I wanted to talk about this season in particular as I've read more times than I would have thought, that 2011 was some type of lucky season where we backed into a Super Bowl.
I think this is all a part of the anger towards Reese and the argument that he sucks and 2011 was smoke and mirrors.
Putting Reese aside. Stop discrediting that season.
As I highlighted on another thread, you'd be hard pressed to find a schedule as difficult as that one in recent years.
That team finished 13-7 against this schedule.
2-0 against the Pats and Brady with a win in Foxboro.
2-0 against Dallas with Romo twice with the division on the line.
1-1 against San Francisco both on the road against that defense, once in swamp like conditions.
1-1 against Green Bay and Rodgers with the loss including a terrible call that robbed us of a huge TD.
Other notable wins include AZ on the road, Atlanta, the Jets before Rex's program blew up.
They lost @ New Orleans in the dome.
They dropped a tough game against a Seattle team that was becoming the force they have been since.
A couple of blemishes against Philly and Washington at home, but otherwise a tremendous season.
The quarterback was playing on an MVP level
JPP was worthy of DPOY
They had a bunch of grizzled vets like Osi, Tuck, Rolle, Diehl, Grant, Jacobs and Bradshaw.
Whatever your feelings are about Reese, stop taking away from that season, it's a dumb argument.
Additionally, during the regular season, they gave up more points than they scored - the first team to ever win a championship doing that (I believe Arizona 2008 was the only other team to make a title game with that statistic). Dallas wins the division if Romo hits a wide open (Dez or was it Miles Austin?) in week 13.
Whatever - once they got in, they certainly played well.. but I'm not ashamed to say that particular season involved a lot of luck. That's life.
You could argue the 2010 and certainly 2008 teams were a lot better than that 2011 one. If the 2010 team, which missed the playoffs thanks to the Vick choke - had won... there would be no criticism. And the 2008 team was clearly the best team in football.
You say discounting the season is a terrible argument - I say not thinking there wasnt a lot of luck involved in that 2011 season and playoff run is naive.
Agree to disagree.
let's not gloss over the following:
rushing offense: 32nd
total defense: 25th
Eli Manning almost single-handedly kept that team in contention for 3 months and tossed 4th quarter TDs week after week just to get the team to 7-7.
no matter how you slice it, the team (thankfully) did in fact catch lightning in a bottle from xmas eve 2011 through the first week of february 2012.
What about the no-call on the Ballard TD against Green Bay and we actually win that game? If we are 10-6 are you still saying 10-6 is not a playoff worthy record?
There were a lot of great performances that came on late for that made that run possible, but that was a true miracle run. It's okay to accept that. They aren't going to come through and take the trophy back.
Teams that win it all now can be good but not great.
What about the no-call on the Ballard TD against Green Bay and we actually win that game? If we are 10-6 are you still saying 10-6 is not a playoff worthy record?
or the win in Arizona where the refs easily could have called a fumble on Cruz? We can play this game all day. The team finished 9-7 and gave up more points than it scored. 32nd in rushing. 25th or whatever in defense.
Like I said, it wasnt a great team but it got hot at the right time and recovered 11 offensive fumbles along the way. Got a borderline forward progress call in SF. Benefiting from two special teams fuckups in SF. The 2008 and 2010 teams were better.
Keep in mind, with more or less equal teams. A late game comeback. The other team might be gassed.
In addition, the league has changed since then. Phill Simms was pointing out how every team seemingly now has huge, quick, legit pass rushers.
So . the implications for ol are obvious. Also seems like DL play has become more multiple with regards to gap assignments from the front 4 or 5, that is, in a down to down basis. Same again, ol implications.
Possibly why shanny zone blocking works now. Less dependant on blocking a particular player. (Which old wsy,becomes like asking a DL not to change up his assignments please good sir..hehe embarrassing)
Special teams are pretty important in determining who wins and who loses any football game.
Not sure why you're so defensive - we got lucky. As stated above, they're not taking the trophy away. Its still Giants 4, Eagles 0 on that score. So what.
Possibly ol zone blocking schemes have a better chance of functioning vs those teams and situations for obvious reasons such as preventing confusion as to who blocks whom.
Special teams are pretty important in determining who wins and who loses any football game.
how many times did we get the ball in the 4th quarter in OT in that game, only needing a FG to take the lead or win outright...and the offense fizzled? It had to be at least 5 or 6 times. Maybe more. It took the ball grazing a guy's leg for us to get into scoring position. A few inches the other way and maybe it's our team that commits the killer turnover.
Great analysis here.
Teams that win it all now can be good but not great.
No lapses in the playoffs. They crushed the Falcons and took off from there.
Additionally, during the regular season, they gave up more points than they scored - the first team to ever win a championship doing that (I believe Arizona 2008 was the only other team to make a title game with that statistic). Dallas wins the division if Romo hits a wide open (Dez or was it Miles Austin?) in week 13.
Whatever - once they got in, they certainly played well.. but I'm not ashamed to say that particular season involved a lot of luck. That's life.
You could argue the 2010 and certainly 2008 teams were a lot better than that 2011 one. If the 2010 team, which missed the playoffs thanks to the Vick choke - had won... there would be no criticism. And the 2008 team was clearly the best team in football.
You say discounting the season is a terrible argument - I say not thinking there wasnt a lot of luck involved in that 2011 season and playoff run is naive.
Agree to disagree.
It was Austin. He was WIDE open.
They also got lucky when San Fran beat the Saints. Ultimately it will be Reese's undoing thinking that that team's success was sustainable.
Let’s not forget, Cruz just leaving the ball on the ground against Arizona. We got lucky that the refs followed the rule book because I certainly wouldn’t have argued that hard if that play had been called a fumble. We got breaks and so did the other teams and it shook out to a 9-7 regular season which was enough to win the East. And I’m happy it was, as we all should be happy.
That isn’t a fluke. They played good football but the end was near.
For me, it just really highlights how much we suck this year if I need to look back that far to feel good about the Giants. Damn it.
I will point to the playoff wins vs. Atlanta and Green Bay as examples of the Giants playing much better than the opponent and GB was the team with the best record in the NFC and we beat them in their house.
The NFL is not about dominance anymore. It is about luck, execution, injuries, big plays, match ups. Not to many dominant consistent teams in the NFL. You get new play off teams every year. The Giants had a window from 2007 to 2012 where they had a deep rotation of DE's, an O Line of guys who were lunch pail guys that played well together and had good depth at RB and top targets at WR/TE. The NFL is not an exact science.
That team was not a great regular season team. 9-7, negative point differential. 9-7 doesn't make the playoffs most seasons.
The fact Eli and the WR's carried that team is part of why I've never fully bought into Reese - it was a very top heavy team, not a deep well-constructed powerhouse. 2011 Eli with the 2008 team might be 14-2.
If that Cruz play against Arizona is ruled a fumble, we don't make the playoffs. If Ballard's catch was a TD, the team is a more respectable 10-6. The margins are thin in the NFL. They shouldn't have been that thin with Eli playing as well as he did that season.
And to think, on BBI after the season we had folks arguing that the Giants would have went down to New Orleans and beat them too.
Go back to that Saturday before the Green Bay game. I was driving up there listening to the game in the car. When the 49ers came back and got the winning TD and held on, my friends and I were like "Holy ****, our Super Bowl chances just went up big time."
The feeling was that after how they played the 49ers a few weeks back in November on even terms and just missed winning out there (controversial call on 4th down gave us the L), there was no doubt the Giants could win if they played them again. NO ONE had that feeling if the Saints had won that day.
Giants got the right matchup, won that Green Bay game and then beat SF to face the Patriots. Gronk got hurt in the AFC Championship that helped us as well, but the squad took advantage.
That 'Reese's failure.....' sentence can be extend out further to specifically failing to recognize need to rebuild OL until 2013, and LB STILL.
Brady 2
Rodgers 2
Romo 2
San Francisco defense 2
Brees 1
Ryan 1
NOT BAD!
God, I'm so sick of people pointing out drops, errors or miscues as a reason to take any credibility from a Super Bowl run. "Ohhh if Patrick Crayton didn't drop that wide open pass from Romo in Dallas in 2007, the game would've been a different outcome", yeah but if Corey Webster didn't drop that INT before the TO touchdown, blah blah.
Playing New England, Philly, New Orleans in New Orleans was no easy task. The Jets were a good team as well, we always had to hear about those two AFC championship appearances, no?
I think the main thing that helped the 2011 team was there were still a bunch of guys from the 2007 team who had the experience of a championship run. One of my favorite things from the 2011 run what is the Packer game in the playoffs. Three awful calls. Eh, the Giants still scored 37 points. No big deal.
I mean I love talking about 2011 and that run, but that's awful that in the middle of the season, at 1-6, this is the only thread I found even semi interesting on here. I cannot wait until the season is over.
But their road to the title once they were in was pretty tough. There were no one year wonders or fluke contenders among the teams they beat in the playoffs. They dominated a 15-1 GB team in Lambeau. 37-20 and the two TDs GB got were off indefensible referee decisions.
So while I agree that it was far from a great team and 2010 was surely a better group, they earned it against some great teams once they got in. Luck played a factor, no problem in admitting that. They can't take the trophy back
Giants-Packers - ( New Window )
Also, winning in Philly during the height of the dream team talk with Cruz’s coming out party.
The win in Foxboro.
Loved the 2011 Giants.
I'm not here to tell you this was a better team than the 86 Giants.
The 11 team did however, run through a gauntlet of a schedule and still came out on top. A 9-7 record that year is nothing to sneeze at.