Contact Info
Administration
Coaching Staff
Coaching History
Annual Records
Hall Of Fame
Retired Jerseys
Ring Of Honor
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| The execs, whose backgrounds range from personnel evaluation to contracts/salary cap and analytics/strategy, ranked every team in each conference on condition of anonymity for competitive reasons. They also offered explanations, some of which are included below. Teams are ordered by the median of their rankings, with ties between teams broken by average vote. All five voters’ ballots, along with the median and average for each team, are in the table below. |
| Quote: |
| Votes: 16-11-14-15-16 | Avg.: 14.4 | Median: 15 Any path for the Giants to surprise probably includes a breakout season from rookie receiver Malik Nabers. “If Nabers or (Marvin) Harrison were Rookie of the Year, that means they had a bigger year than the quarterbacks — a historic year that would uplift their teams,” one exec said. The Giants appear optimistic, having unretired Hall of Famer Ray Flaherty’s No. 1 jersey so the rookie can wear that number. “Their best chance with Daniel Jones is to do what they did a couple years ago: Go heavy play-action, simple boots with simple reads, and scheme those guys to be open,” an exec who considers Jones to be a low Tier 3 quarterback said. “There is definitely a ceiling there. Unless they know something we all don’t, they are kind of existing.” |
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah, that's a great low-key insult
One big conspiracy
Traditionally the Giants have done well when there are no expectations.
In my opinion the key will be the OL. Lazy analysis thinks it's the turnstile that it was the last 2 years. It's not it's actually a professional O-line that can even survive an injury if necessary.
Quote:
Everyone hates the Giants.
One big conspiracy
Or is there some way they are bad enough to be #1 but Young is still viewed as the future franchise QB (outside of a Young injury).
It's a reasonable enough assessment. One certainty is the Giants do in fact know much much more than any of these guys (or us) know. Soon we see who's smarter.
That said, 11-15 sounds right to me.
Or is there some way they are bad enough to be #1 but Young is still viewed as the future franchise QB (outside of a Young injury).
An NFL QB really needs 6 seasons to get a full evaluation…. Sorry I had to do.
I think they would trade out with the Giants being a likely partner.
QB play is subpar, Nabers is really the only threat on offense. Huge question marks at TE, RT and OG. Average RB play.
On defense, the front 7 is great but if either Kayvon or Burns misses any time, that pass rush is going to be neutralized and the secondary will be exposed, big time. Huge question marks at safety and CB.
I think you'd need a lot of this young talent to really step forward for us to be any better than bottom 5.
What's clickbait about projecting a frequently crappy team in recent years to once again be a crappy team.
Calling things clickbait seems to just be the adult equivalent of putting our fingers in our ears. It doesn't actually mean anything most of the time, other than a declaration that we don't like what it says so we assume the source is just trying to be inflammatory for clicks.
We were 10x worse last year and still finished ahead of 5 other teams. I just don’t see us worse than last year unless injuries wreck us.
That’s 15th in the NFC though right? Not the league. So they probably see us winning 3-5 games.
Can anyone find a clickbait article saying the Giants are going to be a 11-13 win division winner and Super Bowl contender?
QB play is subpar, Nabers is really the only threat on offense. Huge question marks at TE, RT and OG. Average RB play.
On defense, the front 7 is great but if either Kayvon or Burns misses any time, that pass rush is going to be neutralized and the secondary will be exposed, big time. Huge question marks at safety and CB.
I think you'd need a lot of this young talent to really step forward for us to be any better than bottom 5.
Agreed, lots of changes at RB and the offensive line. Those changes will hopefully be good, but we have seen what happens many times in the past when you make a ton of changes. It takes time for the team to gel, and find an identity on offense. The last few years everything more or less ran through Barkley.
QB play is subpar, Nabers is really the only threat on offense. Huge question marks at TE, RT and OG. Average RB play.
On defense, the front 7 is great but if either Kayvon or Burns misses any time, that pass rush is going to be neutralized and the secondary will be exposed, big time. Huge question marks at safety and CB.
I think you'd need a lot of this young talent to really step forward for us to be any better than bottom 5.
Lets be honest, every position group on offense is a question mark. Maybe they all take a jump and surprise the league, but this offense has the potential to be very bad.
We have a bottom 5 QB and 1 legit playmaker. Unfortunately, it is what it is.
Can anyone find a clickbait article saying the Giants are going to be a 11-13 win division winner and Super Bowl contender?
Spot on. A simple view of the roster tells the whole story. Tons of youth, new faces, poor QB group. It’s quite possible the team could play .500 ball this year, but it’s probably more likely we are looking at a 3-7 win season. While I hate to see the Giants lose, there’s a difference between a young team that is developing and that needs a QB winning a handful of games, vs. an established team with a solid QB that only wins 5 games. I think we have to keep that in mind as the season unfolds.
Votes: 9-11-8-7-5-6 | Avg: 7.67 | Median: 7.5
The Giants are rising, although no one pushed them into the top quartile of the conference.
“I’m high on them,” the exec who voted the Giants sixth said. “(Brian) Daboll got them to believe last year. They add (Darren) Waller and some other good pieces without breaking the bank, and now they have speed outside. I think they are really going to open it up this year, and I expect them to ascend almost like the Jacksonville of the NFC: well-coached, with a quarterback they like. They really seem to have turned the corner.”
Voters stacked the Giants and Vikings together in the middle of the conference, which might be fitting. Both teams outperformed expectations last season. Only Minnesota finished 2022 with more victories (11) than the Giants had (eight) in one-score games.
“The Giants are just like the Vikings in that both had incredible luck last year, except the Vikings were willing to tear it down,” one exec said of the teams’ disparate approaches to the offseason. “It will be super interesting to track those two programs and see what their trajectories are like.”
Past the top 4 (that everyone everywhere was picking as the top 4) they didn't do all that great with their rankings. One of them even picked the Panthers at 4. Maybe that was the exec they dropped to go from 6 execs last year to 5 this year lol.
There are going to be growing pains and flashes witht his team and hopefully by the end of the year we can say ok there is talent
2023 NFL execs rank NFC teams - ( New Window )
Quote:
7. New York Giants
Votes: 9-11-8-7-5-6 | Avg: 7.67 | Median: 7.5
The Giants are rising, although no one pushed them into the top quartile of the conference.
“I’m high on them,” the exec who voted the Giants sixth said. “(Brian) Daboll got them to believe last year. They add (Darren) Waller and some other good pieces without breaking the bank, and now they have speed outside. I think they are really going to open it up this year, and I expect them to ascend almost like the Jacksonville of the NFC: well-coached, with a quarterback they like. They really seem to have turned the corner.”
Voters stacked the Giants and Vikings together in the middle of the conference, which might be fitting. Both teams outperformed expectations last season. Only Minnesota finished 2022 with more victories (11) than the Giants had (eight) in one-score games.
“The Giants are just like the Vikings in that both had incredible luck last year, except the Vikings were willing to tear it down,” one exec said of the teams’ disparate approaches to the offseason. “It will be super interesting to track those two programs and see what their trajectories are like.”
Past the top 4 (that everyone everywhere was picking as the top 4) they didn't do all that great with their rankings. One of them even picked the Panthers at 4. Maybe that was the exec they dropped to go from 6 execs last year to 5 this year lol.
So we go from middle of the pack in the conference to next to last. Awesome
The only teams in that list I feel we could be better than this year would be the Pats, Vikings, and maybe the Panthers depending on how much Young improves in year 2.
They have the Giants as being 15th in a 16 team conference, not the 32 team league. Your .500 take is way more optimistic than this survey.
If you posted that this article was clickbait, it just highlights that you refuse to consider any informed opinions that vary from your own.
I'm just glad the games start soon, so we can move on from some of the clickbait listicle offseason nonsense.
If you posted that this article was clickbait, it just highlights that you refuse to consider any informed opinions that vary from your own.
Mike, it's clickbait because rankings are meaningless no matter whose opinions they reflect. Somewhere around 14 or 15 is probably right based on what we know entering the season, but so what? If the Giants beat Minnesota with a last-second 55-yard field goal after a fluke turnover, will that show they should have been 13 instead of 15?
The Giants are not, on paper, a good team. Anyone can see that, from John Lynch to the dumbest Youtuber. Where they rank in the bottom quartile of the NFC is meaningless, no matter who does the ranking.
Well since it is a pre-season poll, probably not since the Giants won't play a regular season game in the pre-season.
If it is a power ranking, those are done every week so yes, you would assume they probably move up if they beat the vikings. But that wasn't what this article was.
Quote:
should be projected to be the 15th team in a 16 team conference, but The Athletic is not clickbait. It is a legit publication doing a survey of insiders who work in this industry and know something about it.
If you posted that this article was clickbait, it just highlights that you refuse to consider any informed opinions that vary from your own.
Mike, it's clickbait because rankings are meaningless no matter whose opinions they reflect. Somewhere around 14 or 15 is probably right based on what we know entering the season, but so what? If the Giants beat Minnesota with a last-second 55-yard field goal after a fluke turnover, will that show they should have been 13 instead of 15?
The Giants are not, on paper, a good team. Anyone can see that, from John Lynch to the dumbest Youtuber. Where they rank in the bottom quartile of the NFC is meaningless, no matter who does the ranking.
No, that doesn't make it clickbait at all. It makes it an article that you personally don't find informative. Asking experts their expectations about upcoming events is the opposite of clickbait.
Would you call an article in the WSJ asking economists about what they expect the Fed to do related to interest rates in their next meeting to be clickbait because their opinions don't influence the Fed? If your answer is yes, then it sounds like you use the terms "opinion" and "clickbait" interchangeably.
You don't like hearing assumptions on a fan opinion forum? Did you log in today expecting only to see game recaps and statistics?
You provided an opinion in a public forum. Maybe you should have followed it with something like "please do not challenge my opinion everyone?"
Having said that, I will avoid interacting with you in the future since you don't like hearing contrary points of view.
7. New York Giants
Votes: 9-11-8-7-5-6 | Avg: 7.67 | Median: 7.5
So we go from middle of the pack in the conference to next to last. Awesome
The good news is that the same 15th spot last year (Rams) went to the playoffs and are now in the 4th spot in the next year of these rankings. The 14th (Packers) also went to the playoffs and are now in the 2nd spot.
So I guess I'm saying... there's a chance! (maybe?)
What did he say (I can guess)?
‘Well….we’re waiting!’-Judge Smails.
What did he say (I can guess)?
I missed a word in my post. He shared a *similar* observation.
The WSJ might ask economists "Will the FOMC cut the discount rate in September, and if so by how much?" They might even ask for a percentage likelihood of a rate cut. But they won't require that likelihood to be expressed to four decimal places. That's the level of hair-splitting when you start distinguishing - before a single down is played - between the 14th and 15th best teams in a conference.
I agree that the broad strokes of the survey are interesting: League insiders think the Giants stink. What seems useless to me is whether those insiders consider the Giants slightly stinkier, or slightly less stinky, than the Panthers and Commanders. That aspect, to me, is clickbait to spur pointless argument over 14 vs. 15 vs. 16. If we all agree that those teams stink on paper, what difference does it make how you order them? (And once the games start, who even cares how they look on paper?)
The WSJ might ask economists "Will the FOMC cut the discount rate in September, and if so by how much?" They might even ask for a percentage likelihood of a rate cut. But they won't require that likelihood to be expressed to four decimal places. That's the level of hair-splitting when you start distinguishing - before a single down is played - between the 14th and 15th best teams in a conference.
I agree that the broad strokes of the survey are interesting: League insiders think the Giants stink. What seems useless to me is whether those insiders consider the Giants slightly stinkier, or slightly less stinky, than the Panthers and Commanders. That aspect, to me, is clickbait to spur pointless argument over 14 vs. 15 vs. 16. If we all agree that those teams stink on paper, what difference does it make how you order them? (And once the games start, who even cares how they look on paper?)
I don't see the distinction you are making at all. The asked these insiders to ranks all the teams and then provided the mean for each team. These are opinions (as are clearly discussed in the article). What more precision would you like to see to move this out of "clickbait" territory?
If this were 3 Athletic writers giving their opinion I could see your point. I just don't see how this type of article from a very reputable publication could be rightly called "clickbait." To each their own.
I value posters who make opinions that are supported by solid facts and analysis. I didn't see this from you.
Is there anything deceiving, sensationalizing, or misleading about how the article is teased or framed?
I value posters who make opinions that are supported by solid facts and analysis. I didn't see this from you.
No worries. You don't respect me, and I don't respect you. Have a great day.
Quote:
That's a sobering observation re: Jones. A connected BBIer shared an observation from a Giants coach with me recently.
What did he say (I can guess)?
They’d need to be “creative” to score points
Quote:
May as well not watch games now. Maybe I can start going to church or read a good book on Sundays. According to "executives" we are going to be picking 2nd or 4th. Scintillating work Athletic. You have now joined every other publication in being a click bait shit heap.
What's clickbait about projecting a frequently crappy team in recent years to once again be a crappy team.
Calling things clickbait seems to just be the adult equivalent of putting our fingers in our ears. It doesn't actually mean anything most of the time, other than a declaration that we don't like what it says so we assume the source is just trying to be inflammatory for clicks.
It might seem like kicking a dead horse, but it isn't. It's just that the Giants have been bad for a long time now.
The news will be positive when the Giants give the media something about which to be positive.
Quote:
In comment 16595641 Joey in VA said:
Quote:
May as well not watch games now. Maybe I can start going to church or read a good book on Sundays. According to "executives" we are going to be picking 2nd or 4th. Scintillating work Athletic. You have now joined every other publication in being a click bait shit heap.
What's clickbait about projecting a frequently crappy team in recent years to once again be a crappy team.
Calling things clickbait seems to just be the adult equivalent of putting our fingers in our ears. It doesn't actually mean anything most of the time, other than a declaration that we don't like what it says so we assume the source is just trying to be inflammatory for clicks.
I'll tell you why. It's meant to inflame a fanbase that is already riled up. Look how many responses its had, it's doing the job intended, making people get all mad at the Giants and Mara and everyone involved. It's not data driven, it's not analysis, it's "Executives" who aren't named spewing hatred towards a team they think is bad. It merely fans the flames and this board and fanbase are all on fire until this ship gets turned around. I'm not expecting more than 7 wins, no one should with this bunch, so ad nauseum piling on from the Athletic, yes it's click bait. Duggan USED to be objective and thorough and just reported his observations, now he's joined the rest of those muppets in stoking the fires. Good for him, it works, it's how the world works now. Piss off angry people with rhetoric and watch the mob tear itself apart. I don't disagree with this assessment either, but make a point with an article, don't just kick a dead horse.
Or maybe the Giants have been bad for awhile. They can’t just write positive stuff with the results on the field not being there.
You don’t think the Browns got similar coverage for decade? Did you have a problem with that?
Quote:
In comment 16595641 Joey in VA said:
Quote:
May as well not watch games now. Maybe I can start going to church or read a good book on Sundays. According to "executives" we are going to be picking 2nd or 4th. Scintillating work Athletic. You have now joined every other publication in being a click bait shit heap.
What's clickbait about projecting a frequently crappy team in recent years to once again be a crappy team.
Calling things clickbait seems to just be the adult equivalent of putting our fingers in our ears. It doesn't actually mean anything most of the time, other than a declaration that we don't like what it says so we assume the source is just trying to be inflammatory for clicks.
I'll tell you why. It's meant to inflame a fanbase that is already riled up. Look how many responses its had, it's doing the job intended, making people get all mad at the Giants and Mara and everyone involved. It's not data driven, it's not analysis, it's "Executives" who aren't named spewing hatred towards a team they think is bad. It merely fans the flames and this board and fanbase are all on fire until this ship gets turned around. I'm not expecting more than 7 wins, no one should with this bunch, so ad nauseum piling on from the Athletic, yes it's click bait. Duggan USED to be objective and thorough and just reported his observations, now he's joined the rest of those muppets in stoking the fires. Good for him, it works, it's how the world works now. Piss off angry people with rhetoric and watch the mob tear itself apart. I don't disagree with this assessment either, but make a point with an article, don't just kick a dead horse.
Was it clickbait and beating a dead horse when these kind of columns had the jets at the bottom for a decade? Or how about when they ranked the Browns at the bottom? Is it fanning the flames of an angry fan base when they rank the Panthers and Patriots last in their conferences?
So many get so upset by the media saying a team that has sucked for 10 years will probably suck again. We have had people get mad at this shit every year for 10 years, watch the media be right (because the Giants won the 6 games a year they have averaged the last 10 years), and then get mad again next year.
Do you just hate rankings? Because ranking teams and players has been a part of sports forever. Or do you just not like where the Giants rank? Should these executives and the media say the Giants will be good just to make the fan base feel good? That doesn't sound very objective, now does it?
Also, are the sports books also "Clickbait"? Because Draft kings has the Giants at the 4th worst over/under for the season? Is that beating a dead horse and riding up a fan base? Or is it just the betting community as a whole thinking the Giants aren't very good and betting accordingly?
The Giants offseason is just a few days from starting!
But don't give me any bullshit predictions based on mathematical models or half-assed statistical constructs.
Or is there some way they are bad enough to be #1 but Young is still viewed as the future franchise QB (outside of a Young injury).
I think they almost assuredly will finish with the top pick. And they'd have to go QB.
Quote:
In comment 16595641 Joey in VA said:
Quote:
May as well not watch games now. Maybe I can start going to church or read a good book on Sundays. According to "executives" we are going to be picking 2nd or 4th. Scintillating work Athletic. You have now joined every other publication in being a click bait shit heap.
What's clickbait about projecting a frequently crappy team in recent years to once again be a crappy team.
Calling things clickbait seems to just be the adult equivalent of putting our fingers in our ears. It doesn't actually mean anything most of the time, other than a declaration that we don't like what it says so we assume the source is just trying to be inflammatory for clicks.
I'll tell you why. It's meant to inflame a fanbase that is already riled up. Look how many responses its had, it's doing the job intended, making people get all mad at the Giants and Mara and everyone involved. It's not data driven, it's not analysis, it's "Executives" who aren't named spewing hatred towards a team they think is bad. It merely fans the flames and this board and fanbase are all on fire until this ship gets turned around. I'm not expecting more than 7 wins, no one should with this bunch, so ad nauseum piling on from the Athletic, yes it's click bait. Duggan USED to be objective and thorough and just reported his observations, now he's joined the rest of those muppets in stoking the fires. Good for him, it works, it's how the world works now. Piss off angry people with rhetoric and watch the mob tear itself apart. I don't disagree with this assessment either, but make a point with an article, don't just kick a dead horse.
A yearly piece, that talks about all 32 teams, is designed to rile up angry Giants fans?
Maybe-& I'm spit balling here-they just don't think this team is that good? I know that's a hard concept for some to grasp.
Not saying were top 5 but let's prove the muppets wrong on the field boys :)
BS polls and all this shit are for the media advertisers, click bait as many have pointed out.
The reaction of some? This was a biased hit piece written just for the purpose of upsetting Giants fans for some unknown reason.
Unbelieveable.
Then next year we could've taken Burden or Egbuka and keep picks. But hey maybe this year's approach is so bad we'll pick top 5! Or maybe just give Dak $60mm year
I really hope I eat these words but I really feel they deserve all the criticism they're getting
We shall see.
"Here's Why the Giants Will Surprise and Make a Deep Playoff Run This Year"
...because it would be designed to elicit a shocked-yet-interested response from the target audience.
There's nothing clickbait-y or controversial about NFL executives predicting which of their competitors are going to have good seasons and them collectively pointing at one of the worst teams in the past 12 years and expecting more of the same.
I'm not sure what it takes to convince some folks that we actually stink?
We shall see.
The Giants don’t have a bad roster; they have a below average QB. I don’t expect. DJ to play to the level of 2022 when he was at least average or a little above average. He is who he is. Still a few too many holes on this team, I’ll be happy if we can scratch out 9 wins and keep the season interesting.
We shall see.
I don’t think they were very good that year either. And that same playbook won’t work without Saquon.
Quote:
winds up with the #1 pick, do they go QB again?
Or is there some way they are bad enough to be #1 but Young is still viewed as the future franchise QB (outside of a Young injury).
I think they almost assuredly will finish with the top pick. And they'd have to go QB.
And that would put Bryce Young on the block and the Giants would be an obvious suitor.
Quote:
team is way better than the 2022 team that won a playoff game.
We shall see.
I don’t think they were very good that year either. And that same playbook won’t work without Saquon.
It stopped working the 2nd half of the 22 regular season
The reaction of some? This was a biased hit piece written just for the purpose of upsetting Giants fans for some unknown reason.
Unbelieveable.
Agree with your overall point but Thomas is our best offensive player and it’s not close. I hope this fact will start to be debated with Nabers on the squad. But Saquon, nah.
Yeah, agree. Jones on the field is not going to be some epic catastrophe. He is an NFL player with a ton of game and practice experience. He is perfectly capable of functioning as a conservative, capable backup QB who will have a occasional good game. And he probably believes, with some justification, that if he performs at that level then he will continue to be the starting QB and continue to make massive amounts of money.
People should not be expecting an incompetent disaster. The expectation should be the same low-risk, easy passes, choose to run if the easy read is covered - low ceiling offense.
Quote:
And I don’t think they’ll be very good this season but I also can’t help but to think the expectations from a lot of people cratered even more after that disastrous preseason game Jones had. Expectations were never great but there was a bit of curiosity before that game and they’ve been getting much harsher criticism since that game. At least it seems that way to me. And if so, it’s pretty lame
Yeah, agree. Jones on the field is not going to be some epic catastrophe. He is an NFL player with a ton of game and practice experience. He is perfectly capable of functioning as a conservative, capable backup QB who will have a occasional good game. And he probably believes, with some justification, that if he performs at that level then he will continue to be the starting QB and continue to make massive amounts of money.
People should not be expecting an incompetent disaster. The expectation should be the same low-risk, easy passes, choose to run if the easy read is covered - low ceiling offense.
I agree with this. The Giants have improved their roster across the board with the exception of QB. That's admittedly a HUGE exception, but even with a similarly weak QB room last year, they weren't the worst team in the league. I personally won't go there because I don't think the difference between Jones, Lock, and DeVito is as drastic as it should be, but an argument can be made that getting Jones back might be an improvement over DeVito and Taylor last year.
This team is a lot more tslented than the team that went to the playoffs 2 years ago but as of right now nobody is going to believe in this team
Quote:
And I don’t think they’ll be very good this season but I also can’t help but to think the expectations from a lot of people cratered even more after that disastrous preseason game Jones had. Expectations were never great but there was a bit of curiosity before that game and they’ve been getting much harsher criticism since that game. At least it seems that way to me. And if so, it’s pretty lame
Yeah, agree. Jones on the field is not going to be some epic catastrophe. He is an NFL player with a ton of game and practice experience. He is perfectly capable of functioning as a conservative, capable backup QB who will have a occasional good game. And he probably believes, with some justification, that if he performs at that level then he will continue to be the starting QB and continue to make massive amounts of money.
People should not be expecting an incompetent disaster. The expectation should be the same low-risk, easy passes, choose to run if the easy read is covered - low ceiling offense.
Highly doubtful with Daboll calling the plays that the offense wont be agressive..
All you have to do is read the practice reporta to know this team is gojng to push the ball down the field
Giants are young but they have talent
for example the receiving room is very talented they are just extremely young and unproven..
The oline should be much better with better coaching and proven players..
Singletary is not a gamewrecker but he is one of the more consistent RBs in the NFL
Theo Johnson looks the part and has all the talent
Dline is elite
Okereke is an elite player..
Even the secondary that everyone hates has a lot of young talent, Banks, Phillips, Nubin, Belton and Pinnockk
Quote:
In comment 16595641 Joey in VA said:
Quote:
May as well not watch games now. Maybe I can start going to church or read a good book on Sundays. According to "executives" we are going to be picking 2nd or 4th. Scintillating work Athletic. You have now joined every other publication in being a click bait shit heap.
What's clickbait about projecting a frequently crappy team in recent years to once again be a crappy team.
Calling things clickbait seems to just be the adult equivalent of putting our fingers in our ears. It doesn't actually mean anything most of the time, other than a declaration that we don't like what it says so we assume the source is just trying to be inflammatory for clicks.
I'll tell you why. It's meant to inflame a fanbase that is already riled up. Look how many responses its had, it's doing the job intended, making people get all mad at the Giants and Mara and everyone involved. It's not data driven, it's not analysis, it's "Executives" who aren't named spewing hatred towards a team they think is bad. It merely fans the flames and this board and fanbase are all on fire until this ship gets turned around. I'm not expecting more than 7 wins, no one should with this bunch, so ad nauseum piling on from the Athletic, yes it's click bait. Duggan USED to be objective and thorough and just reported his observations, now he's joined the rest of those muppets in stoking the fires. Good for him, it works, it's how the world works now. Piss off angry people with rhetoric and watch the mob tear itself apart. I don't disagree with this assessment either, but make a point with an article, don't just kick a dead horse.
Duggan didn't write this piece.
It's an article about the entire NFC. It happens to have unfavorable remarks about the Giants, but what would you expect from execs at other teams who have watched the Giants be largely mediocre for the past decade and return the same QB who has presided over the most recent half of that decade? Do you think it would be realistic (let alone appropriate or accurate) to shower the Giants with optimistic praise just because you used to like Dan Duggan's work (again, Duggan didn't write this piece)?
I think it might just be easier to walk back your original stance as having been fundamentally incorrect (this piece doesn't pass the sniff test as what most would commonly call "clickbait"), but do as you please.
I called the piece clickbait because it follows a proven formula for generating clicks: take subjective opinions (no matter how reputable the sources) and structure them as a list to create the illusion of precision so there's more room for disagreement. That's how listicles work. For example, we might all agree that Ursula Andress, Jane Seymour, Halle Berry, and Daniela Bianchi are among the ten hottest Bond girls. But which should be #3, #5, #6, and #8? Is "Satisfaction" the greatest Rolling Stones song, or does it rank third, behind "Gimme Shelter" and Sympathy for the Devil"?, or some other combination? We can agree (or disagree) that they are all great songs, but publish a list ranking them and watch an entire Subreddit bloom, debating the order and the reasons. ("Halle looked even better in the bikini than Ursula!" "Gimme Shelter has the greatest supporting vocal ever recorded!")
TL/DR: It's worth knowing that NFL executives think the Giants are among the worst teams in the League. That's not clickbait. A precise ranking is clickbait, because it's the same content packaged according to a well-worn clickbait formula. The useful content is still there. The false-precision packaging is the bait.
they predicted the packers 11th, rams 15th, and bucs 14th. so 3 of their bottom 6 made the playoffs.
1 exec predicted the panthers 4th best so they werent even among the bottom 6.
credit where it's due they got the 4 best right, but below that it was throwing darts.
Quote:
team is way better than the 2022 team that won a playoff game.
We shall see.
I don’t think they were very good that year either. And that same playbook won’t work without Saquon.
I agree, I think that offense was ideal for Jones, whose best quality is as a runner. The receivers and OL are (probably) way better this year, but he won't have Saquon giving the offense a dual-threat run option.
Quote:
that Mr Mara has cloned himself 15 times. I kid I kid...I have them around 500 this season which falls in line with this.
That’s 15th in the NFC though right? Not the league. So they probably see us winning 3-5 games.
Ahh so much for one halfway hopeful prediction this summer. Oh well...we always have the BBI podcast.
I still have them at around 8-9 wins.
But some here (not you) are concerned we are veering away from "reality."
Prognostications aren't reality. They are merely predictions. Far too many examples where the NFL world and it's talkies and fans failed to see the resurgent team coming. I don't really give a crap until the games happen.
executive comments and opinions are great, but there are better contexts for their predictive value or value in general. the NFL is a volatile league where worst to firsts happen on average i think in 2-3 divisions every year. almost all of them are unexpected. that unknown is what makes the NFL so fun.
2022 - NFL execs rank NFC teams: Rams No. 1, Eagles and Cowboys neck and neck - ( New Window )
they predicted the packers 11th, rams 15th, and bucs 14th. so 3 of their bottom 6 made the playoffs.
1 exec predicted the panthers 4th best so they werent even among the bottom 6.
credit where it's due they got the 4 best right, but below that it was throwing darts.
It always will be, IMO - that seems to be the nature of these preseason prediction articles, whether they come in the form of rankings, tiers, just general team previews, etc., they are always going to be informed to an outsized degree by recency bias.
Part of that, I'm sure, is already baked into the way most readers receive these sorts of pieces - they know that it's often going to be just a combination of last year's standings with a subjective view of this past offseason's draft and FA activity layered on top. And to the extent that we know that going in (and would have no reason to expect any greater precision or accuracy than that anyway), I just don't see how anyone calls these clickbait. Are they a waste of time? I guess, assuming there are actually fans who think they're using their time to read an airtight accurate forecast of the upcoming season's NFC rankings.
But if we accept that these articles are just meant to feed the demand of NFL fans in general as the season arrives, there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with this sort of articles since they're not promising accuracy. They're very clearly, by format and definition, offering a compilation of subjective opinions by those whose expertise resides somewhere between "fan" and "professional analyst" (and the latter isn't necessarily any more accurate than the former for this sort of content).
It's just fluff. That's it. I don't think fluff journalism is clickbait, however. Clickbait is intentionally sensationalist (and often misleading at the headline/CTA level). Fluff is just, well, fluff.
they predicted the packers 11th, rams 15th, and bucs 14th. so 3 of their bottom 6 made the playoffs.
1 exec predicted the panthers 4th best so they werent even among the bottom 6.
credit where it's due they got the 4 best right, but below that it was throwing darts.
Just a reminder that Brett was totally right about the Rams last season!!!
It's astounding to me how I have to drill this point into so many and yet people still try to debate it.
There is no debate. Nearly everyone makes predictions off of last season. Some exceptions but even those examples offer up a ton of context or clues as to why. The Lions heading into last year were picked to be good or very good but they were the hottest team in the NFL down the stretch of 2022.
Yeah, they vegas lines on seasonal success probably hover in the 65-70% correct rate, more or less. To me that isn't impressive. That means around 5-6 teams do exactly the opposite of what was predicted.
Anyone can hit a 65-70 % number. And no one is ever 100% correct or even close.
Literally every single golden era (even Fassel's run of decent play) of NYG football in the modern era was NOT expected. See 19o84. See 1989. See 1997. See 2000. See 2005-2008 and once again 2011.
Doesn't mean NYG win this year but save me the hysterics. I've seen this song and dance far too often. The 99 Rams were not even a blip on the NFL landscape until they nuked the entire league.
BBB I get your point but think you're drawing too wide a divide between the substance of knowing what NFL execs think ("subjective opinions (no matter how reputable the sources)...", I think reputability counts for a lot here) and precision. Maybe posters' outcries vs the article are less the precision vs being uncomfortable with plain truths, the Giants have been a doormat and will continue to be until proven otherwise on the field. It's a bit like fans lambasting DAL, PHI, or NYJ for each perceived flaw or stupidity because somehow that obscures the grim realities of the home team.
I think the Cardinals and Bears make the playoffs this year.
Quote:
below 2023 NFL execs rank NFC teams - ( New Window )
It's astounding to me how I have to drill this point into so many and yet people still try to debate it.
There is no debate. Nearly everyone makes predictions off of last season. Some exceptions but even those examples offer up a ton of context or clues as to why. The Lions heading into last year were picked to be good or very good but they were the hottest team in the NFL down the stretch of 2022.
Yeah, they vegas lines on seasonal success probably hover in the 65-70% correct rate, more or less. To me that isn't impressive. That means around 5-6 teams do exactly the opposite of what was predicted.
Anyone can hit a 65-70 % number. And no one is ever 100% correct or even close.
If "anyone can hit a 65-70% number" on team futures before the season begins, then everyone should bet on each and every team and come out ahead even after the losses and the vig.
Most people will land well south of 55% correct, I guarantee it. Because I see those people's houses and I see the casinos. I know which one ends up with more money.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
For anyone who thinks that these articles are ever going to be accurate or expects them to be, the problem resides entirely between their chair and their keyboard.
it is what it is NYG suck until proven otherwise. I get that part.
Quote:
my point stands. Most never see the resurgent teams coming. Prove me wrong. I'd love to see all these talkies getting out in front of these turnaround teams. I have posted links showing they rarely do. If you're good last year, you're picked to be good next year unless the roster was ripped apart of the HC was lost or both.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
For anyone who thinks that these articles are ever going to be accurate or expects them to be, the problem resides entirely between their chair and their keyboard.
All I am saying is they rarely see the resurgent teams coming. You're parsing my words to argue.
Quote:
In comment 16596261 djm said:
Quote:
my point stands. Most never see the resurgent teams coming. Prove me wrong. I'd love to see all these talkies getting out in front of these turnaround teams. I have posted links showing they rarely do. If you're good last year, you're picked to be good next year unless the roster was ripped apart of the HC was lost or both.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
For anyone who thinks that these articles are ever going to be accurate or expects them to be, the problem resides entirely between their chair and their keyboard.
All I am saying is they rarely see the resurgent teams coming. You're parsing my words to argue.
I don't think we are even disagreeing, it's just that you're kinda taking both sides when you say that anyone could nail 70% of these picks (which I know you've since backed off of) and simultaneously that no one sees the surprise teams coming.
I agree entirely with you on the latter point. Honestly, I'm never expecting accuracy from these sort of articles because I know they're just fluff that we see in every sport (or really every entertainment media) at the beginning of every season. Right before the fall TV season, there will invariably be a list of best new shows to watch this year. Will that list be accurate? Probably not! You might see a list of best pizza places in NYC, and it'll be mostly correct, but will miss some great spots, will list some garbage spots, and will have them all ordered differently than you or I would. Hell, college football relies way too heavily on preseason rankings to inform subsequent rankings throughout the year and those are essentially the same as the article in the OP.
My point was never about the accuracy of these articles. I don't even think the accuracy is the point. I think the comments within the article have some value (it's interesting to get a sense of the perspective from outside the fanbase echo chambers), and the discussion that the article provokes can sometimes be interesting (e.g., BBI discussing a list of NYC's best pizza places will generate a wide range of opinions and feedback, and all of that is usually more valuable than the article itself).
But it's not clickbait. That was where I entered the discussion and the only point I was trying to make. Being inaccurate doesn't make it clickbait. It just makes it a fluff piece that exists in dozens of other topics about things people consume.
Quote:
as it turns out, despite the same coach/QB and probably a generally similar roster in terms of name talent (+burns/nabers, -barkley/waller) they had the giants middle of the conference on the playoff bubble.
they predicted the packers 11th, rams 15th, and bucs 14th. so 3 of their bottom 6 made the playoffs.
1 exec predicted the panthers 4th best so they werent even among the bottom 6.
credit where it's due they got the 4 best right, but below that it was throwing darts.
Just a reminder that Brett was totally right about the Rams last season!!!
were you? i thought they were going to be the worst defense in nfl history.
I think the Cardinals and Bears make the playoffs this year.
i dont see it with the cards. bears if caleb is good they can beat anyone with him and those 3 receivers. kmet is very good too. eberflus could also implode, he's an inseason firing candidate.
BrettNYG10 : 9/12/2023 10:07 am : link
I thought: 1. The Seahawks were not as good as they were last year and revert a bit. 2. The Rams would be a 8-10 win team and contend for a WC spot. I had them winning this game. People forget how good Stafford is.
Cards are a spicy pick, but I think Murray is better than people think.
Quote:
In comment 16596273 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16596261 djm said:
Quote:
my point stands. Most never see the resurgent teams coming. Prove me wrong. I'd love to see all these talkies getting out in front of these turnaround teams. I have posted links showing they rarely do. If you're good last year, you're picked to be good next year unless the roster was ripped apart of the HC was lost or both.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
For anyone who thinks that these articles are ever going to be accurate or expects them to be, the problem resides entirely between their chair and their keyboard.
All I am saying is they rarely see the resurgent teams coming. You're parsing my words to argue.
I don't think we are even disagreeing, it's just that you're kinda taking both sides when you say that anyone could nail 70% of these picks (which I know you've since backed off of) and simultaneously that no one sees the surprise teams coming.
I agree entirely with you on the latter point. Honestly, I'm never expecting accuracy from these sort of articles because I know they're just fluff that we see in every sport (or really every entertainment media) at the beginning of every season. Right before the fall TV season, there will invariably be a list of best new shows to watch this year. Will that list be accurate? Probably not! You might see a list of best pizza places in NYC, and it'll be mostly correct, but will miss some great spots, will list some garbage spots, and will have them all ordered differently than you or I would. Hell, college football relies way too heavily on preseason rankings to inform subsequent rankings throughout the year and those are essentially the same as the article in the OP.
My point was never about the accuracy of these articles. I don't even think the accuracy is the point. I think the comments within the article have some value (it's interesting to get a sense of the perspective from outside the fanbase echo chambers), and the discussion that the article provokes can sometimes be interesting (e.g., BBI discussing a list of NYC's best pizza places will generate a wide range of opinions and feedback, and all of that is usually more valuable than the article itself).
But it's not clickbait. That was where I entered the discussion and the only point I was trying to make. Being inaccurate doesn't make it clickbait. It just makes it a fluff piece that exists in dozens of other topics about things people consume.
Yep I get you. Everyone thinks they will suck for good reason. Nyg need to change that perception.
Quote:
....
BrettNYG10 : 9/12/2023 10:07 am : link
I thought: 1. The Seahawks were not as good as they were last year and revert a bit. 2. The Rams would be a 8-10 win team and contend for a WC spot. I had them winning this game. People forget how good Stafford is.
Cards are a spicy pick, but I think Murray is better than people think.
that was a good call, i thought rams were full on tanking last year.
the only thing i got right with them last year was bidding big on kyren/puka after week 1 for ff.
cards are interesting, they were more competitive than i expected last year and MHJ is legit. conner underrated plus benson. i dont see enough quality on their lines of scrimmage and their defense in particular looks pretty bad on paper. but so was rams last year and they got by, so coaching can make up for a lot of paper deficiency.
I called the piece clickbait because it follows a proven formula for generating clicks: take subjective opinions (no matter how reputable the sources) and structure them as a list to create the illusion of precision so there's more room for disagreement. That's how listicles work. For example, we might all agree that Ursula Andress, Jane Seymour, Halle Berry, and Daniela Bianchi are among the ten hottest Bond girls. But which should be #3, #5, #6, and #8? Is "Satisfaction" the greatest Rolling Stones song, or does it rank third, behind "Gimme Shelter" and Sympathy for the Devil"?, or some other combination? We can agree (or disagree) that they are all great songs, but publish a list ranking them and watch an entire Subreddit bloom, debating the order and the reasons. ("Halle looked even better in the bikini than Ursula!" "Gimme Shelter has the greatest supporting vocal ever recorded!")
TL/DR: It's worth knowing that NFL executives think the Giants are among the worst teams in the League. That's not clickbait. A precise ranking is clickbait, because it's the same content packaged according to a well-worn clickbait formula. The useful content is still there. The false-precision packaging is the bait.
The way you are defining clickbait is just very different than the way it is used by most everyone else. It is very clear that they said they took the ratings and calculated the mean. It implies absolutely no level of precision beyond that. Anyone expecting more precision in that article was assuming something that simply wasn't there.
Quote:
Quote:
....
BrettNYG10 : 9/12/2023 10:07 am : link
I thought: 1. The Seahawks were not as good as they were last year and revert a bit. 2. The Rams would be a 8-10 win team and contend for a WC spot. I had them winning this game. People forget how good Stafford is.
Cards are a spicy pick, but I think Murray is better than people think.
that was a good call, i thought rams were full on tanking last year.
the only thing i got right with them last year was bidding big on kyren/puka after week 1 for ff.
cards are interesting, they were more competitive than i expected last year and MHJ is legit. conner underrated plus benson. i dont see enough quality on their lines of scrimmage and their defense in particular looks pretty bad on paper. but so was rams last year and they got by, so coaching can make up for a lot of paper deficiency.
Thanks--big believer in QB+coach doing surprising things. Murray isn't as good as Stafford but he's got some nice weapons this year and will put up points.
I also think some guys like Baker and Love are getting overrated after good seasons and that they'll be a little worse this year. I'm bearish on the Packers.
there's obviously degrees of clickbait of which this type of content is probably on the tamest side so i dont think any of you are wrong. nothing about this content was egregious or misrepresented. it's like a 2025 mock draft from a good analyst like daniel jeremiah, interesting even though some of it will look silly in a few months.
"We asked some NFL executives what their predictions for final standings would be. Here are the average results of those surveys." That was it. Full stop. Nobody every suggested these were absolute expectations of the final league standings. That is an absolute straw man argument.
Reading comprehension seems to be a dying art.
The content has very little value. Over emphasis on one player in a game that is all about team. If you are going to put Giants at 15/16 then you should be going very hard at both the GM/HC heading into year 3 imv.
Thanks--big believer in QB+coach doing surprising things. Murray isn't as good as Stafford but he's got some nice weapons this year and will put up points.
I also think some guys like Baker and Love are getting overrated after good seasons and that they'll be a little worse this year. I'm bearish on the Packers.
im with you on packers/bucs. also think miami comes back to earth bc they lost some key ol/dl and would think the league has found some better ways to bottle up their big plays outside tyreek.
also think seattle is a really risky team this year. pete carroll was a good coach (at worst borderline HOF) and if i had to guess his departure is under-appreciated right now.
houston is another team that is sort of set up for regression but i think they may be good enough to overcome that. same as bears, if stroud plays well with tank, collins, diggs they can beat anyone.
I'm intrigued to see how Richardson does in Indy this year. I don't have a view on him. I also think JAX bounces back and has a 11-12 win season.
Mike: I think Eric from LI put it well below: There are different types and degrees of clickbait. I guess it would be most accurate to say this is interesting content presented in a way that has some clickbaitish, listicle-adjacent attributes. I shouldn't have simply labeled the whole thing as clickbait. Again, I don't think we are disagreeing about the substance at all. On to Sunday, and hoping that the executives are wrong (though I fear they aren't).
I get the aversion to stack ranking teams before the season. But the Athletic does a really good job of getting insights from execs and front offices.
The content has very little value. Over emphasis on one player in a game that is all about team. If you are going to put Giants at 15/16 then you should be going very hard at both the GM/HC heading into year 3 imv.
Who's going to be going very hard at both the GM/HC, the various team execs who were surveyed? Fundamentally, that's who put the Giants at 15, not The Athletic.
Quote:
The way you are defining clickbait is just very different than the way it is used by most everyone else. It is very clear that they said they took the ratings and calculated the mean. It implies absolutely no level of precision beyond that. Anyone expecting more precision in that article was assuming something that simply wasn't there.
Mike: I think Eric from LI put it well below: There are different types and degrees of clickbait. I guess it would be most accurate to say this is interesting content presented in a way that has some clickbaitish, listicle-adjacent attributes. I shouldn't have simply labeled the whole thing as clickbait. Again, I don't think we are disagreeing about the substance at all. On to Sunday, and hoping that the executives are wrong (though I fear they aren't).
On to Sunday. As I have done for the past several years, I will hope the experts - and me - are wrong about how good this team is. While I am pessimistic about the chances of this team being genuinely good, at kickoff I will have convinced myself they can win this game every week.
Hope we both have an amazing afternoon on Sunday!
So gentle, I almost missed it.
I'm intrigued to see how Richardson does in Indy this year. I don't have a view on him. I also think JAX bounces back and has a 11-12 win season.
agree on jax, not high on richardson. steichen seems good but i think richardson is too much run, not enough pass, and injury waiting to happen.
jax OL was a disaster last year bc they had a bunch of injuries and got really bad play from their C but they replaced him with Morse this year who should stabilize. between the OL and the related injuries to lawrence, that they went 9-8 was a very good "down" year.
But the people who did the ranking are executives with other NFL teams and did so via survey. This wasn't a targeted assessment of the Giants in particular, and the people who are responsible for the ranking aren't fans or media, so how are they supposed to go hard after the GM/HC?
I'm genuinely trying to understand the point you're making.
Who do you think should be going very hard for the GM/HC?
The people who made the rankings?
Can anyone find a clickbait article saying the Giants are going to be a 11-13 win division winner and Super Bowl contender?
We have had our disagreements but I agree with 100% of this.
That said, and this isn't homerism, I do think the Giants will win 6-8 games, Eight being obviously being the height of optimism for me. Here's my take on this year and why I don't think realistically we'll be in that top 3 for the 2025 draft:
The Giants got better on defense. The addition of Burns makes the front very dangerous. We did lose McKinney, but Nubin, although a rookie, is mature and I do not believe will have a steep learning curve bc he is so fundamentally sound. I think he's an intelligent player, and has leadership ability. Obviously they have the carryover studs in Okereke and Lawrence, and maybe a tier below in Thibs, and I like Banks as well but I'm concerned about his transitioning to a more zone-heavy scheme. If the Giants can get passable play from the corners, then they have a chance to be very good.
Shifting to offense, the loss of Saquon will be felt, but not more than the gain of quality OL and the Nabers effect. And I am enthusiastic about what Hyatt will do in year two, particularly with Nabers drawing the attention he'll command. The pieces are there on offense aside from the absolute most important position.
I think DJ is what he is at this point, and Daboll will need to hide his deficiencies again. But that leads me to my next and most important point:
Daboll is a hell of a cood coach and offensive mind. The team under him has outperformed what they should have done in both seasons. They should've been terrible in 2022, the made the playoffs. Last year, given the circumstances with significant injuries to both Jones and Tyrod, that team had no business winning 6 games. They won games with an undrafted FA rookie QB, almost unheard of in the NFL. The Daboll effect will likely have them sneak wins in games they probably should lose.
But the schedule is very difficult and other teams also got better, particularly the Washington team adding Jayden Daniels, who will flummox a lot of D-Coordinators this season.
Put me down for a 7-10 season.