IF Gillbride is gone, who do you want?

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

I'm so pissed right now.....have to wait 8 months for another meaningful Giants game....

[boohyah]

LOL.

 

We DESTROYED the Redskins 4 weeks ago with out O'Hara and our number 1 and 2 receivers.

 

 

Yes, but don't you remember how O'Hara forced himself back into ther lineup and single handedly lost 2 games for us?. Bastard!

[Herc]

I'm so pissed right now.....have to wait 8 months for another meaningful Giants game....

 

don't worry, the 1-3 2011 december record will end up rendering all the games meaningless

[fringe]

LOL.

 

We DESTROYED the Redskins 4 weeks ago with out O'Hara and our number 1 and 2 receivers.

LOL

we got 200 yards rushing in that game with seubert at center. he's a bit more experienced than boothe

[RandolphScott]

LOL

we got 200 yards rushing in that game with seubert at center. he's a bit more experienced than boothe

 

 

Premise is still the same. You said without our starting center, who is O'Hara.

[fringe]

Premise is still the same. You said without our starting center, who is O'Hara.

 

i said without a center.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

don't worry, the 1-3 2011 december record will end up rendering all the games meaningless

 

Here's hoping for a lockout .....but I bet the Mara's will want to introduce a rule requiring each team to hire an Irish Catholic BC Alum for life...in honor of the Duke....Wellington Mara.

[Herc]

i can't waitt til he's coaching from the box upstairs at age 84 like joe paterno

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

Jesus H. Christ....with IV's snaking out of his ass.

[JMFP]

Yeah sure Josh McDaniel. Because the locker room is too united right now. We need another failed Belichek hoodie disciple who likes to start trouble.

 

 

Nothing wrong with Gilbride.

 

I agree.....McDaniel seems like a punk. Pass.

 

I disagree on Killdrive.....I think either he needs to change up his gameplan, or take a powder.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

No...the Giants view the OC like a Prophet from the Old Testament....only GOD can choose him ....and only GOD can lose him.

[fishgutmartyr]

Let's see if I'm following this correctly: the defense had an epic choke job two weeks ago, never showed last week, and we won this week--so fire the OC?

[so-cal dub]

Let's see if I'm following this correctly: the defense had an epic choke job two weeks ago, never showed last week, and we won this week--so fire the OC?

Gillbride is predictable and too bland for this team. He wants to play "smash mouth" with a team that is more geared for the pass.

 

Then when we should be running the clock, he's calling pass plays. It's easy for the defense to choke when they're on the field all quarter long because the OC is calling pass plays and is WAY predictable on runs.

[fishgutmartyr]

Gillbride is predictable and too bland for this team. He wants to play "smash mouth" with a team that is more geared for the pass.

Is that why I spent nearly a week arguing with VG about how the offense needed to throw to some degree in the second half of the Philly game?

Then when we should be running the clock, he's calling pass plays. It's easy for the defense to choke when they're on the field all quarter long because the OC is calling pass plays and is WAY predictable on runs.

Sorry. This team fell behind too early too often for that to be an excuse. Besides, they had to defend a whopping 7 minutes in the 4th quarter of the Philly game, and failed miserably.

 

I don't think Gilbride is an offensive genius, but I don't think he's the problem with this team.

[Storm]

Is that why I spent nearly a week arguing with VG about how the offense needed to throw to some degree in the second half of the Philly game?

 

Sorry. This team fell behind too early too often for that to be an excuse. Besides, they had to defend a whopping 7 minutes in the 4th quarter of the Philly game, and failed miserably.

 

I don't think Gilbride is an offensive genius, but I don't think he's the problem with this team.

 

They would fall behind because Gilbride came out calling cookie cutter offensive plays, going 3 and out, gaining barely any yards, and subsequently allowing the special teams to give the other team good field position. Then, the defense would give up points early on when, I'm assuming, Fewell must have been doing the same god damn thing with his players. At least, that's how I remember it.

 

We lost the field position game all year, had trouble sustaining drives, had a complicated and convoluted offense that inexplicably wasn't simplified when wide receivers and offensive lineman went down all season. Most importantly, this caused us to throw many interceptions. I won't blame the fumbles on Gilbride because all NFL players should be able to hold on to the ball by now, but the scheme is definitely partly to blame for the increase in INTs.

 

He's not THE problem, but he certainly isn't (or shouldn't be) part of the solution.

[NightFire]

Yeah sure Josh McDaniel. Because the locker room is too united right now. We need another failed Belichek hoodie disciple who likes to start trouble.

 

 

Nothing wrong with Gilbride.

 

Preach on brother. Most posters don't care about the facts and I have defended Gilbride many times before. When people point out that the Giants didn't beat any teams with winning records (except the Bears) how about we take a look at those scores:

 

Colts L, 38-14

Titans L, 29-10

Cowboys L, 33-20

Eagles L, 27-17

Eagles L, 38-31

Packers L, 45-17

 

So I am thinking Fewel or maybe getting a real LB is the problem. The Giants aren't going to score 35 points a game, average score of those 6 loses, on O no matter who the OC is (especially turning the ball over at least 2 times a game).

[Allstarjim]

Preach on brother. Most posters don't care about the facts and I have defended Gilbride many times before. When people point out that the Giants didn't beat any teams with winning records (except the Bears) how about we take a look at those scores:

 

Colts L, 38-14

Titans L, 29-10

Cowboys L, 33-20

Eagles L, 27-17

Eagles L, 38-31

Packers L, 45-17

 

So I am thinking Fewel or maybe getting a real LB is the problem. The Giants aren't going to score 35 points a game, average score of those 6 loses, on O no matter who the OC is (especially turning the ball over at least 2 times a game).

 

Yeah, look at those scores... 14 points against the Colts? 10 points against the TITANS? 20 points against a Cowboys team with NO pass defense?

 

How about we go deeper into those games:

 

Colts game:

 

3 points - 2nd quarter INT by ELI sets up IND on own 38, they get a FG.

7 points - 2nd quarter Eli fumbles sets up IND on NYG 45, Peyton throws subsequent TD pass.

7 points - 3rd quarter Eli fumbles deep in own territory, Defense returns fumble 1 yard for TD.

7 points - 4th quarter, inability of offense to gain a first down forces Dodge to punt from own 9 yard line, IND set up at own 45, converts short field into TD.

 

Game Summary: 10 points by IND offense off turnovers, 7 points scored by IND defense, 7 points scored off a short field because offense couldn't get a 1st down in the 4th quarter with the game essentially on the line. That's 24 points. Giants turn the ball over 3 times.

 

Tennessee Game:

 

3 points - 1st Quarter Eli INT sets up TEN Offense on TEN 49... DEF allows 7 plays, 19 yards, TEN gets FG

7 points - 2nd Quarter Missed FG by Tynes gives TEN with short field from own 43, Chris Johnson scores.

2 points - 3rd Quarter Ahmad Bradshaw Chop Block penalty in endzone gives TEN a safety.

7 points - 3rd Quarter, ensuing free kick after safety gives TEN ball at own 49, Kenny Britt receiving TD.

3 points - 4th Quarter Missed FG by Tynes sets up TEN on own 49 AGAIN, Bironas gets FG.

 

Game Summary - 3 points off turnovers, 2 points scored by TEN defense, 17 points scored off short fields because of missed FGs by Tynes and the possession after the safety, which is essentially another turnover. (Really should be 10 points off turnovers). Giants turn the ball over 3 times.

 

Dallas game:

 

7 points - Eli INT returned 101 yards for a TD 2nd quarter (14 point swing).

3 points - When drive stalls at own 12, Dodge with a poor punt, DAL starts drive at NYG 44.

 

Game Summary - 7 points scored by Dallas DEF, 3 off a poor punt, Giants turn the ball over 3 times.

 

1st Philly game

 

3 points - 2nd quarter fumble by Bradshaw sets up Akers FG, PHI starts on NYG 23.

3 points - 2nd quarter, INT by Eli sets up Akers FG, PHI starts on NYG 13.

3 points - 4th quarter, Eli fumbles on first down scramble, PHI clinches game with FG,

drive starts at PHI 40

 

Game Summary- 9 points by Eagles off turnovers. Giants turn the ball over FIVE times. Eagles only win by 10... what does that tell you about how our defense played?

 

2nd Philly game

 

3 points - End of 1st quarter Eli INT at NYG 45 sets up Akers FG beginning of 2nd quarter.

7 points - 3rd quarter Eli INT sets up Phi at NYG 25... Vick passes for TD.

7 points - 4th quarter PHI recovers onside kick at own 43, scores on Vick 4 yard TD run (Vick 35 yard run on drive)

7 - Desean Jackson returns Dodges line drive punt for 65 yard TD.

 

Game Summary - 10 points off turnovers, 14 off special teams blunders. Giants turn the ball over twice, lose by 7.

 

Green Bay game

 

3 points - Second quarter fumble by Bradshaw sets up FG, Drive starts at 50 yd line

7 points- 4th Quarter INT by Eli sets up GB on NYG 46, Rodgers throws TD pass

7 points- 4th Quarter INT by Eli sets up Gb on NYG 49, Rodgers throws TD pass (back to back drives)

 

Game Summary - Green Bay 17 points off turnovers, Giants turn the ball over SIX effing times!

 

 

I will say this, despite the bad spots the Giants defense was put in this year in these games (and others), they played outstanding with the exception of the Green Bay game and the Indianapolis game. And those two games Fewell employed a terrible scheme that Rodgers and Peyton exploited easily, and Fewell failed to adjust until it was too late. But still, after all these turnovers, all these gift wrapped possessions starting in Giants territory, what do you expect out of this defense? The '85 Bears wouldn't have done much better in some of these games. It is a testament that they didn't give up more points off of turnovers than they did... there were very few long, sustained drives by opponents this year. Point being, if we win field position battles, we usually win the game because our defense has been good enough to stop them.... but we cannot ask our defense to continually make stops when they are constantly going back out on the field off of turnovers and defending these short fields...

 

You look at some of those big scores put up by opponents and you say, wow, our defense really didn't do well, but they played GREAT given the circumstances... those big scores are on our OFFENSE. And many of those turnovers are on Gilbride for his terrible situational play-calling, and by not employing a simpler offense when the pre-snap miscommunications were leading to a lot of interceptions. Shame on Gilbride and Eli for allowing the shit we saw this year on offense. We win at least half of those games if we cut those turnovers just in half.

 

For our team to have turned the ball over a HISTORIC amount of times this season, and us pull out 10 wins... THAT is a testament to how good our defense was this year.

[fishgutmartyr]

They would fall behind because Gilbride came out calling cookie cutter offensive plays, going 3 and out, gaining barely any yards, and subsequently allowing the special teams to give the other team good field position. Then, the defense would give up points early on when, I'm assuming, Fewell must have been doing the same god damn thing with his players. At least, that's how I remember it.

 

We lost the field position game all year, had trouble sustaining drives, had a complicated and convoluted offense that inexplicably wasn't simplified when wide receivers and offensive lineman went down all season. Most importantly, this caused us to throw many interceptions. I won't blame the fumbles on Gilbride because all NFL players should be able to hold on to the ball by now, but the scheme is definitely partly to blame for the increase in INTs.

 

He's not THE problem, but he certainly isn't (or shouldn't be) part of the solution.

I'll give you credit, Storm, this is a new angle. Blaming Gilbride for the special teams not being able to cover a bed with a blanket...But I'll agree that the turnovers did contribute to losing the field position battle.

 

So, what I've learned from this thread is that Gilbride sucks because:

 

1. He tries to play smashmouth football with a passing team;
   
2. He passes too much and doesn't eat the clock;
   
3. Despite having multiple games where 3 or more touchdowns were scored, he can't sustain drives;
   
4. A scheme that's been in place for years is suddenly too difficult for the wide receivers to handle;
   
5. He needed to gain more yardage because the special teams gave up too much yardage on punts.
   

 

Do you see the massive contradictory/borderline surreal arguments here? Half of you want a Ron Earhardt offense without the line, fullback, or a running back capable of holding on to the ball; while the other wants to go Air Coryell. We averaged 24.6 points a game--you have to average at least 3 long drives a game to do that.

 

The passing scheme. Smith's been here for 4 years, Manningham for 3 years. Nicks was in his second year here, and Hagan was as well (he was here last year, and was with us the entire preseason). Granted, we might not be talking MENSA material, but how fucking hard is it to pick a route--particularly when you've been playing the same scheme with the same QB for multiple years and it's the first one you've learned after college? Honestly, the only legit candidate for this argument is Duke Calhoun.

 

Still, if you guys want to blame some of the interceptions on Gilbride, go ahead. But what about the fumbles, PARTICULARLY the ones that happened in the open field? Does he bench Manning for that hideous slide in the first Philly game? Who do you bench when BOTH your running backs are fumbling like it's part of the job description? Is it the OC's fault if the WR fumbles during a run after the catch?

 

Wouldn't it be a lot less convoluted if we admit that maybe the players turned the ball over too much; that maybe the defense was improved, but wasn't the best in the damn league; and the special teams did NOTHING to help offense or defense?

 

Nah, fire Gilbride.

[Allstarjim]

You know what, without all the damn turnovers we saw, we beat Dallas both games, we beat Philly both games, and we beat Tennessee... I still think with the way we played on both sides of the ball we probably still lose to Indy in Green Bay, but I'm putting 4 losses squarely on the offense's inability to hang on to the football, as well as special team screw ups. Think about how this team could've had 14 wins this year. It's really not that hard to imagine if you remember those other 4 losses well.

[Allstarjim]

I'll give you credit, Storm, this is a new angle. Blaming Gilbride for the special teams not being able to cover a bed with a blanket...But I'll agree that the turnovers did contribute to losing the field position battle.

 

So, what I've learned from this thread is that Gilbride sucks because:

 

1. He tries to play smashmouth football with a passing team;
   
2. He passes too much and doesn't eat the clock;
   
3. Despite having multiple games where 3 or more touchdowns were scored, he can't sustain drives;
   
4. A scheme that's been in place for years is suddenly too difficult for the wide receivers to handle;
   
5. He needed to gain more yardage because the special teams gave up too much yardage on punts.
   

 

Do you see the massive contradictory/borderline surreal arguments here? Half of you want a Ron Earhardt offense without the line, fullback, or a running back capable of holding on to the ball; while the other wants to go Air Coryell. We averaged 24.6 points a game--you have to average at least 3 long drives a game to do that.

 

The passing scheme. Smith's been here for 4 years, Manningham for 3 years. Nicks was in his second year here, and Hagan was as well (he was here last year, and was with us the entire preseason). Granted, we might not be talking MENSA material, but how fucking hard is it to pick a route--particularly when you've been playing the same scheme with the same QB for multiple years and it's the first one you've learned after college? Honestly, the only legit candidate for this argument is Duke Calhoun.

 

Still, if you guys want to blame some of the interceptions on Gilbride, go ahead. But what about the fumbles, PARTICULARLY the ones that happened in the open field? Does he bench Manning for that hideous slide in the first Philly game? Who do you bench when BOTH your running backs are fumbling like it's part of the job description? Is it the OC's fault if the WR fumbles during a run after the catch?

 

Wouldn't it be a lot less convoluted if we admit that maybe the players turned the ball over too much; that maybe the defense was improved, but wasn't the best in the damn league; and the special teams did NOTHING to help offense or defense?

 

Nah, fire Gilbride.

 

Fish, when you lose Smith and Nicks to injuries and you have guys running routes like Clayton and Hagan, and Manningham is your number one, yes, it's time to go to a simpler offense. It not only led to a lot of turnovers, but a lot of incompletions (the pre-snap read offense). Plus, let me address your 24.6 points/3 long drives per game argument... we also forced an NFL record number of fumbles this year... that was our defense... I can go game by game and tell you how many times our offense benefitted from turnovers caused by our defense if you want, but I'd prefer not to! At times, our offense was very good, I'll give you that. Fish, those times were usually when we had Nicks and Smith both healthy. And there were times where we just played bad defenses and just bad teams... remember, we only beat one team with a winning record this year, that was Chicago, and it was our DEFENSE that absolutely dominated that game. If you just looked at stats and numbers, you might think our offense is ok, but when you re-live those games... you remember watching what we watched.... you HAVE to admit that this offense wasn't efficient at best and completely miserable at times. The way this season went, Gilbride's offense is one of the primary reasons that sunk this team. It's partly on the Special Teams, too, but we could've overcome that if our offense could turn field position around in these games and get a few more scores, and they COULDN'T DO IT!

[Nas]

I think Pat Flaherty has done a tremendous job with that offensive line.....if they promote from within, he should get consideration.

 

I don't know man.. if it ain't broken, don't fix it.. and the OLine is doing fine WITH Flaherty. Besides I'm still not over the last time we promoted from within ::cough:: ::sheridan:: ::cough::

[Nas]

I'm so pissed right now.....have to wait 8 months for another meaningful Giants game....

 

8 months and 7 days, T

[fishgutmartyr]

Fish, when you lose Smith and Nicks to injuries and you have guys running routes like Clayton and Hagan, and Manningham is your number one, yes, it's time to go to a simpler offense. It not only led to a lot of turnovers, but a lot of incompletions (the pre-snap read offense). Plus, let me address your 24.6 points/3 long drives per game argument... we also forced an NFL record number of fumbles this year... that was our defense... I can go game by game and tell you how many times our offense benefitted from turnovers caused by our defense if you want, but I'd prefer not to! At times, our offense was very good, I'll give you that. Fish, those times were usually when we had Nicks and Smith both healthy. And there were times where we just played bad defenses and just bad teams... remember, we only beat one team with a winning record this year, that was Chicago, and it was our DEFENSE that absolutely dominated that game. If you just looked at stats and numbers, you might think our offense is ok, but when you re-live those games... you remember watching what we watched.... you HAVE to admit that this offense wasn't efficient at best and completely miserable at times. The way this season went, Gilbride's offense is one of the primary reasons that sunk this team. It's partly on the Special Teams, too, but we could've overcome that if our offense could turn field position around in these games and get a few more scores, and they COULDN'T DO IT!

 

Jim, I'm not even arguing that the offense was efficient--for the exact same reason you're citing: turnovers. What I'm not seeing is how the OC's scheme is the guilty party when both running backs are having a contest on who gets the ball stripped more, the wide receivers are running with the ball after catches like it was coated with a staff infection, and your QB is throwing into 2-3 man coverage far more than necessary. You want a body count on the coaching staff? Feel free to fire the QB coach, WRs coach, and the RB coach--clearly, those guys were not drilling fundamentals into their charges. Kill Quinn.

 

To me the really frustrating part about our offense was that even with multiple turnovers/game, we were still racking up high scores. Could you imagine what we could have done if we had even half the turnovers? You have to admit, when we weren't shooting ourselves, we were moving the ball.

 

Jim, Hagan knows our offense. He's been in it for two years. Barden knew our offense. Those were two of the guys replacing Smith/Nicks earlier on. Manningham had better know our offense by now. Clayton, OK, but did he play the last game only? I don't recall seeing much of him. But I've got to ask: are you sure Gilbride didn't simplify the offense and he was just rusty?

 

We played who was on our schedule. When we played Houston, they were above .500. When we beat the Bears, it looked like they were going to drop out of contention for a few weeks. Jacksonville was in contention for the AFC South crown up until a couple weeks ago. We defeated the division-winning Seattle Seahawks (I have no shame! ). And we should have beaten the Eagles at the very least in that second game. On a whole, we beat who we should have beat, got to 10-6, and in other seasons, would have been in the playoffs.

 

Aside from you having the gall to disagree with me , I hope you're safe and sound. Get home soon.

[ksm7]

Jim, I'm not even arguing that the offense was efficient--for the exact same reason you're citing: turnovers. What I'm not seeing is how the OC's scheme is the guilty party when both running backs are having a contest on who gets the ball stripped more, the wide receivers are running with the ball after catches like it was coated with a staff infection, and your QB is throwing into 2-3 man coverage far more than necessary. You want a body count on the coaching staff? Feel free to fire the QB coach, WRs coach, and the RB coach--clearly, those guys were not drilling fundamentals into their charges. Kill Quinn.

 

To me the really frustrating part about our offense was that even with multiple turnovers/game, we were still racking up high scores. Could you imagine what we could have done if we had even half the turnovers? You have to admit, when we weren't shooting ourselves, we were moving the ball.

 

Jim, Hagan knows our offense. He's been in it for two years. Barden knew our offense. Those were two of the guys replacing Smith/Nicks earlier on. Manningham had better know our offense by now. Clayton, OK, but did he play the last game only? I don't recall seeing much of him. But I've got to ask: are you sure Gilbride didn't simplify the offense and he was just rusty?

 

We played who was on our schedule. When we played Houston, they were above .500. When we beat the Bears, it looked like they were going to drop out of contention for a few weeks. Jacksonville was in contention for the AFC South crown up until a couple weeks ago. We defeated the division-winning Seattle Seahawks (I have no shame! ). And we should have beaten the Eagles at the very least in that second game. On a whole, we beat who we should have beat, got to 10-6, and in other seasons, would have been in the playoffs.

 

Aside from you having the gall to disagree with me , I hope you're safe and sound. Get home soon.

 

you know it is funny, no other OC falls under such scrutiny with an offense that puts up points and numbers the way the giants offense has. but one thing the dog wonders is, given the young receivers, a QB that is mistake prone (sorry, but when he is about to be sacked in the latter stages of a close game against the redskins, and ignorantly tosses the ball backwards to bradshaw standing 9 yards deep in the backfield, that is poor play on the QB, not the OC...and is indicative of what took place throughout the year...lucky for him it was not recovered by washington, or they would be 9-7 and his poor decision making would be that much more in the forefront), is it wise to bring in a new coordinator and start over with a new system?

 

last year it was the defensive coordinator's fault. now it is the OC and the head coach...the dog wonders, when does the accountability fall onto the prima donna players...the same ones that went to coughlin 3 years ago saying he was too strict of a coach and needed to relent...so he met them halfway to his credit, changing his approach to meet with success...now he is getting nailed for not being tough enough b/c his star players are turning the ball over...too funny.

[fringe]

you know it is funny, no other OC falls under such scrutiny with an offense that puts up points and numbers the way the giants offense has. but one thing the dog wonders is, given the young receivers, a QB that is mistake prone (sorry, but when he is about to be sacked in the latter stages of a close game against the redskins, and ignorantly tosses the ball backwards to bradshaw standing 9 yards deep in the backfield, that is poor play on the QB, not the OC...and is indicative of what took place throughout the year...lucky for him it was not recovered by washington, or they would be 9-7 and his poor decision making would be that much more in the forefront), is it wise to bring in a new coordinator and start over with a new system?

 

last year it was the defensive coordinator's fault. now it is the OC and the head coach...the dog wonders, when does the accountability fall onto the prima donna players...the same ones that went to coughlin 3 years ago saying he was too strict of a coach and needed to relent...so he met them halfway to his credit, changing his approach to meet with success...now he is getting nailed for not being tough enough b/c his star players are turning the ball over...too funny.

 

 

I like Coughlin but when Belicheck gets his team to have +28 turnover ratio and we have a -3 while leading the league in takeaways that's on the coach.

 

Also, when we have something like a 735 winnng % in the first 8 games and approx 335 in the last 8 games that's on the coach.