Lets make a distinction here. It takes time to get build a foundation where the team is a legitimate contender, I think we all agree. Thats not the issue here. The issue is that what SHOULDNT take years and years is raising the team out the basement. Making enough improvements that you arent among the 2, 3, or 4 worst teams in the league. Most teams will hit there for a year, often due to injuries. Right now, we can safely say there are two teams worse than us The Bengals and the Skins, thats it. Others seem to be at a similar level, but those are the only two who are comfortably worse. The Oakland Raiders, for example, seemed to be coming from a similar situation to us. They traded away multiple of their top players in exchange for picks. Where are they now? They have a winning record and are in the mix in division race. Why wasnt all this time needed for them to improve?
Regarding the talent, though I do agree, it feels like drafts have improved, Im going to take a wait and see on this. Truth is, this is the same spot we were in when this group took over, and its the same culprits the Oline and defense. Two pick rich drafts and FA periods in, there has been opportunities to add talent and begin building a foundation. Regarding FA, JRs drafts were horrible, but he did make some impactful acquisitions in FA and probably grades higher in this area than DG has at this point. A major contributing factor to why we remain where we are is that despite all the hog molly talk, the strategy for addressing the teams biggest need -Oline- has been largely based on FA acquisitions, which have not panned out. Consequently, the Oline still requires much work requiring all of starter talent, youth, and depth. Defense wise where are the playmakers? Dallas rebuilt their defense over the past couple drafts and has managed to add players who make plays for them. Our defensive talent has been largely invisible when it comes to making impact plays. Say what you want, but though players do need time to develop to a point of consistency, legit talent usually shows signs of playmaking ability early.
All that said, I would not be shocked to see this team finish stronger than people believe. No real reason for this, just a hunch. What it comes to, in my eyes is, we have six games to prove that the arrow is pointing up. That was the mission from the start through ten games, we simply havent shown that. Ill reserve judgement to see what happens down the stretch, but this is NOT a time for patience. The call is for urgency.
That's what the state of BBI has become.
Posters are actually mocked for not having a permanent cloud of anger
It's way beyond the pale at this point.
That's one way to look at it.
I suppose one might also say that a poster who makes the same prediction every single year without context, commentary, or variance related to that year's team loses some credibility when he then tries to claim that his is the voice of reason. Surely that logic isn't lost on you.
And that's without getting into that poster's tendency to take a victory lap whenever his other predictions or posts turn out to have even a shred of accuracy, like a single RB surpassing 300 carries.
I guess context is unimportant when you're trying to make a sweeping generalization to criticize your peers. But at least you can speak authoritatively on clouds of anger.
A hair away.
Uh huh. And then they needed to beat the Giants the next week, which they did without breaking a sweat.
I have a good memory, that's all. I also remember the worst cafeteria lunch I ever had in middle school; that doesn't make me a fan of it.
Does your good memory remember when you started a thread stating that despite you not agreeing with them, all the predictions I had been making after 2016 were accurate and came to be true while admitting your were wrong?
I'm not saying that for a victory lap, I'm saying it because that reminds me of a time when people were still actually discussing stuff rather than you chasing me from thread to thread and taunting me with things I got wrong.
Anyone who puts context into predictions that are often wildly inaccurate is the one wasting time and energy. I know there have been posters who only put 0-16 down. Should they be mocked?
seems like a stupid thing to mock people over - but then again, so is the whole "victory lap" shit. I mean, the board has an entire group of posters telling us daily that Shurmur and Gettleman are unfit to do their jobs and certain that they suck. And yet they look at themselves as the voices of reason - a victory lap for certain.
And if the team ends up turning things around next year, I'm sure the excuses will flow the other way. Maybe more fanciful shit about being lucky or the worst playoff team in history...
Yeah, I could. But I don't.
Does it get emotional sometimes? Yes. Do I get drunk sometimes during the game and post with more emotion than I should? Yes. But most days, I pretty much just state my points with what I believe to be logical arguments to back them up.
You think I'm a shit poster of no value to the site? Fine. I don't really care. I've been here a long time.
Through good and bad. I'm going to continue to do what I do. You feel free to continue to do what you do.
That dynamic duo is 7-19 with the Giants. I'm afraid the burden of proof is on the optimist crew to provide evidence that they are not unfit and do not suck at their jobs.
.....just saying
Quote:
I mean, the board has an entire group of posters telling us daily that Shurmur and Gettleman are unfit to do their jobs and certain that they suck.
That dynamic duo is 7-19 with the Giants. I'm afraid the burden of proof is on the optimist crew to provide evidence that they are not unfit and do not suck at their jobs.
You don't get it. It isn't about providing evidence contrary. It is that nearly every thread is overrun with the same people talking about how shitty Shurmur and Gettleman are. Every football related thread ends up with a minimum of one snide remark about the coach and/or GM. And that's the best case scenario. The worst case are threads specifically started to bash them.
I'm an optimist and not very fond of Shurmur. Does repeating that he sucks over and over again magically bring some enlightenment? Does it make you feel better? If it does, it surely isn't making itself apparent.
Quote:
In comment 14684362 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Also of note in regards to that 2010 team, if the Giants hold on and win that Eagles game, Green Bay doesn't make the playoffs and BBI favorite Aaron Rodgers is still searching for a Superbowl title.
Talk about a hair away.
Uh huh. What happened when the Giants played the Packers in 2010?
Wouldn't have mattered. Giants win that Eagles game and the Packers would have been eliminated regardless of what happened the following week when they played.
Well that's simply not true. It allowed the Packers to control their own destiny, but it would not have eliminated them. For one thing, they still had a Week 15 game to play, they were 8-5.
Even after the Packers lost to New England (with Matt Flynn starting in place of Rodgers) they were 8-6. A Giants win would have put them at 10-4 and the Eagles at 9-5.
GB would have won tiebreakers over the Eagles and Bucs. Any Eagles loss would have gotten the Packers in at 10-6. If anything, the Bucs losing at home in Week 15 had as much to do with the Packers getting in as the Giants blowing that game vs Philly.
Yeah that's what I don't get. Do I somehow get something out of being right about my team sucking? Work bonus? Win the lottery? Brag about on a date?
Does it get emotional sometimes? Yes. Do I get drunk sometimes during the game and post with more emotion than I should? Yes. But most days, I pretty much just state my points with what I believe to be logical arguments to back them up.
You think I'm a shit poster of no value to the site? Fine. I don't really care. I've been here a long time.
Through good and bad. I'm going to continue to do what I do. You feel free to continue to do what you do.
I don't think you're a shit poster at all. I think you're a very good poster who happens to have a number of blind spots when it comes to objective criticism of this franchise, which just so happens to be the exact same thing that would apply accurately to a number of posters here, including myself (at least the blind spots part, I can't speak for whether or not anyone thinks I'm a valued poster).
As for the 10-6 thing, and this is more for FMiC who seems to be deciding that this is his white knight moment for the day, my point is just that it might be indicative of an unwillingness to see the franchise's weaknesses even when they're staring you in the face. See above WRT blind spots. We all have them - that one seems to be yours.
I bust your balls about it because I do consider your voice to be one of value, but also one that I tend to find on the opposite viewpoint from my own.
At the end of the day though, I do look forward to your 10-6 predictions being wrong in the other direction, even if we disagree along the way about how this team should go about getting to that point.
The Giants were never dominant from 2005-2012 (except for the 25-5 stretch in 07/08).
That era of the Giants was always dangerous, never dominant. Which to be honest, that was Eli as a QB.
Giants should make no apologies for 2011. This wasnt the 2005 Steelers beating the Seahawks.
Quote:
In comment 14684388 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 14684362 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Also of note in regards to that 2010 team, if the Giants hold on and win that Eagles game, Green Bay doesn't make the playoffs and BBI favorite Aaron Rodgers is still searching for a Superbowl title.
Talk about a hair away.
Uh huh. What happened when the Giants played the Packers in 2010?
Wouldn't have mattered. Giants win that Eagles game and the Packers would have been eliminated regardless of what happened the following week when they played.
Well that's simply not true. It allowed the Packers to control their own destiny, but it would not have eliminated them. For one thing, they still had a Week 15 game to play, they were 8-5.
Even after the Packers lost to New England (with Matt Flynn starting in place of Rodgers) they were 8-6. A Giants win would have put them at 10-4 and the Eagles at 9-5.
GB would have won tiebreakers over the Eagles and Bucs. Any Eagles loss would have gotten the Packers in at 10-6. If anything, the Bucs losing at home in Week 15 had as much to do with the Packers getting in as the Giants blowing that game vs Philly.
It came down to the final game of the season. Bears vs. Packers. Bears win? Giants go to the playoffs. Packers win? They go. The Packers won, so they controlled their own destiny, yes. But they needed help still. The Giants hang on to beat the Eagles and everything else goes the same, the Giants are in the playoffs and the Packers are not.
The Giants were never dominant from 2005-2012 (except for the 25-5 stretch in 07/08).
That era of the Giants was always dangerous, never dominant. Which to be honest, that was Eli as a QB.
Giants should make no apologies for 2011. This wasnt the 2005 Steelers beating the Seahawks.
This is a very reasonable take.
Good post.
Was meant to be a joke....a fail I guess....
👎🏽
But let's not act like every Superbowl winner didn't get some lucky breaks to get there. Some do. The Patriots are once again the outlier. But some teams do just dominate all season and go on to win it. But a lot of times though, it's the scrappy really good team with grit that people don't see coming.
Never the best, but always just good enough to have a shot to take down the best.
If 2011 was a "fluke", I bet there are 31 other teams who would sign up for a "fluke" Super Bowl Championship every year.
Quote:
In comment 14684427 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
I mean, the board has an entire group of posters telling us daily that Shurmur and Gettleman are unfit to do their jobs and certain that they suck.
That dynamic duo is 7-19 with the Giants. I'm afraid the burden of proof is on the optimist crew to provide evidence that they are not unfit and do not suck at their jobs.
You don't get it. It isn't about providing evidence contrary. It is that nearly every thread is overrun with the same people talking about how shitty Shurmur and Gettleman are. Every football related thread ends up with a minimum of one snide remark about the coach and/or GM. And that's the best case scenario. The worst case are threads specifically started to bash them.
I'm an optimist and not very fond of Shurmur. Does repeating that he sucks over and over again magically bring some enlightenment? Does it make you feel better? If it does, it surely isn't making itself apparent.
Maybe it's giving people a chance to vent when a part of their life that they prefer to use as an escape from everyday life frustration is actually causing more frustration of its own?
I don't get why it's surprising that posters might become repetitive about Shurmur and/or Gettleman sucking - the team does suck! And thus far, there have been quite a few glaring missteps in what was supposed to be a restoration of this franchise's competitiveness.
Shurmur has been a major disappointment as a HC but at least you can make the case that to the extent that he was favored as a candidate for his ability to work with QBs, Jones appears to be on a very positive and promising track. Gettleman, on the other hand, was very clear about his three pillars of success, none of which have improved with much consistency since he took over.
Something isn't working. Maybe it's just not working yet. Maybe it never will. Maybe Gettleman's plan is antiquated. Maybe his plan is fine but the Giants' infrastructure under him is as flawed as it was under Reese. Maybe his roster moves are hamstrung by a poor coaching staff. Maybe the coaching staff is stuck trying to make it work with players that aren't as talented as the scouting department thought.
But no can definitively say that we're on the right track when there's no evidence (yet, anyway) of that.
Well that's simply not true. It allowed the Packers to control their own destiny, but it would not have eliminated them. For one thing, they still had a Week 15 game to play, they were 8-5.
Even after the Packers lost to New England (with Matt Flynn starting in place of Rodgers) they were 8-6. A Giants win would have put them at 10-4 and the Eagles at 9-5.
GB would have won tiebreakers over the Eagles and Bucs. Any Eagles loss would have gotten the Packers in at 10-6. If anything, the Bucs losing at home in Week 15 had as much to do with the Packers getting in as the Giants blowing that game vs Philly.
It came down to the final game of the season. Bears vs. Packers. Bears win? Giants go to the playoffs. Packers win? They go. The Packers won, so they controlled their own destiny, yes. But they needed help still. The Giants hang on to beat the Eagles and everything else goes the same, the Giants are in the playoffs and the Packers are not.
That's not what you said, and even so it's still not true. The Eagles lost their last two games. The Giants losing to Philly did not get the Packers in the playoffs. Losing in GB kept the Giants out.
Everybody else dominated their way in and did everything they were supposed to do with little to no help from anything else.
It's not about enlightenment, or trying to feel better. Delusionally insisting that "the needle is pointing up!" and "I love DG's plan!" might make some people feel better, but it doesn't alter the reality that the team is garbage and the GM and coach have been massive disappointments.
I'm not big on deluding myself. Doesn't mean I'm not optimistic when I have reasons to be optimistic. You're a regular on Yankee threads, Fats - am I a pessimist about the Yankees? No, I'm not.....because I have good reasons to believe in the Yankees. The reality there is that the Yankees are a damned good team, Brian Cashman (despite the stones thrown by the likes of Randal) is a very good GM, and I think they've earned the benefit of the doubt.
I used to feel that way about the Giants too. That's long over now. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the franchise, as currently constituted, is a bumbling, incompetent disaster.
And to answer UConn's pay about what you get for being right about the team sucking: you get to have your posts taken seriously.
There's a bunch of you guys that would compliment the Giants if they drafted an inanimate carbon rod, and your blind optimism needs to be taken with a quarry's worth of salt.
And to answer UConn's pay about what you get for being right about the team sucking: you get to have your posts taken seriously.
There's a bunch of you guys that would compliment the Giants if they drafted an inanimate carbon rod, and your blind optimism needs to be taken with a quarry's worth of salt.
I'll go deeper, and then what does that get you?
In the grand scheme of things it doesn't take a genius to know what's good content and what isn't. If you filter out the opinions of posters whom you don't take seriously, I wouldn't know it, doesn't seem like it.
In the end I strongly believe many on here like to hear themselves talk (type) and spending the day telling other posters who want to be optimistic that they are full of shit somehow gives them satisfaction. Maybe that's you, maybe it isn't, I have no idea. But its many on here, that's a fact.
Seems like an incredibly narcissistic waste of time.
And the shouting down of the optimists is nothing. Try saying something critical of a popular player and see the reaction that gets you. And I'm not just talking about Beckham. Or try criticizing drafting a RB second overall, or questioning if a club legend should still be the QB.
When there's reason for optimism I'll be right there with everyone else. But right now optimism is not warranted, and can't be taken seriously.
Everybody else dominated their way in and did everything they were supposed to do with little to no help from anything else.
Don't give up - you're 100% correct. You still have to take the breaks and make it happen. The Giants did that - twice.
Eagles fans love to harp on the Giants two Super Bowl wins were "lucky", when I they're only Super Bowl win was one of the luckiest I have ever witnessed.
And the shouting down of the optimists is nothing. Try saying something critical of a popular player and see the reaction that gets you. And I'm not just talking about Beckham. Or try criticizing drafting a RB second overall, or questioning if a club legend should still be the QB.
When there's reason for optimism I'll be right there with everyone else. But right now optimism is not warranted, and can't be taken seriously.
I think with most things its not what you (not you specifically) say its how you say it - and that's life not just BBI. Never had a problem with criticism, but some people can't do it without being an obnoxious blowhard. And to be fair, that's with some of the "optimists" too.
But it does make for challenging threads and leaves little reason to participate.
This nails the point for me, 100%.
There's no element of downplaying or apologizing for the titles.
Reminders that those NYG team weren't dominant for any protracted periods of time is simply a matter of acknowledging that the trophies don't make the approach/process (at an organizational level) unassailable.
Knowing what we know about the Giants and their ability or willingness to look inward and ask tough questions, do we think Mara did this?
But we had 2012 where it was more obvious. 2013 was like being hit by a truck. And we've had 2014-2019 to right the ship since and haven't.
I thought even the fans recognized that season was the team being carried by Eli playing at his peak and having some incredible individual performers.
Does it get emotional sometimes? Yes. Do I get drunk sometimes during the game and post with more emotion than I should? Yes. But most days, I pretty much just state my points with what I believe to be logical arguments to back them up.
You think I'm a shit poster of no value to the site? Fine. I don't really care. I've been here a long time.
Through good and bad. I'm going to continue to do what I do. You feel free to continue to do what you do.
This made me lol. It seem most of this forum does lmfao
Going to the original premise of this thread and the be patient crowd, I was debating bringing up an intersport comparison. If you look at the Islanders and their current situation, they seem to have FINALLY AFTER DECADES OF SEARCHING found a competent GM and Head Coach at the same time. They have a BUNCH of number one draft picks who have bought into the system and similar to the Yankees, a GM who has only made minor tweaks via Free Agency (though I'm sure he would have like Tavares to stay). As a fan of this team, each time there was a change I'f hope that the new 'team' would find success and hopefully sustained success. Now I know they are only a year and a half in but they have show significant improvement, resiliency, and discipline and are definitely on the up tick.
This is what I had hoped for with the Giants almost two years ago. But things are different. Different 1st round picks, different coaching personalities, different sports. With the Giants, I go back and forth hoping for a win, seeing potential in the young guys believing in Gettlemans hog mollys mantra and Shurmurs offensive acumen. Then game day happens. And its been many games at least in the sport of football. if I saw some kind of consistent improvement in performance or game plan or even game management, I'd be more hopeful. Right now I feel like we are in the middle of the Mike Milbury years....thats not good.
Quote:
and just state my points mostly with what I believe to be logical arguments and opinions.
Does it get emotional sometimes? Yes. Do I get drunk sometimes during the game and post with more emotion than I should? Yes. But most days, I pretty much just state my points with what I believe to be logical arguments to back them up.
You think I'm a shit poster of no value to the site? Fine. I don't really care. I've been here a long time.
Through good and bad. I'm going to continue to do what I do. You feel free to continue to do what you do.
This made me lol. It seem most of this forum does lmfao
If nothing else it's honest.
Quote:
In comment 14684390 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14684388 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 14684362 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Also of note in regards to that 2010 team, if the Giants hold on and win that Eagles game, Green Bay doesn't make the playoffs and BBI favorite Aaron Rodgers is still searching for a Superbowl title.
Talk about a hair away.
Uh huh. What happened when the Giants played the Packers in 2010?
Wouldn't have mattered. Giants win that Eagles game and the Packers would have been eliminated regardless of what happened the following week when they played.
Well that's simply not true. It allowed the Packers to control their own destiny, but it would not have eliminated them. For one thing, they still had a Week 15 game to play, they were 8-5.
Even after the Packers lost to New England (with Matt Flynn starting in place of Rodgers) they were 8-6. A Giants win would have put them at 10-4 and the Eagles at 9-5.
GB would have won tiebreakers over the Eagles and Bucs. Any Eagles loss would have gotten the Packers in at 10-6. If anything, the Bucs losing at home in Week 15 had as much to do with the Packers getting in as the Giants blowing that game vs Philly.
It came down to the final game of the season. Bears vs. Packers. Bears win? Giants go to the playoffs. Packers win? They go. The Packers won, so they controlled their own destiny, yes. But they needed help still. The Giants hang on to beat the Eagles and everything else goes the same, the Giants are in the playoffs and the Packers are not.
Change the outcome of NYG-PHI, and GB still makes the playoffs in 2010. The Giants win the NFC East, Phil finishes 9-7, and GB takes SOV over TB.
Now try playing the "what if" game with the '85 Bears...if the earth were struck by a comet in December 1985, the Bears wouldn't have won the Super Bowl. Not quite the same as the 2010 Packers, or the 2011 Giants.
Now try playing the "what if" game with the '85 Bears...if the earth were struck by a comet in December 1985, the Bears wouldn't have won the Super Bowl. Not quite the same as the 2010 Packers, or the 2011 Giants.
Different eras to be fair. The Pats are really on an island with regards to sustainable dominance, its amazing. I can see the Chiefs really fading once they pay Mahomes.
Quote:
In comment 14684457 rsjem1979 said:
Quote:
In comment 14684390 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14684388 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 14684362 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Also of note in regards to that 2010 team, if the Giants hold on and win that Eagles game, Green Bay doesn't make the playoffs and BBI favorite Aaron Rodgers is still searching for a Superbowl title.
Talk about a hair away.
Uh huh. What happened when the Giants played the Packers in 2010?
Wouldn't have mattered. Giants win that Eagles game and the Packers would have been eliminated regardless of what happened the following week when they played.
Well that's simply not true. It allowed the Packers to control their own destiny, but it would not have eliminated them. For one thing, they still had a Week 15 game to play, they were 8-5.
Even after the Packers lost to New England (with Matt Flynn starting in place of Rodgers) they were 8-6. A Giants win would have put them at 10-4 and the Eagles at 9-5.
GB would have won tiebreakers over the Eagles and Bucs. Any Eagles loss would have gotten the Packers in at 10-6. If anything, the Bucs losing at home in Week 15 had as much to do with the Packers getting in as the Giants blowing that game vs Philly.
It came down to the final game of the season. Bears vs. Packers. Bears win? Giants go to the playoffs. Packers win? They go. The Packers won, so they controlled their own destiny, yes. But they needed help still. The Giants hang on to beat the Eagles and everything else goes the same, the Giants are in the playoffs and the Packers are not.
Change the outcome of NYG-PHI, and GB still makes the playoffs in 2010. The Giants win the NFC East, Phil finishes 9-7, and GB takes SOV over TB.
Also meant to write that if we give PHI a win against someone else to get to 10-6 with GB and TB, PHI is elimiated on conference record, and GB takes SOV over TB.
I don't put an asterisk next to 2007 and 2011, but acknowledge the NFL brand of football is nothing like it was during its Golden Age.
It hasn't been a good job. It's possible it could turn into one, I've always acknowledged that possibility but a lot of the things in our approach seem to put us at a disadvantage here. There are plenty that saw this coming because of that and there is certainly nothing we are seeing to suggest that it was pessimism as opposed to realism.
If we want real change narratives based in overly optimistic viewpoints are counter productive to that. I'm also not a fan of the "we are stuck with this" attitude. Sure a change of heart in ownership and direction is also a lower probability event but the only way that happens is if the fan base kind of unites in wanting that and i'm not sure why there aren't more people on board to do that.
GD hit the nail on the head on the types but jesus, i'd think watching this clusterfuck continue to unfold would cause more attrition.