Even when 1 - 6, they only got blown out in one half of one game (2nd half versus 49ers). Played the Steelers, Bears and Rams relatively close during that 0 - 5 stretch with no OTA, no minicamps and no pre-season games with a new HC, DC and OC and a lot of roster turn over.
Geez....Sometimes our own worst enemies in the Press are the New York Papers. We seem to get more respect from newspaper columnists and beat writers around the country than in our own backyard.
Then when we start winning....they will be there writing up puff pieces about our great players and coaches.
1) We are a bad team. Very much an improving team but still bad. Our three victories have come against two other bad teams and in each of those we had difficulty holding on to a two score lead.
2)The Times' writer has covered NFL football for quite some time, primarily covering the Jets (so he's familiar with bad teams.)
3)To its eternal shame, the Times has not had a reporter cover a Giants' game until yesterday. All game coverage had been by the AP
the Giants are running the ball and stopping the run at a pretty high level. Above average level. That's the formula for winning games. That's anything but bad.
& most of you all know where I stand politically, but I gave up my subscription to the Times the year we last beat the Eagles before yesterday. I rely on the WaPo.
this must be political as everything the Times does is political,
I think "bad" is too negative. I think they're playing like mediocre/average NFL team and are still improving.
Even when 1 - 6, they only got blown out in one half of one game (2nd half versus 49ers). Played the Steelers, Bears and Rams relatively close during that 0 - 5 stretch with no OTA, no minicamps and no pre-season games with a new HC, DC and OC and a lot of roster turn over.
Really ???
It's not like they would have to look very hard to find another team in NY for comparison.
Then when we start winning....they will be there writing up puff pieces about our great players and coaches.
Geez
The two games they lost to the Eagles and Tampa Bay were by a total of three points
They could easily be 5-0 in the last 5 games and 6-0 if you include the 3 point loss to the Cowboys
This is becoming a good team that is showing improvement each week
I see what you did there Hahaha, well done👍
Seriously though, is it the age of social media that has created such a sardonic atmosphere where objectivity is no longer valued, as it once was.
The Giants Offense is, even if you snapshot the last month, not good.
The Giants Defense is solid; but it's not 'top third of the NFL' good -- not '85 Bears 'Destroyer of Worlds' good.
That recipe (below average offense, good but not great defense) still nets you a bad team.
Don't get me wrong, the arrow is starting to look like it points up. But waaaaay too early to start calling out those who are skeptical.
Link - ( New Window )
This is sports "journalism" for a local fanbase. Relax, everyone. Let's passive-aggressively vent our frustrations via some other channel maybe.
And, as mentioned, the particular terminology with which folks are taking umbrage, "historically bad" is not even in the article of today, speaking of "fake news."
Maybe this is the article OP was referencing? From when both teams were 0-5? - ( New Window )
2)The Times' writer has covered NFL football for quite some time, primarily covering the Jets (so he's familiar with bad teams.)
3)To its eternal shame, the Times has not had a reporter cover a Giants' game until yesterday. All game coverage had been by the AP
As opposed to the 0-9 Jets? Are the Jets super-historically awful?