It's dejavu all over again. It's the mid 60's - late 70's

isn't unreasonable, but it's too soon to know where we really are.

Is it 1971, the implosion after a last-gasp 2nd-place finish?

Is it 1983, the bad year where the head coach learns what he needs to do to win?

Or 1991, the year it turns out the coach is in over his head.

Because I grew up as a fan in the 70s era, I don't have the same affection for the Maras' management that others do. But I think the George Young example looms large. Maybe John Mara is the problem and they need a football guy to step in. Or maybe it's Chris Mara that needs to move to a different job. Or Jerry Reese or Ben McAdoo or someone else, I dunno.

In most posts the ill informed are using the all encompassing euphemism "The Mara's " as if there's a family group of Mara' s sitting in a board room making football decisions. Allow me to clue you all in. There is one Mara calling the shots and it's Johnny Boy. Credit or blame he's your guy it ain't the "Mara's" . Give it up, I happen to know.

Tom Coughlin is employed right now and he's 71 years old. When exactly do you think he's coming back here to be a senior consultant?

In comment 13642165 Blue Moon said:

Quote:

In most posts the ill informed are using the all encompassing euphemism "The Mara's " as if there's a family group of Mara' s sitting in a board room making football decisions. Allow me to clue you all in. There is one Mara calling the shots and it's Johnny Boy. Credit or blame he's your guy it ain't the "Mara's" . Give it up, I happen to know.

That's a fair point but I believe the ownership is still a 50-50 split between Wellington Mara's heirs and the Tim Mara piece of the team, which went to Bob TIsch and then to his son Steve Tisch, so it's really "The Maras" who have the voting shares, with John actually in charge, and "the Tisch," Steve.

Pretty both halves of ownership have to agree to fire the GM and make other changes that require ownership approval.

the Mara's share works. John is front and center but his ownership stake isn't greater than the others is it? How does he get to call all the shots. Did Wellington anoint him and that's that? I'd think the others ownership interest gives them some rights to hold John somewhat accountable. What if he goes senile or becomes an alcoholic or goes all Harvey Weinstein? They have to be able to get rid of him in that case.

At least in the mid and later 60s, they had an offense that could really gain yards and put up points. Allie Sherman had his faults for sure, but he ran one hell of an offensive.

Later in the 70s, they had Bill Arsparger's awesome defense and one of the best punters in the game in Jennings. So they always had a chance.

And John McVay almost turned the ship around. If he'd had a few better players, he might have made it. His demise came as a result of a big holding penalty that turned an opening day game around.

All of them had a part of the team that functioned well, but not a complete team. But there was still something there that was worth watching even if they didn't win much.

But not now.

This team has a HOF QB, one amazing WR, a few good defensive players, and precious little else. They can't get it done on offense, defense, or special teams.

It's also questionable if they have any coach that's worth anything, although I will give Spags the benefit of the doubt a little longer. He has had some good defenses when he had quality personnel in the past.

And the front office performance over the past decade is every bit as bad as it was back in the "fifteen years of lousy football" - and it hasn't changed a bit over that time.

We over achieved in 1970 and that covered some warts, just like last season. Win a few games we easily could have lost and all of the sudden it looks ok.

I tend to think this is like 1992, where Handley lost the team and got fired. They had a 6-10 record. The year before he went 8-8 riding the coattails of Parcells, which can be parralled to the 11-5 (I know its more but they spent $200M on the D and won a lot of close games) of Mac last season.

it will be who are these guys on offense .

To those eras.

that can be drawn between last season and 70 & 72. Difference being there were not wild-card paths to the playoffs during that era. But those years temporarily hid the dry rot that was underneath the surface.

One might say 83. However they had their future Super-Bowl QB on that roster. It just took Parcells awhile to figure out who it was. The Giants have an HOF QB on their current roster. However, he is no longer playing like one at this stage of his career.

Eli has two years left in his career. It's pointless having him play for the Giants in 18 & 19. Even in 83, especially after how tough they played the Redskins in the last game, there was hope, what with all the talent that was on IR. I don't have that sense right now.

But let them play 11 more games before we return them to the Dark Ages.

This stretch has sucked (ugh), but that one lasted almost 20 years!

In comment 13642288 Red Dog said:

Quote:

At least in the mid and later 60s, they had an offense that could really gain yards and put up points. Allie Sherman had his faults for sure, but he ran one hell of an offensive. Later in the 70s, they had Bill Arsparger's awesome defense and one of the best punters in the game in Jennings. So they always had a chance. And John McVay almost turned the ship around. If he'd had a few better players, he might have made it. His demise came as a result of a big holding penalty that turned an opening day game around. All of them had a part of the team that functioned well, but not a complete team. But there was still something there that was worth watching even if they didn't win much. But not now. This team has a HOF QB, one amazing WR, a few good defensive players, and precious little else. They can't get it done on offense, defense, or special teams. It's also questionable if they have any coach that's worth anything, although I will give Spags the benefit of the doubt a little longer. He has had some good defenses when he had quality personnel in the past. And the front office performance over the past decade is every bit as bad as it was back in the "fifteen years of lousy football" - and it hasn't changed a bit over that time.

Are you serious?

right?



I'll give you guys this much - if there were a dark market for hyperbole, you fuckers would clean up.

ownership that prefers to evaluate things over the long haul rather than give a knee-jerk reaction. At the same time, there is a failure to take necessary action because of loyalties to people who may no longer deserve that loyalty.

What I look at is the lack of consistency of performance when you compare the Giants to say New England or Green Bay...up one year, down the next.

Personally, everyone is saying Reese is staying and the Giants won't fire him. I agree, I don't think they do fire him but I believe, as with Tom, they will force him out, force him to resign if things continue to get worse.

At some point, as Well found out, you'd better pay attention to the fans. John Mara has to be held to his words of two years ago that this was on Jerry and he was told that. Well, this is still on Jerry...even more so. I do not see how anyone could evaluate his performance over the last six or seven years and say he has done an even competent job.

This year will mark the sixth year in the past seven that we have missed the playoffs. That is no one's definition of job performance in my opinion. His failure to address the offensive line is just one of several major issues. His complete refusal to invest in a linebacker, save Clint Sintim in 2008, in terms of a high draft pick is telling. This team continues to founder at that position.

Once again, he only fixed the D because the Mara/Tisch allowed him to spend $200M to sign OV, Snacks and Jackrabbit. But in reality the spending of this money reflects how poorly his drafting record was and still is. His stubbornness on Flowers playing LT...I could go on and on.

It is very hard to watch a franchise you love be destroyed from within but I have seen it before as have many old time Giants fans. Does it really have to get to such a critical period before the owners take action? I mean, how many times does your spouse have to cheat on you before you finally kick them out?

Hate typing on phone and auto correct

people cannot help but whine that it's the 60s and 70s all over again.

AND.. It is the '60s and '70s again. The pattern is there. The deeper the hole.. The longer it takes to fill it back in.

they were in the playoffs at 11-5. How's it more than a rough patch again?

missing the playoffs...then got back last year with a strong D...but one and done in the playoffs. Same issues that have been plaguing us even in our SB year are still there and nothing has been done to fix them or worked. Plus, you look into the future and it does not look good.

So, rough patch, yeah, you bet. There are also similar issues...staying loyal to people whose work performance does not deserve that loyalty. That's a BIG problem...not to mention the blame was put on our 2-time SB winning coach who had far more to do with our teams being competitive that the guy who piggybacked on the work done by EA and has done very little since.

In comment 13642472 That’s Gold, Jerry said:

Quote:

missing the playoffs...then got back last year with a strong D...but one and done in the playoffs. Same issues that have been plaguing us even in our SB year are still there and nothing has been done to fix them or worked. Plus, you look into the future and it does not look good. So, rough patch, yeah, you bet. There are also similar issues...staying loyal to people whose work performance does not deserve that loyalty. That's a BIG problem...not to mention the blame was put on our 2-time SB winning coach who had far more to do with our teams being competitive that the guy who piggybacked on the work done by EA and has done very little since.

Yes, he just rode EA's coattails. Too bad we didn't have more of Chris Bober and Ian Allen.

I'm starting to wonder whether there's a systemic substance abuse problem at BBI. Almost hoping, really, because the alternative would be REALLY sad.

you mean people who inherited their wealth and their positions might not be qualified for their jobs?

shocking

The Giant offenses of the late 1970's feature NO OFFENSIVE TALENT. ZERO, ZILCH.

QB: Joe Pisarcik, Phil Simms (79 rookie)
HB: Bobby Hammond, Doug Kotar, Billy Taylor
FB: Larry Csonka (3.4 ypc)
WR: Johnny Perkins, Jimmy Robinson, Earnest Gray (79 rookie)
TE: Al Dixon, Gary Shirk

THAT was the worst offense I ever saw.

This season's is the most UNDERACHIEVING offense I ever saw.

Big difference.

This is not even close to that.
This year reminds me a lot of 2003. In 03 we came off a playoff loss to SF and had high expecations with a talented offense and a decent defense only to fall flat on our faces leading the team to eventually quit on Fassel and win only 3 games.

Up until the injuries, the 2017/18 Giants had decent talent on the D side of the ball and at the skilled positions on the O. Due to neglect, poor decisions, and arrogance this team is losing the battle in the trenches.

The 2017/18 Giants are under-performing, probably because they are being coached by someone who is in over his head, and too hard-headed to see it.

The late 60's/70's teams were talent deficient, and poorly managed.

that the Giants passed on for the last 4 seasons that would have strengthened our O-line to the point where we could protect Eli and run the ball more consistently?

In comment 13642288 Red Dog said:

Quote:

At least in the mid and later 60s, they had an offense that could really gain yards and put up points. Allie Sherman had his faults for sure, but he ran one hell of an offensive. Later in the 70s, they had Bill Arsparger's awesome defense and one of the best punters in the game in Jennings. So they always had a chance. And John McVay almost turned the ship around. If he'd had a few better players, he might have made it. His demise came as a result of a big holding penalty that turned an opening day game around. All of them had a part of the team that functioned well, but not a complete team. But there was still something there that was worth watching even if they didn't win much. But not now. This team has a HOF QB, one amazing WR, a few good defensive players, and precious little else. They can't get it done on offense, defense, or special teams. It's also questionable if they have any coach that's worth anything, although I will give Spags the benefit of the doubt a little longer. He has had some good defenses when he had quality personnel in the past. And the front office performance over the past decade is every bit as bad as it was back in the "fifteen years of lousy football" - and it hasn't changed a bit over that time.

Really, strongly disagree. The Giants in those years were the Cleveland Browns, only worse. It was a moral victory when they beat the point spread or played close against good teams. I remember one year, maybe 1976, we beat Washington 12-9 and it was like winning the SB. Management kept making terrible trades that set the franchise back almost immeasurably. With the exception of a couple of the Tarkenton/Webster years the Giants just stunk and were the laughingstock of the league. The team and organization has big problems to fix now but it is not nearly as bad as that darkest era of Giants football.

In comment 13642732 clatterbuck said:

Quote:

In comment 13642288 Red Dog said: Quote: At least in the mid and later 60s, they had an offense that could really gain yards and put up points. Allie Sherman had his faults for sure, but he ran one hell of an offensive. Later in the 70s, they had Bill Arsparger's awesome defense and one of the best punters in the game in Jennings. So they always had a chance. And John McVay almost turned the ship around. If he'd had a few better players, he might have made it. His demise came as a result of a big holding penalty that turned an opening day game around. All of them had a part of the team that functioned well, but not a complete team. But there was still something there that was worth watching even if they didn't win much. But not now. This team has a HOF QB, one amazing WR, a few good defensive players, and precious little else. They can't get it done on offense, defense, or special teams. It's also questionable if they have any coach that's worth anything, although I will give Spags the benefit of the doubt a little longer. He has had some good defenses when he had quality personnel in the past. And the front office performance over the past decade is every bit as bad as it was back in the "fifteen years of lousy football" - and it hasn't changed a bit over that time. Really, strongly disagree. The Giants in those years were the Cleveland Browns, only worse. It was a moral victory when they beat the point spread or played close against good teams. I remember one year, maybe 1976, we beat Washington 12-9 and it was like winning the SB. Management kept making terrible trades that set the franchise back almost immeasurably. With the exception of a couple of the Tarkenton/Webster years the Giants just stunk and were the laughingstock of the league. The team and organization has big problems to fix now but it is not nearly as bad as that darkest era of Giants football.

Yes it was 1976, the first season in the Meadowlands. We were 0-9 and won at home 12-9. Steinke picked off Kilmer in the endzone to seal it. We had season tickets and the stadium exploded, our first win of the season and at the Meadowlands. Boy did we stink.

TWO players (Valentino Blake and now DRC) have quit this team already this season. And that's not counting the guys who have already quit mentally but are still in uniform.

Just wait until the McAdoo Midgets establish a new team record for futility in a single season.