But thanks to the 2012 IR rule change, he gets to play again.
rsjem1979: Even at 10-6, they need at least one loss by the Eagles. Not that I expect Philly to run the table (Foles has to have an off day at some point), but it's possible.
or that they'll advance far if they do, but why predict doom and gloom? Especially about a team that's made us look foolish for believing they couldn't do it before?
James Taranto would file this under "Out on a Limb."
make winning that much more enjoyable. One of the best things about 2007 was the low probability of a Super Bowl victory. I don't expect them to make the playoffs either but this run has turned this into a fun year.
The recipe for the playoffs is to win the next 3 games. Split Seattle/Detroit. Beat Washington @ home.
They're more than halfway there. Everything is in front of them.
exactly this. We have to rationally assume a loss to Seattle, or possibly Detroit. Obviously, we have one loss to give the rest of the season, provided it's not to Washington.
That makes us 9-7, with a divisional record of 4-2.
The Eagles sweeping Washington is a huge problem for us now. If they lose to Dallas, that puts them (Eagles) at 4-2 in the divison also.
However...Dallas winning that last game will basically make us hope/pray that Washington beats them in week 15. If they don't, then they hold a 9-7 tiebreaker with a divisional record (hypothetical) of 5-1.
So either way, one of those two teams will have a 5-1 division record, unless Dallas loses to both Washington and Philly at the end...and if they do THAT, they'd be 8-8 anyway
Really, that whole article was a huge waste of time. This scenario above, combined with the Giants going 5-1 their last 6 is pretty unlikely.
They gave ten reasons and the OL was not one of them
But thanks to the 2012 IR rule change, he gets to play again.
rsjem1979: Even at 10-6, they need at least one loss by the Eagles. Not that I expect Philly to run the table (Foles has to have an off day at some point), but it's possible.
Yeah that's true - I was working off the assumption that the Eagles would lose one somewhere along the line.
And good call on the 1994/1998 "too little too late" seasons. I was at that Christmas Eve game against the Cowboys in 1994 when the Giants won their 6th straight to end the season but missed the playoffs because the Packers were beating the Bucs at the same time.
The article wasn't a waste of time from their perspective.
how you can just say Beason and Brown will breakdown without a doubt.
Beason was a pretty healthy player before his injuries. I don't think he is "injury-prone" per say. Brown is a different story. He's been injured since college, which is why I believe he dropped to the 4th round. Chances are better than not he will break down before the season is over if history is any indication.
will break down, like it's an absolute fact, is a huge stretch, it also is a possibility.....
Even if they remain healthy, the fact is the Giants have dug themselves a hole that will be hard to climb out of, not only because they have to go 6-0, or 5-1, against offenses that are superior to the last four, BUT because they have to count on other teams to lose......they do not control their own destiny.....
So for the WSJ to come out and state the obvious, that the odds against the Giants are high, that is not much of a revelation.....
And if the Giants somehow pull this out, I am sure BBI will be more than happy to mail copies of this story back to the WSJ.....
with his conclusion. The odds are stacked against us. We need help STILL on the Ol where Diehl is hopelessly overmatched and no injuries to the resurgent players JPP, Nicks, Brown, Thomas etc. But we will show up and who knows. Maybe we run the table and it becomes our best comeback year to date.
Under "normal" circumstances I would say the Giants' chances...
...of making the playoffs (as of now) are shit. Or worse than shit. But I hesitate for one reason and one reason only. I saw two mediocre Coughlin teams turn it on and win Super Bowls. So ya just never know with this guy at the helm. If there's one big difference between then and now is that the combo OL/QB positions are not as good. If that changes... ya never know!
in that brutal stretch it would have made a big difference. 0-6 is, unfortunately, just too large of a hole.
The Giants aren't going to win out, so at best they are 9-7, but the more likely realistic best case scenario is 8-8. That means they need lots of help...namely the Eagles losing a lot more games.
We all know this already. I never did care, but now that we are here, and we actually have a big game this year, which was very doubtful after 0-6, might as well have a little fun and win this game. If we do then we have another big game next week in Washington, if we win that game then we have another big game in San Diego, if we win that then we have another big game at home against Seattle. The task continues to get harder and harder each week, but we take it one week at a time and have fun each week and appreciate the fact that we have any big games this year. If you are a true fan, you love the team even if they are down, I can not begin to say how happy I am to watch even one game of significance this season. How much fun will it be if we turn around and win this game against the Cowboys and then head to Washington for a Monday Night showdown, WOW!
True. I feel the same way. In fact, with us getting healthier now, and gaining in confidence, if we did win this week, there really is no telling how much further this team can go. We have been so bad, that it seemed impossible to think they could turn this around and play well enough to make any splash. These games have not been very impressive wins at all, it is true. But could you imagine if the defense continues to play at this level even against the good QB's, and imagine if this offense suddenly started clicking, if Nicks started catching some deep balls, and started scoring some TD's. If Jacobs and Brown even got better running the ball, and if Eli started to look like he did in 2011. Could you imagine if that happened, if it did then tell me this, where is the team that we could not beat. The team that is even better then the 15-1 Packers, the team better then the 14-2 49rs. Sorry, but we get this teams act together, I look forward to he challenge of playing those teams that think we can not beat them. I think it has been proven already that Eli can lead this team to victory against ANY TEAM, no matter how great, even if they are 17-0!
Anyone else think this article may have been written
to motivate the Giants, since media negativity has been such a proven springboard for past Giants teams?
If I were a local sportswriter, I would probably write a similar article called, "Sorry, Giants, But You Can't Do It This Time." Then I'd sit back, watch the fun (and ignore my emails).
The worst part was the bit about the tie-breakers. He basically just looked at their current records. Most scenarios that have the Giants end in a tie for the division lead, would also have them beating Dallas this week and Washington twice.
If that happens, they would be in a pretty good tie-breaker situation. This would put the Giants at 4-2 in the division and Philly no better than 4-2. And Dallas ending at 4-2 if they lose to Philly to the the season.
Assuming the Giants lose to Seattle, they would win any tie-breaker going beyond the division record. The most like situation that results in a tie for the division lead has the Giants losing to Seattle and beating Dal and Was(twice). If that happens the only tie breaker the Giants would not win would be if the Cowboys beat the Eagles.
Basically they need to beat Dallas and then beat Washington. If they do that, they will be right in the thick of things. If they lose one of those games, things get a whole lot worse.
the Eagles are playing well against bad teams and maybe they do run the table. I would not profess in a million years to know, but to say that the Eagles and Cowboys have better shots than us if we win this week is absurd. The Eagles will be playing four teams that probably need to win games; the Lions, the Cowboys, the Bears, and the Cards. It helps that they have those games at home (despite being 1-10 at home), and it helps that they have remained relatively healthy, but still. do you really have confidence that the eagles are going to only lose once?
there are a lot of Giants fans talking playoffs, and I think it's important to be realistic to an extent.
The Giants have to beat Dallas just to still be in third place in the division due to tiebreakers, and a division that almost certainly won't produce the wildcard.
On top of that, through 10 games, the Giants offense still hasn't had one very good offensive performance except for maybe last week against a bad Packers defense starting a third-string quarterback.
We hope otherwise.
Meanwhile, there's a game Sunday which actually means something. A month ago, that seemed long odds, too.
That's why they play the games, I hear.
rsjem1979: Even at 10-6, they need at least one loss by the Eagles. Not that I expect Philly to run the table (Foles has to have an off day at some point), but it's possible.
Beat Dallas & go from there.
The recipe for the playoffs is to win the next 3 games. Split Seattle/Detroit. Beat Washington @ home.
They're more than halfway there. Everything is in front of them.
exactly this. We have to rationally assume a loss to Seattle, or possibly Detroit. Obviously, we have one loss to give the rest of the season, provided it's not to Washington.
That makes us 9-7, with a divisional record of 4-2.
The Eagles sweeping Washington is a huge problem for us now. If they lose to Dallas, that puts them (Eagles) at 4-2 in the divison also.
However...Dallas winning that last game will basically make us hope/pray that Washington beats them in week 15. If they don't, then they hold a 9-7 tiebreaker with a divisional record (hypothetical) of 5-1.
So either way, one of those two teams will have a 5-1 division record, unless Dallas loses to both Washington and Philly at the end...and if they do THAT, they'd be 8-8 anyway
Really, that whole article was a huge waste of time. This scenario above, combined with the Giants going 5-1 their last 6 is pretty unlikely.
rsjem1979: Even at 10-6, they need at least one loss by the Eagles. Not that I expect Philly to run the table (Foles has to have an off day at some point), but it's possible.
Yeah that's true - I was working off the assumption that the Eagles would lose one somewhere along the line.
And good call on the 1994/1998 "too little too late" seasons. I was at that Christmas Eve game against the Cowboys in 1994 when the Giants won their 6th straight to end the season but missed the playoffs because the Packers were beating the Bucs at the same time.
Beason was a pretty healthy player before his injuries. I don't think he is "injury-prone" per say. Brown is a different story. He's been injured since college, which is why I believe he dropped to the 4th round. Chances are better than not he will break down before the season is over if history is any indication.
Even if they remain healthy, the fact is the Giants have dug themselves a hole that will be hard to climb out of, not only because they have to go 6-0, or 5-1, against offenses that are superior to the last four, BUT because they have to count on other teams to lose......they do not control their own destiny.....
So for the WSJ to come out and state the obvious, that the odds against the Giants are high, that is not much of a revelation.....
And if the Giants somehow pull this out, I am sure BBI will be more than happy to mail copies of this story back to the WSJ.....
Good news for Giants fans though, I am usually wrong about these things!
They may lose.. but I bet it'll be close if they do.
But fuck that shit anyway.. because the Giants are NOT going to lose.
The Giants aren't going to win out, so at best they are 9-7, but the more likely realistic best case scenario is 8-8. That means they need lots of help...namely the Eagles losing a lot more games.
That fucking Bears game....grrrrrr
If I were a local sportswriter, I would probably write a similar article called, "Sorry, Giants, But You Can't Do It This Time." Then I'd sit back, watch the fun (and ignore my emails).
If that happens, they would be in a pretty good tie-breaker situation. This would put the Giants at 4-2 in the division and Philly no better than 4-2. And Dallas ending at 4-2 if they lose to Philly to the the season.
Assuming the Giants lose to Seattle, they would win any tie-breaker going beyond the division record. The most like situation that results in a tie for the division lead has the Giants losing to Seattle and beating Dal and Was(twice). If that happens the only tie breaker the Giants would not win would be if the Cowboys beat the Eagles.
Basically they need to beat Dallas and then beat Washington. If they do that, they will be right in the thick of things. If they lose one of those games, things get a whole lot worse.
as soon as Nick Foles has a bad game the wheels are going to come off the team
--Jake Taylor
I know the object is to sell newspapers but the other 8 points would have held up his negative theme fine without playing Dr. Kevorkian
I really like this defense but our OL worries me. Not against Dallas as they are swiss cheese on the DL right now but the Skins, Seattle worry me.
The Giants have to beat Dallas just to still be in third place in the division due to tiebreakers, and a division that almost certainly won't produce the wildcard.
On top of that, through 10 games, the Giants offense still hasn't had one very good offensive performance except for maybe last week against a bad Packers defense starting a third-string quarterback.