Let’s make a distinction here. It takes time to get build a foundation where the team is a legitimate contender, I think we all agree. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that what SHOULDN’T take years and years is raising the team out the basement. Making enough improvements that you aren’t 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, that’s 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 wasn’t all this time needed for them to improve?
Regarding the talent, though I do agree, it feels like drafts have improved, I’m 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 it’s 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, JR’s 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 team’s 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 haven’t shown that. I’ll reserve judgement to see what happens down the stretch, but this is NOT a time for patience. The call is for urgency.
We are paying Pulley, yes that Spencer Pulley, 2.7 mill a year and Halapio about $650k. Wow, look at all the money we saved having a non-functional center!
It's a symptom- poor player evaluation and poor pro personnel management. The proof is in the pudding. The Niners were much better in their assessment; they have had a legit starting center for two years (shocked that they are 8-1 or whatever they are). We will be diving back into the clearance rack- again or bellying up to the center bar to spend resources (who needs an offensive tackle anyway?). (not shocked that we are 2-8). But hey, we are just like them and on the brink of turning it around right?
Well, the counter to that argument is we won a Super Bowl with David Baas at center.
Does the team ever share blame in a player failing in your worldview?
Baas was fine when he was healthy. Unfortunately, that wasn't very often.
Quote:
But I've said for a while I think center is the second most important position on the offense after QB. The way the Giants have treated the position is negligent.
Well, the counter to that argument is we won a Super Bowl with David Baas at center.
David Baas had several fabulous games down the stretch, including the Super Bowl. The Giants would kill for a healthy Baas right now.
Player development is a necessary part of being a competing team. That's the difference between consistently good teams and mediocre ones. How does a person watch the patriots for 20 years, or any Andy Reid team present a consistently excellent football team for long periods of time and not think that successful franchises know how to develop players.
And we have years and years of failed draft picks that would suggest the opposite. Who are the Giants over the past 10 years who have become excellent from less than that? Who's the last player the Giants can say they developed? Victor Cruz?
The stars that have worn this uniform since 2011 almost exclusively came into the league as something special. They weren't developed here. And plenty of players who were SUPPOSED to be good according to scouts have gone on to do nothing.
Unbelievable the homerism some have on here.
The stars that have worn this uniform since 2011 almost exclusively came into the league as something special. They weren't developed here. And plenty of players who were SUPPOSED to be good according to scouts have gone on to do nothing. [/quote]
I have a theory on that: I think our several-year-long spell of having abysmal special teams played a role in our terrible player development. The ST unit seems to me like something of a culture builder, and potentially a place where a competent coach can instill a mentality and attention to detail that its players take with them.
Quote:
the idea that not signing Collins or Richburg were the right moves cannot be agreed upon, you just have to face the fact that some posters will go to any lengths to not give any credit at all to the organization and will just continue to batter the board with bullshit.
No one has talked about Collins on here at all that I can see. Regarding Richburg, however, I'm not understand where the bullshit is. Richburg is starting for a 9-1 team and playing at least reasonably well. The Giants starter is a sorryass journeyman nobody. Those are both simple facts. To me, letting Richburg walk is only the right move if you have a plan to get someone better, or at least someone who is roughly equivalent but cheaper. The Giants got the cheaper part right, but their center of choice is a guy who had drifted through several organizations without getting any significant playing time. That was a failure, full stop.
It was brought up by uconn4523 but no one on here mentioned a word about slamming DG for that move. The guy you responded to is notorious for taking posts out of context and twisting them to fit his narrative.
There wasn't one post on here slamming the Collins move. In that context you are exactly correct-- it was never mentioned in the context that the poster would have others believe. The twisting of posts is one of his shticks.
There is NO talent. Good God man.
The Giants of that era peaked in 2008. I still think the MNF loss in Cleveland was the point of inflection for the whole era...Shaun Rogers obliterating O'Hara, Snee, and Seubert foretold of the need to reinforce the offensive line - a need that still exists today. They squeezed out another title behind numerous Eli 4th quarter comebacks and a DPOY level year from JPP, but they were already on the way down. Once that team disintegrated after Sandy the leadership was clueless in how to rebuild. That problem remains.
You are what your record says you are. You can point to this or that play in any given game and say they could have been 7-9, I could point to this or that play and say they could have been 11-5. They were what they were: 13-7 NFC East Champs, NFC Champs and NFL Champs against a very, very tough schedule.
Also don't forget the 2010 Giants went 10-6 and MISSED the playoffs (due to Vick/Jackson scoring like 38 points in one quarter), and the 2012 Giants started 6-2 and then collapsed. I agree 2008 regular season was a peak of the Coughlin Giants, but I truly believe the end of 2011 was a legitimate peak unto itself that was equal to the 2007-end thru 2008-beginning peak.
That team started off the year a very respectable 5-2... and then went 8-5 against THIS schedule (ranked in order of regular season schedule):
15-1 Packers TWICE
13-3 Patriots TWICE
13-3 49ers TWICE
13-3 Saints (in Superdome where Saints were undefeated that year)
10-6 Falcons
8-8 Jets
8-8 Cowboys TWICE
8-8 Eagles
5-11 Skins
Even the "easy" part of that schedule I just listed was against divisional rivals Eagles, Cowboys, Skins (never easy) and "across-town" rivals Jets (never easy).
Quote:
I think its because the talent IS there and, really, all they've been missing is some semblance of defense to win a game or two here or there. I think they play the eagles close and probably get blown out by the packers, but the rest could be wins and I think that will be enough for Shurmur to stick around, unfortunately, in my opinion.
There is NO talent. Good God man.
Agreed. I'm fucking tired of seeing people saying this team is just a play or 2 away from winning this or that game this year. 1) You could say that about any NFL game, 2) No they are not. They are often a dozen plays away from winning these games. They are a few plays away from... being a few plays away (as Carl Banks put it so well). The road to getting from a dozen plays away to just 1-2 plays away is a long haul unto itself! And then getting from 1-2 plays away to actually beating teams is another long road. So, no. You can look all you want at this or that game and say "well I THOUGHT we were in the game for the 1st half of the Patriots game"... good for you, most teams the Patriots play are "in it" in the first half, doesn't mean those teams come anywhere close to beating them.
Just because we aren't getting blown out 40-0 every week doesn't mean we're "just a play or 2 away from beating the Pats". We can't even beat the damn Cardinals or Lions or Jets or anybody at this point. THAT is the true measure, is can this team actually WIN games? Hanging in there is just that: hanging in there. It does not necessarily correspond to being a talented, winning football team. The NFL the differences between teams and talent are actually so miniscule that it is rare to see teams just get blown out every week, so you have to look a little deeper than just the score in the middle of the 3rd quarter of some game several weeks back to get a gauge as to how close this team actually is..
Our secondary and our o line sucks. They would help
I rather be overpaying these guys than guys we are currently overpaying Doing absolutely nothing
Quote:
There had to have been a dozen single plays that would have kept them out of the playoffs had just one gone the other way. Remember Victor Cruz dropping the ball untouched in Arizona? Romo missing Miles Austin? Ballard's ridiculous catch in New England?
The Giants of that era peaked in 2008. I still think the MNF loss in Cleveland was the point of inflection for the whole era...Shaun Rogers obliterating O'Hara, Snee, and Seubert foretold of the need to reinforce the offensive line - a need that still exists today. They squeezed out another title behind numerous Eli 4th quarter comebacks and a DPOY level year from JPP, but they were already on the way down. Once that team disintegrated after Sandy the leadership was clueless in how to rebuild. That problem remains.
You are what your record says you are. You can point to this or that play in any given game and say they could have been 7-9, I could point to this or that play and say they could have been 11-5. They were what they were: 13-7 NFC East Champs, NFC Champs and NFL Champs against a very, very tough schedule.
Also don't forget the 2010 Giants went 10-6 and MISSED the playoffs (due to Vick/Jackson scoring like 38 points in one quarter), and the 2012 Giants started 6-2 and then collapsed. I agree 2008 regular season was a peak of the Coughlin Giants, but I truly believe the end of 2011 was a legitimate peak unto itself that was equal to the 2007-end thru 2008-beginning peak.
That team started off the year a very respectable 5-2... and then went 8-5 against THIS schedule (ranked in order of regular season schedule):
15-1 Packers TWICE
13-3 Patriots TWICE
13-3 49ers TWICE
13-3 Saints (in Superdome where Saints were undefeated that year)
10-6 Falcons
8-8 Jets
8-8 Cowboys TWICE
8-8 Eagles
5-11 Skins
Even the "easy" part of that schedule I just listed was against divisional rivals Eagles, Cowboys, Skins (never easy) and "across-town" rivals Jets (never easy).
L o T great post!
I've made that same argument on BBI many times throughout the years.
But hey, these are Giants fans you're talking about so why not stick your nose up at a Super Bowl title?
Eli Manning is chopped liver around here.
Quote:
There had to have been a dozen single plays that would have kept them out of the playoffs had just one gone the other way. Remember Victor Cruz dropping the ball untouched in Arizona? Romo missing Miles Austin? Ballard's ridiculous catch in New England?
The Giants of that era peaked in 2008. I still think the MNF loss in Cleveland was the point of inflection for the whole era...Shaun Rogers obliterating O'Hara, Snee, and Seubert foretold of the need to reinforce the offensive line - a need that still exists today. They squeezed out another title behind numerous Eli 4th quarter comebacks and a DPOY level year from JPP, but they were already on the way down. Once that team disintegrated after Sandy the leadership was clueless in how to rebuild. That problem remains.
You are what your record says you are. You can point to this or that play in any given game and say they could have been 7-9, I could point to this or that play and say they could have been 11-5. They were what they were: 13-7 NFC East Champs, NFC Champs and NFL Champs against a very, very tough schedule.
Also don't forget the 2010 Giants went 10-6 and MISSED the playoffs (due to Vick/Jackson scoring like 38 points in one quarter), and the 2012 Giants started 6-2 and then collapsed. I agree 2008 regular season was a peak of the Coughlin Giants, but I truly believe the end of 2011 was a legitimate peak unto itself that was equal to the 2007-end thru 2008-beginning peak.
That team started off the year a very respectable 5-2... and then went 8-5 against THIS schedule (ranked in order of regular season schedule):
15-1 Packers TWICE
13-3 Patriots TWICE
13-3 49ers TWICE
13-3 Saints (in Superdome where Saints were undefeated that year)
10-6 Falcons
8-8 Jets
8-8 Cowboys TWICE
8-8 Eagles
5-11 Skins
Even the "easy" part of that schedule I just listed was against divisional rivals Eagles, Cowboys, Skins (never easy) and "across-town" rivals Jets (never easy).
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.
A few exceptions in this thread notwithstanding, I feel like most of the criticism directed toward DG about Collins was just that he didn't trade him in 2018 (why wait to put your eggs in the comp pick basket when you can achieve certainty sooner?), not that he didn't re-sign him. So yes, I think you're right that people would criticize DG for resigning Collins if Collins was playing poorly.
As it relates to Richburg though, the reality is, Gettleman DID overpay an OL free agent that offseason, and determined that Halapio was a better option for OC (because he also traded Jones in addition to letting Richburg walk, so I think it's fair to lump both of those decisions together as related to having faith in Halapio as an option at OC).
Gettleman's overpaid OL free agent has severely underperformed. Gettleman's preferred OC has also underperformed. The guy who he let walk in favor of Solder's money and Halapio's playing time has outperformed both of them since then.
All of that is 100% 20/20 hindsight, there's no denying that. But this isn't intended to be a second guess so much as a look back at the other associated OL construction decisions made that were related to letting Richburg walk. It's hard to give Gettleman credit for parting ways with Richburg when the other decisions that he made on the OL in the wake of that were so underwhelming.
And that's not to say that BBI knows better than Gettleman, but we're not supposed to - we're doing this for free as a hobby in our free time. This is his career. And he's the one who was broadly proclaiming his intention to go get some "hog mollies" up front. Shouldn't he be able to do a better job of scouting the upgrades that were supposedly going to fix the OL?
Might as well be trotting Ian Allen and Jeff Hatch out there.
Quote:
In comment 14683904 Go Terps said:
Quote:
There had to have been a dozen single plays that would have kept them out of the playoffs had just one gone the other way. Remember Victor Cruz dropping the ball untouched in Arizona? Romo missing Miles Austin? Ballard's ridiculous catch in New England?
The Giants of that era peaked in 2008. I still think the MNF loss in Cleveland was the point of inflection for the whole era...Shaun Rogers obliterating O'Hara, Snee, and Seubert foretold of the need to reinforce the offensive line - a need that still exists today. They squeezed out another title behind numerous Eli 4th quarter comebacks and a DPOY level year from JPP, but they were already on the way down. Once that team disintegrated after Sandy the leadership was clueless in how to rebuild. That problem remains.
You are what your record says you are. You can point to this or that play in any given game and say they could have been 7-9, I could point to this or that play and say they could have been 11-5. They were what they were: 13-7 NFC East Champs, NFC Champs and NFL Champs against a very, very tough schedule.
Also don't forget the 2010 Giants went 10-6 and MISSED the playoffs (due to Vick/Jackson scoring like 38 points in one quarter), and the 2012 Giants started 6-2 and then collapsed. I agree 2008 regular season was a peak of the Coughlin Giants, but I truly believe the end of 2011 was a legitimate peak unto itself that was equal to the 2007-end thru 2008-beginning peak.
That team started off the year a very respectable 5-2... and then went 8-5 against THIS schedule (ranked in order of regular season schedule):
15-1 Packers TWICE
13-3 Patriots TWICE
13-3 49ers TWICE
13-3 Saints (in Superdome where Saints were undefeated that year)
10-6 Falcons
8-8 Jets
8-8 Cowboys TWICE
8-8 Eagles
5-11 Skins
Even the "easy" part of that schedule I just listed was against divisional rivals Eagles, Cowboys, Skins (never easy) and "across-town" rivals Jets (never easy).
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.
BBI favorite Aaron Rodgers as though this is the only place where people think Rodgers is a good QB.
What a joke.
I guess I am. Was the point that 2010 was the last time your perennial 10-6 preseason prediction wound up being correct?
Quote:
.
I guess I am. Was the point that 2010 was the last time your perennial 10-6 preseason prediction wound up being correct?
Hopefully when I make it again next year.
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.
The Giants of that era peaked in 2008. I still think the MNF loss in Cleveland was the point of inflection for the whole era...Shaun Rogers obliterating O'Hara, Snee, and Seubert foretold of the need to reinforce the offensive line - a need that still exists today. They squeezed out another title behind numerous Eli 4th quarter comebacks and a DPOY level year from JPP, but they were already on the way down. Once that team disintegrated after Sandy the leadership was clueless in how to rebuild. That problem remains.
You are what your record says you are. You can point to this or that play in any given game and say they could have been 7-9, I could point to this or that play and say they could have been 11-5. They were what they were: 13-7 NFC East Champs, NFC Champs and NFL Champs against a very, very tough schedule.
Also don't forget the 2010 Giants went 10-6 and MISSED the playoffs (due to Vick/Jackson scoring like 38 points in one quarter), and the 2012 Giants started 6-2 and then collapsed. I agree 2008 regular season was a peak of the Coughlin Giants, but I truly believe the end of 2011 was a legitimate peak unto itself that was equal to the 2007-end thru 2008-beginning peak.
That team started off the year a very respectable 5-2... and then went 8-5 against THIS schedule (ranked in order of regular season schedule):
15-1 Packers TWICE
13-3 Patriots TWICE
13-3 49ers TWICE
13-3 Saints (in Superdome where Saints were undefeated that year)
10-6 Falcons
8-8 Jets
8-8 Cowboys TWICE
8-8 Eagles
5-11 Skins
Even the "easy" part of that schedule I just listed was against divisional rivals Eagles, Cowboys, Skins (never easy) and "across-town" rivals Jets (never easy).
Britt in VA said:
Talk about a hair away.
Great post gentlemen,
I always thought that 2008 team was the best offense I had seen in quite some time. Even though it ended ugly. Umenyiora injured in pre-season and Plaxico's incident. 2010 was the same thing, that Eagles game was a killer but if I recall correctly, that was huge for playoffs.
I always point (and to be fair someone else posted this awhile back). There were 4 or 5 weeks in 2012. The home game against Pittsburgh after Hurricane Sandy is the game I think of in retrospect that this team started to trend down. They had two impressive wins against Green Bay and New Orleans at home but I can remember the actual play in that Monday night against Washington. I think Eli was driving in the 4th quarter and B. Unicorn Bennett makes a catch for 1st down but Lochlear (I think) gets called for holding.
Man, I miss the days when November games meant something.
That was funny.
Wrong. They were not eliminated by the Eagles collapse. They were eliminated by getting their asses kicked by the Packers the next week 45-17.
And let's throw a little context in 2011, shall we? They somehow lost to the 5-11 Redskins twice, and neither game was close. They lost to the Eagles at home with Vince fucking Young starting at QB. They lost at home to a crappySeahawks team that played Tarvaris Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst at QB.
It's fantastic that they got hot late in the year and ripped off a bunch of wins against very good teams, but it doesn't change the fact that the team was 7-7 after week 15 with some losses against wretched teams.
Talk about a hair away.
Uh huh. What happened when the Giants played the Packers in 2010?
Its sports, what ifs are the entire point of the unpredictability. Who gives a shit if the Giants weren't a dominant team on their way to winning a title?
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.
The Eagles game was a fitting result for a team that dropped games at home to weak Titans and Cowboys teams through pure carelessness. It was also a systemic debacle, from the hands team not being on the field during the onside kick, to Matt Dodge punting in the middle of the field, to Kenny Phillips going for a kill shot on Brent Celek and letting walk into the endzone, to Derek Hagan running the wrong read-route on a critical 3rd down play to ice the game.
Like much of 2011, Eli was the only player holding that flimsy team together on that day, throwing for four touchdowns and a critical first down on a 4th quarter drive before Hagan effed up.
So, I don't believe the 2010 team was a great squad that had a bad eight minutes, but rather those 8 minutes were just waiting to happen on how the season had played out to that point.
Why trade a capable backup OL after you've lost your starting C in free agency for a meaningless late round OL? (This on a 2018 team that was supposed to compete.) Why not keep Jones for depth? At this point, he might very well hypothetically be the best center on the roster. So why trade him for peanuts?
Again, a minor decision, but one that doesn't add up.
Quote:
Also don't forget the 2010 Giants went 10-6 and MISSED the playoffs (due to Vick/Jackson scoring like 38 points in one quarter)
Wrong. They were not eliminated by the Eagles collapse. They were eliminated by getting their asses kicked by the Packers the next week 45-17.
And let's throw a little context in 2011, shall we? They somehow lost to the 5-11 Redskins twice, and neither game was close. They lost to the Eagles at home with Vince fucking Young starting at QB. They lost at home to a crappySeahawks team that played Tarvaris Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst at QB.
It's fantastic that they got hot late in the year and ripped off a bunch of wins against very good teams, but it doesn't change the fact that the team was 7-7 after week 15 with some losses against wretched teams.
Are you Skip Bayless with a keyboard?
We are all dumber for having to read this shit.
A hair away.
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...