By winning in Detroit and beating Washington the Giants record went to 7-9.
If the Giants had lost those two games their record would be 5-11 and the Giants would have the 8th pick in the draft vs. the 12th pick.
In December there were many debates raging debating the significance in the Giants winning.
So in retrospect was there more value in winning at the expense of draft position?
He should have had 2-3 outings. Nah. Let Eli get injured in a meaningless game.
At 7-9 the team could be measured in the response. At 5-11 I think we would have seen even more of a shakeup. I'm happy with how this offseason is progressing. If JPP is improved I think this should be a pretty formidable defense.
If the O-line settles in...I think they have a shot at the playoffs. Health will be key. This is not a deep team.
Blane Gabbert was taken #10 overall in 2011. I think teams need to draft the right guy for their system rather than get hung up on the number they're picking at.
Look at the conversation we're having now. Who will be there at #12? This guy or hat guy won't last until #43. I was rooting for the long-term interests of the Giants, knowing full well that they could still have blown a great draft position.
The one unknown is whether Coughlin would have survived a 2-14 or 4-12- type record. I'm glad he is still here. I would like to be sittin top-6 in the draft, however.
They won those games, it happened. It's over with. We're still likely to get a very good player with the 12th pick.
Otherwise, how do you go into the next season knowing that your organization gave up?
Suck for Luck worked for the Colts, though ... o.O
That said, I don't want a single player on the team entertaining such thoughts.
I also think Coughlin is on notice. Reese has signed a lot of guys short term with little dead money going forward. This is a roster that gives Coughlin an opportunity to play his style of offense but also one that can be turned over quickly if a new coach is hired.
Nearly half of that team will be gone come training camp and the focus will be turning things around after last years disappointment. You could make points on either side of the argument but I'd rather have the 8th pick.
And I am sure the college player we would draft #8 would love to be on a team that threw its last two games just to pick him. That sounds like a great organization to be part of. What a recruiting tool.
Anybody subscribing to losing those last two games on purpose (or any for that matter) isn't a fan...its just someone who fell off the bandwagon and hit their head too hard.
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.
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.
Shockey was a 12th overall pick
Howard Cosell
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!).
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.
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.
You always play to win the game and I'm glad they won both of those games.
4 spots in the draft means squat to me. I want my team to win.
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?
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.
'bout says it all
What exactly did they do?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Had he laid down and quit, I wouldn't want him, and I'm suspecting the coaches wouldn't either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guess they didn't get the memo that they had packed it in?
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.
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.
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.
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.