What era was more painful 91-99 or 2012-2019?

Although looking back now those seem like boom years compared to this last decade.

Easier as an adult because you have more reasonable expectations. I know these current teams suck, I expect failure and they deliver. As a kid I really didn’t have reasonable expectations, every season started as a potential Super Bowl year.

The '90s teams were at least somewhat competitive outside of '95-96.

Right now, they are utterly hopeless.

had a recognizable defense.. this team has nothing...

Wasting Mannings later years, horrible drafts. The way they fucked TC and stuck with lame JR until he ran them into the ground. Now watching them take FOREVER to rebuild the team!
COME ON MAN!

'93, '94, '97, '98 had at least winning/.500 seasons.

Although it does feel like the late 1970's, because we drafted Simms in 1979, then of course Taylor in 1981. So if you look at the Jones pick as 1979, we still have a year or two to go before we get better

This is by far the worst era in my lifetime. I’m 42

In comment 14668119 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

'93, '94, '97, '98 had at least winning/.500 seasons.

This is true and a good point, but a lot of those teams came on at the end if I remember correctly. Without looking it up, I think in 94 we were like 3-0 and then went to 3-6 or 3-7 and then closed strong. I do think we theoretically had a chance to make the playoffs on the final day of 94 IIRC, when we beat a Dallas team that sat Emmitt Smith and Aikiman.

Giants are 49-71 (2012-2019); 70-73-1 (1191-1999).

The current team is just digging a deeper and wider shit-hole that got underway a few years ago.

You could almost rephrase the question: What's more frustrating, when the Giants offense can't move the ball or when the defense can't get a stop?

Both eras featured a combination of bad defense and offense, but I think we'll remember the 90's as the "Dave Brown years" and this past decade as the Eli Wilderness Years (plus a bad defense).

For me personally, I'll choose 91-99 as being more painful. That spans 5th grade thru Senior year of high school for me, which is a lifetime of having your football team stink while being surrounded by front-running 49ers and Cowboys fans.

When I think of that decade, I think of:
- Handley completely losing the team in 92
- Losing to Dallas in OT for division title final week of 93
- Winning a playoff game and then getting absolutely destroyed by the 49ers in Simms and LT's last game
- In 94 starting 3-0, then losing 7 straight, then winning our final 6 to somehow finish 9-7.
- 35-0 on Monday night in 95
- At least 5 losses by 1 possession in 96
- A very opportunistic defense and weak division leading to a division title in 97
- Followed by a horrible playoff loss
- Underachieving team in 98 that beat the 14-0 Broncos
- Kerry Collins taking over in 99 and giving the passing game some hope/life for the first time in 10 years.

Not a ton of highlights for 9 years worth of football.

In comment 14668126 Danny Kanell said:

Quote:

This is by far the worst era in my lifetime. I’m 42

Danny, agreed. I've completely beat down as a fan. And the scary thing is that I have no confidence in this ownership at all.

'94 we started out 3-0, lost 7 straight, & won our last 6. I believe we would have made the playoffs if GB had lost their season finale. Maybe I'm confusing Packers with another NFC Central (the good old days).

from 95- 99 with the exception of 97 but, we still were competitive most years in a lot of games.

97 draft brought us some good players to build around ( Hilliard, Barber) and we had Toomer from 95 draft. Strahan was there and we still had Armstead and then we got Sehorn, Randolph, Garnes, Elsworth.. Don't forget we also got Charles Way, a throw back and easy to root for guy.

We had big misses in the draft- Wheatley, Jones, Thomas Lewis (OMG....) during that time though.

The lack of a QB was also quite evident.

This stretch hurts far more as we really screwed up previous TC years by totally imploding 2008 (our best team and most dominant team), horrible 2010 ending and even falling off the radar late in 2012.

Right now we are a joke. Manning was kept far too long and we tried retooling in key areas and we drafted with homerun swings instead of getting sure fire solid plays when we needed a full roster. For every JPP homerun you can find 100's of guys with attributes off the chart and production less than a street FA. Reese went after the JPP's and ignored the solid roster depth guys.

Now Gettleman, has tried too hard to "retool" and win at the same time. Case in point, once you trade OBJ you should be in full rebuild mode and Manning gone, the roster stripped and built around your QB draft pick. he tried to do both and keeping Tanney around only supports that theory even more. Why are we carrying 3 QB's when on QB has not missed a start due to injury in his career??? Makes zero sense.

2016 was an abberation, much like 97 was. We got lucky as our defensive FA's gelled quickly and the offense had enough juice to keep us in games but without the defense it was not going to win. The boat trip may have been overblown but when you add in how shitty the bulk of the players who were on that trip played in the playoff game, it became a focal point for failure. The defense, made up of free agents the year before fell apart in 2017 as the offense, which wasn't great in 2016, regressed even further. The malcontents took over and before you knew it the HC was gone, players were suspended and then some players (Flowers, Hart) were dealt with very openly for all to see. The stench of 2017 carries over still. We are a team of not great players, some very average players and some pretty poor players.

Ownership and the GM have to take some blame here. You cannot half ass anything. The Eli love is fine until it holds you back. There was ZERO reason for him to still be the starter or even on the team once OBJ was moved as 2019 was going to be a rebuilding year. BUT, we aren't truly rebuilding and it shows. We need a full cleansing and it starts with Shurmur and possibly Gettleman and includes Eli.. The days of the past are just that, the past. We have sucked for 6 years and that is being generous about the 2012 season.

In comment 14668126 Danny Kanell said:

Quote:

This is by far the worst era in my lifetime. I’m 42

Me too and I about the same age. To go from the Super Bowl to the toilet bowl that fast and for this long is so frustrating.

This is worse than the 90's to me. As mentioned, in the 90's they at least had some defense. They weren't on all that much in AZ either so I didn't have to watch every sunday(Not that I do now, but of course I do)

before widespread internet and NFL TV packages were widely available, so this one feels a lot worse to me.

It's close given the range. 93 was a fun year and we were 1 game shy of homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. 94 ended on a winning streak, but largely awful and I had no hope that would continue into next year.

97-99 wasn't bad. We made the playoffs in 97, 98 was good in the 2nd half of the season. 99 was brutal and 95-96 were probably worse than any of the years in 2012-2019. We had worse records in the 12-19 range, but there was something to enjoy. 95 and 96 were completely joyless and went into every game without hope.

it would have to be 2012-2019.

They made the playoffs at least 3 times between 91-99. 2012-2019 basically has 1 good/playoff team and a couple years of Odell Beckham dominance. That's it.

...91-99 had hope. Most of the Super Bowl team was intact and made a solid run in 93', the last gasp being the drubbing in San Francisco.

The next season had high hopes with Dave Brown.

So, they floundered for a few years, but you've got a Superbowl win in 1990, a playoff run in 93', playoffs again 4 years later in 97', another SuperBowl in 2000.

That's actually not a bad decades work.

I'd point to the 1960's and 70's to make us feel better about our current state of affairs.

1964:2-10-2
1965: 7-7
1966 1-12-1
1967: 7-7
1968: 7-7
1969: 6-8
1970: 9-5
1971: 4-10
1972: 8-6
1973: 2-11
1974: 2-12
1975: 5-9
1976: 3-11
1977: 5-9
1978: 6-10
1979: 6-10 [Simms Drafted, George Young, Ray Perkins hired]
1980: 4-12

1981 - New Beginning.

In 79', I was at a game many remember well, a plane pulling a banner like they have at the beach reading "15 YEARS OF LOUSY FOOTBALL, WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!"

A chant of "WE'VE HAD ENOUGH" rose from the crowd, similar to the scene in Network "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

We had found the bottom of the barrel. The fumble, Ticket burnings, the works.


It's bad right now.

It's been worse and smart money says it will get worse. In 1980, the Giants had a good defense, a serviceable offensive line, a great punter and a good rookie QB prospect.

Right now, the Giants don't really do ANYTHING well. What do you build off of? They probably need 8 starters upgraded NOW to realistically compete.

Maybe this is the turning point. It sure doesn't feel like it though.

and I lived through the fifteen years of lousy football (later 60s and 70s). At least most of those teams had one unit (O or D) or the other that was pretty good so there was always a chance that they could win a game.

And the teams in the 90s were nowhere near as putrid as the teams over most of the last decade have been.

The key point is that this whole mess was easily preventable. The handwriting was on the wall by 2012. But John Mara refused to pull the trigger on firing Reese and his little dog Ross until they had driven the team so far into the ground that who ever took it over was essentially starting from scratch, not unlike an expansion team. Then he compounded the problem by hiring two bad head coaches in a row.

Eric nailed it with his "year three of a twenty year rebuild" comment.

Obviously you had the last hurrah 93' team which was nice, but starting around 1995, you could see the accumulation of defensive talent that would form the foundation of NFC East winning team in 97' and the superbowl team of 00.'

Say what you want about George Young, but he also accumulated solid offensive talent in the 90s as well. Toomer, Barber, and Hilliard were some great skill pieces that were critical for the 2000 and 2002 playoff teams. Obviously, Barber and Toomer continued to produce into the Coughlin era as well.

The main issue with those 90s teams were - of course - the quarterbacks. If you swapped out Brown or Kanell for someone even average - a Brad Johnson or Rich Gannon type - I bet you that 97' team pushes the Packers for a Superbowl birth, and the 94' and 98' teams would've made the playoffs as well. We saw how well that collective group of talent did once Collins was a full-time starter in 2000.

They couldn't run, they couldn't pass, defense would hold for a half and then gassed from all the 3-and-outs, would inevitably fall apart.

The Giant brand was a joke, a laughing stock. In 1979, half the stadium didn't remember YA Tittle.

Most of us still remember 2011.

It's bad, but we ain't at 1979 misery, not yet.

I enjoyed better than this current run.

The 1995 team had a fun secondary. Phillippi Sparks that season was better than anyone on this current Giants D. Vencie Glen was a ball hawk, and Tito Wooten was a fun wildcard player.

At one point that season, the Giants traveled to play the defending champion Niners. Although the Niners won the game 20-6, the Giants secondary really punished the their receiving core, delivering the type of hits that would be illegal today. I believe that afterward, Jerry Rice said it was the most physical game he had every played in.

Then the 1996 team was an offensive tire fire, but you could really the defensive unit with Strahan, Armstead, Sparks, Sehorn, and Hammer shine, culminating with an upset victory of the Cowboys at the Meadowlands toward the end of the season.

At least we played pretty competent defense through the 90s. Nolan and Foxy were solid.

We aren’t even making it to Halloween regularly. In the 90’s those teams were competing & foundational pieces were in place for the next era of winning for this franchise.

we were at least capable of pulling off an upset here and there (we beat the undefeated Broncos late in the year)

This team cant even beat bad teams, never mind beat a better one

far worse than a team with no offense. It's even worse in an era where defenses struggle because of the rules. This team is just terrible and is looking yet another top 10 pick.

Most of our seasons are over by Columbus Day.

...this has been brutal. The 90s had some fun teams. The 93 and 97 seasons where fun. I actually remember the 99 season fondly when Collins took over and gave us hope. (That was the last season with the 80s-90s uniforms).

We had 3 or 4 coordinators that went on to become head coaches. Foxy and Payton were really successful.

A lot of our current staff might be on their last NFL job, period. Lol.

Those late-80's teams were dominant, and I think they left some SB wins on the table. The 2007 and 2011 teams were so much fun, but much more flawed, especially the '11 team. The worst-ranked rushing attack in the league and a D near the bottom of the pack (27th IIRC?). It was a great run, but not a very good team (thank you Eli!).

In comment 14668121 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

Although it does feel like the late 1970's, because we drafted Simms in 1979, then of course Taylor in 1981. So if you look at the Jones pick as 1979, we still have a year or two to go before we get better

That is an interesting thought, but consider 3 things. The talent in 1979 was better on defense. Especially the LBs. And if nothing else, the offensive talent was at least healthier. But most important, what are the chances of drafting another LT at any position in 2020 or 2021.

Sadly the current ownership is even more clueless than that time worrying more about the abundant $$$ than product.The GMs are worse which is not saying much plus the coaching has gone way downhill as with the majority of rostered players.

because for much of that stretch we had a QB to win with. The FO couldn't put a team together to win with after 'the Rug' stepped down. That wasn't the case in the 90's.

This has been the most dreadful era of Giants football in my life.

This is far worse than the 90s. The 90s teams were up and down, but mostly just mediocre. Mediocre would be a huge improvement for this team and this era.

Those 90's teams were the teams I grew up watching.

I was too young for the first SB team, but I do remember the '90 team and by the early/mid 90's, I was watching every single snap of every NYG game and reading about them daily in the sports section before school.

That era didn't feel 'painful' to me, because I was really just learning the game and the idiosyncrasies early on - and while I watched, rooted for the Giants, and remember beating Buffalo in XXV - it's not like I had a long history of glory days to look back on.

I just viewed the team with an entirely different lens as a younger kid. I was always just eager for the next game, the next bit of info I could digest.. something about watching without knowing every little detail of what goes on behind the scenes, or in players lives, or what have you... I don't know, there was just more of a mystery aspect back then that allowed me to have more hope and excitement (misguided or not)

It's different now. I'm 35 years old and I understand the magnitude of the Giants' dysfunction and the mess we're in and I already know it's not going to just turn itself around magically - and I know there's no longer any hope for this season and that the Giants are turning into a Groundhog Day football team that sees seasons just evaporate before Halloween year in and year out.

I'm sure the guys who endured the 70's would tell me this is nothing and to sack up. But, the more you learn and understand - the more depressing these rough patches become. This is way harder for me than the 90's were. I just don't get excited about the Giants these days. Outside of the first couple of weeks, I quickly become apathetic and really just demoralized. It fucking sucks. I still watch every game, I'm obviously still here discussing the team on a daily basis. But, this is brutal. This is definitely more frustrating for me, personally.

In comment 14668289 Section331 said:

Quote:

Those late-80's teams were dominant, and I think they left some SB wins on the table. The 2007 and 2011 teams were so much fun, but much more flawed, especially the '11 team. The worst-ranked rushing attack in the league and a D near the bottom of the pack (27th IIRC?). It was a great run, but not a very good team (thank you Eli!).

87 was stolen by strike, 88 was fucked up (10-6 miss playoffs) - 89 was the worst - Parcells said THAT was the team he believed would take home a Lombardi.

If Bill stayed, they'd have been in competition in 91 and 92 as well, I believe.

In comment 14668321 .McL. said:

Quote:

This has been the most dreadful era of Giants football in my life. This is far worse than the 90s. The 90s teams were up and down, but mostly just mediocre. Mediocre would be a huge improvement for this team and this era.

I'm too young to remember the '70s and back. But with family and all I have read, that was the Dark Ages. And most tell me this latest period isn't quite there yet.

The 90s were torture but, as mentioned, those teams were still pretty rugged defensively. Young lost his fastball in the draft and was a disaster adjusting to the cap era. The absolute worst as trying to manage the nuances. And he just couldn't solve the QB riddle or get enough of the right pieces on offense to even sniff competency on that side of the ball...

Outside of the Handley years that started the decade, the '95 Reeves team was really the only one I remember seeming like a really BAD football team.

It never seemed like NYG were flat out incompetent in most of the other years. They were just sort of mediocre. They almost always played decent/good defense.

The types of historically bad defenses we've seen in this current era seem far, far worse than anything I can recall from the 90's.

In comment 14668343 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Outside of the Handley years that started the decade, the '95 Reeves team was really the only one I remember seeming like a really BAD football team. It never seemed like NYG were flat out incompetent in most of the other years. They were just sort of mediocre. They almost always played decent/good defense. The types of historically bad defenses we've seen in this current era seem far, far worse than anything I can recall from the 90's.

Agree. They may have been irrelevant in the 90s but not the laughingstock they are now. People I meet who find out I'm a Giants fan just apologize for asking. I never thought I'd see 3 seasons in a row of this kind of losing football. It's scary to think how far away from even average they are.

Rumour has it the defense used to run off the field, and tell the offense to "hold em". Thats how bad the offense was.

The last few years I'd put at #2, worse than the 1990's

In comment 14668328 x meadowlander said:

Quote:

In comment 14668289 Section331 said: Quote: Those late-80's teams were dominant, and I think they left some SB wins on the table. The 2007 and 2011 teams were so much fun, but much more flawed, especially the '11 team. The worst-ranked rushing attack in the league and a D near the bottom of the pack (27th IIRC?). It was a great run, but not a very good team (thank you Eli!). 87 was stolen by strike, 88 was fucked up (10-6 miss playoffs) - 89 was the worst - Parcells said THAT was the team he believed would take home a Lombardi. If Bill stayed, they'd have been in competition in 91 and 92 as well, I believe.

Agreed, ‘87 was a throw away. And that ‘89 team was primed for a run but just couldn’t solve the Rams. Remember, we got smoked by them earlier in the year in LA. So they were very confident for the rematch.

One of the worst losses ever...and the next day that piss ant Russo opened his show with the Disney “Flipper” song...

The Eagles won the Superbowl.

In comment 14668372 St. Jimmy said:

Quote:

The Eagles won the Superbowl.

Yup. A pig-ugly reality people on BBI outside of the South Jersey/Philly region will never understand.

That may have been the bottom...1-11 in those games. Actually, the Fran Tarkenton years 67-72 while not making the playoffs they weren't a laughing stock either. There was some good football then and respectability.

91-99 was high school through college for me, so I had PLENTY to distract me and dull the pain.

NFC East team since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. Sadly, I've been around and am still around for all these eras. It has been tough to remain a Giants' fan but, fortunately, I am built that way. All the teams I cheer for have been the same teams since I was 7.

But the ineptitude of the Giants makes it very frustrating. 64-81, 91-99 and now...they were all bad but now and 64-81 seem to be the worst. There just doesn't seem to be any hope. There's been only one constant...the Mara family. Somehow, we have to get these people out of the building...hire a President of the team and eliminate the nepotism that permeates the Giants.

we drafted a "sure thing hall of famer in OBJ". and look at where we are now.

just a debacle.

At least the team could play defense in the 90s.

Moreover, the 90s were defined by quarterback problems. Simms was at the end of his career, and the team failed to find a replacement. That's frustrating, but not as frustrating as having a franchise quarterback in place and then pissing away half a decade of his career.

It boggles my mind that the Giants went from having two 1,000-yard rushers in 2008 to showcasing a historically bad offensive line from 2013 through 2019.

I don't love the currrent game as much as I did back then so it mattered more in the 90s. The officials rule today's game and defense was better under the old rules.