Stats by no means mean everything, but interesting stat here. In 12 starts Hoss threw 5 TDs and 4 INT. In four starts Simms tossed 8 TDs and 4 INT.
Grateful to both players but as a 12 y/o in ‘91 i was bummed Simms was not the starter. Do you think Simms starting from day 1 in ‘91 would have made a difference?
Kinda like Bledsoe and Brady 10 years later?
Seconded. That 91 - 92 had no business going 14-18. They had an OL, good running backs, good QBs, and enough on D. They were not below average by any stretch. They suffered from a lack of leadership and coaching. Should have been more like 18-14.
It seems like when these threads come up everyone is saying simms was the obvious choice, but that was NOT the case in 1991. Many, many fans were behind Hostetler because they liked his mobility. And, the 1991 season open versus San Francisco at Giants Stadium on MNF seemed to fortify that claim. Hoss made the plays late in the game just like he did in the NFC Championship in January. Problems began surfacing a week later though and it became apparent the coach may have been in over his head.
I liked Hostetler but come on.
Not true. Matt Millen himself said the Hoss was the giants' missing x-factor in the 90 NFC Championship Game in Frisco. The Giants lose to the Niners with Simms. He would have gotten clobbered by that ferocious Niners pass rush. I do think Phil would have been fine the next week though against the Bills.
Quote:
Simms versus Hostetler debate was about as unpleasant a time to be a Giants fan as there was. People passionately took sides and were downright awful to the quarterback that they didn't favor. The old Simms bashers came out of the wordwork too (they had been in hiding for four years).
Kinda like Bledsoe and Brady 10 years later?
No. The Pats thing was not even close. Bledsoe was not beloved, nor had he won a title.
Simms should credit for the Bucs win too.
with Simms all year, who knows where that team goes to.
Benching him was a slap in the face.
While I do believe the team would have performed better with Simms at QB, the real and obvious issue was Handley. Wrong man for the job, clear as day when the team performed so much better in 93 with a similar, aging lineup.
Quote:
Simms versus Hostetler debate was about as unpleasant a time to be a Giants fan as there was. People passionately took sides and were downright awful to the quarterback that they didn't favor. The old Simms bashers came out of the wordwork too (they had been in hiding for four years).
Spot on. And ridiculous - Simms had done NOTHING to lose his job - IMO, he was playing at the highest level of his career, had gotten the Interceptions WAY down, had become a master of the 2 minute drill, a great game manager, a class act.
Benching him was a slap in the face.
While I do believe the team would have performed better with Simms at QB, the real and obvious issue was Handley. Wrong man for the job, clear as day when the team performed so much better in 93 with a similar, aging lineup.
agree. with both of you
Quote:
Simms versus Hostetler debate was about as unpleasant a time to be a Giants fan as there was. People passionately took sides and were downright awful to the quarterback that they didn't favor. The old Simms bashers came out of the wordwork too (they had been in hiding for four years).
Spot on. And ridiculous - Simms had done NOTHING to lose his job - IMO, he was playing at the highest level of his career, had gotten the Interceptions WAY down, had become a master of the 2 minute drill, a great game manager, a class act.
Benching him was a slap in the face.
While I do believe the team would have performed better with Simms at QB, the real and obvious issue was Handley. Wrong man for the job, clear as day when the team performed so much better in 93 with a similar, aging lineup.
Yep, Simms should have been the guy.
It worked for a week. The defense shut down Steve Young, and Hoss made enough plays to squeak by in the opener. In Week 2 against the Rams, though, all the problems with the Handley-Hoss combination were on full display. The offense couldn’t finish drives, and the defense could no longer carry the team.
Would Phil have done better? Hard to say. Would Handley have let Phil be Phil? Would he have accepted the inevitability of sacks and turnovers in exchange for a more explosive offense? I think some of the early games where the offense simply sputtered (especially vs. Rams, Cowboys), Phil would have excelled. And that’s the way to look at it: Game by game.
I’m biased, because I loved Simms so much; but I just don’t know that he would have made that big a difference. He did show, in the season finale, that he was still a top-tier QB. In his first few starts after coming off the bench, he was still shaking off rust.
In today's NFL, Hostetler would have left the Giants after his first contract and probably would have had a good shot at starting somewhere else while he was still in his prime. He was in his 30s by the time he got his first full-time starting job with the Raiders.
Yes he had Parcells -- but he also delivered
kinda like Nick Foles did and Foles was rewarded handsomely for it while Hoss wasn't