If you're not outraged at this season....

[Allstarjim]

I think this has to do with our D being worn down. The Giants were scoring too quickly.. giving the D very little rest... this explains late game and late season collapses...

 

 

Actually, if you look at my post that showed HOW the opposing team scored in each one of our losses, you will see that time and time again that the offense either turned the ball over deep in our own territory, gave very good field position to the opponent by not being able to get a first down, or their were special teams blunders that directly led to points by the opponent. Or it was the opposing defense/special teams directly scoring points themselves... Funny how the football genius had no response to that post.

 

Again, analyzing each loss, it wasn't so much our offense scoring too quickly, which did happen at times, it was turnovers and ineffectiveness that put the defense back on the field very quickly... so yes, you are on the right track, Nas, the defense I'm sure gets tired after going right back onto the field after back to back interceptions by the opponent.

 

Yet some people are still so clueless as to see how the status quo offense that was never shaken up all year despite injuries and ineffectiveness, continued to lead to turnovers. So many NFL analysts and NY sports personalities have already talked about the Giants failure to do some of these things, but of course it's just Storm and I that are morons because we didn't actually see what we saw OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

[fishgutmartyr]

Jim, of course the offense looked bad in losses. So did the defense. That's why they were losses. But on the other hand, there were 10 games we won, and in those, we were moving the ball, scoring plenty of points, and doing it even with turnovers.

 

There will be occasions offenses don't move the ball. That's why every team employs a punter. Sadly, our special teams didn't get the job done.

 

The bottom line is everyone knew they couldn't go far without correcting the turnovers (I won't even bother talking about special teams). They didn't, and that falls on the QB, RB, and WR coaches; not to mention the players involved. You can't blame scheme for fumbles; and not every interception falls on it, either.

 

My only real bone of contention with you (if you even want to call it that) is that replacing Gilbride wouldn't solve the problem unless those coaches are replaced as well. Considering that the QB and WR coaches were just put in place this past year, I think there is a distinct possibility of that happening in the next few months. Quinn might go even sooner.

 

In the meantime, this much-maligned scheme of Gilbride's has provided more offense for the Giants than any I've seen since I started watching them. Certainly more than Ron Erhardt's play calling, which would probably not work in this current league, with this current defense (The NFL was a run-first league in the 80's, and we had 2 HOF'ers for linebackers in a defense more than capable of utterly stifling an offense). You want to see predictability? Watch one of those games outside of '86. Run, Joe Morris. Run, Joe Morris. Pass to either Galbreath or Bavaro. It's a tribute to Morris, Bavaro, and Maurice Carthon that it even worked as well as it did. That's a big reason why I can't wrap my head around why so many of you guys consistently call for Gilbride's head.

[Storm]

Jim, of course the offense looked bad in losses. So did the defense. That's why they were losses. But on the other hand, there were 10 games we won, and in those, we were moving the ball, scoring plenty of points, and doing it even with turnovers.

 

There will be occasions offenses don't move the ball. That's why every team employs a punter. Sadly, our special teams didn't get the job done.

 

The bottom line is everyone knew they couldn't go far without correcting the turnovers (I won't even bother talking about special teams). They didn't, and that falls on the QB, RB, and WR coaches; not to mention the players involved. You can't blame scheme for fumbles; and not every interception falls on it, either.

 

My only real bone of contention with you (if you even want to call it that) is that replacing Gilbride wouldn't solve the problem unless those coaches are replaced as well. Considering that the QB and WR coaches were just put in place this past year, I think there is a distinct possibility of that happening in the next few months. Quinn might go even sooner.

 

In the meantime, this much-maligned scheme of Gilbride's has provided more offense for the Giants than any I've seen since I started watching them. Certainly more than Ron Erhardt's play calling, which would probably not work in this current league, with this current defense (The NFL was a run-first league in the 80's, and we had 2 HOF'ers for linebackers in a defense more than capable of utterly stifling an offense). You want to see predictability? Watch one of those games outside of '86. Run, Joe Morris. Run, Joe Morris. Pass to either Galbreath or Bavaro. It's a tribute to Morris, Bavaro, and Maurice Carthon that it even worked as well as it did. That's a big reason why I can't wrap my head around why so many of you guys consistently call for Gilbride's head.

 

That was because we beat up on the bottom feeders of the NFL. Put us up against a good team and we're stymied.

[Allstarjim]

Jim, of course the offense looked bad in losses. So did the defense. That's why they were losses. But on the other hand, there were 10 games we won, and in those, we were moving the ball, scoring plenty of points, and doing it even with turnovers.

 

There will be occasions offenses don't move the ball. That's why every team employs a punter. Sadly, our special teams didn't get the job done.

 

The bottom line is everyone knew they couldn't go far without correcting the turnovers (I won't even bother talking about special teams). They didn't, and that falls on the QB, RB, and WR coaches; not to mention the players involved. You can't blame scheme for fumbles; and not every interception falls on it, either.

 

My only real bone of contention with you (if you even want to call it that) is that replacing Gilbride wouldn't solve the problem unless those coaches are replaced as well. Considering that the QB and WR coaches were just put in place this past year, I think there is a distinct possibility of that happening in the next few months. Quinn might go even sooner.

 

In the meantime, this much-maligned scheme of Gilbride's has provided more offense for the Giants than any I've seen since I started watching them. Certainly more than Ron Erhardt's play calling, which would probably not work in this current league, with this current defense (The NFL was a run-first league in the 80's, and we had 2 HOF'ers for linebackers in a defense more than capable of utterly stifling an offense). You want to see predictability? Watch one of those games outside of '86. Run, Joe Morris. Run, Joe Morris. Pass to either Galbreath or Bavaro. It's a tribute to Morris, Bavaro, and Maurice Carthon that it even worked as well as it did. That's a big reason why I can't wrap my head around why so many of you guys consistently call for Gilbride's head.

 

 

I hear you fish, and the points you made here are exactly why I've defended Gilbride in the past. However, ever since that 2008 Philly playoff game, we have failed miserably every time we've played them, particularly on offense, and it had a lot to do with the offensive game management. I'm not putting the fumbles on Gilbride. And not all the INT's are on him either. What can you do when an open receiver tips the ball up in the air.... or when Eli has a brain cramp and lefty throws the ball to the other team like he did against Tennessee. There's blame to be passed. I don't think Gilbride's the worst coordinator in the NFL, I really don't. At times I agree with you, his game plans are solid and they work... against weaker competition. My problem with him is that in the big games his game plan is too vanilla, play-calling to predictable, and as a result we get put in all these 3rd and longs and resulting INTs. How many times do you have to see Philly load the box with us on 1st down and still run up the middle? And then on second and 10, he does the same thing!

 

What I said before is what a lot of people are saying... no play action, no 2 minute offense that Eli runs very well, not a lot of misdirection that seems to work great against us. Here's my take on Gilbride... he's just good enough to win 10 games in a weak NFC. I don't think our offense can take the next step with him in charge. That's my main point. This is several years of seeing the same thing, I didn't come to this conclusion from just watching this season, just that this season clinched it for me. WIth the personnel we have, our offense could've been a lot more dynamic than it was. I fail to see how Gilbride came close to getting the best there is out of this offense.

[fishgutmartyr]

That was because we beat up on the bottom feeders of the NFL. Put us up against a good team and we're stymied.

Were we stymied because of opposing defenses, or our own fuck-ups? I remember Bradshaw fumbling inside the opponent's 10 a few times, interceptions in the endzone, etc. Those are not necessarily signs of defensive domination.

 

We played Houston early in the season, when they came out strong, Jacksonville while they were still in contention, and we were in the running against Philly twice.

 

We utterly dominated Chicago on both sides of the ball, even if the score doesn't necessarily reflect it. Again, and as usual for this season, turnovers cut down our score.

 

Can we stop going in circles now?

[fringe]

In the meantime, this much-maligned scheme of Gilbride's has provided more offense for the Giants than any I've seen since I started watching them. Certainly more than Ron Erhardt's play calling, which would probably not work in this current league, with this current defense (The NFL was a run-first league in the 80's, and we had 2 HOF'ers for linebackers in a defense more than capable of utterly stifling an offense). You want to see predictability? Watch one of those games outside of '86. Run, Joe Morris. Run, Joe Morris. Pass to either Galbreath or Bavaro. It's a tribute to Morris, Bavaro, and Maurice Carthon that it even worked as well as it did. That's a big reason why I can't wrap my head around why so many of you guys consistently call for Gilbride's head.

 

Glory Days, yea they pass you by...

[Herc]

offense in general is up since those days

[Nas]

That was because we beat up on the bottom feeders of the NFL. Put us up against a good team and we're stymied.

 

Didn't we beat Chicago? Didn't we dominate the fuck out of Philly.. up till those infamous 8 minutes?

[JMFP]

Alot has to be said for the turnovers....they were directly responsible for the Titans loss, and the 1st Philly loss, and the Green Bay loss. Don't know if we would have been Green Bay with 0 turnovers, but we managed to pull into a 14-14 tie before basically giving GB the ball back for the rest of the game.

 

Another thing about the turnovers.....our defense, for all the meltdowns, caused a TON of turnovers, and most of them were totally squandered.

 

 

Just imagine a decent (not great) special teams, and a few less turnovers....we'd be talking about an 11-5 or probably 12-4 record and a #2 seed right now.

[Storm]

Didn't we beat Chicago? Didn't we dominate the fuck out of Philly.. up till those infamous 8 minutes?

 

Yes and Chicago was the only above .500 team we beat.

 

And a loss is a loss in my book. We didn't dominate shit if we didn't come out on top.

[boohyah]

Sounds to me like that we should arrange with the league to make sure that the teams we play against are going to maintain a 500 or over record, so that we can validate our year end record!!

 

At the beginning of the year, it was expected that teams like dallas and Minnesota would be superbowl contenders and the Panthers had just spanked us all over the place the previous year. The Texans were also touted to make a run. I don't know why the fact that the seasons for these teams pretty much tanked should be held against us cause we beat them

 

10-6 is 10-6. Last year we were 9-7. We actually had a better year, weird as it may be.

[Storm]

Sounds to me like that we should arrange with the league to make sure that the teams we play against are going to maintain a 500 or over record, so that we can validate our year end record!!

 

At the beginning of the year, it was expected that teams like dallas and Minnesota would be superbowl contenders and the Panthers had just spanked us all over the place the previous year. The Texans were also touted to make a run. I don't know why the fact that the seasons for these teams pretty much tanked should be held against us cause we beat them

 

10-6 is 10-6. Last year we were 9-7. We actually had a better year, weird as it may be.

 

That doesn't even make sense.

 

The point is, we didn't beat good teams. If we had, we'd be in the playoffs right now.

 

We are a slightly above average team with slightly above average coaching who beat below average to poor teams all season but couldn't pull out wins against good teams. That isn't holding anything against the poor teams. That's putting OUR season into perspective.

 

The Jets also aren't that great of a team because they've beat up on poor teams all season, too.

[boohyah]

That doesn't even make sense.

 

The point is, we didn't beat good teams. If we had, we'd be in the playoffs right now.

 

We are a slightly above average team with slightly above average coaching who beat below average to poor teams all season but couldn't pull out wins against good teams. That isn't holding anything against the poor teams. That's putting OUR season into perspective.

 

The Jets also aren't that great of a team because they've beat up on poor teams all season, too.

 

A lot of things been said on this thread make no sense.

 

You keep talking about how we didn't beat the good teams so that's why we didn't make the playoffs. We played 3 of those "good teams" on the road. If you really want to know why we didn't make the playoffs, then maybe you should look at the home games against the Titans and Cowboys. Under your criteria, those are poor teams and we lost both games we should have. One win against either one of those teams and we're playing this Sunday.

[Storm]

A lot of things been said on this thread make no sense.

 

You keep talking about how we didn't beat the good teams so that's why we didn't make the playoffs. We played 3 of those "good teams" on the road. If you really want to know why we didn't make the playoffs, then maybe you should look at the home games against the Titans and Cowboys. Under your criteria, those are poor teams and we lost both games we should have. One win against either one of those teams and we're playing this Sunday.

 

Those are poor teams we should have beaten, you're right.

 

It doesn't change the fact that had we made the playoffs (without getting a bye, let's say) we'd be done after this weekend. If you can't play at the same level as the better teams then you fall in the slightly better than average range. Coughlin and his assistants consistently have never been able to beat the better teams sans one season.

[NightFire]

Turnovers are the reason for a poor season. You don't make the playoffs with 42 turnovers and with an experienced team like the Giants it's inexcusable. By contrast the SB favourite Patriots had 9. With the amount of turnovers the D created the Giants should have been 14-2 but the O cluster fucked the team out of the playoffs. If anybody should get the axe it's Coughlin and not Gilbride for not taking drastic measures to correct this; and that includes sitting Eli if necessary.

[fringe]

Those are poor teams we should have beaten, you're right.

 

It doesn't change the fact that had we made the playoffs (without getting a bye, let's say) we'd be done after this weekend. If you can't play at the same level as the better teams then you fall in the slightly better than average range. Coughlin and his assistants consistently have never been able to beat the better teams sans one season.

 

against seattle? i don't think so.

[Allstarjim]

against seattle? i don't think so.

 

I think the point is that the last 3 games, and even somewhat in the Minnesota game, we did not play our best football. At times we looked pretty impotent, even in the games we won, like the week 17 Redskins game. There were games where I thought we looked great. Texans game, the Seattle game. But it would've been nice to see them play that way against a good team. Before someone says Chicago, I'm talking about both sides of the ball. I did not think we were particularly impressive offensively vs. the Bears.

 

Given the way we were playing, if we had made it in, it wasn't likely that we would go very far.

[Steitzenhaus]

when you lose the turnover and field position battle on a weekly basis, its hard to beat ANY team let alone ones we would classify as good. The Giants were in every game but Indy and Green Bay, and not surprisingly those teams had the two best quarterbacks we played all year. I think part of the problem in those games was poor scheming by Fewell, but this defense is desperately in need of playmaking ability at linebacker and while I like every player starting in the secondary, there is not much they can do against a Manning or Rodgers without Tuck and Osi generating a consistent pass rush. All that said, this season will be remembered for the turnovers and what could have been had they taken better care of the football.

[Tempest]

In retrospect; the way we played defense against the Colts earlier in the season might have worked against the Packers later in the season. Green Bay simply doesn't have a running game, its a committee of average college rbs. Then again, I'd rather have Joseph Addai & Donald Brown run all over us than a group of nobody's from GB.

 

when you lose the turnover and field position battle on a weekly basis, its hard to beat ANY team let alone ones we would classify as good. The Giants were in every game but Indy and Green Bay, and not surprisingly those teams had the two best quarterbacks we played all year. I think part of the problem in those games was poor scheming by Fewell, but this defense is desperately in need of playmaking ability at linebacker and while I like every player starting in the secondary, there is not much they can do against a Manning or Rodgers without Tuck and Osi generating a consistent pass rush. All that said, this season will be remembered for the turnovers and what could have been had they taken better care of the football.

[Steitzenhaus]

In retrospect; the way we played defense against the Colts earlier in the season might have worked against the Packers later in the season. Green Bay simply doesn't have a running game, its a committee of average college rbs. Then again, I'd rather have Joseph Addai & Donald Brown run all over us than a group of nobody's from GB.

 

I think this defense is good to the point where the pass rush and the supporting cast can beat and sometimes dominate average to below average quarterbacks and offenses. The Tennessee game was lost solely on turnovers. The Dallas game had a HUGE game changing play, and the two Eagle games the defense as a whole did a pretty decent job containing Vick until 7:52 in the 4th quarter of game two. When it comes to playing offenses led by top tier quarterbacks, it seems the Giants just don't have the personnel right now to handle them. Our linebackers cannot cover at all. The secondary has 4 good, solid players but I wouldn't call any of them game-changers. Phillips I hope could eventually become one but we will see. Early in the Green Bay game Rodgers was taking a lot of three step drops and using the cushion Webster and Thomas were giving the wide receivers to his advantage. As someone alluded to in a previous post, it looked easy. I think that's where scheme comes in but at the same time, if teams are going to scheme to take Tuck and Osi out of the game there has to be players behind them that can step up and make plays. Right now, I don't think we have that when it comes time to play these big time offenses.