Are the Giants as bad as we think?

This is Eli's team. The belongs to Barkley and OBJ ... Eli needs to be the saavy vet QB that manages the game and makes a play here and there ... and we know he will always make that bone-head play. The D needs an upgrade at every level. The OL still needs an improvement as well.

The HC needs to realize he is holding the O back due to poor delegation abilities ....

So all in all we are a avg to bad team from top down.

I have never seen you post anything positive about the team or its players. Why are you even on here? Just to stir up shit?
I really have to question if you are really a Giants' fan.
Just buzz off somewhere else please.

In comment 14202836 Dave in Hoboken said:

Quote:

Not even a question.

Uh, what team wouldn’t be?

In comment 14202831 FStubbs said:

Quote:

In comment 14202810 Big Rick in FL said: Quote: The DJ Swearinger INT at the Redskins 8 while Evan Engram was in the end zone wide open. More points taken off the board. The other Swearinger INT allowed the Skins to take over at the NYG 40. Good lord it's even worse then I thought. That's 6 plays that either led directly to points by the opponent, opponents possession in our territory or took guaranteed points off the Giants score. There are probably 6 plays that would make the Giants 0-12 too. The record is what it says it is. This is a poor team, but better than last year. 3-1 since Jamon Brown came aboard though.

True but two bad teams and one with a backup QB, so with this defense that are what their record says.

In comment 14202831 FStubbs said:

Quote:

In comment 14202810 Big Rick in FL said: Quote: The DJ Swearinger INT at the Redskins 8 while Evan Engram was in the end zone wide open. More points taken off the board. The other Swearinger INT allowed the Skins to take over at the NYG 40. Good lord it's even worse then I thought. That's 6 plays that either led directly to points by the opponent, opponents possession in our territory or took guaranteed points off the Giants score. There are probably 6 plays that would make the Giants 0-12 too. The record is what it says it is. This is a poor team, but better than last year. 3-1 since Jamon Brown came aboard though.

True but two bad teams and one with a backup QB, so with this defense that are what their record says.

.....a good running game and a line that is becoming somewhat competent. That opens up everything else.

We still have a lot of needs but to be honest we are ahead of where we were last year......and I expect the second season with Dave Gettleman is going to produce some more good talent via the draft.

We are a six win team......whether we get there are not I'm not sure.

A team wins together and loses together.
Eli has not played well but he is only part of the problem

The offense has been bad, the defense has been worse at times, and the special teams have not been special.

It is possible that the Giants may have won a couple more games with a better QB than Eli

But the same could be said if the Giants had an upgrade at many positions

How much better would the Giants be with Kahil Mack, Aaron Donald etc .

Green Bay is losing with arguably the best QB in football

Besides the bad plays you select, you’ve also omitted the good ones. You’ve also omitted the contexts. You’ve basically omitted everything that would get in the way of your narcissistic fantasy post.

Those losses you referenced were when the OL was a catastrophe and they were unable to run the ball in the red zone at all...

Now after reshuffling they are about average and look at the difference in the offense and Eli...

If you want other examples around the league look at Houston and Seattle at the beginning of the year and how they were doing when they couldn't run the ball...

during most of those games.

Look at the Giants 4 most recent games: when the commit to the run first they are playing good football and winning football. When they stray from that formula in 2nd half vs Filthy, they lose.

In comment 14202968 Archer said:

Quote:

A team wins together and loses together. Eli has not played well but he is only part of the problem The offense has been bad, the defense has been worse at times, and the special teams have not been special. It is possible that the Giants may have won a couple more games with a better QB than Eli But the same could be said if the Giants had an upgrade at many positions How much better would the Giants be with Kahil Mack, Aaron Donald etc . Green Bay is losing with arguably the best QB in football

Why is it when the Giants are losing it's because Eli is bad, but when Green Bay is losing Rodgers is arguably the best QB in football?

In comment 14202993 JCin332 said:

Quote:

Those losses you referenced were when the OL was a catastrophe and they were unable to run the ball in the red zone at all... Now after reshuffling they are about average and look at the difference in the offense and Eli... If you want other examples around the league look at Houston and Seattle at the beginning of the year and how they were doing when they couldn't run the ball...

19-35 for 170 is good?

--We'll need a new QB soon (Eli's aging)
--OL play has improved from horrible to inconsistent but we still need at least 2 players there (a C and RT)
--We need at least 2 edge rushers
--We need an entire set of LBs (at least 3) to run a 3-4 defense
--We need at least one safety, maybe 2 if Bettcher decides to turn Landon Collins into his Deonne Bucannon joker-type LB/S hybrid
--We need at least one corner, maybe 2 if we let Jenkins go in the offseason

the draft and FA and trying to get some more milage out of ELI before we find a the new QB for him to tutor. Probably in 2020 draft and ready to go in 2021 or 2022. MO.

In comment 14202834 mfsd said:

Quote:

In comment 14202822 Big Rick in FL said: Quote: In comment 14202807 PetesHereNow said: Quote: The QB is not in a vacuum. The offensive line was horrendous for the first 8 games of the season. Sure, if you wanna put Russell Wilson or Aaron Rodgers on the team, they'd probably have a bit better record. But, honestly, they had the Panthers beat in a very good game for Eli and the defense caved. Also, had the Eagles beat and Shurmur forgot about Barkley. So, realistically, they could be a .500 team. Panthers was a very good game for Eli? He threw 2 TDs and 2 INTs. One of them we were 1st and 10 at the Panthers 25. The other allowed the Panthers to take over in our territory. If Eli doesn't make a bonehead throw to Malcolm Jenkins in the Eagles game we most likely win that game. There’s more to QB play that fantasy football stats. Nobody’s putting Eli in the pro bowl or anything, but the Giants aren’t a good team being held back by him. They’re better because of him.

Bingo

In comment 14203095 dpinzow said:

Quote:

--We'll need a new QB soon (Eli's aging) --OL play has improved from horrible to inconsistent but we still need at least 2 players there (a C and RT) --We need at least 2 edge rushers --We need an entire set of LBs (at least 3) to run a 3-4 defense --We need at least one safety, maybe 2 if Bettcher decides to turn Landon Collins into his Deonne Bucannon joker-type LB/S hybrid --We need at least one corner, maybe 2 if we let Jenkins go in the offseason

+1

In comment 14203061 FJ said:

Quote:

In comment 14202968 Archer said: Quote: A team wins together and loses together. Eli has not played well but he is only part of the problem The offense has been bad, the defense has been worse at times, and the special teams have not been special. It is possible that the Giants may have won a couple more games with a better QB than Eli But the same could be said if the Giants had an upgrade at many positions How much better would the Giants be with Kahil Mack, Aaron Donald etc . Green Bay is losing with arguably the best QB in football Why is it when the Giants are losing it's because Eli is bad, but when Green Bay is losing Rodgers is arguably the best QB in football?

I’m gonna have to stop u. Ur making too much sense for bbi...

In comment 14203090 ajr2456 said:

Quote:

In comment 14202993 JCin332 said: Quote: Those losses you referenced were when the OL was a catastrophe and they were unable to run the ball in the red zone at all... Now after reshuffling they are about average and look at the difference in the offense and Eli... If you want other examples around the league look at Houston and Seattle at the beginning of the year and how they were doing when they couldn't run the ball... 19-35 for 170 is good?

+1. It's good for a 15 year vet. But if a rookie QB were to put those numbers, they'd shit on him. The hypocrisy is glorious.

In comment 14202810 Big Rick in FL said:

Quote:

The DJ Swearinger INT at the Redskins 8 while Evan Engram was in the end zone wide open. More points taken off the board. The other Swearinger INT allowed the Skins to take over at the NYG 40. Good lord it's even worse then I thought. That's 6 plays that either led directly to points by the opponent, opponents possession in our territory or took guaranteed points off the Giants score.

Since you are having so much fun cherry picking your way to answering your own question, then cherry pick this: unless DC puts up 48 or Phi puts up 38 tomorrow night, our POS QB will be the highest scoring QB in the division. Just cherry picking, that’s all.

In points, so it’s definitely on that POS QB.

We are below average at QB, OL (3 out of 5 spots), LB/ER (3 or 4 out of 4 spots), CB and FS.

A good or great QB can overcome some of that, yes. But even with a good or great QB we need a major talent upgrade elsewhere as well if we want to make a serious run at a championship.

Why did you only cherry pick Eli's bad plays? Why stop there? Why not going to other players missed tackles, other players key penalties, dropped passes, etc...

in their most recent rankings and only 3 spots behind Washington. As I said in the post-game thread, the Giants really should be at least 6-6 or 7-5. The Giants aren't as bad as people think, but they're certainly not good. The offense has underachieved prior to the last 4 weeks and the defense is mostly a bunch of untalented guys playing hard. The special teams has been a net positive.

How many times did Manning drop back to pass only to have a DL on him immediately? How many times was Barkley met in the backfield by a DL or LB?

First of all, to insinuate that Manning isn't even an average NFL QB at this point, I find ridiculous. He clearly isn't an elite QB. But, I fail to see where more than half the league's QBs are better than him. I also would argue that if the OL was playing remotely similar to how they look now, still not very good, but much improved, then we win a few of those games.

Eli certainly didn't do enough for us to win all those games. But, he also didn't do enough to say he's the reason we lost.

In comment 14203182 shockeyisthebest8056 said:

Quote:

in their most recent rankings and only 3 spots behind Washington. As I said in the post-game thread, the Giants really should be at least 6-6 or 7-5. The Giants aren't as bad as people think, but they're certainly not good. The offense has underachieved prior to the last 4 weeks and the defense is mostly a bunch of untalented guys playing hard. The special teams has been a net positive.

The opening schedule was also very tough.

whatever you think are the weakest 3 starting players and replace them with above average players and we'd be a completely different team. we'd still have weaknesses (namely the next 2-3 weakest players) but we'd be competitive.

that's today's NFL and how close we are to competing.

In comment 14203191 Matt M. said:

Quote:

How many times did Manning drop back to pass only to have a DL on him immediately? How many times was Barkley met in the backfield by a DL or LB? First of all, to insinuate that Manning isn't even an average NFL QB at this point, I find ridiculous. He clearly isn't an elite QB. But, I fail to see where more than half the league's QBs are better than him. I also would argue that if the OL was playing remotely similar to how they look now, still not very good, but much improved, then we win a few of those games. Eli certainly didn't do enough for us to win all those games. But, he also didn't do enough to say he's the reason we lost.

Who cares about the Eli arguments at this point other than you obviously. We need better players a a lot of positions including QB. Eli’s style no long er fits what you need in a QB today. He has no mobility and is afraid to take a hit. You need someone who can extend plays.

the 1970s were worse.
all they are doing is tanking for the next QB.
perfectly normal.
The Giants make playoffs every 2.7 years. theyre fine for a while

Teams like the bears and Texans who I don’t think are that good have these good records and we are sitting here at 4-8 in a bad division. Very frustrating

That said, they are really bad at attention to detail and clean quality winning football.

Shurmur's decisions in game as well as football strategy at times are amateur.

I wonder if they'll try to talk to McCarthy.

In comment 14203269 JonC said:

Quote:

That said, they are really bad at attention to detail and clean quality winning football. Shurmur's decisions in game as well as football strategy at times are amateur. I wonder if they'll try to talk to McCarthy.

Fat chance..Shurmur's going no where soon

In comment 14203307 micky said:

Quote:

In comment 14203269 JonC said: Quote: That said, they are really bad at attention to detail and clean quality winning football. Shurmur's decisions in game as well as football strategy at times are amateur. I wonder if they'll try to talk to McCarthy. Fat chance..Shurmur's going no where soon

You got good info on that? grin

.

this team reminds me of the 87 strike team or even the 92 team.

The games we can look at as "we should have won them" are the Carolina game and 2nd Eagles game. Those two games really should have been won by the Giants. If they had, we would be sitting at 6-6 instead of 4-8 and would have a legitimate shot at winning the East with games left against the Skins and Boys. But, we are not that good. Yesterday was a prime example. We should have blown the Bears out. They were doing everything possible to lose the game and we kept leaving them in it. But, we won, so that is all that matters.

I think we see where we have strength: the young Dline will get better. Barkley and Beckham are big time playmakers. We have some young people in the secondary that can be serviceable backups and or second tier starters.

Where we are questionable is Oline and that will be a bit before we can really get that fixed. QB is another area that is very questionable going forward. However, I believe we are stuck with Eli one more year. Our WR corps is not nearly as good as we thought it would be. SS to me is a tease. Some good but mostly just average with some real letdowns. Our LB'ers are not great and one other area not so good, TE!. EE to me will never live up to the hype and the others are all average 2nd and 3rd team guys. A true 2 way TE is needed.

This year sucks in that we all hoped for better and the teases (first Dallas game, 2nd Philly, Carolina game) make that even worse. However, I do see a team starting to jell unlike last year where we saw it fall apart.

Eli was just a part of it.

It's the offensive line which is now marginally better along with the development of Barkley.

BTW, if the defense makes stops at Philly and Carolina, we're right there.

In comment 14203269 JonC said:

Quote:

That said, they are really bad at attention to detail and clean quality winning football. Shurmur's decisions in game as well as football strategy at times are amateur. I wonder if they'll try to talk to McCarthy.

I would like the next coach to not be under the Reid/McCarthy WCO philosophy. I’m intrigued by Dan Campbell.

In comment 14203269 JonC said:

Quote:

That said, they are really bad at attention to detail and clean quality winning football. Shurmur's decisions in game as well as football strategy at times are amateur. I wonder if they'll try to talk to McCarthy.

McCarthy is awful, that would suck.

of the modern GB way.

that you can see the offense is legitimate. They can score, especially when Barkley runs the ball.

But the defense.. if they if dont get turnovers, I think they are as bad as we think. Which is bad.

In comment 14203340 Steve in South Jersey said:

Quote:

.

This. The nonsense over how they should be 6-6 is just that, nonsense, you could argue just as well the other way that they should be 2-10, so there's that.

They are and deserve to be 4-8, but a football mind can easily find one basic football play they should have easily made vs the Panthers or Eagles that seals both games.

They put themselves in the same position yesterday, and it forced overtime. They found a way to win this one.

Make no mistake, they stink in many respects and what they finish at in 2018 has little bearing on 2019, given how much of the roster figures to change again.

Those perspectives are not mutually exclusive.

pointless to hire McCarthy? He's been around the NFL awhile, hasn't won recently with the best QB in football. I know their team hasn't been that great in terms of overall talent...but I see similar issues to McCarthy with Shurmur (meaning decision making, game management...NOT resume...obviously McCarthy resume is fantastic)

should it pop up.

I question his ability to evolve as a coach. Due to the rules changes and changes to the CBA that limit practice time there's been a necessary trickle up from the college game. Some coaches are adapting and others, like McCarthy, are not. That game has changed and is changing rapidly and he's running the same offense that team ran in the 90s.

The Giants most dynamic player is Barkley. True he can catch the ball but when he runs it in, Eli doesn't get credit for that. Did he change the play to a run?

Eli has 15 TDs to 8 interceptions if the websites have updated since yesterday's game. Stop pigeon picking specific games. I'll do the same exact thing you did ...

Against the Cowboys, Texans, Saints, Falcons, 49ers, and Buccs. 10 TDs and 0 interceptions. Why are those numbers left out? How about 7 TDs to 2 Interceptions since bringing in Jamon Brown which CLEARLY improved the OL overall. I think that number is more telling especially since the 2 picks came against two good pass rushing teams.

Textbook pigeon picking ...

It's almost as hard to go 2-14 in the NFL as it is 14-2. Just because we're going to end up 6-10 doesn't mean this team isn't as bad as it has often shown itself to be.

In comment 14203973 Go Terps said:

Quote:

It's almost as hard to go 2-14 in the NFL as it is 14-2. Just because we're going to end up 6-10 doesn't mean this team isn't as bad as it has often shown itself to be.

This. You can take every team except maybe the Raiders and find one or two plays each game that if they make they have a couple of extra wins.

End of they day they are 4-8. Narrowly loosing games and "should have won 6" will have no correlation next year.

Is tied for the team lead for TD passes that travel 20 plus yards in the air for the entire season.

In comment 14203973 Go Terps said:

Quote:

It's almost as hard to go 2-14 in the NFL as it is 14-2. Just because we're going to end up 6-10 doesn't mean this team isn't as bad as it has often shown itself to be.

Agreed. A couple of excellent players don't make them a good team. Hell, the 1969 Bears had Gayle Sayers and Dick Butkus and still went 1-13.