of rest would help to recharge. But yeah, I agree that lately the break in momentum seems to be more of a hindrance than a halp.
But even considering only the last 10 years, the odds are still heavily stacked against a Wild Card (typically the teams with the worst W-L records and playing the most road games) winning a SB.