before writing these pieces? I realize it's a Philly-centric piece. But really?
Talking about the receiving corps ...
Quote:
Those numbers may look surprising, but should they, really? A season ago, the Giants had Odell Beckham, aaaaaand what else? This year, it's essentially the same group, but with a 33-year old Brandon Marshall added to the mix.
I think they're too well coached to be a dumpster fire in 2017, but as fans we'd all probably be better served to give the article (which makes some fair points) an honest read as opposed to the expected "Giants rule and Philly sucks" overreaction.
1. Eli was bad last year. I thought this was an article about this season?
2-4. The rest of the offense was bad last year.
5. Odell kicked a kicking net
6. The Giants will be bad because they won lots of close games last year. Seriously.
7. Our kicker. Seriously.
8. The Giants defense was really good last year. So they can't be as good this year. Yet Eli and the offense are on this list because they were "bad" last year. Very consistent writer.
9. The Giants were healthy last year, so they won't be this year.
1. Eli was bad last year. I thought this was an article about this season?
2-4. The rest of the offense was bad last year.
5. Odell kicked a kicking net
6. The Giants will be bad because they won lots of close games last year. Seriously.
7. Our kicker. Seriously.
8. The Giants defense was really good last year. So they can't be as good this year. Yet Eli and the offense are on this list because they were "bad" last year. Very consistent writer.
9. The Giants were healthy last year, so they won't be this year.
2nd year Shepard, Marshall, Rookie Engram, Ellison, 2nd year Perkins, Vereen.
The questions marks (on paper) begin and end with the OL. Even there you can point to big changes. A totally different version of Flowers (trimmed down), Fluker, Wheeler, Bisnowaty, healthy Pugh.
If the OL performs the Giants are winning 12+ games.
The Giants face 4 teams coming off their bye week.
The OL was bad and it's questionable that they got better and they remained pretty healthy last season. Other than that, the "article" is pure crap. They couldn't come up with 10 things so they say the same thing 3 times and then make up a bunch of crap.
I get it. The article is designed to be over the top negative, but to anyone that says there are some good points....just shut up.
The Writer Did a Dumpster Fire Series on Different Teams
The Giants will have some things to overcome, like facing four teams off their bye week, and a lot of travel, etc. They will have to improve just to keep the same good record. They'll have to improve a lot to improve the W-L. But it looks like they can do just that if Eli bounces back and they stay healthy.
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
somethings hopefully improve. If you sit here and tell me this offense has little chance of improving significantly I don't know what to tell you. The talent upgrades are clear as day.
God forbid the D actually played better this coming season thanks to a full year of Spags and cohesion under the belts. I know...crazy. But what the hell...hope springs eternal.
Giants could be better in 2017 but lose more games. They could be better and win the same or more. Or they could shit the bed. Who the hell knows..what I am certain of is this team has a window of opportunity. The team is talented and the QB is a postseason winner. We will see what happens but I do think the Giants will have a legit shot at postseason success these next 2-3 seasons.
Think 2005. Last year was 2005. Maybe 2017 is 2006 or maybe it's 1986. Should be fun. This team has a lot of prime cut talent. Not just good players, but special players. That's what wins in January.
the OL problems were and are overstated. There were other positional problems the last 2-3 seasons, notably TE and second WR that were downright terrible yet if you turn on FAN or read most dumbed down articles nary a word on those issues. It's all Flowers this and Flowers that. Sorry, but I don't think a young ascending LT is the #1 problem on this team. I think it's an easy target.
Team building with youth...many people have a hard time keeping up.
not that I think they will fall apart but the article was just funnier. Eagle fans don't hate the Giants as much as Dallas. This article reinforces that belief.
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
As usual I have no idea where you are coming from. So if the D was second last year they can't be 1st this year? Or 2nd again? Or maybe 3rd?
If you want to say the Giants could lose games in 2017 that they barely won in 2016, ok fine. That's fair. But how on earth does prior success ensure future regression? It doesn't.
Fair points 1) Eli was bad last year
He was. If he really is losing his ability it could be a long season. 2) The Giants might have the worst set of OTs in the NFL
They might. Hopefully Flowers finally shows some growth. The work put in this offseason at the very least shows he's committed and is a reasonable sign for hope 6) The Giants won a lot of close games last year
I agree with those who say they think McAdoo played it safe last season and put it on the defense. At the same time it would be a fairly minor surprise if the Giants had the same record in close games this season, if only for how good they were last season. 10) The Giants have to face four teams coming off their bye week
Completely fair point. A quarter of the schedule will have an extra weeks rest and preparation. Be sure to remember this when Eagles fans, predictably, whine that the Giants are "Goodell's favorite team".
Bullshit (or at least very debatable) points 3) The Giants still can't run the ball
Perkins was much better than Jennings by seasons end. With even marginal OL improvement the run game will be better 4) Actually, the Giants' offense in general wasn't very good
True in 2016. Accounts for zero moves made in the offseason. Marshall is a big improvement over a damaged Cruz. Additions of a proven blocking TE and an unproven but talented pass catching TE. The defense wasn't good in 2015. How'd that work out last season? 5) The Giants' one star weapon on offense is an immature baby
Immature? A good argument can be made. A baby? I don't agree. Either way, outside of the first Norman debacle, now going on two seasons ago, it's never affected his play or production. And while he was a no show in the playoffs, plenty of stars struggle in their first appearance on that stage. Eli got shut out. Jerry Rice was just as invisible. 7) Who is this kicker?
Could it cost them a close game? Sure. Hell, a good kicker can cost you a game. Will it be a reason for them to descend into dumpster fire territory? Don't be stupid. 8) The defense is likely to regress to some degree
This is called "wishful thinking", a favorite pastime of all Philadelphia fans. One major subtraction in Hankins. I loved Hank, but he wasn't even playing his best position. No flashy additions, but it can be argued that FS and MLB will see improvements. 9) The Giants stayed improbably healthy last year
They did, can't deny that. But that's no reason to think they will be besieged by injuries this season. And as the Eagles have been "improbably healthy" for much of the past decade, Kempski can suck a dick for even including this as a talking point.
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
Fair, but regress how much? 8th would be a regression but it's still top 10. The numbers are unlikely to be as good, I can agree. But are they going to fall off the face of the earth and become a liability? Probably not.
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
Fair, but regress how much? 8th would be a regression but it's still top 10. The numbers are unlikely to be as good, I can agree. But are they going to fall off the face of the earth and become a liability? Probably not.
Yeah I don't think they'll be bad, but there are a lot of posters saying outlandish shit about how incredible the defense is going to be in 2017.
I even recall one poster saying definitively that we had the best defensive line and the best secondary in the NFL. That same poster said we also have the best set of wide receivers in the NFL.
admittedly, when it comes to the Giants. Having said that, let's think about what is more likely with the Giants.
Option A: The Giants regress in the points allowed ranking because the rest of the league improves and the Giants give up the same number of points.
Option B: The Giants regress in the points allowed ranking because their play on the field is worse, thus they give up more points than before.
Option C: The Giants regress in the points allowed ranking because they score many more points, face many more desperate teams, and yield more garbage time points from teams trying to catch up.
Given that the defense was new to several key free agents last year, with that defensive overhaul in personnel and only in the second year of Spags' system, it is reasonable to expect the quality of play will only improve this year on the field defensively. Heck, the quality of defensive play improved throughout last year as the team became more familiar with the defense concepts Spags wanted them to run.
Many have pointed to the only significant departure on defense being Hankins. This isn't correct. I'm not even sure his departure is that significant, although I admit it may turn out to be. I think the most significant defensive change will turn out to be Goodson, who not only takes over at Mike, but will have the responsibility of calling the defensive plays and making sure everyone is aware of their assignments, making necessary adjustments. This might take some time, and one could easily expect some downturn as he learns valuable lessons on the job.
Having said all of that, I think that a regression toward the mean is likely, but I expect it to be more because of Option C. There is a ton of reason for optimism that our team will be improved on offense, and that other teams will be playing catch up more often.
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
Fair, but regress how much? 8th would be a regression but it's still top 10. The numbers are unlikely to be as good, I can agree. But are they going to fall off the face of the earth and become a liability? Probably not.
Yeah I don't think they'll be bad, but there are a lot of posters saying outlandish shit about how incredible the defense is going to be in 2017.
I even recall one poster saying definitively that we had the best defensive line and the best secondary in the NFL. That same poster said we also have the best set of wide receivers in the NFL.
Fuck, I guess we're going 15-1, minimum.
That used to bother me but I just ignore it now. People get emotional about sports and when emotions are involved objectivity can be elusive. I think we're all guilty of it with one thing or another. I know I have a hard time not being a music snob. I get it though. With sports it does come across as juvenile, condescending as that may sound.
Giant d could improve but could regress
They can't run untill they prove it
The o was not good and must prove it
Odell is immature and a baby at times. Definitely overblown but true.
comment, I thought the article was fairly written, from a glass half full perspective. The biggest issue is Eli and his age (which is his 1st point). Everything else can very easily be overcome because of coaching and talent. I have severe doubts that Eli will improve. If the OL and running game improves that should help tremendously.
But I've read way worse articles from writers in this town let alone a Philadelphia writer.
Giant d could improve but could regress
They can't run untill they prove it
The o was not good and must prove it
Odell is immature and a baby at times. Definitely overblown but true.
-Actually it would be very difficult for the D to improve. And while a regression would admittedly be more likely, it's highly unlikely that we see a regression drastic enough to where the defense is a liability.
-The run game was actually half decent over the last month when Perkins started to become the primary back. Pugh and Richburg are healthy. Maligned as he's been, Flowers isn't a bad run blocker. There's no reason to think the run game will be as bad as it was for most of last season.
-Probably the hardest point to argue. The writer doesn't take into account any of the additions though, and they were pretty big. They lacked an outside receiver, as well as talent at the TE position. Marshall, Ellison, and Engram addressed those needs. The jury is still out, that's a fair point, but the needle is pointing up.
-I'm not going to debate if Odell is immature or a baby. It's been discussed ad nauseam and I'm just tired of the topic to be honest. What I will argue is that other than the game against Norman it hasn't been an issue. In his first three seasons he's put up historic numbers. He's taken over games, like Baltimore this past season. Think of the nitpicking here: "sure, he's doing stuff no one has done since Randy Moss. But he's immature, so the Giants will go down in flames". To put it in BBI terms: "She's hot, but look at her thumbs. Pass"
But so good in 2015. That's the logic I'm supppsed to buy here?
Ain't buying it. Eli was about the same last year as he's always been. A few too many ints or turnovers. Upper 20s in tds. Terrible talent around him other than Beckham yet they won 11 games. Granted it was due to great D, but Eli was not terrible last year. I hate this stupid hyperbole shit.
We will see how terrible Eli is with legit options all over the offense. Last year he had two and one of them was a rookie who didn't exactly resemble a game breaker. Still threw 4000+. Still threw 25+ tds. Still won 11 games and still had the giants primed to compete in a road playoff game. Terrible my ass. Flawed doesn't mean terrible.
The defense can technically "regress" and still be a top 5 unit which is basically what I expect this year.
It's really just semantics.
The Giants defense is going to be very good again this year unless we lose a bunch of key guys to long-term injuries.
It's annoying how much I've seen/heard this over the offseason. "The defense can't be that good again". First off, why not? Second, they could easily be not as good and still be a top unit.
Serious question. Have you ever said a positive thing about this team in your life? For fucks sake, you are one miserable fuck. And I'm not sure why you try to come across as being the smartest guy in the room because you're pretty much clueless on everything. I guess you get acknowledged by others for your soccer posts. Credit to you. When it comes to the Giants, you're absolutely dreadful. Never miss an opportunity to shit all over everything. Clown show.
The defense can technically "regress" and still be a top 5 unit which is basically what I expect this year.
It's really just semantics.
The Giants defense is going to be very good again this year unless we lose a bunch of key guys to long-term injuries.
It's annoying how much I've seen/heard this over the offseason. "The defense can't be that good again". First off, why not? Second, they could easily be not as good and still be a top unit.
It seems the people who are of the belief that the Giants defense will regress likely believe they wildly overachieved last year and are incapable of a repeat performance.
I'm not really sure that was the case.
In fact, I think we leaned on our defense so heavily last season that it would be difficult to make the case that it was flukey or non-repeatable.
If the offense is better this year (which most of us expect it to be), I think it only benefits the defense.
It's not unrealistic at all to expect this to be a top 5 unit in 2017. There's no reason why it shouldn't be.
But so good in 2015. That's the logic I'm supppsed to buy here?
Ain't buying it. Eli was about the same last year as he's always been. A few too many ints or turnovers. Upper 20s in tds. Terrible talent around him other than Beckham yet they won 11 games. Granted it was due to great D, but Eli was not terrible last year. I hate this stupid hyperbole shit.
We will see how terrible Eli is with legit options all over the offense. Last year he had two and one of them was a rookie who didn't exactly resemble a game breaker. Still threw 4000+. Still threw 25+ tds. Still won 11 games and still had the giants primed to compete in a road playoff game. Terrible my ass. Flawed doesn't mean terrible.
I agree with this 100%. The one thing that article got me to do was watch the video that replayed Eli's 16 INT's.
Watching those months later really put them in perspective. I challenge anybody to watch this video as well and tell me you don't see the same thing:
INT's on the season
1. Eli throws a timing hitch route. Sterling Sheppard (a rookie playing in his first game) gets to the top of the route, stands completely upright, and throws his hands in the air (looking for a flag I guess?). Ball is delivered to a spot, easy INT for the defender.
2. Seam route to Tye. Viewing in real time, it's one on one and the defender comes out with the ball. Upon replay (which they show), Tye pauses in the middle of his route, and the defender gets position to make the INT.
3. Late short pass over the middle to Vereen, defender makes a good, diving play.
4. Deep pass, Eli gets instant pressure off Flowers, may get hit as he throws or right after, ball flutters, Odell looks lost, defender basically catches a punt. A lot goes wrong on this play.
5. This one is weird. Two WR's running out routes to the sideline, about 10 yards apart. Basically it puts about 3 or 4 defenders within two intended targets all within 10 yards. Eli shouldn't throw this, but also poor play design or somebody ran a wrong route.
6. Sterling Sheppard's feet get tangled with defender and he falls down. Defender makes pick.
7. Eli puts this ball right into Odell's stomach on a quick slant, who has inside position on the defender and makes the catch. Defender wrestles it away as they go to the ground and it takes it away from Beckham.
8. Ball is tipped at the line of scrimmage. But also of note, another play where two receivers, Tye and Sheppard, are running the same route, one underneath the other, in this case, two skinny posts. Sheppard inexplicably breaks off the route and his defender doesn't. Sheppard isn't there, and defender gets easy, uncontested wobbly tipped pick.
9. Lewis Jr. runs terrible, sloppy route. Eli doesn't put enough mustard on it, defender jumps it.
10. Terrible decision, weak throw, deep into triple coverage.
11. Eli puts too much zip on it instead of touch, Steeler's zone fools him. Bad throw. Receiver was wide open, just needed to put more touch on it.
12. Horrible, bad decision running to his right throwing to the left across his body gunslinger throw. Easy INT.
13. Victor Cruz doesn't run a great route, plus bad throw, INT.
14. Horrible throw/decision. Pick 6.
15. Another Horrible throw, deep, same game. Double coverage, easy pick.
16. Eli desperation heave, 3rd of the game (same game), easy INT.
Playoffs
17. Giants down 38-13, Eli throws last ditch hail mary into the endzone with time expiring, INT. Season over.
Watching that video actually gives me a lot of perspective on the turnovers.
Going into the last game of the regular season, Eli had only thrown 13 INT's. He had a bad game against the Eagles in a meaningless game, which inflated his INT total.
Seriously, watch that INT film. Compare notes with mine and tell me if you see something different.
Roger Lewis, Sterling Sheppard, Will Tye, and occasionally Cruz. Those are the guys that these INT's came off of, and in 90% of the intstances, they were completely lost, out of place, or running shit routes.
There was bad Eli, but watching that tape actually made me feel better about his performance last year. Give it a try, and tell me if I was wrong on anything.
That INT film wasn't nearly as bad/long as I thought it would be.
And frankly, it should have been a lot shorter, but the guy who made it must have been an Eagles fan, because whenever the Eagles made a play, they showed about 15 replays of it, while all the others only got one at most.
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
While I agree that they likely take a step back what does 1993 have to do with anything? Surely you aren't suggesting that the players to the coach and GM being all different 24 years later is at all relevant...
and make it appear as if that's commonplace. FOr example, his ridiculous Dez Bryant comp, saying we shouldn't pay OBJ, because we cannot run the risk of him getting hurt like Dez did after he signed his deal.
Serious question. Have you ever said a positive thing about this team in your life? For fucks sake, you are one miserable fuck. And I'm not sure why you try to come across as being the smartest guy in the room because you're pretty much clueless on everything. I guess you get acknowledged by others for your soccer posts. Credit to you. When it comes to the Giants, you're absolutely dreadful. Never miss an opportunity to shit all over everything. Clown show.
What you are too thick to understand is I'm not shitting on the Giants. I'm shitting on you. You, and posters like you that make us all stupider with your pollyanna bullshit.
If you can't read, that's on you. I'll go back now to my rule of ignoring posters with handles that contain the letter X or references to Jeremy Shockey.
For the most part, GT is a damn good football poster
IMO he falls into the trap of getting too deep into some of his takes that some of them are bordering on ridiculous, but I respect that he sticks to his guns.
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
While I agree that they likely take a step back what does 1993 have to do with anything? Surely you aren't suggesting that the players to the coach and GM being all different 24 years later is at all relevant...
I'm suggesting that the Giants are unlikely to replicate 2016.
IMO he falls into the trap of getting too deep into some of his takes that some of them are bordering on ridiculous, but I respect that he sticks to his guns.
Agreed, I don't mind most of it because theirs substance and thought behind it even when I don't agree. This one I agree on the result (fair to assume we regress a bit on D) but I don't agree with the why (Giants history since it really is irrelevant).
Especially from a divisional rival's city purposely making "Your team is a dumpster fire" articles for everyone in the division including their own. They actually nailed the concerns we should have although not all of those will be worrisome issues by season's end. I don't buy the the Eli stuff mainly although it is heavily tied to the line's success so we'll see.
I will say this... If a couple guys go down on the o-line on TOP of the how weak it is from the onset, this team WILL be a dumpster fire.
Talking about the receiving corps ...
2-4. The rest of the offense was bad last year.
5. Odell kicked a kicking net
6. The Giants will be bad because they won lots of close games last year. Seriously.
7. Our kicker. Seriously.
8. The Giants defense was really good last year. So they can't be as good this year. Yet Eli and the offense are on this list because they were "bad" last year. Very consistent writer.
9. The Giants were healthy last year, so they won't be this year.
10. The Giants play 4 teams coming off a bye.
2-4. The rest of the offense was bad last year.
5. Odell kicked a kicking net
6. The Giants will be bad because they won lots of close games last year. Seriously.
7. Our kicker. Seriously.
8. The Giants defense was really good last year. So they can't be as good this year. Yet Eli and the offense are on this list because they were "bad" last year. Very consistent writer.
9. The Giants were healthy last year, so they won't be this year.
10. The Giants play 4 teams coming off a bye.
Thanks... Thought it would be all bullshit.
Compare the offensive personnel at the skill positions from 16 to 17.
Rookie Shepard, Cruz, Donnell, Tye, Jennings, Rookie Perkins, Rainey.
2nd year Shepard, Marshall, Rookie Engram, Ellison, 2nd year Perkins, Vereen.
The questions marks (on paper) begin and end with the OL. Even there you can point to big changes. A totally different version of Flowers (trimmed down), Fluker, Wheeler, Bisnowaty, healthy Pugh.
If the OL performs the Giants are winning 12+ games.
The Giants SUCK coming off of bye, hopefully they all do too!
I get it. The article is designed to be over the top negative, but to anyone that says there are some good points....just shut up.
Both of which are hard.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
God forbid the D actually played better this coming season thanks to a full year of Spags and cohesion under the belts. I know...crazy. But what the hell...hope springs eternal.
Giants could be better in 2017 but lose more games. They could be better and win the same or more. Or they could shit the bed. Who the hell knows..what I am certain of is this team has a window of opportunity. The team is talented and the QB is a postseason winner. We will see what happens but I do think the Giants will have a legit shot at postseason success these next 2-3 seasons.
Think 2005. Last year was 2005. Maybe 2017 is 2006 or maybe it's 1986. Should be fun. This team has a lot of prime cut talent. Not just good players, but special players. That's what wins in January.
Team building with youth...many people have a hard time keeping up.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
As usual I have no idea where you are coming from. So if the D was second last year they can't be 1st this year? Or 2nd again? Or maybe 3rd?
If you want to say the Giants could lose games in 2017 that they barely won in 2016, ok fine. That's fair. But how on earth does prior success ensure future regression? It doesn't.
1) Eli was bad last year
He was. If he really is losing his ability it could be a long season.
2) The Giants might have the worst set of OTs in the NFL
They might. Hopefully Flowers finally shows some growth. The work put in this offseason at the very least shows he's committed and is a reasonable sign for hope
6) The Giants won a lot of close games last year
I agree with those who say they think McAdoo played it safe last season and put it on the defense. At the same time it would be a fairly minor surprise if the Giants had the same record in close games this season, if only for how good they were last season.
10) The Giants have to face four teams coming off their bye week
Completely fair point. A quarter of the schedule will have an extra weeks rest and preparation. Be sure to remember this when Eagles fans, predictably, whine that the Giants are "Goodell's favorite team".
Bullshit (or at least very debatable) points
3) The Giants still can't run the ball
Perkins was much better than Jennings by seasons end. With even marginal OL improvement the run game will be better
4) Actually, the Giants' offense in general wasn't very good
True in 2016. Accounts for zero moves made in the offseason. Marshall is a big improvement over a damaged Cruz. Additions of a proven blocking TE and an unproven but talented pass catching TE. The defense wasn't good in 2015. How'd that work out last season?
5) The Giants' one star weapon on offense is an immature baby
Immature? A good argument can be made. A baby? I don't agree. Either way, outside of the first Norman debacle, now going on two seasons ago, it's never affected his play or production. And while he was a no show in the playoffs, plenty of stars struggle in their first appearance on that stage. Eli got shut out. Jerry Rice was just as invisible.
7) Who is this kicker?
Could it cost them a close game? Sure. Hell, a good kicker can cost you a game. Will it be a reason for them to descend into dumpster fire territory? Don't be stupid.
8) The defense is likely to regress to some degree
This is called "wishful thinking", a favorite pastime of all Philadelphia fans. One major subtraction in Hankins. I loved Hank, but he wasn't even playing his best position. No flashy additions, but it can be argued that FS and MLB will see improvements.
9) The Giants stayed improbably healthy last year
They did, can't deny that. But that's no reason to think they will be besieged by injuries this season. And as the Eagles have been "improbably healthy" for much of the past decade, Kempski can suck a dick for even including this as a talking point.
For years, the Giants have gotten preferential treatment from the league office.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
Fair, but regress how much? 8th would be a regression but it's still top 10. The numbers are unlikely to be as good, I can agree. But are they going to fall off the face of the earth and become a liability? Probably not.
Quote:
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
Fair, but regress how much? 8th would be a regression but it's still top 10. The numbers are unlikely to be as good, I can agree. But are they going to fall off the face of the earth and become a liability? Probably not.
Yeah I don't think they'll be bad, but there are a lot of posters saying outlandish shit about how incredible the defense is going to be in 2017.
I even recall one poster saying definitively that we had the best defensive line and the best secondary in the NFL. That same poster said we also have the best set of wide receivers in the NFL.
Fuck, I guess we're going 15-1, minimum.
Option A: The Giants regress in the points allowed ranking because the rest of the league improves and the Giants give up the same number of points.
Option B: The Giants regress in the points allowed ranking because their play on the field is worse, thus they give up more points than before.
Option C: The Giants regress in the points allowed ranking because they score many more points, face many more desperate teams, and yield more garbage time points from teams trying to catch up.
Given that the defense was new to several key free agents last year, with that defensive overhaul in personnel and only in the second year of Spags' system, it is reasonable to expect the quality of play will only improve this year on the field defensively. Heck, the quality of defensive play improved throughout last year as the team became more familiar with the defense concepts Spags wanted them to run.
Many have pointed to the only significant departure on defense being Hankins. This isn't correct. I'm not even sure his departure is that significant, although I admit it may turn out to be. I think the most significant defensive change will turn out to be Goodson, who not only takes over at Mike, but will have the responsibility of calling the defensive plays and making sure everyone is aware of their assignments, making necessary adjustments. This might take some time, and one could easily expect some downturn as he learns valuable lessons on the job.
Having said all of that, I think that a regression toward the mean is likely, but I expect it to be more because of Option C. There is a ton of reason for optimism that our team will be improved on offense, and that other teams will be playing catch up more often.
Quote:
In comment 13514024 Go Terps said:
Quote:
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
Fair, but regress how much? 8th would be a regression but it's still top 10. The numbers are unlikely to be as good, I can agree. But are they going to fall off the face of the earth and become a liability? Probably not.
Yeah I don't think they'll be bad, but there are a lot of posters saying outlandish shit about how incredible the defense is going to be in 2017.
I even recall one poster saying definitively that we had the best defensive line and the best secondary in the NFL. That same poster said we also have the best set of wide receivers in the NFL.
Fuck, I guess we're going 15-1, minimum.
That used to bother me but I just ignore it now. People get emotional about sports and when emotions are involved objectivity can be elusive. I think we're all guilty of it with one thing or another. I know I have a hard time not being a music snob. I get it though. With sports it does come across as juvenile, condescending as that may sound.
Why anyone would get angry or worked up over it beyond silly.
Giant d could improve but could regress
They can't run untill they prove it
The o was not good and must prove it
Odell is immature and a baby at times. Definitely overblown but true.
But I've read way worse articles from writers in this town let alone a Philadelphia writer.
Giant d could improve but could regress
They can't run untill they prove it
The o was not good and must prove it
Odell is immature and a baby at times. Definitely overblown but true.
-Actually it would be very difficult for the D to improve. And while a regression would admittedly be more likely, it's highly unlikely that we see a regression drastic enough to where the defense is a liability.
-The run game was actually half decent over the last month when Perkins started to become the primary back. Pugh and Richburg are healthy. Maligned as he's been, Flowers isn't a bad run blocker. There's no reason to think the run game will be as bad as it was for most of last season.
-Probably the hardest point to argue. The writer doesn't take into account any of the additions though, and they were pretty big. They lacked an outside receiver, as well as talent at the TE position. Marshall, Ellison, and Engram addressed those needs. The jury is still out, that's a fair point, but the needle is pointing up.
-I'm not going to debate if Odell is immature or a baby. It's been discussed ad nauseam and I'm just tired of the topic to be honest. What I will argue is that other than the game against Norman it hasn't been an issue. In his first three seasons he's put up historic numbers. He's taken over games, like Baltimore this past season. Think of the nitpicking here: "sure, he's doing stuff no one has done since Randy Moss. But he's immature, so the Giants will go down in flames". To put it in BBI terms: "She's hot, but look at her thumbs. Pass"
It's really just semantics.
The Giants defense is going to be very good again this year unless we lose a bunch of key guys to long-term injuries.
Ain't buying it. Eli was about the same last year as he's always been. A few too many ints or turnovers. Upper 20s in tds. Terrible talent around him other than Beckham yet they won 11 games. Granted it was due to great D, but Eli was not terrible last year. I hate this stupid hyperbole shit.
We will see how terrible Eli is with legit options all over the offense. Last year he had two and one of them was a rookie who didn't exactly resemble a game breaker. Still threw 4000+. Still threw 25+ tds. Still won 11 games and still had the giants primed to compete in a road playoff game. Terrible my ass. Flawed doesn't mean terrible.
It's really just semantics.
The Giants defense is going to be very good again this year unless we lose a bunch of key guys to long-term injuries.
It's annoying how much I've seen/heard this over the offseason. "The defense can't be that good again". First off, why not? Second, they could easily be not as good and still be a top unit.
Quote:
The defense can technically "regress" and still be a top 5 unit which is basically what I expect this year.
It's really just semantics.
The Giants defense is going to be very good again this year unless we lose a bunch of key guys to long-term injuries.
It's annoying how much I've seen/heard this over the offseason. "The defense can't be that good again". First off, why not? Second, they could easily be not as good and still be a top unit.
It seems the people who are of the belief that the Giants defense will regress likely believe they wildly overachieved last year and are incapable of a repeat performance.
I'm not really sure that was the case.
In fact, I think we leaned on our defense so heavily last season that it would be difficult to make the case that it was flukey or non-repeatable.
If the offense is better this year (which most of us expect it to be), I think it only benefits the defense.
It's not unrealistic at all to expect this to be a top 5 unit in 2017. There's no reason why it shouldn't be.
Ain't buying it. Eli was about the same last year as he's always been. A few too many ints or turnovers. Upper 20s in tds. Terrible talent around him other than Beckham yet they won 11 games. Granted it was due to great D, but Eli was not terrible last year. I hate this stupid hyperbole shit.
We will see how terrible Eli is with legit options all over the offense. Last year he had two and one of them was a rookie who didn't exactly resemble a game breaker. Still threw 4000+. Still threw 25+ tds. Still won 11 games and still had the giants primed to compete in a road playoff game. Terrible my ass. Flawed doesn't mean terrible.
I agree with this 100%. The one thing that article got me to do was watch the video that replayed Eli's 16 INT's.
Watching those months later really put them in perspective. I challenge anybody to watch this video as well and tell me you don't see the same thing:
INT's on the season
1. Eli throws a timing hitch route. Sterling Sheppard (a rookie playing in his first game) gets to the top of the route, stands completely upright, and throws his hands in the air (looking for a flag I guess?). Ball is delivered to a spot, easy INT for the defender.
2. Seam route to Tye. Viewing in real time, it's one on one and the defender comes out with the ball. Upon replay (which they show), Tye pauses in the middle of his route, and the defender gets position to make the INT.
3. Late short pass over the middle to Vereen, defender makes a good, diving play.
4. Deep pass, Eli gets instant pressure off Flowers, may get hit as he throws or right after, ball flutters, Odell looks lost, defender basically catches a punt. A lot goes wrong on this play.
5. This one is weird. Two WR's running out routes to the sideline, about 10 yards apart. Basically it puts about 3 or 4 defenders within two intended targets all within 10 yards. Eli shouldn't throw this, but also poor play design or somebody ran a wrong route.
6. Sterling Sheppard's feet get tangled with defender and he falls down. Defender makes pick.
7. Eli puts this ball right into Odell's stomach on a quick slant, who has inside position on the defender and makes the catch. Defender wrestles it away as they go to the ground and it takes it away from Beckham.
8. Ball is tipped at the line of scrimmage. But also of note, another play where two receivers, Tye and Sheppard, are running the same route, one underneath the other, in this case, two skinny posts. Sheppard inexplicably breaks off the route and his defender doesn't. Sheppard isn't there, and defender gets easy, uncontested wobbly tipped pick.
9. Lewis Jr. runs terrible, sloppy route. Eli doesn't put enough mustard on it, defender jumps it.
10. Terrible decision, weak throw, deep into triple coverage.
11. Eli puts too much zip on it instead of touch, Steeler's zone fools him. Bad throw. Receiver was wide open, just needed to put more touch on it.
12. Horrible, bad decision running to his right throwing to the left across his body gunslinger throw. Easy INT.
13. Victor Cruz doesn't run a great route, plus bad throw, INT.
14. Horrible throw/decision. Pick 6.
15. Another Horrible throw, deep, same game. Double coverage, easy pick.
16. Eli desperation heave, 3rd of the game (same game), easy INT.
Playoffs
17. Giants down 38-13, Eli throws last ditch hail mary into the endzone with time expiring, INT. Season over.
Watching that video actually gives me a lot of perspective on the turnovers.
Going into the last game of the regular season, Eli had only thrown 13 INT's. He had a bad game against the Eagles in a meaningless game, which inflated his INT total.
Seriously, watch that INT film. Compare notes with mine and tell me if you see something different.
Roger Lewis, Sterling Sheppard, Will Tye, and occasionally Cruz. Those are the guys that these INT's came off of, and in 90% of the intstances, they were completely lost, out of place, or running shit routes.
There was bad Eli, but watching that tape actually made me feel better about his performance last year. Give it a try, and tell me if I was wrong on anything.
Link - ( New Window )
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
While I agree that they likely take a step back what does 1993 have to do with anything? Surely you aren't suggesting that the players to the coach and GM being all different 24 years later is at all relevant...
What you are too thick to understand is I'm not shitting on the Giants. I'm shitting on you. You, and posters like you that make us all stupider with your pollyanna bullshit.
If you can't read, that's on you. I'll go back now to my rule of ignoring posters with handles that contain the letter X or references to Jeremy Shockey.
Quote:
The Giants' defense ranked #2 in the NFL in points against in 2016. That's the best they've ranked in that category since 1993, and only the fourth time they finished in single digits in that ranking since 2000.
They are absolutely likely to regress defensively.
While I agree that they likely take a step back what does 1993 have to do with anything? Surely you aren't suggesting that the players to the coach and GM being all different 24 years later is at all relevant...
I'm suggesting that the Giants are unlikely to replicate 2016.
Agreed, I don't mind most of it because theirs substance and thought behind it even when I don't agree. This one I agree on the result (fair to assume we regress a bit on D) but I don't agree with the why (Giants history since it really is irrelevant).
I will say this... If a couple guys go down on the o-line on TOP of the how weak it is from the onset, this team WILL be a dumpster fire.