6 of the last 7 years. Would anyone really be stunned if they go 5-11 this year?
I think the Giants are going to actually get off to a decent start and then hit a wall and drop games mid season. And at some point in the final 4-5 games they will sit Eli for Jones. And I could see a 6-10 or 7-9 season.
I still maintain, the Giants are building to make noise in 2020. So long as the arrow is pointing up at the end of the season and we see Jones in live bullets before the year ends, and the key guys stay healthy, with another draft and cap room, this is a playoff team next year.
I don't really have an issue with anyone who looks at the 2019 Giants and sees a 5 or 6 win team... that's fine.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
What can we really take away from even 2 years ago?
Jerry Reese was the GM. Ben McAdoo was the HC. Barkley wasn't here. Beckham was - and missed like 3/4 of the season anyway. There was no Daniel Jones here. Collins was here. Snacks was here. Vernon was here. All players who were traded or let go of.
The roster is so different now. The team is so different now. I just don't feel like there's any carryover anymore.
2018 ---> 2019, sure I can buy some takeaways. At least it's the same coach and there are more commonalities.
I just think too much of this analysis is with prior seasons in mind. And those seasons have such little impact on now and forward.
Things change really quickly in this league.
I think 2020 is the target for us - I've maintained that for a while and that hasn't changed. But I'm hard pressed to buy that this team won't improve at all in the win column between now and then.
7-8 wins is entirely realistic for this group if we can avoid the crushing injury/injuries.
"The Giants are not in the position to win games Â
Lost most of its games by small margins, plays an easier schedule this year, and has improved its roster would have the same record... but maybe I guess.
Many BBIers have predicted the same record, as have most pundits (give or take a game or two). I do think he's right when he says this year is all about development. I've said the same thing, myself.
But that was just wacky. Yes, they might go 5-11, but it won't be because of his flawed reasoning.
1. The Giants have a crappy OL?
That just shows he's hasn't been paying attention, and doesn't seem aware that it's completely rebuilt, and hopefully won't be bad anymore. He lost me right there.
2. Jones has better arm strength than Manning?
Really? That's the exact opposite of everything that has been said since the draft. Everyone (outside NFL circles) QUESTIONED Jones' arm strength. It seems to be absolutely fine, but no one questioned Eli's arm strength as the #1 prospect of his draft. And even if you believe there's a fall off in Eli's arm (I don't, personally), the reports out of camp from coaches, players, press, and observers, are pretty universal is that Eli's arm is as least as strong as ever. So something's off with this opinion, too.
3. The Giants are rebuilding, and shouldn't try to win games.
That may be the silliest thing anyone's ever said about ANY team, and doesn't require further comment.
But that was just wacky. Yes, they might go 5-11, but it won't be because of his flawed reasoning.
1. The Giants have a crappy OL?
That just shows he's hasn't been paying attention, and doesn't seem aware that it's completely rebuilt, and hopefully won't be bad anymore. He lost me right there.
2. Jones has better arm strength than Manning?
Really? That's the exact opposite of everything that has been said since the draft. Everyone (outside NFL circles) QUESTIONED Jones' arm strength. It seems to be absolutely fine, but no one questioned Eli's arm strength as the #1 prospect of his draft. And even if you believe there's a fall off in Eli's arm (I don't, personally), the reports out of camp from coaches, players, press, and observers, are pretty universal is that Eli's arm is as least as strong as ever. So something's off with this opinion, too.
3. The Giants are rebuilding, and shouldn't try to win games.
That may be the silliest thing anyone's ever said about ANY team, and doesn't require further comment.
I know we made efforts to upgrade that OL, but the starters looked really bad in that Bengals game and it concerns me.
Listen 8-8 is for an optimistic fan.
3 wins in 17 - Net Barkley, Hill and Carter (foundational pieces)
5 wins in 18 - Net Jones , Lawrence and Baker and other promising players.
SOS as a 3 win team didn't have a huge impact on their year in 18. This team is clearly not in the top 2 NFC East teams. i don't think it's debatable - at least not on paper.
Sure things can happen like: 1) Wentz misses signficant time 2) Ditto for Cooper but those 2 teams are pretty deep with star talent compared to our team.
Bottom line: 8-8 is a success to me. 7-9 won't be a disappointment. anything below 7-9 means Jones should see at least 6 starts this season and at that point I don't care about the record for this year, I care about the future. Anything over 8-8 would be a surprise.
Gettleman didn't tear down the team in year one instead of half assing it. the first year of 'rebuild' didn't do much rebuilding and was a waste in terms of pointing the needle in the right direction.
I'm cautiously optimistic and hopeful but unti they do it... Â
this is fair comment. But, in the final analysis, this is just more B.S. These guys don't know...the guys who report on NFLN don't know nor does anyone else. You have to go out and prove it, every Sunday...it is the beauty of sport. Your records says what you are...it's really simple.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
But that view is less about some sort of superstitious surrender to the patterns of the past, and more about recognizing that some of the elements that contributed to losing seasons seem to still remain.
Is Shurmur any closer to becoming an above average head coach? Have we upgraded our defense or has it actually deteriorated? Is our offensive line going to be substantially better or merely incrementally? Can our receivers easily be countered and negated by your average NFL defense? Will our special teams still chug along as a typical, uneventful special teams unit 19 times out of 20, but make a catastrophic mistake that 20th time?
BTW am I paranoid or does everyone seem to love taking shots @ NYG? Â
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
But that view is less about some sort of superstitious surrender to the patterns of the past, and more about recognizing that some of the elements that contributed to losing seasons seem to still remain.
Is Shurmur any closer to becoming an above average head coach? Have we upgraded our defense or has it actually deteriorated? Is our offensive line going to be substantially better or merely incrementally? Can our receivers easily be countered and negated by your average NFL defense? Will our special teams still chug along as a typical, uneventful special teams unit 19 times out of 20, but make a catastrophic mistake that 20th time?
Those questions should all be focused entirely on now. Not the past.
It doesn't matter what the Giants were in 2017 because virtually nothing from that season is still here now.
Why should a Ben McAdoo season with an offensive line featuring Ereck Flowers, John Jerry, Weston Richburg, Bobby Hart and Justin Pugh have anything to do with this season?
None of these people are here anymore. Why should there be any carryover?
It's fine to ask if the problems have been solved, but I'm not sure why we're discussing past iterations of the Giants when there's close to zero overlap in not only personnel, but also the coach, GM, and positional coaches.
So, is the consensus then that we haven't improved?
I get that they base it on who we've lost (in part, the rest of it I assume reflects their highly exaggerated negative opinion of our starting QB). But, that's because they like the back of baseball cards and throwing their skivvies on the stage at celebrities. The reality is that those names were virtual non-contributors to the best parts of our season last year. With the possible exception of Landon, who we replaced at pretty much a wash in talent. But, we are the same in most areas and markedly improved in key areas (e.g., OL and Defensive backfield).
So, couldn't they give us at least one win in improvement?
That could totally happen. Especially if things are going badly enough that Jones is starting, and they get his rookie growing pains out of the way in 2019.
But they'll do what they do. Nobody knows the future.
Before the draft he wasn't a big fan as I recall. Then after he was picked at 6 he defended the Giants on the pick and said he liked him but didn't love him kind of review. To me it was somewhat confusing but at least he saw some good qualities and at least defended the pick.
Before the draft he wasn't a big fan as I recall. Then after he was picked at 6 he defended the Giants on the pick and said he liked him but didn't love him kind of review. To me it was somewhat confusing but at least he saw some good qualities and at least defended the pick.
Fwiw, iirc he did say that early (if I'm recalling the right vid). I think it was b4 the draft, it was a well done vid overall, thought he was on the "solid, steady but not spectacular" train...no wow throws but checks most of the boxes
You guys can knock this dude all you want, but he knows the Â
game and is much better than the hot take bullshit that permeates media now. 5-11 is a little harsh, but we have a completely unproven defense and will more than likely be starting a rookie QB half the season. I think we win 7 games this year because the schedule is pretty easy as far as opponents and travel.
Bill L....every team in the NFL has "improved" with the exception Â
some items we can expect.
- opposing defense has been looking at tape of Barkley, will be much harder for him
- our QB situation is a disaster, making bets on aging Eli. We drafted a #1, get him on the field. We are not winning a SB with this unit, why waste time with Eli?
- our defense looks scary and disorganized.
- our receiving crew lacks a play maker. Don't need Beckham for that but we have nothing that is average for the NFL
and Shomler predicts the same record versus an easier schedule. That says to me that he thinks that we are *worse* than last year.
We are better at QB, just by having more comfort and experience in the offensive scheme. Also, by allowing for more time and security in the pocket. Due to...
We are markedly, if not logarithmically, better at the OL.
We are likely better at RB with more growth and experience and greater usage of the featured back. Depth is the same.
We are the same or even better at TE. Better if we take into account greater usage.
We are lesser in terms of name WR. But equal to last year if we look at the "better" team (the second half team).
We are likely equal in DL, even if we are equal to not very good. Vernon was a high talent, minimal contributory player.
Pretty much the same LB with some growth from Carter.
We are markedly, if not logarithmically, better at the OL.
Same Special teams.
Not even one game better than last season?
Not unreasonable take I generally like his commentary . Â
and Vernon. People like to make a big deal about the offensive line in the first half of the season, but the pash rush was atrocious when Vernon was out. It was comical how long QB's had to set up before he came back.
We got rid of Odell, in my opinion it was the right move. For both teams. I think it was one of those trades that was equally beneficial for both, it isn't a zero sum game like some like to believe.
RE: Bill....We got rid of an elite WR, the best run stuffer in the game, Â
and Vernon. People like to make a big deal about the offensive line in the first half of the season, but the pash rush was atrocious when Vernon was out. It was comical how long QB's had to set up before he came back.
We got rid of Odell, in my opinion it was the right move. For both teams. I think it was one of those trades that was equally beneficial for both, it isn't a zero sum game like some like to believe.
I liked OV a lot too and wasn't happy losing him but having Zeitler is perfect for Saquan
I never said I liked OV....he was massively overpaid, but he was Â
well 30 sacks was 2nd lowest so there isn't much room to go down, but unless we get a bunch from Peppers and CB blitzes, I dont see it going up much.
Side note, Oak had a team total of 13 sacks last year....ooof
But if it goes up, then that's one more area of improvement. So, I'm still questioning how you get to the same record as last year, basically saying we made no improvements at all.
RE: RE: RE: I feel confident that, team-wise, both of those numbers will go up Â
well 30 sacks was 2nd lowest so there isn't much room to go down, but unless we get a bunch from Peppers and CB blitzes, I dont see it going up much.
Side note, Oak had a team total of 13 sacks last year....ooof
But if it goes up, then that's one more area of improvement. So, I'm still questioning how you get to the same record as last year, basically saying we made no improvements at all.
weather or not you agree, we did have a lot of seasoned talent leave the team. And all the other teams got to participate in the draft and free agency as well. Its not like they all stood pat.
Most of our additions with the exception of zeiter are very young and will need time to develop, while guys on other teams are developing their young guys as well.
But more point is that, objectively, whether you include seasoning of rookies and vets, including Eli, in the second year of an offensive and defensive system, and also addition of new rookies and new vets via trade or FA, we are a better team than last year. Even if you believe it's only incrementally better. So, factoring that plus a softer schedule, you would think that any projection would have us better than last year, even if it's an incremental improvement in record.
If I remember correctly from just before the draft, Zac Shomler thought Daniel Jones was just very, very ordinary. No great flaws, but no indication of great ability either. Unless I'm mixing it up with his assessment of Drew Lock, but I don't think I am.
and Vernon. People like to make a big deal about the offensive line in the first half of the season, but the pash rush was atrocious when Vernon was out. It was comical how long QB's had to set up before he came back.
We got rid of Odell, in my opinion it was the right move. For both teams. I think it was one of those trades that was equally beneficial for both, it isn't a zero sum game like some like to believe.
I liked OV a lot too and wasn't happy losing him but having Zeitler is perfect for Saquan
Saquon has earned the right for you to not misspell his name
and Vernon. People like to make a big deal about the offensive line in the first half of the season, but the pash rush was atrocious when Vernon was out. It was comical how long QB's had to set up before he came back.
We got rid of Odell, in my opinion it was the right move. For both teams. I think it was one of those trades that was equally beneficial for both, it isn't a zero sum game like some like to believe.
I liked OV a lot too and wasn't happy losing him but having Zeitler is perfect for Saquan
Saquon has earned the right for you to not misspell his name
It's not worth it - this poster is literally incapable of posting anything without it being a disaster somehow. Every single post of theirs I've even attempted to read has been full of misspellings and inaccuracies.
RE: I'm sorry but who gives a fuck what an amateur youtuber says? Â
Well, let's see. As I write this, this thread has 2,297 views and 58 comments (including yours and mine), so I'd say quite a few people give a fuck what he says...at least enough of a fuck to view the thread and comment on it.
Referring to this character as the "media" is astonishingly actually offensive to the media.
This dude is the functional equivalence of a lady posting cat videos being referred to as veterinarian.
Saying things on the internet about a topic doesn't make one the media.
This dude is infinity better than what is available in traditional media. There is a reason that he has 100k subscribers. There are two types of analysts in the traditional media now. Hot take specialists and unqualified dorks with journalism degrees. It is almost impossible for guys that aren't hot take machines to find traction in the media.
Sure there are guys like Baldy out there, but he is vastly outnumbered by the Stephen A's of the world. I like Shomler because he is well reasoned out and breaks down film. Once he graduates college and goes full time I think you are going to see an increase in his quality.
Should he have said the Giants oline is crappy? No probably not, but he is going on a Solder who struggled here, a center that has played two games, and a right tackle who has played poorly and injured outside of one year at what seems to be his natural position Right Tackle. And the only people that don't think our WR corps isn't crappy either are blinded by their hate of Odell or don't watch teams outside the Giants. We have two WR's that probably fall in the top 25-50 and a whole bunch of question marks and jags behind them. Add to that a defense that has proved nothing and you come out to a five win projection.
I really like this team, but would it shock me if they finish with 6 wins? No and it doesn't mean the future doesn't look bright. The core of our team is tremendously young.
I feel like a lot of people are spending too much time Â
Zeke -- I'm not saying he isn't a decent thinker. I'm saying he's got no accountability or real industry credibility.
He's making observations based on an incredibly limited set of information. If he was a professional analyst he'd have colleagues who could verify his opinions, editors who would force him to do so, and likely some real world experience to base his opinions on.
Referring to this character as the "media" is astonishingly actually offensive to the media.
This dude is the functional equivalence of a lady posting cat videos being referred to as veterinarian.
Saying things on the internet about a topic doesn't make one the media.
A lady posting cat videos would be considered a "fancier," unless of course she's also dispensing medical advice, at which time a check of her credentials would be in order.
Does one have to be a professional chef to have a cooking channel on YouTube? Suppose a person is just a really good home cook who wishes to share his or her recipes and discuss kitchen-related things with like-minded people?
There's "old media" and "new media," and what was once exclusive to "old media" has since gravitated to "new media" thanks to technology. In that regard, sports journalism is no different than hard news, movie reviews, political punditry, and a thousand other things.
OK awesome. He's the equivalent of a home cook with a YouTube channel.
Which puts his analysis somewhere between completely unsubstantiated and amateurishly interesting.
You questioned his "accountability." He's accountable to his viewers, his subscribers, and his patrons. If he didn't put out a product that was worth watching (and in some cases supporting financially), he wouldn't have an audience (or a channel/podcast). He's no different from anyone in the traditional media who are dependent on good ratings and advertising revenue to keep their jobs.
Your opinion of his analysis is your opinion. Don't like it? Don't watch. Plenty of people find his opinions worthwhile, even when they disagree with him, and also find his presentation entertaining. I'd say the same things about Emory Hunt, Brett Kollmann, and Matt Waldman, among others.
Any analyst that doesn't understand the Giants' OL is not just better Â
But a significant amount better and a competitive unit in comparison to the rest of the league doesn't deserve to be given much credibility. If you can't see the most obvious improvement on this team then on what basis can your prediction be trusted. And it's not just Giants' fans that see this it's been pretty widely acknowledged by the PFFs and others. A competitive OL with Saquon and a vet QB that can take advantage of more time to throw doesn't add up to a 5-11 record which would indicate a worse team than last year. And BTW, our defense has better personnel than last year as well. A better DL and a better secondary at the very least.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
But that view is less about some sort of superstitious surrender to the patterns of the past, and more about recognizing that some of the elements that contributed to losing seasons seem to still remain.
Is Shurmur any closer to becoming an above average head coach? Have we upgraded our defense or has it actually deteriorated? Is our offensive line going to be substantially better or merely incrementally? Can our receivers easily be countered and negated by your average NFL defense? Will our special teams still chug along as a typical, uneventful special teams unit 19 times out of 20, but make a catastrophic mistake that 20th time?
Those questions should all be focused entirely on now. Not the past.
It doesn't matter what the Giants were in 2017 because virtually nothing from that season is still here now.
Why should a Ben McAdoo season with an offensive line featuring Ereck Flowers, John Jerry, Weston Richburg, Bobby Hart and Justin Pugh have anything to do with this season?
None of these people are here anymore. Why should there be any carryover?
It's fine to ask if the problems have been solved, but I'm not sure why we're discussing past iterations of the Giants when there's close to zero overlap in not only personnel, but also the coach, GM, and positional coaches.
It's basically entirely irrelevant.
None of the concerns I have are based on the Giants of the distant past. They're based on the Giants of last year, and there really hasn't been enough change or movement to abate them.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
But that view is less about some sort of superstitious surrender to the patterns of the past, and more about recognizing that some of the elements that contributed to losing seasons seem to still remain.
Is Shurmur any closer to becoming an above average head coach? Have we upgraded our defense or has it actually deteriorated? Is our offensive line going to be substantially better or merely incrementally? Can our receivers easily be countered and negated by your average NFL defense? Will our special teams still chug along as a typical, uneventful special teams unit 19 times out of 20, but make a catastrophic mistake that 20th time?
Those questions should all be focused entirely on now. Not the past.
It doesn't matter what the Giants were in 2017 because virtually nothing from that season is still here now.
Why should a Ben McAdoo season with an offensive line featuring Ereck Flowers, John Jerry, Weston Richburg, Bobby Hart and Justin Pugh have anything to do with this season?
None of these people are here anymore. Why should there be any carryover?
It's fine to ask if the problems have been solved, but I'm not sure why we're discussing past iterations of the Giants when there's close to zero overlap in not only personnel, but also the coach, GM, and positional coaches.
It's basically entirely irrelevant.
None of the concerns I have are based on the Giants of the distant past. They're based on the Giants of last year, and there really hasn't been enough change or movement to abate them.
We must have witnessed very different offseasons, then.
This team and last years' team have quite a bit of contrast. Even from last year, there's been a fair amount of roster turnover.
This also entirely dismisses that rookies from last year could (and should) have more of an impact this year... i.e.. Will Hernandez, BJ Hill and potentially even McIntosh. All of those guys weren't at their ceilings as rookies and should continue to get better.
Kevin Zeitler was not here last year. Mike Remmers was not here. So, right there you have 3 new guys on the offensive line alone.
Dexter Lawrence was not here last year. That's a potential difference maker on the defensive line. Dalvin Tomlinson is still a young, ascending player.
Peppers/Bethea have replaced Collins/Riley.
The entire secondary was replenished. BW Webb was opposite Jenkins last year. BW Webb sucks and is no longer here. DeAndre Baker will be taking his place
Corey Ballentine had a very nice preseason and camp. We also drafted Julian Love.
We drafted Ximines to hopefully help the pass rush.
We signed Markus Golden to help the pass rush.
We're not there yet, but I have no idea how someone looks at last year and this year and just thinks barely anything has changed and that it's basically status quo here.
Gettleman has overhauled a massive portion of this team in just 2 years. The roster turnover has been huge.
Again, it doesn't mean we're a great team now or that it's going to lead to a big uptick in wins... but the notion that it's pretty much what we saw in 2018 coming back out there for 2019... I just don't see that nor do I agree with it.
My last post also doesn't even mention the rookie QB who looked fantastic all summer long and who is going to get in there and play as soon as Eli falters.
If Eli faltered last year, our options were pretty much... Kyle Lauletta. The guy we just cut.
I'd say that's also a noteworthy difference between this years' team and last.
My last post also doesn't even mention the rookie QB who looked fantastic all summer long and who is going to get in there and play as soon as Eli falters.
If Eli faltered last year, our options were pretty much... Kyle Lauletta. The guy we just cut.
I'd say that's also a noteworthy difference between this years' team and last.
I couldn't agree more with all of your above. It's hard to know exactly what effect the changes will have but that they're are changes and that many are obvious improvements seems undeniable.
He’s in college, he had a terrible family tragedy, he worked is way back to playing college football at QB, he is clearly working hard to try and start a podcast/YouTube side business through all this,
He isn’t a Max Kellerman/Stephan A hottake kind of opinator designed to generate outrage clicks/views but an honest assessment from his POV,
Just disagree with him, no need to get personal.
Did you all even watch the video? Shomler spends nearly Â
the entire 2 minutes talking about what is up-and-coming good for the Giants. And that he likes the direction of the team in many facets, and that fans shouldnt get too caught up in wins & losses in 2019 and look at this year as investing/developing the future.
He is basically spot on.
If he had said the exact same thing but given them a 7-9 prediction you all wouldn't have your meat hooks in him.
I'll say it again...too many of you all have a self-concept problem being a Giant fan.
It's possible, these are the winnable games on paper Â
Buffalo @home
Tampa
Redskins @home
Minnesota @home
Arizona @home
Detroit
Jets
Miami @home
I think this guy is saying we win those home games and nothing else basically. Or some mixture of that list. I have us at 7-9. With wins against Buffalo, Tampa, Washington, Arizona, Miami, Dallas and Minnesota.
I don't really have an issue with anyone who looks at the 2019 Giants and sees a 5 or 6 win team... that's fine.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
What can we really take away from even 2 years ago?
Jerry Reese was the GM. Ben McAdoo was the HC. Barkley wasn't here. Beckham was - and missed like 3/4 of the season anyway. There was no Daniel Jones here. Collins was here. Snacks was here. Vernon was here. All players who were traded or let go of.
The roster is so different now. The team is so different now. I just don't feel like there's any carryover anymore.
2018 ---> 2019, sure I can buy some takeaways. At least it's the same coach and there are more commonalities.
I just think too much of this analysis is with prior seasons in mind. And those seasons have such little impact on now and forward.
Things change really quickly in this league.
I think 2020 is the target for us - I've maintained that for a while and that hasn't changed. But I'm hard pressed to buy that this team won't improve at all in the win column between now and then.
7-8 wins is entirely realistic for this group if we can avoid the crushing injury/injuries.
They beat 4 backup QB's last year. The 5 wins was a gift. But just like you and nearly everyone else I'm pointing to the 2020 season too. Just want to see "signs" other than Barkley.
I and many of the posters directly addresses the point that we don't give a fuck what this nobody has to say and directly question why his opinion even matters. Because it doesn't. Some kid wants to blather about on youtube to scrounge a buck that's fine. It carries no more credibility than any other fan expressing an opinion.
I don't think that type of response credits as interest in anything he has to say. We aren't addressing his content or opinion but rather why you'd bother to put it forward.
RE: 'so I'd say quite a few people give a fuck '... Â
I and many of the posters directly addresses the point that we don't give a fuck what this nobody has to say and directly question why his opinion even matters. Because it doesn't. Some kid wants to blather about on youtube to scrounge a buck that's fine. It carries no more credibility than any other fan expressing an opinion.
I don't think that type of response credits as interest in anything he has to say. We aren't addressing his content or opinion but rather why you'd bother to put it forward.
Because he has a growing following, and some here appreciate the work he's doing to try and grow his brand and enjoy listening to him (or watching him), as I do. I feel the same way about Shomler as I do about some of the other YouTubers I've mentioned, whose videos I've also posted here. Their opinions are worth discussing, maybe even more than some of the "professionals" whose writings appear regularly in Defenderdawg's threads, and certainly more than the latest ESPN rankings or PFF grades. But if those are what drive you, have at them. Personally, I find them very tedious. I'd rather listen to "some kid" on YouTube, and clearly I'm not alone in that.
I don't really have an issue with anyone who looks at the 2019 Giants and sees a 5 or 6 win team... that's fine.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
What can we really take away from even 2 years ago?
Jerry Reese was the GM. Ben McAdoo was the HC. Barkley wasn't here. Beckham was - and missed like 3/4 of the season anyway. There was no Daniel Jones here. Collins was here. Snacks was here. Vernon was here. All players who were traded or let go of.
The roster is so different now. The team is so different now. I just don't feel like there's any carryover anymore.
2018 ---> 2019, sure I can buy some takeaways. At least it's the same coach and there are more commonalities.
I just think too much of this analysis is with prior seasons in mind. And those seasons have such little impact on now and forward.
Things change really quickly in this league.
I think 2020 is the target for us - I've maintained that for a while and that hasn't changed. But I'm hard pressed to buy that this team won't improve at all in the win column between now and then.
7-8 wins is entirely realistic for this group if we can avoid the crushing injury/injuries.
They beat 4 backup QB's last year. The 5 wins was a gift. But just like you and nearly everyone else I'm pointing to the 2020 season too. Just want to see "signs" other than Barkley.
Does every other team in the league get asterisked for beating backups? I don't understand why this gets pointed out for the Giants, but then we operate under the assumption that every other team got all of their wins against starters and teams at full strength.
One of those wins against a backup QB was the Bears... we put up 30 on the best defense in football. Doesn't count, though... Chase Daniel.
Another one of those backups was Nick Mullens.. who played reasonably well for the 49ers and isn't behind anything resembling a "sure thing" regardless of what they paid Garoppolo.
I guess the TB game counts as beating a backup even though they played both QB's that day.
I get it - we have to do gymnastics to find every single way to discredit any game the Giants win and make it so it doesn't really count. Some of you guys are just wired this way. It is what it is.
Personally, I think this is a much different feeling team than even last season. And while I don't see playoffs or winning season in 2019 - I do see improvement and better than 5-11 with our sights set on 2020.
the Mullens situation was especially hypocritical.
You had many BBI'ers wondering if we should make a play for the guy, then we beat him and he returns to being considered dogshit again.
LOL, yep. At that point, we had several people talking about how he'd be a better option than Eli at this point and that we'd be smart to consider making a play for him.
But if we beat him, he's just a backup QB and it doesn't count.
Outside of Mullens those backups were laughably bad. The Giants Â
also scored a defensive td against the bears. So the offense scored 23 points in a game that went to OT against a team that was consistently put in bad field position due to sacks and turnovers. I don't know the numbers, but I feel like we got half our sacks against the Skins in the second game, the Bears, and the Bucs.
Like I said... we don't do these types of gymnastics for anyone else's wins except for NYG.
I guess no one else beat backup QB's last year, so we're the only team that gets that factored into this season.
Ryan Fitzpatrick beat the Saints AND the Eagles last year. But then if the Giants play him - it's a backup QB we beat and doesn't count.
The double standard is just, quite frankly silly.
We don't pick apart the quality of each and every win like this for any other team. It's like we just assume theirs were all fair and square and the opponent was at full strength but we got blessed with the path of least resistance in each of ours.
I'm not under the illusion that NYG were a good team last year. But they played better football in the 2nd half of the season and look to be ascending and on a better path now. It's okay to acknowledge that.
I don't really have an issue with anyone who looks at the 2019 Giants and sees a 5 or 6 win team... that's fine.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
What can we really take away from even 2 years ago?
Jerry Reese was the GM. Ben McAdoo was the HC. Barkley wasn't here. Beckham was - and missed like 3/4 of the season anyway. There was no Daniel Jones here. Collins was here. Snacks was here. Vernon was here. All players who were traded or let go of.
The roster is so different now. The team is so different now. I just don't feel like there's any carryover anymore.
2018 ---> 2019, sure I can buy some takeaways. At least it's the same coach and there are more commonalities.
I just think too much of this analysis is with prior seasons in mind. And those seasons have such little impact on now and forward.
Things change really quickly in this league.
I think 2020 is the target for us - I've maintained that for a while and that hasn't changed. But I'm hard pressed to buy that this team won't improve at all in the win column between now and then.
7-8 wins is entirely realistic for this group if we can avoid the crushing injury/injuries.
They beat 4 backup QB's last year. The 5 wins was a gift. But just like you and nearly everyone else I'm pointing to the 2020 season too. Just want to see "signs" other than Barkley.
Does every other team in the league get asterisked for beating backups? I don't understand why this gets pointed out for the Giants, but then we operate under the assumption that every other team got all of their wins against starters and teams at full strength.
One of those wins against a backup QB was the Bears... we put up 30 on the best defense in football. Doesn't count, though... Chase Daniel.
Another one of those backups was Nick Mullens.. who played reasonably well for the 49ers and isn't behind anything resembling a "sure thing" regardless of what they paid Garoppolo.
I guess the TB game counts as beating a backup even though they played both QB's that day.
I get it - we have to do gymnastics to find every single way to discredit any game the Giants win and make it so it doesn't really count. Some of you guys are just wired this way. It is what it is.
Personally, I think this is a much different feeling team than even last season. And while I don't see playoffs or winning season in 2019 - I do see improvement and better than 5-11 with our sights set on 2020.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Are we talking about quality of the team? You said below.
"well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way."
If we want to talk what we know -- wouldn't it also be relevant to take into account 80% of a team's wins came from beating backups? We KNOW that, right? SO we're supposed to ignore it WHILE WE make individual predcitions for the team?
We must have witnessed very different offseasons, then.
This team and last years' team have quite a bit of contrast. Even from last year, there's been a fair amount of roster turnover.
This also entirely dismisses that rookies from last year could (and should) have more of an impact this year... i.e.. Will Hernandez, BJ Hill and potentially even McIntosh. All of those guys weren't at their ceilings as rookies and should continue to get better.
There has been turnover, but not any of it is guaranteed to result in an improvement and may in fact result in a decline. I also don't assume improvement in young Giants players anymore. No reason to yet -- only our generational players tend to do that.
Like I said... we don't do these types of gymnastics for anyone else's wins except for NYG.
I guess no one else beat backup QB's last year, so we're the only team that gets that factored into this season.
Ryan Fitzpatrick beat the Saints AND the Eagles last year. But then if the Giants play him - it's a backup QB we beat and doesn't count.
The double standard is just, quite frankly silly.
We don't pick apart the quality of each and every win like this for any other team. It's like we just assume theirs were all fair and square and the opponent was at full strength but we got blessed with the path of least resistance in each of ours.
I'm not under the illusion that NYG were a good team last year. But they played better football in the 2nd half of the season and look to be ascending and on a better path now. It's okay to acknowledge that.
It's interesting how Giants fans do this. I don't see it as prevalent in any other fanbase.The constant shoe-gazing really becomes tiresome though.
This team still has a ways to go, but there is reason for hope and optimism. There is reason to beliebe we sre on the verge of an upswing. Giants fans (on average) don't seem capable of hope and optimism however.
The Patriots' entire division is usually a dumpster fire, but you never hear those guys say "yeah we won, but it's just the Bills"
There has been turnover, but not any of it is guaranteed to result in an improvement and may in fact result in a decline. I also don't assume improvement in young Giants players anymore. No reason to yet -- only our generational players tend to do that.
Of course it's not guaranteed. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but I have to say, if you can't muster any excitement this of all seasons U don't know why you fucking bother.
For a good part of the 2000's I actually didn't care much if they routinely sucked, so long as they were fun to watch (which was the best we could hope for, for years).
I think the Giants could be fun to watch, sure, and for that I'm interested. I just find the constant impulses to discredit anyone with low expectations as oddly out of place given what this team is.
Because we are Giant fans desperate for time filling “news” about the Giants. The whole response seems to revolve around the trope of the age “all are entitled to an opinion”. The concept that some “opinions are better than others” has become conflated with “some people, for multiple reasons, may have, more or less valid reasons, for their opinions.”.
So i think the #of views, responses etc is related to the above, rather than the importance, validity, or empirical truth of the opinion being discussed. However you choose to explain, I did open and respond to the OP.
There has been turnover, but not any of it is guaranteed to result in an improvement and may in fact result in a decline. I also don't assume improvement in young Giants players anymore. No reason to yet -- only our generational players tend to do that.
Of course it's not guaranteed. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but I have to say, if you can't muster any excitement this of all seasons U don't know why you fucking bother.
I think the Giants are going to actually get off to a decent start and then hit a wall and drop games mid season. And at some point in the final 4-5 games they will sit Eli for Jones. And I could see a 6-10 or 7-9 season.
I still maintain, the Giants are building to make noise in 2020. So long as the arrow is pointing up at the end of the season and we see Jones in live bullets before the year ends, and the key guys stay healthy, with another draft and cap room, this is a playoff team next year.
Just a YouTuber/podcaster whose videos made the rounds here before the draft, like Brett Kollmanns or Matt Waldman's.
I believe he got buzz for defending Eli
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
What can we really take away from even 2 years ago?
Jerry Reese was the GM. Ben McAdoo was the HC. Barkley wasn't here. Beckham was - and missed like 3/4 of the season anyway. There was no Daniel Jones here. Collins was here. Snacks was here. Vernon was here. All players who were traded or let go of.
The roster is so different now. The team is so different now. I just don't feel like there's any carryover anymore.
2018 ---> 2019, sure I can buy some takeaways. At least it's the same coach and there are more commonalities.
I just think too much of this analysis is with prior seasons in mind. And those seasons have such little impact on now and forward.
Things change really quickly in this league.
I think 2020 is the target for us - I've maintained that for a while and that hasn't changed. But I'm hard pressed to buy that this team won't improve at all in the win column between now and then.
7-8 wins is entirely realistic for this group if we can avoid the crushing injury/injuries.
I like this guy, but that is just a stupid thing to say
1. The Giants have a crappy OL?
That just shows he's hasn't been paying attention, and doesn't seem aware that it's completely rebuilt, and hopefully won't be bad anymore. He lost me right there.
2. Jones has better arm strength than Manning?
Really? That's the exact opposite of everything that has been said since the draft. Everyone (outside NFL circles) QUESTIONED Jones' arm strength. It seems to be absolutely fine, but no one questioned Eli's arm strength as the #1 prospect of his draft. And even if you believe there's a fall off in Eli's arm (I don't, personally), the reports out of camp from coaches, players, press, and observers, are pretty universal is that Eli's arm is as least as strong as ever. So something's off with this opinion, too.
3. The Giants are rebuilding, and shouldn't try to win games.
That may be the silliest thing anyone's ever said about ANY team, and doesn't require further comment.
1. The Giants have a crappy OL?
That just shows he's hasn't been paying attention, and doesn't seem aware that it's completely rebuilt, and hopefully won't be bad anymore. He lost me right there.
2. Jones has better arm strength than Manning?
Really? That's the exact opposite of everything that has been said since the draft. Everyone (outside NFL circles) QUESTIONED Jones' arm strength. It seems to be absolutely fine, but no one questioned Eli's arm strength as the #1 prospect of his draft. And even if you believe there's a fall off in Eli's arm (I don't, personally), the reports out of camp from coaches, players, press, and observers, are pretty universal is that Eli's arm is as least as strong as ever. So something's off with this opinion, too.
3. The Giants are rebuilding, and shouldn't try to win games.
That may be the silliest thing anyone's ever said about ANY team, and doesn't require further comment.
I know we made efforts to upgrade that OL, but the starters looked really bad in that Bengals game and it concerns me.
3 wins in 17 - Net Barkley, Hill and Carter (foundational pieces)
5 wins in 18 - Net Jones , Lawrence and Baker and other promising players.
SOS as a 3 win team didn't have a huge impact on their year in 18. This team is clearly not in the top 2 NFC East teams. i don't think it's debatable - at least not on paper.
Sure things can happen like: 1) Wentz misses signficant time 2) Ditto for Cooper but those 2 teams are pretty deep with star talent compared to our team.
Bottom line: 8-8 is a success to me. 7-9 won't be a disappointment. anything below 7-9 means Jones should see at least 6 starts this season and at that point I don't care about the record for this year, I care about the future. Anything over 8-8 would be a surprise.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
But that view is less about some sort of superstitious surrender to the patterns of the past, and more about recognizing that some of the elements that contributed to losing seasons seem to still remain.
Is Shurmur any closer to becoming an above average head coach? Have we upgraded our defense or has it actually deteriorated? Is our offensive line going to be substantially better or merely incrementally? Can our receivers easily be countered and negated by your average NFL defense? Will our special teams still chug along as a typical, uneventful special teams unit 19 times out of 20, but make a catastrophic mistake that 20th time?
The outrage and bashing of the Jones pick as an example vs. the strong play in the preseason didn't seem to get close to the same attention.
Anyone us feel like it's us against the world?
Quote:
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
But that view is less about some sort of superstitious surrender to the patterns of the past, and more about recognizing that some of the elements that contributed to losing seasons seem to still remain.
Is Shurmur any closer to becoming an above average head coach? Have we upgraded our defense or has it actually deteriorated? Is our offensive line going to be substantially better or merely incrementally? Can our receivers easily be countered and negated by your average NFL defense? Will our special teams still chug along as a typical, uneventful special teams unit 19 times out of 20, but make a catastrophic mistake that 20th time?
Those questions should all be focused entirely on now. Not the past.
It doesn't matter what the Giants were in 2017 because virtually nothing from that season is still here now.
Why should a Ben McAdoo season with an offensive line featuring Ereck Flowers, John Jerry, Weston Richburg, Bobby Hart and Justin Pugh have anything to do with this season?
None of these people are here anymore. Why should there be any carryover?
It's fine to ask if the problems have been solved, but I'm not sure why we're discussing past iterations of the Giants when there's close to zero overlap in not only personnel, but also the coach, GM, and positional coaches.
It's basically entirely irrelevant.
I get that they base it on who we've lost (in part, the rest of it I assume reflects their highly exaggerated negative opinion of our starting QB). But, that's because they like the back of baseball cards and throwing their skivvies on the stage at celebrities. The reality is that those names were virtual non-contributors to the best parts of our season last year. With the possible exception of Landon, who we replaced at pretty much a wash in talent. But, we are the same in most areas and markedly improved in key areas (e.g., OL and Defensive backfield).
So, couldn't they give us at least one win in improvement?
But they'll do what they do. Nobody knows the future.
Because it's going to be on the Final, 50% of your grade.
Fwiw, iirc he did say that early (if I'm recalling the right vid). I think it was b4 the draft, it was a well done vid overall, thought he was on the "solid, steady but not spectacular" train...no wow throws but checks most of the boxes
- opposing defense has been looking at tape of Barkley, will be much harder for him
- our QB situation is a disaster, making bets on aging Eli. We drafted a #1, get him on the field. We are not winning a SB with this unit, why waste time with Eli?
- our defense looks scary and disorganized.
- our receiving crew lacks a play maker. Don't need Beckham for that but we have nothing that is average for the NFL
rebuild underway
I guess I just don't see the "lot" in talent that we gave away. Or maybe I would focus more on "contribution" instead.
We are better at QB, just by having more comfort and experience in the offensive scheme. Also, by allowing for more time and security in the pocket. Due to...
We are markedly, if not logarithmically, better at the OL.
We are likely better at RB with more growth and experience and greater usage of the featured back. Depth is the same.
We are the same or even better at TE. Better if we take into account greater usage.
We are lesser in terms of name WR. But equal to last year if we look at the "better" team (the second half team).
We are likely equal in DL, even if we are equal to not very good. Vernon was a high talent, minimal contributory player.
Pretty much the same LB with some growth from Carter.
We are markedly, if not logarithmically, better at the OL.
Same Special teams.
Not even one game better than last season?
so now it's time to prove it .
We got rid of Odell, in my opinion it was the right move. For both teams. I think it was one of those trades that was equally beneficial for both, it isn't a zero sum game like some like to believe.
We got rid of Odell, in my opinion it was the right move. For both teams. I think it was one of those trades that was equally beneficial for both, it isn't a zero sum game like some like to believe.
I liked OV a lot too and wasn't happy losing him but having Zeitler is perfect for Saquan
vernon was our leading sacker last year, and doubled the next guy in qb hits
well 30 sacks was 2nd lowest so there isn't much room to go down, but unless we get a bunch from Peppers and CB blitzes, I dont see it going up much.
Side note, Oak had a team total of 13 sacks last year....ooof
Quote:
this year.
well 30 sacks was 2nd lowest so there isn't much room to go down, but unless we get a bunch from Peppers and CB blitzes, I dont see it going up much.
Side note, Oak had a team total of 13 sacks last year....ooof
But if it goes up, then that's one more area of improvement. So, I'm still questioning how you get to the same record as last year, basically saying we made no improvements at all.
Quote:
In comment 14557040 Bill L said:
Quote:
this year.
well 30 sacks was 2nd lowest so there isn't much room to go down, but unless we get a bunch from Peppers and CB blitzes, I dont see it going up much.
Side note, Oak had a team total of 13 sacks last year....ooof
But if it goes up, then that's one more area of improvement. So, I'm still questioning how you get to the same record as last year, basically saying we made no improvements at all.
weather or not you agree, we did have a lot of seasoned talent leave the team. And all the other teams got to participate in the draft and free agency as well. Its not like they all stood pat.
Most of our additions with the exception of zeiter are very young and will need time to develop, while guys on other teams are developing their young guys as well.
If I remember correctly from just before the draft, Zac Shomler thought Daniel Jones was just very, very ordinary. No great flaws, but no indication of great ability either. Unless I'm mixing it up with his assessment of Drew Lock, but I don't think I am.
Take it easy lol. He seems like a good guy and I have enjoyed his content.
Quote:
and Vernon. People like to make a big deal about the offensive line in the first half of the season, but the pash rush was atrocious when Vernon was out. It was comical how long QB's had to set up before he came back.
We got rid of Odell, in my opinion it was the right move. For both teams. I think it was one of those trades that was equally beneficial for both, it isn't a zero sum game like some like to believe.
I liked OV a lot too and wasn't happy losing him but having Zeitler is perfect for Saquan
Saquon has earned the right for you to not misspell his name
This dude is the functional equivalence of a lady posting cat videos being referred to as veterinarian.
Saying things on the internet about a topic doesn't make one the media.
Quote:
In comment 14556942 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
and Vernon. People like to make a big deal about the offensive line in the first half of the season, but the pash rush was atrocious when Vernon was out. It was comical how long QB's had to set up before he came back.
We got rid of Odell, in my opinion it was the right move. For both teams. I think it was one of those trades that was equally beneficial for both, it isn't a zero sum game like some like to believe.
I liked OV a lot too and wasn't happy losing him but having Zeitler is perfect for Saquan
Saquon has earned the right for you to not misspell his name
It's not worth it - this poster is literally incapable of posting anything without it being a disaster somehow. Every single post of theirs I've even attempted to read has been full of misspellings and inaccuracies.
Well, let's see. As I write this, this thread has 2,297 views and 58 comments (including yours and mine), so I'd say quite a few people give a fuck what he says...at least enough of a fuck to view the thread and comment on it.
This dude is the functional equivalence of a lady posting cat videos being referred to as veterinarian.
Saying things on the internet about a topic doesn't make one the media.
This dude is infinity better than what is available in traditional media. There is a reason that he has 100k subscribers. There are two types of analysts in the traditional media now. Hot take specialists and unqualified dorks with journalism degrees. It is almost impossible for guys that aren't hot take machines to find traction in the media.
Sure there are guys like Baldy out there, but he is vastly outnumbered by the Stephen A's of the world. I like Shomler because he is well reasoned out and breaks down film. Once he graduates college and goes full time I think you are going to see an increase in his quality.
Should he have said the Giants oline is crappy? No probably not, but he is going on a Solder who struggled here, a center that has played two games, and a right tackle who has played poorly and injured outside of one year at what seems to be his natural position Right Tackle. And the only people that don't think our WR corps isn't crappy either are blinded by their hate of Odell or don't watch teams outside the Giants. We have two WR's that probably fall in the top 25-50 and a whole bunch of question marks and jags behind them. Add to that a defense that has proved nothing and you come out to a five win projection.
I really like this team, but would it shock me if they finish with 6 wins? No and it doesn't mean the future doesn't look bright. The core of our team is tremendously young.
He's making observations based on an incredibly limited set of information. If he was a professional analyst he'd have colleagues who could verify his opinions, editors who would force him to do so, and likely some real world experience to base his opinions on.
This dude is the functional equivalence of a lady posting cat videos being referred to as veterinarian.
Saying things on the internet about a topic doesn't make one the media.
A lady posting cat videos would be considered a "fancier," unless of course she's also dispensing medical advice, at which time a check of her credentials would be in order.
Does one have to be a professional chef to have a cooking channel on YouTube? Suppose a person is just a really good home cook who wishes to share his or her recipes and discuss kitchen-related things with like-minded people?
There's "old media" and "new media," and what was once exclusive to "old media" has since gravitated to "new media" thanks to technology. In that regard, sports journalism is no different than hard news, movie reviews, political punditry, and a thousand other things.
Which puts his analysis somewhere between completely unsubstantiated and amateurishly interesting.
Which puts his analysis somewhere between completely unsubstantiated and amateurishly interesting.
You questioned his "accountability." He's accountable to his viewers, his subscribers, and his patrons. If he didn't put out a product that was worth watching (and in some cases supporting financially), he wouldn't have an audience (or a channel/podcast). He's no different from anyone in the traditional media who are dependent on good ratings and advertising revenue to keep their jobs.
Your opinion of his analysis is your opinion. Don't like it? Don't watch. Plenty of people find his opinions worthwhile, even when they disagree with him, and also find his presentation entertaining. I'd say the same things about Emory Hunt, Brett Kollmann, and Matt Waldman, among others.
If you are addressing me I didn't say anything like that.
Quote:
In comment 14556534 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
But that view is less about some sort of superstitious surrender to the patterns of the past, and more about recognizing that some of the elements that contributed to losing seasons seem to still remain.
Is Shurmur any closer to becoming an above average head coach? Have we upgraded our defense or has it actually deteriorated? Is our offensive line going to be substantially better or merely incrementally? Can our receivers easily be countered and negated by your average NFL defense? Will our special teams still chug along as a typical, uneventful special teams unit 19 times out of 20, but make a catastrophic mistake that 20th time?
Those questions should all be focused entirely on now. Not the past.
It doesn't matter what the Giants were in 2017 because virtually nothing from that season is still here now.
Why should a Ben McAdoo season with an offensive line featuring Ereck Flowers, John Jerry, Weston Richburg, Bobby Hart and Justin Pugh have anything to do with this season?
None of these people are here anymore. Why should there be any carryover?
It's fine to ask if the problems have been solved, but I'm not sure why we're discussing past iterations of the Giants when there's close to zero overlap in not only personnel, but also the coach, GM, and positional coaches.
It's basically entirely irrelevant.
None of the concerns I have are based on the Giants of the distant past. They're based on the Giants of last year, and there really hasn't been enough change or movement to abate them.
Quote:
In comment 14556571 santacruzom said:
Quote:
In comment 14556534 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
But that view is less about some sort of superstitious surrender to the patterns of the past, and more about recognizing that some of the elements that contributed to losing seasons seem to still remain.
Is Shurmur any closer to becoming an above average head coach? Have we upgraded our defense or has it actually deteriorated? Is our offensive line going to be substantially better or merely incrementally? Can our receivers easily be countered and negated by your average NFL defense? Will our special teams still chug along as a typical, uneventful special teams unit 19 times out of 20, but make a catastrophic mistake that 20th time?
Those questions should all be focused entirely on now. Not the past.
It doesn't matter what the Giants were in 2017 because virtually nothing from that season is still here now.
Why should a Ben McAdoo season with an offensive line featuring Ereck Flowers, John Jerry, Weston Richburg, Bobby Hart and Justin Pugh have anything to do with this season?
None of these people are here anymore. Why should there be any carryover?
It's fine to ask if the problems have been solved, but I'm not sure why we're discussing past iterations of the Giants when there's close to zero overlap in not only personnel, but also the coach, GM, and positional coaches.
It's basically entirely irrelevant.
None of the concerns I have are based on the Giants of the distant past. They're based on the Giants of last year, and there really hasn't been enough change or movement to abate them.
We must have witnessed very different offseasons, then.
This team and last years' team have quite a bit of contrast. Even from last year, there's been a fair amount of roster turnover.
This also entirely dismisses that rookies from last year could (and should) have more of an impact this year... i.e.. Will Hernandez, BJ Hill and potentially even McIntosh. All of those guys weren't at their ceilings as rookies and should continue to get better.
Kevin Zeitler was not here last year. Mike Remmers was not here. So, right there you have 3 new guys on the offensive line alone.
Dexter Lawrence was not here last year. That's a potential difference maker on the defensive line. Dalvin Tomlinson is still a young, ascending player.
Peppers/Bethea have replaced Collins/Riley.
The entire secondary was replenished. BW Webb was opposite Jenkins last year. BW Webb sucks and is no longer here. DeAndre Baker will be taking his place
Corey Ballentine had a very nice preseason and camp. We also drafted Julian Love.
We drafted Ximines to hopefully help the pass rush.
We signed Markus Golden to help the pass rush.
We're not there yet, but I have no idea how someone looks at last year and this year and just thinks barely anything has changed and that it's basically status quo here.
Gettleman has overhauled a massive portion of this team in just 2 years. The roster turnover has been huge.
Again, it doesn't mean we're a great team now or that it's going to lead to a big uptick in wins... but the notion that it's pretty much what we saw in 2018 coming back out there for 2019... I just don't see that nor do I agree with it.
Because BBI seems to care about the opinions of ALL clowns, known or unknown... ;)
If Eli faltered last year, our options were pretty much... Kyle Lauletta. The guy we just cut.
I'd say that's also a noteworthy difference between this years' team and last.
If Eli faltered last year, our options were pretty much... Kyle Lauletta. The guy we just cut.
I'd say that's also a noteworthy difference between this years' team and last.
I couldn't agree more with all of your above. It's hard to know exactly what effect the changes will have but that they're are changes and that many are obvious improvements seems undeniable.
He isn’t a Max Kellerman/Stephan A hottake kind of opinator designed to generate outrage clicks/views but an honest assessment from his POV,
Just disagree with him, no need to get personal.
He is basically spot on.
If he had said the exact same thing but given them a 7-9 prediction you all wouldn't have your meat hooks in him.
I'll say it again...too many of you all have a self-concept problem being a Giant fan.
Tampa
Redskins @home
Minnesota @home
Arizona @home
Detroit
Jets
Miami @home
I think this guy is saying we win those home games and nothing else basically. Or some mixture of that list. I have us at 7-9. With wins against Buffalo, Tampa, Washington, Arizona, Miami, Dallas and Minnesota.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
What can we really take away from even 2 years ago?
Jerry Reese was the GM. Ben McAdoo was the HC. Barkley wasn't here. Beckham was - and missed like 3/4 of the season anyway. There was no Daniel Jones here. Collins was here. Snacks was here. Vernon was here. All players who were traded or let go of.
The roster is so different now. The team is so different now. I just don't feel like there's any carryover anymore.
2018 ---> 2019, sure I can buy some takeaways. At least it's the same coach and there are more commonalities.
I just think too much of this analysis is with prior seasons in mind. And those seasons have such little impact on now and forward.
Things change really quickly in this league.
I think 2020 is the target for us - I've maintained that for a while and that hasn't changed. But I'm hard pressed to buy that this team won't improve at all in the win column between now and then.
7-8 wins is entirely realistic for this group if we can avoid the crushing injury/injuries.
They beat 4 backup QB's last year. The 5 wins was a gift. But just like you and nearly everyone else I'm pointing to the 2020 season too. Just want to see "signs" other than Barkley.
I don't think that type of response credits as interest in anything he has to say. We aren't addressing his content or opinion but rather why you'd bother to put it forward.
I don't think that type of response credits as interest in anything he has to say. We aren't addressing his content or opinion but rather why you'd bother to put it forward.
Because he has a growing following, and some here appreciate the work he's doing to try and grow his brand and enjoy listening to him (or watching him), as I do. I feel the same way about Shomler as I do about some of the other YouTubers I've mentioned, whose videos I've also posted here. Their opinions are worth discussing, maybe even more than some of the "professionals" whose writings appear regularly in Defenderdawg's threads, and certainly more than the latest ESPN rankings or PFF grades. But if those are what drive you, have at them. Personally, I find them very tedious. I'd rather listen to "some kid" on YouTube, and clearly I'm not alone in that.
Quote:
I don't really have an issue with anyone who looks at the 2019 Giants and sees a 5 or 6 win team... that's fine.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
What can we really take away from even 2 years ago?
Jerry Reese was the GM. Ben McAdoo was the HC. Barkley wasn't here. Beckham was - and missed like 3/4 of the season anyway. There was no Daniel Jones here. Collins was here. Snacks was here. Vernon was here. All players who were traded or let go of.
The roster is so different now. The team is so different now. I just don't feel like there's any carryover anymore.
2018 ---> 2019, sure I can buy some takeaways. At least it's the same coach and there are more commonalities.
I just think too much of this analysis is with prior seasons in mind. And those seasons have such little impact on now and forward.
Things change really quickly in this league.
I think 2020 is the target for us - I've maintained that for a while and that hasn't changed. But I'm hard pressed to buy that this team won't improve at all in the win column between now and then.
7-8 wins is entirely realistic for this group if we can avoid the crushing injury/injuries.
They beat 4 backup QB's last year. The 5 wins was a gift. But just like you and nearly everyone else I'm pointing to the 2020 season too. Just want to see "signs" other than Barkley.
Does every other team in the league get asterisked for beating backups? I don't understand why this gets pointed out for the Giants, but then we operate under the assumption that every other team got all of their wins against starters and teams at full strength.
One of those wins against a backup QB was the Bears... we put up 30 on the best defense in football. Doesn't count, though... Chase Daniel.
Another one of those backups was Nick Mullens.. who played reasonably well for the 49ers and isn't behind anything resembling a "sure thing" regardless of what they paid Garoppolo.
I guess the TB game counts as beating a backup even though they played both QB's that day.
I get it - we have to do gymnastics to find every single way to discredit any game the Giants win and make it so it doesn't really count. Some of you guys are just wired this way. It is what it is.
Personally, I think this is a much different feeling team than even last season. And while I don't see playoffs or winning season in 2019 - I do see improvement and better than 5-11 with our sights set on 2020.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
You had many BBI'ers wondering if we should make a play for the guy, then we beat him and he returns to being considered dogshit again.
You had many BBI'ers wondering if we should make a play for the guy, then we beat him and he returns to being considered dogshit again.
LOL, yep. At that point, we had several people talking about how he'd be a better option than Eli at this point and that we'd be smart to consider making a play for him.
But if we beat him, he's just a backup QB and it doesn't count.
I guess no one else beat backup QB's last year, so we're the only team that gets that factored into this season.
Ryan Fitzpatrick beat the Saints AND the Eagles last year. But then if the Giants play him - it's a backup QB we beat and doesn't count.
The double standard is just, quite frankly silly.
We don't pick apart the quality of each and every win like this for any other team. It's like we just assume theirs were all fair and square and the opponent was at full strength but we got blessed with the path of least resistance in each of ours.
I'm not under the illusion that NYG were a good team last year. But they played better football in the 2nd half of the season and look to be ascending and on a better path now. It's okay to acknowledge that.
Quote:
In comment 14556534 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
I don't really have an issue with anyone who looks at the 2019 Giants and sees a 5 or 6 win team... that's fine.
I just don't like continually hearing the logic that is essentially "well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way.
What can we really take away from even 2 years ago?
Jerry Reese was the GM. Ben McAdoo was the HC. Barkley wasn't here. Beckham was - and missed like 3/4 of the season anyway. There was no Daniel Jones here. Collins was here. Snacks was here. Vernon was here. All players who were traded or let go of.
The roster is so different now. The team is so different now. I just don't feel like there's any carryover anymore.
2018 ---> 2019, sure I can buy some takeaways. At least it's the same coach and there are more commonalities.
I just think too much of this analysis is with prior seasons in mind. And those seasons have such little impact on now and forward.
Things change really quickly in this league.
I think 2020 is the target for us - I've maintained that for a while and that hasn't changed. But I'm hard pressed to buy that this team won't improve at all in the win column between now and then.
7-8 wins is entirely realistic for this group if we can avoid the crushing injury/injuries.
They beat 4 backup QB's last year. The 5 wins was a gift. But just like you and nearly everyone else I'm pointing to the 2020 season too. Just want to see "signs" other than Barkley.
Does every other team in the league get asterisked for beating backups? I don't understand why this gets pointed out for the Giants, but then we operate under the assumption that every other team got all of their wins against starters and teams at full strength.
One of those wins against a backup QB was the Bears... we put up 30 on the best defense in football. Doesn't count, though... Chase Daniel.
Another one of those backups was Nick Mullens.. who played reasonably well for the 49ers and isn't behind anything resembling a "sure thing" regardless of what they paid Garoppolo.
I guess the TB game counts as beating a backup even though they played both QB's that day.
I get it - we have to do gymnastics to find every single way to discredit any game the Giants win and make it so it doesn't really count. Some of you guys are just wired this way. It is what it is.
Personally, I think this is a much different feeling team than even last season. And while I don't see playoffs or winning season in 2019 - I do see improvement and better than 5-11 with our sights set on 2020.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Are we talking about quality of the team? You said below.
"well, the Giants have been bad... so they are bad until they aren't" when we know the NFL doesn't work that way."
If we want to talk what we know -- wouldn't it also be relevant to take into account 80% of a team's wins came from beating backups? We KNOW that, right? SO we're supposed to ignore it WHILE WE make individual predcitions for the team?
We must have witnessed very different offseasons, then.
This team and last years' team have quite a bit of contrast. Even from last year, there's been a fair amount of roster turnover.
This also entirely dismisses that rookies from last year could (and should) have more of an impact this year... i.e.. Will Hernandez, BJ Hill and potentially even McIntosh. All of those guys weren't at their ceilings as rookies and should continue to get better.
There has been turnover, but not any of it is guaranteed to result in an improvement and may in fact result in a decline. I also don't assume improvement in young Giants players anymore. No reason to yet -- only our generational players tend to do that.
I guess no one else beat backup QB's last year, so we're the only team that gets that factored into this season.
Ryan Fitzpatrick beat the Saints AND the Eagles last year. But then if the Giants play him - it's a backup QB we beat and doesn't count.
The double standard is just, quite frankly silly.
We don't pick apart the quality of each and every win like this for any other team. It's like we just assume theirs were all fair and square and the opponent was at full strength but we got blessed with the path of least resistance in each of ours.
I'm not under the illusion that NYG were a good team last year. But they played better football in the 2nd half of the season and look to be ascending and on a better path now. It's okay to acknowledge that.
It's interesting how Giants fans do this. I don't see it as prevalent in any other fanbase.The constant shoe-gazing really becomes tiresome though.
This team still has a ways to go, but there is reason for hope and optimism. There is reason to beliebe we sre on the verge of an upswing. Giants fans (on average) don't seem capable of hope and optimism however.
The Patriots' entire division is usually a dumpster fire, but you never hear those guys say "yeah we won, but it's just the Bills"
There has been turnover, but not any of it is guaranteed to result in an improvement and may in fact result in a decline. I also don't assume improvement in young Giants players anymore. No reason to yet -- only our generational players tend to do that.
Of course it's not guaranteed. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but I have to say, if you can't muster any excitement this of all seasons U don't know why you fucking bother.
Fandom shouldn't be this sullen.
I think the Giants could be fun to watch, sure, and for that I'm interested. I just find the constant impulses to discredit anyone with low expectations as oddly out of place given what this team is.
So i think the #of views, responses etc is related to the above, rather than the importance, validity, or empirical truth of the opinion being discussed. However you choose to explain, I did open and respond to the OP.
He is a god when he says what they want to hear. We should pull up one of the 5 threads started in his analysis of Eli
Quote:
There has been turnover, but not any of it is guaranteed to result in an improvement and may in fact result in a decline. I also don't assume improvement in young Giants players anymore. No reason to yet -- only our generational players tend to do that.
Of course it's not guaranteed. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but I have to say, if you can't muster any excitement this of all seasons U don't know why you fucking bother.
Fandom shouldn't be this sullen.
lol