Contact Info
Administration
Coaching Staff
Coaching History
Annual Records
Hall Of Fame
Retired Jerseys
Ring Of Honor
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| The execs, whose backgrounds range from personnel evaluation to contracts/salary cap and analytics/strategy, ranked every team in each conference on condition of anonymity for competitive reasons. They also offered explanations, some of which are included below. Teams are ordered by the median of their rankings, with ties between teams broken by average vote. All five voters’ ballots, along with the median and average for each team, are in the table below. |
| Quote: |
| Votes: 16-11-14-15-16 | Avg.: 14.4 | Median: 15 Any path for the Giants to surprise probably includes a breakout season from rookie receiver Malik Nabers. “If Nabers or (Marvin) Harrison were Rookie of the Year, that means they had a bigger year than the quarterbacks — a historic year that would uplift their teams,” one exec said. The Giants appear optimistic, having unretired Hall of Famer Ray Flaherty’s No. 1 jersey so the rookie can wear that number. “Their best chance with Daniel Jones is to do what they did a couple years ago: Go heavy play-action, simple boots with simple reads, and scheme those guys to be open,” an exec who considers Jones to be a low Tier 3 quarterback said. “There is definitely a ceiling there. Unless they know something we all don’t, they are kind of existing.” |
It's astounding to me how I have to drill this point into so many and yet people still try to debate it.
There is no debate. Nearly everyone makes predictions off of last season. Some exceptions but even those examples offer up a ton of context or clues as to why. The Lions heading into last year were picked to be good or very good but they were the hottest team in the NFL down the stretch of 2022.
Yeah, they vegas lines on seasonal success probably hover in the 65-70% correct rate, more or less. To me that isn't impressive. That means around 5-6 teams do exactly the opposite of what was predicted.
Anyone can hit a 65-70 % number. And no one is ever 100% correct or even close.
Literally every single golden era (even Fassel's run of decent play) of NYG football in the modern era was NOT expected. See 19o84. See 1989. See 1997. See 2000. See 2005-2008 and once again 2011.
Doesn't mean NYG win this year but save me the hysterics. I've seen this song and dance far too often. The 99 Rams were not even a blip on the NFL landscape until they nuked the entire league.
BBB I get your point but think you're drawing too wide a divide between the substance of knowing what NFL execs think ("subjective opinions (no matter how reputable the sources)...", I think reputability counts for a lot here) and precision. Maybe posters' outcries vs the article are less the precision vs being uncomfortable with plain truths, the Giants have been a doormat and will continue to be until proven otherwise on the field. It's a bit like fans lambasting DAL, PHI, or NYJ for each perceived flaw or stupidity because somehow that obscures the grim realities of the home team.
I think the Cardinals and Bears make the playoffs this year.
Quote:
below 2023 NFL execs rank NFC teams - ( New Window )
It's astounding to me how I have to drill this point into so many and yet people still try to debate it.
There is no debate. Nearly everyone makes predictions off of last season. Some exceptions but even those examples offer up a ton of context or clues as to why. The Lions heading into last year were picked to be good or very good but they were the hottest team in the NFL down the stretch of 2022.
Yeah, they vegas lines on seasonal success probably hover in the 65-70% correct rate, more or less. To me that isn't impressive. That means around 5-6 teams do exactly the opposite of what was predicted.
Anyone can hit a 65-70 % number. And no one is ever 100% correct or even close.
If "anyone can hit a 65-70% number" on team futures before the season begins, then everyone should bet on each and every team and come out ahead even after the losses and the vig.
Most people will land well south of 55% correct, I guarantee it. Because I see those people's houses and I see the casinos. I know which one ends up with more money.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
For anyone who thinks that these articles are ever going to be accurate or expects them to be, the problem resides entirely between their chair and their keyboard.
it is what it is NYG suck until proven otherwise. I get that part.
Quote:
my point stands. Most never see the resurgent teams coming. Prove me wrong. I'd love to see all these talkies getting out in front of these turnaround teams. I have posted links showing they rarely do. If you're good last year, you're picked to be good next year unless the roster was ripped apart of the HC was lost or both.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
For anyone who thinks that these articles are ever going to be accurate or expects them to be, the problem resides entirely between their chair and their keyboard.
All I am saying is they rarely see the resurgent teams coming. You're parsing my words to argue.
Quote:
In comment 16596261 djm said:
Quote:
my point stands. Most never see the resurgent teams coming. Prove me wrong. I'd love to see all these talkies getting out in front of these turnaround teams. I have posted links showing they rarely do. If you're good last year, you're picked to be good next year unless the roster was ripped apart of the HC was lost or both.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
For anyone who thinks that these articles are ever going to be accurate or expects them to be, the problem resides entirely between their chair and their keyboard.
All I am saying is they rarely see the resurgent teams coming. You're parsing my words to argue.
I don't think we are even disagreeing, it's just that you're kinda taking both sides when you say that anyone could nail 70% of these picks (which I know you've since backed off of) and simultaneously that no one sees the surprise teams coming.
I agree entirely with you on the latter point. Honestly, I'm never expecting accuracy from these sort of articles because I know they're just fluff that we see in every sport (or really every entertainment media) at the beginning of every season. Right before the fall TV season, there will invariably be a list of best new shows to watch this year. Will that list be accurate? Probably not! You might see a list of best pizza places in NYC, and it'll be mostly correct, but will miss some great spots, will list some garbage spots, and will have them all ordered differently than you or I would. Hell, college football relies way too heavily on preseason rankings to inform subsequent rankings throughout the year and those are essentially the same as the article in the OP.
My point was never about the accuracy of these articles. I don't even think the accuracy is the point. I think the comments within the article have some value (it's interesting to get a sense of the perspective from outside the fanbase echo chambers), and the discussion that the article provokes can sometimes be interesting (e.g., BBI discussing a list of NYC's best pizza places will generate a wide range of opinions and feedback, and all of that is usually more valuable than the article itself).
But it's not clickbait. That was where I entered the discussion and the only point I was trying to make. Being inaccurate doesn't make it clickbait. It just makes it a fluff piece that exists in dozens of other topics about things people consume.
Quote:
as it turns out, despite the same coach/QB and probably a generally similar roster in terms of name talent (+burns/nabers, -barkley/waller) they had the giants middle of the conference on the playoff bubble.
they predicted the packers 11th, rams 15th, and bucs 14th. so 3 of their bottom 6 made the playoffs.
1 exec predicted the panthers 4th best so they werent even among the bottom 6.
credit where it's due they got the 4 best right, but below that it was throwing darts.
Just a reminder that Brett was totally right about the Rams last season!!!
were you? i thought they were going to be the worst defense in nfl history.
I think the Cardinals and Bears make the playoffs this year.
i dont see it with the cards. bears if caleb is good they can beat anyone with him and those 3 receivers. kmet is very good too. eberflus could also implode, he's an inseason firing candidate.
BrettNYG10 : 9/12/2023 10:07 am : link
I thought: 1. The Seahawks were not as good as they were last year and revert a bit. 2. The Rams would be a 8-10 win team and contend for a WC spot. I had them winning this game. People forget how good Stafford is.
Cards are a spicy pick, but I think Murray is better than people think.
Quote:
In comment 16596273 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16596261 djm said:
Quote:
my point stands. Most never see the resurgent teams coming. Prove me wrong. I'd love to see all these talkies getting out in front of these turnaround teams. I have posted links showing they rarely do. If you're good last year, you're picked to be good next year unless the roster was ripped apart of the HC was lost or both.
It's what have you done lately which is fine by me, but I won't set my watch to it.
For anyone who thinks that these articles are ever going to be accurate or expects them to be, the problem resides entirely between their chair and their keyboard.
All I am saying is they rarely see the resurgent teams coming. You're parsing my words to argue.
I don't think we are even disagreeing, it's just that you're kinda taking both sides when you say that anyone could nail 70% of these picks (which I know you've since backed off of) and simultaneously that no one sees the surprise teams coming.
I agree entirely with you on the latter point. Honestly, I'm never expecting accuracy from these sort of articles because I know they're just fluff that we see in every sport (or really every entertainment media) at the beginning of every season. Right before the fall TV season, there will invariably be a list of best new shows to watch this year. Will that list be accurate? Probably not! You might see a list of best pizza places in NYC, and it'll be mostly correct, but will miss some great spots, will list some garbage spots, and will have them all ordered differently than you or I would. Hell, college football relies way too heavily on preseason rankings to inform subsequent rankings throughout the year and those are essentially the same as the article in the OP.
My point was never about the accuracy of these articles. I don't even think the accuracy is the point. I think the comments within the article have some value (it's interesting to get a sense of the perspective from outside the fanbase echo chambers), and the discussion that the article provokes can sometimes be interesting (e.g., BBI discussing a list of NYC's best pizza places will generate a wide range of opinions and feedback, and all of that is usually more valuable than the article itself).
But it's not clickbait. That was where I entered the discussion and the only point I was trying to make. Being inaccurate doesn't make it clickbait. It just makes it a fluff piece that exists in dozens of other topics about things people consume.
Yep I get you. Everyone thinks they will suck for good reason. Nyg need to change that perception.
Quote:
....
BrettNYG10 : 9/12/2023 10:07 am : link
I thought: 1. The Seahawks were not as good as they were last year and revert a bit. 2. The Rams would be a 8-10 win team and contend for a WC spot. I had them winning this game. People forget how good Stafford is.
Cards are a spicy pick, but I think Murray is better than people think.
that was a good call, i thought rams were full on tanking last year.
the only thing i got right with them last year was bidding big on kyren/puka after week 1 for ff.
cards are interesting, they were more competitive than i expected last year and MHJ is legit. conner underrated plus benson. i dont see enough quality on their lines of scrimmage and their defense in particular looks pretty bad on paper. but so was rams last year and they got by, so coaching can make up for a lot of paper deficiency.
I called the piece clickbait because it follows a proven formula for generating clicks: take subjective opinions (no matter how reputable the sources) and structure them as a list to create the illusion of precision so there's more room for disagreement. That's how listicles work. For example, we might all agree that Ursula Andress, Jane Seymour, Halle Berry, and Daniela Bianchi are among the ten hottest Bond girls. But which should be #3, #5, #6, and #8? Is "Satisfaction" the greatest Rolling Stones song, or does it rank third, behind "Gimme Shelter" and Sympathy for the Devil"?, or some other combination? We can agree (or disagree) that they are all great songs, but publish a list ranking them and watch an entire Subreddit bloom, debating the order and the reasons. ("Halle looked even better in the bikini than Ursula!" "Gimme Shelter has the greatest supporting vocal ever recorded!")
TL/DR: It's worth knowing that NFL executives think the Giants are among the worst teams in the League. That's not clickbait. A precise ranking is clickbait, because it's the same content packaged according to a well-worn clickbait formula. The useful content is still there. The false-precision packaging is the bait.
The way you are defining clickbait is just very different than the way it is used by most everyone else. It is very clear that they said they took the ratings and calculated the mean. It implies absolutely no level of precision beyond that. Anyone expecting more precision in that article was assuming something that simply wasn't there.
Quote:
Quote:
....
BrettNYG10 : 9/12/2023 10:07 am : link
I thought: 1. The Seahawks were not as good as they were last year and revert a bit. 2. The Rams would be a 8-10 win team and contend for a WC spot. I had them winning this game. People forget how good Stafford is.
Cards are a spicy pick, but I think Murray is better than people think.
that was a good call, i thought rams were full on tanking last year.
the only thing i got right with them last year was bidding big on kyren/puka after week 1 for ff.
cards are interesting, they were more competitive than i expected last year and MHJ is legit. conner underrated plus benson. i dont see enough quality on their lines of scrimmage and their defense in particular looks pretty bad on paper. but so was rams last year and they got by, so coaching can make up for a lot of paper deficiency.
Thanks--big believer in QB+coach doing surprising things. Murray isn't as good as Stafford but he's got some nice weapons this year and will put up points.
I also think some guys like Baker and Love are getting overrated after good seasons and that they'll be a little worse this year. I'm bearish on the Packers.
there's obviously degrees of clickbait of which this type of content is probably on the tamest side so i dont think any of you are wrong. nothing about this content was egregious or misrepresented. it's like a 2025 mock draft from a good analyst like daniel jeremiah, interesting even though some of it will look silly in a few months.
"We asked some NFL executives what their predictions for final standings would be. Here are the average results of those surveys." That was it. Full stop. Nobody every suggested these were absolute expectations of the final league standings. That is an absolute straw man argument.
Reading comprehension seems to be a dying art.
The content has very little value. Over emphasis on one player in a game that is all about team. If you are going to put Giants at 15/16 then you should be going very hard at both the GM/HC heading into year 3 imv.
Thanks--big believer in QB+coach doing surprising things. Murray isn't as good as Stafford but he's got some nice weapons this year and will put up points.
I also think some guys like Baker and Love are getting overrated after good seasons and that they'll be a little worse this year. I'm bearish on the Packers.
im with you on packers/bucs. also think miami comes back to earth bc they lost some key ol/dl and would think the league has found some better ways to bottle up their big plays outside tyreek.
also think seattle is a really risky team this year. pete carroll was a good coach (at worst borderline HOF) and if i had to guess his departure is under-appreciated right now.
houston is another team that is sort of set up for regression but i think they may be good enough to overcome that. same as bears, if stroud plays well with tank, collins, diggs they can beat anyone.
I'm intrigued to see how Richardson does in Indy this year. I don't have a view on him. I also think JAX bounces back and has a 11-12 win season.
Mike: I think Eric from LI put it well below: There are different types and degrees of clickbait. I guess it would be most accurate to say this is interesting content presented in a way that has some clickbaitish, listicle-adjacent attributes. I shouldn't have simply labeled the whole thing as clickbait. Again, I don't think we are disagreeing about the substance at all. On to Sunday, and hoping that the executives are wrong (though I fear they aren't).
I get the aversion to stack ranking teams before the season. But the Athletic does a really good job of getting insights from execs and front offices.
The content has very little value. Over emphasis on one player in a game that is all about team. If you are going to put Giants at 15/16 then you should be going very hard at both the GM/HC heading into year 3 imv.
Who's going to be going very hard at both the GM/HC, the various team execs who were surveyed? Fundamentally, that's who put the Giants at 15, not The Athletic.
Quote:
The way you are defining clickbait is just very different than the way it is used by most everyone else. It is very clear that they said they took the ratings and calculated the mean. It implies absolutely no level of precision beyond that. Anyone expecting more precision in that article was assuming something that simply wasn't there.
Mike: I think Eric from LI put it well below: There are different types and degrees of clickbait. I guess it would be most accurate to say this is interesting content presented in a way that has some clickbaitish, listicle-adjacent attributes. I shouldn't have simply labeled the whole thing as clickbait. Again, I don't think we are disagreeing about the substance at all. On to Sunday, and hoping that the executives are wrong (though I fear they aren't).
On to Sunday. As I have done for the past several years, I will hope the experts - and me - are wrong about how good this team is. While I am pessimistic about the chances of this team being genuinely good, at kickoff I will have convinced myself they can win this game every week.
Hope we both have an amazing afternoon on Sunday!
So gentle, I almost missed it.
I'm intrigued to see how Richardson does in Indy this year. I don't have a view on him. I also think JAX bounces back and has a 11-12 win season.
agree on jax, not high on richardson. steichen seems good but i think richardson is too much run, not enough pass, and injury waiting to happen.
jax OL was a disaster last year bc they had a bunch of injuries and got really bad play from their C but they replaced him with Morse this year who should stabilize. between the OL and the related injuries to lawrence, that they went 9-8 was a very good "down" year.
But the people who did the ranking are executives with other NFL teams and did so via survey. This wasn't a targeted assessment of the Giants in particular, and the people who are responsible for the ranking aren't fans or media, so how are they supposed to go hard after the GM/HC?
I'm genuinely trying to understand the point you're making.
Who do you think should be going very hard for the GM/HC?
The people who made the rankings?
Can anyone find a clickbait article saying the Giants are going to be a 11-13 win division winner and Super Bowl contender?
We have had our disagreements but I agree with 100% of this.
That said, and this isn't homerism, I do think the Giants will win 6-8 games, Eight being obviously being the height of optimism for me. Here's my take on this year and why I don't think realistically we'll be in that top 3 for the 2025 draft:
The Giants got better on defense. The addition of Burns makes the front very dangerous. We did lose McKinney, but Nubin, although a rookie, is mature and I do not believe will have a steep learning curve bc he is so fundamentally sound. I think he's an intelligent player, and has leadership ability. Obviously they have the carryover studs in Okereke and Lawrence, and maybe a tier below in Thibs, and I like Banks as well but I'm concerned about his transitioning to a more zone-heavy scheme. If the Giants can get passable play from the corners, then they have a chance to be very good.
Shifting to offense, the loss of Saquon will be felt, but not more than the gain of quality OL and the Nabers effect. And I am enthusiastic about what Hyatt will do in year two, particularly with Nabers drawing the attention he'll command. The pieces are there on offense aside from the absolute most important position.
I think DJ is what he is at this point, and Daboll will need to hide his deficiencies again. But that leads me to my next and most important point:
Daboll is a hell of a cood coach and offensive mind. The team under him has outperformed what they should have done in both seasons. They should've been terrible in 2022, the made the playoffs. Last year, given the circumstances with significant injuries to both Jones and Tyrod, that team had no business winning 6 games. They won games with an undrafted FA rookie QB, almost unheard of in the NFL. The Daboll effect will likely have them sneak wins in games they probably should lose.
But the schedule is very difficult and other teams also got better, particularly the Washington team adding Jayden Daniels, who will flummox a lot of D-Coordinators this season.
Put me down for a 7-10 season.