Can someone please talk me down from the ledge?

[JMFP]

Here's our season in a nutshell:

 

 

Coughlin: "Watch for the onside kick."

Special Teams: Turns back to Akers, runs away from onside kick.

 

Coughlin: "Punt the ball out of bounds.....do not, repeat, do not punt it to DeSean Jackson"

Dodge: Punts it to DeSean Jackson

 

Spinkle liberally with unforced turnovers, add several teaspoons of questionable defensive moves (Tuck in coverage when a 4 man rush is desperately needed to seal a victory).

 

This Giants team is okay......again, I'm giving them a C+....they'd be a B team if they made the playoffs, and a C team if they were 8-8.

 

They could be "great" if the players actually did what they were coached to do.....it would also help if Fewell abandoned Sheridan's tactics of pretending Tuck is Corey Webster. And Gilbride should rediscover a power running game, and realize he has an excellent no-huddle QB.....or else find an offensive coordinator that can.

[Allstarjim]

hmmm...very nasty you are. the dog was simply calrifying the point nas was probably making. tom flores to the dog's knowledge never was a head coach anywhere but oakland. how does that work here? not sure if it isn't a legit argument, but since it has not often been done, the dog is just saying. coughlin has won consistently over a number of years as well. his record is not unlike cowhers, except that he has done it in two places rather than one...cowher may be a good coach, but everyone wants to ordain him, and one super bowl over 15 years and many disappointing playoff losses in that time doesn't speak to NFL coaching royalty in the dog's mind...especially since his replacement won it all two years later. the dog knew you might be all fired up today, but really, this attack was so unwarrented...deep breathing.

 

 

Right about Flores... I saw LA and assumed the Rams... but it was actually the Los Angeles Raiders who he won the big one, after he won the big one with the Oakland Raiders. Really solidifies my point is that after you win a SB you are not likely to coach other places. I know you know this, and are just being obtuse, which is why I'm being a little "nasty" to you. You don't really have a point (except the one on top of your head) but you are insisting that you do.

Do me a favor and go back into Super Bowl history and see how many coaches won a Super Bowl and then went on to coach somewhere else.... then tell me how successful they were in the new place. It's a short list... and those that left generally still were successful. I'll even give you a link:

 

My link

[Sephiroth]

Here's our season in a nutshell:

 

 

Coughlin: "Watch for the onside kick."

Special Teams: Turns back to Akers, runs away from onside kick.

 

Coughlin: "Punt the ball out of bounds.....do not, repeat, do not punt it to DeSean Jackson"

Dodge: Punts it to DeSean Jackson

 

Spinkle liberally with unforced turnovers, add several teaspoons of questionable defensive moves (Tuck in coverage when a 4 man rush is desperately needed to seal a victory).

 

T

 

Can't agree with you more.

 

However, if Coughlin was a good coach, why weren't there repurcussions for not listening to him?

[Steitzenhaus]

the dog would agree. again, not the popular opinion, but maybe this team has overachieved with coughlin. if you look at the teams in the playoffs, the dog is not so sure the giants have as much talent as everyone thinks right now.

 

I wouldn't say overachieved, but the idea that maybe as fans we are overrating the talent on this team is becoming more likely in my mind. I think the Giants have plenty of nice, solid players. However, when you're talking "game-changers", I only see eventually Nicks on offense and Tuck and Osi on defense. If this team took better care of the football maybe they would have won another game or two and we wouldn't even be discussing this. I do think that the Giants are close. They need to find a playmaker at the linebacker position and take an entirely new approach to special teams, whether that be coaching changes, personnel changes, or both.

[Allstarjim]

DP

[Allstarjim]

 

I do believe it is true that NO coach has won the Superbowl with 2 different teams.

 

Cowher may be the man to do it.

 

But the other side of the coin is that you may not get the same young hungry guy who put up all those numbers in Pitt. The Cowher who coaches again may be a different Cowher then the man who coached at Pitt.

 

As far as Coughn goes, he is not great but he is not bad either. In my opinion, it is much harder to make the playoffs and win then it was years many ago. The teams are too evenly matched. So I don't think Coughlin deserves all the blame, especially finishing 10-6.

 

But, by all means, lobby to have TC fired. Or, better yet, hire Cowher and Gruden and keep TC. Make a dream team coaching staff. Your overrated QB and load mouth running backs will still be giving games away...

 

 

Egg, I actually like Coughlin... if he would fire Gilbride I would welcome TC back. But that's not going to happen and that's why I want Cowher. Cowher doesn't eff around.

[Sephiroth]

I wouldn't say overachieved, but the idea that maybe as fans we are overrating the talent on this team is becoming more likely in my mind. I think the Giants have plenty of nice, solid players. However, when you're talking "game-changers", I only see eventually Nicks on offense and Tuck and Osi on defense. If this team took better care of the football maybe they would have won another game or two and we wouldn't even be discussing this. I do think that the Giants are close. They need to find a playmaker at the linebacker position and take an entirely new approach to special teams, whether that be coaching changes, personnel changes, or both.

 

I disagree. There is a TON of talent on this team.

 

The only reason I say that is for a team to lead the league in turnovers and still get 10 wins is almost IMPOSSIBLE unless you're that good. Most teams that lead in turnovers finish 6-10 or worse.

[Allstarjim]

This was a weak NFC this year, too. Mediocre teams had winning seasons. Look at the Bucs, they shouldn't have been in the conversation for the playoffs. The Bears aren't really that great and they got a first round bye. The Packers have no running game to speak of, but at least they have a defense. The Saints are good, and the Falcons really aren't as good as their record when you break their season down. You want to know why the NFC South had 3 teams with winning records this year? They got to play the NFC West. The Falcons went 4-0 against that crap conference, still got to play Cleveland and Cincinatti, and played the worst team in the NFL twice in the Panthers. That's 8 easy wins. Tampa Bay... the only winning team they beat all year was New Orleans, when the Saints had NOTHING to play for and benched Drew Brees in the 4th quarter.

 

This was a weak NFC... we lost games to teams we should have creamed in Tennessee and Dallas, didn't even show up against the Colts and the Packers, and let winnable games slip away through a comedy of errors against Philadelphia BOTH TIMES. To top it off, they barely beat a team yesterday that shouldn't have even been in the game by the 4th quarter yesterday.... if what we saw yesterday gives you promise for next year, then I have news for you... WE SUCKED YESTERDAY. We just sucked a little bit less than the sucky Redskins.

[JMFP]

....if Coughlin was a good coach, why weren't there repurcussions for not listening to him?

 

 

That's really the best argument for dumping the guy, in my opinion.

 

I have to fall back on his Super Bowl win, the 10-6 record, and the effort I saw yesterday; particularly, Osi put on a fucking show.....that tells me these guys have accepted Coughlin.

[Herc]

-eli is an above average qb in the prime of his career that you can win a superbowl with

 

-bradshaw, jacobs, nicks, smith and manningham are better than what most teams have at their skill positions

 

-the defense's weakness last season was its secondary--reese plugged the holes, hired a new defensive coordinator and we finished the season 7th in overall defense, 9th against the pass and 1st in takeaways, and 5th in sacks.

 

i don't see talent being the problem here especially considering that we won the whole thing with way less 4 years ago.

[Allstarjim]

I disagree. There is a TON of talent on this team.

 

The only reason I say that is for a team to lead the league in turnovers and still get 10 wins is almost IMPOSSIBLE unless you're that good. Most teams that lead in turnovers finish 6-10 or worse.

 

 

Not too mention this defense set an NFL single season record with 38 forced fumbles (10 more than the second place team), and Osi set the individuall record with 10. This team has an immense amount of talent, had a very good offensive line for most of the season, had 2200 yards rushing, a 4000 yard passer, had 46 sacks, two less than the NFL leader, and the 7th ranked defense in the NFL.... there were a lot of stats that said this team has a lot of talent on it. We didn't win this year because we were outcoached.

[RandolphScott]

BadEgg....

 

 

I heard Romo is getting married good for him I say...he finally gets the chance to wear a ring.

[Steitzenhaus]

I disagree. There is a TON of talent on this team.

 

The only reason I say that is for a team to lead the league in turnovers and still get 10 wins is almost IMPOSSIBLE unless you're that good. Most teams that lead in turnovers finish 6-10 or worse.

 

That's a fair point and I've considered that. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it all. If we are to believe that they possess that much talent, then it has to be the coaching and the schemes that are preventing us from beating the better teams in the league the past two seasons. I can't fathom that the coaching is that bad, though Gilbride is incredibly frustrating at times and Fewell I thought really dropped the ball against the Packers with the gameplan. Who knows. Either way, let's hope the pieces get put in place from both coaching and personnel that it gets better.

[JMFP]

This was a weak NFC this year, too. Mediocre teams had winning seasons. Look at the Bucs, they shouldn't have been in the conversation for the playoffs. The Bears aren't really that great and they got a first round bye. The Packers have no running game to speak of, but at least they have a defense. The Saints are good, and the Falcons really aren't as good as their record when you break their season down. You want to know why the NFC South had 3 teams with winning records this year? They got to play the NFC West. The Falcons went 4-0 against that crap conference, still got to play Cleveland and Cincinatti, and played the worst team in the NFL twice in the Panthers. That's 8 easy wins. Tampa Bay... the only winning team they beat all year was New Orleans, when the Saints had NOTHING to play for and benched Drew Brees in the 4th quarter.

 

This was a weak NFC... we lost games to teams we should have creamed in Tennessee and Dallas, didn't even show up against the Colts and the Packers, and let winnable games slip away through a comedy of errors against Philadelphia BOTH TIMES. To top it off, they barely beat a team yesterday that shouldn't have even been in the game by the 4th quarter yesterday.... if what we saw yesterday gives you promise for next year, then I have news for you... WE SUCKED YESTERDAY. We just sucked a little bit less than the sucky Redskins.

 

 

Good arguments to replace the offensive system (and the coordinator, if necessary) and fine tune the defensive schemes.

 

Coughlin needs to change again....he needs to force some changes on both sides of the ball.

[ksm7]

Right about Flores... I saw LA and assumed the Rams... but it was actually the Los Angeles Raiders who he won the big one, after he won the big one with the Oakland Raiders. Really solidifies my point is that after you win a SB you are not likely to coach other places. I know you know this, and are just being obtuse, which is why I'm being a little "nasty" to you. You don't really have a point (except the one on top of your head) but you are insisting that you do.

Do me a favor and go back into Super Bowl history and see how many coaches won a Super Bowl and then went on to coach somewhere else.... then tell me how successful they were in the new place. It's a short list... and those that left generally still were successful. I'll even give you a link:

 

My link

 

again, it is not about coming back and winning with a different team. it is about winning a super bowl, being out of coaching for any period, and coming back and winning again. so, the dog will complete this fun little activity for you, since you asked...the following coaches won a super bowl with a team, went out of coaching for a minimum of a year, and came back to coach again without achieving the same level of success:

 

Gibbs

Parcells

Johnson

Homlgren

Vermeil, although he also did win a super bowl with the rams following the first lay off

Stram

Lombardi

Flores

Ditka

 

That is 1/3 of the NFL coaches that won a Super Bowl that came back to coaching after time away and did not get to the same level...by the way, not that it is relevant, but 11 of the 27 super bowl winning coaches all coached other teams after winning the super bowl with one. that is 40% of the super bowl winning coaches that coached elsewhere after winning a super bowl...of those 11, exactly none have won a super bowl in their second stints...

[JMFP]

again, it is not about coming back and winning with a different team. it is about winning a super bowl, being out of coaching for any period, and coming back and winning again. so, the dog will complete this fun little activity for you, since you asked...the following coaches won a super bowl with a team, went out of coaching for a minimum of a year, and came back to coach again without achieving the same level of success:

 

Gibbs

Parcells

Johnson

Homlgren

Vermeil, although he also did win a super bowl with the rams following the first lay off

Stram

Lombardi

Flores

Ditka

 

That is 1/3 of the NFL coaches that won a Super Bowl that came back to coaching after time away and did not get to the same level...by the way, not that it is relevant, but 11 of the 27 super bowl winning coaches all coached other teams after winning the super bowl with one. that is 40% of the super bowl winning coaches that coached elsewhere after winning a super bowl...of those 11, exactly none have won a super bowl in their second stints...

 

 

Do you have experience as a crisis counselor?

[Allstarjim]

again, it is not about coming back and winning with a different team. it is about winning a super bowl, being out of coaching for any period, and coming back and winning again. so, the dog will complete this fun little activity for you, since you asked...the following coaches won a super bowl with a team, went out of coaching for a minimum of a year, and came back to coach again without achieving the same level of success:

 

Gibbs

Parcells

Johnson

Homlgren

Vermeil, although he also did win a super bowl with the rams following the first lay off

Stram

Lombardi

Flores

Ditka

 

That is 1/3 of the NFL coaches that won a Super Bowl that came back to coaching after time away and did not get to the same level...by the way, not that it is relevant, but 11 of the 27 super bowl winning coaches all coached other teams after winning the super bowl with one. that is 40% of the super bowl winning coaches that coached elsewhere after winning a super bowl...of those 11, exactly none have won a super bowl in their second stints...

 

 

Ok, smart guy... I see you are counting Lombardi's ONE season in Washington (where he greatly improved the club), Stram's whopping 2 seasons in New Orleans, plus you are counting Gibbs who came back to the SAME team after a long coaching hiatus where he was completely out of football.... kind of ridiculous since your shallow parameters were that these SUPERBOWL WINNING COACHES had to come back to a different team. Also, Holmgren AND Parcells took a separate team to the SuperBowl and most of the guys on that list inherited a terrible second team and made them winners.... in fact, Parcells did it 3 times after leaving the Giants.

 

You have NO point to be made. Just so you know, you forgot Don McCafferty who died after 1 season coaching his new team (Detroit). By the way Stram also won titles in the AFL before his SB victory.

 

As I said, 12 coaches are responsible for 29 Super Bowl victories out of 44 possible Super Bowls... you know what that means, Dog? That means that there is a direct correlation between coaches and playoff success. Just because no coach has ever left a team where he coached them to a championship and landed somewhere else and led them to a championship doesn't mean that the quality of the coaches that have won are extremely important to your chances in postseason play.

 

If you want to take this further, then out of the remaining 15 SuperBowls that were won by a non-multi-SuperBowl winner, Sean Payton, Mike Tomlin, and Tom Coughlin are still with their SB winning teams, Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden, and Brian Billick are out of coaching and haven't coached again since they left their SB winning teams. Same for Barry Switzer.

 

If you're going to make this ridiculously stupid argument that makes no sense and is completely irrelevant, then at least give me coaches that won a SuperBowl, left, and completed AT LEAST 3 SEASONS with their new team. You want to know how short that list is? Jimmy Johnson (a multi-SB winner who made the Dolphins better), Bill Parcells (with the Cowboys who instantly took a garbage team and took them to the playoffs, not to mention took the Patriots to the playoffs when they hadn't been there in 8 years, and then the SuperBowl the following season), Dick Vermeil, Mike Ditka, and Mike Holmgren (who also took his second team to the SuperBowl and turned them into a perennial playoff team),

 

5 guys.... and out of those 5 coaches, only Ditka was an abject failure in his 3 seasons with the Saints. All the other coaches not only made their second club instantly better, but took them to the playoffs.

[ksm7]

Ok, smart guy... I see you are counting Lombardi's ONE season in Washington (where he greatly improved the club), Stram's whopping 2 seasons in New Orleans, plus you are counting Gibbs who came back to the SAME team after a long coaching hiatus where he was completely out of football.... kind of ridiculous since your shallow parameters were that these SUPERBOWL WINNING COACHES had to come back to a different team. Also, Holmgren AND Parcells took a separate team to the SuperBowl and most of the guys on that list inherited a terrible second team and made them winners.... in fact, Parcells did it 3 times after leaving the Giants.

 

You have NO point to be made. Just so you know, you forgot Don McCafferty who died after 1 season coaching his new team (Detroit). By the way Stram also won titles in the AFL before his SB victory.

 

As I said, 12 coaches are responsible for 29 Super Bowl victories out of 44 possible Super Bowls... you know what that means, Dog? That means that there is a direct correlation between coaches and playoff success. Just because no coach has ever left a team where he coached them to a championship and landed somewhere else and led them to a championship doesn't mean that the quality of the coaches that have won are extremely important to your chances in postseason play.

 

If you want to take this further, then out of the remaining 15 SuperBowls that were won by a non-multi-SuperBowl winner, Sean Payton, Mike Tomlin, and Tom Coughlin are still with their SB winning teams, Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden, and Brian Billick are out of coaching and haven't coached again since they left their SB winning teams. Same for Barry Switzer.

 

If you're going to make this ridiculously stupid argument that makes no sense and is completely irrelevant, then at least give me coaches that won a SuperBowl, left, and completed AT LEAST 3 SEASONS with their new team. You want to know how short that list is? Jimmy Johnson (a multi-SB winner who made the Dolphins better), Bill Parcells (with the Cowboys who instantly took a garbage team and took them to the playoffs, not to mention took the Patriots to the playoffs when they hadn't been there in 8 years, and then the SuperBowl the following season), Dick Vermeil, Mike Ditka, and Mike Holmgren (who also took his second team to the SuperBowl and turned them into a perennial playoff team),

 

5 guys.... and out of those 5 coaches, only Ditka was an abject failure in his 3 seasons with the Saints. All the other coaches not only made their second club instantly better, but took them to the playoffs.

 

first of all, the dog wouldn't say it is a stupid argument if in the history of the NFL, no coach has ever won a super bowl with one team, then turned around after a layoff and won it all with another team (or to satisfy your issues with Joe Gibbs, the same team), something that is relevant if you are going to push to have bill cowher (which is a moot point for giant fans at this time). as for "most" of the 11 coaches that won a SB and came back later with another team, the dog isn't sure just how you measure the teams being better off with them, but if you will allow the dog:

 

Johnson went to Miami and never won a division title with them in four years. seifert went to carolina and had no winning seasons in in 3 years. holmgren went to seattle and in 10 seasons only 3 times had more than 9 wins, was 4-6 in the playoffs, and yes, went to a SB and lost. gibbs was a total failure. ditka was a total failure. stram was 7-21 in 3 seasons with the saints. vermeil had 2 winning seasons in 5 with the chiefs and only one playoff appearance, and parcells amassed a 500 record with the patriots (yes, one SB appearance with a loss), and was 34-30 with dallas and 0-2 in the playoffs (and if you ask knowledgable cowboy fans, they will point out how much worse that team was after he had taken them apart - cue badegg). flores was 14-32 with the seahawks. fine, lombardy did nothing in one season, and mccafferty sadly passed away after one season. so your 5 guys are off, because the dog gave you 9 guys...

 

look, let's not belabor things. if you are going to call the dog "stupid" and an "idiot", at least get your facts straight. if you want to argue that it is a stupid argument, the dog is not so sure, but don't provide the dog with the link to obtain the facts, and than look ignorant when the dog uses the facts to counter your argument...that just makes you look, well, you know...

 

the point is, cowher's resume is not really any better than coughlins. careful what you wish for...