A 7-9 record vs. 5-11

Especially a team as terrible as the 2013 Giants were (much worse than their paper 7-9 record suggested).

Them still fighting and failing their way to a record more in line with their actual sorry team level would have been both possible and perfectly acceptable to me.

In comment 11583115 Wuphat said:

Quote:

with hoping/rooting/being fine with/etc. them losing once they're eliminated from contention. That said, I don't want a single player on the team entertaining such thoughts.

I agree. Well said. It would've been cool to land Sammy Watkins.

is quite honestly a stupid fan-ism. There is very little difference between the 12th and 8th pick. Furthermore, nothing in the draft is guarantee, you can get 4-12 and still pick a guy who doesn't pan out. The unpredictability of the draft alone invalidates the argument for losing. Sure, Andrew Luck's come along once a decacde and that is a different equation, but the difference between 8 and 12 is not worth the discussion.

I like watching my team win games.... meaningless or not.

we were #1 until we went 7-3 and bumped up to 12

Shockey was a 12th overall pick

backup QBs. Our OL was decimated by injuries and our star DE, and WR, and the first two DBs on our depth chart lost most, if not all, of the season due to injuries. We benefitted from those injuries just like teams benefitted from ours.

Howard Cosell

Because we got the tackle who had the best rookie season, as opposed to the ones picked before him who played worse. There are plenty of drafts where the #1 pick and the #2 pick end up being one shitty player and one great one.

I'm glad the team showed some fight. Many people here would have been fine with going 3-13 and having your Super Bowl winning coach and quarterback look like a complete joke on a loser team. I'm glad they won some games and will be getting a player just as good at 12 as they would at 8 (or better!).

can say they'd be all right with rooting/hoping for a Giants loss. Ever.

because there is no guarantee we are getting a stud with the 8th pick. teams and Coaches play to win. They don't think about tanking for the draft. I would be disgusted with my team if they sat starters to try and lose for the draft.

Confidence is huge in the NFL. This team gained some confidence & won some games. Despite large tutnover, this confidence (especially defensively) could carry over into next season, similar to how the poor play at the end of 2012 carried over into 2013.

It's always better to win than to lose, IMO. But, when you have a terrible start and the playoffs are out of reach by week 10/11, the losses are much more tolerable because of the draft, IMO. But I could never not root for my team to win.

and your thoughts on the likeliness and plus/minus of that...

Yes. 5-11 is objectively better for this team than 7-9. It's not debatable.

This team didn't need to lose on purpose or quit or tank. If they hadn't had that miraculous stretch of JV QBs after starting 0-6, we'd not have this conversation.

In comment 11582957 PEEJ said:

Quote:

Fans over-value draft position. The Giants may wind up with the same player at 12 that they would have picked at 8.

You always play to win the game and I'm glad they won both of those games.

that roots for his team to lose.

4 spots in the draft means squat to me. I want my team to win.

as to whether or not your team should play to win, then you probably won't understand the answer.

The media is upset with them, because they have won too many games.....

They want their team to lose, to get as many lottery balls as possible.....the only way to get to the top in the NBA, is to steal players from other teams or through the draft....the only way it happens in the draft, is if you are real bad....you play to lose in the NBA, to get better....

Indianapolis, whether right or wrong, played to lose to get Luck.....how has that worked out?

It's more important for the psychology of the players going into the next season to have those wins. 4 draft spots won't overcome that.

Why do so many teams that go to the Super Bowl and lose come out the next season and totally shit the bed?

Denver might not, because they have a guy like Peyton Manning leading them, but there are plenty of guys on that roster that are still completely shell-shocked by what happened to them in the Super Bowl.

doesn't understand that there's more to this sport than the draft. Sure, i'd rather have the 8th pick, but i'd also like to have Beason. Who knows what happens if the defense didn't turn around and win us some games. He may not be here. I also wanted to attract FA's; something harder to do when you stink AND have limited cap. We can talk about players only taking the highest offers all we want, but there are players who may take a slightly lower offer to go to a team that's either better suited for their skills, or is closer to winning.

-H Edwards


'bout says it all

isn't the same as losing to games to pick 8 overall. Not even close, in fact.

I didn't know that or really follow it if it was a story.

What exactly did they do?

so tanking for a better draft pick hurts more than it helps. We are a team that's coached by a guy that would never allow players to lay back. The long term effects of trying to win every game regardless of the situation will pay off.

may well have been on the line those last two games...

against the Patriots. The Giants don`t tank. No 4 place step up in the draft will ever substitute for the commitment to do your best every game.

then just getting a higher pick... imagine if in 2006 or 2010 the giants had lost 2 extra games... Coughlin would have been fired, Eli won't have turned into a 2 time superbowl champion... Winning should be the goal for everyone involved unless and until you want to change everything... at 5-11 we may not have Reese, Coughlin, Fewell. Look at the browns... there is rarely a case for losing... 2011 Colts is the only legit one but even they would have been better off cuz Peyton went on to have the greatest statistical season ever for QB...

Those of you that are taking people to task for wanting your team to lose seem to miss the point. Nobody wants their team to tank for draft position at least they shouldn't, but improving your team when you can and losing are two different things. Nassib should have been playing as should any other players who need to gain real NFL experience. If we lose because we are gaining real life experience so be it. I would have loved to see Nassib in against the lions defence. We would be better going into this season for it.

In comment 11586094 gmanfan said:

Quote:

Those of you that are taking people to task for wanting your team to lose seem to miss the point. Nobody wants their team to tank for draft position at least they shouldn't, but improving your team when you can and losing are two different things. Nassib should have been playing as should any other players who need to gain real NFL experience. If we lose because we are gaining real life experience so be it. I would have loved to see Nassib in against the lions defence. We would be better going into this season for it.

Playing Nassib means we are quitting on the season. It's as simple as that. We aren't the Redskins, we don't audition QB's mid or end of season to see what we can get. We play to win every game, with every healthy body.

As a coach, you also want to see who's worth keeping next year. What better way to find out then to see who plays their ass off when times are tough?

is there were 3 or 4 games they could have/should have won, but didn't.

I also happen to agree with mrvax about Nassib. I absolutely do NOT think Eli should have been benched. But, I do think the Giants should have been playing Nassib a little bit each of the last few weeks. I also don't understand how Painter was the active backup at that point. With no chance of making the playoffs, what purpose did it serve to have Painter active?

"A real fan doesn't root for his team to lose"

What a terrific argument rooted in fact-based conclusions and tangible demonstrations of supporting evidence.

"A higher draft pick doesn't mean anything. The draft is a crapshoot"

While that may be, there is a statistical relationship demonstated between higher draft picks and better players. Heck, even without this statistical relationship we can use common sense to deduce that a larger pool of players to pick would invariably enhance your ability to select better talent than a more limited pool of the same population.

Furthermore, if indeed you feel that the draft is a "crapshoot" then you (a team) is more than welcome to trade back in the draft to acquire more picks in order to enhance their odds at landing premium talent in this crapshoot. This is about maximizing the value of your available resources and assets.

"Look at how well these high draft picks have worked out for the Browns, Raiders, Rams.."

Or the Giants (err Chargers) that selected Eli Manning #1 overall in 2003? It's not as if the Giants have not reaped the rewards of the highest draft pick we've had in however many years.

You are absolutely making an unreasonable and illogical argument if you maintain that selecting higher in the NFL draft negatively influences the performance of a team going forward. It really isn't even up for discussion. What I would agree with is that some teams that consisently accrue the top picks do so because of chronic organizational mismanagement and overall ineptitude. When a generally well-run organization has the opportunity to select from a premium draft position the results are often quite productive.

"Four spots in the draft mean squat, I want my team to win"

So you were able to show up to work on Monday morning with your head held up high because the Giants won a meaningless game to move to 7-9? Is this anything to be proud of? That doesn't even register as complacency, rather its celebrating ineptitude. I'm much too comfortable in my fandom to accept two losses today for added resources that could help to provide dividends going forward.

"What better way to find out who plays hard than when times are tough?"

Perhaps when the Giants were playing meaningful football games and the players actually had pressure on them to produce? I am not sure why I would put much, if any, stock on the performance of athletes in what ultimately amounts to garbage time, especially against that of their performance during games under much more national scrutiny.

a significant overlap between the "all those wins were important" posters and the "SUPER BOWLS are the only thing that matters!!!" posters.

This strikes me as somewhat inconsistent.

But I guess I shouldn't make any waves here. We'll always have the Monday Night Minnesota game. And those memories will last a lifetime.

aren't robots that can turn the "winning, never quit, mentality" on and off like a light switch.

These guys are paid millions upon millions of dollars to play their best, try their hardest, and win.

What sport, at any level, teaches you that giving it less than your maximum effort is acceptable? They have been conditioned their entire lives to play as hard as they can at all time.

Every coach and player in the organization is highly scrutinized and evaluated for every play/playcall. Any time they dog it it's on film for everybody to see.

They don't view the game the same as a fan. They don't care about draft position. It's not the player or coach's job to worry about draft position. It's their job to play as hard as they can, every play, until the whistle.

your last comment directly correlates to Beason, IMO. We lay down and don't give him the opportunity to keep playing (proving his worth and health), then how can we offer an extension to him?

Had he laid down and quit, I wouldn't want him, and I'm suspecting the coaches wouldn't either.

Ryan Nassib shouldn't have been named starter but I would have liked for him to get experience especially against the Redskins. Had the Lions game been different ie we were losing with no hope I would have liked Nassib to play or if we were winning big. Unfortunately it was a pretty competitive game and I would have left him on the bench had he been active. Other players maybe could have been inserted for experience, players who were in more competitive battles but were younger and less experienced. This isn't throwing in the towel, this is building for the future. Coaches like Phil Jackson would do this, and I think Bill Walsh would do this, even Parcels. My view is that your always trying to get better, not just during the season but from season to season. If your season is done and a complete waste as ours was last year what is wrong with training for next year. Rookies say it all the time that the game is faster than they thought. People like Nassib need the experience to get better. If he gets better we get better.

I still to this day do not understand what you "I wish we had the 8th pick" people wanted the team to do. Did you want them to quit and lose on purpose?

If not, I'm not sure what in the hell you're arguing. If you rooted against them, good for you.

It's reasonable to say "well, if they had lost those games at least the silver lining would have been a better pick".. but a lot of you guys are complaining about it as if the Giants should have just lost on purpose. I don't want to root for a team that does that. Neither should you.

Playing to lose is good way to get guys get hurt and how organizations turn into the Oakland Raiders. Winning breeds confidence. Confidence breeds success.

to roll over and quit caring for a game or two and trotting out the franchise behind a dismal offensive line and pretending as if it's business as usual. There is plenty of room in between to help best position the franchise going forward.

Would I want or even expect Coughlin or Reece to tell players to shut it down or give anything less than half-effort? Of course not. I could, on the other hand, expect the braintrust to calculate the situation and decide to give Nassib and younger players with much to prove a large portion of the meaningful snaps. Would the Giants have much less of a chance to win? Yes. Would the active players still have most every incentive to still perform? Yes. This in no way indicates that these or any other players should play any less hard, and as we know from preseason, players understand that they are auditioning for their careers with each and every snap whether that game counts or does not.

What you're missing here and not understanding is that when you put Eli Manning on the sideline in favor of a rookie with no experience, you're telling the vets on the team that winning is no longer the priority and I can assure you that regardless of the standings, it's a hard sell.

Try telling Antrel Rolle or Jon Beason that you're throwing the backup QB out there while Eli is perfectly capable of playing. Good luck.

we say here has any impact on whether the Giants win, lose, play hard, quit, draft Eric Ebron, run shotgun draws, start Chris Snee, simplify the defense, or anything else. What should the Giants have done? It doesn't matter what I say, they're not listening to us (nor should they).

There were a couple of teams that had veteran rosters and reasonably high expectations that ended up having disappointing an miserable seasons -- teams like the Giants, Falcons, Texans, and Redskins.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to have a miserable and disappointing season, which was obvious from October, I'd rather have the Falcons version and get the #2 pick than the Giants version and get the #12 pick. To me, those two seasons (NYG and ATL) are equal in suck and disappointment. The couple extra wins over scrub teams did nothing for me. I'd rather suck and the chance to draft Clowney than suck and draft whoever's left 10 picks later.

In comment 11586842 Jerry in DC said:

Quote:

we say here has any impact on whether the Giants win, lose, play hard, quit, draft Eric Ebron, run shotgun draws, start Chris Snee, simplify the defense, or anything else. What should the Giants have done? It doesn't matter what I say, they're not listening to us (nor should they). There were a couple of teams that had veteran rosters and reasonably high expectations that ended up having disappointing an miserable seasons -- teams like the Giants, Falcons, Texans, and Redskins. All I'm saying is that if we're going to have a miserable and disappointing season, which was obvious from October, I'd rather have the Falcons version and get the #2 pick than the Giants version and get the #12 pick. To me, those two seasons (NYG and ATL) are equal in suck and disappointment. The couple extra wins over scrub teams did nothing for me. I'd rather suck and the chance to draft Clowney than suck and draft whoever's left 10 picks later.

The strongest (perhaps only) rational, logical argument against the bolded is that such a season likely meant a house-cleaning with the entire coaching staff. That's an enormous consequence to consider.

In comment 11583115 Wuphat said:

Quote:

with hoping/rooting/being fine with/etc. them losing once they're eliminated from contention. That said, I don't want a single player on the team entertaining such thoughts.

This sums it up for me. BBI at its best, calling other posters bad fans if they dont agree with you, and distorting what people are saying by claiming they want the team to lay down or throw the games when no one is saying that. Oh well, carry on.

In comment 11586842 Jerry in DC said:

Quote:

we say here has any impact on whether the Giants win, lose, play hard, quit, draft Eric Ebron, run shotgun draws, start Chris Snee, simplify the defense, or anything else. What should the Giants have done? It doesn't matter what I say, they're not listening to us (nor should they). There were a couple of teams that had veteran rosters and reasonably high expectations that ended up having disappointing an miserable seasons -- teams like the Giants, Falcons, Texans, and Redskins. All I'm saying is that if we're going to have a miserable and disappointing season, which was obvious from October, I'd rather have the Falcons version and get the #2 pick than the Giants version and get the #12 pick. To me, those two seasons (NYG and ATL) are equal in suck and disappointment. The couple extra wins over scrub teams did nothing for me. I'd rather suck and the chance to draft Clowney than suck and draft whoever's left 10 picks later.

I mean, yeah.. if the basis of your argument is "would you rather have the 2nd or 12th pick?" who would rationally say 12th?

The point is that there's nothing to argue about unless you felt the Giants should have packed it in and lost on purpose. I don't know what people expected the Giants to do or what they're unhappy about.

if you would have rather had the higher pick, what should the Giants have done differently? Attempted to lose the games they won?

they won two of their last five games, including a one point win over the Redskins and an overtime game against the Bills.

I guess they didn't get the memo that they had packed it in?

the #6 pick and the #1 overall pick, by the way.

will never root for any of my teams to lose a game. When I start to root for "better draft picks" that's the day I stop being a sports fan.

Falcons fans are thinking

In comment 11587240 PEEJ said:

Quote:

Falcons fans are thinking

Ask them in three years if they're reminiscing about that thrilling win against Buffalo or lamenting another two sack performance from Clowney on another team.

I too understand that there was really little chance that the Giants would've sent any signal that they weren't doing everything in their power to win the last two games. I realize that it just is not a realistic option, especially considering Coughlin and the prideful veterans on this team.

That doesn't mean that I agree with it, or as a fan I wasn't willing to bite the bullet and accept a couple of losses for what I feel would better the long-term prospects of the organization. What did these two meaningless wins do for me? Nothing. Now perhaps Rolle and/or Tuck and/or Jernigan placed a great deal of importance on these games and I applaud them for their professionalism, but come draft day in April that doesn't really help the Giants much.

Again, I realize that it isn't realistic to expect this Front Office to do anything less than attempt to win each game. That doesn't mean that I cannot recognize the opportunity cost of doing so, and hope for the alternative.

I'm guessing they will have accepted it and moved on.

Do you lament the Giants draft position from three years ago? We had to settle for JPP at #15. We could have lost a couple more games and gotten the guy most of BBI wanted, Rolando Mcclain at #8.

If the Giants had tanked late who is to say we'd have even more personnel and coaching changes going on right now.

TC showed he still has the team under his wing.
Fewell's defense improved as the season moved on and that saved him his job.

the only thing I hate for this off-season is we lost Linval and Nicks. I wish both had one more year on their contracts at fair prices. Alas, you can't have everything.

the players on the team are playing for their jobs now and in the future. They probably could not give 2 shits what position the Giants draft in. They're looking to secure future employement. they're not going to pack it in just because the fans want a higher pick