Getting to the playoffs two consecutive years

[boohyah]

Fassel pulled the play calling from Sean Payton in mid 2002 and that too would qualify as blaming somone else as Coughlin has.

 

As far as the core of this team its relatively the same group that Fassel had. Yes they have some big ticket additions like Pierce and Plax, but they also had Michael Barrow back in the day who IMO is on par or better than Pierce. Is ELI at year 3 a better QB than KC was when he was here? Has the Kareem MCkeenzie signing been any more inspiring on the field then what Lomas Brown or Glenn Parker were in 2000? Was a healthy Shuan Williams an equal safety to what we have back there now? Jason Sehorn circa 1997-00 was not better than the shit we trot out there now? Jessie Armstead at OLB? NUFF said on that one.

 

Although Tom Coughlins career with the Jags fizzled out, what he did there from 95-00 was very impressive. He ran the ENTIRE show there, found very good players in the exapansion draft(Brunnell, MCCardell, Smith) and drafted quite well. In fact many of the core players on the 12-4 2005 team were TC draft picks, including Fred Taylor and many of the starters on a physical, fast defense. I think you are really underestimating what he did there in terms of building that thing from the ground up. WHere Tom was unlucky with was that his team was placed in the AFC, had they been an NFC team in that same time span things might have been even better. His talent evaluation is quite good and I do not think its any coincidence that they are many more productive players on the roster now over the past 3 drafts then there had been over the previous three.

 

WHat these two are both guity of is running an undisciplined team. Going back as far as 1997 when I sat in my seats during the playoff game and watched this team fight one another in the tunnel at halftime, they have been as undisciplined as any. They have big mouths, they talk a HUGE game and many of them have been on hand for 4 of the most inconcieveable losses in franchise history(playoff games in 97 and 02 and reg season home losses in 03 to the Eagles and Boys in UNIMAGINEABLE FASHION!). There are men here that get paid millions that haveactually complained they are worked too hard, the same men who complained the previous coach worked them too lightly.

 

In reality the conclusion I think that everyone can come to is that this group of players have been the same under 2 entirely different style coaches. Maybe no matter what the Giants do and no matter who the coach is its time to back up the truck and start fresh in some spots. Maybe the culture has to be changed and whats the chance a 3rd HC has ay better luck?

 

 

If you also look at what I'm writing, no where am I saying fassel was a discliplined coach. But he also didn't come in after the team fired Dan Reeves and start spouting shit about the previous coach like Coughlin did and then do jack shit about it. And no offense, 3 years in the NFL right now means nothing, rebuilding used to take 3-4 years, now it takes maybe 2 (if you're the jets, 1), so if the team wanted to get rid of some bad apples, they could have easily done so by now.

 

Also how was Tom unlucky to be in the AFC and be 15-1 and have home field against an average Titans team and lose, with a stacked team. If any coach had the deck stacked that year it was him, remember they had blown out the dolphins in the previous round. And his era as GM was a mess and his last 3 years were losing records. Not sure what everyone is missing here.

[Herc]

I know that getting to (and getting slaughtered in) a Super Bowl is cited by Jim Fassel supporters as evidence of his superiority when compared to Tom Coughlin. Fassel never went to the playoffs two years in a row, though. Does that make them even now?

 

give me a break bro, 8-8. the 98 giants went 8-8 and if that occurred in today's NFC that'd be back to back playoff appearances. i dont even want to make that argument cuz barring some improbable cinderalla run this season is a failure and so was 8-8 in '98

 

i know you know better, let's get real here

[Herc]

The bottom line is this. In weighing the 2 you have to consider the careers. WHat TC did in JAX building that team from the ground up is as impressive as it gets. Beating the Broncos on the road in 96 and then losing in NE in the champ game to Parcells was impressive. In comparison what he has done here does not equate to what he did in JAX. As far as him and being outcoached by Fisher, I think its clear 7 years later that Jeff Fisher is one of the top 3 head coaches in all of the NFL. Couglin built the groundwork there and probably fell victim of so many quality teams in the AFC in that 97-00 time period.

 

In comparison what Fassel did here with a poor roster in 97 and a SB run in 2000 was also impressive. His work with Kerry COllins is probably why he should be coaching somewhere in the league and his track record as a QB coach is quite impressive.

 

I think what they both have fallen victim to is a roster littered with big mouths who think they run the show

 

that's a fair assessment

[fishgutmartyr]

...Blah, blah, blah, lots of stuff I respect but don't want to comment on...

 

I'm not sure why guys can't defend fassel, I mean seriously, do you think if fassel was in charge these last 3 years it would have been worse??

 

The thing is, I don't think it would have been worse--but I don't think it would have been much different, either. That's been my contention.

 

2004 was just as bad injury-wise as 2003, and both guys started the season with a turnover king at QB, and wound up playing someone with little-to-no experience. Similar results. Coughlin won 2 more games. Whoopie.

 

And frankly, I could give a rat's ass about what Coughlin did in Jacksonville nearly a half-decade after the fact (or nearly a decade, depending on the reference point). There's been three years here, and that's where the evaluation should come from.

 

...type, type, type...

As far as the core of this team its relatively the same group that Fassel had. Yes they have some big ticket additions like Pierce and Plax, but they also had Michael Barrow back in the day who IMO is on par or better than Pierce. Is ELI at year 3 a better QB than KC was when he was here? Has the Kareem MCkeenzie signing been any more inspiring on the field then what Lomas Brown or Glenn Parker were in 2000? Was a healthy Shuan Williams an equal safety to what we have back there now? Jason Sehorn circa 1997-00 was not better than the shit we trot out there now? Jessie Armstead at OLB? NUFF said on that one.

 

...more typing, about stuff I don't want to comment about...

 

WHat these two are both guity of is running an undisciplined team. Going back as far as 1997 when I sat in my seats during the playoff game and watched this team fight one another in the tunnel at halftime, they have been as undisciplined as any. They have big mouths, they talk a HUGE game and many of them have been on hand for 4 of the most inconcieveable losses in franchise history(playoff games in 97 and 02 and reg season home losses in 03 to the Eagles and Boys in UNIMAGINEABLE FASHION!). There are men here that get paid millions that haveactually complained they are worked too hard, the same men who complained the previous coach worked them too lightly.

 

In reality the conclusion I think that everyone can come to is that this group of players have been the same under 2 entirely different style coaches. Maybe no matter what the Giants do and no matter who the coach is its time to back up the truck and start fresh in some spots. Maybe the culture has to be changed and whats the chance a 3rd HC has ay better luck?

That secondary looks all-pro compared to what's going on now. The thing is, with the turnover of both players and backfield coaches in the offseason, and the result being so similar to last year's (and the year before, for that matter), you have to think it's due to the overall scheme.

 

Oh by the way, you forgot the Minnesota game last year, and the Titans game this year. I mean, did the Vikings score and offensive touchdown? And honestly, how can you forget a lead blown in such a way that it's only been done 2 other times in 80 years of NFL football? Ah, memories... :brooding:

 

If any comment is right in this thread, the culture change comment is it. Your conclusion might be off a bit, because a 3rd head coach without the baggage that this one has after this season might very well have good luck, considering that there will be a GM change and a shakedown in the personnel department that will come with it, if they do in fact hire from the outside. You'll also not have the loyalty to the players that an internal guy might have, so a roster shakeup might not seem so sacreligious to the new GM/HC.

[boohyah]

The thing is, I don't think it would have been worse--but I don't think it would have been much different, either. That's been my contention.

 

2004 was just as bad injury-wise as 2003, and both guys started the season with a turnover king at QB, and wound up playing someone with little-to-no experience. Similar results. Coughlin won 2 more games. Whoopie.

 

And frankly, I could give a rat's ass about what Coughlin did in Jacksonville nearly a half-decade after the fact (or nearly a decade, depending on the reference point). There's been three years here, and that's where the evaluation should come from.

 

 

I know Fish, but how are you supposed to base a hiring a head coach on other performances right? . I think the Giants had a hard on for Tom and hired him with rose colored glasses on, possibly to make up for the fact that Tom "turned the Giants down" when they approached him the first time. It was a very strange hiring.

[fishgutmartyr]

I know Fish, but how are you supposed to base a hiring a head coach on other performances right? . I think the Giants had a hard on for Tom and hired him with rose colored glasses on, possibly to make up for the fact that Tom "turned the Giants down" when they approached him the first time. It was a very strange hiring.

 

Of course you're right, Boo, but why he was hired is kind of moot at this stage. Especially since the guys that gave the OK for the hiring (if they didn't make the outright decision) are both dead and buried.

 

You have to remember that in 2003, we were pretty much done before the midway point of the season. It was painfully obvious by the Falcons game. And Coughlin was unemployed, so it is very possible Wellington was on the phone with him well before the end of the season and had pretty much made the decision to hire him even before interviewing other candidates. He could very well have done the interviews with other candidates as a simple formality; or as due dilligence; or just to make his GM feel like he had a hand in the process. I'm not saying that this is definitely what happened, mind you, but it would certainly not be surprising to me.

 

At the college level, Coughlin had Boston College running pretty smoothly. And before he got himself into cap problems, Coughlin put together a pretty nice team in Jacksonville--maybe not SB level, but always in the hunt. Remember, on a whole it was Coughlin's skills as a GM that caught up with him in Jacksonville, not necessarily what he did as a coach. Even Fisher has looked pretty bad in with a cap-stripped team.

 

The difference between then and now, by the way, is that he had much better assistants calling the plays on game day. I think that, more than anything else, is what has screwed up this season as badly as it was. And before you even say anything, you're right, that's all on Coughlin.

 

Considering that he let Fassel squeak by every other year with a losing record (as an owner the 12-4, 7-9 stuff would have driven me nuts--I'd rather have 2 9-7 records, personally), it's not really surprising that Mara would think Coughlin a good candidate.

[Treehugger]

I don't think we should count this year. Falling ass-backwards into the play-offs due to the weakness of the rest of the conference is no achievement. It kills me that we're even allowed to show up on Sunday with an 8-8 record. It's a great argument for eliminating the wild card system, nothing more.

[boohyah]

I don't think we should count this year. Falling ass-backwards into the play-offs due to the weakness of the rest of the conference is no achievement. It kills me that we're even allowed to show up on Sunday with an 8-8 record. It's a great argument for eliminating the wild card system, nothing more.

 

 

Couldn't agree more Tree, The Division's only have 4 teams in each. It should be winners only at this stage. Or at least it should be teams with the best record regardless of conference.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

I know Fish, but how are you supposed to base a hiring a head coach on other performances right? . I think the Giants had a hard on for Tom and hired him with rose colored glasses on, possibly to make up for the fact that Tom "turned the Giants down" when they approached him the first time. It was a very strange hiring.

And you never saw a happier man than me when they whiffed the first time trying to hire Cheer Leader. So when they successfully hired him after he was damaged goods, my heart sank. Basically in my opinion he is a mediocre head coach who requires adept assistants in the mix (which he does not have) who can help him deliver wins. But like all bullies he prefers yes men who may or may not be competent to people who may buck him. That kind of approach can work (i.e. The Prostitute, The Prodigal, etc.) for a while but it wears pretty thin when you are really just a puffed up position coach as Cheer Leader is, IMO.

[xxi-xxv]

DO not get me wrong, I am in no way a Coughlin supporter/Fassel Hater, but I do think that some people that revere Jim Fassel take solace in trying to compare him to Tom Coughlin. IMO they both have decent NFL resumes(when you consider some of the dolts that have coached in the league the past 15-20 years) and they both have their strong points. I sometimes wish that Fassel was the QB coach working with ELI, because I remember his work with Elway in the early 90's and his years in Arizona and of course with KC, he always has been a good QB coach. I know the detractors will say he did nothing with Boller, but that was a no win situation in Baltimore with Billick there and how his personal situation and more specifically the pressure on him in terms of his job affected Fassels ability to coach. Coughlin in no way was a cap manager,as many head coaches say is something that should be done by a cap expert(why Parcells hired Tannenbaum when he was HC/GM of the JETS) and may coaches no longer want both jobs, but I do think TC has a real eye for talent. I also think he does a good job of preparing his team, what he does not do well is make in game adjustments. His stubborn personality is painfully obvious in terms of this and its almost like he never wants to admit at any point he is wrong and change.

 

IMO neither of them are great coaches, but what Coughlin had going for him was the old man liked him. The old man also liked Ray Handley, does not mean he is always right.

[fishgutmartyr]

DO not get me wrong, I am in no way a Coughlin supporter/Fassel Hater, but I do think that some people that revere Jim Fassel take solace in trying to compare him to Tom Coughlin. IMO they both have decent NFL resumes(when you consider some of the dolts that have coached in the league the past 15-20 years) and they both have their strong points. I sometimes wish that Fassel was the QB coach working with ELI, because I remember his work with Elway in the early 90's and his years in Arizona and of course with KC, he always has been a good QB coach. I know the detractors will say he did nothing with Boller, but that was a no win situation in Baltimore with Billick there and how his personal situation and more specifically the pressure on him in terms of his job affected Fassels ability to coach. Coughlin in no way was a cap manager,as many head coaches say is something that should be done by a cap expert(why Parcells hired Tannenbaum when he was HC/GM of the JETS) and may coaches no longer want both jobs, but I do think TC has a real eye for talent. I also think he does a good job of preparing his team, what he does not do well is make in game adjustments. His stubborn personality is painfully obvious in terms of this and its almost like he never wants to admit at any point he is wrong and change.

 

IMO neither of them are great coaches, but what Coughlin had going for him was the old man liked him. The old man also liked Ray Handley, does not mean he is always right.

 

For my part, I didn't think of you as a "Coughlin supporter/Fassel hater."

 

I don't "hate" Fassel, either. I just don't consider him a great coach, and it kind of bugs me that he's on a pedestal while in reality, it kind of looks to me that he and Coughlin are two sides to the same coin. And that coin ain't no Krugerrand.

 

I couldn't agree with you more about Coughlin: he is way too stubborn for his own good. The fact that he's kept his coordinators for as long as he has despite all evidence indicating that they were not doing a good job is certainly a manifestation of that. I mean, yes, we were hit with injuries. But we were also hit pretty good in 2004-2005: where are the contingency plans?

 

What's true for Coughlin, is true for Fassel: I don't care about what he did in Baltimore (although I do find getting canned by his buddy kind of funny). And by the time he got there, if there was ever any talent in Boller in the first place, it was long since destroyed with Boller's confidence.

[Herc]

despite what some may have you believe, i dont have fassel on a pedestal either, but IMO it's pretty indisputable that he was more sucessful here than coughlin.

[boohyah]

despite what some may have you believe, i dont have fassel on a pedestal either, but IMO it's pretty indisputable that he was more sucessful here than coughlin.

 

 

That's how I feel. I thought Fassel was a good coach, but he's not Parcells level.. Plus I give props to any coach who gets us to the superbowl (people who weren't hyped about that superbowl run shouldn't be Giants fans IMO), even though it's amazing how he gets bashed for that loss, considering what the Ravens did that year.

 

Speaking of ravens, IMO Fassels treatment by Billick this year was nothing short of scumbucketness by Billick. He asked him to come down there to help with the offense, and then gave him half a year with a good QB. I just can't stand that prick.

[Herc]

fassel was only calling plays anyway--he was still using billick's playbook.

 

hey if we go to the superbowl i'll shut up about coughlin, but to me fassel guarenteeing the playoffs and then winning every game until the superbowl shows me he reached the players--something coughlin's never done. and im more impressed with that superbowl run than anything coughlin has done here. hence im more impressed with what fassel did than coughlin. and no, there's no way that can be twisted into me thinking fassel is 'great' or that im a 'fassel guy'

[mickeef2]

Glad to see this debate raging again, and I don't have much more to add to it, but I will say this to all the Fasselheads who harp on this laughable notion that the team was composed of odds and ends during the Fassel years, and now it's loaded with All-Pros: Fassel's most talented player coughed up the ball at a rate exceeding that for any back in the history of the game, and Coughlin came in and fixed the problem in five minutes. Maybe it wasn't so much the talent level at the time, but rather the way it was being coached.

[fishgutmartyr]

despite what some may have you believe, i dont have fassel on a pedestal either, but IMO it's pretty indisputable that he was more sucessful here than coughlin.

...And this is why this dispute is pointless.

 

Other than a single tie, their records are IDENTICAL OVER THEIR FIRST THREE YEARS AS GIANTS HEAD COACH. It couldn't get much closer if you tried. Even the playoff year and subsequent year are almost identical: in 97 Fassel was 10-5-1, in '98 he was 8-8. Coughlin was 11-5 last year, 8-8 this year. The only difference is when they had their losing season in that span: and if you go by that, Coughlin would have the edge, his occuring in his first year rather than his third. So at least there is a net improvement over the span.

 

You guys are comparing a full seven years to three, and even worse, you're picking and choosing what part of those seven years you want to point out. I DON'T WANT COUGHLIN HERE SEVEN YEARS JUST TO SEE HOW SIMILAR THESE TWO MEDIOCRE COACHES ARE TO EACH OTHER.

 

If, god forbid (and I felt the same way after Fassel's 3rd year, by the way) Coughlin gets a 4th year and then fails to lose miserably in the Superbowl, you might have a point. But then again, Fassel over his seven years had one division championship where he went one and out, a wild card where he went one and out, and a superbowl run that ended with a loss. Coughlin has accomplished two of these vaunted tasks already (you can see how much confidence I have for Sunday). This season has certainly been disappointing, but we still have a playoff game out of it; and the same thing can not be said for the 98, 2001, and 2003 seasons, where expectations were just as high.

 

I do recall internal strife during Fassel's earlier years as well, just not to the level we've seen this year. Fistfights breaking out between players during a playoff game ring a bell? How about offensive and defensive players pointing fingers at each other during losing stretches?

 

So where is the indisputable evidence? Crappy assistants? If we're going to throw the Superbowl run in, how about we throw in Johnny "oops, gameplanned for the wrong team" Lynn, and Offensive Line coach Jim McNally that saw Ian Allen, Scott Peters, and Jeff Hatch and said "you know, I can work with this."

 

Bad play calling? How many last second shockers did we deal with under Fassel as well?

 

Not fixing the problems that he was supposed to? How many years did Fassel promise to fix penalties and special teams? That didn't happen, either.

 

So just...stop.

[Herc]

...And this is why this dispute is pointless.

 

Other than a single tie, their records are IDENTICAL OVER THEIR FIRST THREE YEARS AS GIANTS HEAD COACH. It couldn't get much closer if you tried. Even the playoff year and subsequent year are almost identical: in 97 Fassel was 10-5-1, in '98 he was 8-8. Coughlin was 11-5 last year, 8-8 this year. The only difference is when they had their losing season in that span: and if you go by that, Coughlin would have the edge, his occuring in his first year rather than his third. So at least there is a net improvement over the span.

 

You guys are comparing a full seven years to three, and even worse, you're picking and choosing what part of those seven years you want to point out. I DON'T WANT COUGHLIN HERE SEVEN YEARS JUST TO SEE HOW SIMILAR THESE TWO MEDIOCRE COACHES ARE TO EACH OTHER.

 

If, god forbid (and I felt the same way after Fassel's 3rd year, by the way) Coughlin gets a 4th year and then fails to lose miserably in the Superbowl, you might have a point. But then again, Fassel over his seven years had one division championship where he went one and out, a wild card where he went one and out, and a superbowl run that ended with a loss. Coughlin has accomplished two of these vaunted tasks already (you can see how much confidence I have for Sunday). This season has certainly been disappointing, but we still have a playoff game out of it; and the same thing can not be said for the 98, 2001, and 2003 seasons, where expectations were just as high.

 

I do recall internal strife during Fassel's earlier years as well, just not to the level we've seen this year. Fistfights breaking out between players during a playoff game ring a bell? How about offensive and defensive players pointing fingers at each other during losing stretches?

 

So where is the indisputable evidence? Crappy assistants? If we're going to throw the Superbowl run in, how about we throw in Johnny "oops, gameplanned for the wrong team" Lynn, and Offensive Line coach Jim McNally that saw Ian Allen, Scott Peters, and Jeff Hatch and said "you know, I can work with this."

 

Bad play calling? How many last second shockers did we deal with under Fassel as well?

 

Not fixing the problems that he was supposed to? How many years did Fassel promise to fix penalties and special teams? That didn't happen, either.

 

So just...stop.

 

This season has certainly been disappointing, but we still have a playoff game out of it; and the same thing can not be said for the 98, 2001, and 2003 seasons, where expectations were just as high.

 

we were 8-8 in 1998. thank god for coughlin's brilliant coaching, he managed to someone make the entire NFC suck this year just so we could get into the playoffs. we're the 8th team to ever make the playoffs at 8-8. we're a fucking laughingstock.

 

you can point out all the reasons fassel wasn't a good coach till your blue in the face. the argument is who was more successful. you can have this argument about any two coaches in football--whether they are great or they suck but when you point out who did more you look at the highlights of their tenures.

 

fassel took a team that didn't do shit since '93 to a 10-5-1 record (forget about the fact that kannel was the qb and we had no rb) in his first year with the giants (and as an NFL head coach). coughlin's first season was more or less a repeat of fassel's last. double digit losses, lots of injuries, lots of penalties. and it wasn't his first season as a head coach either, and the idea that fassel had just as much talent as coughlin is starting to not be funny anymore.

 

ok, coughlin's coordinators sucked and fassels were great. who hired the coordinators? hufnagel is done as a coordinator in the NFL, lewis isn't too far behind. fox made it to the superbowl after starting with a team that had 1 win his first year, and peyton's on his way to doing that for one of the sorriest franchises in sports history. oh but wait, he hired johnny lynn to replace fox, so everything i just said doesn't count. and yeah fassel took us to the superbowl but since he went 4-12 his last season and presided over some horrible choke jobs that erases everything he did too

 

the point is we're arguing over which coach, neither of whom were successes, did BETTER here. pointing out flaws is pretty ridiculous when you consider the fact that we're all in agreement that neither did a fantastic job here. the argument is who did better. a superbowl is better than anything coughlin did here. 10-5-1 with that roster is better than 6-10 with the one we had two seasons ago. mickeef mentioned that coughlin fixed tiki's fumbling. let's forget about the fact that tiki's a grown man who's played football all his life and needs someone to hold his hand to learn how to play at age 27 and chalk that up as a success for coughlin. fine, that's something positive he did here. but coughlin came here acting like injuries were something that could be prevented. that was ridiculous on his part as they are part of the NFL. doesn't speak very much to his intelligence as even an average fan, let alone a pro football coach. he came here talking about penalties--fine, that's fixable, but it wans't fixed.

 

 

so basically we have coughlin's 11-5 season, tiki's fumbling problem fixed vs fassel and his better first season turnaround, his coach of the year award, his super bowl appearance, his playoff guarentee that the players obviously bought into (have they evr bought into anything coughlin said?), and his decision to take playcalling duties away from sean peyton (which obviously worked).

 

as far as players go. x brings up a good point about some players we had on defense. jesse armstead, jason sehorn, very good players. sehorn's best season? under fassel. armstead never made the pro-bowl till '97.

 

 

yo, you know who was really nice? tito wooten so was gary brown these guys were starters--and not because other people got injured either.

 

as for the argument that you can't argue fassel's last four years, that's pretty convenient when fassel's legacy with many members on here was basically defined by the superbowl loss and everything that happened afterwards. fassel may have lost this team eventually, but at least at some point he had it--coughlin never did.

[Plow]

dont forget fassel's giants beat the undefeated broncos who were 13-0 in 1998

[Herc]

dont forget fassel's giants beat the undefeated broncos who were 13-0 in 1998

 

nah, he sucks, that was all amani toomer and his coordinators who were hired against his wishes

[fishgutmartyr]

we were 8-8 in 1998. thank god for coughlin's brilliant coaching, he managed to someone make the entire NFC suck this year just so we could get into the playoffs. we're the 8th team to ever make the playoffs at 8-8. we're a fucking laughingstock.

 

But...but...Getting to the superbowl to get slaughtered like lambs made us look good, right? The NFC of 2000 was the pinnacle of NFL might. New Orleans won the Western Division with Jeff Blake and Aaron Brooks QBing, for god's sake.

 

you can point out all the reasons fassel wasn't a good coach till your blue in the face. the argument is who was more successful. you can have this argument about any two coaches in football--whether they are great or they suck but when you point out who did more you look at the highlights of their tenures.

 

fassel took a team that didn't do shit since '93 to a 10-5-1 record (forget about the fact that kannel was the qb and we had no rb) in his first year with the giants (and as an NFL head coach). coughlin's first season was more or less a repeat of fassel's last. double digit losses, lots of injuries, lots of penalties. and it wasn't his first season as a head coach either, and the idea that fassel had just as much talent as coughlin is starting to not be funny anymore.

 

Reeves just missed getting the wild card in '94 with a 9-7 record. Oh, he won coach of the year his first year as well. So that's meaningful.

 

We actually had 3 running backs run for 500 yards or better in 1997: Barber (511), Wheatley(583), and Way(698). So no, we didn't have a feature back, but the tandem did run for 1,792 yards. Add the other guys, and you get 1,945 yards which averages out to 125 yds/game. Not too shabby, but not up to what we are used to with the COUGHLIN-era Tiki. (sorry, bud, couldn't resist :lol:) They also had 826 receiving yards, bringing the total yards for the running backs up to 2,618 yards. So clearly they were shit.

 

Pity we didn't have a good QB, because we had a receiving group of Chris Calloway, Ike Hilliard, Amani Toomer, and David Patton. With the exception of Burress, I'd take that group at that stage of their careers over what we have now. And I wouldn't look back.

 

ok, coughlin's coordinators sucked and fassels were great. who hired the coordinators?

 

*sigh* The same person that I have said hired them on numerous posts on numerous other threads--Coughlin. What do I win?

 

hufnagel is done as a coordinator in the NFL, lewis isn't too far behind.

 

We can only hope.

 

fox made it to the superbowl after starting with a team that had 1 win his first year, and peyton's on his way to doing that for one of the sorriest franchises in sports history. oh but wait, he hired johnny lynn to replace fox, so everything i just said doesn't count.

 

No it doesn't mean it doesn't count. What it does mean is that this is a ridiculous argument. Reeves hired Mike Nolan, and it's starting to look like he's making a playoff contender in San Fran. Does that mean that Reeves' career here was a success? And I wouldn't push the Peyton bit too far--remember Fassel fired him, even though that was the right move at the time.

 

The weaker offensive line in 2004, Barber's explosion over the last three years, and Manning's last minute heroics last year masked a lot of deficencies in the offense. Hufnagle's competence came into question openly in the playoff game last year and during the season this year.

 

With all the injuries in 2004, there was no way to rate Lewis. Last year, they started off weak, but came along fairly well until they had to take want ads out for Linebackers. With our secondary schemes, I would have canned him in this past offseason. But I also didn't hire him.

 

Also keep in mind that Lewis wasn't his first choice. And I'll bet that Dom Caper's caller ID has some 201 numbers on it already, considering what Saban just did.

 

and yeah fassel took us to the superbowl but since he went 4-12 his last season and presided over some horrible choke jobs that erases everything he did too

 

This year seems to have also wiped out 11-5 last year. Funny how that works.

 

the point is we're arguing over which coach, neither of whom were successes, did BETTER here. pointing out flaws is pretty ridiculous when you consider the fact that we're all in agreement that neither did a fantastic job here. the argument is who did better. a superbowl is better than anything coughlin did here. 10-5-1 with that roster is better than 6-10 with the one we had two seasons ago.

 

You're telling me that 2004 roster, with that offensive (and it was truly offensive) line was better than 1997? David Diehl as RT was an ideal situation? A rookie guard? Pettigout at the peak of his false starts? For god's sake man, we had to give up a draft pick for Jason fucking Whittle!

 

A Kurt Warner that would rather take a sack or fumble than have an incompletion? A rookie Eli Manning? You're starting linebacking crew (sort of) of Barrett Green, Carlos Emmons, and Thomas Lewis? Will Allen just coming back from a ruptured achille's tendon? An over the hill Brent Alexander that would run the 40 eventually?

 

Strahan IR'd. I can't keep track of all the safeties we went through--although our third stringers were starting. Tim Carter and Jamaar Taylor both out.

 

Yeah, I guess we might have had more talent. Pity it was all on IR.

 

mickeef mentioned that coughlin fixed tiki's fumbling. let's forget about the fact that tiki's a grown man who's played football all his life and needs someone to hold his hand to learn how to play at age 27 and chalk that up as a success for coughlin. fine, that's something positive he did here.

 

Even Tiki gives credit for the fix to Coughlin's Running backs coach. Whom Coughlin is also responsible for hiring, by the way...

 

but coughlin came here acting like injuries were something that could be prevented. that was ridiculous on his part as they are part of the NFL. doesn't speak very much to his intelligence as even an average fan, let alone a pro football coach. he came here talking about penalties--fine, that's fixable, but it wans't fixed.

 

You're lambasting him about the injuries the wrong way. With proper conditioning, a lot of the injuries we've been having could have been reduced. Muscle tears, for instance. He has failed to do that. You should be ranking on him for that. On the other hand, if half the team is doing a program in Miami, it really doesn't matter what program he does here.

 

I've actually read that penalties have improved over his tenure, but I can't find the article, so we'll take your statement as is. Obviously, it is probably a slight improvement.

 

so basically we have coughlin's 11-5 season, tiki's fumbling problem fixed vs fassel and his better first season turnaround, his coach of the year award, his super bowl appearance, his playoff guarentee that the players obviously bought into (have they evr bought into anything coughlin said?), and his decision to take playcalling duties away from sean peyton (which obviously worked).

 

Superbowl appearance and guarentee happened the same year. That's cheap.

 

Coughlin had a better second-year turnaround.

Reeve's had coach of the year his first year, too. He's also without a coaching job.

If credit is taken for admitting that the offensive coordinator you hired isn't working, does Coughlin get credit for finally ditching Hufnagel?

 

as far as players go. x brings up a good point about some players we had on defense. jesse armstead, jason sehorn, very good players. sehorn's best season? under fassel.

 

The bulk of Sehorn's career? Under Fassel.

 

Barber's best season?

Burress' 2nd best season of his career?

Burress' best season for scoring touchdowns? (this year--10)

Snee's best season?

JAMAAR TAYLOR'S BEST SEASON?

 

armstead never made the pro-bowl till '97.

 

Tiki finally got there in 2004.

 

yo, you know who was really nice? tito wooten so was gary brown these guys were starters--and not because other people got injured either.

 

as for the argument that you can't argue fassel's last four years, that's pretty convenient when fassel's legacy with many members on here was basically defined by the superbowl loss and everything that happened afterwards. fassel may have lost this team eventually, but at least at some point he had it--coughlin never did.

Comparing the two in their first three seasons is simply a way to compare like things with like things. It has nothing to do with trying to sell Fassel short--it is a reasonable way to compare the two at the same stage of their Giant's tenure.

 

You, however, are comparing Fassel's entire NFL head coaching career to three of Coughlin's. To even that out, you would have to include Coughlin's work in Jacksonville, which would add 4 additional playoff runs, 2 AFC championship games, a 4-4 playoff record in additon to the 0-1 he currently has here, a .527 winning percentage from a 97-87 record in total: which is better than Fassel's 2-3 playoff record, 58-55-1 overall record and .513 percentage.

 

Oh, and you'd have to add an NFL Coach of the Year award, too. They must give those fuckerz out like candy.

[boohyah]

But...but...Getting to the superbowl to get slaughtered like lambs made us look good, right? The NFC of 2000 was the pinnacle of NFL might. New Orleans won the Western Division with Jeff Blake and Aaron Brooks QBing, for god's sake.

Reeves just missed getting the wild card in '94 with a 9-7 record. Oh, he won coach of the year his first year as well. So that's meaningful.

 

We actually had 3 running backs run for 500 yards or better in 1997: Barber (511), Wheatley(583), and Way(698). So no, we didn't have a feature back, but the tandem did run for 1,792 yards. Add the other guys, and you get 1,945 yards which averages out to 125 yds/game. Not too shabby, but not up to what we are used to with the COUGHLIN-era Tiki. (sorry, bud, couldn't resist :lol:) They also had 826 receiving yards, bringing the total yards for the running backs up to 2,618 yards. So clearly they were shit.

 

Pity we didn't have a good QB, because we had a receiving group of Chris Calloway, Ike Hilliard, Amani Toomer, and David Patton. With the exception of Burress, I'd take that group at that stage of their careers over what we have now. And I wouldn't look back.

*sigh* The same person that I have said hired them on numerous posts on numerous other threads--Coughlin. What do I win?

We can only hope.

No it doesn't mean it doesn't count. What it does mean is that this is a ridiculous argument. Reeves hired Mike Nolan, and it's starting to look like he's making a playoff contender in San Fran. Does that mean that Reeves' career here was a success? And I wouldn't push the Peyton bit too far--remember Fassel fired him, even though that was the right move at the time.

 

The weaker offensive line in 2004, Barber's explosion over the last three years, and Manning's last minute heroics last year masked a lot of deficencies in the offense. Hufnagle's competence came into question openly in the playoff game last year and during the season this year.

 

With all the injuries in 2004, there was no way to rate Lewis. Last year, they started off weak, but came along fairly well until they had to take want ads out for Linebackers. With our secondary schemes, I would have canned him in this past offseason. But I also didn't hire him.

 

Also keep in mind that Lewis wasn't his first choice. And I'll bet that Dom Caper's caller ID has some 201 numbers on it already, considering what Saban just did.

This year seems to have also wiped out 11-5 last year. Funny how that works.

You're telling me that 2004 roster, with that offensive (and it was truly offensive) line was better than 1997? David Diehl as RT was an ideal situation? A rookie guard? Pettigout at the peak of his false starts? For god's sake man, we had to give up a draft pick for Jason fucking Whittle!

 

A Kurt Warner that would rather take a sack or fumble than have an incompletion? A rookie Eli Manning? You're starting linebacking crew (sort of) of Barrett Green, Carlos Emmons, and Thomas Lewis? Will Allen just coming back from a ruptured achille's tendon? An over the hill Brent Alexander that would run the 40 eventually?

 

Strahan IR'd. I can't keep track of all the safeties we went through--although our third stringers were starting. Tim Carter and Jamaar Taylor both out.

 

Yeah, I guess we might have had more talent. Pity it was all on IR.

Even Tiki gives credit for the fix to Coughlin's Running backs coach. Whom Coughlin is also responsible for hiring, by the way...

You're lambasting him about the injuries the wrong way. With proper conditioning, a lot of the injuries we've been having could have been reduced. Muscle tears, for instance. He has failed to do that. You should be ranking on him for that. On the other hand, if half the team is doing a program in Miami, it really doesn't matter what program he does here.

 

I've actually read that penalties have improved over his tenure, but I can't find the article, so we'll take your statement as is. Obviously, it is probably a slight improvement.

Superbowl appearance and guarentee happened the same year. That's cheap.

 

Coughlin had a better second-year turnaround.

Reeve's had coach of the year his first year, too. He's also without a coaching job.

If credit is taken for admitting that the offensive coordinator you hired isn't working, does Coughlin get credit for finally ditching Hufnagel?

The bulk of Sehorn's career? Under Fassel.

 

Barber's best season?

Burress' 2nd best season of his career?

Burress' best season for scoring touchdowns? (this year--10)

Snee's best season?

JAMAAR TAYLOR'S BEST SEASON?

Tiki finally got there in 2004.

 

 

Comparing the two in their first three seasons is simply a way to compare like things with like things. It has nothing to do with trying to sell Fassel short--it is a reasonable way to compare the two at the same stage of their Giant's tenure.

 

You, however, are comparing Fassel's entire NFL head coaching career to three of Coughlin's. To even that out, you would have to include Coughlin's work in Jacksonville, which would add 4 additional playoff runs, 2 AFC championship games, a 4-4 playoff record in additon to the 0-1 he currently has here, a .527 winning percentage from a 97-87 record in total: which is better than Fassel's 2-3 playoff record, 58-55-1 overall record and .513 percentage.

 

Oh, and you'd have to add an NFL Coach of the Year award, too. They must give those fuckerz out like candy.

 

 

Didn't fassel win coach of the year.

[fishgutmartyr]

Didn't fassel win coach of the year.

 

Apparently, everybody has.

 

Yes, he did.

[Herc]

lol you're killing me fish. i only got through about half of your post, i'll finish it up tomorrow at work and respond but right now i gotta pass out. one thing i will say though from what i've read so far, you're still arguing something different than me. "reeves won COY first year, was he a success.......reeves hired mike nolan, was reeves a success" (im paraphrasing). im not arguing that fassel was a success, im simply saying he was better than coughlin. im not saying fassel had a better career than coughlin, im saying he's done a better job HERE than coughlin. im not interested in what coughlin did in jacksonville because it doesnt have anything to do with what he's done here

 

and the david patten we had wasn't the same david patten NE had. i'll continue this tomorrow

[Herc]

 

Apparently, everybody has.

 

Yes, he did.

 

not coughlin

[fishgutmartyr]

not coughlin

1996 he did.

 

Have a good night, bud. And don't respond point by point, I've already killed the quotes!