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

Archived Thread

The value, or loss thereof, of two victories; 2013

BurberryManning : 8/27/2014 12:01 pm
The sky has not fallen. The Giants have yet to play a meaningful game in 2014 and there remains a great chance that the team will galvanize into a potent squad. That being said, we've cleary played witness to a less than stellar preseason performance that does warrant some concern, especially with regards to a few areas of the team that appear to lack sufficient talent.

As we all remember, the end of the 2013 brought about a conundrum for stakeholders of the organization; with the Giants eliminated from the playoffs was it prudent to enhance the opportunity of maximizing assets by diminishing our short-term chance of victory(ex. playing Nassib, youth) or was it more important to honor the decree of winning at all times? In plain terms, would the Giants have been best served on aggragate by benching some veterans in favor of their younger teammates which would probably cause immediate losses but would result in their development and better draft picks?

The opinions on BBI were scattered. I clearly sided with the belief that the organization would be best served by losing the last two games, with the understanding that Coach Coughlin wasn't going to tell him team to lay down. Other members of BBI posed certain arguments that I felt were irrational..

"I want the Giants to win every time I watch them."
Response: Two wins in a lost season are not worth more potential wins in future seasons that have yet to be lost.

"The draft is a crapshoot. The 8th pick could bust as easily as the 12th pick."
Response: Based upon the perceived value of each pick, if the organization shares this view they could simply trade down to 12 or further and accrue extra picks and/or assets.

"Losing games sends a poor message to the team."
Response: Why are we concerned how the members of a 5-9 team will perceive a message? Do we want the sort of professionals on our team that are mentally weak enough to succumb to a poorly perceived "message"?

"Winning games creates momentum going forward."

This last statement was a bit nebulus and hard to quantify but I think it has become more clear today as we've progressed through training camp. If anyone can demonstrate to me a strong indication that the team or particular players have carried forward momentum earned in the last two games of 2013 I would be interested to see it. From my standpoint I do not see any momentum having carried forward, in fact with a completely new offensive system and significant roster turnover I cannot comprehend how much momentum ever could carry over.

So what was the alternative? As many of us proposed, the alternative to fielding the most competitive team at the end of 2013 was giving significant opportunity to younger players, including the likes of Nassib. This is not the same as telling our players to rollover, rather it is a calculated acknowledgement that our best chance of winning remains on the sidelines but we want the players on the field to do their best. Let us assume that this strategy resulted in two losses and no further development of our young players (which is rather conservative knowing that valuable exposure of Nassib to game action would help).

From what I gather two additional losses would have placed the Giants in position to pick anywhere from 8th-9th. The Giants of course picked 12th. Judging by the traditional draft value board, the move from 8th or 9th to 12th would be worth in pick somewhere in the 3rd or early 4th round. These values dont always work out perfectly and in the 2013 draft we even saw the Bills trade the 9th overall, a 4th rounder, and next year's 1st round pick to move up to 4th overall.

But in any event, we can obviously project that the Giants could have moved back a few spots from 8th or 9th to a place where they could have drafted Odell Beckham while also picking up additional picks. Personally, I think it is has become increasingly evident throughout the preseason that an additional 3rd or 4th round pick spent on a lineman, tight end, or other position of need would be very beneficial at this point.

Again, this is not to say that the Giants are doomed nor is it a case of hindsight being "20-20" rather it is an acknowledgement that many posters understood the logic of accruing future assets for two end-of-season victories. In my opinion what we've seen this preseason validates that argument to a large extent.

Thoughts?
You can't look at it this way realistically  
pjcas18 : 8/27/2014 12:04 pm : link
the team (you hope) is going to try and win every game, a win cost them nothing and they wound up where they wound up.

.  
arcarsenal : 8/27/2014 12:08 pm : link
I still don't understand what people holding your opinion wanted the Giants to do. How do you just go out and lose on purpose? Do you tell the players to not try? Bench all your starters?

They won the games they won, it happened. I guess having a higher pick would have been nice but if Beckham goes on to be a stud WR, will it matter at all?
With very rare exceptions (i.e. Walsh tanking the last game  
Big Blue '56 : 8/27/2014 12:10 pm : link
against the Rams in '88 to avoid facing us in the playoffs), ONLY fans think the way the OP has opined
I can't see Tom Coughlin ever coaching not to win a game.  
Del Shofner : 8/27/2014 12:12 pm : link
Nor would I want him to.

End of story so far as I am concerned.
RE: I can't see Tom Coughlin ever coaching not to win a game.  
shabu : 8/27/2014 12:15 pm : link
In comment 11827576 Del Shofner said:
Quote:
Nor would I want him to.

End of story so far as I am concerned.


Agree, 18-1
One small quibble:  
81_Great_Dane : 8/27/2014 12:16 pm : link
The team shouldn't be trying to win every game they play. They should be trying to win the Super Bowl. That's usually the same thing -- but not always.

The obvious example of a situation where the two goals don't align: A key player is injured, but can still go. In a regular season game, if you're not desperate, you might hold him out. In an elimination or playoff game, he plays. Terrell Davis played in the Super Bowl with migraine so bad he couldn't see, for example. They probably wouldn't have started him in a regular season game.

A more subtle example was the Giants' 2007 final-game loss to the Patriots, where they didn't show all their defensive schemes. They held back some of their schemes on the chance they might face the Pats again in the Super Bowl. They might have beaten New England in Week 17, but they were aiming for the championship. That was the right decision.
Players are playing for jobs  
armsteadeatslittlekids : 8/27/2014 12:20 pm : link
regardless of record or playoff aspirations. People forget that.

Even if TC could bring himself to coach to lose, players are not going to give up, because they're playing to showcase for their next employer whoever it may be.

And judging by John Mara's emotionally driven post season comments and actions, you can't tell me that there's no difference between 7-9 and 4-12 or 3-13. Either way they don't make the playoffs, but I would wager more heads would have rolled if they had an even worse record.
Like Coughlin,  
mrvax : 8/27/2014 12:58 pm : link
I'd never set about to have my team lose a game. What I do agree with is that once the season was lost, Nassib should have played.

Maybe have your franchise QB start the 1st quarter then bring in the kid. Maybe they could have given some time to other young players also.

This way you get valuable game experience for the kids and you never play to lose. If you win, you win. If you lose, the kids get experience and you get a better draft position.
As green as Nassib was last year...  
rptl530 : 8/27/2014 1:01 pm : link
and behind an absolute disaster of an OL you couldn't play Nassib.

You could ruin him forever.
And FWIW...  
rptl530 : 8/27/2014 1:02 pm : link
sometimes I'll think, "yeah, maybe it's better to just lose out" and then when the game starts that shit goes out the window.
Losing games  
Doomster : 8/27/2014 1:11 pm : link
is the mantra of the bad teams of the NBA.....they have to be bad to have a better shot in the lottery.....such was the quest of the Celtics....except they screwed up when they hired their coach of the future....he won too many games with a bad team....but even that is a crapshoot....look who won the number one pick, again, and they had a better record than the Celtics....

Would anyone have thrown Nassib to the wolves last year behind this OL? He was not ready....he might not be walking today if they did.....he could have developed Carr-itus, and never looked as good this preseason as he has....

A fortuitous bounce off a Detroit TE, facing a string of not-even-backup-qb's, and playing a dismal Washington team at the end of the season, would have taken care of the problem for us....this was not a 7 win team, by any stretch of the imagination.....Can only ponder who we might have drafted.....hopefully, someone without a hammy....
I thought I was done reading stupid draft hypotheticals for a while.  
Giants Fan in Steelers Land : 8/27/2014 1:11 pm : link
Saying if they lost those two games and the draft positioning would be slightly better is a fact. But to say with that position they could have just traded back grabbed OBJ and had an extra 4th so by winning the last two games they missed out on an extra pick is a stretch
The only thing I may have had them do differently  
Hades07 : 8/27/2014 1:38 pm : link
is get more playing time for some of the younger players on the team. Which they did do somewhat. But to play a guy you know will not be back next season after you have been eliminated from the play-offs doesn't serve much purpose.
RE: The only thing I may have had them do differently  
Hades07 : 8/27/2014 1:39 pm : link
In comment 11827765 Hades07 said:
Quote:
is get more playing time for some of the younger players on the team. Which they did do somewhat. But to play a guy you know will not be back next season after you have been eliminated from the play-offs doesn't serve much purpose.
provided you have a inexperienced player behind him that would improve faster with more playing time.
RE: .  
BurberryManning : 8/27/2014 1:40 pm : link
In comment 11827567 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
I still don't understand what people holding your opinion wanted the Giants to do. How do you just go out and lose on purpose? Do you tell the players to not try? Bench all your starters?

They won the games they won, it happened. I guess having a higher pick would have been nice but if Beckham goes on to be a stud WR, will it matter at all?


What I wanted the Giants to do was not lose on purpose, or atleast not tell the player to lose on purpose, rather it was to position the lineup in such a way that the chances of victory are less due to pure talent/experience but the players on the field and the staff coaching them are still optomizing their performance.

Having Eli Manning start for one series to maintain his streak and then handing over the game to Ryan Nassib is one example which would have served this purpose. It may have also furthered his development and/or showcased his talent.

Furthermore, drafting Beckham and trading back in my hypothetical are not mutually exclusive. You cannot convince me that there is no way to accrue additional value by trading back from 8th or 9th to 10th or 11th or 12th with enough foresight to still get your man (in this case, Beckham). If that value came in the form of a 3rd/4th/5th round pick that could add depth to the OL or TE I think we'd be better off today. The slightest bit of compensation would seemingly exceed the residual benefits of winning the last two games.
If  
dontboobigblue : 8/27/2014 1:43 pm : link
coughlin tried to win every game Eli manning wouldnt have started a game his rookie season because he sucked ass.
This thread is just fantastic.  
Mad Mike : 8/27/2014 1:47 pm : link
I look forward to a 2016 thread still complaining about late season 2013 wins.
The Giants did a poor job  
dontboobigblue : 8/27/2014 1:50 pm : link
Last year. The fact that Damontre Moore wasn't playing 30-45 snaps along with Hankins made no sense. Why were we playing Linval Joseph and Mathias Kiwanuka? These guys didn't need snaps.

I get not playing Nassib but all our young players should have been playing full time. The games literally meant NOTHING. Losses WERE better than wins.

RE: RE: .  
arcarsenal : 8/27/2014 2:00 pm : link
In comment 11827774 BurberryManning said:
Quote:
In comment 11827567 arcarsenal said:


Quote:


I still don't understand what people holding your opinion wanted the Giants to do. How do you just go out and lose on purpose? Do you tell the players to not try? Bench all your starters?

They won the games they won, it happened. I guess having a higher pick would have been nice but if Beckham goes on to be a stud WR, will it matter at all?



What I wanted the Giants to do was not lose on purpose, or atleast not tell the player to lose on purpose, rather it was to position the lineup in such a way that the chances of victory are less due to pure talent/experience but the players on the field and the staff coaching them are still optomizing their performance.

Having Eli Manning start for one series to maintain his streak and then handing over the game to Ryan Nassib is one example which would have served this purpose. It may have also furthered his development and/or showcased his talent.

Furthermore, drafting Beckham and trading back in my hypothetical are not mutually exclusive. You cannot convince me that there is no way to accrue additional value by trading back from 8th or 9th to 10th or 11th or 12th with enough foresight to still get your man (in this case, Beckham). If that value came in the form of a 3rd/4th/5th round pick that could add depth to the OL or TE I think we'd be better off today. The slightest bit of compensation would seemingly exceed the residual benefits of winning the last two games.


I don't know, man. I think it's very very nitpicky to look at it that way. There's no guarantee we would have had the right trading partner to move back where we wanted and still take Beckham if he was our guy. There aren't teams trying to move up for every draft spot. There are some slots where none of the teams have any intention of giving up assets to move up into. Ours could easily have been one of them. Especially given how the QB's were distributed in this particular draft.

It just wasn't feasible. It's not something the Giants would ever have done and it's over and done with. I don't really know what there is to gain by harping on it at this juncture. I don't think putting Nassib behind that OL (or the backups for that OL) would have been smart. It's a good way to ruin a guy before he ever gets started. And I just don't think it's good to create a culture where you're punting games and every guy in the locker room knows it. Those aren't the types of franchises guys want to play for.
arc  
Mike in Long Beach : 8/27/2014 2:04 pm : link
If Will Hill dropped that Pick 6, then maybe he isn't happy enough to party so much and he doesn't smoke weed and get suspended again.

People like you just refuse to look at the big picture.
It's not about  
dontboobigblue : 8/27/2014 2:05 pm : link
trying to lose.

At some point playing your best players doenst make sense. Sure, Linval Joseph is probably better than Hankins but how did it help the Giants to play Joseph the last four games of the year?

Playing Hankins had obvious benefits
RE: The Giants did a poor job  
arcarsenal : 8/27/2014 2:06 pm : link
In comment 11827797 dontboobigblue said:
Quote:
Last year. The fact that Damontre Moore wasn't playing 30-45 snaps along with Hankins made no sense. Why were we playing Linval Joseph and Mathias Kiwanuka? These guys didn't need snaps.

I get not playing Nassib but all our young players should have been playing full time. The games literally meant NOTHING. Losses WERE better than wins.


LJ was in a contract year. I guess they could have sat him because he was playing hurt but good luck telling a guy who is playing for his next payday that you're sitting him down for non-performance reasons (aka, we're trying to lose). I can't imagine many players in his shoes would have been ok with that.
.  
arcarsenal : 8/27/2014 2:10 pm : link
Hankins' development did not suffer in the least from anything playing time related last year. He looks primed to have a very good year for us and Moore also looks revitalized and like a more complete player right now than he was last year.

Not playing those guys more down the stretch doesn't appear to be any sort of detriment whatsoever so I honestly put zero stock in that.
Personally  
Jerry in DC : 8/27/2014 2:14 pm : link
I would've been perfectly happy if the Giants lost a few games at the end of the year. In my view, Houston (and to a lesser extent Atlanta) ended up in advantageous positions last year. Teams with talent that had a bad year resulting in great draft picks. I didn't sit there rooting for the Giants to lose, but I recognized that the Giants losing those games would've been good for the team.

As far as the team taking action towards that end, I'm a little more ambivalent. If you're talking about rotating Hankins/Moore/etc into the lineup and reducing the snaps of some of the vets, then yeah, I buy that. Benching the QB is a little dicey though, unless you concoct an injury for him. NFL teams don't really tank overtly. The Detroit game in particular, had playoff implications, so there's an integrity argument to be made.

I do think it was a very good initial post that maturely handled the topic.
arc  
dontboobigblue : 8/27/2014 2:16 pm : link
It's no different than benching Kurt Warner for Eli Manning. Kurt Warner was by far the better player. They played Eli to get him experience and build the future.

The coaches getting an extended look at Hankins and Moore made all the sense in the world. Not saying you bench Joseph but you divvy up the snaps to get a look at young prospects. It's just an obvious thing a shitty team should do.

I think its important for a leader to not waver.  
Giants Fan in Steelers Land : 8/27/2014 2:21 pm : link
Even when failure is certain TC does not give up. Its difficult to measure the impact of this but I think this attitude has something to do with the amount of improbable come from behind victories we have seen from TC and Eli. You play to win the game. Always. No exceptions. You start giving up when when failure is certain and maybe guys start giving up when failure is pretty much certain and if that is happening the coach is failing
Jerry made the points eloquently, as usual  
JonC : 8/27/2014 2:23 pm : link
I won't root to lose, but would've been fine picking higher in the draft as a result. A fan can afford to think this way, but coaches and players are working for their livelihood, so I don't expect a reduction in effort, preparation, etc.

The trade down component is a bit misleading in the sense that there's no guarantee it will occur when teams are on the clock. It typically winds up being a low conversion occurrence.
arc...  
Hades07 : 8/27/2014 2:28 pm : link
...you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone that more playing time is not beneficial to a young player.

RE: RE: RE: .  
BurberryManning : 8/27/2014 2:35 pm : link
In comment 11827814 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
It just wasn't feasible. It's not something the Giants would ever have done and it's over and done with. I don't really know what there is to gain by harping on it at this juncture. I don't think putting Nassib behind that OL (or the backups for that OL) would have been smart. It's a good way to ruin a guy before he ever gets started.


This I agree with. I know that it is not in the Giant's organizational DNA to concede anything, not that I necessarily agree with it. I'm not sitting back and blasting Reese or writing the team off, I just find it a thought provoking topic.

I also agree that there are cases in which it could be detrimental to the development of a player, especially a young QB, to be forced into a terrible situation. Now, I'm not sure if Nassib has that sort of mental strength and pride that Eli had which helped him to build from his failures (and beatings) when he was put into a brutal situation. It could very well be the case that having Nassib take snaps behind that line with poor receivers could've broken his confidence. I dont know.
RE: arc...  
arcarsenal : 8/27/2014 2:39 pm : link
In comment 11827875 Hades07 said:
Quote:
...you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone that more playing time is not beneficial to a young player.


So you believe that Jon Hankins or DaMontre more (despite both looking very good this summer) had their development hampered by them not playing enough down the stretch?

LinJo didn't even get a jersey more often than not his rookie year. He turned out just fine, did he not?

And please. Eli/Warner is NOT the same thing. You're talking about a guy you took to be your franchise QB. It is very different. The QB position is not equal to defensive lineman in this league.
Burberry  
dontboobigblue : 8/27/2014 2:46 pm : link
The giants conceded Eli's Rookie season. So it is in their DNA to concede the present for the future.

arc  
dontboobigblue : 8/27/2014 2:47 pm : link
If hankins turns out to be a stud and so does Moore it doesn't mean that getting them snaps during their rookie year wouldn't have been beneficial.

Experience is the best teacher.

RE: One small quibble:  
Great White Ghost : 8/27/2014 2:48 pm : link
In comment 11827588 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
The team shouldn't be trying to win every game they play. They should be trying to win the Super Bowl. That's usually the same thing -- but not always.

The obvious example of a situation where the two goals don't align: A key player is injured, but can still go. In a regular season game, if you're not desperate, you might hold him out. In an elimination or playoff game, he plays. Terrell Davis played in the Super Bowl with migraine so bad he couldn't see, for example. They probably wouldn't have started him in a regular season game.

A more subtle example was the Giants' 2007 final-game loss to the Patriots, where they didn't show all their defensive schemes. They held back some of their schemes on the chance they might face the Pats again in the Super Bowl. They might have beaten New England in Week 17, but they were aiming for the championship. That was the right decision.
In that instance, and only that instance I agree with you but for ever so slightly different reasons. It was clear to me at the end of the game against the pats they took their foot ever so slightly off the gas at the end of the game, after they had basically proven to themselves the Pats were beatable.I just don't think there was any way the Giants were going to beat the pats twice in one year that year.better the win in the playoffs.
beyond that it's a hella easier to take a 7-9 and turn into into a 9-7 team than it is to take a 5-11 twam and reinstill confidence and bring it up to a playoff team the following years. besides the argument not trying your best to win breeds a toxic attitude and betrays a basic commitment to excellence that must be maintained no matter what,%-11 is a confidence killer and harder to rebound from than 7-11.Especially with the drfat record of the Ginats the last few years theres no guarantee reeses choices would have been any less Ill advised than they have been the last few years.It offered only a possible upside over a definite downside and a toxic side effect,besides the fact that TC would never go for it.
i can't beleive we are having another one of these threads  
UConn4523 : 8/27/2014 2:48 pm : link
you don't just jump up in the draft, you lose a lot as well, when tanking or giving up. If you don't realize that then you never played a sport before.
RE: arc  
arcarsenal : 8/27/2014 2:55 pm : link
In comment 11827916 dontboobigblue said:
Quote:
If hankins turns out to be a stud and so does Moore it doesn't mean that getting them snaps during their rookie year wouldn't have been beneficial.

Experience is the best teacher.


I highly, highly doubt that a few extra snaps last year would have changed their career trajectories. The difference is negligible and this is a silly discussion to even be having. It's ridiculously nitpicky.
.  
arcarsenal : 8/27/2014 2:58 pm : link
What's funny is that had Coughlin done that and Hankins tore an ACL, people would be screaming that Coughlin was risking a key cog for our future in a meaningless game.
Play young players yes...  
Hades07 : 8/27/2014 2:58 pm : link
...I don't think anyone was suggesting benching Manning. I am thinking of getting them rotated in on more plays than they otherwise would. Getting a DL that needs work on stopping the run in on more running downs instead of just passing downs, for example.
arc...  
Hades07 : 8/27/2014 3:02 pm : link
...people will scream and complain about anything. I have no issue with what the Giants did at the end of last season. I would have just preferred they take the opportunity to get some of the younger players some experience. With how short training camps are and how little opportunity you have to develop players, I think you need to take advantage of every opportunity you get.
ive rooted against the giants before for draft position  
MarshallOnMontana : 8/27/2014 3:33 pm : link
I dont feel the need to justify it. And its nice this opinion is more widely held than it was say a decade or so ago, when I remember getting crushed here in 03 for stating as much. I swear it was like 95/5.

That said I dont find fault with anything the giants did. I wanted them to try their best to win games while simultaneously hoping theyd fail. Just sucks we got so lucky (or in my opinion unlucky) by running into so many depleted qb situations after the 0-6 start. It artifically inflated their record mightily, this team wasnt even 7 win good last year. They were ridiculously lucky to go 7-9. (Or again unlucky, depending on your pov)
The only time I wasn't unhappy with losing or losing out  
Big Blue '56 : 8/27/2014 3:42 pm : link
was in 2003. The reasons(to me) were simple:

1-Fassel was done, so it didn't really matter morale-wise because a new regime, with new concepts, players and attitudes was on the immediate horizon, so carryover was a very remote possibility..

2-We were so crippled, this wasn't even a team that started the season in tact. A higher draft choice was preferable at that point given the 2004 turnover in staff
Arc  
dontboobigblue : 8/27/2014 4:03 pm : link
Im not "complaining." Just stating something that seems obvious to me, evaluate young players when your team is down and out
After the 0-6 start TC was in straight  
RDJR : 8/27/2014 9:09 pm : link
out panic mode and needed to save face with ownership. He should have been because I suspect KG and Pope wouldn't have been the only ones to go if we went 5-11 or 4-12. He likely saved his job with those garbage time wins. He wasn't thinking past the meeting with ownership he would have after the season.
You're doing it wrong.  
mattlawson : 8/27/2014 9:44 pm : link
.
Where we messed up was  
bignygfan : 8/28/2014 2:20 am : link
after the 0-6 start.

0-16 was a real possibility but we won the next two games.

The reason I am typing this now is I am lying awake thinking
why did we beat Josh Freeman and Matt Barkley?
Burberry  
River Mike : 8/28/2014 7:13 am : link
I totally agree. And many still don't get it, they still keep arguing against the Giants purposely losing games even though that's not what's being suggested. The team should absolutely try to win. What's being proposed is that it might actually be in the best long term interests of the team to lose while TRYING TO WIN. This is simply a fan's perspective, that we always want them trying to win, but we wouldn't be terribly upset with a loss in this situation.
Playing your QB of the future when your starter struggles  
gersh : 8/28/2014 7:55 am : link
makes sense. But that was not the case here. Last season Nassib was not ready to start. He's not ready now, but he may have to be. I don't know how people thought Nassib was an awful 4th round pick a week ago, but now are sure he will be our starting QB.

Playing other position players who are arguably an upgrade over the current starter does make sense. I do agree that teams, in general, have a responsibility to other teams to try to win. Each game effects the playoffs. (If neither team has a shot - then starting someone just to take a look makes more sense - but still not Nassib over Eli)
they still would have taken a WR ;-)  
Victor in CT : 8/28/2014 8:27 am : link
...........
In 2003 -- once Westbrook broke that PR for a TD I pretty much wanted  
djm : 8/28/2014 9:13 am : link
The giants to lose every game. I was done with the fassel Collins combo. I knew that team peaked in 2000-2002 and would never sniff a Super Bowl title again. Losing down the stretch would not only improve out draft positioning it would hasten fassel departure. I was pretty much done when they blew the game to Dallas a few weeks earlier.

This is different. I'm not done with Eli and coughlin and I don't think draft positioning takes precedence over establishing a winning culture. The giants were a wounded warrior last year. One that lacked confidence and one that lost its way, especially thorough mid October. I think it was a good thing that this team got off the mat and beat some teams. They even got back into the playoff chase before bowing out. I think their play in November, when they won four in a row was a big positive even though countless people say they only beat bad teams. That's bullshit. Winning is all that counts no matter who the opposition. Lose to bad teams and the disease spreads. The only way to stop the disease of losing is to win.

In 2003 that shit was terminal. I don't think last year has to be terminal and judging by how the team played in November and December the giants feel the same way I do. They kept fighting. Diminish that all you want but I think it's a good sign.
RE: If  
djm : 8/28/2014 9:19 am : link
In comment 11827780 dontboobigblue said:
Quote:
coughlin tried to win every game Eli manning wouldnt have started a game his rookie season because he sucked ass.


That's a load of crap. Warner was awful by October and even if coughlin felt that Eli was raw and ill prepared, and I believe that coughlin honestly beloved that Eli gave NYG a better shot at winning, he was the present and future of this franchise. And the team was going nowhere with warner holding the ball for 6 seconds anyway. Everyone acts like Warner was playing well that year when ny was sitting at 5--4. He wasn't.

You can't compare Eli/ warner to last year's situation and even if you did, nassib wasn't as prepared as Eli was in 2004 and 2013 Eli was still the franchise where as 2004 warner was anything but.
And if you're a head coach  
djm : 8/28/2014 9:25 am : link
You're coaching for your job. Every Sunday. You aren't coaching for next year. Do that and you will be watching next year from your couch.


And didn't Hankins and Moore get more burn down the stretch?

Nassib playing last year would have been criminal.
Back to the Corner