Starters for the Wildcard Win Against Vikings

In comment 16443816 christian said:

Quote:

Here are the starters from the last 3 playoff winning seasons who were not on the roster on opening day 2 seasons after. I've also noted ages when the season started and average age of the players who eventually left. Adjacent observation, it really sucks how many of those core players in 2011 had career altering injuries in the next 2-3 years.

remember different CBAs and those teams were fully drafted/signed by the same coach/gm. a lot of the 2022 guys who are now gone were inherited from previous regime. and yet still comparable turnover.

50% of every nfl roster turns over every year, a lot of that is back of roster but 2 years out id bet starters turning over by 50% is typical.

In comment 16443482 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

In comment 16443400 Rudy5757 said: Quote: Would you rather have not gone to the playoffs? Would you rather have lost to the Vikings? I mean, the last playoff game before that we had OBJ and the celebrating Wrs in a terrible loss about the same as the Eagles loss. Don’t forget getting crushed in the Superbowl in 2000 or the epic collapse against San Fran when we couldn’t snap the ball. A playoff win is a playoff win. In 2007 we won the superbowl with a 10-6 record in the regular season and in 2011 we won with a 9-7 record. In 2022 we went 9-6-1 and even sat the starters in the finale. We may have gotten to 10 wins. Getting to the playoffs is a big deal and winning is a big deal. We beat a 13 win team. Do you know how many times in the Super Bowl the giants have won 13 or more regular season games? 1 time in 1986. 13 wins is a lot in the regular season. "The Fumble" led to George Young. It was a good thing. The 2022 playoff game led to 4-years, $160 million and a 2-year setback in the rebuild. It may also cause the current regime to fail. It was a bad thing. Short-term gratification isn't always good.

Are you delusional? That ONE GAME led to the contract? By that measure, Cutlets ought to be getting 80m a year. Come Eric, stop with the hyperbole.

As I noted in the OP, my observation isn't that the turnover is outside of the statistical norm (current circumstances implied) -- it's more who, why, and what age might be gone.

Post this most recent playoff win, the Giants have jettisoned more, and younger players.

The two most important players on the field against Minnesota were Jones and Barkley. Barkley is gone by choice, and if Jones is gone by circumstance -- the 2024 team will be substantively different. Perception-wise that would probably the biggest change.

I don't think many fans would guess on the day of that Minnesota win, Barkley and Jones might be gone opening day 2024.

They didn't have to franchise him either. There was no rule saying he had to be back because they beat Minnesota.

Winning and enjoying the playoff game didn't have to result in bad decisions.

in any of those critical offseason player decisions like the DJ contract.

If the answer is that Schoen & Co. did indeed factor in that blowout loss, then lord help this franchise.

In comment 16443843 Go Terps said:

Quote:

They didn't have to franchise him either. There was no rule saying he had to be back because they beat Minnesota. Winning and enjoying the playoff game didn't have to result in bad decisions.

I agree they didn't have to. As skeptical as I was/am of Jones, I do believe he earned the chance to show he could build on the 2022 season.

I want them to, and wish they had drawn the line similarly to what Tampa did with Mayfield. A prove it deal with some approximation of the franchise tender guaranteed, with some team options.

I understand the preceding circumstances were different. But both players had one single strong season in the current system. And if the market was to bear more and he went elsewhere, good for him.

I *wanted* them to

They paid a guy, and still need a quarterback.

I guarantee you that one game was the most significant factor in that contract.

In comment 16443885 Go Terps said:

Quote:

They paid a guy, and still need a quarterback.

Maybe, but 3/100 million isn’t outrageous these days, and they will be able to take swings on developmental QBs like Pratt/Nix. Seems similar to Geno Smith deal. I don’t think either TB or SEA deluded themselves that their guy was more than a bridge QB.

Without "The Fumble", you don't have George Young. That's just a fact. So would you have rather won the game and not gotten Young?

In what way are the 1963 and 2022 Giants at all similar? One team was aging and at the end of glorious run. Another overachieved against a weak schedule, causing it to make a horrific, franchise-altering contract decision.

In comment 16443928 MojoEd said:

Quote:

In comment 16443885 Go Terps said: Quote: They paid a guy, and still need a quarterback. Maybe, but 3/100 million isn’t outrageous these days, and they will be able to take swings on developmental QBs like Pratt/Nix. Seems similar to Geno Smith deal. I don’t think either TB or SEA deluded themselves that their guy was more than a bridge QB.

True, but is he all that much better than Darnold, Winston, or some of the other guys that signed cheap one year deals? If he is, he probably isn't by much. I'd take Darnold plus a couple of the high end FAs on the OL/DL than Mayfield.

In comment 16443472 mfjmfj said:

Quote:

In comment 16443424 speedywheels said: Quote: People want to shit on a playoff win. How many teams actually not only make the playoffs, but win a game? 🙄🙄🙄🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Eric, I’m surprised you referenced the 2000 vs MIN, considering the shitshow that happened two weeks later. Kind of like the shitshow that happened in 2022 vs PHI after the MIN win 🤷‍♂️🙄 Years ago I bought a DVD set that was the 10 greatest Giants games of all time. 3 SBS (it was a while ago), conf. championships, etc. Worst game on the set was the shellacking of Minn. in 2000. I happened to look at the Vikings version of the set. It included a game against the Giants at season end where we sat our starters because we were already in the playoffs. That was one of their top 10. We are spoiled.

Truth

Another useless "we are spoiled" lecture.

Let me guess?

"The Bills never win and it took the Lions 30 years to win a playoff game!"

In comment 16443424 speedywheels said:

Quote:

People want to shit on a playoff win. How many teams actually not only make the playoffs, but win a game? 🙄🙄🙄🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Eric, I’m surprised you referenced the 2000 vs MIN, considering the shitshow that happened two weeks later. Kind of like the shitshow that happened in 2022 vs PHI after the MIN win 🤷‍♂️🙄

What?

My point is clear about why the 2022 playoff "win" was terrible for the organization.

The two 2000 playoff wins did not have any negative impact on the franchise.

You understand this point, right?

In comment 16443720 gidiefor said:

Quote:

because they found a tell on film in the Vikings that they exploited

Respectfully, the "tell" was the Vikings allowing 25 ppg, being 31st against the pass, 20th against the run, and allowing more points than the Vikings scored for the season.

In comment 16443841 christian said:

Quote:

As I noted in the OP, my observation isn't that the turnover is outside of the statistical norm (current circumstances implied) -- it's more who, why, and what age might be gone. Post this most recent playoff win, the Giants have jettisoned more, and younger players. The two most important players on the field against Minnesota were Jones and Barkley. Barkley is gone by choice, and if Jones is gone by circumstance -- the 2024 team will be substantively different. Perception-wise that would probably the biggest change. I don't think many fans would guess on the day of that Minnesota win, Barkley and Jones might be gone opening day 2024.

that's fair - i agree especially on Barkley because i think it's easier to see it as non-performance related. i think we've talked about this since the extension that was as close as it was didn't happen, they seemingly didnt want him back all that badly.

the only thing id add is that even putting jones aside, so far their evaluations havent worked out great. at his age/the price they should have brought back love. they'd have another cost effective 100% snap player on D and he played all core special teams.

after drawing a line at 6m aav on a 24 year old captain like love i continue to be surprised they are willing to pay waller a fresh 10.5m this year retirement or not. maybe holding out hope someone is willing to trade a day 3 for him at the draft if they miss on day 2 TEs?

In comment 16443993 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

As I noted in the OP, my observation isn't that the turnover is outside of the statistical norm (current circumstances implied) -- it's more who, why, and what age might be gone. Post this most recent playoff win, the Giants have jettisoned more, and younger players. The two most important players on the field against Minnesota were Jones and Barkley. Barkley is gone by choice, and if Jones is gone by circumstance -- the 2024 team will be substantively different. Perception-wise that would probably the biggest change. I don't think many fans would guess on the day of that Minnesota win, Barkley and Jones might be gone opening day 2024. that's fair - i agree especially on Barkley because i think it's easier to see it as non-performance related. i think we've talked about this since the extension that was as close as it was didn't happen, they seemingly didnt want him back all that badly. the only thing id add is that even putting jones aside, so far their evaluations havent worked out great. at his age/the price they should have brought back love. they'd have another cost effective 100% snap player on D and he played all core special teams. after drawing a line at 6m aav on a 24 year old captain like love i continue to be surprised they are willing to pay waller a fresh 10.5m this year retirement or not. maybe holding out hope someone is willing to trade a day 3 for him at the draft if they miss on day 2 TEs?

I agree.

Small detour, but if a football observer took a look at that Giants team against Minnesota and didn't know the backstory, they'd come away thinking the MO of the team architect was:

- Run the ball out of play action/RPO/read option
- Work mismatches in the pass game and look for YAC
- Utilize versatile safeties who can play the slot, box, and deep areas
- Generate pass rush from the IDLs

Fast forward to today, and I honestly don't WTF the team's identity is.

In comment 16443606 christian said:

Quote:

In comment 16443585 Rudy5757 said: Quote: The Franchise tag would have put the team in cap trouble last year too and Barkley would have been gone. This is categorically untrue and a myth that's been dispelled over and over on BBI. The Giants would have been in markedly better cap shape if they had signed Barkley at the parameters reported he desired, and Jones was franchised. The top part of the table reflects how the Giants entered 2023. The below shows the net impact over 2023-2025 if they had franchised Jones, signed Barkley, and made the requisite adjustments to Williams and Jackson to make room. They could have been +9.4M in cap space in 2023, but more importantly + 22.3M over the three year period.

You leave out the replacement cost of Jones after 2023. We won 6 games last year so we would have had the same pick. Youre also leaving out that Barkley would have been a FA. Tag Jones and Barkley walks.

It doesnt matter, the GM made the decision at the time. You can go back further and say he should have done the 5th year option. The GM gave him that contract, in hindsight it was a mistake. It was an even bigger mistake if he made that decision based off of the playoff win. He had Jones for a full year to evaluate, my point is he was getting a similar contract whether we won or lost that game.