I know, I know, they were a 9-7 football team that was dead last in rushing and 29th in defense, and clearly the worst of the Giants' four Super Bowl championship teams.
Over the last couple of years, however, I've noticed it's become commonplace on BBI to dismiss the 2011 title as a "well-timed winning streak" or a "total fluke" that was mixed in with this six-year run of non-playoff seasons. I think that's a little ridiculous, personally. The 2009 Giants were a team in transition (maybe even rebuilding mode) after the '07-08 runs, and the 2010 team was an onsides kick recovery against Philly away from a division title and possible first round bye. The 2011 team, while flawed, won a championship. To me, that's a nice three-year progression that should under no circumstances be lumped in with the garbage we've seen since the middle of 2012.
Additionally, the 2011 Giants played 20 games, including postseason. They were 6-2 in their first eight, and 7-1 in their final eight, with a four-game losing streak sandwiched in between, which included respectable one-possession losses to the Niners and Packers. The three best teams in the NFL that season were the aforementioned Niners and Packers, and the New England Patriots. The Giants played them twice each, going 4-2 in those games, with only one of those games played at MetLife Stadium. The inexplicable loss to Vince Young and the no-show in New Orleans were disconcerting, but it's hard for me to classify that team as a total fluke with that type of success against the best teams the league had to offer.
Also the talent on the 2010-11 teams was far better than anything we've had since. The OTs were bad, but the interior of Boothe, a healthy Baas and Snee playing at a respectable level at least gave Eli a place in the pocket to step up when Diehl and McKenzie faltered (San Fran title game notwithstanding). That team also had two good backs, three terrific WRs, a decent TE in Ballard, JPP playing at a DPOY-level, stout DT play from Canty and Joseph, one decent LB (Boley), and a secondary that included Rolle, Phillips and Webster playing at a pretty high level. Once Osi and Tuck got healthy, they made a nice contribution, too. The Packers and Patriots, in my opinion, had worse defenses than we did, and neither was a very good rushing team either. So perhaps it was just a case of parody even among the best teams that year.
The talent level on the 2013-14 Giants isn't in the same stratosphere as the 2011 team, and there isn't a hot streak hot enough to propel this year's or last year's team into NFC East contention, forget Super Bowl contention.
So, I guess my point is that any doom and gloom accounts of the current state of the Giants should probably be traced back to 2012, not 2009. I have a healthy respect for what the 2011 roster was able to accomplish THROUGHOUT that season.
Plenty of people constantly wonder how things fell apart so quickly and the not so sweet truth is that they didn't; the collective talent on this roster has arguably been in some variation of decline since 2008/2009. Winning a SB since then with a team that gave up more points than they scored doesn't change that nor should it hurt your enjoyment as fan of that title or diminish the accomplishments certain individual players may have achieved during that run (YMMV, but I feel it enhances those things).
I thought the 2010 team was the best regular season team we've had outside of 2008.
3-4 unreal game changing shit calls. Plenty of well respected folks I know said the game was more than likely fixed and I've never heard them say something like that before or since.
Following sports these days with the 24/7 obsessive coverage is nice and all but it leads to too much nonsense. That team won the championship. You can argue about flukes and stats and projections and all that shit that people love to argue about and get stuck in the mud on. I prefer the actual games and going by the actual results. The 2011 New York Giants were the Super Bowl Champions, end of story.
However, The Giants had one heck of a tough qb, a defense that really turned it on and special teams that did their job.
What is interesting to me is how flip flopped the offense was in 07 and 11. In 07 teams dared Eli Manning to beat them as they loaded up against a very good run game. Opposing defenses had two worries, Plaxico Burress (albeit hobbled) and a potentially dominating run game.
In 11 teams dared the Giants to run and loaded up against the pass to stop Manning and a trio of WR's. However unlike 07 where Manning stepped to the occasion the run game never really got going in the post season. The Giants had to live and die by their passing game. Two awesome runs, two of the best runs you could ever ask for.
3-4 unreal game changing shit calls. Plenty of well respected folks I know said the game was more than likely fixed and I've never heard them say something like that before or since.
49ers handed the Giants the game with the fumbles
Patriots were just not that good without a healthy Gronk, who let Chase B out jump him for a ball.
Snee, Baas and Tuck all miraculously got healthy at the same time. If those three had been healthy throughout the 2009-13 period, Giants would have been a much better team because those guys dominated when healthy. But they were rarely healthy and never healthy all at the same time except for that six game run.
Giants have had plenty of bad luck with injuries. That was the one time they had good luck. Nothing wrong with admitting that.
They also had some extremely satisfying wins. That win in Philly in week 3 was awesome, winning in New England was a great win, and obviously the Jets win and both Cowboys wins were awesome as fans.
The team peaked late and no one can take that away from them, they faced big boy competition and they won each and every game.
It's funny, you could make the argument that the 2008 & 2010 Giants were more Super Bowl likely teams during the course of the season than the 2007 & 2011 Giants.
I just feel, despite the records, that the Giants and Patriots were almost mirror images of each other that year. Great QB play, nice weapons on offense (we probably had more), very little running game, and pretty crappy defenses. Yet if the Pats had won that Super Bowl, nobody would've been surprised because, well, they're the Pats after all.
3-4 unreal game changing shit calls. Plenty of well respected folks I know said the game was more than likely fixed and I've never heard them say something like that before or since.
The same crap went on in the playoff game in Green Bay, only the Giants were able to overcome it. It's still unfathomable to me how the refs overturned that first quarter Jennings fumble and then upheld it after forcing Coughlin to waste a challenge. And that 4th quarter roughing flag on Umenyiora!?!?! Argh!!!!
Quote:
a 10-6 regular season team. If you doubt me, go re-watch the regular season game against the Packers. Never has there been a game where it was painfully obvious the refs were determined to hand that game to a team.
3-4 unreal game changing shit calls. Plenty of well respected folks I know said the game was more than likely fixed and I've never heard them say something like that before or since.
I don't think I bitch about the refs often, but the Packers got some absurd fucking calls both games we played them that year.
I just feel, despite the records, that the Giants and Patriots were almost mirror images of each other that year. Great QB play, nice weapons on offense (we probably had more), very little running game, and pretty crappy defenses. Yet if the Pats had won that Super Bowl, nobody would've been surprised because, well, they're the Pats after all.
The Patriots averaged .5 yards more per carry and 20 more yards per game than the Giants.
The Patriots were 7th best when it came to QB pressures; the Giants gave up the most.
The Patriots scored 171 points more than they allowed. The Giants scored 6 points less than they allowed.
The Patriots' STs were third in DVOA that year; NY's were 12th.
To be blunt, it's got to be a really wonky mirror to put the Giants and Patriots of that season on the same level.
Also, the Giants did not have more weapons than NE did that year, even though Manningham/Cruz/Nick were really, really good. Gronk/Hernandez/Welker was a fantastic trio, when all were healthy and/or not yet outed as serial killers.
I thought the 2010 team was the best regular season team we've had outside of 2008.
I kind of look at 2010 as pretty lateral with 2009's team, in terms of talent level. They just had fewer injuries, or at least fewer season-killing ones, player selection/timing wise, and the defense was liberated from Sheridan (who made Fewell look like vintage Dick LeBeau).
I agree though, that was probably their best season performance, team-wide, post Burress shooting himself. STs being horrific and some bad turnovers/turnover luck just killed them.
The Giants were favored against the Falcons and even the Niners I think. The only real "upset" victory was Green Bay in the divisional round of the playoffs. That speaks to the larger point that it wasn't viewed as some miracle that the Giants won the Super Bowl that year. Most Giants fans and players were expecting a big postseason run following the week 17 win over Dallas. Many thought we were contenders when we knocked off New England in October of that season. Only in retrospect is the championship viewed by some as a miracle, given what's happened since.
I don't think I bitch about the refs often, but the Packers got some absurd fucking calls both games we played them that year.
Yup me too. I don't bitch much about the refs either. When the Giants won that Green Bay playoff game despite playing against the Refs & Packers, I was especially happy. I jumped for joy believing that no matter what the refs did, our Giants were not about to let that shit happen again.
If I ever got to sit down and talk to Eli, I'd like to ask him his honest opinion of those 2 games. I'd love to know what went through the player's minds.
The Giants were favored against the Falcons and even the Niners I think. The only real "upset" victory was Green Bay in the divisional round of the playoffs. That speaks to the larger point that it wasn't viewed as some miracle that the Giants won the Super Bowl that year. Most Giants fans and players were expecting a big postseason run following the week 17 win over Dallas. Many thought we were contenders when we knocked off New England in October of that season. Only in retrospect is the championship viewed by some as a miracle, given what's happened since.
We were slight underdogs in SF (+2), serious underdogs in GB (+8) and slight favorites against Atlanta (-3)
Most Superbowl winning teams can point to a few critical calls, plays, decisions and opponent games on their road to victory.
He needed other wordly efforts by his players, coupled with a sumplified version of his scheme, to achieve an isolated incident of success
3-4 unreal game changing shit calls. Plenty of well respected folks I know said the game was more than likely fixed and I've never heard them say something like that before or since.
But then re-watch the game against the Cardinals when the refs didn't give the Cardinals the ball after Cruz just handed it over. Even Steven... we were a 9-7 team.
But then re-watch the game against the Cardinals when the refs didn't give the Cardinals the ball after Cruz just handed it over. Even Steven... we were a 9-7 team.
"Upon review it was determined that Cruz had willfully given himself up before he fumbled and as such, he was considered to be down." Not even close and I remember that play.
First they had to go to New England (13-3), where I think the Giants were the first NFC team to ever beat Brady in Foxboro. Coming off that win and with a 6-2 record, no one was calling the Giants just an average team.
Then came one touchdown losses to the 49ers (13-3) in San Francisco and at home against the Eagles. (OK, the Eagles were the weakest link of that five game streak, but they finished 8-8.) Suddenly 6-4 and not so sure of themselves going into New Orleans where the Saints never lost.
The Saints (13-3, unbeaten at home) pummeled the Giants 49-24. The Giants really could have used a patsy to beat up on, but instead it was that awful three point loss to the 11-1 Packers (en route to 15-1 season).
They now had a four game losing streak, and had lost their confidence. Still the Giants, not looking like a superior team, managed to win three out of their last four (with the Cowboys rolling over twice with the playoffs on the line), and they got their swagger back and ran out the rest of the season playing better than they had played at the beginning of the season.
A road game against the Saints, two games against the best teams in the league, 49ers, Packers, and Patriots, with two wins against the Patriots.
That's my story of the 2011 season and I'm sticking to it.
I thought the 2010 team was the best regular season team we've had outside of 2008.
Yeah, the 2010 team was one that could have done serious damage if they got into the playoffs/don't choke against the Eagles.
Still painful we have not matched up well against the eagles in a long while.
Our decline has continued (in both our play and our talent level) to the point where there is no possible way to make a similar run.
The past two years, we were counted out by Thanksgiving. We are losing the same way over and over, getting blown out time and again... to the point where this is the norm. We are more than just a couple of players and/or a defensive coordinator away from being a playoff team. It is going to take a lot more.
Quote:
But would say the the decline started in 2010. We had a couple guys on their last legs, who should have had backups to step in for them the following year. We had an absence of youthful depth.
I thought the 2010 team was the best regular season team we've had outside of 2008.
I kind of look at 2010 as pretty lateral with 2009's team, in terms of talent level. They just had fewer injuries, or at least fewer season-killing ones, player selection/timing wise, and the defense was liberated from Sheridan (who made Fewell look like vintage Dick LeBeau).
I agree though, that was probably their best season performance, team-wide, post Burress shooting himself. STs being horrific and some bad turnovers/turnover luck just killed them.
I thought the 2009 line was a bit better (less deterioration but still in need of a youth injection), but that Eli was a better QB in 2010 than 2009 - we also had more weapons with Nicks and Manningham developing into very good players (Nicks was on pace for a better season than he had in 2011 before his injury). And we also had Smith in 2010 before he got hurt. Injuries really hurt that offense toward the end of the year.
And the defense was a lot better due to Fewell over 2009. That was our last good defensive team.
Relative to 2011, though, I thought 2010 was a much better team.
I felt like that team was awfully close to putting it together.
Losing to the fucking Jon Kitna-led Cowboys that year fucking sucked (and obviously the Eagle game).
I felt like that team was so close to 12-4 (I hate the if game, even though I'm playing it now).
2011 made up for it.
Quote:
Giants do much if anything in the postseason. The qb was turning the ball over too frequently and the defense was still quite inconsistent. I don't see the fondness of the 2010 team. Maybe because they won 10 games? Not sure.
I felt like that team was awfully close to putting it together.
Losing to the fucking Jon Kitna-led Cowboys that year fucking sucked (and obviously the Eagle game).
I felt like that team was so close to 12-4 (I hate the if game, even though I'm playing it now).
2011 made up for it.
2011 was super sweet, a different super sweet than 2007