addressed biggest holes, are we a playoff team?

Along with tremendous personell improvement for STs (though can't beleive NYG retained Quinn after 5 of 6 years of abysmal specials), I think we are in very good shape for a strong playoff run.

Big question marks at safety still and corner (third corner is a starter).

If Beason gets hurt again, our LB corps is a bit shaky.

As I've been saying all offseason, Cruz is the biggest key for us. If he can't play or doesn't play well, the whole dynamic of our offense changes.

.

also need Andre Williams to get his act together.

we need Larry Donnell to take another step forward.

Where has this team improved outside of DC?

OL: How effective Flowers as a rookie? How is Richburg as a center? Up or down year for Beatty? Can Schwartz live up to his contract? Can Pugh bounce back at either guard or tackle?

marks with the potential to work out. But we need a lot of things to break our way. If I had to guess right now I'd say we finish around 9-7.

No team has super stars at every position. We have some weak areas such as safety, but who doesn't? Health will decide our season. And I don't think Cruz is as integral as Eric does. I think Cruz is more of a bonus if he's 95%. If the OL holds up and Spags has our D playing even middle of the pack, playoffs are realistic.

Saftey, WR, OL, DL, LB are thin.

1 injury and each area is a problem, looking forward to 2016

can't imagine how any of you guys don't think Cruz is THE key.

We made the playoffs in 2011 because of Eli, Cruz, and Nicks. Our defense and running game didn't get us there (both these areas played better in the playoffs).

Cruz is an impact player when healthy.

If you don't have Cruz near 100 percent, teams don't fear Rueben Randle any other WR we put out there.

on safety play, and how OLine jells. If this OL generates an effective run game - Giants offense could be very good.

re: safety - clearly communicated schemes and everyone just doing their own job.

I think Beckham is rapidly becoming more of a concern than Cruz, no disrespect to VC.

I acknowledged that. Cruz is certainly a key, if healthy I think McBride can play the nickel slot. The 2nd safety has to be identified. The restructured Oline is based on assumptions, but I think they are a playoff team

confident that we're more than an 8-8 team next year. We may be one more draft and FA offseason away from a 10 win team.

Don't forget, there was a very different offensive system in place. Green Bay is known for having high powered offenses, = it's built in way that several wrs can hurt you.

Certainly we are much better team with VC operating on a high level, but I think we're on a better footing to lessen the blow if he is not there or not at 100%.

Well no crap, but as Reese said, the WR opposite Beckham should be feasting.

Teams used to double Cruz if they could. Now if they have to single cover a healthy Cruz?

That's my entire point.

Beckham plus Cruz >>>>>>>>>>>>> Beckham.

My reasoning comes from the production we put up last year with no Cruz, no OL, and a shit running game. If the OL gels, the running game should improve and the passing game will be even MORE affective than last year. Cruz in my eyes will be a major bonus if he's back. Just my opinion of course.

our "system" isn't going to change Preston Parker into a guy Dallas has to worry about on opening night.

it's always an adjustment for rookie rbs and he also had to adjust to every different offensive scheme - and adjust behind a hit or miss OLine. I'm minimally concerned about Williams.

on this thread.

The Giants don't have a lot of really good players. (i.e., top 100 NFL players). Cruz was one of them. I kind of think that matters.

I wanted the top 3 wr going in and while I like Flowers, I still think Parker was the way to go. If Cruz is *anything* less than what he was and, tbh I don't think he was showing very well last year before the injury, I think we are in trouble. Especially if Beckham misses any time. Everyone else is a journeyman.

People talked about depth, how deep are other teams? People talked about injury, other teams are as susceptible to injury as the Jints. So yeah, they have as good a chance as anyone.

different system could be more wr friendly - may very well get more out of Randle and the rest of the wrs and TEs. Again it was different system. I think the system is more wr friendly, so, the weight of any one wr should be reduced. Especially, if they can generate a running game.

and was Cruz having that great of a year before he got hurt?

In comment 12268237 Phil in LA said:

Quote:

.

This as much as anything. Healthy we were at least contenders even last year. Give them a healthy, Jennings, Schwartz, Pugh, Beason, Prince, Cruz, Taylor and they contend this year without this years picks outside of Collins.

As long as the OL can gel in it's new configuration, we should be decent on offense.

But, of course, this is the Giants. So it really comes down to the injury bug that always surrounds this team. If we have it again this year then no playoffs again.

I would expect our defense to be much improved with Spags running the show. Can Prince stay on the field? What about Beason?

with a decimated roster. If we get all those injured players back and healthy then I don't see why not. ESPECIALLY if the OL keeps Eli upright.

key areas of concern -- both lines, safety. More physical play, toughness also addressed. Also, special teams personnel has been upgraded. I hear Eric's concern about Cruz but maybe that can be mitigated somewhat by McAdoo's system? Bottom line, we've got a legitimate shot. As always, depth and ability to overcome injuries will be critical.

by not drafting a WR high in this WR rich draft. I think they think Cruz is coming back in a very positive manner.

In comment 12268238 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

also need Andre Williams to get his act together.

I am in the camp that says he is being under valued. if he improves his vision he can be a force. has to feel the seam and stop running to the spot where the hole "should be". Improved OL play (hopefully) cant hurt either.

RE: TE is the blocking aspect and receiving aspect equally concerning? I think making Donnell a better blocker is probably the biggest problem.

I am losing confidence re: Robinson. Had issues even with his strong suit - blocking. And, maybe it's just me but he doesn't seem to move as well (toll of injuries, playing at a heavier weight?).

don't think there is any way to answer the question, but:

We have vastly improved the OL. Moving Richburg to center, Pugh to guard, getting Schwartz back, and inserting Flowers at RT should work wonders. Beatty will also benefit by having a decent guard next to him.

We should be better against the run because we added Ellis, OO, Bromley is in his second year, JPP looks psyched, Collins is a big hitter, and we got rid of Williams and Paysinger.

We can't lead the league in injuries again, can we?

Problems:

The anticipated starting OL has no chemistry, Pugh has never played guard, Flowers is a rookie, Schwartz is coming off an injury that kept him out the entire year, and Richburg will be in his first year at center.

Beckham is the only WR who scares anyone. We have no other downfield threat. Randle is a big possession receiver who Eli still doesn't really trust. The rest are JAGs.

Our TEs are still the worst in the league. Robinson, Fells, and Donnell.

The safety situation is less than ideal. A rookie, a fifth round pick in his second year, a third year injured player, a fifth round pick who nobody (including the player) thought would be drafted, and a mass of CBs trying to transition to safety.

A lot of things have to break right for us to get to the playoffs, but the Redskins have a terrible QB situation, Romo has a chronically bad back, and Kelly is now stuck with Bradford and a bunch of players who knew he was trying to trade them for a rookie QB. We at least have some stability.

There is one player who has not been mentioned in this thread. If he has a great year everything else will fall into place

They cannot be considered a playoff team. Needs are "addressed" every off-season. That does not mean they have been successfully addressed, although I will say that things could not possibly be worse at linebacker & safety than they were last season

For all this talk about McAdoo, I need to see this guy craft winning game plans against good defenses, especially on the road, even more so in the night road games when crowd noise becomes debilitating because the drunks are tanked up. And in the 2-minute, where McAdoo essentially shit his pants last year. Cruz, indeed, will help there.

My gut is the Giants have not made up any ground on the Cowboys, especially if Hardy gets a reduction to 4 games & Gregory plays well. Even losing Murray, their backs are no worse than the Giants.

I think we can, the better your Oline is, the less you need a dominant in line blocking TE. LD had some drops & fumbles and went down too quickly after catches BUT he also flashed brilliance and potential to be a terrific NFL TE. The second safety has to emerge no question and if one doesn't that will be an issue. Otherwise I feel today 5/3/2015 the Giants are a hugely improved team than the one that walked off the field after the last game last season

That's my (admittedly homer) opinion.

Here's why:
1. Healthy - cannot imagine that we don't improve in the health department. Absolutely no way we match the terrible injury luck we've had the past couple of years, especially last year.

2. Defensive upgrade. Spags vs. Fewell has to be worth something. Where I see the upgrade is in the ability to adjust mid-game, something we know Spags can do and have heard the players gush about, vs. something we frequently saw Fewell fail to do. Our defense was successful if we had a successful gameplan and the other team was not able to adjust to it, and that was it. If the other team adjusted to what we were doing we had to hold on for the wild scoring ride and hope to hold on to a victory. No more of that crap.

3. Improvements on the OL. Much of what we did last year to improve the OL did not accomplish anything. Richburg will be much better for three reasons; a year of experience in the weight room, a return to his natural position, and a full offseason of preparing at one position. Beatty will be better by virtue of improving the LG over Richburg (any one of Flowers, Pugh, or Schwartz will be an improvement). Schwartz returning to play healthy will be an improvement at either G spot. Flowers brings the nasty attitude and immediate improvement over Pugh at RT (and the Giants will definitely give him every chance to win the RT position).

4. Improvements on the DL. One of our Coughlin's weaknesses is his devotion to the warriors who've fought with him in battle in the past (see Snee, Diehl for examples). This year's release of Kiwi opens up playing time for much better players to get on the field. Or DE position is going to be great, imo. The talent there (JPP/Selvie/Wynn/Moore/Odi/Ayers) is outstanding, and Spags is going to unleash it like a hurricane. The DT position will be improved as well. Like Kiwi, Patterson got too much playing time, and Ellis will be an upgrade over him. I truly believe we're going to be psyched with Bromley. Every DT we bring in goes through a redshirt year as it's one of the most difficult/demanding jobs for a rookie to earn playing time at. One thing about Bromley - he's not going to be outworked. We know he's been working hard and that he has talent - he will definitely be improved.

5. This team wasn't as bad as its record. Yes - you are what your record says you are, but this team easily could have won 3 more games. This team found creative ways to lose games last year. While we might see some of that again (worried that Quinn's specials will cost another two games this year), there is no question that we should have won more than 6 games last year even GIVEN the massive amounts of injuries and a defense that couldn't adjust.

6. History. C'mon man! We are a playoff team for sure. If the last decade has taught us anything, it is that the NFC East championship is a revolving door.
Year Champ/W-L/change Prev.Champ/change
2014 - Dallas 12-4 +4 Eagles - even
2013 - Eagles 10-6 +6 Redskins - -7
2012 - Redskins 10-6 +5 Giants - even
2011 - Giants 9-7 -2 Eagles - -2
2010 - Eagles 10-6 -1 Dallas - -5
2009 - Dallas 11-5 +2 Giants - -4
2008 - Giants 12-4 +2 Dallas - -4
2007 - Cowboys 13-3 +4 Eagles - -2
2006 - Eagles 10-6 +4 Giants - -3
2005 - Giants 11-5 +5 Eagles - -7

Penciling in the Cowboys as division champs is ignoring the current reality in the NFL - nobody stays on top for long. We played Dallas tough and by all rights should have won the second game against them. We've caught up and passed them while they've gotten older. No way they are going to go 13-3 again. Once again, Dallas had their shot at the playoffs and missed.

The Eagles are also due for a down season, and nobody has done more to ensure that than their own head coach by first, taking control away from a very good GM (Howie Roseman) who had kept the team full of talent for years, then shedding most of the team's top talent. Yes, he's rolling the dice on his guys. One thing he's overlooked? Sam Bradford is one of "his guys"? If that's true then why was he anxious to trade him and move on. Clearly he's not the QB of the Eagles future, so they are stuck without a QB and in the NFL that isn't a good thing.

The Redskins may have improved a bit this weekend but continue to show ineptitude by missing out on perhaps the best player in the draft who fell to them. They still don't have a QB, and they were a legitimately bad team last year. They won't be ready to compete this year.

Who else are we supposed to expect to win this division if not the Giants?

The point I'm trying to make is that when we played against GB, covering their receivers always seemed to be like eating soup with a fork, somebody would always slip through.

It's not going to turn Parker into a wr who keeps a DC up at night, but you have to account for every wr, because the system is designed for all of them to hurt you. It doesn't make the wrs better - it creates more opportunities for them to make plays, on each play.

Each team in the division has question marks, but in my opinion, are issues are less worrisome than some that our rivals have.

than what you got from Donnell? You want a 1,000 years's from TE on a team that has Beckham and hopefully a healthy Cruz? He had over 600 yards and had 36 catches for first downs. Yeah his fumbles were killers, yeah he dropped a couple( who doesn't) yeah you can't keep landing on your helmet after a catch, but if ball security can be taught, there are very few TE's that posses LD's athleticism and potential. Would I like him to block better? sure, does his blocking concern me? Not as much if the line does a better job

We aren't a playoff team until we are.

I definitely think we're heading in the right direction, not just in the obvious areas of need but also in the little things. For example, as someone else said, the OL depth needed a reset, but the new depth could be as bad as the old. Special teams could benefit from an apparent infusion of good ST players, but they could still all be ordered to run to one spot on punt/kick coverage, or they could still commit penalties every time we somehow manage a decent return, or the returner could still be cursed with such poor blocking that he is surrounded by defenders instantly and is overwhelmed like a Walmart greeter on Black Friday.

Regardless, I think it will be a very entertaining season

Orwe could fumble every punt return and kickoff return to the other team we could have 2 lineman blocking the same guy 5 times a game allowing a clear shot at Eli. The DE's could crash inside on every option run and the other team will run into the end zone untouched.The Dline can jump offsides every 3rd & 4. Yeah a lot of bad things can happen

an improved O-line could be good enough for us to survive either Cruz-Free or Cruz-Lite. An extra split second to throw will make Eli and all receivers look better. An extra yard or two on running plays will increase our options and help the passing game, too.

Our D will be better on paper, but a new system could cancel that out for a few games because of the young players.

This looks like a .500 team to me.

Too many questions, too much unsettled chemistry, too much of an injury history, and too few really top players.

Another year, another playoff miss, and Eli is another year older.

The 2nd year in a sound offensive system and most importantly likely a much more sound system and coaching on defense, that will all add up to a 10-11 win team.

In comment 12268363 Red Dog said:

Quote:

and too few really top players.

Yeah, let's not forget about that.

All but the most egregiously undeserving playoff teams have far more talent, better talent, or both across their roster than we currently do. We'll need quite a few players to *really* step up in order for that to not be the case.

1. will we be competitive in every game?
2. can we rely on our offensive line to get a critical needed yard or two and save eli's body?
3.can we count on our defense to hold a 4th qtr lead?

I don't think so but we may be more competitive than we were last year.

And the advantage of having 1 of the 10 best QBs, which obviously also makes a big difference. In theory, with reasonable health and luck they should be a playoff team.

They've had terrible health and luck the past 2 years, with worse talent, and that has skewed everyone more towards seeing the weaknesses instead of the team's strengths. There are now a lot of high picks in starting positions across most of the roster (OL, DBs, DL). They've also cycled a good number of unreliable older vets/young players they'd depended on the past 2 years (Wilson, Diehl, Snee, Kiwanuka, Jernigan, even Tuck/Osi/T2/Webster/Rolle) off of the roster and added younger/more reliable guys in their places.

Better in the run game?
Schwartz > Jerry
Richburg > Walton
Depth has been upgraded.
Jennings returns.
Year 2 for Williams.
Vereen is a massive upgrade over last years #3
Better in the run game? Check.

Better in run defense?
Scheme upgrade.
Ellis is an upgrate at DT.
Thomas is an upgrade at LB.
Year 2 for Kennard.
Collins upgrades Safety run support. Especially in the flats

Put Cruz aside:
Eli year 2, Improved run game, OBJ, Randle, Donnell, and Vereen check down game will be more than enough offense to compete week in and out.

Specials have been hugely upgraded.

Misc:
Prince returns
Year 2 for Mcadoo
At least today, appears to be a favorable schedule

Absolutely a playoff team.

Can do a better job defending the run game against some of the better teams in the NFL. Same goes for the offense.

Sure.....but everything would have to break right for them, especially in the injury department, because, on paper, the starting lineups look ok.....but if there are major injuries, it will be the same old Giants, just coming up short in games....

There are a lot of question marks on this team....most of them will be answered in preseason games.....

Can Spags, make a defense with the hand he has been dealt?

Will the OL gel, and can Eli get better in the second year of this new offense?

Will our walking wounded return to form?

Will we get help from the draft?

All I know is, I feel a lot better before the start of the 2015 season, than I did in '13 and '14....

A lot of new faces in two years, new DC this year, new OC last year and a big influx of youth. This defense has a long way to go and the running game will take time to get fixed. One more good FA period and draft and I think the answer is yes, but I think 8 wins is about where we'll end up.

Beckham and an effective Cruz = a Pro Bowl Manning season.

Plus, our defense doesn't get exposed.

YES, we will be a playoff team again.

no one will argue that we aren't a more dynamic team with him back 100%. However, if he's not, and the following are true:

1. Randle continues (his slower than expected) upward arc especially re consistency.

2. A healthy OL that stays together and improves greatly in run blocking (Schwartz and Flowers)

3. A run of DB injuries does not repeat itself

Even without Cruz, I think we would be in a playoff hunt, though a 100% Cruz would make it a much surer thing.

We just need it on the field, not on IR.

Offense:
QB - 2nd year in the system should make everyone more comfortable, especially the QB in Eli. Should be a better group.

RBs - Added another dimension with Vereen. Andre Williams got NFL experience now. Should be a better group.

WRs - Deep deep group. Cruz and Odell can play together now. Another year of improvement for Randle who's taken steps forward every year. Very good young depth. Depending on health, should be a better group.

TEs - Not a super important position for us still, but Donell has another offseason to improve and we have decent depth behind him. Should be a slightly better group.

OL - Got more depth, younger, should be healthier. Have to make some transitions to new positions and have to gel, but should be a better group.

Defense - Spags in back.

DEs - Got some more two way DEs in Selvie and OO. More depth and improvement in Moore that's probably going to occur now with Spags, makes this a better group.

DTs - Added a big run stopper in Ellis and got back our "redshirt" 3rd round pick. We'll stop the run better. Should be a bigger and better group.

LBs - We get Beason back from injury and added a good amount of LBs with positional diversity to compete. Should be an improved group.

CBs - Lost some depth, but still retain our top 3 corners (Thurmond played 2 games). There needs to be people who step up for depth, but no downgrade on our top 3. Slightly worse group.

Safeties - Rolle was slowing down and Collins on the field should be as good as him. Other safety is a question mark and we lose Rolle's leadership though. Downgrade.

Special teams - Weatherford should be healed for next year and we added a ton of good special teamers to the team. Should be a very good group.



Overall - 1 or 2 positions got worse, but overall we got better. Injuries and how they fit together will still decide everything, but we have more talent and enough to make the playoffs imo.

strong contenders for a playoff spot and I think we will get it. The observation was made that addressing problems doesn't mean we solved them. While that is true, since we are giving pre- season prognostications, they must involve opinions as to whether those efforts will bear fruit. I believe they will. We have made moves to improve in almost every problem area and though not all those moves will be ringing successes, I think enough will to make a significant difference in our W/L record along. Add a DC that we've had success with and a reasonable expectation of improvement in the incredibly bad injury situation, and I think we have something to look forward to.

And Eric, what was our offensive ranking last year without Cruz? Add improvement in the O-line, another year in the system, improved D, and I don't think you can say Victor's presence and performance is make or break for this team.

the question was are you concerned with what the Eagles have done? Carl said take care of your own business and don't worry what other teams are doing. He asked David Diehl how many SB's have the Eagles won while you were playing? Followed up with how many SB's have they win since I was playing? He then held up a SB ring and said take care of your own business which the Giants have proved if they do, he twirled the ring and smiled and Diehl smiled

the NFC suddenly turns into an NBA East level of suck, no. Right now I'll settle for meaningful games after Halloween.

First off, we need to stay healthy, particularly Eli, OBJ, Cruz, Beason, JPP, Hankins, Collins, DRC and Prince. Second, we don't have a starting FS or a starting WLB. Those are glaring holes.


If all goes right, then yeah, we have a shot at the playoffs.

You either win the Super Bowl or you don't. What are we, Bengals fans?

In comment 12268313 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

That's my (admittedly homer) opinion. Here's why: 1. Healthy - cannot imagine that we don't improve in the health department. Absolutely no way we match the terrible injury luck we've had the past couple of years, especially last year. 2. Defensive upgrade. Spags vs. Fewell has to be worth something. Where I see the upgrade is in the ability to adjust mid-game, something we know Spags can do and have heard the players gush about, vs. something we frequently saw Fewell fail to do. Our defense was successful if we had a successful gameplan and the other team was not able to adjust to it, and that was it. If the other team adjusted to what we were doing we had to hold on for the wild scoring ride and hope to hold on to a victory. No more of that crap. 3. Improvements on the OL. Much of what we did last year to improve the OL did not accomplish anything. Richburg will be much better for three reasons; a year of experience in the weight room, a return to his natural position, and a full offseason of preparing at one position. Beatty will be better by virtue of improving the LG over Richburg (any one of Flowers, Pugh, or Schwartz will be an improvement). Schwartz returning to play healthy will be an improvement at either G spot. Flowers brings the nasty attitude and immediate improvement over Pugh at RT (and the Giants will definitely give him every chance to win the RT position). 4. Improvements on the DL. One of our Coughlin's weaknesses is his devotion to the warriors who've fought with him in battle in the past (see Snee, Diehl for examples). This year's release of Kiwi opens up playing time for much better players to get on the field. Or DE position is going to be great, imo. The talent there (JPP/Selvie/Wynn/Moore/Odi/Ayers) is outstanding, and Spags is going to unleash it like a hurricane. The DT position will be improved as well. Like Kiwi, Patterson got too much playing time, and Ellis will be an upgrade over him. I truly believe we're going to be psyched with Bromley. Every DT we bring in goes through a redshirt year as it's one of the most difficult/demanding jobs for a rookie to earn playing time at. One thing about Bromley - he's not going to be outworked. We know he's been working hard and that he has talent - he will definitely be improved. 5. This team wasn't as bad as its record. Yes - you are what your record says you are, but this team easily could have won 3 more games. This team found creative ways to lose games last year. While we might see some of that again (worried that Quinn's specials will cost another two games this year), there is no question that we should have won more than 6 games last year even GIVEN the massive amounts of injuries and a defense that couldn't adjust. 6. History. C'mon man! We are a playoff team for sure. If the last decade has taught us anything, it is that the NFC East championship is a revolving door. Year Champ/W-L/change Prev.Champ/change 2014 - Dallas 12-4 +4 Eagles - even 2013 - Eagles 10-6 +6 Redskins - -7 2012 - Redskins 10-6 +5 Giants - even 2011 - Giants 9-7 -2 Eagles - -2 2010 - Eagles 10-6 -1 Dallas - -5 2009 - Dallas 11-5 +2 Giants - -4 2008 - Giants 12-4 +2 Dallas - -4 2007 - Cowboys 13-3 +4 Eagles - -2 2006 - Eagles 10-6 +4 Giants - -3 2005 - Giants 11-5 +5 Eagles - -7 Penciling in the Cowboys as division champs is ignoring the current reality in the NFL - nobody stays on top for long. We played Dallas tough and by all rights should have won the second game against them. We've caught up and passed them while they've gotten older. No way they are going to go 13-3 again. Once again, Dallas had their shot at the playoffs and missed. The Eagles are also due for a down season, and nobody has done more to ensure that than their own head coach by first, taking control away from a very good GM (Howie Roseman) who had kept the team full of talent for years, then shedding most of the team's top talent. Yes, he's rolling the dice on his guys. One thing he's overlooked? Sam Bradford is one of "his guys"? If that's true then why was he anxious to trade him and move on. Clearly he's not the QB of the Eagles future, so they are stuck without a QB and in the NFL that isn't a good thing. The Redskins may have improved a bit this weekend but continue to show ineptitude by missing out on perhaps the best player in the draft who fell to them. They still don't have a QB, and they were a legitimately bad team last year. They won't be ready to compete this year. Who else are we supposed to expect to win this division if not the Giants?

Dallas was the 3rd youngest team in the NFL last year. NY was the 31st oldest(Oakland was 32nd). How did NY get younger then Dallas?

Recent history is showing that it will be Dallas and one other team challenging Dallas for the division. That has been the case since Romo has been the starting QB. The only year this was not the case was 2010 when Romo was hurt.

Quote:

Dallas was the 3rd youngest team in the NFL last year. NY was the 31st oldest(Oakland was 32nd). How did NY get younger then Dallas?

If they were the 31st oldest, that means they were the second youngest. You probably meant they were the 2nd oldest, with Oakland being the oldest.

In comment 12268579 River Mike said:

Quote:

Quote: Dallas was the 3rd youngest team in the NFL last year. NY was the 31st oldest(Oakland was 32nd). How did NY get younger then Dallas? If they were the 31st oldest, that means they were the second youngest. You probably meant they were the 2nd oldest, with Oakland being the oldest.

Yes, your right.

I'd add:

7. Tremendous improvement on Specials. Just this offseason we added:


Dwayne Harris (one of best jack-of-all-trades STers in NFL)
Casillas (excellent STer)
JT Thomas (once again excellent STer)
Thompson (blocked 3 kicks and has the look of a very good STer)
Collins (one of best STer in nation last year)
Odi (dynamic ST potential)
Vareen (has done KO's a few times)
Akeem Hunt- possible KR/PR guy with upside (could be our new Trindon Holliday)

Yes we still have Quinn, but hopefully even he can use these improved pieces well.

8. 2nd year in what looks to be a very sound and promising offensive system under MacAdoo

is HEALTH!!! Stay relatively healthy and IMHO, the Giants are a playoff team.

In comment 12268244 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

OL: How effective Flowers as a rookie? How is Richburg as a center? Up or down year for Beatty? Can Schwartz live up to his contract? Can Pugh bounce back at either guard or tackle?

There are many questions that break this way or that, but bottom line, question is, are we a plaoff team? I think the talent is there, I think it comes down to, are Cruz, Beason, and DRC healthy? do they stay healthy? If so, I think we are a playoff team, If not, I think we miss out.

In comment 12268283 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

on this thread. The Giants don't have a lot of really good players. (i.e., top 100 NFL players). Cruz was one of them. I kind of think that matters.

Exactly.If Cruz, Beason and DRC are healthy and stay healthy we look like a different team I think.

Yes.

Better talent level then last year. Yes

Did anyone in the division get markedly better?
Maybe not. Philly and washington have brightened their future but not sure they are better in 2015 then they were in 2014. Dallas lost a lot.

Can we survive injuries to key players? Nobody knows till it happens.

Is Cruz ever gonna be back to 100%.
Probably not but a 90% Cruz playing alongside Beckham could be as good as the old 100% cruz.

In comment 12268304 bc4life said:

Quote:

RE: TE is the blocking aspect and receiving aspect equally concerning? I think making Donnell a better blocker is probably the biggest problem. I am losing confidence re: Robinson. Had issues even with his strong suit - blocking. And, maybe it's just me but he doesn't seem to move as well (toll of injuries, playing at a heavier weight?).

Coaches already recognize Robinson as the better blocker, and put him in on run plays. They put Donell in on when they want a TE to catch the ball.They put Fells in when they want a score.

But few teams can overcome the level of injuries this team has sustained the past two years.

fanatic II said:

Quote:

Dallas was the 3rd youngest team in the NFL last year. NY was the 31st oldest(Oakland was 32nd). How did NY get younger then Dallas?

Didn't say that we were younger than Dallas. Said we played them tough in the second game and should have beat them, meaning we played well enough that we could have won. We have improved (for a list of reasons go through my earlier post) and I don't believe they have as much. They lost and haven't effectively replaced Murray, for example. They've aged at critical positions. Consider their elite offensive talent. Romo is a very old 35 from all the punishment he has taken. Witten is turning 33 this week, an age where many receivers begin a noticeable decline. Really only Dez Bryant is in his prime at 26. I don't know how you expect Romo (35), Witten (33), Bryant (26) and whomever to be better than Romo (34), Witten (32), Murray (26) and Bryant (25), which means they've gone backwards.

Or maybe you don't think that, but just figure they are the best in the division. Your second paragraph eludes to that and I'll respond to that in a moment.

Quote:

... Eric from BBI : Admin : 12:13 pm : link : reply Big question marks at safety still and corner (third corner is a starter). If Beason gets hurt again, our LB corps is a bit shaky. As I've been saying all offseason, Cruz is the biggest key for us. If he can't play or doesn't play well, the whole dynamic of our offense changes.

Quote:

we Eric from BBI : Admin : 12:13 pm : link : reply also need Andre Williams to get his act together.

Quote:

one more... Eric from BBI : Admin : 12:14 pm : link : reply we need Larry Donnell to take another step forward.

Quote:

sorry.... Eric from BBI : Admin : 12:15 pm : link : reply OL: How effective Flowers as a rookie? How is Richburg as a center? Up or down year for Beatty? Can Schwartz live up to his contract? Can Pugh bounce back at either guard or tackle?

That's a whole lot of "... and another thing"

(and I'm guessing Eric could have kept adding to the list if he wanted to)

Quote:

Recent history is showing that it will be Dallas and one other team challenging Dallas for the division. That has been the case since Romo has been the starting QB. The only year this was not the case was 2010 when Romo was hurt.

Are you a Cowboys fan? This is all a matter of perspective. Here's some other arguments that could be made:

Eagles fan:
Recent history suggests we are the best team in the division. Our head coach has NEVER won less than 10 games. Dallas didn't even have a winning record two years ago. We have finished as follows either first or second every year for the past 7 years with only one exception - when we dumped our head coach.

Giants fan:
Recent history suggests we are the best team in the division. Who else has 2 super bowl titles in the past 8 years? Forget that - the Giants have more playoff wins than the entire division combined over that span. You want consistency? How great is it if you're consistently unable to win big games?

It's true that the Giants have had a couple of down years - that's true of every champion as they turn over the roster. Teams age - top talent has to be paid, and champions lose their roster. You have to win when you team is in the window. Dallas hasn't been able to do that.

There is nothing that suggests we should expect a repeat of Dallas' 12 win season. Look at the last time Dallas won a bunch of games (11-5 in 2009) They lost 10 games the next year. How about the time before that(13-3 in 2007)? The next year they went backwards by 4 wins and finished third in the division.

How are we supposed to view the mighty Dallas as some juggernaut when they've only managed 2 winning seasons in five years? The last time the one the division they followed it up with a 6-10 third place finish followed by three consecutive years of 8-8. That's four years in a row without a winning record!

What does the Romo-led Cowboys tell us historically? That they cannot be counted on. They've been unable to follow up a division championship season with another division championship season. You think we should expect that trend to end now? Better give some good reasons why, cause I'm not seeing it.

has Giants at o/u 8 wins...I'm tempted to put some coin on the over, we cant get that snake-bitten AGAIN can we?

and what defines a playoff team.

There are a lot of comments like " We have to have a better blocking O-line", or the "TEs need to step up" or we need a better run defense, so and so has to do this and so and so has to do that. That's bullshit. It would be nice if they all did what the hell they are supposed to do, but it ain't necessary.

You can have a shitty passing game, and if you avg 40 minutes TOP a game and have the top rushing attack in the league, you're probably gonna get into the playoffs. You can have a QB who throws for 5000 yds, but if he has 22 TDs, you probably aren't getting in. You can have a gaping fucking hole at safety, and give up the most plays of 40 yds or more in the league, but if you have the top rated red zone defense, it may not matter.

The point is noone, at least very few franchises field complete, balanced teams. Both of our last SB wining teams had holes, and glaring statistical defects. That isn't important.

What is important to answer the question, "Are we a playoff team" is whether or not the team knows, or learns, how to win.

Winning isn't just something based on numbers, or health, or superstar performers. It depends on whether or not the players on the team step up when they have to. It doesn't even have to be the same player, or even the same aspect of gameplay every week. It's about simply doing what MUST BE DONE in the moment, in that game, during that particular week.You can suck all game long, as long as you win, as long as you know HOW to win, to never let your will to fight be broken, to never lay down.

You can compile an "all star team" of the best statistical players in the NFL and they get nothing done. See:Dream team.You can have a team with a shitty defense who got hot at the right time after squeaking into the playoffs and their QB runs wild once he's in. See: 2007 Giants.

The mental aspect will be the most important from here on out. The talent is what it is.That isn't what will get them in or keep them from the playoffs. The players are who is on the roster now, and that won't change significantly between now and opening day.That isn't to say the team isn't dynamic and personnel won't change, but rather the dynamic OF the personnel on the roster today is what determines whether we make the playoffs or not. Do they play as a team? Do they take turns stepping up when some guy they depend on goes down or has a shit day? In the end, do they FIND A WAY TO WIN regardless of talent level and situation. That's the real answer to the question "Are we a Playoff team?"

IF VC is his old self & we aren't decimated with injuries again.

I think the D improves a ton this season.

would knock any teams chances. No one in the NFL could lose their QB and another key guy and make the playoffs in all likelihood

at GM and head of scouting.

So no. Not a playoff team unless Coughlin can produce more magic.

-Haven't made up any ground on either Dallas or Philly in division to boot.

I think if Cruz, Beason and DRC are healthy we make it in, if not, maybe not. Those are guys that step up in big spots and know, and can teach what it takes to find a way to win.

In comment 12268704 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

fanatic II said: Quote: Dallas was the 3rd youngest team in the NFL last year. NY was the 31st oldest(Oakland was 32nd). How did NY get younger then Dallas? Didn't say that we were younger than Dallas. Said we played them tough in the second game and should have beat them, meaning we played well enough that we could have won. We have improved (for a list of reasons go through my earlier post) and I don't believe they have as much. They lost and haven't effectively replaced Murray, for example. They've aged at critical positions. Consider their elite offensive talent. Romo is a very old 35 from all the punishment he has taken. Witten is turning 33 this week, an age where many receivers begin a noticeable decline. Really only Dez Bryant is in his prime at 26. I don't know how you expect Romo (35), Witten (33), Bryant (26) and whomever to be better than Romo (34), Witten (32), Murray (26) and Bryant (25), which means they've gone backwards. Or maybe you don't think that, but just figure they are the best in the division. Your second paragraph eludes to that and I'll respond to that in a moment.

Romo is 35, but last year Romo had arguably his best season, and Romo has had a lot of outstanding seasons. Compare his numbers to Rodgers(the top QB in the NFL) and Romo had a better completion %, a higher yards per attempt, 4 less TDs on 85 less attempts, the highest QB rating in the NFL(Rodgers 2nd), and a 13-4 record vs Rodgers 13-5. The only stat that Romo was worse than Rodgers was in INTs, Romo had 9 and Rodgers had 5.

This upcoming season Romo will still be one of the top QBs in the NFL despite of his age, so Dallas hasn't gone backwards when it comes to their QB.

Many fans believe Witten has tailed off, but that's not true. According to ProFootballFocus since 2007 this is how Witten rates among all TEs, 3rd, 4th, 1st, 1st, 9th, 3rd, 3rd, and last year 2nd. 2011 was the only year he wasn't ranked in the top 5 on the NFL. The thing that has diminished with Witten are the targets. Last year was the first time since 2006(when Romo became the starter) that he didn't have 100 targets. But his numbers still were at career averages in YPC, TDs, and 1st downs. Witten only had 64 catches last year, but 48 went for 1st downs. With the offense running more and the emergence of Williams, Beasly, and Escobar it looks like Witten has slowed down, but it's really about the offense becoming more diverse.

With Murray, as everyone saw with the draft, the Dallas management firmly believes that they have enough RBs to account for the loss of Murray. It's not about the numbers with Dallas,it's about the attempts. As long as Scott Linehan doesn't abandon the run, Dallas will be successful on the ground. We'll have to wait until the season to see if Dallas is right or the naysayers.

were picking the Cowboys to win the division. Most had the Eales some had the Giants I don't remember anyone picking the Cowboys. Seems that the NFC East is a year to year who is going to win the division. Most years very few pick the right team.

In comment 12268728 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

Quote: Recent history is showing that it will be Dallas and one other team challenging Dallas for the division. That has been the case since Romo has been the starting QB. The only year this was not the case was 2010 when Romo was hurt. Are you a Cowboys fan? This is all a matter of perspective. Here's some other arguments that could be made: Eagles fan: Recent history suggests we are the best team in the division. Our head coach has NEVER won less than 10 games. Dallas didn't even have a winning record two years ago. We have finished as follows either first or second every year for the past 7 years with only one exception - when we dumped our head coach. Giants fan: Recent history suggests we are the best team in the division. Who else has 2 super bowl titles in the past 8 years? Forget that - the Giants have more playoff wins than the entire division combined over that span. You want consistency? How great is it if you're consistently unable to win big games? It's true that the Giants have had a couple of down years - that's true of every champion as they turn over the roster. Teams age - top talent has to be paid, and champions lose their roster. You have to win when you team is in the window. Dallas hasn't been able to do that. There is nothing that suggests we should expect a repeat of Dallas' 12 win season. Look at the last time Dallas won a bunch of games (11-5 in 2009) They lost 10 games the next year. How about the time before that(13-3 in 2007)? The next year they went backwards by 4 wins and finished third in the division. How are we supposed to view the mighty Dallas as some juggernaut when they've only managed 2 winning seasons in five years? The last time the one the division they followed it up with a 6-10 third place finish followed by three consecutive years of 8-8. That's four years in a row without a winning record! What does the Romo-led Cowboys tell us historically? That they cannot be counted on. They've been unable to follow up a division championship season with another division championship season. You think we should expect that trend to end now? Better give some good reasons why, cause I'm not seeing it.

The recent history I listed had to do with Dallas being in contention for the playoffs every year(not the best team or a juggernaut), except one, since Romo became the starter.

In the nine years Romo has been the starter Dallas has made the playoffs 4 times, were eliminated in a week 17 play in game 4 times, and had a 6-10 season in 2010 when Romo was hurt. That's pretty consistent, I don't know how you say Dallas can't be counted on.

So history shows that if Romo plays a full year, Dallas will be a playoff caliber team. That was the question of the thread, if NY was a playoff caliber team.

Twice you mentioned how Dallas took a step back in 2010 from 2009, but each time you failed to mentioned how Dallas lost their QB for the year. That's a big omission.

No one is running away with the division this year. Dallas is nothing special in the least.

We may have addressed the biggest holes but it does not mean we fixed them.

What if Flowers does not produce OR if others on the line do not do their job? What if he is strong like Tarzan but plays like Jane? We could not get a yard when we needed it last year. Even if Flowers is awesome we still have issues on the line. What I really hope is that the guy from the Canadian league turns out to be a gem. Nobody is really talking about him.

We could not stop the run last year. One safety and one DL changes that? I think it helps for sure but I don't know that we have fixed our problems.

he is built like Tarzan and he will bulldoze his man, but he might also ole on pass blocking because of his hands and lean

I think the Cowboys definitely helped their defense and the loss of Murray dings their offense considering what they replaced him with, but that offensive line is still fantastic. All in all the Cowboys got a tad better, but as usual Romo is a hit away from a broken back.

It think Philly got worse. They are the most interesting team in the division this year. They will be enjoyable to watch the first few weeks.

Washington had a great draft, but they still have problems and are the floormat of the division.

Which brings us to the Giants. A lot of fans wanted to "fix the offensive line" after the season ended cause the running game sucked. I think as the off season went on many of us saw that the defense was probably a bigger weakness, though maybe I am just speaking for myself here.

We really addressed all of that in the draft and if these picks pan out we are better than 6-10 considering:

- Year #2 in McAdoo's offense. Remember we lost our first 2 games (very winnable) with a very lack luster offensive performance, the light finally went on in game 3.
- Is there anyone who doesn't believe Spags makes us better on defense than Fewell?
- We added some dynamic guys in Vereen and Harris. Guys like that can win you a game you would have otherwise loss with a big play or something.

I don't know if we are a playoff team, but we improved. We are better than 6-10, we have one of the best WRs in the game, a great QB, a defensive coordinator we like and if we finally stop getting so many damn injuries who knows. Dallas will be our biggest competition. That opener is huge.

We could be up there with a little help.

In comment 12268235 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Big question marks at safety still and corner (third corner is a starter). If Beason gets hurt again, our LB corps is a bit shaky. As I've been saying all offseason, Cruz is the biggest key for us. If he can't play or doesn't play well, the whole dynamic of our offense changes.

I'm not sure I totally agree. While we do need as much talent on the field as possible don't forget that this offense played pretty well down the stretch last season and Cruz was out. Of course we need Cruz but I think the Rbs and Beckham are more important. Tell me right now that we get 14 healthy games out of Jennings and Vereen and Beckham stays healthy and I'd feel really good about this offense.

Before everyone goes over this roster with a find tooth comb I'll save you the effort. The Giants have holes or question marks but they had holes in 2007 and they had holes in 2011. So do the Eagles and Cowboys and skins. Even Seattle and the pats have holes.

We have some stuff to work with this coming season. More than in 2012-2014. It's time to start winning again. Giants will put the league and especially the NFC east on notice in 2015.

We came into this with a lot of questions. They have improved themselves in some key areas, but some glaring questions still exist. Health is an uncertainty I am never prepared to speculate on.

Gun to the head, I will say no, but I am strongly tempted to say yes. Here is why:

1) We have a franchise QB coming off one of his best seasons as a pro
2) I am more confident in the pair of sharp minded coordinators we have in place than I have been at any time in this regeme, including 2007 & 2011
3) We have a genuine superstar in ODB

This alone puts us in consideration. This is my baseline. Anything beyond that, I'll wait for camp before speculatig.

To me the best safeties are invisible. The less that happens the better. That means our front 7 controls the game. We can run, stop the run. Pass and stop the big play.

If we get back to Giants football -- and I hope to God we do becuase its been 3 years.... We will be great

In comment 12268904 Percy said:

Quote:

We could be up there with a little help.

Look...have injuries every year. It WILL happen. The question is whether we have the depth to continue to win games.

Quote:

The recent history I listed had to do with Dallas being in contention for the playoffs every year(not the best team or a juggernaut), except one, since Romo became the starter. In the nine years Romo has been the starter Dallas has made the playoffs 4 times, were eliminated in a week 17 play in game 4 times, and had a 6-10 season in 2010 when Romo was hurt. That's pretty consistent, I don't know how you say Dallas can't be counted on. So history shows that if Romo plays a full year, Dallas will be a playoff caliber team. That was the question of the thread, if NY was a playoff caliber team. Twice you mentioned how Dallas took a step back in 2010 from 2009, but each time you failed to mentioned how Dallas lost their QB for the year. That's a big omission.

Let me say this - I appreciate your being able to discuss this without taking offense or attacking me personally.

I know that you've pointed out 8 of 9 years with Romo at QB Dallas had a week 17 game that meant something. That's a great point - if this thread was about whether Dallas is a playoff team this year.

It isn't. It wasn't at least, until you made Dallas the focus of the thread. It's interesting to me that you view the 9 years with Romo as good years for Dallas, when I've pointed out clearly that they've mostly been disappointing ones. I also have pointed out clearly that Romo-led teams have struggled in important games.

I haven't checked the stats, but if you're telling me that four times they've had a play-in game with Romo at QB and they've walked away NOT in the playoffs. Doesn't that tell you something about counting on Romo to get you to the playoffs consistently? If the question is whether Romo will have Dallas in contention (provided he stays healthy), then you've made your point well.

If the question is whether Dallas will make the playoffs? Well, it would appear that with Romo they do 4/9 times - so I guess that's a mere 44%. Combine that low percentage with the evidence that suggests they aren't good at consistently getting into the playoffs and I'd say that history is working against them.

With regards to my omission - is there anything that suggests Tony Romo can be counted on to finish this next year healthy? It's clear that he's a warrior - and can take a beating with the best of them. It's also clear that he's got a line that can protect him. Yet he has taken a real beating at times, even last year. How confident are you that he's going to survive this season as well? Do you think he's got a better chance of making it to week 17 without missing games than say, Eli? I sure don't.

With regard to Tony Romo's play - the fact that last year was perhaps the best of his career would suggest that he is not statistically likely to repeat it. Is it any surprise that his arguably best career year came when the Cowboys found a real running game with DeMarco Murray? No question that the commitment to the run helps, but will the Cowboys be able to stay committed to the run without a back who can turn a 1 yard gain into a 4 yard gain consistently? What happens to the Cowboys if they go into the locker room at halftime with 31 yards on 16 carries? I think it's fair to question whether they will remain as committed to the run, whether they will be as successful with the run, and whether that will have an effect on their offensive ability without their star running back.

I have to admit that Witten is just an amazing TE. There is no question that he has been a thorn in the Giants side for years. I never suggested that he's slowed down. That would have been wrong for me to do. I'm not sure when he'll slow down. I'm only sure of one thing. It's going to happen. IT's certain to happen and that day is getting closer. 33 isn't old in most occupations. Turns out it's pretty old in the NFL though. It's practically ancient among receivers. This may not yet be the year that he's through, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out his age as this is clearly a factor going forward with any receiver.

Again, I enjoy this discussion with you and am glad you can engage in it civilly.

happens every year. I don't know if we have the depth to survive that when it happens. But the schedule isn't too bad and that works in our favor. I think a lot of it also depends on how quickly the defense gels with Spags and gets comfortable. I think it'll be close though, could go either way. Anything under .500 would be a major disappointment considering the schedule and the talent on the team, though. 9-7 or 10-6 is within reach if the team is relatively healthy.

In comment 12269290 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

Quote: The recent history I listed had to do with Dallas being in contention for the playoffs every year(not the best team or a juggernaut), except one, since Romo became the starter. In the nine years Romo has been the starter Dallas has made the playoffs 4 times, were eliminated in a week 17 play in game 4 times, and had a 6-10 season in 2010 when Romo was hurt. That's pretty consistent, I don't know how you say Dallas can't be counted on. So history shows that if Romo plays a full year, Dallas will be a playoff caliber team. That was the question of the thread, if NY was a playoff caliber team. Twice you mentioned how Dallas took a step back in 2010 from 2009, but each time you failed to mentioned how Dallas lost their QB for the year. That's a big omission. Let me say this - I appreciate your being able to discuss this without taking offense or attacking me personally. I know that you've pointed out 8 of 9 years with Romo at QB Dallas had a week 17 game that meant something. That's a great point - if this thread was about whether Dallas is a playoff team this year. It isn't. It wasn't at least, until you made Dallas the focus of the thread. It's interesting to me that you view the 9 years with Romo as good years for Dallas, when I've pointed out clearly that they've mostly been disappointing ones. I also have pointed out clearly that Romo-led teams have struggled in important games. I haven't checked the stats, but if you're telling me that four times they've had a play-in game with Romo at QB and they've walked away NOT in the playoffs. Doesn't that tell you something about counting on Romo to get you to the playoffs consistently? If the question is whether Romo will have Dallas in contention (provided he stays healthy), then you've made your point well. If the question is whether Dallas will make the playoffs? Well, it would appear that with Romo they do 4/9 times - so I guess that's a mere 44%. Combine that low percentage with the evidence that suggests they aren't good at consistently getting into the playoffs and I'd say that history is working against them. With regards to my omission - is there anything that suggests Tony Romo can be counted on to finish this next year healthy? It's clear that he's a warrior - and can take a beating with the best of them. It's also clear that he's got a line that can protect him. Yet he has taken a real beating at times, even last year. How confident are you that he's going to survive this season as well? Do you think he's got a better chance of making it to week 17 without missing games than say, Eli? I sure don't. With regard to Tony Romo's play - the fact that last year was perhaps the best of his career would suggest that he is not statistically likely to repeat it. Is it any surprise that his arguably best career year came when the Cowboys found a real running game with DeMarco Murray? No question that the commitment to the run helps, but will the Cowboys be able to stay committed to the run without a back who can turn a 1 yard gain into a 4 yard gain consistently? What happens to the Cowboys if they go into the locker room at halftime with 31 yards on 16 carries? I think it's fair to question whether they will remain as committed to the run, whether they will be as successful with the run, and whether that will have an effect on their offensive ability without their star running back. I have to admit that Witten is just an amazing TE. There is no question that he has been a thorn in the Giants side for years. I never suggested that he's slowed down. That would have been wrong for me to do. I'm not sure when he'll slow down. I'm only sure of one thing. It's going to happen. IT's certain to happen and that day is getting closer. 33 isn't old in most occupations. Turns out it's pretty old in the NFL though. It's practically ancient among receivers. This may not yet be the year that he's through, but there's nothing wrong with pointing out his age as this is clearly a factor going forward with any receiver. Again, I enjoy this discussion with you and am glad you can engage in it civilly.

You mentioned that Dallas had taken a step back, and I responded with points as to why Dallas had not taken a step back this off season. This is how we are here. I didn't mean to hijack the thread.

Had Dallas not had Romo during the last nine years, Dallas would have been hard pressed to be a 8 win team. Dallas would have been closer to a 4 to 6 win team picking in the top 10 every year. The years Dallas has been really good are the years when the rest of the team plays up to Romo's level.

My point was that if Romo is healthy Dallas will be in playoff contention, 8 out of 9 years. Like I said in the previous paragraph, it's up to the rest of the team to raise their level of play for Dallas to succeed. There is one stat that when a QB throws for 4 TDs and has a QB rating of 140 they are 168 and 2 all time. Guess who has the two losses? There is another stat that I can't remember right now that's like that also. Every QB in the HISTORY of the NFL has won the game under those conditions except Romo. Romo is great but he has no football luck.

Will Romo start every game in 2015? Of course. Romo gets a bad rap on this. He has only missed one season, 2010. In 2008 he missed 3 games and in 2013 and 2014 he missed one game. Since Romo became the starter and throwing out the 2010 season, Romo has started 117 of 122 games. That's pretty dependable.

The chances of Romo putting up a statistically great year is probable. With Romo the years are separated between good, real good and great. His worst year was 2008. Romo threw for a 61.3 completion%, 3448 yards, 26 TDs, 14 INTs, 91.4 QB rating, and 49.88 QBR. This is the year he suffered a broken pinky on his throwing hand and missed 3 games.

Quote:

You mentioned that Dallas had taken a step back, and I responded with points as to why Dallas had not taken a step back this off season. This is how we are here. I didn't mean to hijack the thread. Had Dallas not had Romo during the last nine years, Dallas would have been hard pressed to be a 8 win team. Dallas would have been closer to a 4 to 6 win team picking in the top 10 every year. The years Dallas has been really good are the years when the rest of the team plays up to Romo's level. My point was that if Romo is healthy Dallas will be in playoff contention, 8 out of 9 years. Like I said in the previous paragraph, it's up to the rest of the team to raise their level of play for Dallas to succeed. There is one stat that when a QB throws for 4 TDs and has a QB rating of 140 they are 168 and 2 all time. Guess who has the two losses? There is another stat that I can't remember right now that's like that also. Every QB in the HISTORY of the NFL has won the game under those conditions except Romo. Romo is great but he has no football luck. Will Romo start every game in 2015? Of course. Romo gets a bad rap on this. He has only missed one season, 2010. In 2008 he missed 3 games and in 2013 and 2014 he missed one game. Since Romo became the starter and throwing out the 2010 season, Romo has started 117 of 122 games. That's pretty dependable. The chances of Romo putting up a statistically great year is probable. With Romo the years are separated between good, real good and great. His worst year was 2008. Romo threw for a 61.3 completion%, 3448 yards, 26 TDs, 14 INTs, 91.4 QB rating, and 49.88 QBR. This is the year he suffered a broken pinky on his throwing hand and missed 3 games.

Your points are all well-made and I don't disagree with you on the facts. I'm impressed by the statistic you've shared. Yes, it would appear that Romo has been the victim of bad luck. Then again, there are times when he has played outstanding all game only to mess up in the closing moments. What's amazing about him is the number of times he has personally brought his team back from behind, late in the game. For whatever reason, he hasn't been able to do it enough to get his team to the SB, despite having had four opportunities so far.

I don't doubt that Dallas will be a good team or that they will be in playoff contention to the very end. I wouldn't be surprised if they won the division, although that would buck some historical trends we have going right now. I just think that the idea that they had a very good year last year and have consistently been pretty good when Romo isn't hurt isn't enough to lower the Giants chances of making the playoffs. All the Giants need to do is make the plays that matter when they matter and they'll get in regardless of what Dallas does.

I think if healthy Reese did enough in FA & Draft to give TC the players to make the playoffs. Unless the team goes 10-6 but still misses the playoffs, the Reese Coughlin regime is history. If Reese was drafting for his job, he should have taken the names everyone knows in 5,6, & 7, yet he took shots at his possible expense for the longer term

Maybe football is a pansy pass-happy game, but I still believe that the team that pounds the other should win.

The quality of our beef is not grade A

These guys might be good players but they are still rookies. OT and S are difficult spots for rookies to excel immediately. Hopefully they can do it.

Odi is intriguing. He's a guy that could make an impact in a part time role as a pass rusher.

boost to special teams along with the LBs they signed in FA. Good LBs and Safeties usually lead to good STs.

do you want to blow it all up and fire everyone?

2016 is going to be the year they contend legitimately, then no, keep everyone. If they have another 6-10 disaster where the season is over by Halloween then I don't see how Reese, Coughlin or anybody else survives.

I don't think this is the year they truly contend. I think 7-9 to 9-7 is the range, but with a strong finish as the rooks and 2nd year guys really start to gel, D comes around under Spags. None of these guys on D were here when Spags I took place.

that I see the same way
Link - ( New Window )

I don't think we'll see another 6-10. But I'm not ready to characterize them as a playoff team. They still have holes at FS and slot corner. Not a lot of depth at DT. And questionable talent at LB and TE. Right now, I'll say 8-8.

In comment 12269608 Headhunter said:

Quote:

that I see the same way Link - ( New Window )

Reasonable assessment. Still have to see how all the new pieces fit, rookies adapt to the NFL

In comment 12268265 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

can't imagine how any of you guys don't think Cruz is THE key. We made the playoffs in 2011 because of Eli, Cruz, and Nicks. Our defense and running game didn't get us there (both these areas played better in the playoffs). Cruz is an impact player when healthy. If you don't have Cruz near 100 percent, teams don't fear Rueben Randle any other WR we put out there.

We may have made the playoffs because of Cruz and our passing game in 2011, no arguments for me on that one. But, we won the super bowl because of defense. Defense was almost perfect against Atlanta, created havoc against a machine offense in GB, and virtually shut down the niners and pats. Hicks had a great super bowl run (including the game itself), but if our defense didn't step up, there was no way we were winning that trophy

Who knows if we have improved? Flowers has bust potential, but he also could be good. Nobody knows. Collins has limitations in coverage, and OO is an injury concern. The last three picks look shaky, at best and won't contribute this year. So, my guess is we are not a playoff team yet.

so look at the depth of this team in key positions..are they capable of maintaining for a few games or season in some cases? Still believe another off season or two will get it where more confident to say ..yes a playoff contender.

and if you think back on NYG history, this team usually does well when their younger players all flash at least some talent. The Giants are just one of those franchises that develop young talent. WHen they get older...they crash and burn, sometimes even a little sooner than most expect. Post Parcells...they weren't THAT old but they got old fast--same with post 2011...they got old fast.

In the 35 years I have been watching, whenever a young core of players starts to show little signs of greatness, things usually keep trending upward for this franchise. With that said, I see a lot glimpses of greatness scattered all over this roster--You have the corners and now Collins at safety...you have Kennard at LB who flashed thumper and big play ability. You have big Hank...even JPP is still in his prime...other young DEs have at least flashed game...and of course on offense you have Beckham and even Donnell.

IF the running game/OL can join the party this team will be very versatile and dynamic. The Giants know how to mold young talent. They've done it time and time again. I trust them here...it's when they get old and try to hang on that things fall apart really quickly. Other teams seem to have better luck in that department.

I think the Giants are headed in the right direction. They have the pieces in place. Things just have to come together. Coughlin, Eli, McAdoo and Spags are the right men for that job.

In comment 12269386 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

Quote: You mentioned that Dallas had taken a step back, and I responded with points as to why Dallas had not taken a step back this off season. This is how we are here. I didn't mean to hijack the thread. Had Dallas not had Romo during the last nine years, Dallas would have been hard pressed to be a 8 win team. Dallas would have been closer to a 4 to 6 win team picking in the top 10 every year. The years Dallas has been really good are the years when the rest of the team plays up to Romo's level. My point was that if Romo is healthy Dallas will be in playoff contention, 8 out of 9 years. Like I said in the previous paragraph, it's up to the rest of the team to raise their level of play for Dallas to succeed. There is one stat that when a QB throws for 4 TDs and has a QB rating of 140 they are 168 and 2 all time. Guess who has the two losses? There is another stat that I can't remember right now that's like that also. Every QB in the HISTORY of the NFL has won the game under those conditions except Romo. Romo is great but he has no football luck. Will Romo start every game in 2015? Of course. Romo gets a bad rap on this. He has only missed one season, 2010. In 2008 he missed 3 games and in 2013 and 2014 he missed one game. Since Romo became the starter and throwing out the 2010 season, Romo has started 117 of 122 games. That's pretty dependable. The chances of Romo putting up a statistically great year is probable. With Romo the years are separated between good, real good and great. His worst year was 2008. Romo threw for a 61.3 completion%, 3448 yards, 26 TDs, 14 INTs, 91.4 QB rating, and 49.88 QBR. This is the year he suffered a broken pinky on his throwing hand and missed 3 games. Your points are all well-made and I don't disagree with you on the facts. I'm impressed by the statistic you've shared. Yes, it would appear that Romo has been the victim of bad luck. Then again, there are times when he has played outstanding all game only to mess up in the closing moments. What's amazing about him is the number of times he has personally brought his team back from behind, late in the game. For whatever reason, he hasn't been able to do it enough to get his team to the SB, despite having had four opportunities so far. I don't doubt that Dallas will be a good team or that they will be in playoff contention to the very end. I wouldn't be surprised if they won the division, although that would buck some historical trends we have going right now. I just think that the idea that they had a very good year last year and have consistently been pretty good when Romo isn't hurt isn't enough to lower the Giants chances of making the playoffs. All the Giants need to do is make the plays that matter when they matter and they'll get in regardless of what Dallas does.

Thanks for the discussion Dan.