Missing the playoffs the last 5 out of 6 seasons

It's nt like Coughlin has proven unable to motivate his players to reach the highest of achievements. If they had won in 07 and repeated in 08 then missed the playoffs every year after then maybe it could be argued that a new voice was needed. That's clearly not been the case. Look at all the second and third round whiffs we've had of late. It's no wonder this team isn't any good

play hard. They are doing something that others would kill to do. Maybe not believing in the system in place could be an issue but how do these guys not come to play every day?

And injuries plague the roster. Seems we have certain positions get decimated each year by injury. When your starting corners end up being 4th, 5th string and practice squad players you will not win games. I blame the talent level and injuries more then TC

forces a new offense on this team that doesnt fit TC's style or Eli's skillset, noe do we have the players to run that offense.

Gilbride was not the reason this offense was stuck in the mud... it's talent and injuries...

Doesnt having the new offense this year make it seem more rational to keep tc another year? If he goes wouldnt the coordinators go as well? Eli only has a couple good years left most likely

Lack of talent is the fault of the front office and to me that's an obvious reason why.

But there's also the possibility that players get sick of losing and hearing the same thing over and over again. They are human, after all. I think everyone starts off motivated every season. But as it wears on and the same old losing takes place its entirely possible to become disenchanted by those in charge. This is why sometimes, a change of scenery can have a positive effect on a players career.

they have decimated entore positions for the better part of four years, whether it was the DB's, the OL, or the WR's. Look at the RB situation last year. In some games, we were playing undrafted FA's and Hillis.

I don't think people have an appreciation of how fine the line is between champion and also-ran with the way the rosters are structured and the cap is laid out.

I'm not saying that coaching can't be at fault, but if you look at teams hit hard by cluster injuries, very few can compete at a high level and win. You are seeing it this year with a couple of playoff teams from last year - the Niners and Panthers. You are seeing it with the Falcons, who have been hit hard two years in a row. And we are seeing it with the giants for yet another year.

You can blame the GM for a lack of depth, but frankly, every team has a lack of depth.

driven by QB's and good health to those QB's, it does seem hard to believe that this situation is going to happen for the 5th time in 6 years.

Doing some research on this, the Giants have had the highest "QB Start Rate" of any team in the NFC East (89 starts in 89 games = 100%) since the start of the 2009 season through this past Monday.

He is the only QB in the NFC who has started all of its teams games during that time span (Drew Brees is 2nd), yet they are set to miss the playoffs 5 of those times.

That alone tells me there is a talent problem on the entire roster. In a league where if you have a good QB who plays virtually game puts you far ahead of everyone else, the fact the Giants have not been able to field a consistent playoff team is a little strange.

88 for 88 through this past Monday.

In comment 11961694 Kevin(formerly Tiki4Six) said:

Quote:

forces a new offense on this team that doesnt fit TC's style or Eli's skillset, noe do we have the players to run that offense. Gilbride was not the reason this offense was stuck in the mud... it's talent and injuries...

This, I don't understand. Eli is outperforming his career averages in almost every metric. He is on pace for a career high in TDs and to match his career low in INTs (with a better INT%). Speaking of INT and TD%, he's currently sporting career bests in both. Completion percentage is currently 2nd best and about 4 percentage points higher than his career average. His Yards are slightly above his career average, and YPA is even with his career average. All that with some truly horrific line play.

I think the idea that this system doesn't play to his strengths because of the lack of deep passing is overplayed. It is true that the deep ball isn't as prevalent as it has been in the past, but I'm left to wonder if that isn't by design to protect against a subpar offensive line which, as you can remember, is something many of us criticized Gilbride for NOT doing last year.

for lack of front line talent? Because even without the injuries, talent is seriously lacking on the OL, LBs, S and DL

the season our talent on offense was suspect. We need more weapons. I hope we can add a lot more weapons in the off season, including upgraded OL.

when so much of your salary cap is tied up in one player (Eli). You really need to find a lot of value in the bottom third of your payroll when a $20mm cap hit is tied up in a single player, which equates to a need for young players to come in and not only compete, but for some of those guys to perform at a high level. We haven't seen much of that over past few years, but generally speaking, when we have, we have achieved greater success.

You can also entertain the argument that the $20mm/yr QB hasn't exactly performed to that level on a year-over-year basis, but I would prefer to look at the overall body of work before going down that path.

In comment 11961644 gmen1234 said:

Quote:

play hard. They are doing something that others would kill to do. Maybe not believing in the system in place could be an issue but how do these guys not come to play every day?

Believe it. These are 23-24 year old kids. They're not professionals in the ordinary sense of the word (e.g. doctors, accountants etc). They are paid athletes. And in any event, motivation matter. Im a lawyer and I see unmotivated lawyers all the time, working high paying jobs at big firms that 1000s of lawyers would kill to have. Professionals are still humans. Take the situational pass rusher; he can skulk because he thinks he should start, or he can do his best on the plays he has. Athletes face this quandary all the time.

Also there are different levels of motivation. No one actually gives 100% effort all the time. You would die from exhaustion. So a coach can get you from X effort to X+2% effort, and maybe that is the difference between a win and a loss.

In comment 11961828 AnishPatel said:

Quote:

the season our talent on offense was suspect. We need more weapons. I hope we can add a lot more weapons in the off season, including upgraded OL.

OL has to be the priority. They simply can not block a decent DL.

if .....


(Just a week ago.)

and add weapons. Even if Eli has 2381092380 hours in the pocket, I don't trust our skill players in doing the basics, such as catching ball, right route, OR holding onto the ball once they do catch it.

I am trusting OBJ which is good. Outside of him, I hold my breath when the ball gets thrown to the others.

Its simply a lack of talent, not depth. Injuries or not, the starting 22 are not there yet.

And this bio...

Marc Ross is in his second first season as the Giants’ Vice President of Player Evaluation after serving the previous six years as the team’s Director of College Scouting. Ross is in charge of the Giants’ college scouting department and the team’s draft. He joined the organization on May 18, 2007 and ran his first organizational draft the next year.

and coaching (Fewell and Quin are among the worst at their jobs). I think the starting lineups are talented enough to be good. But, injuries at CB have piled up, depth at LB is terrible, starting and backup OL is bad, depth at RB is thin and depth at WR is thin. On top of that, i have not loved, overall, McAdoo's gameplanning and playcalling.

on Monday. I know they gave up 40 but look at three of their touchdowns: Defense thought challenge play was being thrown and wasn't ready. DRC has interception only to have it ripped from his hands. Eli get's stripped, Colts score after having great field position.

In comment 11961644 gmen1234 said:

Quote:

play hard. They are doing something that others would kill to do. Maybe not believing in the system in place could be an issue but how do these guys not come to play every day?

If what you said was a non issue then the Giants wouldn't stress character the way they do. Fact is it's a known issue and shit players on shit teams have been laying down since the game was invented.Draft enough shit attitude players you get a shit team, talent or not. Doesn't have fuckall to do with the coach, you can't polish a turd, you have to have something besides simply skill to build on to craft a championship caliber player.Reese drafted a bunch of wussies.

In comment 11961933 Great White Ghost said:

Quote:

In comment 11961644 gmen1234 said: Quote: play hard. They are doing something that others would kill to do. Maybe not believing in the system in place could be an issue but how do these guys not come to play every day? If what you said was a non issue then the Giants wouldn't stress character the way they do. Fact is it's a known issue and shit players on shit teams have been laying down since the game was invented.Draft enough shit attitude players you get a shit team, talent or not. Doesn't have fuckall to do with the coach, you can't polish a turd, you have to have something besides simply skill to build on to craft a championship caliber player.Reese drafted a bunch of wussies.

The best performers in any profession are those who are self-motivated and can police themselves. This applies in sports as much as it does everyday life. They know what is expected. They are given their task and they go out and do it. They need very little coaching.

If you have enough of those people on your team and at work, you will be successful. They will police each other and hold each other accountable for any failures.

If you are forced to depend on too many guys who constantly need to be pushed and pulled each and every time in order to get the most out of them, you are almost always going to be subject to up and downs (or as the team describes it "inconsistency") because you never know what type of person is going to show up that day. More times than not, you end up disappointed at the final results.

It sure does seem that on top of the talent being an issue, there is some character problems on the team as well that need to be purged as soon as possible.

2007: 10-6
2008: 12-4
2009: 8-8
2010: 10-6
2011: 9-7
2012: 9-7
2013: 7-9

2009 and 2013 were clear disappointments. However, while 2010 and 2012 were non-playoff years, the records were not awful, especially since they won the Super Bowl in 2011 with a 9-7 record. The NFL has become a post Thanksgiving league and all about qualifying for the playoffs. If the Giants were in the playoffs in 2010 and 2012, would this conversation even be had? Its disappointing that they were not, but I also think its disingenuous to give a pass for winning the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record and then complain that with the same or better record they were not in the playoffs and thus fuel to fire Coughlin.

It's 2 straight seasons and probably 3 if this one ends badly.

5-6? why not mention the super bowl title mixed in or the 4 straight playoff appearances before that? Or the 9 and 10 win seasons that didn't get them into the playoffs while a 7 win team did make the playoffs in the same conference.

5-6 is a taking point and a convenient sample size. It doesn't tell the whole story but hey, have fun with it.

In comment 11962125 Bernie said:

Quote:

2007: 10-6 2008: 12-4 2009: 8-8 2010: 10-6 2011: 9-7 2012: 9-7 2013: 7-9 If the Giants were in the playoffs in 2010 and 2012, would this conversation even be had? Its disappointing that they were not, but I also think its disingenuous to give a pass for winning the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record and then complain that with the same or better record they were not in the playoffs and thus fuel to fire Coughlin.

This whole hypothetical if/then scenarios cuts both ways. For instance, if Tony Romo didn't overthrow Dez Bryant by 3 inches in the last regular season game of '11 and the Giants are eliminated, finishing 8-8, do you even bother with this post?

Focusing on the reality of what has happened, the Giants have had more failure than success over the last half decade. And that (big) success came on a very thin margin.

What the fuck does 2009 or even 2010 have to do with this current team? Nothing.

We know coughlin and Eli can win when shit is stable around this team. 2009-2010 is done. We should be taking about 2013 and 2014 because that's relevant.

2013 sucked and this one sucks. That's relevant to the commentary. 2009 has as much to do with this team as what I had for breakfast. The media fuxking sucks.

specific units, and the lack of depth league-wide, BUT we have 4 drafts from 2009-20012 that we have very little to show for. Somebody has to be accountable for that.

05-08 (awesome)
09-2012 (very good)
2013-? (bad)

Ask yourself if you think coughlin is more the problem and less the solution. Ask yourself the same about Reese. And Eli.

We don't even have the same DC or personnel from 2009.

Was as bad as ever from 09-2012. It hit the low water mark during that stretch.

It seems to be on the upswing the last two years although Pugh looks like hot garbage lately. I have to assume he rebounds and provides long term stability on the line.

Quote:

Focusing on the reality of what has happened, the Giants have had more failure than success over the last half decade. And that (big) success came on a very thin margin.

The flip side is the reality is that the giants have only had one losing season in the last decade and have won the SB twice. We have to define failure - is it missing the playoffs or not winning it all, because that is an argument that is fit to whatever agenda a poster has.

On one hand, coaches like Harbaugh and Ryan are lauded on BBI as being proven winners, yet they've yet to win it all. TC is treated like he's some bumbling fool and he's won it all twice. Frankly, I'll take the 2 SB's instead of a bunch of playoff appearances that last as long as Dallas' do.

It is really hard to sustain runs in the NFL. Only a handful of teams do. One can even make the case that the giants have because of their consistent records above .500, but all you need to do is take a look around the league at "good" teams who fall off. Atlanta, chicago and SD come to mind. Heck, even John Harbaugh has issues when trying to lead a team that can field a competitive position due to injuries and suspensions.

Making it sound like TC's lost it and he is the main thing wrong with the team ignores so many other data points it isn't funny. And it really isn't funny - it is damn frustrating to see so many people expecting to win, but in the grand scheme of things, just making the playoffs wouldn't satisfy a lot of people either. They'd start bitching about short playoff appearances.

That's the reality of the NFL - yet so many fail to grasp it.

In comment 11961814 Cap'n Bluebeard said:

Quote:

In comment 11961694 Kevin(formerly Tiki4Six) said: Quote: forces a new offense on this team that doesnt fit TC's style or Eli's skillset, noe do we have the players to run that offense. Gilbride was not the reason this offense was stuck in the mud... it's talent and injuries... This, I don't understand. Eli is outperforming his career averages in almost every metric. He is on pace for a career high in TDs and to match his career low in INTs (with a better INT%). Speaking of INT and TD%, he's currently sporting career bests in both. Completion percentage is currently 2nd best and about 4 percentage points higher than his career average. His Yards are slightly above his career average, and YPA is even with his career average. All that with some truly horrific line play. I think the idea that this system doesn't play to his strengths because of the lack of deep passing is overplayed. It is true that the deep ball isn't as prevalent as it has been in the past, but I'm left to wonder if that isn't by design to protect against a subpar offensive line which, as you can remember, is something many of us criticized Gilbride for NOT doing last year.

Excellent response. Very well put

In comment 11962189 djm said:

Quote:

05-08 (awesome) 09-2012 (very good) 2013-? (bad) Ask yourself if you think coughlin is more the problem and less the solution. Ask yourself the same about Reese. And Eli. We don't even have the same DC or personnel from 2009.

I'm sorry, 2009-12 was NOT very good solely because of a Super Bowl that was, by all appearances, a massive aberration.

I wouldn't call missing the playoffs a complete failure. A couple of those seasons were 9 and 10 win seasons; they just happened to be a year where the NFC was a little better. But, if this season goes the way it has been, this is two dismal losing seasons in a row. Is that enough to fire Coughlin? I'm not sure. But, they are so bad, I am starting to lean that way. I have no problem if they keep him, provided both Quinn and Fewell are gone.

appearances during TC tenure. Used NFC since they are our competition to get in. There are only 3 teams that reached the playoffs more than the Giants 5.

Philly- 6 in the SB once and lost.
Greenbay- 7 in the SB once and won.
Seattle- 7 in SB once and won.

Would you wish to trade records with these team?
Personally I'll take the 5 playoff appearances with the 2 SB wins but maybe that's just me.

I don't agree with that. If we're not going to give credit for +.500 seasons that didn't end in playoffs, we can't also knock a title season at 9-7.

And given the records in surrounding years, 9-7 was not an aberration in 2011.

I understand people are pissed but you can't just gloss over a title. You can't...there are teams that haven't won any in 48 years of the Super Bowl existing.

2008 Steelers - 12-4, +124 point differential
2009 Saints - 13-3, +169
2010 Packers - 10-6, +148
2011 Giants - 9-7, -6
2012 Ravens - 10-6, +54
2013 Seahawks - 13-3, +186

One of these things is not like the others.

Talking about how the 2010 team had bad luck because they missed the playoffs despite 10 wins might be more convincing if they hadn't completely fallen apart late in the season. They were in the driver's seat to make it and choked something fierce.

was that weird year when they made it in with a 7-9 record.

Like I've said before, I divide the Coughlin era into two periods. 2005-08, they were a consistent winner and a very good team. Beginning in 2009, they've been mediocre to bad. One fluky title run doesn't change that. Again, it was an aberration, not a blueprint. No one else have ever won a title with a regular season as weak as the 2011 Giants.

in surrounding years.

I do agree that the 2011 Giants might be the worst SB champ ever. But couldn't that be viewed as favorable to Coughlin? He coached a pretty mediocre team whose only real strength was the passing offense to a title, whipping the defending champ in their own stadium on the way there.

I'm no player and I'm certainly no coach...but these past three years I haven't noted coaching competence as the cause of our struggles. I see increasingly large responsibilities placed on guys like Peyton Hillis, Preston Parker, John Jerry, Dallas Reynolds, Greg Jones, Mark Herzlich, Charles James, Stevie Brown, and other mediocre players due to an interruption in the draft pipeline between 2008-2012.

I believe we are now reaping the failures sown in those drafts. I think it's that simple. I don't think it's a question of failed tactics or a stale message.

In comment 11961781 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

they have decimated entore positions for the better part of four years, whether it was the DB's, the OL, or the WR's. Look at the RB situation last year. In some games, we were playing undrafted FA's and Hillis. I don't think people have an appreciation of how fine the line is between champion and also-ran with the way the rosters are structured and the cap is laid out. I'm not saying that coaching can't be at fault, but if you look at teams hit hard by cluster injuries, very few can compete at a high level and win. You are seeing it this year with a couple of playoff teams from last year - the Niners and Panthers. You are seeing it with the Falcons, who have been hit hard two years in a row. And we are seeing it with the giants for yet another year. You can blame the GM for a lack of depth, but frankly, every team has a lack of depth.

Given how poorly we've started the past two seasons, it's hard to strictly blame injuries.

I think the team has a clear talent issue. Even going into the season, we had questions about safety, and pretty much the entire front seven outside of JPP and maybe the DT's. We had one sure-fire WR in Cruz, and a ton of questions along the line on offense as well as a huge question mark at TE.

Look at 2007 - off the top of my head, we lost Kiwanuka, Ward, and Shockey. We were talented enough to overcome that. This team at full health would probably be bordering on average right now.

I have a hard time blaming injuries for the past two seasons.

In comment 11962179 vibe4giants said:
[quote] In comment 11962125 Bernie said:


Quote:


2007: 10-6
2008: 12-4
2009: 8-8
2010: 10-6
2011: 9-7
2012: 9-7
2013: 7-9

If the Giants were in the playoffs in 2010 and 2012, would this conversation even be had? Its disappointing that they were not, but I also think its disingenuous to give a pass for winning the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record and then complain that with the same or better record they were not in the playoffs and thus fuel to fire Coughlin.




This whole hypothetical if/then scenarios cuts both ways. For instance, if Tony Romo didn't overthrow Dez Bryant by 3 inches in the last regular season game of '11 and the Giants are eliminated, finishing 8-8, do you even bother with this post?

Focusing on the reality of what has happened, the Giants have had more failure than success over the last half decade. And that (big) success came on a very thin margin.
[/qu

That's exactly the point. Define success. The Giants have decided that being relevant in December = success. Under that scenario, that has been achieved every year, even the ones with a losing season. Other peoples definition is playoffs. I will take what Coughlin has provided over what we saw under Fassel and Reeves.

In comment 11962288 Go Terps said:

Quote:

in surrounding years. I do agree that the 2011 Giants might be the worst SB champ ever. But couldn't that be viewed as favorable to Coughlin? He coached a pretty mediocre team whose only real strength was the passing offense to a title, whipping the defending champ in their own stadium on the way there. I'm no player and I'm certainly no coach...but these past three years I haven't noted coaching competence as the cause of our struggles. I see increasingly large responsibilities placed on guys like Peyton Hillis, Preston Parker, John Jerry, Dallas Reynolds, Greg Jones, Mark Herzlich, Charles James, Stevie Brown, and other mediocre players due to an interruption in the draft pipeline between 2008-2012. I believe we are now reaping the failures sown in those drafts. I think it's that simple. I don't think it's a question of failed tactics or a stale message.

I actually hated our game plan against the Cowboys and thought it may have cost us the game.

Also, replacing Locklear with Diehl in 2012 may have cost us a playoff spot.

I agree with your overall point, though.

In comment 11962305 Bernie said:

Quote:

In comment 11962179 vibe4giants said: [quote] In comment 11962125 Bernie said: That's exactly the point. Define success. The Giants have decided that being relevant in December = success.

That's what Mara says when the Giants aren't making it past December. He's lowering the bar, claiming victory and you're buying in. But merely 'being relevant' in December is only the measure of success to a guy trying to sell you failure.

Quote:

Under that scenario, that has been achieved every year, even the ones with a losing season.

Yes, isn't that convenient? And, again, a really low standard for the product?

Quote:

Other peoples definition is playoffs.

Well, other people understand that no team has ever actually won anything, ever, without, you know, making the play-offs.

Quote:

I will take what Coughlin has provided over what we saw under Fassel and Reeves.

If you're content with comparing relative degrees of failure, you could also 'praise' Reeves and Fassell saying, "Hey, I'll take those guys over Handley.' Me? I'd prefer a Giants team consistently playing well. Which is something we haven't seen in awhile.

That "relevent in December" and "meaningful games late in the season" stuff always kills me too. If they're not winning those "meaningful games", who the hell cares??

In comment 11962364 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

That "relevent in December" and "meaningful games late in the season" stuff always kills me too. If they're not winning those "meaningful games", who the hell cares??

So true. How were those "meaningful games" vs. Atlanta and Baltimore in 2012?

In comment 11962364 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

That "relevent in December" and "meaningful games late in the season" stuff always kills me too. If they're not winning those "meaningful games", who the hell cares??

It's such a loser's mentality. And a transparent job of trying to explain away what have been failing seasons. Most of the league is probably still 'relevant in December'. The only teams eliminated by then are the truly horrible. He might as well say, 'As long as we're better than the Jets, Raiders and Jags, it's all good.'

In comment 11962351 vibe4giants said:

Quote:

In comment 11962305 Bernie said: Quote: In comment 11962179 vibe4giants said: [quote] In comment 11962125 Bernie said: That's exactly the point. Define success. The Giants have decided that being relevant in December = success. That's what Mara says when the Giants aren't making it past December. He's lowering the bar, claiming victory and you're buying in. But merely 'being relevant' in December is only the measure of success to a guy trying to sell you failure. Quote: Under that scenario, that has been achieved every year, even the ones with a losing season. Yes, isn't that convenient? And, again, a really low standard for the product? Quote: Other peoples definition is playoffs. Well, other people understand that no team has ever actually won anything, ever, without, you know, making the play-offs. Quote: I will take what Coughlin has provided over what we saw under Fassel and Reeves. If you're content with comparing relative degrees of failure, you could also 'praise' Reeves and Fassell saying, "Hey, I'll take those guys over Handley.' Me? I'd prefer a Giants team consistently playing well. Which is something we haven't seen in awhile.

Never said I was buying in to the success = relevant in December. Simply pointing out that's how the Giants define it.

My point is that the with the way the NFL is now constructed, once in the playoffs, every team has a legitimate chance of winning. That was not always the case. With that said, in the years the Giants did not make the playoffs, they were 1 game away. As a result, unless this team completely implodes, I am skeptical Coughlin will be fired.

The Giants since 2009 have been underachieving. Look at all of the Super Bowl champions over the past decade - Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Colts, Saints, Ravens, Seahawks. None of these teams have had anywhere near the same struggles with trying to make the playoffs consistently either following or leading up to their championship run as the Giants have had.

More specifically, no team ever won a Super Bowl with smoke and mirrors. To get to that stage and then win it requires talent. The issue with the Giants has never been about talent as much as it has been about consistency. Under Tom Coughlin, the Giants have never played at a consistent level season to season, let alone game to game - while the level of talent has not changed all of that much during his tenure. It can't be anything but an indication of inconsistent coaching.

So, you're talking about how just getting into the playoffs is the important thing in today's NFL because anyone can go on a run......yet missing the playoffs 5 of 6 seasons isn't a big deal?

Something doesn't compute there.

is the bar, can we really count last year? 4-7 going into December doesn't quite qualify.

In comment 11962305 Bernie said:

Quote:

In comment 11962179 vibe4giants said: [quote] In comment 11962125 Bernie said: Quote: 2007: 10-6 2008: 12-4 2009: 8-8 2010: 10-6 2011: 9-7 2012: 9-7 2013: 7-9 If the Giants were in the playoffs in 2010 and 2012, would this conversation even be had? Its disappointing that they were not, but I also think its disingenuous to give a pass for winning the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record and then complain that with the same or better record they were not in the playoffs and thus fuel to fire Coughlin. This whole hypothetical if/then scenarios cuts both ways. For instance, if Tony Romo didn't overthrow Dez Bryant by 3 inches in the last regular season game of '11 and the Giants are eliminated, finishing 8-8, do you even bother with this post? Focusing on the reality of what has happened, the Giants have had more failure than success over the last half decade. And that (big) success came on a very thin margin. [/qu That's exactly the point. Define success. The Giants have decided that being relevant in December = success. Under that scenario, that has been achieved every year, even the ones with a losing season. Other peoples definition is playoffs. I will take what Coughlin has provided over what we saw under Fassel and Reeves.

you say that, but they have one losing season in the last decade, bottom line, and 2 championships.you premise that they have been more bad than good the last decade holds no water and has no merit.It's just an erroneous statement.

In comment 11962483 Bernie said:

Quote:

In comment 11962351 vibe4giants said: Never said I was buying in to the success = relevant in December. Simply pointing out that's how the Giants define it.

Oh, come on. You're using the Giants definition of success as a response to me, but when I take it apart, your response is 'Well, that's them talking, not me!'

So, then, I guess we need to rewind so I'm talking with you and not Mara.

1. What's your definition of success?

2. Is 5 out 6 season with no play-offs meeting your definition?

Quote:

My point is that the with the way the NFL is now constructed, once in the playoffs, every team has a legitimate chance of winning.

Right. But, again, it's not constructed, in any way, for teams not making the play-offs to win anything . And that's what this thread is about.

Quote:

With that said, in the years the Giants did not make the playoffs, they were 1 game away.

And now you're back to lowering the bar. 'If you can't actually make the play-offs, one game away from making the play-offs is good enough!'

So I guess I know your standard now. 'Close is good enough.'

Quote:

As a result, unless this team completely implodes, I am skeptical Coughlin will be fired.

Completely implodes? In the manner of the Eagles game? The Colts game? Hell, the Cardinals game? How many complete implosions, bad losses, second half (season) collapses, will it take for you? How is TC still not 'close enough'?

"a losing season"? Ultimately, what difference does that make? It wasn't a winning season, either, and it ended in Week 17.

have been inconsistent, I think it is incorrect to say the team has been inconsistent. Here are their records:

2007: 10-6
2008: 12-4
2009: 8-8
2010: 10-6
2011: 9-7
2012: 9-7
2013: 7-9

That's pretty damn consistent. People like to point to blow out losses, but they inconveniently overlook when other teams are blown out because we naturally put a premium on Giants performances. I always believe in the Rule of Results:

The Results you get are the results you should get

We can wonder why the results are what they are - coaching, talent, etc. but overall, this team has gotten the results they've either earned or lost.

I watched a team on Monday that looked outclassed, yet the game thread was filled with people talking about how outcoached we were. When is the last time BBI stood up and said that the team facing us was flat-out better? In that observation alone, there is a bias that skews most rational discussion about the team.

I'm not sure what people are hoping for. Like I said before - trade the 2 SB's for a bunch of playoff appearances, coming up empty wouldn't be very desirable. Trade the 2 SB's for consistent teams who fall short? Heck, over the past decade, I'd rather be the giants than the Pats, and the SB total reflects that.

past few years.

In comment 11962625 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

The Results you get are the results you should get

The results over the last 5 out of 6 = no play-offs. (That people need to keep going further back than that actually makes the point it intends to refute.) That's a pretty consistent rate of failure to make the play-offs. That's what we should get?

Assuming that there's something common and repeatable about making the playoffs once in a six year span, and winning a title in that one year. What's common is 2007 - a team that's made the postseason consistently for a few years but hasn't broken through goes on a run. That's not what we've been seeing from the Giants in recent years.

is a really convenient stopping point.

I'd say winning two titles in the last 7 years sounds as impressive as missing the playoffs 5 out of 6 times sounds depressing.

Hell, winning 1 SB in the past 45 years is something some teams can't say. And we've done it twice in the past 7. A whole lot of teams can say they've missed the playoffs 5 out of 6 years in their franchise history.

So, would you guys be happier to make the playoffs and lose? Because that sure seems like it based on these threads that either completely ignore or minimize the importance of SB wins.

In comment 11962616 vibe4giants said:

Quote:

In comment 11962483 Bernie said: Quote: In comment 11962351 vibe4giants said: Never said I was buying in to the success = relevant in December. Simply pointing out that's how the Giants define it. Oh, come on. You're using the Giants definition of success as a response to me, but when I take it apart, your response is 'Well, that's them talking, not me!' So, then, I guess we need to rewind so I'm talking with you and not Mara. 1. What's your definition of success? 2. Is 5 out 6 season with no play-offs meeting your definition? Quote: My point is that the with the way the NFL is now constructed, once in the playoffs, every team has a legitimate chance of winning. Right. But, again, it's not constructed, in any way, for teams not making the play-offs to win anything . And that's what this thread is about. Quote: With that said, in the years the Giants did not make the playoffs, they were 1 game away. And now you're back to lowering the bar. 'If you can't actually make the play-offs, one game away from making the play-offs is good enough!' So I guess I know your standard now. 'Close is good enough.' Quote: As a result, unless this team completely implodes, I am skeptical Coughlin will be fired. Completely implodes? In the manner of the Eagles game? The Colts game? Hell, the Cardinals game? How many complete implosions, bad losses, second half (season) collapses, will it take for you? How is TC still not 'close enough'?

My definition of success is a winning record. With now 6 teams getting into the playoffs from each conference, there are some things out of each teams control when making the playoffs. And recent history has shown wildcard teams win the Super Bowl just as much as division winners. But some of you guys act as if the Giants under Coughlin have been consistently losing with 1 flash in the pan 2011 season.

This year saw 24 new players on the roster and a brand new offensive system. Somehow, even with all of this change, this team was supposed to just come out a dominate. Then the injuries start piling up on both sides and people can't understand why the Giants will have a hard time competing.

Not sure how you can discount the way Giants management evaluates a season when discussing if Coughlin should be fired or not. I am not saying I agree, but it is relevant. In this context your opinion nor mine really matter unless of course you are willing to stop supporting the team.

In comment 11962664 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

I'd say winning two titles in the last 7 years sounds as impressive as missing the playoffs 5 out of 6 times sounds depressing.

Which would you say is more descriptive of where the Giants are as a franchise in 2014?

and the folly in all of this is that people are certain they know what to do to fix things and make us a "winning team", whatever that even means.

I get it - people are frustrated about the playoff drought. But the tone of threads like this is that there is some easy way to change things that the collective BBI is in on while the Giants organization is filled with idiots and buffoons.

I see a great deal of irony in that and not surprisingly a whole lot of people don't.

Aside from firing Marc Ross, anyway. What I do know, however, is that what they've been doing hasn't been working, and the 2011 fluke doesn't mean that it has.

than I am about the quality of play most weeks the last few seasons. I can live with missing the playoffs here and there when we finish 9-7 or 10-6. Those are still good seasons. But, when we finish with losing records and fail to show up for multiple games a year and look ill prepared and undisciplined and continue to have ST cost us games every season, that is why I am upset.

now in a way that benefits them. Let's say the Giants had made the play-offs 5 or the last 6, but always lost in the first round. You can believe that the definition would be 'Hey, at least we're consistently making the play-offs!'

Last year we started 0-6. But thanks to the shit around us, we were still relevant into November. So, 0-6 leads to...success?

Quote:

This year saw 24 new players on the roster and a brand new offensive system. Somehow, even with all of this change, this team was supposed to just come out a dominate.

This is a fine straw man, but no one is complaining about the Giants failure to 'dominate'.

It's about a failure to compete.

A failure to build a competitive team in spite of bringing in 24 new players.

A failure to do the work that made bringing in all those new parts, at once, a necessity.

A failure to make the most out of our franchise QB's prime.

Ultimately, about the failure to meet what is the actual definition of success in the NFL. To make the play-offs in hope of winning it all.

It takes a lot spin to call all that failure 'success' on any level. I understand Mara's interest in that spin. I don't really understand a fan's.

Getting the everloving shit stomped out of them repeatedly is another. There have been far too many losses over the past three seasons that were just abject asskickings, games that were over by the second quarter.

I don't understand a fan's spin one way or another. The results are what they are and as fans, we aren't able to affect change. Some people might argue that they can affect change by being disgruntled and complaining, but even then, nobody really knows what needs to be changed to ENSURE success.

that's why i tend to be along for the ride, good or bad. That's why I cheer when Strahan get inducted into the HOF and runs out onto the field grinning - the man was part of teams that brought me a great deal of satisfaction.

I can get really upset, call people in the organization names, question their professionalism, but at the end of the day, what does it accomplish? Gets me agitated and doesn't result in any more wins than otherwise. And it makes me sound like Daniel Snyder or Jerry Jones to boot.

I think the drafting issue may have been resolved in these last two drafts, and the team (especially the offense) may be back on the upswing after bottoming out in 2013.

Questioning Coughlin, Reese, and anyone else right now is absolutely fair. But are we doing so because we're looking to punish for missing the playoffs 5 of 6 years or because we think there is someone better for the job going forward?

If they let Coughlin go I hope it's because they have another guy already lined up (which given Coughlin's age they probably already should have).

Like it or not, there are very few coaches who have had much success after age 70.

Quote:


This year saw 24 new players on the roster and a brand new offensive system. Somehow, even with all of this change, this team was supposed to just come out a dominate.



This is a fine straw man, but no one is complaining about the Giants failure to 'dominate'.

It's about a failure to compete.

A failure to build a competitive team in spite of bringing in 24 new players.

A failure to do the work that made bringing in all those new parts, at once, a necessity.

A failure to make the most out of our franchise QB's prime.

Ultimately, about the failure to meet what is the actual definition of success in the NFL. To make the play-offs in hope of winning it all.

It takes a lot spin to call all that failure 'success' on any level. I understand Mara's interest in that spin. I don't really understand a fan's. [/quote]

Well based on this list, the entire front office needs to go as well as the entire coaching staff. You are calling for a complete change from a model that has netted 2 Super Bowl Championships in 7 years.

I agree the blowouts suck and are frustrating, but I would not trade the last 7 years of being a Giants fan for the last 7 years of being a Patriots fan.

In comment 11962026 BigBlueinChicago said:

Quote:

In comment 11961933 Great White Ghost said: Quote: In comment 11961644 gmen1234 said: Quote: play hard. They are doing something that others would kill to do. Maybe not believing in the system in place could be an issue but how do these guys not come to play every day? If what you said was a non issue then the Giants wouldn't stress character the way they do. Fact is it's a known issue and shit players on shit teams have been laying down since the game was invented.Draft enough shit attitude players you get a shit team, talent or not. Doesn't have fuckall to do with the coach, you can't polish a turd, you have to have something besides simply skill to build on to craft a championship caliber player.Reese drafted a bunch of wussies. The best performers in any profession are those who are self-motivated and can police themselves. This applies in sports as much as it does everyday life. They know what is expected. They are given their task and they go out and do it. They need very little coaching. If you have enough of those people on your team and at work, you will be successful. They will police each other and hold each other accountable for any failures. If you are forced to depend on too many guys who constantly need to be pushed and pulled each and every time in order to get the most out of them, you are almost always going to be subject to up and downs (or as the team describes it "inconsistency") because you never know what type of person is going to show up that day. More times than not, you end up disappointed at the final results. It sure does seem that on top of the talent being an issue, there is some character problems on the team as well that need to be purged as soon as possible.

Nice observations.Great post.
Question, does Reese look for a certain kinbd of character, and is it the right kind? Or is it Ross? Or Chris Mara?

If they were all like antrelle Rolle we wouldn't have these problems. Have you ever seen Randle, or Hosley, or Robinson interviewed? Very nice boys.
Too nice. They have no dog, no mean streak, no fire in their belly that I can sense, no drive to beat everyone around them. They act, and in fact talk as if they have nothing to prove. I picked those 3 because in addition, they seem to be dullards.I'm willing to bet none of them got above a 20 on the wonderlic.Maybe they don't grasp things inherently, and aren't driven enough to push and strive to make up for their shortcomings by good study and practice habits. It's been said of every one of those mentioned at one point or another their were questions about their habits or work ethic, if not from team members then from the media itself. I recall comments about all those guys. I think these are "the passionless, the dead" that Rolle talks about, along with guys like Parker and Jerry who are forced into starting roles.Lack of enthusiasm, defeatism, is a contagion.Rolle Hits the mark when he says what the issue is. We all are looking hither and yon, talking about management or coaches, when in reality it's more shitty personnell is all thats left after years of injury have ravaged the roster.You get the sens what's left feels more like survivors than competitors, waiting for their inevitable turn in the trainers room, like they all think they are gonna get whacked sooner or later, like a Marine on Iwo Jima.

In comment 11962729 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

I don't understand a fan's spin one way or another. The results are what they are and as fans, we aren't able to affect change.

This is treading close to how good fans vs. bad fans behave. All we're doing is discussing. No one thinks it will effect change.

Frankly, I was a fan of your post Game Day threads. But did that change any behavior? Of course not. It was just something to do on a message board.

Quote:

that's why i tend to be along for the ride, good or bad.

We're all along for the ride. Should we not look out the window and say what we see?

Quote:

I can get really upset, call people in the organization names, question their professionalism, but at the end of the day, what does it accomplish?

Again, about as much as those post Game Day Threads did. Venting.

Quote:

And it makes me sound like Daniel Snyder or Jerry Jones to boot.

This thin attempt to veil a great (the greatest?) insult has been seen through.

Saying 'Look away, ignore the problems, forget results, everything's on the upswing!' is more along the Snyder/Jones line.

Acknowledging real problems that aren't getting any better is as far from them as you can get.

Quote:

I watched a team on Monday that looked outclassed, yet the game thread was filled with people talking about how outcoached we were. When is the last time BBI stood up and said that the team facing us was flat-out better? In that observation alone, there is a bias that skews most rational discussion about the team.

Me and a few others have said that quite a bit over the past year or so, which is why I blame Reese more than TC for the current status of the team.

has a mean streak or Bud Foster wouldn't have let him on the field in Blacksburg.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is 'Grit' as in the ability to take a hay-maker and shrug it off. To get knocked down and then stand up.

In comment 11962744 Bernie said:

Quote:

Well based on this list, the entire front office needs to go as well as the entire coaching staff. You are calling for a complete change from a model that has netted 2 Super Bowl Championships in 7 years.

Again, you're time traveling, subject changing. 5 out of 6 seasons, no play-offs. That's what's being discussed. That's what needs change. Unless, of course, one believes 'being relevant in December' is enough.

Quote:

I agree the blowouts suck and are frustrating, but I would not trade the last 7 years of being a Giants fan for the last 7 years of being a Patriots fan.

Another series of words that doesn't mean as much as they hope. No Giants fan would ever want to change places with a Patriots fan. Including if they won those SBs and we lost. We're discussing the Giants failures. That other teams fail is of little interest to me. I don't root for those teams.

In comment 11961816 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

for lack of front line talent? Because even without the injuries, talent is seriously lacking on the OL, LBs, S and DL

and that's an issue.There are some spots he seems to have a blind spot for, or looks at the position the way Parcells looked at kickers.

1)Sure, a lot of teams are better than the Giants. That was my point when talking about losses versus blowouts - there's no shame in losing some of these games, but there is plenty of shame in getting shut out 4 times over about 30 games.

2)This....

Quote:

You are calling for a complete change from a model that has netted 2 Super Bowl Championships in 7 years.

goes back to my point about 2011 - what the hell is the model there? Get outscored in the aggregate, sneak into the playoffs and go on a playoff hot streak out of nowehere? It isn't repeatable.

both act as if they can make quick fixes to turn things around, which is sort of the sentiment I see on BBI these days. It gets boiled down to a pithy, "Coughlin sucks", "Reese sucks", "Mara sucks" mantra.

I actually believe that the line between a good and bad team is so narrow that quick fixes work all the time - the problem is identifying what quick fix needs to be made. Jones and Snyder have whiffed on that part time and again.

In comment 11962760 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

Quote: I watched a team on Monday that looked outclassed, yet the game thread was filled with people talking about how outcoached we were. When is the last time BBI stood up and said that the team facing us was flat-out better? In that observation alone, there is a bias that skews most rational discussion about the team. Me and a few others have said that quite a bit over the past year or so, which is why I blame Reese more than TC for the current status of the team.

I'm glad Brett pulled this out, as I overlooked it. I agree. About both myopic fans (the worst) and Reese. But TC has failed, too.

I don't expect both men would go. (We can't even ditch our ST coach nor DC, despite little to recommend of either.) Right or wrong, I have a hard time imagining JR going before TC. And that's part of why I have a hard time we're going to pull up out of this nosedive any time soon.

but who really has a repeatable formula?

The Pats haven't drafted particularly well, but with Brady in there and a subpar division, they are usually in the hunt. The Colts also benefit from being in a weak division and have gotten stellar QB play - they also draft pretty well. I struggle to identify other teams who are almost always in the playoffs. the saints have been really inconsistent the past few years - heck that entire division is as it has rotating winners each year it seems. Seattle and SF are recently very good, but prior to that struggled quite a bit. The Packers have been pretty consistent, but Rodgers again keeps them in the hunt.

The Steelers and Ravens have had periods of success, but also periods of inconsistency.

I think a lot is made of these supposed elite teams that the giants are lagging behind, but when you look at it more closely, are they really? The giants still have a 10 year overall record that is in the top 5.

Greg and vibe...if you fire Coughlin, would you stop at him? Reese too? What do you do about McAdoo? Have you thought about who should replace anyone that is let go?

In comment 11962773 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

both act as if they can make quick fixes to turn things around, which is sort of the sentiment I see on BBI these days. It gets boiled down to a pithy, "Coughlin sucks", "Reese sucks", "Mara sucks" mantra.

Agree.

I actually believe that the line between a good and bad team is so narrow that quick fixes work all the time - the problem is identifying what quick fix needs to be made. Jones and Snyder have whiffed on that part time and again. [/quote]

Agree. So, to the guy who just mentioned results above, I ask...what makes you believe the Giants have the people in place to get these fixes right? Our guy told us last year the 'offense is broken'. Is it fixed? Or did they whiff?

In comment 11962239 Watson said:

Quote:

appearances during TC tenure. Used NFC since they are our competition to get in. There are only 3 teams that reached the playoffs more than the Giants 5. Philly- 6 in the SB once and lost. Greenbay- 7 in the SB once and won. Seattle- 7 in SB once and won. Would you wish to trade records with these team? Personally I'll take the 5 playoff appearances with the 2 SB wins but maybe that's just me.

And that's what it comes down to, the rest is rubbish. Or you can point out we've had one losing season in the last 10 years.or more games lost per starter over the last couple of years(going on 3 years now) than any other team in the NFL. you can bash your head in all damn day blaming this and that, the fact is you can't do shit if all your best player are always hurt and can't ever mesh, specially with a new system. we get one top receiver, we lose the other.It just doesn't stop. It's the injuries, not TC that is demoralizing these players.Can't blame him simply because the guys on the roster know what time it is.he can't mind fuck them out of reality, try as he may.He can for a bit, but then guys keep going down, and it becomes apparent to one and all after awhile the Emperor hath no clothes.

In comment 11962787 vibe4giants said:

Quote:

In comment 11962773 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: both act as if they can make quick fixes to turn things around, which is sort of the sentiment I see on BBI these days. It gets boiled down to a pithy, "Coughlin sucks", "Reese sucks", "Mara sucks" mantra. Agree. I actually believe that the line between a good and bad team is so narrow that quick fixes work all the time - the problem is identifying what quick fix needs to be made. Jones and Snyder have whiffed on that part time and again.

Agree. So, to the guy who just mentioned results above, I ask...what makes you believe the Giants have the people in place to get these fixes right? Our guy told us last year the 'offense is broken'. Is it fixed? Or did they whiff? [/quote]

I think it's almost completely fixed.

I'm with you. it isn't just getting shutout 4 times in 30 games. It is about a ton of losses by double digits as well, like all the losses this year. It isn't as much about missing the playoffs as it is the level of play we have been subjected to the last 2 seasons. The missing of the playoffs 5 of 6 just stands as something to point to as backup.

And you are spot on about the last SB team. They were a terrible D that was fortunate to have had Eli at his very best that season. And, they got hot in the post season. There was no formula there that can be replicated.

Marc Ross absolutely has to go. The difference in quality from the drafts Reese ran in 2003-07 and the drafts Ross has run since 2009 are stark. I think Jerry's one helluva college scout. As they say, the GM's biggest input into the draft comes in the first round, and his track record there is very good overall. I didn't like the Wilson pick, but can't kill him for a guy getting injured (though I wanted Cordy Glenn there, and said so at the time). His free agency record is a mixed bag, and losing Gettleman probably hurt him there. I wouldn't feel outraged either way, so long as Ross is shown to the door.

I'd probably be more amenable to retaining Coughlin if he were younger. If they're going to have to rebuild, which I believe they do, then you're talking about coming out of that period when Coughlin is 70+ years old. I also do believe that coaches' methods and messages, even good ones, get stale.

I like what McAdoo's tried to do, and I'd like him to stick around, but I don't think you can force a new head coach to retain a coordinator. That condition would drive away a lot of quality candidates from even considering the job.

One of the biggest reasons I want to keep Coughlin is so we don't lose McAdoo. I really like the look and feel of the offense with him there.

In comment 11962783 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Greg and vibe...if you fire Coughlin, would you stop at him? Reese too? What do you do about McAdoo? Have you thought about who should replace anyone that is let go?

Fair questions.

First, I wouldn't fire Coughlin. I believe he's all-time Great who has stayed on too long. But a Great, nonetheless. I'd allow him to retire and do whatever the fuck he wants to next. The Giants would be lucky to have him in some capacity. But no longer as Head Coach. Over the last five years, we've too often seen the Giants come out looking poorly prepared and undisciplined at every level. That's coaching. It's entirely possible that had TC let Fewell and Quinn go with KG, he'd look better now. But to the extent he's responsible for them still being there, that would be on him, too. I'd hate to see more flag in sock moments start to pile up. He deserves better.

I was shaky on Reese before his PC two weeks ago. I really don't like him now. But I know the Giants aren't going to change HC and GM at once, so I won't even bother with that spitball. But I have no faith in him. I have to hope to be wrong about that.

McAdoo? I'd be playing above my Xs and Os there. And since I'm not much on Xs and Os to begin with, I truly don't know. I've seen what everyone else has. An offense that looked slick, modern and exciting for 3 games. And like shit for 5. But he may have more alibis than the other two. I don't know enough to argue he doesn't deserve another chance.

In comment 11962790 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 11962787 vibe4giants said: Quote: In comment 11962773 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: both act as if they can make quick fixes to turn things around, which is sort of the sentiment I see on BBI these days. It gets boiled down to a pithy, "Coughlin sucks", "Reese sucks", "Mara sucks" mantra. Agree. I actually believe that the line between a good and bad team is so narrow that quick fixes work all the time - the problem is identifying what quick fix needs to be made. Jones and Snyder have whiffed on that part time and again. Agree. So, to the guy who just mentioned results above, I ask...what makes you believe the Giants have the people in place to get these fixes right? Our guy told us last year the 'offense is broken'. Is it fixed? Or did they whiff?

I think it's almost completely fixed. [/quote]Iwithout better personnel, I don't see anything getting better. Far as the offense, needed to be changed to accomodate the rules and the CBA.No line, needs quicker releases. Offense was too complex for the brains of the players we had. Eli has time to sit back disect and call, plays to his genetic strengths.MacAdoo still need to polish his actual skills at calling games and making judgements and adjustments, as well as coming up with the best plan for a particular opponent, but the overall philosophy is good, and with time all involved will become more proficient. .Whether reese made mistakes or not, if he learns from them then right the ship, I don't care if he stays. If not he needs to go. there are issues in my mind with how he swings for the fences with athletes whoarent necessarily football players, and also him picking guys who are very talented but have injury histories, which seem to keep recurring. Between injuries and projects not panning out, and the few fundamentally sound guys he gets that just seem t0 have no dog in them, i dunno what to say. Is he simply unlucky? can his drafting issues be fixed? has he already learned his lessons and we are simply suffering from past mistakes and shitty luck?

But to the original point, no, unless you have what you know is an improvement lkined up, I don't see the point in firing people you have a good workign relationship with. You don't throw your mates under the bus because you all got unlucky, you all made ,istakes. they all did. It may be it's far better to have MacAdoo spend 2 years under TCs tutelage while reese funished his roster rebuild, and then when TC retires, at the same time Elis contract is up, in 2016 the incoming coach can decide who his QB is, who his assitants are, the cap money isnt tied up and hopefull at leats the lines have been rebuilt and we have a few decent players at each skill position like WR,TE and CB, and the incoming guy doesnt have to start from scratch, but has options, as well as management having the option to have Reese continue on.To me the offseason between 2015-2016 is the time for big changes and decisions. It's when the opportunities naturally present themselves. Knnejerk reactions are no cure-all. Let Eli and TC finish out their contracts, and then re-assess when the money aren't tied up and we have some opportunities to develop or attract coaching.Hell, I always said we are in year 2 of a 3 year rebuild.Maybe I'm right., maybe next year we get the parts we need, the offense settles down and we have a good season,make the playoffs and show something. They may decide to extend TC and Eli, you never know.I know this offseason chopping head beyong Quinn Palmieri and Fewell doesnt hold much attraction for me. I'd say I don't like Rooss but I don't really know if he's the problem, anymore than I know Mara meddling is. For all we know it would be much worse in not for input from John and chris Mara. We can say what we think, but none of us really knows. Someone doesn't know how to pick healthy players, someone doesn't know how to pick self motivated players. Is It a Mara, reese, Ross? I dunno. I'm willing to be it's not TC though. I'm willing to bet anyone he identifies as a want is both healthy and a self starter.

In comment 11962839 vibe4giants said:

Quote:

In comment 11962783 Go Terps said: Quote: Greg and vibe...if you fire Coughlin, would you stop at him? Reese too? What do you do about McAdoo? Have you thought about who should replace anyone that is let go? Fair questions. First, I wouldn't fire Coughlin. I believe he's all-time Great who has stayed on too long. But a Great, nonetheless. I'd allow him to retire and do whatever the fuck he wants to next. The Giants would be lucky to have him in some capacity. But no longer as Head Coach. Over the last five years, we've too often seen the Giants come out looking poorly prepared and undisciplined at every level. That's coaching. It's entirely possible that had TC let Fewell and Quinn go with KG, he'd look better now. But to the extent he's responsible for them still being there, that would be on him, too. I'd hate to see more flag in sock moments start to pile up. He deserves better. I was shaky on Reese before his PC two weeks ago. I really don't like him now. But I know the Giants aren't going to change HC and GM at once, so I won't even bother with that spitball. But I have no faith in him. I have to hope to be wrong about that. McAdoo? I'd be playing above my Xs and Os there. And since I'm not much on Xs and Os to begin with, I truly don't know. I've seen what everyone else has. An offense that looked slick, modern and exciting for 3 games. And like shit for 5. But he may have more alibis than the other two. I don't know enough to argue he doesn't deserve another chance.

Y'all did hear him say, repeatedly, to anyone who would listen, he never intended to challenge that call, that he was stalling for time. You did hear him say that, yes? because he didn't whiff getting the flag out. his team whiffed when, after he told them indy gets off fats after iffy calls, they stood about flumoxed. They didnt start standing there becuae he reached. they were waiitng anyway. he was trying to buy time so the assholes could line up, in a situation he warned them about specifically. Read up on it if you haven't, it's always nice to know what one is talking about.

terrible human being.

The fact that The Giants were standing around waiting, rather than doing as they were coached in that very situation, says the coaching hadn't gotten through. (You probably know from things not getting through.)

In order to make up for that first failure, TC then wanted to stall. He could have called a TO, but chose not to. So, instead, he was going to stall with a challenge. But even this was executed so poorly, it both failed as a tactic and made him look foolish in the process. Which I would hate to see happen again. As I said.

Now I know wading in beyond your depth is a lifestyle choice for you. But perhaps rather than assuming you know more than, well. Anybody. You could simply take more time with your own posts. The content makes you look bad enough. You could at least clean up the myriad typos, poor syntax and ugly paragraphs.

Expect that I will go back to both posting and reading around you now. My own personal 'ignore' feature, returned to the 'engaged' position.

In comment 11962715 vibe4giants said:

Quote:

This is a fine straw man, but no one is complaining about the Giants failure to 'dominate'. It's about a failure to compete. A failure to build a competitive team in spite of bringing in 24 new players. A failure to do the work that made bringing in all those new parts, at once, a necessity. A failure to make the most out of our franchise QB's prime. Ultimately, about the failure to meet what is the actual definition of success in the NFL. To make the play-offs in hope of winning it all. It takes a lot spin to call all that failure 'success' on any level. I understand Mara's interest in that spin. I don't really understand a fan's.

But if we are talking about Coughlin and whether or not he should be fired, shouldn't be we be talking about what he can control and what he contributes?

I like TC, and I'm grateful for the championships, but for a guy who preaches discipline, attention to detail, minimizing mistakes, concentration and minimizing mental errors, the track record of this team for the last few years has been bone-head penalties, turnovers, missed assignments, blown coverages, miscommunications and way too many no-shows. Delay of game penalties, receivers doing one thing, the QB thinking something else, finger-pointing and breakdowns in the secondary, and on and on. We can have every guy five minutes early for the meeting, and dressed in a suit while travelling for road games, but we can't get the play off in 25 seconds or get people to understand what they are supposed to be doing on a play.

In comment 11962857 Great White Ghost said:

Quote:

In comment 11962839 vibe4giants said: Quote: In comment 11962783 Go Terps said: Quote: Greg and vibe...if you fire Coughlin, would you stop at him? Reese too? What do you do about McAdoo? Have you thought about who should replace anyone that is let go? Fair questions. First, I wouldn't fire Coughlin. I believe he's all-time Great who has stayed on too long. But a Great, nonetheless. I'd allow him to retire and do whatever the fuck he wants to next. The Giants would be lucky to have him in some capacity. But no longer as Head Coach. Over the last five years, we've too often seen the Giants come out looking poorly prepared and undisciplined at every level. That's coaching. It's entirely possible that had TC let Fewell and Quinn go with KG, he'd look better now. But to the extent he's responsible for them still being there, that would be on him, too. I'd hate to see more flag in sock moments start to pile up. He deserves better. I was shaky on Reese before his PC two weeks ago. I really don't like him now. But I know the Giants aren't going to change HC and GM at once, so I won't even bother with that spitball. But I have no faith in him. I have to hope to be wrong about that. McAdoo? I'd be playing above my Xs and Os there. And since I'm not much on Xs and Os to begin with, I truly don't know. I've seen what everyone else has. An offense that looked slick, modern and exciting for 3 games. And like shit for 5. But he may have more alibis than the other two. I don't know enough to argue he doesn't deserve another chance. Y'all did hear him say, repeatedly, to anyone who would listen, he never intended to challenge that call, that he was stalling for time. You did hear him say that, yes? because he didn't whiff getting the flag out. his team whiffed when, after he told them indy gets off fats after iffy calls, they stood about flumoxed. They didnt start standing there becuae he reached. they were waiitng anyway. he was trying to buy time so the assholes could line up, in a situation he warned them about specifically. Read up on it if you haven't, it's always nice to know what one is talking about.

I'm confused, how does reaching for the challenge flag (pretending to challenge a call) stall for time?

He would have been better off re-signing Deon Grant to flop on the ground.

Speaking of Grant, where is he? Can we sign him? lol

In comment 11962985 Disgruntled NYGfan said:

Quote:

In comment 11962715 vibe4giants said: Quote: This is a fine straw man, but no one is complaining about the Giants failure to 'dominate'. It's about a failure to compete. A failure to build a competitive team in spite of bringing in 24 new players. A failure to do the work that made bringing in all those new parts, at once, a necessity. A failure to make the most out of our franchise QB's prime. Ultimately, about the failure to meet what is the actual definition of success in the NFL. To make the play-offs in hope of winning it all. It takes a lot spin to call all that failure 'success' on any level. I understand Mara's interest in that spin. I don't really understand a fan's. But if we are talking about Coughlin and whether or not he should be fired, shouldn't be we be talking about what he can control and what he contributes? I like TC, and I'm grateful for the championships, but for a guy who preaches discipline, attention to detail, minimizing mistakes, concentration and minimizing mental errors, the track record of this team for the last few years has been bone-head penalties, turnovers, missed assignments, blown coverages, miscommunications and way too many no-shows. Delay of game penalties, receivers doing one thing, the QB thinking something else, finger-pointing and breakdowns in the secondary, and on and on. We can have every guy five minutes early for the meeting, and dressed in a suit while travelling for road games, but we can't get the play off in 25 seconds or get people to understand what they are supposed to be doing on a play.

Well said. The things TC actually can have some hand in aren't indicative of good coaching at the moment.

Just show how I can manipulate statistics as well.

It's stating facts. Give or take you being off by a Super Bowl. The Giants are currently 2 for 8. Which is lovely.

But the Giants had won 2 of 5 by the time 1991 rolled around. Super impressive, huh? Meant sweet fuck all to the 91-92 season. Eras end.

Anyway, the manipulation here occurs when you insist on reaching back to 2007 for what is plainly, explicitly a discussion of the last 6 seasons. Six seasons in which the Giants have made the play-offs once (fact). By the skin of their teeth (fact.) And became the first team to win a SB, despite a negative point differential. (Fact.) The run in '11 was pretty freaking miraculous, which makes it a thrilling memory for all of us. But that great memory hides the fact that some disturbing trends were forming. And that's what we've seen since.

If you can explain all that without any further manipulation, please do.

Fatman on this thread.

In comment 11962630 micky said:

Quote:

past few years.

^^^ That^^^^

Losing players to injury for a few games, or even a season is one thing, losing players for good (or permanently effected) is another... and the Giants have had a few of those.

Plax (not football related but same result), S. Smith, Nicks (Cruz?), Boss, Ballard, Kenny Philips, Terrell Thomas, Snee (the entire OL fell off a cliff after 2011), Tuck (never the same after the Flozell Adam trip), David Wilson... etc.

Not all "stars" but they all were at least important role players, or expected to play big roles.

I dont know how that compares to other teams, but for the Giants they were big.

you got trophies for making the playoffs.

You learn something every day.

In comment 11963151 bignygfan said:

Quote:

you got trophies for making the playoffs. You learn something every day.

No, but you sure as hell don't get any trophies when you don't make the playoffs. See how that works?

MAKING THE PLAYOFFS: potential to win trophies
NOT MAKING THE PLAYOFFS: absolutely no potential to win trophies

You can be grateful for the two Super Bowl wins and simultaneously be frustrated with the current state of the team and concerned for its future. There's always an implication that those pointing out the lack of playoff appearances are ungrateful (in the same manner many 'optimists' hint at the inferiority at more pessimistic fans). I'd take our last decade over any other team other than peehaps the Steelers, but that doesn't mean anything for the team going forward.

Injuries (to other teams) are probably the only reason we weren't 4-12 last year and likely won't be this year either. The Falcons were missing their entire OL and the Texans best offensive weapon was out.

I shouldn't post from my phone..

under TC, we will not have won a playoff game in 9 out of the 11 seasons he's coached....

Hate to say it but for the better part of three years it has been pointing down. Something needs to be done to turn it around.

In comment 11962186 Section331 said:

Quote:

specific units, and the lack of depth league-wide, BUT we have 4 drafts from 2009-20012 that we have very little to show for. Somebody has to be accountable for that.

Some of the reason the Giants have little to show for the last several drafts are due to injuries. Beckam missed almost half the year. Wilson & Chad Jones had career-ending injuries (Jones B4 he even played a down). JPP missed 5 games last year & played w/ a bum shoulder & back for 1.5 years. Prince missed 9 games his rookie season, 3 in 2012 & half this year. Austin, though he was extremely likely a bust anyhow, missed his entire rookie year & 8 the next. Jernigan missed all of this year. J Williams, although JAG, missed 6 games in 2012 & wasn't particularly healthy all last year. Robinson missed a year. Hosley,although also likely a bust, has missed half his career so far. Taylor is out all year.

Who has to be held accountable for injuries? If someone is hit by lightning, does someone have to be held accountable for that too? Injuries happen (it seems a lot more to the Giants than most other teams) & not all of them are created equal.

People can point out that Eli has played every game until they're blue, but he doesn't also play 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th string CB (this year & 2 years ago), or OL, or RB (last year). He also can't make Randle run the correct route or catch the ball. He can't prevent Donnell from fumbling. He can't help Fewell or the D players run a decent blitz. He doesn't play on or coach the consistently horrendous STs.

The 49ers are a fine example of how injuries can sabotage a season. Their OL has been a shambles all year & 2 of the best LBs in the NFL have missed several games. They are 4-4, which is 1 game better than the "completely talentless" Giants as numerous BBIers proclaimed before they jumped off a tall building. Did Harbaugh suddenly forget how to coach? Most of the team has tuned him out? Their ultra-talented roster just forgot how to play all of a sudden? Or maybe widespread injuries, particularly to 2 units, have a major part in it?

For a completely untalented team with a shitastic GM & D & STs coaches, the Giants have still managed to have only 1 losing season since what, 2003? BBIers act like they're the fucking Raiders or Jaguars.

In comment 11962664 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

is a really convenient stopping point. I'd say winning two titles in the last 7 years sounds as impressive as missing the playoffs 5 out of 6 times sounds depressing. Hell, winning 1 SB in the past 45 years is something some teams can't say. And we've done it twice in the past 7. A whole lot of teams can say they've missed the playoffs 5 out of 6 years in their franchise history. So, would you guys be happier to make the playoffs and lose? Because that sure seems like it based on these threads that either completely ignore or minimize the importance of SB wins.

Excellent point! Perspective is something that is rather severely lacking on BBI, which is why I don't even read anything posted by about 90% of it's posters. The life span of most BBIers would be about 10 games if they were Raiders fans. In a sport where teams are measured by how their records compare to OTHER teams, most BBIers choose to totally discount how the Giants COMPARE to OTHER teams. The Eagles make the playoffs virtually every year but haven't won squat in 54 years. I gather that all these fucking morons would rather be Eagles fans. They do deserve each other.

One, Reese has a habit of drafting players he views as undervalued and a large portion of those are ones had major injuries or had an injury history coming out of College.

Two, I would like to think the Giants medical staff actually cares a little more about the players' health in the long term and is more reluctant to send an injured player back on the field, as compared to Dallas, Washington and Philly have done.

In comment 11963321 Dylan fan said:

Quote:

In comment 11962664 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: is a really convenient stopping point. I'd say winning two titles in the last 7 years sounds as impressive as missing the playoffs 5 out of 6 times sounds depressing. Hell, winning 1 SB in the past 45 years is something some teams can't say. And we've done it twice in the past 7. A whole lot of teams can say they've missed the playoffs 5 out of 6 years in their franchise history. So, would you guys be happier to make the playoffs and lose? Because that sure seems like it based on these threads that either completely ignore or minimize the importance of SB wins. Excellent point! Perspective is something that is rather severely lacking on BBI, which is why I don't even read anything posted by about 90% of it's posters. The life span of most BBIers would be about 10 games if they were Raiders fans. In a sport where teams are measured by how their records compare to OTHER teams, most BBIers choose to totally discount how the Giants COMPARE to OTHER teams. The Eagles make the playoffs virtually every year but haven't won squat in 54 years. I gather that all these fucking morons would rather be Eagles fans. They do deserve each other.

Terrible post.

But, we're not.

We're not Eagles fans.

We're not Patriots fans.

We're, get this, Giants fans.

So most of us don't sit around thinking about what other fan experiences are like. It's not relevant to our lives how other fans feel. Because their experience isn't our experience.

Most of us care about, get this, how the New York Giants do. Because that's the team with which we live and die. What's happening to the New York Giants defines our year-to-year football season experience. And every season is a new season.

So if someone sits around watching consecutive bad New York Giants seasons thinking, 'Well, I am sure am glad I'm not a fan of much worse teams or teams who have never won anything', I suppose you're doing a good job of distracting yourself from the issues of the New York Giants.

But 90% of us are here to talk about what we're seeing, feeling and thinking about as New York Giants fans. And that doesn't include a slightly curious tangent of imaging what it would be like to be a fan of the Raiders. I care what a Raiders fan thinks about as little as what a Dylan fan thinks.