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?
Something doesn't compute there.
[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.
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?
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.
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.'
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'?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Which would you say is more descriptive of where the Giants are as a franchise in 2014?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
We're all along for the ride. Should we not look out the window and say what we see?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
2)This....
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
^^^ 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 learn something every day.