Did you guys want us to lay down and lose?

I'm disappointed we didn't make the switch to Sullivan earlier, because it was clear that Eli had a different comfort level there, but I'm happy with the win.

The Giants have only won at Mile High one other time in the series history, and that was 1989.

A win is a win. Teams have had 5 game losing streaks and made the playoffs. Great running game, great defense.

of if we wanted them to win or lose what sucks is that this was the type of win they had last year. Minimized mistakes, conservative O and a D that was opportunistic and forced punts.

If we had any semblance of that in the first 5 games, we wouldn't be so far behind the 8 ball.

I'm never going to root for them to lose. Even if I think they would be better off doing so.

the reality is that we are insanely thin at WR and there is no help coming there. I would have liked to see what Sullivan/Eli could do with a full compliment of the weapons they should have.

If the Giants are playing a football game, I want them to win. Always.

All this draft-pick nonsense... Look, good teams--teams that regularly make the playoffs--never have great draft picks. But they perpetually put together a BETTER team than a lot of weaker teams with higher picks.

Great game last night. Loved it!

He helped build 2 SB teams though but it seems he doesn’t get that credit. What I saw from last night is enough talent to win, but stubborn coaching which has us at 1-5. It isn’t outrageous at all to say this team could very well be 3-3.

look pretty damn good after overcoming extreme adversity. Was it perfect no, are we going to make the playoffs no. The team still has Mac's back and it will be interesting to watch the rest of the way out.

with most of his first rounders...

how can you watch the game as a fan and not get excited when we score and win?

This really is an indictment on the coaching staff though. The stubbornness in not shuffling the deck on the OL sooner. The unwillingness to give up the play calling until now. We will never know but you would think some of that was forced upon McAdoo.

If not for the injury to Perkins, he still may be getting most of the touches.

Is worth a lot more than a dozen draft slots.

If the team was really poor and there was a drastic plateau of talent in the draft after first few picks I'd understand tanking but that's not the case. This is not the NBA.

The tear it down crowd not looking particularly good after pst night.

Its more upsetting that we have had that performance in us and couldnt produce it in weeks 1-5.

In comment 13651336 exiled said:

Quote:

All this draft-pick nonsense... Look, good teams--teams that regularly make the playoffs--never have great draft picks. But they perpetually put together a BETTER team than a lot of weaker teams with higher picks.

I do see your point, however...

the weaker teams are always looking for a QB and the better teams usually have an established QB...the pats/packers/steelers/seahawks...so on make bad picks to but they have had elite qb's.

The better teams are perpetually better because of the QB's not always because they are getting steals later in the draft.

Once Eli is gone we will struggle until we find another franchise QB too regardless of where we pick.

Point is, hopefully we will not be a top 5 worse team very often so when you are dealt that hand might as well make the most of it. The win vs DEN just isn't sustainable.

In comment 13651356 hassan said:

Quote:

Is worth a lot more than a dozen draft slots. If the team was really poor and there was a drastic plateau of talent in the draft after first few picks I'd understand tanking but that's not the case. This is not the NBA. The tear it down crowd not looking particularly good after pst night.

Unfortunately, it still needs to be torn down. One win doesn't change a season and a half of offensive futility.

It doesn't change the fact that the offensive line is still a wreck after 6 years trying to fix it.

And while I'm glad he finally did it, McAdoo not handing over playcalling duties until the season was lost, with all of our starting WR's gone, and it actually looking successful, doesn't make him look that great, either.

the Giants win a game most expected them to lose. It's the worst feeling when they lose a game they should have won.

Since the Giants were 12 point underdogs against the #1 defense in the NFL and struggled on offense, defense and special teams... you have to be a little happy and a little surprised at the game.

plus a lousy Broncos kicker helped too. The Giants have been laying down for a couple of years in terms of playing pro football they way that they are capable of playing, and dominating a game from start to finish. I think most expected more of the same crap and are kinda pissed that its most likely too little too late. Why did it take 6 games to stop doing the same thing with the same bad results (insanity)? That's why people are not overly optimistic after what could be described as the upset of the year so far.

In comment 13651326 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

of if we wanted them to win or lose what sucks is that this was the type of win they had last year. Minimized mistakes, conservative O and a D that was opportunistic and forced punts. If we had any semblance of that in the first 5 games, we wouldn't be so far behind the 8 ball. I'm never going to root for them to lose. Even if I think they would be better off doing so.

+1000

Why not just enjoy the win and see if Sullivan can bring a professional coordinator approach? Maybe playing more ball control and this reshuffled line will help quite a bit.

Everyone around here needs to predict the future and make grand statements. Maybe we should just take it in one week at a time.

In comment 13651319 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

I'm disappointed we didn't make the switch to Sullivan earlier, because it was clear that Eli had a different comfort level there...

How exactly was it CLEAR that Eli had a different comfort level with Sully calling the plays?

I'm glad they made the switch to Sully and I hope it works out, but when McAdoo was calling the plays he had...

- Perkins as his #1 RB
- A different OL lineup
- Flowers not playing well
- A defense that did not force turnovers, score points or play well
- Special teams that was not playing well

To be fair, McAdoo also had all his WRs for 4 1/2 games (although OBJ missed 1+ game and was sub par for two or three others) and Sully did not.

But I don't know how anyone could say unequivocally that Sully did a better job than Mac, let alone that it was CLEAR that Eli had a different (better) comfort level with Sully.

It sure is easier for an OC to call a game when your team's D is playing well and scoring points, and your running game is working.

And the fact is...when a particular play, a series of plays or an entire game of play calling "works" it often has far more to do with execution than it does play selection.

with a top 3 draft pick in April -- the obvious answer is yes

but I'm a fan -- and watching the Giants lose every game is not copacetic in my DNA

Last night's win was what I expected to see out of this team coming into the season. This team has a lot of talent and there was no reason to believe the defense couldn't play like this - they've been playing like dog crap for 5 games...

But watching the Offense pound the ball - especially breaking it through for a first down in the final drive and sealing the deal, an Oline making some plays -- and the Defense making some stops -- that was fun to see. I had zero expectations the Giants could win last night and they pleasantly surprised me

Quote:

I'm glad they made the switch to Sully and I hope it works out, but when McAdoo was calling the plays he had... - Perkins as his #1 RB - A different OL lineup - Flowers not playing well - A defense that did not force turnovers, score points or play well - Special teams that was not playing well

Who chose to put that offensive lineup out there? Who chose to start Perkins week after week? Who's responsible for Flowers not playing well?

in the NFL this year. In fact, there are currently 11 teams with 0 to 2 wins. How is it a fact that we would end up with a top 3 pick? We could go 3-13 and get the 6th pick.

of yards.

They scored on their opening drive for the first time this year. They put up a lead and held it.

All of this without their 3 starting receivers.

How can it NOT be clear that the offense was running better with Sullivan calling the plays?

we have 8 losses, there's absolutely zero reason to give up on the season and "tank" so to speak.

In comment 13651418 gidiefor said:

Quote:

with a top 3 draft pick in April -- the obvious answer is yes but I'm a fan -- and watching the Giants lose every game is not copacetic in my DNA Last night's win was what I expected to see out of this team coming into the season. This team has a lot of talent and there was no reason to believe the defense couldn't play like this - they've been playing like dog crap for 5 games... But watching the Offense pound the ball - especially breaking it through for a first down in the final drive and sealing the deal, an Oline making some plays -- and the Defense making some stops -- that was fun to see. I had zero expectations the Giants could win last night and they pleasantly surprised me

100% agree. My immediate sentiment (other than the thrill of watching them play good football) was regret we didn't make some of the changes like on the Oline and the play-calling much earlier. At 1-5 it may be too little too late. I will still root my ass off every week for wins though.

In comment 13651330 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

the reality is that we are insanely thin at WR and there is no help coming there. I would have liked to see what Sullivan/Eli could do with a full compliment of the weapons they should have.

They'll get Shep back at some point.

I'm happy they played with an identity last night. They looked like an 80s Giants team.

In comment 13651326 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

I'm never going to root for them to lose. Even if I think they would be better off doing so.

My feelings too. Even in 2003, I was rooting for wins with Jesse Palmer playing QB.

This was a good win, but the Broncos were the perfect opponent in a way. They have inconsistent QB play, we have an excellent defense. As good as their defense is, they struggle v. the run, so the new OL configuration was a godsend; I hope it is the line up here on out.

That said, you're not going to win too many games with 2 catches and 5 targets to your WR's.

In comment 13651441 WillVAB said:

Quote:

In comment 13651330 Britt in VA said: Quote: the reality is that we are insanely thin at WR and there is no help coming there. I would have liked to see what Sullivan/Eli could do with a full compliment of the weapons they should have. They'll get Shep back at some point. I'm happy they played with an identity last night. They looked like an 80s Giants team.

That's a perfect way to put it.

They finally played with an identity on offense, last night.

In comment 13651430 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

of yards. They scored on their opening drive for the first time this year. They put up a lead and held it. All of this without their 3 starting receivers. How can it NOT be clear that the offense was running better with Sullivan calling the plays?

Well you didn't actually say that the offense was running better with Sully. You SAID that it was clear that Eli had a different comfort level with Sullivan and I was challenging how that could possibly be "clear" to you.

But if you prefer to discuss how could it not be clear that the O was running better with Sullivan calling the plays...I would simply say that it can't possibly be clear because you don't fact "execution" into the equation.

A play caller can call the perfect play but what happens when an O-lineman misses a block, a runner doesn't see the hole, a QB overthrows the WR or the WR drops a catchable pass? That's NOT the play callers fault.

It is entirely possible that the reason the offense looked better last night was because of execution and not because of play calling. Plus when you compare how the D played last night to their previous efforts, the O simply didn't have to do as much as in previous games.

I'm not saying Sully didn't call a better game. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as, "the plays worked better...so it HAS to be the OC."

"factor" in execution, not "fact"

In comment 13651479 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

In comment 13651430 Britt in VA said: Quote: of yards. They scored on their opening drive for the first time this year. They put up a lead and held it. All of this without their 3 starting receivers. How can it NOT be clear that the offense was running better with Sullivan calling the plays? Well you didn't actually say that the offense was running better with Sully. You SAID that it was clear that Eli had a different comfort level with Sullivan and I was challenging how that could possibly be "clear" to you. But if you prefer to discuss how could it not be clear that the O was running better with Sullivan calling the plays...I would simply say that it can't possibly be clear because you don't fact "execution" into the equation. A play caller can call the perfect play but what happens when an O-lineman misses a block, a runner doesn't see the hole, a QB overthrows the WR or the WR drops a catchable pass? That's NOT the play callers fault. It is entirely possible that the reason the offense looked better last night was because of execution and not because of play calling. Plus when you compare how the D played last night to their previous efforts, the O simply didn't have to do as much as in previous games. I'm not saying Sully didn't call a better game. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as, "the plays worked better...so it HAS to be the OC."

That's a lot of words to argue something that most on the board thought was pretty clear ie: Sullivan looking better than McAdoo at calling the plays.

Eli looked more comfortable to me. Especially to start the game.

In comment 13651479 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

In comment 13651430 Britt in VA said: Quote: of yards. They scored on their opening drive for the first time this year. They put up a lead and held it. All of this without their 3 starting receivers. How can it NOT be clear that the offense was running better with Sullivan calling the plays? Well you didn't actually say that the offense was running better with Sully. You SAID that it was clear that Eli had a different comfort level with Sullivan and I was challenging how that could possibly be "clear" to you. But if you prefer to discuss how could it not be clear that the O was running better with Sullivan calling the plays...I would simply say that it can't possibly be clear because you don't fact "execution" into the equation. A play caller can call the perfect play but what happens when an O-lineman misses a block, a runner doesn't see the hole, a QB overthrows the WR or the WR drops a catchable pass? That's NOT the play callers fault. It is entirely possible that the reason the offense looked better last night was because of execution and not because of play calling. Plus when you compare how the D played last night to their previous efforts, the O simply didn't have to do as much as in previous games. I'm not saying Sully didn't call a better game. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as, "the plays worked better...so it HAS to be the OC."

I saw a variety of run plays that we didn't see with McAdoo calling the plays. Different personnel groups, different blocking schemes, etc. Example would be the inside trap play when Darkwa broke off a nice run up the gut. When was the last time a guard pulled on an interior run with McAdoo calling the plays?

Sullivan featured the TE, and the week before Engram saw zero targets.

I'm not saying Sullivan is the second coming, but last night it looked like he had a better feel for the pulse of the offense than McAdoo.

Should have been done prior to the season

We are 3Xs removed from the team but could tell

our best run blocker was Fluker

Our best tackles is Pugh

Our best RB were Darkwa and Gallman

McAdoo should have given up play calling

I have no idea where defense has been...but they looked a ton better last night....not sure what was done....

All would be forgiven If they win 11 straight

In comment 13651498 George from PA said:

Quote:

Should have been done prior to the season We are 3Xs removed from the team but could tell our best run blocker was Fluker Our best tackles is Pugh Our best RB were Darkwa and Gallman McAdoo should have given up play calling I have no idea where defense has been...but they looked a ton better last night....not sure what was done.... All would be forgiven If they win 11 straight

This. All fucking day, this.

Including you and I, don't really have a clue when it comes to this type of thing, because as I pointed out, they don't factor play execution into the equation.

Not to mention also factoring in the QB changing the play at the line of scrimmage or the opposing D missing a tackle, blowing coverage, etc.

All most fans know is...
The play works = Great call by the OC
The play fails = Bad call by the OC

And the fact that you thought, expression-less, stone-faced Eli looked "more comfortable" to you (especially at the beginning of the game) I think has more to do with confirmation bias than anything else.

You thought all along that Sully should have been calling the plays so you consciously and subconsciously looked for "facts" to support that stance.

I don't want them to lose...but at the same time a top 10 draft pick would be nice. What does a 7-9 season accomplish?

So I am torn, it is nice to see a good game being played. But we sure could use to draft a new QB for the future. 5+ wins does not help that cause.

Even better when you win in a very tough environment Denver
on the road is no picnic .
The frustrating part is how long it's taken to get some kind
of a run game going and the offense is still very limited in
the ability to score it's the same script as last season
tonight we finally got a couple of picks and Jack Rabbits
pick six allowed us to run the ball a little more .
Two passes to the WR's isn't gonna cut it and we have to
remain healthy . I don't see the defense repeating what they
did last season nor do I see the scoring improve .
As long as they play hard and with pride thats all you can ask but were a bit handcuffed now . So it was an enjoyable win but It's not hard to wish for a chance at some premier
talent coming out in the draft in April .

My post was meant for Britt

In comment 13651528 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

Including you and I, don't really have a clue when it comes to this type of thing, because as I pointed out, they don't factor play execution into the equation. Not to mention also factoring in the QB changing the play at the line of scrimmage or the opposing D missing a tackle, blowing coverage, etc. All most fans know is... The play works = Great call by the OC The play fails = Bad call by the OC And the fact that you thought, expression-less, stone-faced Eli looked "more comfortable" to you (especially at the beginning of the game) I think has more to do with confirmation bias than anything else. You thought all along that Sully should have been calling the plays so you consciously and subconsciously looked for "facts" to support that stance.

Without our 3 starting WR's, we scored on our opening drive for the first time this season, and then again a drive later, both chain moving, time consuming drives with an identity. We utilized our TE in our gameplan after he got zero targets last week.

They rolled the pocket a few times to buy Eli time. That looked comfortable to me.

at home.

In comment 13651547 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

at home.

Who was also coming off a Bye

Everyone, including myself, thought Von Miller was going to kill Eli last night.

#1 defense, at home, without your starting 3 WR's.

They came out poised and took a 10-0 lead which they never relinquished.

That's the bottom line, and something they've failed to do all year.

In comment 13651547 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

at home.

It was a well coached game. We jumped out to a lead and the defense played confident. What I wonder is, does Sullivan have full say when it comes to kicking FG’s/going for it on 4th down? I say that because I loved the call to kick the 51 yard FG- that was such an important kick to set the tone for the second half and go up 20-3. I feel McAdoo would not have elected to kick that.

.

that was beautiful and I'm going to enjoy it all week.

and your only playmaker in the passing dept. is a rookie TE, then you better have some sort of running game....

The revamped line, was able to open holes....

Darkwa, got hit a few times, and got up slowly, and I thought, oh, oh, here we go again.....but he managed to stay in the game this time....to think we would have a 100 yard rusher this year, just did not compute...against Denver no less....

But the offense only scored 13 points, which was enough for this game.....it has to score more to win....

Can the defense play at the same level next week?

Will DRC play?

Wilson needs to be contained.....

And can the running game continue to produce?

A win against Seattle and who knows?

we'd be 3-3 minimum now.

the win is not as exhilarating because we should have won the Philly and Chargers games, the TB game was weird as they missed a bunch of makesvle fgs. So, I am always happy when they win, but am still down that the season is basically over in the middle of October.

Besides, drafting well has little to do with where you are in the draft. It's not about a single pick.

Offensive and defensive lines kicked ass, and it was nice to see Engram featured on offense. I'm not rooting for an Eli-quarterbacked Giants team to lose.

In comment 13651657 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Besides, drafting well has little to do with where you are in the draft. It's not about a single pick.

Normally I would agree with you 100%, but right now, we need to draft Eli's successor. Having a top draft pick would make that feasible. I will be disappointed if we win just enough games to fuck us out of a chance to draft a blue chip QB prospect.