gotta give Gettleman some credit.

First 8 games...

18.8 PPG
77.9 rush yards per game
1-7 rec

Since... (5 games)

31.4 PPG
150.8 rush yards per game
4-1 rec

Can't give backup QB's all of the credit. The offensive line is playing better. We are playing smarter. We are learning on the run like we should have been from the start.

I don't see parallels between this and 2013 at all save for the backup QB aspect. We had Brandon Jacobs wearing #45 on that team. Guys like Peyton Hillis and Michael Cox were getting the majority of the carries. We had no Saquon Barkley. The offensive line was deteriorating rather than being rebuilt. The team had recently begun their descent into what became a mostly awful past few seasons.

We have to start getting better somewhere. I see a better offense being run here than I saw early in the year. I see Eli Manning actually having some time to throw the football. I see us truly committing to running more.

Doesn't mean everything is fixed or that I've seen enough - but I'm not convinced that this team hasn't improved at all and is just taking advantage of the teams they're playing right now.

What were people looking for this year? 10 wins? Playoffs? That was never happening this season. Improvement should have been the expectation and the goal. If we win 4-5 more games than we won a year ago, I'd say that's a start.

In comment 14215167 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

First 8 games... 18.8 PPG 77.9 rush yards per game 1-7 rec Since... (5 games) 31.4 PPG 150.8 rush yards per game 4-1 rec Can't give backup QB's all of the credit. The offensive line is playing better. We are playing smarter. We are learning on the run like we should have been from the start. I don't see parallels between this and 2013 at all save for the backup QB aspect. We had Brandon Jacobs wearing #45 on that team. Guys like Peyton Hillis and Michael Cox were getting the majority of the carries. We had no Saquon Barkley. The offensive line was deteriorating rather than being rebuilt. The team had recently begun their descent into what became a mostly awful past few seasons. We have to start getting better somewhere. I see a better offense being run here than I saw early in the year. I see Eli Manning actually having some time to throw the football. I see us truly committing to running more. Doesn't mean everything is fixed or that I've seen enough - but I'm not convinced that this team hasn't improved at all and is just taking advantage of the teams they're playing right now. What were people looking for this year? 10 wins? Playoffs? That was never happening this season. Improvement should have been the expectation and the goal. If we win 4-5 more games than we won a year ago, I'd say that's a start.

How about not coming out of the gate 1-7 and destroying the season before Halloween?

I'll agree that this was not a great team coming into the season. But we've seen untalented teams, or teams that were derailed early by a catastrophic injury, that are well managed within the constraints of the roster. We know what that looks like. Seattle, for example, is that type of team this year. Not much talent, but brilliantly managed to what looks like a certain playoff appearance.

That's not what is happening here. We didn't enter this season completely unprepared simply because of a low talent level. It's tempting to just throw all the blame at the feet of the OL, but that ignores the fact the Giants have, for reasons only Shumur can explain, a 465/284 pass/run ratio. By contrast, Seattle (who also has a bad OL and doesn't have Saquon Barkley) has a 346/422 pass/run ratio.

We all knew the OL might be a problem heading into the season, and we all knew Eli had zero mobility in the event the OL broke down. We just spent huge on a stud back. So why did we allow Eli to get destroyed and scuttle our ability to, at times, even play professional-level football? That's a game management issue...and only one of many in which Shurmur has failed to excel.

And even if we're blaming the OL for everything...who put together the OL? Who coaches them? Go back and read the game and post game threads over the first 8 games. That doesn't just go away because we're going to finish 6-10 instead of 3-13.

I think the last 5 games are 4 games of fool's gold with 1 game of reality (@ Philly) mixed in. If I sound annoyed at wins it's not because I want to be right, it's because I'm afraid that fool's gold will keep ownership thinking we're on the right track when the truth is the season was over before the fucking leaves changed color.

...let's say a track that's ten steps long.... and yet have only taken two steps. Doesn't mean you jump tracks.

Being at the beginning doesn't always imply wrong track.

I don't pay much attention, but Redskins D front has a decent reputation?

And we ran on them, correct?

Could you see us having run on any good DLs last year? That's one step.

I like what The Betch is doing also. Can we stop a great QB? Maybe, but, if not, that may be more parts... or steps rather than direction on the track. Stay the course. Draft greatly.

I don't think we've earned the new QB yet. IMHO this is the year you finally get your first round LB, if not the trade down, keep building the line and go heavy on D.

But I don't see dramatic coaching changes.

Look at the run/pass ratio since the bye week. There is a difference.

@ SF:

23 rush attempts
31 pass attempts

Vs. TB:

31 rush attempts
19 pass attempts

@ PHI:

18 rush attempts
37 pass attempts

vs. CHI:

29 rush attempts
36 pass attempts

@ WSH:

34 rush attempts
27 pass attempts

The Eagles game is the obvious outlier and where the most egregious error was made.

In Week 2 against Dallas, we ran just 17 times and passed 44 times.

In Week 4 against New Orleans, we ran just 15 times and threw 41 times.

In Week 5 against Carolina, we ran the ball 16 times and threw 37 times.

In Week 6 against Philadelphia, we ran the ball 17 times and threw 43 times.

In Week 7 against Atlanta, we ran the ball 20 times and threw 38 times.

In Week 8 against Washington, we ran the ball 14 times and threw 47 times.

It's not fools gold - it's a change in philosophy. We are playing offense now the way we should have been playing offense from the start.

We can certainly criticize Shurmur for leaning on the pass game so heavily for the first half of the season, but the difference in play recently is correlating directly with a balanced offensive attack.

Even in the Houston game back in Week 3, we were about 50:50 - and it was one of the only games where we looked good early in the season.

The answer is obvious. We have an elite player in the backfield and we've finally figured out how to leverage that into winning some football games.

You want to laud Seattle for recognizing their weaknesses and committing to running the football? Well, we're starting to do the same thing here.

Why did it take 8 games (and a lost season) for Shurmur to learn what we all knew before the season started? Why should we believe this is a sea change in his philosophy and he won't revert? It was only two weeks ago that Barkley got 13 carries in Philly despite looking like a world beater in the first half.

Linked below is the post game thread. The desire to fire Shumur is almost unanimous.

That was two weeks ago. And now we're moving in the right direction because we beat two backup QBs that gifted us first quarter pick sixes?

I just don't buy it.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 14215237 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Look at the run/pass ratio since the bye week. There is a difference. @ SF: 23 rush attempts 31 pass attempts Vs. TB: 31 rush attempts 19 pass attempts @ PHI: 18 rush attempts 37 pass attempts vs. CHI: 29 rush attempts 36 pass attempts @ WSH: 34 rush attempts 27 pass attempts The Eagles game is the obvious outlier and where the most egregious error was made. In Week 2 against Dallas, we ran just 17 times and passed 44 times. In Week 4 against New Orleans, we ran just 15 times and threw 41 times. In Week 5 against Carolina, we ran the ball 16 times and threw 37 times. In Week 6 against Philadelphia, we ran the ball 17 times and threw 43 times. In Week 7 against Atlanta, we ran the ball 20 times and threw 38 times. In Week 8 against Washington, we ran the ball 14 times and threw 47 times. It's not fools gold - it's a change in philosophy. We are playing offense now the way we should have been playing offense from the start. We can certainly criticize Shurmur for leaning on the pass game so heavily for the first half of the season, but the difference in play recently is correlating directly with a balanced offensive attack. Even in the Houston game back in Week 3, we were about 50:50 - and it was one of the only games where we looked good early in the season. The answer is obvious. We have an elite player in the backfield and we've finally figured out how to leverage that into winning some football games. You want to laud Seattle for recognizing their weaknesses and committing to running the football? Well, we're starting to do the same thing here.

Nice work. That said, Shurmur and his PC (until of late) has sucked big time which is a tremendous disappointment to me. I was so excited when I knew he would be our PC. Our 1-7 start is on him, big time, imv. No excuse for not using SB more on the ground. Sure the OL was pathetic and partly to blame, but you run SB much more which would have made Eli more effective with PA (which he’s superb at) and most likely would have kept him upright.

Too little, too late and you know how positive I am

Those ratios are distorted and need context.

Beyond the fact we were playing broken teams, we secured early leads - comfortable leads - and were able to settle in and run the ball more. It's a simple strategy that falls into your lap. It's no great epiphany and adjusment by the over-rated, over-matched Shurmur. It's just coaching 101 with a lead against a fractured opponent...

I don't know why it took him this long - you'd have to ask him that. But there's pretty clear difference in the amount of volume the ground game is getting now compared to all of those games earlier in the year where we were under 20 totes. The trend seems fairly clear to me. The offense is going through Saquon Barkley rather than Eli Manning now like it should be.

Actually, I know exactly why the ratio was what it was in the Eagles game - and it's the exact thing I said I was worried about several times leading up to that game.

He let temptation take over knowing how beat up they were in the secondary. They had Malcom Jenkins and no one else back there. They had street WR's taking DB reps because they didn't even have enough practice bodies.

Shurmur thought we'd be able to throw them out of the stadium that day and got greedy. Look no further than the go for the throat play call late in the first half that led to an INT and took a potential FG off the board that could have been the difference in the football game.

He did a terrible job that day. But I'm pretty sure he's figuring out who makes this offense hum.

That said - this is not a simple matter of playcalling. The offensive line is, indeed, playing better now than they were before. Barkley was getting hit behind the line constantly earlier in the year. He was getting hit faster than any RB in the entire sport. If you're the coach and you know that - it's hard to keep forcing the run.

The run game has been more effective lately not just because we're more committed to it, but also because the line is playing quite a bit better than they were before.

Play action passes are working now because we're setting it up with the ground game - and PA is where Eli does a lot of damage on rollouts and TE leaks/flats.

I'd prefer to see a little progress here than just keep rooting for abysmal losses hoping it somehow shocks the owner into coherence.

This was a 3 win team last year - people need to be at least a little bit realistic in terms of how quickly they think this can get turned around.

Quick non-sequitur - did you see where Bama flipped Michigan commit Daxton Hill?

In comment 14215257 bw in dc said:

Quote:

Those ratios are distorted and need context. Beyond the fact we were playing broken teams, we secured early leads - comfortable leads - and were able to settle in and run the ball more. It's a simple strategy that falls into your lap. It's no great epiphany and adjusment by the over-rated, over-matched Shurmur. It's just coaching 101 with a lead against a fractured opponent...

And conversely, we were the broken team early on. All too often, we started drives with negative plays/penalties dictating the run as not being an option. It's a damn shame the OL was such a liability, but it is what it is. Nate has settled in, and I think he was playing through an injury early on. Hernandez has had his own share of growing pains, but he has improved. Hard to find fault with a rookie. Center was and is a shit show. Halapio, Greco, Spencer, and I'll list Evan Brown in there even though he hasn't played. If the bar of competency is set at Spencer, then Evan has suck to be unable to unseat him. Omameh, Greco, to Jamon. Finally, we seem to have found someone who is capable. Still makes mistakes, but for a guy who just got a playbook a few weeks ago and saw his first game action in over a year, I'll withhold judgement on him. And then we are left with our Karate Kid who is starting in Jax only because their own 3rd string LT is injured. Wheeler gives great effort. I'm rooting for him, but he is all too often overmatched. But we are all out of bodies to throw at the problem this season.

In comment 14215257 bw in dc said:

Quote:

Those ratios are distorted and need context. Beyond the fact we were playing broken teams, we secured early leads - comfortable leads - and were able to settle in and run the ball more. It's a simple strategy that falls into your lap. It's no great epiphany and adjusment by the over-rated, over-matched Shurmur. It's just coaching 101 with a lead against a fractured opponent...

You can't run the football if you're trailing by a score or two?

How many games did we play where the score was so lopsided that it was necessary to abandon the run?

The first Eagles game? What else?

Running the football most certainly does not have to always just "fall into your lap"

There has been a shift in what Barkley has been asked to do and how he's being used. It has been discussed a billion times - both by him and the coach.

Some of Gettleman’s comments re: analytics were/are troublesome. But I’m not losing my shit over Sam Darnold or not trading down for a bunch of guys. Saquon’s talent plus leadership make the pick at #2 a slam dunk thus far. I can’t imagine anyone bitching about the Barkley pick.

That clip where he is coaching the OL prior to his run in WSH last week was very impressive.

I have a far greater worry in Shurmur who has felt very reactionary in how he coaches. I don’t know if he has a greater philosophy/program in which he coaches.

In comment 14215270 bw in dc said:

Quote:

Quick non-sequitur - did you see where Bama flipped Michigan commit Daxton Hill?

Yup. My buddies who are Mich fans aren't happy. :)

Quote:

This was a 3 win team last year - people need to be at least a little bit realistic in terms of how quickly they think this can get turned around.

Chicago was 5-11 last year. This year, 9-4.

Cleveland was 0-16 last year. This year, 5-7-1.

Houston was 4-12 last year. This year, 9-4.

2016 Rams were 4-12. 2017, 11-5.

2016 Jags were 3-13. 2017, 10-6.

Turning it around doesn't take long if the people running the show know what they're doing.

Further, the "turnaround" isn't always linear as Jacksonville is finding out this year. Or as we found out in 2017.

You say we're turning around an aircraft carrier, but I say we're just floating with no direction. That was the generally held belief before these last 5 ridiculous games somehow managed to weigh more than 6 years of bad football.

Check out BBI shortly after the Eagles game. Start at the link below and check out just the thread titles. Lots of threads on what needs to change, who needs to go (Shurmur chief among them), requesting Mara's email, "Haven't Been This Angry All Year", a caption contest insulting Shurmur, "Coach Murmur is a born loser", "Don't miss Shurmur on Francesa"...and it goes on.

Two wins over Chase Daniels's Bears and a Redskins team obliterated by injuries and starting Mark Sanchez, and we're supposed to feel good about the team's direction?
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 14215276 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Quote: This was a 3 win team last year - people need to be at least a little bit realistic in terms of how quickly they think this can get turned around. Chicago was 5-11 last year. This year, 9-4. Cleveland was 0-16 last year. This year, 5-7-1. Houston was 4-12 last year. This year, 9-4. 2016 Rams were 4-12. 2017, 11-5. 2016 Jags were 3-13. 2017, 10-6. Turning it around doesn't take long if the people running the show know what they're doing. Further, the "turnaround" isn't always linear as Jacksonville is finding out this year. Or as we found out in 2017. You say we're turning around an aircraft carrier, but I say we're just floating with no direction. That was the generally held belief before these last 5 ridiculous games somehow managed to weigh more than 6 years of bad football.

This doesn't take into account why those teams struggled.

LAR and CHI both had rookie QB's in those down years. Mitch Trubisky played very little in college and didn't come from a major program - he was extremely green last year. He had 7 TD passes in 12 games.

Goff was awful as a rookie, too. Took a ton of lumps and struggled quite a bit. Huge step forward after that.

Did JAX actually turn anything around? They suck again this year. 2017 looks like more of an outlier than a "fixed" team. The Jags aren't turned around until they get rid of Blake Bortles and someone better than Cody Kessler is taking snaps there.

It's like saying the 2016 Giants were "turned around" and fixed. In retrospect, it was more of a "which one of these years doesn't belong" season in a long run of crappy football.

Not sure why a team like Cleveland is getting credit and being talked about like they know what they're doing when they have the same amount of wins as we do. Doesn't make sense. Because they were worse and winless last year means their 5 wins are more impressive than ours?

I've said several times there is still a LOT of work to be done here. This isn't fixed now and there is a long way to go before it is. But there are logical steps forward, and I feel like I am starting to see some better football being played by this team lately. Beyond that, the culture here seems to be much more stable and far less circusy than it was last year - which was no doubt a priority for this regime.

Should have won 5 of 5.

Can't we just enjoy these wins, regardless of who they came again/who was injured? Wins have been scarce of late.

In comment 14215287 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Should have won 5 of 5. Can't we just enjoy these wins, regardless of who they came again/who was injured? Wins have been scarce of late.

Apparently not - this will somehow fool the Giants into thinking the team is fixed and they will no longer continue to work on improving the team.

In comment 14215292 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

In comment 14215287 SFGFNCGiantsFan said: Quote: Should have won 5 of 5. Can't we just enjoy these wins, regardless of who they came again/who was injured? Wins have been scarce of late. Apparently not - this will somehow fool the Giants into thinking the team is fixed and they will no longer continue to work on improving the team.

It's been happening for years.

In comment 14215294 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 14215292 arcarsenal said: Quote: In comment 14215287 SFGFNCGiantsFan said: Quote: Should have won 5 of 5. Can't we just enjoy these wins, regardless of who they came again/who was injured? Wins have been scarce of late. Apparently not - this will somehow fool the Giants into thinking the team is fixed and they will no longer continue to work on improving the team. It's been happening for years.

Right - which is why the GM, coach, and coordinators were all just fired after last season... because the Giants thought the team was headed in the right direction after last year.

If you can't see by now how that is reflected on the field I don't know what to tell you.

I predict we'll be here this time next year with a similar record.

Yet, your preference would be for this season to instead get so bad that John Mara is instead "shocked" into firing these guys and trying again with another set. As if that's some realistic blueprint or has any semblance of logic behind it or better odds of fixing the Giants.

That's the type of ridiculous stance you'd rip other people for and call them wishful/magical thinkers over - but you've doubled down on that several times now.

Last year it was a different tune. Up until this year, you were the "losing is for losers" guy. Now, you've done a 180 and winning late season games is a bad thing.

And that's precisely why you're annoyed now - because you want them to lose and they aren't.

In comment 14215302 Go Terps said:

Quote:

If you can't see by now how that is reflected on the field I don't know what to tell you. I predict we'll be here this time next year with a similar record.

Did you read Lombardi’s article on the Packers franchise structure last week? That franchise has a ton of issues. We have shared our concerns about the state of the Giants, but I made a thread last week talking about how it’s the Pats & everyone else. Just look around the NFL:

-Vikings have the richest QB in the NFL & they can’t score
-Lions have done nothing since paying Stafford
-Falcons are 4-9
-Steelers always have a ton of drama
-The Chiefs have had very nice success under Reid & have a very dynamic offense, but let’s see them win a playoff game this year
-Everyone raves about Lynch/Shanahan in SF, but where are the results?

It’s easy to pound the Giants & it is deserved for the last 6 years, but I’m not seeing all these great run franchises. You want to talk up Dallas? I agree, they have a very nice formula now, but Dak will be making $25M plus per year shortly. You’ve complimented the Eagles for winning a SB after going 13-3 last year, but they are 6-7 the following year.

I’d say right now Seattle has been a model of success, but there aren’t many others. I also don’t see all the great candidates. Do we want to hire Scott Pioli (who bombed in KC) & Dan Campbell to be HC? Would that represent a new way of thinking?

I get wanting fresh blood in the building, I think we need it as well...but I’m not seeing all these great alternatives out there. I’m also not seeing all the well operated franchises out there either.

In comment 14215309 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Yet, your preference would be for this season to instead get so bad that John Mara is instead "shocked" into firing these guys and trying again with another set. As if that's some realistic blueprint or has any semblance of logic behind it or better odds of fixing the Giants. That's the type of ridiculous stance you'd rip other people for and call them wishful/magical thinkers over - but you've doubled down on that several times now. Last year it was a different tune. Up until this year, you were the "losing is for losers" guy. Now, you've done a 180 and winning late season games is a bad thing. And that's precisely why you're annoyed now - because you want them to lose and they aren't.

I want Mara to be shocked into changing the way the Giants operate. This past offseason of hirings was a complete joke. Shambolic. That's why I'm annoyed.

We have 5 now with 3 to play. How many wins qualifies as a turnaround? If we win out, that changes the narrative a little bit. Wins against backups and Ryan Fitzpatrick count in any other year. For every other team, but for some reason they don't for the Giants this year. We're winless according to some.

love when people on the peripheral are able to say that hirings are good or bad and state it as an absolute. And frankly, most people taking those stances don't think that their evaluating skills are to be questioned.

As for the injury thing:

Quote:

Like FMiC pointed out, the injury comment was hyperbole as well. One of the "healthiest teams in Giants history" ?? Based on what? I'm not sure this team is even healthier than the 2016 team.

In 2016, we finished the year as the 3rd healthiest team in the league. This year we are 16-18th depending on whose metrics you use.

In comment 14215281 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Check out BBI shortly after the Eagles game. Start at the link below and check out just the thread titles. Lots of threads on what needs to change, who needs to go (Shurmur chief among them), requesting Mara's email, "Haven't Been This Angry All Year", a caption contest insulting Shurmur, "Coach Murmur is a born loser", "Don't miss Shurmur on Francesa"...and it goes on. Two wins over Chase Daniels's Bears and a Redskins team obliterated by injuries and starting Mark Sanchez, and we're supposed to feel good about the team's direction? Link - ( New Window )

Ummm....things can change. And if they do, a smart person isn't afraid to change with it.

Is the team improving or not?

In comment 14215513 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

In 2016, we finished the year as the 3rd healthiest team in the league. This year we are 16-18th depending on whose metrics you use.

Has anyone done an evaluation on our soft tissue injuries lately. I haven't but when Coughlin was here I was insisting that our problem was the strength and conditioning program. We changed strength coaches and I have a feeling that we improved significantly in this area.

In comment 14215309 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Yet, your preference would be for this season to instead get so bad that John Mara is instead "shocked" into firing these guys and trying again with another set. As if that's some realistic blueprint or has any semblance of logic behind it or better odds of fixing the Giants. That's the type of ridiculous stance you'd rip other people for and call them wishful/magical thinkers over - but you've doubled down on that several times now. Last year it was a different tune. Up until this year, you were the "losing is for losers" guy. Now, you've done a 180 and winning late season games is a bad thing. And that's precisely why you're annoyed now - because you want them to lose and they aren't.

Well said arc. It seems winning some games is not good enough for some here. It has to be done their way or it's not really improving. As if their evaluating skills are better than those in charge.

I can't help but wonder if that were the case why they're not employed by some team in the league.

have seen a significant change in the injuries since TC left.

We had a bump in 2016 where we were very healthy and made the playoffs. In 2017, we were back in the bottom 5 in terms of health. Not sure if the categorizations of the injuries are drastically different, but I couldn't tell you definitively.

In comment 14215302 Go Terps said:

Quote:

If you can't see by now how that is reflected on the field I don't know what to tell you. I predict we'll be here this time next year with a similar record.

If you cannot see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you. You are blinded by semantics. You didn't like the hiring process. So even though the roster is virtually 70% turned over, the deadwood and or trouble makers are gone, the players are still playing hard on a losing team, the offense is actually starting to play with some consistency, the defense has shown a little improvement; you are caught up in that you despise Mara, Gettleman and Shurmur because you did not like the search.
It is early, but it is apparent you cannot see the forest because of the trees. Now you may be right that they will have a similar record next season. I expect an influx of rookies and UDFAs replacing some older vets which would probably wreak havoc early in the season.

It is a message board and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your whole premise is that you didn't like the hiring process so it must be flawed and those in power now will be unable to fix this team.
So who exactly was it you were looking for? Which new blood GM? Which 2nd coming of McVay HC was out there? If you can name two each GM and HC you wanted please share with us.

has some funny takes.

He basically asked that everything get blown up, that malcontents be let go. That's pretty much happened to a T (except for not trading Beckham), and so now he's complaining about the hiring process and us being a rudderless ship.

I firmly believe that no matter what moves Gettleman made, there'd be a fair amount of criticism. The guy tured over 70% of the roster, over 50% of the starters. Got rid of Flowers, Hart, Apple and Harrison. Cut Omameh after seeing it didn't work out.

And that's still not good enough.

So it is true that you can ask for something and get it and still be a cranky asswipe.

In comment 14215523 Eman11 said:

Quote:

It has to be done their way or it's not really improving. As if their evaluating skills are better than those in charge.

As bad as this team has been for most of a decade, why would it be far-fetched to really question what this team is doing when the same people at the top are running it?

Terps and I are polar opposites on tons of stuff, sometimes violently and spitefully so, but his point isn't so wild and crazy.

Give him some grief as well, yes. It’s way to early to make any sort of logical argument about him as a GM. Give it 3 years and see where we are at. Any conclusion made now about how good of a GM he will be is ludicrous in both directions.

In comment 14215565 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 14215523 Eman11 said: Quote: It has to be done their way or it's not really improving. As if their evaluating skills are better than those in charge. As bad as this team has been for most of a decade, why would it be far-fetched to really question what this team is doing when the same people at the top are running it? Terps and I are polar opposites on tons of stuff, sometimes violently and spitefully so, but his point isn't so wild and crazy.

True, but declaring the newly hired regime of DG and PS a failure at this point is just foolish. This was always a 2 year rebuild...year 1 is showing signs of progress.

If we’re worse next year than this year, the argument becomes more reasonable.

Ultimately they’ll be judged on the eventual Eli transition...when and to who

In comment 14215565 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 14215523 Eman11 said: Quote: It has to be done their way or it's not really improving. As if their evaluating skills are better than those in charge. As bad as this team has been for most of a decade, why would it be far-fetched to really question what this team is doing when the same people at the top are running it?

Until somebody buys out Tisch and the Maras, who the heck is going to be at the top?

His point that a couple of weeks ago the overwhelming majority of posters wanted PS gone, and many wanted DG gone. A couple of wins later (including one that easily could have been a loss) and suddenly PS is the next coming.

Where he's wrong, imo, is pointed out in his last post where he called the hiring process last year shambolic. It didn't go the way he would have done it, and he doesn't feel the hires were legitimate. I get that. The hiring process seemed to be very narrow and it seemed as though they already knew who they wanted before conducting a thorough search.

Having said that, sometimes you have to move fast when you find a guy you really want. Start with the GM.

DG is a guy who was known in the organization. They obviously liked what they knew about him. The opportunity to bring him back must have excited them. Why? Well we can't see all the reasons because we're not in the offices with him, but certainly they would know about his approach. He also has a legit resume.

4 year track record as a GM in CAR, won 3 division titles, went to a SB. Led the team to a 17-2 record. He won the NFL executive of the year award.

15 years with the Giants, including 13 as director of pro personnel. Under his direction key free agents signed included Plax, Pierce, O'Hara, Boothe and other low-cost but effective contributors who helped the Giants win 2 SB's.

In 28 years he's been a part of 7 teams who played in the SB. He's been around a ton of success.

Basically, he's building a HOF-type resume. Not saying he's there yet, but he's well on his way.

Nobody thought he would become available, but when he did the Giants moved quickly to get him.

Terps didn't like the move. He wanted a fresh start from the org's old way of looking at things. I understand this thinking, but also understand why the Giants acted the way they did, and think most of us would do the same.

Imagine working alongside a guy who you respect greatly and who has had tremendous success. A guy who regularly helps your team win "championships", whether that be big accounts, scientific breakthroughs, large profits, whatever. His success led to him being offered a big promotion and he took it. Your team begins to struggle, doesn't do a lot of the little things right. You lose accounts/profits. Suddenly, this talented guy becomes available again. You hear he'd like to come back, and you feel a strong need to make a change. Who among us wouldn't go into the hiring process a bit biased?

I don't consider his hiring a sham. That's where we Terps and I differ.

I mean, no one should be surprised by fans being reactionary - that's just how it goes. I think at the halfway point, I probably had a bit of a different stance than I do now. I was really angry with everything going on. The continued putrid OL play, the play calling, the mistakes, the losing, etc.

That doesn't mean I think everything is magically fixed now. I just think there's a different feel around the Giants now - like they've finally stabilized and are ready to start finally moving forward.

It also doesn't mean I don't realize that taking one or two steps forward are just the tip of the iceberg here. I don't think this is fixed or finished. Nowhere close.

It's simple for me, I wanted to see improvement this year. After 8 games, I saw none. I feel I have seen some since. We are running the offense through Barkley the way we should be now. I think there's some preliminary cohesion forming along the OL. I think Eli is seeing some better protection than he was earlier.

Now - if we finish the year losing out and look like crap in the process, I'll certainly change my tune.

But I do expect this team to finish strong and win at least 2 of these final 3 games. If the Giants go from 3 wins to 7 or 8 in one offseason, I can look at that and feel more positive about the direction we're going in. Maybe others can't.

My question is really simple, though - say the Giants do finish 7-9 or even 8-8. Why would that be a disappointment? People expected 10+ wins in year one of this process? I'm not sure why that would be the case if you knew how bad this team was last year and how many roster issues needed to (and still need to be) addressed.

In comment 14215641 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14215565 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: In comment 14215523 Eman11 said: Quote: It has to be done their way or it's not really improving. As if their evaluating skills are better than those in charge. As bad as this team has been for most of a decade, why would it be far-fetched to really question what this team is doing when the same people at the top are running it? Until somebody buys out Tisch and the Maras, who the heck is going to be at the top?

Sure, that's the reality. And I get why some people would say why bother talking about something you can't change, but this is a discussion site. Some people just want to embrace the positives only, others look at things deeper than surface level. There's room for both.

In comment 14215565 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 14215523 Eman11 said: Quote: It has to be done their way or it's not really improving. As if their evaluating skills are better than those in charge. As bad as this team has been for most of a decade, why would it be far-fetched to really question what this team is doing when the same people at the top are running it? Terps and I are polar opposites on tons of stuff, sometimes violently and spitefully so, but his point isn't so wild and crazy.

Violently? Is BBI the new Thunderdome?

here is that those who criticize are breaking new ground:

Quote:

Some people just want to embrace the positives only, others look at things deeper than surface level. There's room for both.

It is going deeper than the surface level to be critical? Fuck - the team has been pretty poor since 2011 - that should be the surface level.

It isn't looking at things deeper to say that Gettleman was hired as a sham, can't construct an OL and made horrific signings. It isn't looking at things deeper to say drafting Barkley was a fireable offense, minutes after the draft.

It is just a negative viewpoint. Not all critical thinking is negative, just like not all positive comments are just looking at the surface.

It would be better if people just accepted that they have a negative take on things instead of trying to fluff it up under the guise of some misunderstood intelligence that is unearthed.

In comment 14216274 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

here is that those who criticize are breaking new ground: Quote: Some people just want to embrace the positives only, others look at things deeper than surface level. There's room for both. It is going deeper than the surface level to be critical? Fuck - the team has been pretty poor since 2011 - that should be the surface level. It isn't looking at things deeper to say that Gettleman was hired as a sham, can't construct an OL and made horrific signings. It isn't looking at things deeper to say drafting Barkley was a fireable offense, minutes after the draft. It is just a negative viewpoint. Not all critical thinking is negative, just like not all positive comments are just looking at the surface. It would be better if people just accepted that they have a negative take on things instead of trying to fluff it up under the guise of some misunderstood intelligence that is unearthed.

It would be equally nice if the polyannas on this board recognized that a sustained stretch of losing and incompetence alongside another (very likely) losing year justify skepticism of an organization's leadership and management.

In comment 14216280 Ash_3 said:

Quote:

In comment 14216274 FatMan in Charlotte said: Quote: here is that those who criticize are breaking new ground: Quote: Some people just want to embrace the positives only, others look at things deeper than surface level. There's room for both. It is going deeper than the surface level to be critical? Fuck - the team has been pretty poor since 2011 - that should be the surface level. It isn't looking at things deeper to say that Gettleman was hired as a sham, can't construct an OL and made horrific signings. It isn't looking at things deeper to say drafting Barkley was a fireable offense, minutes after the draft. It is just a negative viewpoint. Not all critical thinking is negative, just like not all positive comments are just looking at the surface. It would be better if people just accepted that they have a negative take on things instead of trying to fluff it up under the guise of some misunderstood intelligence that is unearthed. It would be equally nice if the polyannas on this board recognized that a sustained stretch of losing and incompetence alongside another (very likely) losing year justify skepticism of an organization's leadership and management.

But can't you separate the two regimes? The half decade of losing before DG has no bearing on whether DG is a capable GM. And I presume most wouldn't draw a conclusion based on 1 year.

I'm not especially encouraged by the DG regime. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, however, that we can only decide on whether it's working sometime next year. The big question for this franchise is what the future at QB is going to be. They delayed answering that question for a year and for plausible reasons. I don't think they can continue to delay. We'll see what happens.

Let's see the finish, it matters. What i can comment on is that DG's draft looks VERY good. Solder signing is looking better, he might have been injured. Ogletree looking better. Omameh or wtf his name is was a very bad signing, Stewart signing was comically bad. None of the QBs after Mayfield have looked good(too early though) I like the OBJ deal, did not overpay.

Assembled a D that can exploit 2nd and 3rd string QBs, and in this day and age where QBs go down so often, I guess that ain't nothing.

Not terribly sustainable though.

In comment 14222193 santacruzom said:

Quote:

Assembled a D that can exploit 2nd and 3rd string QBs, and in this day and age where QBs go down so often, I guess that ain't nothing. Not terribly sustainable though.

The goal should be 4th and 5th strings..

You have ass kickers or you don't.

We don't have any on the defensive side.

MUST find some.

For a 5 was a brilliant move.