Tempest

What makes you think they don't plan on re-signing Steve Smith? Remember this is a year different from the previous ones. Who's gotten a long term contract in the past two years? Reese isn't handing out any until the CBA is settled.

I don't think he's better than any of those guys. Now do you think Steve Smith is as important to this team as those guys are to their teams?

Mark Ingram is heading up a weak RB class this year and reeks of Ron Dayne potential. I'd rather get help for the offensive line before Kareem McKenzie's back gives out, Seubert making another miraculous recovery, the undersized O'Hara coming back after an injury riddled season. Of course there is the possibility this year much like every year the Giants draft the next reincarnation of Walter Jones to move the stalwart David Diehl back to guard. I know many of you are still holding out for William Beatty moving into the spot since we've given up on Guy Whimper.

Doesn't score enough touchdowns for it?

Steve Smith will probably get it because Bradshaw certainly doesn't need it and management said its goodbyes to Cofield last year. Pretty sad to watch Cofield getting shown the door. I wouldn't pay Bradshaw in the top 10, nevermind the top 5 of RB's.

Also arguable that options 2 and 3 are as bad as franchising Chase Blackburn. Plax isn't coming back and pulling down critical 3 downs and TDs. He'll be rusty and when the rust comes off he'll be ready to retire. IF we can draft one of those receivers, he'd still be a rookie and most rookie WR's just don't put up the numbers Steve Smith has every season so far.

Hehe, nooooo

I don't blame him for jumping ship at the opportunity of a head coaching position. Just hope he can hold on to it because IMO, he jumped too early and could have used another two years of seasoning under Coughlin. He did a great job here, he'll get better over there.

I never had a concern about the field even though we had a freak injury early on. Shit happens and the organization really does spend the time and money to put down the best field they possibly can. It sucked when the grass field didn't work out and I'm glad they found something that did.

The other Matthews brother sounds like he'll do very well elsewhere. I won't bother thinking about a linebacker until we draft one or him.

A number of the seats was standing room only so why get pissed? If you don't think the super bowl was worth standing there for, just don't go.

Better look to his replacement in the draft. I wouldn't give him the contract we gave Jacobs.

I hate it when they are the color commentators for Giants games. Fox seems to turn up their volume and lower the sound of the crowd, well I used to think that until I realized that Giants fans at the stadium are a quiet bunch. Nowadays I watch the games almost at mute, I find them less irritating.

Game Over: Should the NFL Show Players the Money? By Sean Gregory On a recent Tuesday morning in Washington, D.C., around 25 NFL players sat in a drab conference room listening to how, in the not-so subtle opinion of the speaker, their bosses were screwing them. Though these players were veterans on the field, they were rookies in this arena. DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, was delivering a presentation as part of an orientation for new union representatives. In many respects, Smith, the lead negotiator for the players, was giving a pregame speech, and like any good coach, his tone was incendiary, his message clear: you have to be prepared for what's ahead, your opponent doesn't think that highly of you, and this may be the most important fight of your lives. "We will do everything we have to do to protect ourselves," Smith told the players. "We will counterpunch." All the bluster that day was a mere prelude to what could transpire starting March 4, when the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players, which governs the business of football, expires. That day is pro-football Armageddon, and it could easily lead to the temporary halting of a thriving, multibillion-dollar business, which this weekend features two classic conference championship matches, the Green Bay Packers at the Chicago Bears and the New York Jets at the Pittsburgh Steelers. Which means this year more than any other, fans had better enjoy the weekend's championship games — possibly the NFL's most exciting day, even better than the Super Bowl, given the charged atmosphere in totally partisan, often frigid stadiums. After all, there's a real chance they won't see them next year. If the league's players and owners can't sign a deal by March 4, the owners will most likely lock the players out of their facilities, and shut down the booming game of football. For the owners, no football means no revenues from ticket sales and beer and soda, but no hefty salaries to pay for star players. And since the owners signed remarkably favorable TV deals that give them money regardless of whether or not games are played, they have a bit of a cushion (though they'll have to pay a portion of that money back later). For the players, no football means no paycheck, and loss of earning power during their prime athletic years. And for fans, well, no football wouldn't just be a bitter disappointment that could rearrange their fall weekend schedules, but also a betrayal of intense loyalty that could permanently damage America's best sports brand. Both sides will continue to spin their arguments. The owners say that costs outpace the NFL's revenue growth, which has been remarkable: 43%, in total, since 2006, according to an analysis done by Forbes, which calculated that in 2009, the league booked $9.3 billion in revenue. But the owners claim that since, in part, player compensation has doubled over the past decade — according to the league — players need to take a smaller share of a growing revenue pie. That proposal, the union says, amounts to an 18% pay cut for its membership The labor tussle is happening at the same time that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is pushing to expand the season to 18 games — there are currently 16 — a move that would surely grow revenue, and increase the pot for the players, but appears to fly in the face of the league's new emphasis on player safety. Additional games, the players say, put our future earnings at risk, since NFL contracts are not fully guaranteed in the first place, a notable difference from pro basketball and pro baseball for which the union has been criticized over the years. When it comes to fights over money, neither pro-football players nor owners are easy to root for. The owners are rich enough to begin with, and the players, though they take part in a violent game that risks their long-term health, are compensated handsomely. Yet in the p.r. war, the NFL's success will likely bite the owners more. Public indicators of the game's overall health are overwhelmingly positive. The sport is setting ratings records every week, revenues are strong, and ESPN is reportedly close to agreeing to increase the fee it pays the NFL to telecast Monday Night Football to around $2 billion annually, an increase of at least 65%. "I mean, if there was a problem in the National Football League with money, fine, let's fix it," Smith said during his pep talk to players. "But we can't be in a world where we don't think the National Football League is doing better than frankly any other business in America." The NFL, not surprisingly, rejects that assertion. "Costs must be properly balanced against revenue so that the league and the game can continue to grow," Greg Aiello, the NFL's senior vice president of public relations, wrote earlier this month, in an article published on ESPN.com. "Companies with far more revenue than the NFL have gone bankrupt because they did not properly manage their costs." It's a reasonable argument. But in response, the union makes its own very reasonable point that, frankly, seems pretty hard to dispute. If costs are so high, and teams are not making as much money as they used to, why can't the NFL show the players each team's full audited financial statements, which would include a bottom-line item — net income, or profit (or loss) — that gives both sides a fuller accounting of the league's financial state? Well, the NFL says, we've given the union more information than we ever have in prior negotiations, including audited revenues. "They know more about our revenues than most unions know about the revenues of the businesses they work in," Jeff Pash, the NFL's lead negotiator, recently said in an interview with Politico about the transparency issue. But if it's all about costs, critics rightly wonder, why the is league not telling the union the full story with audited team costs, and therefore audited team bottom lines. The NFL says it has never provided team profit numbers before, and the sport has had labor peace for 20 years. It also might be concerned that the union would leak this information to the public. But aren't we talking about the same public that forks over millions to subsidize stadiums and pours money into the pockets of both owners and players? Isn't there a strong case to make that they also have a right to get a look at the books? The NBA's collective bargaining agreement also expires soon — on June 30 — and the NFL points out that even though that league recently turned over audited statements to the players, the union disputed those numbers. What's to stop the same thing from happening here, the NFL asks. It's true, of course, that the union will likely spin the numbers, and even dispute any information the NFL hands over. But at this point, could the two sides get any further away from a deal than they already are? It doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that if team finances were truly hurting, the NFL would be chucking books at the players. "I wouldn't be able to walk down the street without being bombarded with financial statements," says Smith, the NFL Players Association executive director. "Here's a copy for your kitchen, here's one for your bathroom." One club, the Packers, makes its information public since fans can actually buy shares in the team. In the fiscal year that ended last March 31, the team pulled in $9.8 million in profits, compared with $20.1 million for the previous year. But in a league with 32 teams, the union won't be satisfied with a fraction of the story. As a private enterprise, the NFL has no legal obligation to hand over the books. So in a sticky labor negotiation, any smart business would hold its cards, right? But then again, the NFL isn't your typical private company. If a lawyer, say, isn't happy with his salary or thinks his bosses are hoarding too much cash, the free market lets him go work at another firm. But in football, there's simply no other league where players can be similarly compensated for their specialized skills. Smith, a former prosecutor and litigator who took over for the late Gene Upshaw, a Hall of Fame player, in 2009, is fond of sketching out his arguments on a whiteboard, like a coach diagramming his plays. During another meeting on that Tuesday in Washington, he wrote three things that, from the union's perspective, are essential for getting a deal done: "Data. Data. Data." For the good of the game, and the fans, isn't it time for the league to show all of us — the players, the fans — the money? Sean Gregory is a staff writer at TIME. His sports column appears every Friday at TIME.com. Link

Everyone else (not me) would rather he shut up and play. I don't care what he says. He produced this season. Don't see Rocky Bernard saying much, and there is a reason for it. Got something to say and you produced, say what you will just realize that in this town you better back it up.

Its hard to to go 10-6 in the NFL, its not a given especially in this division. Talent and production are two different things. Guys didn't produce up to their potential is common but I believe we're on the upside of it. We could have beaten a all the teams we lost to but we are back at looking at players who didn't play up to their potential. Put the Giants in the NFL West and this wouldn't be a conversation. The difference this season wasn't coaching, it was players not playing up to their potential. A coaching change won't fix it, just a bit more seasoning. Redskin fans would love to trade places with us, they've been at the bottom of the division for a number of years. Bradshaw is talented but he is a free agent among many free agents this team has, question is who are we going to throw money after to retain? They have made it clear they won't try to keep Cofield who deserves it. How much are you willing to throw at Bradshaw and at the expense of whom? Bradshaw over Smith, Boss, Boothe, Kiwanuka, Tollefson, Blackburn and Grant? Something has to give because we cannot keep them all. Those are six players who have made up for deficiencies with the team. We can't keep them all so how about keeping three of them for the price of one who can be replaced. No point in getting angry, they will do what they think is right regardless of how we feel about it.

Why switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 when our front four are currently not the problem with our 4-3? Just don't see the defense getting better by switching.

Yes we can tell you're pissed. Its funny that you're pissed at a team that went 10-6 considering we went 8-8 and Mara felt like the fans did that we went 4-12. From that to 10-6 is an improvement and that is a good thing. Only reason why we didn't make the playoffs is because the players were already thinking they were in the playoffs after the Jacksonville game. Keep Jacobs, he's under contract. Find a better RB and replace Bradshaw. He is good yet not great. Solid yet not durable, he hit the highpoint in his career. We can do better and Jacobs is an excellent change of pace and starter if we need one. Special teams suck and its because the rest of the team sucks at it. If you can draft a specialist to long snap, you can draft a specialist to return the ball and how about another gunner. Putting the starters out there didn't help much at all and we've seen plenty of drafts with one dimensional players that fail to contribute to special teams. Start looking for special teams contribution on the second half of the draft. Team stil needs linebackers, should pay someone a shit load of money to find linebackers to draft, Reese has no clue how to do it. Stop drafting TE's who can catch and can't block. We need them to block and then catch. We have excellent WR's and we'll throw to that TE maybe 5 times in a game while run the ball 3 times that. Blockers at TE over receivers.

We over analyze failure, not success.

I enjoy reading your posts, I disagree with this one. I agree with the writer that not every single one of the interceptions this season was Eli's fault. Saw more than one ball hit a receiver in the hands then wind up in the hands of an opponent. If you want to blame every interception on Eli, well then once again

Only if they can teach him how to run forward after catching a pass.

Well there were the other 17 you can blame Eli for. If you don't want to break down the game, well good luck to ya.

Link Giants quarterback Eli Manning threw a league-leading 25 interceptions this season. Tipped balls by receivers hurt. And yes, he did sometimes try to do too much. The quarterback’s primary responsibility is to get his team into the end zone. The statistics, even of the advanced variety, are interesting but don’t mean much unless they translate into points on the scoreboard and victories in the win column. Eli Manning led the Giants to 10 wins and quarterbacked an offense that scored 394 points, the fourth time in his six full seasons as the starter that they finished in the top 10 in scoring. The Giants led the N.F.C. in offensive touchdowns with 48, tied with the Chargers for second over all behind the Patriots. (The Giants were one of three teams not to have a return touchdown this season, either on defense or by their special teams.) Manning did it with his most reliable receiver, Steve Smith, missing seven games, with different offensive linemen protecting his blind side almost every week and with a street free agent, Derek Hagan, as a starter in the final month of the season. Most of the post-mortems mention that Manning threw 31 touchdown passes, the highest total by a Giants quarterback since Y.A. Tittle, and that he threw for over 4,000 yards for the second consecutive season. Do these statistical achievements mean that he actually played better than in previous years? Were his pre-snap reads more accurate? Did he go through his progressions and pick the right receiver a greater percentage of the time? Manning certainly might have graded out higher in these areas, but I would suggest that the spike in yards probably had more to do with the transition to younger receivers, especially Hakeem Nicks and Mario Manningham, who have been much more productive after the catch. The yards-after-catch of Manning’s receivers went from 1,220 in 2008, the last year of Plaxico Burress and Amani Toomer, to 1,737 in 2009 and 1,645 in 2010. The elusiveness of Nicks and Manningham led the Giants to successfully incorporate the wide receiver screen as a staple in their offense. Here are some examples from the past two years: 2009 Week 1 vs. Washington: Manningham +30 (TD) Week 4 vs. Kansas City: Nicks +54 (TD) Week 9 vs. San Diego: Nicks +29 2010 Week 7 vs. Dallas: Manningham +25 (TD) Week 9 vs. Seattle: Manningham +32 Week 17 vs. Washington: D.J. Ware (in motion to slot) +16 These were very high percentage throws completed within a yard of the line of scrimmage. As with the spread offenses in college, they make the quarterback’s stats look better. Even with a shuffled offensive line, Manning was sacked only 16 times in 555 drop-backs, the lowest ratio in the league other than his brother’s. He has effectively avoided sacks throughout his career. In 2004, Manning’s rookie year, Kurt Warner was sacked 39 times in 9 games. With the same offensive personnel, Manning was sacked 13 times in 7 games. Sacks aren’t just the product of the play of the offensive line, of course. Your backs and tight ends have to be good at chipping edge pass-rushers and at picking up blitzes. Having the credible threat of a running game and playing, most of the time, with the lead helps keep the defense honest. Much of it, however, falls on the quarterback. Play fast and don’t drift. Manning makes his reads quickly, stays in the pocket, and usually delivers the ball on time. It’s not a very exciting style, but it keeps the offense from too many negative plays and, more important, it has helped Manning avoid injury and stay on the field for 110 consecutive starts. While the young receivers have provided some big plays, they also come with a downside. They don’t always run the most precise routes. If Nicks is required to run a 12-yard curl route, he has to run it at exactly that depth or the necessary timing between the quarterback and the receiver is lost. If he doesn’t come back for the ball, as it appears he didn’t on Asante Samuel’s interception in Philadelphia this year, he gives the defender a chance to break it up, or worse. That’s where the most talked-about statistic of Manning’s season comes in: 25, his league-leading interception total. One of the many weaknesses of the passer rating is that it doesn’t take into account how, when and why interceptions take place. A pick on a Hail Mary at the end of the first half is not the same as a poor decision under pressure on first down in the red zone down by 3 points with a minute left in the game. One of Manning’s interceptions occurred in Philadelphia in Week 11 with eight seconds remaining and the Giants trailing by 10 points. The Eagles rushed 3 and dropped 8 in coverage at least 20 yards deep. That pick had no impact on the outcome of the game, but it’s included in Manning’s stats as if it did. Some interceptions are the quarterback’s fault. Many are not. Any attempt to properly assess responsibility for them must necessarily require some level of speculation. We can’t be certain that the receivers ran the correct routes, that the quarterback went through his progression properly, and that he made the right decision each time. Those are things only Manning and his coaches know for sure. Having said that, of the 25 interceptions, 8 were tipped off the hands of the intended receiver: 3 by Nicks, 2 by Ahmad Bradshaw, and 1 each by Manningham, Smith, and Ramses Barden. At least 3, 1 by Bradshaw against Carolina, 1 by Nicks versus Tennessee, and 1 by Manningham in the final game of the season against Washington, were catches that should have easily been made. Were the others just inaccurate throws, or were the receivers not in exactly the right spot? Sometimes the defensive players deserve some credit, too. In Week 15 against the Eagles, safety Quintin Mikell made a spectacular catch of a ball tipped off the hands of defensive end Darryl Tapp. The next week, Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields did a terrific job undercutting a deep out route intended for Hagan to make the interception along the sideline (Shields came down with one foot out of bounds and it probably would’ve been reversed but the Giants were out of replay challenges). Against the Cowboys in Week 10, the Giants tried a double-move with Manningham that they had previously used successfully with Smith, who was out with an injury. Safety Alan Ball read it, drove on the route, and made the pick. Manningham didn’t sell the fake quite as effectively as Smith usually does. If there’s a discernible pattern to the interceptions, it’s that sometimes Manning tries to do too much. Most occurred on third-and-long or third-and-goal situations (15 out of 25). Desperately trying to score a touchdown or to keep a drive alive led to some bad decisions and high-risk throws. Against Tennessee in Week 3, on third-and-goal from the 2, as most Giants fans probably remember, he threw the ball left-handed into the end zone, to the surprise of even his own teammate, Kevin Boss. It was picked off and the scoring opportunity was lost. Punts and field goal attempts are not the worst plays in football. Eli Manning turned 30 on Monday. In the ongoing debate, comparing him favorably to one of his now-beloved predecessors, Phil Simms, is to evoke an emotional response usually along the lines of “you’re crazy.” Evaluating their relative strengths and weaknesses in playing the position would make for an interesting discussion. When it comes to their achievements, however, Manning’s far surpass those of Simms at a comparable age, and it’s not even close. Today, most Giants fans speak of Simms with great reverence, a sentiment not widely held when he was actually playing. The same people praising him now were some of his greatest detractors, especially during his early years. Simms was drafted in 1979 but didn’t play a full season for the Giants until 1984, the year he turned 30. That initial part of his career was marked by inconsistent performance, serious injuries, relentless booing and, finally, a benching that almost led to the end of his Giants career before it really got started. In 1980, Simms hurt his collarbone late in the year against the Cardinals. The next year, he dislocated his throwing shoulder. In 1982, his season ended in the first quarter of the third preseason game when he tore knee ligaments against the Jets. Simms came back healthy in 1983 and found himself in competition for the starting job with Scott Brunner, who had led the Giants to the playoffs in 1981. When their new coach, Bill Parcells, picked Brunner, that was it for Simms. He wanted out. He reiterated his demand to be traded during the season, and Parcells wanted to deal him, but General Manager George Young refused every time. In Week 6 against the Eagles, Simms replaced an ineffective Brunner and was playing well when disaster struck again. As he was following through on a pass, his right hand collided with the arm of defensive end Dennis Harrison. Simms sustained a compound fracture dislocation of the right thumb and missed the rest of the season. All during this period, if free agency had been a viable option, Simms almost certainly would have left. As of the end of the 1983 season, his career could only be charitably be described as disappointing. Manning, on the other hand, has taken every meaningful snap of every game since he became the starter in Week 10 of his rookie year, 2004. The next year, the Giants won the N.F.C. East with an 11-5 record and scored 422 points, their highest total in 42 years. He has taken full advantage of far better talent than Simms ever had to make the Giant offense consistently one of the most productive in football. Two division titles. Four consecutive playoff appearances. A champion and Super Bowl M.V.P. by age 27. Eli Manning seems destined, like Simms, to be fully appreciated only retrospectively. The Bills are still trying to replace Jim Kelly 14 years after he played his final game. With all due respect to Jay Fiedler and Jeff Garcia, the same holds true for the Dolphins and Dan Marino and the 49ers and Steve Young. Those guys are hard to find. Many fans have been down on Manning for years. Someday, the Giants will have to replace him. Perhaps only then, when they witness what is likely to follow, will they finally embrace him. By that time, of course, many of them will probably be saying that they supported him all along.

I have to agree about Bradshaw, he can be replaced in the offseason. Not because of the fumbles and injuries but because we could get an even better RB in the draft. Have to wonder what happens with Sorgi and Rosenfelds. I see nobody permanently replacing Diehl at LT on the roster, need to see more of Beatty. Need more depth at offensive line and we could draft anywhere along that line and be set. I'd prefer if we kept Cofield. He played well again this season but he will be expecting the contract in the neighborhood of what we paid Canty. Our safeties made up for what we don't have at linebacker. Bring in a vet to compete with Dodge and he would probably still be on the roster. Not going to draft a better one.

Yeah a couple of lawyers are getting fired today.