Quite honestly, even with LT on that 1989 team, and the 41-0 game the 2000 team had, I have to go with the 2008 team. Before Plax shot himself, that team was just running their opponents off the field. It was the most dominant stretch of Giants football I had ever seen.
I'd say the 1989 Giants beat the 2000 Giants though.
Yup. Knew you'd mention that Greg, lol. A Bob McKittrick special if there ever was one. Dirty muhfugger that he was.
2008 by 2008 rules
They were unbeatable for that duration and, at the time, I thought they were a lock to repeat.
The only consistent thing about that season was Burress not playing well.
He had one good game all year. But because Jim Johnson made a generic comment about him, everyone forgets everything.
It doesn't matter how many good games he had, what matters was how defenses had to account for him. Regardless of what Jim Johnson said, the evidence was on the tape, defenses played us differently after Plax went down.
To answer the OP's question, the '89 team wins.
Quote:
He missed half of the game in SF and, though he didn't miss any other games, he wasn't 100% the rest of the season.
Yup. Knew you'd mention that Greg, lol. A Bob McKittrick special if there ever was one. Dirty muhfugger that he was.
So true. The "master" of the crackback blocking scheme. And Alex Gibbs wasn't too far behind, either...
2008 was an excellent team, but I think 1989 negates their strength in the rushing game. Offense was pretty damned good all year but sputtered a bit late in year (Carolina game notwithstanding)
I think 2000 was a good team that took advantage of fortunate circumstances.
But keep in mind -- Burress played like a series against the Cards -- and the Giants offense was dominant. Burress didn't play against Carolina, and the run game was dominant. Burress was suspended earlier in the year against Seattle and the Giants went bananas on offense.
Burress was banged up, ineffective, or out in some of the most productive games the offense had.
Why didn't the Giants need the mythical decoy of Burress against a pretty good Panthers defense late in the year? Because they had a damn good run game with or without Burress.
Quote:
The 08 team started great and ran out of gas.
The only consistent thing about that season was Burress not playing well.
He had one good game all year. But because Jim Johnson made a generic comment about him, everyone forgets everything.
It doesn't matter how many good games he had, what matters was how defenses had to account for him. Regardless of what Jim Johnson said, the evidence was on the tape, defenses played us differently after Plax went down.
Really, how?
In the first 11 games of the year (before Burress shot himself) the Offense averaged about 30 points per game.
In the last 5 games (after shooting), the Offense averaged under 18 points a game. And even in the playoff loss against the Eagles, the Offense only scored 9 points.
The loss of Plax may not have meant everything but it clearly meant something. Because the Offense wasn't producing touchdowns and points like they were before...
I definitely think attention to Burress helped the Giants create room in the running game. And a healthy Burress made defenses pick a least bad option. Gilbride said that.
My view is simply it's more complicated than Burress ruined the season.
Fact is Burress was hurt and Jacobs was also banged up.
Take out the meaningless game against Minnesota, and without/limited Burress the Giants scored 37 against AZ, 23 against Washington, and 34 against Carolina.
The Giants struggled against Dallas and Philly the 2nd and 3rd time they faced them on the season.
Quote:
The loss of Plax may not have meant everything but it clearly meant something. Because the Offense wasn't producing touchdowns and points like they were before...
I definitely think attention to Burress helped the Giants create room in the running game. And a healthy Burress made defenses pick a least bad option. Gilbride said that.
My view is simply it's more complicated than Burress ruined the season.
Fact is Burress was hurt and Jacobs was also banged up.
Take out the meaningless game against Minnesota, and without/limited Burress the Giants scored 37 against AZ, 23 against Washington, and 34 against Carolina.
The Giants struggled against Dallas and Philly the 2nd and 3rd time they faced them on the season.
As I already said, it wasn't everything but it was clearly something to not have Burress.
I don't care if it was other teams rolling coverages to his side and freeing up other guys to make plays when he played or when he was out it added another guy to play run defense or free lance a bit in the secondary...it affected the NYG scoring and ability for Eli to get them into the end zone.
Dallas and Philly took advantage since they knew the Giants offense the best and knew how to change their defenses the most...
Nah. '86. They won 12 straight to close the season. Their last five they won by a collective score of 187-54. The games before that included beating an excellent Redskins team in RFK to take control of the division, the comeback in San Francisco, and 4th and 17. Beat the Niners twice, the Broncos twice, and the Skins twice.
By the time that divisional game against Philly rolled around, I remember being concerned a bit on which Giants team would show up. Would it be the one who shrugged off the Burress thing and beat Washington Carolina?
Or would it be the Giants who no-showed vs Philly and Dallas?
Note: I thought that Eagle playoff game was one of the worst Eli Manning performances pre-2016. Hate to sound like a casual fan, but something was "off" about him that day.
1989 Divisional Playoff - L.A. Rams at N.Y. Giants - ( New Window )
I went back and looked at. It was Sheldon. Tried to wipe it from my mind. Madden thought the call was wrong. He said to let em play. See the timestamp below (2:22:00).
1989 Divisional Playoff Game - Rams at Giants (Jan. '90) - 2:22:00 mark - ( New Window )