Somebody talk me down...

[Mr. P]

while not the strongest in the league i think kerry collins still has one of the stronger arms.

 

eli does have a pretty strong arm though.

[Nas]

I'm not done writing off Boldin in Blue. Boldin, Nicks, and Smith... with Beckum in the Mix... sick!!!

[fishgutmartyr]

The dog would simply caution that a number of NFC teams have made improvements or will be improved...have to take that into account...

Yep, and just like myself, their fans are probably raving about their team's potential.

 

Who do you think really improved this offseason? Philly? I already assumed they're going to be a bitch, even if they did nothing this offseason. I don't know what to make of Dallas' moves this year--I know their passing game is not what it was; but if they move towards a running game, a lot of teams are going to have problems.

 

Seattle has probably improved, but only enough to be a threat in the west. Spags will win a few in St. Louis. That division winner might be 8-8.

 

Chicago finally has a QB worth keeping, but is it too late to hook up with their defense; and who is he throwing to? Minny still needs something to happen at the QB position. It's really starting to look like Green Bay benefited from Favre's last hurrah and a really weak North in 2007.

 

That leaves the South; and there are good teams in that division. And they will be beating the hell out of each other, just like we will be doing in the East. But Carolina seems to take alternating years off; Atlanta might have to deal with Ryan having a sophomore slump (maybe not), and we'll have to see about New Orleans and Tampa.

 

I'd say we have as good a chance as any team in the conference; and better than most. I'm not suggesting we're a lock for anything, that would be foolish. Too many things you can't foresee--if you told me last Sept. that our offense would tail off in November because Burress would shoot himself in the leg, I'd have to think you were insane. But the potential is definitely there, and that's bringing my hopes up.

[JMFP]

while not the strongest in the league i think kerry collins still has one of the stronger arms.

 

eli does have a pretty strong arm though.

 

Collins has a strong arm, but a lengthy windup.

 

Manning needs an offensive coordinator like Kenny Rogers. As The Gambler Teaches us, you need to know when to hold em, and know when to fold em.

 

When the wind is whipping in your face, and you have the most punishing rushing attack in the NFL, you don't call a pass play from the pocket.

 

When we played to our strength, we absolutely crushed a Ravens defense that was sticking 8 guys in the box, and we could have done the same against Philly's smaller, quicker defense. Instead, we played to their strengths and our weaknesses (passing 3x on 1st and 5; running Jacobs horizontal to the line; completely ignoring Bradshaw as a receiver and edge runner).

 

If we maintain the same philosophy in 2009, we'll be one and done again, despite the personnel upgrades.

 

So there's the talk-down.

 

 

....oh yeah, one more thing: Parcells would have played the wind much better than Coughlin. Parcells would have given Philly the ball against the wind in the 1st quarter, and would given Eli (and our weak-legged kicker) the ball with the wind in the 4th quarter.

 

I hope someone from the film department has a copy of the Redskins v Giants NFC Championship game laying around....that should be Must See TV for Manning and Gilbride.

 

[Allstarjim]

None of those teams have the defense and more specifically, defensive line that we are going to put on the football field.

 

[ksm7]

Yep, and just like myself, their fans are probably raving about their team's potential.

 

Who do you think really improved this offseason? Philly? I already assumed they're going to be a bitch, even if they did nothing this offseason. I don't know what to make of Dallas' moves this year--I know their passing game is not what it was; but if they move towards a running game, a lot of teams are going to have problems.

 

Seattle has probably improved, but only enough to be a threat in the west. Spags will win a few in St. Louis. That division winner might be 8-8.

 

Chicago finally has a QB worth keeping, but is it too late to hook up with their defense; and who is he throwing to? Minny still needs something to happen at the QB position. It's really starting to look like Green Bay benefited from Favre's last hurrah and a really weak North in 2007.

 

That leaves the South; and there are good teams in that division. And they will be beating the hell out of each other, just like we will be doing in the East. But Carolina seems to take alternating years off; Atlanta might have to deal with Ryan having a sophomore slump (maybe not), and we'll have to see about New Orleans and Tampa.

 

I'd say we have as good a chance as any team in the conference; and better than most. I'm not suggesting we're a lock for anything, that would be foolish. Too many things you can't foresee--if you told me last Sept. that our offense would tail off in November because Burress would shoot himself in the leg, I'd have to think you were insane. But the potential is definitely there, and that's bringing my hopes up.

 

dog agrees with everything you said...it is very difficult to assess things at this stage, but if you were looking to be brought down, it would just be that a lot of teams are going to be very difficult to beat this year (all of whom you said above)...should make for a good season...again.

[Nesta]

I'm not done writing off Boldin in Blue. Boldin, Nicks, and Smith... with Beckum in the Mix... sick!!!

 

Forgetaboudditttt!

 

It ain't gonna happen.

[rphguy]

Manning needs an offensive coordinator like Kenny Rogers. As The Gambler Teaches us, you need to know when to hold em, and know when to fold em.

 

When the wind is whipping in your face, and you have the most punishing rushing attack in the NFL, you don't call a pass play from the pocket.

 

When we played to our strength, we absolutely crushed a Ravens defense that was sticking 8 guys in the box, and we could have done the same against Philly's smaller, quicker defense. Instead, we played to their strengths and our weaknesses (passing 3x on 1st and 5; running Jacobs horizontal to the line; completely ignoring Bradshaw as a receiver and edge runner).

.

windy days should be almost all running.... pounding actually.

slip in the occasional play-action. and only very occasionally, the deep throw to keep them honest.

 

3 runs to 1 pass.

eli does play-action faking stuff well. should be done more.

 

how about a T-formation some on windy days? lotsa stuff you can do out of that.

 

[Treehugger]

Manning needs an offensive coordinator like Kenny Rogers.

I'd prefer Kenny Fucking Powers.

[Mr. P]

I'd prefer Kenny Fucking Powers.

 

id prefer kenny loggins

 

 

[Money]

Kevin Gilbride is still the offensive coordinator.

 

Yeah, a guy who orchestrated a championship offense. What an enormous liability...

[Money]

Collins has a strong arm, but a lengthy windup.

 

Manning needs an offensive coordinator like Kenny Rogers. As The Gambler Teaches us, you need to know when to hold em, and know when to fold em.

 

When the wind is whipping in your face, and you have the most punishing rushing attack in the NFL, you don't call a pass play from the pocket.

 

When we played to our strength, we absolutely crushed a Ravens defense that was sticking 8 guys in the box, and we could have done the same against Philly's smaller, quicker defense. Instead, we played to their strengths and our weaknesses (passing 3x on 1st and 5; running Jacobs horizontal to the line; completely ignoring Bradshaw as a receiver and edge runner).

 

If we maintain the same philosophy in 2009, we'll be one and done again, despite the personnel upgrades.

 

So there's the talk-down.

 

 

....oh yeah, one more thing: Parcells would have played the wind much better than Coughlin. Parcells would have given Philly the ball against the wind in the 1st quarter, and would given Eli (and our weak-legged kicker) the ball with the wind in the 4th quarter.

 

I hope someone from the film department has a copy of the Redskins v Giants NFC Championship game laying around....that should be Must See TV for Manning and Gilbride.

 

This Eagles playoff loss has to be one of the most misremembered and misinterprited games in recent memory.

 

We had 31 rushing attempts to 30 dropbacks, achieving the balance that Coughlin emphasizes throughout the season. Furthermore, we fell behind 23-11 with 4 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter; excluding the two subsequent desparation drives (where we passed the ball on every play), our run/pass ratio was 31:23. Gilbride committed to the run to an extreme measure -- exactly as you knuckleheads asked him to do. You bring up the Ravens game as if it was a masterful example of how to win in poor conditions. Before running out the clock after the game has been decided, our run pass ratio was 26:22...in other words, when the outcomes were still in question, we ran the ball less frequently against the Ravens than we did against the Eagles.

 

BTW, care to guess what the Eagles run/pass ratio was that day? 44 dropbacks, 24 runs. AND THEY WON THE GAME. So this (patently false) argument about Gilbride costing us the game because he didn't call enough running plays is totally misguided and foolish.

 

Let's also not forget that Carney missed two FGs, and I'm guessing those six points would have been useful in the latter stages of the game.

 

Bradshaw gets ignored because he's unreliable in pass protection and has not, to this point, demonstrated acceptable ball security. But hey, let's try to get a walking sack/turnover on the field as much as possible in place of our two 1,000-yard RBs.

 

Re: the 1st and 5. Eli publicly admitted to calling an audible from a run play to a pass play during that sequence.

 

You're right, Manning and Gilbride should watch the '86 NFCCG. At that time, they'll realize that it's quite easy to win when your defense pitches a shutout.

[BlueInCanada]

Shh Money dont use logic.

 

It's not allowed on these forums

[JMFP]

This Eagles playoff loss has to be one of the most misremembered and misinterprited games in recent memory.

 

We had 31 rushing attempts to 30 dropbacks, achieving the balance that Coughlin emphasizes throughout the season. Furthermore, we fell behind 23-11 with 4 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter; excluding the two subsequent desparation drives (where we passed the ball on every play), our run/pass ratio was 31:23. Gilbride committed to the run to an extreme measure -- exactly as you knuckleheads asked him to do. You bring up the Ravens game as if it was a masterful example of how to win in poor conditions. Before running out the clock after the game has been decided, our run pass ratio was 26:22...in other words, when the outcomes were still in question, we ran the ball less frequently against the Ravens than we did against the Eagles.

 

BTW, care to guess what the Eagles run/pass ratio was that day? 44 dropbacks, 24 runs. AND THEY WON THE GAME. So this (patently false) argument about Gilbride costing us the game because he didn't call enough running plays is totally misguided and foolish.

 

Let's also not forget that Carney missed two FGs, and I'm guessing those six points would have been useful in the latter stages of the game.

 

Bradshaw gets ignored because he's unreliable in pass protection and has not, to this point, demonstrated acceptable ball security. But hey, let's try to get a walking sack/turnover on the field as much as possible in place of our two 1,000-yard RBs.

 

Re: the 1st and 5. Eli publicly admitted to calling an audible from a run play to a pass play during that sequence.

 

You're right, Manning and Gilbride should watch the '86 NFCCG. At that time, they'll realize that it's quite easy to win when your defense pitches a shutout.

 

30 dropbacks in crappy weather is balance to you?

 

I bring up the Ravens game because it's an example of how our rushing attack crushed defenses. If I remember, Coughlin was quoted as saying "if they put another guy in the box, we'll just bring in another blocker".

 

Maybe if you took care to read my post before going all spazzy with the sarcasm, you'd note that my main criticism involved the use of personnel (Jacobs running east-west, no Bradshaw, mismanaging the game clock at halftime), and managing the weather conditions. Point in fact - the most costly play of the game was the Eli INT, that was largely due to sailing a duck into a headwind.

 

Simms statline in the NFC Championship: 7 of 14 for 90 yards, 1 TD, and 0 Int. That's right, 14 pass attempts. That's known as managing a bad weather game.

 

But I suppose I'm "misremembering" that game too.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxs...98701110nyg.htm

[Money]

30 dropbacks in crappy weather is balance to you?

 

I bring up the Ravens game because it's an example of how our rushing attack crushed defenses. If I remember, Coughlin was quoted as saying "if they put another guy in the box, we'll just bring in another blocker".

 

Simms statline in the NFC Championship: 7 of 14 for 90 yards, 1 TD, and 0 Int. That's right, 14 pass attempts. That's known as managing a bad weather game.

 

But I suppose I'm "misremembering" that game too.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxs...98701110nyg.htm

 

Considering that we ran the ball the same number of times, yes that equates to balance. That's the definition of balance. And again, the Eagles threw the ball 40 times. They were imbalanced in the wrong direction and won.

 

Unlike the Ravens game, our running game didn't "crush" the Eagles. And as the numbers I referenced earlier indicate, it certainly wasn't from a lack of trying.

 

If we threw the ball only 14 times against the Eagles, I'm guessing we probably would have score less than 9 offensive points. You're really barking up the wrong tree with that example since it was played during a different era, was decided by shutout, and was played in conditions that were 100x worse. It wasn't even that windy this year.

[JMFP]

Considering that we ran the ball the same number of times, yes that equates to balance. That's the definition of balance. And again, the Eagles threw the ball 40 times. They were imbalanced in the wrong direction and won.

 

Unlike the Ravens game, our running game didn't "crush" the Eagles. And as the numbers I referenced earlier indicate, it certainly wasn't from a lack of trying.

 

If we threw the ball only 14 times against the Eagles, I'm guessing we probably would have score less than 9 offensive points. You're really barking up the wrong tree with that example since it was played during a different era, was decided by shutout, and was played in conditions that were 100x worse. It wasn't even that windy this year.

 

You're bringing up balance, I'm saying passing 30x in crappy weather, ignoring Bradshaw, and misusing Jacobs, wasn't a sound plan.

 

I also think it was an error not to play the wind, as Parcells would have done....which came back to kill us in the 4th.

 

Also, you are taking my comments out of the context of this thread...the poster was inviting a devil's advocate response, and I provided it, using the Philly game as a example.

 

Again, maybe if you read through posts instead of attempting to demonstrate your gridiron genius, that would have dawned on you.

[Money]

You're bringing up balance, I'm saying passing 30x in crappy weather, ignoring Bradshaw, and misusing Jacobs, wasn't a sound plan.

 

I also think it was an error not to play the wind, as Parcells would have done....which came back to kill us in the 4th.

 

Well, the Eagles tossed it around no problem. So maybe we should have passed more. But it's really clear that we made a concentrated effort to run the ball (Jacobs also averaged 4.8 ypc; it's not a supportable claim to say misused), with a 57% run percentage through 3.5 quarters.

 

Perhaps the more reasonable conclusion is to admit the Eagles kicked our asses that day. Which they did...just as they did several weeks earlier

[JMFP]

Well, the Eagles tossed it around no problem. So maybe we should have passed more. But it's really clear that we made a concentrated effort to run the ball (Jacobs also averaged 4.8 ypc; it's not a supportable claim to say misused), with a 57% run percentage through 3.5 quarters.

 

Perhaps the more reasonable conclusion is to admit the Eagles kicked our asses that day. Which they did...just as they did several weeks earlier

 

McNabb: 22-40, 217, 1TD, 2 INT.... hardly a Montana afternoon.

 

I'm sorry, did I say that we kicked the Eagles ass? I must have missed that in my post.

 

My point was this - as stacked as the Giants look on paper heading into 2009, unless they get a better handle on bad-weather (wind) games, they are subject to another one-and-done playoff appearance. Part of that rests on Eli's ability to drive the ball in the wind, and another part rests in Gilbride's ability to put Manning in the most successful situations possible.

 

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01...or-eli-manning/

 

[Money]

McNabb: 22-40, 217, 1TD, 2 INT.... hardly a Montana afternoon.

 

I'm sorry, did I say that we kicked the Eagles ass? I must have missed that in my post.

 

My point was this - as stacked as the Giants look on paper heading into 2009, unless they get a better handle on bad-weather (wind) games, they are subject to another one-and-done playoff appearance. Part of that rests on Eli's ability to drive the ball in the wind, and another part rests in Gilbride's ability to put Manning in the most successful situations possible.

 

You've been suggesting that the Giants lost because the offensive coordinator was foolish and did not call enough running plays (or, at the very least, Gilbride drastically reduced their chances of winning). None of the available evidence confirms that viewpoint. We got pushed around by a superior team, and for that I blame the players on the field and credit the opponents in Philly.

 

I don't think I'd classify that as a bad weather game. It really wasn't that windy. The conditions were worse three weeks earlier against the Panthers ... and way worse in Green Bay...

[JMFP]

You've been suggesting that the Giants lost because the offensive coordinator was foolish and did not call enough running plays (or, at the very least, Gilbride drastically reduced their chances of winning). None of the available evidence confirms that viewpoint. We got pushed around by a superior team, and for that I blame the players on the field and credit the opponents in Philly.

 

I don't think I'd classify that as a bad weather game. It really wasn't that windy. The conditions were worse three weeks earlier against the Panthers ... and way worse in Green Bay...

 

Here is a summary of what I've been suggesting:

 

• I think it qualified as a bad weather game.
• I think the offensive coordinator was foolish...his game plan played to the strength of the opposition. I think Jacobs strength is running between the tackles against an undersized Philly line, as opposed to running parallel to the line of scrimmage.
• I think passing 3x when you have 1st and 5 was idiotic. You make a point concerning Eli's audible, but that only explains one down. And that doens't explain the collective coaching brainlock on both sides of the ball that in completely misplaying the end of the 1st half.
• I think Bradshaw was completely misused. Bradshaw touched the ball 6 times in the return game for 180 yards, including a 65 yard burst. And yet, strangely, Gilbridge couldn't find a role for him on offense? We're talking about the same runningback who in a similar bad weather game (Buffalo 2007 season) saved their playoff chances.
• I mentioned that Eli's bad weather problems lie with wind, and not cold, and I've made a point of mentioning the Green Bay game in that regard.
• I posted the link above to reflect that Eli needs to work on his mechanics with respect to delivering the ball in the Meadowlands, a point that was brought up by Bob Papa and Carl Banks.

[BlueInCanada]

God I cant wait for the season to start......

[NightFire]

This Eagles playoff loss has to be one of the most misremembered and misinterprited games in recent memory.

 

We had 31 rushing attempts to 30 dropbacks, achieving the balance that Coughlin emphasizes throughout the season. Furthermore, we fell behind 23-11 with 4 minutes remaining in the 4th quarter; excluding the two subsequent desparation drives (where we passed the ball on every play), our run/pass ratio was 31:23. Gilbride committed to the run to an extreme measure -- exactly as you knuckleheads asked him to do. You bring up the Ravens game as if it was a masterful example of how to win in poor conditions. Before running out the clock after the game has been decided, our run pass ratio was 26:22...in other words, when the outcomes were still in question, we ran the ball less frequently against the Ravens than we did against the Eagles.

 

BTW, care to guess what the Eagles run/pass ratio was that day? 44 dropbacks, 24 runs. AND THEY WON THE GAME. So this (patently false) argument about Gilbride costing us the game because he didn't call enough running plays is totally misguided and foolish.

 

Let's also not forget that Carney missed two FGs, and I'm guessing those six points would have been useful in the latter stages of the game.

 

Bradshaw gets ignored because he's unreliable in pass protection and has not, to this point, demonstrated acceptable ball security. But hey, let's try to get a walking sack/turnover on the field as much as possible in place of our two 1,000-yard RBs.

 

Re: the 1st and 5. Eli publicly admitted to calling an audible from a run play to a pass play during that sequence.

 

You're right, Manning and Gilbride should watch the '86 NFCCG. At that time, they'll realize that it's quite easy to win when your defense pitches a shutout.

 

Well at least I am not the only one defending Gilbride now. I actually brought up many of these points after the loss but many posters are on the Gilbride hate waggon for some reason. Why more people weren't on the Spagnuolo hate waggon for no sacks is a better question? Really in the end is that you only have one shot and it's why the NFL has to be the hardest league to win a championship in. A few mis-steps in one game and it's over.

[boohyah]

The Eagles were the better team.

 

 

That is all.

[Bigblue25]

I am very hoepful but a little hesitant about this team, I remember 2004 the year after we lost/got screwed by San Fran the year before. I thought boy is this team gonna be pissed and they have enough potential to make a super bowl run and instead the team went 4-12 and basically gave up and it was the hardest season I had the sit through in 20 years of being a Giants fan. I do not see the same scenario playing out under Coughlin, but we could we look at the negatives like Jacobs getting hurt which could be inevitable or having no recievers stepping up which means every team is gonna stack 8 in the box to stop our run, and the before amentioned Kevin Gilbride is our OC (UGH!), but our D has two great corners, the best D-Line in the NFL and now two pass rushing LB's we should be fine and show alot of fire to get back to the super bowl

[Allstarjim]

I'm with Money that we actually should've PASSED more. If you watch that game, on first and second downs we were running into 8 or 9 guys in the box. They were giving us one on one on the outside. Their whole game plan was to take away the run, and they did that well enough to stall our offense. We needed to take more shots downfield, weather be damned. It was tough to throw, but Eli needed to be better than he was in that game.

 

Part of Money's point earlier was that although the ending ratio was 31:30 run to pass, our commitment to the run was much more than that in the early going. We had to pass in the 4th down 23-11, and when you HAVE to pass, you have a pretty easy offense to defend, especially in windy conditions.

 

I think that game was mismanaged, however, I think it was mismanaged because of opposite reasons most people here think. In my view, we didn't challenge them in the pass when they were daring us to do so *EDIT*, particularly in the first 3 quarters. All we needed was to break 2 big plays when they were stacked up on the line, and we probably win that game.