It would be bad but...

[BurnThePhilFans]

We don't really need to win a game to make the playoffs IMO. Although backing in would be bad, there is no way Washington beats Dallas in that final game. Dallas and GB are deadlocked, most likely making that game a meaningful one for Dallas. Although losing out would be a momentum killer, there is no way this team doesn't make the playoffs.

[gateb]

We don't really need to win a game to make the playoffs IMO. Although backing in would be bad, there is no way Washington beats Dallas in that final game. Dallas and GB are deadlocked, most likely making that game a meaningful one for Dallas. Although losing out would be a momentum killer, there is no way this team doesn't make the playoffs.

What about NO and Minnesota?

[BurnThePhilFans]

we'll im conceeding a playoff spot to Minnesota with that scenario, but New Orleans.... huh thats a good point. I don't know how their schedule looks.

[boohyah]

we'll im conceeding a playoff spot to Minnesota with that scenario, but New Orleans.... huh thats a good point. I don't know how their schedule looks.

 

 

We don't make the playoffs if the Skins win both, Saints win both and Minny win one because we would lose all 3 tiebreakers.

[boohyah]

Saints have Philly at home and the bears on the road, both very winnable.

[fishgutmartyr]

If we can't win 1 of the last three games, we don't deserve to be in the playoffs. I know this might sound like a conflict with what I've been saying on other threads, but there is a difference: Here it is a question of whether we deserve to go; on the other threads the question was whether we were a bad team. We could be a decent team (by NFC standards, anyway), and not make the playoffs.

 

I'm going to hate this post in the morning.

[boohyah]

If we can't win 1 of the last three games, we don't deserve to be in the playoffs. I know this might sound like a conflict with what I've been saying on other threads, but there is a difference: Here it is a question of whether we deserve to go; on the other threads the question was whether we were a bad team. We could be a decent team (by NFC standards, anyway), and not make the playoffs.

 

I'm going to hate this post in the morning.

 

HYPOCRITE!!!

 

I know what you're saying though, and by the looks of things, we may play ourselves out of it.

[NightFire]

We don't make the playoffs if the Skins win both, Saints win both and Minny win one because we would lose all 3 tiebreakers.

 

I was watching the NFL network's pregame show before the Pittsburgh game and one of the announcers (Sterling or Faulk) thinks this is going to happen. He figured the Giants will lose to Buffalo and have no chance in hell with the Pats. Then your scenario will occur and the Giants are out. I think the Buffalo game will be a good indication of where the Giants are heading going into the playoffs. If they play well then we can have hope for the playoffs but a bad showing and we should just all brace for another one and done (or no playoffs at all). Last week's game isn't such a bad thing because divisional games are always tough, ask Dallas, but this weeks game is very winnable.

[Treehugger]

we'll im conceeding a playoff spot to Minnesota with that scenario, but New Orleans.... huh thats a good point. I don't know how their schedule looks.

Soft. Phi & Chi.

[BadEgg]

If we can't win 1 of the last three games, we don't deserve to be in the playoffs. I know this might sound like a conflict with what I've been saying on other threads, but there is a difference: Here it is a question of whether we deserve to go; on the other threads the question was whether we were a bad team. We could be a decent team (by NFC standards, anyway), and not make the playoffs.

 

I'm going to hate this post in the morning.

 

If the Giants don't make the playoffs, it's a real stretch to call them a "decent team" even by NFC standards.

 

Losing at home to the Cowboys in a game that decides first place as a result of, in part, poor choices by your QB, penalties, and poor play by a "dominating defense" that never showed up.

 

Getting throttled by the Vikings at home. Yes, the Vikings are on a roll, but they are far from the "model" team or franchise. And I think Peterson hardly played that game. I could give them a pass on a loss to the Vikings if Peterson played out of his mind like he did in Chicago.

 

Blowing a playoff clinching home game to the Skins at home.

 

And getting beat by a Buffalo team which, plays hard, but, like Minnesota, is still several years away from being a true contender...

 

"Decent" teams by any standards win the games described above. At the very least, decent teams win one of those games.

[UK-Giantsfan]

"Decent" teams by any standards win the games described above. ( ''Vikes , Skins , Bills '') At the very least, decent teams win one of those games.

 

You are absolutely correct Egg ..........if The Giants cant beat the Bills .....then we dont deserve to be in the playoffs !

 

[boohyah]

If the Giants don't make the playoffs, it's a real stretch to call them a "decent team" even by NFC standards.

 

Losing at home to the Cowboys in a game that decides first place as a result of, in part, poor choices by your QB, penalties, and poor play by a "dominating defense" that never showed up.

 

Getting throttled by the Vikings at home. Yes, the Vikings are on a roll, but they are far from the "model" team or franchise. And I think Peterson hardly played that game. I could give them a pass on a loss to the Vikings if Peterson played out of his mind like he did in Chicago.

 

Blowing a playoff clinching home game to the Skins at home.

 

And getting beat by a Buffalo team which, plays hard, but, like Minnesota, is still several years away from being a true contender...

 

"Decent" teams by any standards win the games described above. At the very least, decent teams win one of those games.

 

Peterson didn't play against the Giants at all.

 

[fishgutmartyr]

If the Giants don't make the playoffs, it's a real stretch to call them a "decent team" even by NFC standards.

 

Losing at home to the Cowboys in a game that decides first place as a result of, in part, poor choices by your QB, penalties, and poor play by a "dominating defense" that never showed up.

 

Getting throttled by the Vikings at home. Yes, the Vikings are on a roll, but they are far from the "model" team or franchise. And I think Peterson hardly played that game. I could give them a pass on a loss to the Vikings if Peterson played out of his mind like he did in Chicago.

 

Blowing a playoff clinching home game to the Skins at home.

 

And getting beat by a Buffalo team which, plays hard, but, like Minnesota, is still several years away from being a true contender...

 

"Decent" teams by any standards win the games described above. At the very least, decent teams win one of those games.

 

Even if they do lose out, which I am NOT assuming, they end the season at 9-7. That's a decent record, especially in this conference, where once again, there are .500 teams still in the hunt. It is possible to have a decent record and not deserve to be in the playoffs, which is the scenario we're talking about, and which is not written in stone to happen.

 

We are at the same level as Minnesota, apparently. We play hard, but we're not "true contenders." Then again, I don't feel that Seattle or Tampa Bay are, either. Can you imagine playing the Rams, Cards, and Niners twice and still having a record that will be no better than 11-5?

 

Let's not hit too hard on "quality of losses" this week, shall we? I don't recall being in awe of your team's efforts last Sunday. You should know that division games have different rules--otherwise, you'd be 13-1 at this point.

 

Just curious: what do they become if they lose to Buffalo, but somehow win against the Pats?

[NightFire]

Just curious: what do they become if they lose to Buffalo, but somehow win against the Pats?

 

Lucky? Divine Intervention?

[BadEgg]

Even if they do lose out, which I am NOT assuming, they end the season at 9-7. That's a decent record, especially in this conference, where once again, there are .500 teams still in the hunt. It is possible to have a decent record and not deserve to be in the playoffs, which is the scenario we're talking about, and which is not written in stone to happen.

 

We are at the same level as Minnesota, apparently. We play hard, but we're not "true contenders." Then again, I don't feel that Seattle or Tampa Bay are, either. Can you imagine playing the Rams, Cards, and Niners twice and still having a record that will be no better than 11-5?

 

Let's not hit too hard on "quality of losses" this week, shall we? I don't recall being in awe of your team's efforts last Sunday. You should know that division games have different rules--otherwise, you'd be 13-1 at this point.

 

Just curious: what do they become if they lose to Buffalo, but somehow win against the Pats?

 

I really don't have a problem with the Giants if they win either one of the next two and make the playoffs. I have a problem with the Giants if they don't make the playoffs, or if they lose the next two games.

 

The difference between ending the season 10-6 and 9-7 may only seem like one game, but I have a hard time describing a team as "descent" when they have basically controlled their destiny the last few weeks, and will the remainder of the season, only to fall short.

 

If they lose the next two, they would have lost big games to Dallas, Minn, Wash, Buf, and NE down the stretch. Winning any one of these games gets them in the playoffs. Add that to the fact that they lost to Dallas twice, and GB once, and add that to the fact that they have made the playoffs consecutive years and they are supposed to take the "next step" this year, and it's hard to look at the 2007 Giants team and say they are decent.

 

A win against the Pats would get them in the playoffs and they would deserve every bit of praise they get if they can pull that off. They would also deserve praise for beating the Bills. It's not an easy place to play, that team has something to play for, and it would ensure the Giants a playoff spot.

 

 

[Treehugger]

Aren't the Bills out of it already? Even if they win their last two Cleveland holds the tie-breaker and would claim the wild card. The AFC is all stitched up, it's only the order of the teams that can change.

[boohyah]

Aren't the Bills out of it already? Even if they win their last two Cleveland holds the tie-breaker and would claim the wild card. The AFC is all stitched up, it's only the order of the teams that can change.

 

 

Bills are out, but Kevin Everett is coming back so it could be a very pumped Bills team up there on Sunday.

[ksm7]

Even if they do lose out, which I am NOT assuming, they end the season at 9-7. That's a decent record, especially in this conference, where once again, there are .500 teams still in the hunt. It is possible to have a decent record and not deserve to be in the playoffs, which is the scenario we're talking about, and which is not written in stone to happen.

 

We are at the same level as Minnesota, apparently. We play hard, but we're not "true contenders." Then again, I don't feel that Seattle or Tampa Bay are, either. Can you imagine playing the Rams, Cards, and Niners twice and still having a record that will be no better than 11-5?

 

Let's not hit too hard on "quality of losses" this week, shall we? I don't recall being in awe of your team's efforts last Sunday. You should know that division games have different rules--otherwise, you'd be 13-1 at this point.

 

Just curious: what do they become if they lose to Buffalo, but somehow win against the Pats?

 

If this ends up being the case, the Dog would have to disagree with classifying them as a "decent" team. 9-7 is a winning record, but when you break down the fact that then the Giants would be 1-7 versus teams with winning records (they are currently 1-5) and 8-0 versus teams with losing records (and quite honestly, the poorest of the poor in Atlanta, Miami, NYJ, SF, Chicago...), you can't call that very decent...

[fishgutmartyr]

If this ends up being the case, the Dog would have to disagree with classifying them as a "decent" team. 9-7 is a winning record, but when you break down the fact that then the Giants would be 1-7 versus teams with winning records (they are currently 1-5) and 8-0 versus teams with losing records (and quite honestly, the poorest of the poor in Atlanta, Miami, NYJ, SF, Chicago...), you can't call that very decent...

From our old pal Merriam-Webster:

linky-poo

 

4: fairly good : adequate, satisfactory <decent wages>

 

You guys are reacting like I was saying that this was the best season/team in NFL history. There are NINE teams in the NFC that already know they aren't going to reach 9-7 this season, and I'm sure they'd take our record. Are you going to tell me they ALL had tougher schedules? Please.

 

That doesn't include teams like N.O. and Washington that will have to pull lightening from their asses in order to reach 9-7.

[ksm7]

From our old pal Merriam-Webster:

linky-poo

 

4: fairly good : adequate, satisfactory <decent wages>

 

You guys are reacting like I was saying that this was the best season/team in NFL history. There are NINE teams in the NFC that already know they aren't going to reach 9-7 this season, and I'm sure they'd take our record. Are you going to tell me they ALL had tougher schedules? Please.

 

That doesn't include teams like N.O. and Washington that will have to pull lightening from their asses in order to reach 9-7.

 

fair enough...the Dog just would have higher expectations when looking back on a team that in the end would end up struggling to just above a 500 record, and get there only because 4 of their 9 wins came against arguable the worst teams in the league, and only once were they able to beat a team with a better then 500 record...to each his own the Dog supposses...

[randoff]

...the Dog just would have higher expectations when looking back on a team that in the end would end up struggling to just above a 500 record, and get there only because 4 of their 9 wins came against arguable the worst teams in the league, and only once were they able to beat a team with a better then 500 record...to each his own the Dog supposses...

In your opinion, what do YOU think the Giants need to 'move ahead' of that 9-7 range? Or what do they need as so they will not 'struggle' to maintain a slightly above .500 record?

 

....I am a Cowboy hater BUT I have to give it to them. They can win ugly, they can win big and they have come a LONG way to dominate the weak NFC (It's what they supposed to do I guess). They have a strong offensive line, very good WR's and a heckofa TE. And a philosophy....If you take away Terrell they hurt you with Whitten. And they RUN the ball to wear you out!

[fishgutmartyr]

fair enough...the Dog just would have higher expectations when looking back on a team that in the end would end up struggling to just above a 500 record, and get there only because 4 of their 9 wins came against arguable the worst teams in the league, and only once were they able to beat a team with a better then 500 record...to each his own the Dog supposses...

fair enough...the Dog just would have higher expectations when looking back on a team that in the end would end up struggling to just above a 500 record, and get there only because 4 of their 9 wins came against arguable the worst teams in the league, and only once were they able to beat a team with a better then 500 record...to each his own the Dog supposses...

I'm still holding out hope (Hope, I don't expect) for an 11-5 season, simply because the slight possibility is there.

 

But considering the start of this season, the harsh reality that this team is limited in its talent, the offense is burdened with some of the worst play calling I've ever seen, our coach has had his head either on the chopping block or mere inches off of it, and the fact that the entire world had us at 6-10 or worse this season, I can't complain too much.

 

And before anybody else freaks, yes we have talent gaps, some that might be fixed by some of our rookies, others not. Let's face it, other than our offensive and defensive lines, what positions were really very good this year?

Running back--never had a completely healthy group all season. It's a shame, because both our top two RBs are very good, and it would have been nice to see them run in the same game. But as it was, no real consistency was established.

Wide Receiver--We had one play well, but limited in what he could do, the other not recovered from knee surgery, and the young ones barely play.

TE--3rd best in the division, then surprise! Injured for the last 2 games of the season.

QB--who knows with that guy?

Linebackers--Reggie Torbor has been starting the second half of the season. 'Nuff said.

Secondary--may be good, but not one back there except for Madison and Wilson has played an entire year yet, and Madison is making up too much of the difference. Oh yeah, I guess you could count Webster and Butler, if you really want to.

 

If we don't need upgrades, we damn sure need depth.

[fishgutmartyr]

See? Decent.