Herc Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 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. well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 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. the dog is not so sure that turnovers lay at the feet of the coach. maybe in part, but again, how much film study, drilling at practice and demoting can a coach do to ensure that the players don't fumble, and the QB doesn't throw into coverage? eventually the players have to be accountable for that. maybe the argument that the picks are a result of a complicated offense has some validity...maybe. but you have a number of picks that are a direct result of poor decision making on the field by the player. coughlin's late season record is overblown. if you exclude his first season when the team finished 6-10, and the dog will only because the team was 5-4 when they turned the ball over to manning as a rookie QB who predicatably struggled as a rookie, his winning percentage over the final 8 games of the season from 2005-2010 is 47%. below 500, but when you see that of those 6 seasons, only twice did they have a below 500 record in the last 8 games (2006 and 2009), it really isn't as bad as it seems. not spectacular, but not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 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. This is the reason why I don't understand the vitriol towards Gilbride. Hell when the D collapsed in Eagles game the first thread was how bad Gilbride is. The DC always gets a pass, well except Sheridan. There isn't a lot more he could have done with 42 turnovers in a season, Giants 3rd overall in total yards this year. He couldn't bench Eli, although it may have been a good idea, Jacobs and Bradshaw, if I was the coach I'd have put him as a healthy scratch to wake him up. To be honest I think Coughlin should have went ape shit at around game 7 and benched some players to get their head in the game. Turnovers are what dooms your season and Coughlin didn't get pissed off enough over the mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringe Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 the dog is not so sure that turnovers lay at the feet of the coach. maybe in part, but again, how much film study, drilling at practice and demoting can a coach do to ensure that the players don't fumble, and the QB doesn't throw into coverage? eventually the players have to be accountable for that. maybe the argument that the picks are a result of a complicated offense has some validity...maybe. but you have a number of picks that are a direct result of poor decision making on the field by the player. coughlin's late season record is overblown. if you exclude his first season when the team finished 6-10, and the dog will only because the team was 5-4 when they turned the ball over to manning as a rookie QB who predicatably struggled as a rookie, his winning percentage over the final 8 games of the season from 2005-2010 is 47%. below 500, but when you see that of those 6 seasons, only twice did they have a below 500 record in the last 8 games (2006 and 2009), it really isn't as bad as it seems. not spectacular, but not bad. In Coughlin's opening speech as the Giants coach, he said he would cut down on injuries and turnovers. This team used to own December when Parcells was coaching. Now we get owned. Again, not saying he's got to go, but he has to take responsibility and make swift changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 right. the whole "nothing is wrong here" attitude that popped up from ownership and the office as soon as the last game was over is what bugs me the most. last season we collapsed in the 2nd half, went 9-7 and mara made threats. this season we collapsed in the 2nd half, won 1 extra game and those who are in charge's job status 'were never in doubt'. fuck that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 8 months and 7 days, T Coming out to Nassau right now smart ass.... I have not forgotten German Halle Berry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steitzenhaus Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Ok my cynicism is going to end. After the last few days I thought maybe this team doesn't have the talent and perhaps that's valid until next season when they show us they can beat what we constitute as a good team. But I think that train of thought is wrong. When you lose the battle in field position on a weekly basis and lead the league in turnovers you are not going anywhere. Special teams has always been an issue for the Giants but it has gotten to the point where there needs to be major overhauls in order to be even a respectable unit. There were exactly two games the entire year the Giants weren't in the game. Indy and Green Bay. I don't think it's a coincidence those teams had the two best quarterbacks we played all year. Another year for Fewell to work out the kinks could go a long way. Upgrade linebacker and figure out what to do with the special teams. As sloppy as this team was they won 10 games and were still alive even after they played the worst 4 1/2 quarters of football I have ever seen. That's either a backhanded compliment or it reveals a deep seeded problem within the team. I can't keep thinking about it so I'm going to hope the areas of weakness are fixable and this team gets back on track next year. Fuck the Eagles let's go Packers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 right. the whole "nothing is wrong here" attitude that popped up from ownership and the office as soon as the last game was over is what bugs me the most. last season we collapsed in the 2nd half, went 9-7 and mara made threats. this season we collapsed in the 2nd half, won 1 extra game and those who are in charge's job status 'were never in doubt'. fuck that If it makes you feel any better, we were 8-8 in 2009. But I suspect it doesn't. I'm not really sure why you guys are not expecting changes because they weren't announced yet. Coughlin is borderline OCD, The turnovers and mistakes must have made him crazy all year. I'm guessing there's going to be some staff changes--probably the Special Teams coach, and more (though I doubt at the coordinator level). You don't have every hands player dropping balls all season without recognizing a systemic problem on your staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 no, it doesn't. 18-14 is an underachieving record for this roster im sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 no, it doesn't. 18-14 is an underachieving record for this roster im sorry This roster went 10-6. 2009 didn't have Rolle, Grant, or even Phillips for any length of time. We didn't have much in the way of a healthy Canty, Tuck, or Boley. No middle linebacker. Fewell wasn't even on that roster. It's not really fair to lump the two teams together like that. This version, with all its flaws, was much better than the 2009 edition. This year was just frustrating because we could have done so much more if we had simply held on to the ball. Last year when we got to the meat of the season, it was obvious we weren't competitive. 2009 was a truly wasted season. And believe me, at my age, I don't enjoy wasted seasons, because I've noticed I have fewer and fewer left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 This roster went 10-6. 2009 didn't have Rolle, Grant, or even Phillips for any length of time. We didn't have much in the way of a healthy Canty, Tuck, or Boley. No middle linebacker. Fewell wasn't even on that roster. It's not really fair to lump the two teams together like that. This version, with all its flaws, was much better than the 2009 edition. This year was just frustrating because we could have done so much more if we had simply held on to the ball. Last year when we got to the meat of the season, it was obvious we weren't competitive. 2009 was a truly wasted season. And believe me, at my age, I don't enjoy wasted seasons, because I've noticed I have fewer and fewer left. Typical Giants though. When the D plays well the O decides to shit the bed and if the O plays well the D shits the bed (Eagles game). It's difficult to get a complete game out of the Giants. The woman always asks why I am so cynical towards the Giants and I told after a few seasons she will join me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStroud Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Moses...........we need a savior of Biblical proportion How about Dick Vermeil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia Giant Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 If Gilly is gone, I'll take my high school head coach, now that guy knew how to run the ball. Though, we did only win 4 games my senior year, and that was like 2 more than any of the previous 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now