Coughlin became our head coach in 2004 and promptly turned the team around to having 4 straight playoff appearances from 2005-2008.
However, the last 6 seasons had been rather unimpressive, 46-42, and just one playoff/Super Bowl run in 2011.
So what happened? Are the players tuning him out or simply a lack of talent drafted by Reese?
Gilbride was not the reason this offense was stuck in the mud... it's talent and injuries...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OL has to be the priority. They simply can not block a decent DL.
(Just a week ago.)
I am trusting OBJ which is good. Outside of him, I hold my breath when the ball gets thrown to the others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
[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.
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.
[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.
Yes, isn't that convenient? And, again, a really low standard for the product?
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.
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.
So true. How were those "meaningful games" vs. Atlanta and Baltimore in 2012?
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.'
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.
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.