On the bright side...

[JMFP]

Are we really blaming Eli for failed blocking? Even on that great pick-up block by Jacobs, the guy he blocked at the very last second was running free. Our problem with blitzing is pretty simple at the moment: we don't have anyone that's particularly good receiving short range, and our oline isn't good enough at the moment to hold the rushers up enough to go further downfield.

 

Every QB has issues with blitzing, and if they didn't, blitzing would be a thing of the past.

 

Do we really need to play this "blame Gilbride" crap already? I didn't see any facet of this team stand out as particularly let down by any other facet. The special teams had an opportunity to put points on the board and failed; the defense gave up points and more importantly gave up enough yardage where the offense started consistently behind the 20 yard line; and the offense gave up points and failed to move the ball consistently. Blame one, blame them all.

 

Here, I'll do my part. One thing that drives me absolutely crazy is 4th and 1, and we only have one guy in the backfield...is anyone fooled by that?

 

Fish....you are one of the most rational guys on this board when it comes to breaking down the Giants.

 

I admit, on get on Gilbride more often than not. And maybe Eli will rebound, in which case, Gilbride looks like a genius.

 

But, Jacobs is being marginalized, and for reasons that utterly fly in the face of his statistical performance.

 

As I've heard repeatedly by the Giants Offensive Line, nothing fires them up more than when Jacobs is pounding people.

 

In a close game, on the road, with a guy averaging close to 5 yards per carry, the Giants - Gilbride actually - made the wrong calls. He has no excuse for basically benching the guy in a 14-14 game. In fact, it was that decision that put us in the 21-14 hole.

 

This comes back to my familiar criticism of Gilbride....he doesn't seem to have a feel for game conditions....I saw it the last time we lost to the Redskins....he had Eli throwing the ball into swirling winds at the Meadowlands. Same thing when we lost to Philly in the playoffs to McNabb. And again, yesterday.

[Allstarjim]

Joe, I see potential in this offense. I really do think we have the personnel to have a high scoring offense. Gilbride's system is holding us back, IMO. I think Fish makes valid points, because we all know how much this offense has sucked in the past, and Gilbride has given us respectability. But the way the game is played now, we have to be able to score 28+ plus points on anybody. His offense only does that on teams that are fundamentally flawed defensively. And that is why we can't win against the better teams in the NFL right now. This coaching staff is getting left behind by the rest of the NFL.

[fishgutmartyr]

Fish....you are one of the most rational guys on this board when it comes to breaking down the Giants.

 

I admit, on get on Gilbride more often than not. And maybe Eli will rebound, in which case, Gilbride looks like a genius.

 

But, Jacobs is being marginalized, and for reasons that utterly fly in the face of his statistical performance.

 

As I've heard repeatedly by the Giants Offensive Line, nothing fires them up more than when Jacobs is pounding people.

 

In a close game, on the road, with a guy averaging close to 5 yards per carry, the Giants - Gilbride actually - made the wrong calls. He has no excuse for basically benching the guy in a 14-14 game. In fact, it was that decision that put us in the 21-14 hole.

 

This comes back to my familiar criticism of Gilbride....he doesn't seem to have a feel for game conditions....I saw it the last time we lost to the Redskins....he had Eli throwing the ball into swirling winds at the Meadowlands. Same thing when we lost to Philly in the playoffs to McNabb. And again, yesterday.

 

Like I said, Joe, I'm not praising Gilbride for the offense's performance yesterday--the offense was awful. I also don't understand why our running game disappeared in the second half, especially when our passing game is glaringly weak.

 

Furthermore, Where the hell is Hynoski on that 4th down play? Everyone in that stadium and the viewers at home knew it was a run--why fucking try to hide it? Third downs I would be putting in Scott and Hynoski, as both of them more than likely better receivers than Jacobs or Bradshaw; and we need all the short-field help we can get. It's not like we're getting a whole hell of a lot from a 3rd WR, or a second TE.

 

All I'm saying is if TC and Gilbride are fodder for the lynch mob, you better add Fewell to it as well. Frankly, the only thing he's really proven to date is that he's better than Sheridan, and that's not good enough.

[Allstarjim]

All I'm saying is if TC and Gilbride are fodder for the lynch mob, you better add Fewell to it as well. Frankly, the only thing he's really proven to date is that he's better than Sheridan, and that's not good enough.

 

Agree 100%

[fishgutmartyr]

Agree 100%

Holy shit! You and I agreeing with Gilbride involved!? Someone, quick...give me my baby aspirin! :LOL:

[Storm]

For the life of me, Fish, I've never understood why Fewell has been getting so many head coaching looks....he's done very little to improve our defense and he has plenty of good players to do something special with it. Instead, he seems to keep to his game plan very stubbornly.

 

Both Gilbride and Fewell are unable to make in game adjustments.

[Nas]

For the life of me, Fish, I've never understood why Fewell has been getting so many head coaching looks....he's done very little to improve our defense and he has plenty of good players to do something special with it. Instead, he seems to keep to his game plan very stubbornly.

 

Both Gilbride and Fewell are unable to make in game adjustments.

 

That's another thing.. however he's only had one year with the team.. and we're missing a few starters... so he gets a pass.. Ross sucks btw.

[fishgutmartyr]

For the life of me, Fish, I've never understood why Fewell has been getting so many head coaching looks....he's done very little to improve our defense and he has plenty of good players to do something special with it. Instead, he seems to keep to his game plan very stubbornly.

 

Both Gilbride and Fewell are unable to make in game adjustments.

There's a real cynical, non-pc answer for that...but it's only part of it. I suppose he could be a good DC if he wasn't trying to shoe-horn a scheme into the wrong personnel. And he does have the motivational side to head coaching down. Just keep him away from play books.

 

That's another thing.. however he's only had one year with the team.. and we're missing a few starters... so he gets a pass.. Ross sucks btw.

 

He still has good players on this team that he isn't using to their strengths, Nas. Hell, Spagnuolo was able to be instrumental in winning a Superbowl with much weaker talent in his first year than what Fewell has now. Career-wise, there's no comparison: but Tuck at this point is a better player than Strahan was in 2007. Joseph is better than a rookie Cofield. Boley and Kiwi are better than Mitchell and the 2007 edition of Kiwi/Torbor. And the secondary is no comparison (Madison, Ross, McQuarters, Wilson?).

 

We still have better talent than we're showing.

[BIGBLUE01]

That's another thing.. however he's only had one year with the team.. and we're missing a few starters... so he gets a pass.. Ross sucks btw.

 

Agreed. We only needed one game to see that.

[JackStroud]

I Eli had any balls he would have audibled a stop and go for Mannningham on the pick six and it would have been 95 yd TD

 

throwing an out pass on your own 5 yd line should be a firing offense

 

If the lineman didn't tip it the CB would have caught it and waltzed in

[Nas]

There's a real cynical, non-pc answer for that...but it's only part of it. I suppose he could be a good DC if he wasn't trying to shoe-horn a scheme into the wrong personnel. And he does have the motivational side to head coaching down. Just keep him away from play books.

 

 

 

He still has good players on this team that he isn't using to their strengths, Nas. Hell, Spagnuolo was able to be instrumental in winning a Superbowl with much weaker talent in his first year than what Fewell has now. Career-wise, there's no comparison: but Tuck at this point is a better player than Strahan was in 2007. Joseph is better than a rookie Cofield. Boley and Kiwi are better than Mitchell and the 2007 edition of Kiwi/Torbor. And the secondary is no comparison (Madison, Ross, McQuarters, Wilson?).

 

We still have better talent than we're showing.

 

That's why I love you, Fish. You're always spot on. Where's John Fox btw?

[boohyah]

Fish....you are one of the most rational guys on this board when it comes to breaking down the Giants.

 

I admit, on get on Gilbride more often than not. And maybe Eli will rebound, in which case, Gilbride looks like a genius.

 

But, Jacobs is being marginalized, and for reasons that utterly fly in the face of his statistical performance.

 

As I've heard repeatedly by the Giants Offensive Line, nothing fires them up more than when Jacobs is pounding people.

 

In a close game, on the road, with a guy averaging close to 5 yards per carry, the Giants - Gilbride actually - made the wrong calls. He has no excuse for basically benching the guy in a 14-14 game. In fact, it was that decision that put us in the 21-14 hole.

 

This comes back to my familiar criticism of Gilbride....he doesn't seem to have a feel for game conditions....I saw it the last time we lost to the Redskins....he had Eli throwing the ball into swirling winds at the Meadowlands. Same thing when we lost to Philly in the playoffs to McNabb. And again, yesterday.

 

 

 

I was impressed by Jacobs yesterday, I thought he ran hard yesterday and definitely deserved to play more. Our running game deserved a chance to wear the skins down, both guys were doing well.

 

I've never been a Gilbride hater to the level of some others here. There have been plenty of days he got it spot on. But it just feels to me that last year and this pre season, that he's absolutely the reason why Eli has regressed. This offense is too rigid IMO. When Gilbride opens up the playbook further than 20 yards, we're better. But watching Eli throwing outs to hakeem nicks and manningham for 1 yard gains just baffles me at this stage, because this play has never fucking worked for us. because Eli turns his entire body and telegraphs the fucking thing. Plus why not just waste our 2 best downfield threats by playing them behind the line of scrimmage!!!

 

there's no improvising on the plays at all. Manningham does break his routes off, but have you ever noticed that he's nearly always open when he does so, only to watch Eli throw it right over his head. I'm not excusing manningham, but all the top receivers at some stage improvise and quarterbacks learn to do the same. You think that if Montana saw Rice had broken off his route but had gotten open, that he would not have thrown to him?. I look around the league and by the end of this year, at his current rate, there could be 4-5 of these young quarterbacks pass him out.

 

There weren't many bright spots on defense, I thought Joseph showed some presence, Boley wasn't bad, and I'm not sure why there's some grief with Tollefson, I thought he worked hard and deserved the sack. Once again though, fucking Tynes. Perfect snap, perfect hold, let me take a corner kick!. Game turned right there IMO. Coughlin doesn't like to take points off the board, but the doubt in the kicking game forced him to go 4th and 1. I just don't understand how he's held a job so long.

 

Overall though, I'm not too worked up about this loss. Skins were awful pumped up for this, and Shanahan looks to have turned some things around. They drafted well this year by the looks of things and next year he's going to be 2-3 players away from a good team, but Grossman flattered to deceive yesterday, he better bottle that game yesterday and hold onto it because I think Beck will be the QB by year end.

[Gman329]

I wouldn't overlook the fact that Eli had about 0.6 seconds to throw on most plays. That makes it tough to throw deep or, unless Eli suddenly becomes a gifted scrambler, improvise. I guess the idea was, with all their heat up the middle, get something outside quick, beat the rush and hope your play makers can make a play on the edge.......but when you get outplayed up front like we did yesterday, there's not a lot of the playbook that's going to work. Strategy only goes so far when you're getting whipped in all your one on one match ups.

[boohyah]

I wouldn't overlook the fact that Eli had about 0.6 seconds to throw on most plays. That makes it tough to throw deep or, unless Eli suddenly becomes a gifted scrambler, improvise. I guess the idea was, with all their heat up the middle, get something outside quick, beat the rush and hope your play makers can make a play on the edge.......but when you get outplayed up front like we did yesterday, there's not a lot of the playbook that's going to work. Strategy only goes so far when you're getting whipped in all your one on one match ups.

 

But he doesn't improvise and I don't think it's because of him as much as Eli lives and dies with the playbook and the only adjustments he's able to make are audibles before the snap. I understand the point on the quick out's but I don't think I would use my wideouts for that. Let Bradshaw roll out once or twice to throw the defence a bit and have our wr's stretch the field.

[NightFire]

But he doesn't improvise and I don't think it's because of him as much as Eli lives and dies with the playbook and the only adjustments he's able to make are audibles before the snap. I understand the point on the quick out's but I don't think I would use my wideouts for that. Let Bradshaw roll out once or twice to throw the defence a bit and have our wr's stretch the field.

 

Or use a 2 back set with Scott. Sure he's a rookie but after his pre-season he deserves a shot at those type of plays. There are lots of ways to alleviate D pressure but it seems like Gilbride or Eli don't know what they are. Once the opponent's D starts getting decent pressure the whole Giants O just implodes.

[Herc]

i agree we gotta question fewell too. i know we dont have the worst secondary in the world, but we're relying way too much on them to do the job themselves with no help underneath. there were way too many instances where grossman was pressured but could still get rid of the ball because the WR's were getting open or position so easily with clear passing lanes after the LOS.

 

we made grossman look like a star because we were too aggressive, maybe that's a personel problem but either way adjustments have to be made to the talent at hand

[BronxRik]

On the bright side...........

 

 

 

........that whole "sit 'em or start 'em en route to a perfect season" thing is one less distraction we'll have.

[*SDMF*]

I hope all the fools who are jumpn ship dont try grtn back on board when we're gettn better and show not only life, but possibly ten wins.

[Nas]

I hope all the fools who are jumpn ship dont try grtn back on board when we're gettn better and show not only life, but possibly ten wins.

 

It's not about jumping ship.. it's about seeing the same bullshit year in and year out.. it's about stupid penalties.. delay of game... leading with a helmet.. throwing a pass to the wrong fucking team... no one is jumping ship.. we're all Giants fans and when the team underformrs we are rightfully upset.

[Storm]

It's not about jumping ship.. it's about seeing the same bullshit year in and year out.. it's about stupid penalties.. delay of game... leading with a helmet.. throwing a pass to the wrong fucking team... no one is jumping ship.. we're all Giants fans and when the team underformrs we are rightfully upset.

 

You forgot terrible special teams (especially Tynes), stale and at times downright bewildering playcalling, awful ball control, and terrible 3rd down conversion percentage.

[fishgutmartyr]

I hope all the fools who are jumpn ship dont try grtn back on board when we're gettn better and show not only life, but possibly ten wins.

When you tell me that you sat through the Arnsparger/McVay years and stayed loyal to this point and beyond, then you can lecture me. Until then, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a bandwagoner.

 

I happen to think this will be a very good team next year: possibly the one to beat. But not this year.

 

1. We are far too raw early on, when our schedule is easiest; so it isn't likely we'll maximize the opportunity;
   
2. When we actually do kick into gear (assuming we do), we'll be playing very strong teams;
   
3. In the one year when a veteran team has an advantage, we are relying heavily on 1st- and 2nd- year players; which, ironically, is not typical of TC teams;
   
4. Let's face it--there are flaws in this team with the talent remaining, how it's run, and its overall morale.
   

 

The positive is that we'll have a nice core of young players with experience; we'll know where we stand with all of the new draftees going forward and have a clearer idea of team needs; and with the possible exception of RT, we'll have a nice, stable oline for years to come. That's all very positive for 2012.

 

But this year is shaping up to be 2009 all over again. We're expecting way too much from players that are simply not ready to meet those expectations yet. Prince is going to come back in a few weeks and magically fix the backfield with two practices under his belt? Hixon (IR last season), Cruz (2nd year, UDFA, and IR'd last year), and Jernigan (rookie) are going to immediately replace a probowler? If not, Barden (IR'd half of last season, missed all of preseason) is going to fly off of PUP in November and immediately save the day?

 

Please don't point to last year's Packers. They were the exception, not the rule.

 

So my routine this season is going to be about the same as it has been for almost 40 years now. I will watch this team every opportunity I can; and I will hope that they win every game they play. What I will NOT do is expect them to win 10-11 games.

[Nas]

When you tell me that you sat through the Arnsparger/McVay years and stayed loyal to this point and beyond, then you can lecture me. Until then, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a bandwagoner.

 

I happen to think this will be a very good team next year: possibly the one to beat. But not this year.

 

1. We are far too raw early on, when our schedule is easiest; so it isn't likely we'll maximize the opportunity;
   
2. When we actually do kick into gear (assuming we do), we'll be playing very strong teams;
   
3. In the one year when a veteran team has an advantage, we are relying heavily on 1st- and 2nd- year players; which, ironically, is not typical of TC teams;
   
4. Let's face it--there are flaws in this team with the talent remaining, how it's run, and its overall morale.
   

 

The positive is that we'll have a nice core of young players with experience; we'll know where we stand with all of the new draftees going forward and have a clearer idea of team needs; and with the possible exception of RT, we'll have a nice, stable oline for years to come. That's all very positive for 2012.

 

But this year is shaping up to be 2009 all over again. We're expecting way too much from players that are simply not ready to meet those expectations yet. Prince is going to come back in a few weeks and magically fix the backfield with two practices under his belt? Hixon (IR last season), Cruz (2nd year, UDFA, and IR'd last year), and Jernigan (rookie) are going to immediately replace a probowler? If not, Barden (IR'd half of last season, missed all of preseason) is going to fly off of PUP in November and immediately save the day?

 

Please don't point to last year's Packers. They were the exception, not the rule.

 

So my routine this season is going to be about the same as it has been for almost 40 years now. I will watch this team every opportunity I can; and I will hope that they win every game they play. What I will NOT do is expect them to win 10-11 games.

 

And don't know what those years are or were... were they worse than the Dave Brown years?

[Allstarjim]

Fish, while you can say that because things sucked soooooo bad during those old days, that we should all be thankful that this offense isn't so bad, but I don't think that's a very good defense of Gilbride. Things aren't good... but back then it was awful! Well, we should want more than just better than back then. I know that you are a long time Giants fan and you've never given up, and like Joe said, when it comes to Giants talk you always have the ability to bring levity to the conversation and you are really one of the best posters in this forum. I really enjoy reading your posts, when you post, it's must read material for me.

 

That said, and I pointed this out in a BBI thread, that Gilbride defenders (of which I have been one in the past) have talked about the Giants' ranks in total offense over the past several years, of which they have ranked highly. But my contention is that total offense (yards) is only one part of the picture. We aren't THAT great in PPG, about 24 PPG last year (and put up a lot of those points against lousy teams), dead last in turnovers, 21st in 3rd down conversion %, and dead last in 4th down conversion %. You can have a tremendous offense inbetween the 20's but it doesn't matter much if you're turning over the ball, your team misses the FG, or you simply show a penchant for not being able to punch it in.

 

I do think there are fundamental problems with the Gilbride offense that unless these problems are addressed in a dramatic fashion, Eli will never become the QB he should become... and I think Eli can become the top 5 QB he thinks he is.

 

The Giants need to start working solutions on how to fix their 3rd down and 4th down conversion percentages. They need to be more adaptable... during the Thursday night telecast between the Packers and Saints, one of the commentators was talking about Mike Mularkey's game plan... basically he said Mularkey will disregard the game plan if what he sees on the field dictates a different approach... he's not married to a game plan if the defense is giving him a different look and can be exploited in a different way. There was one play in that game where the Pack had something like 4 or 5 TE's on the field at the same time. They got a 1 on 1 with a TE vs a CB and Rodgers through it to him for the first down, exploiting the size matchup. That is innovation, that is adaptability, that is unpredictability. That is not what Gilbride's offense looks like at all.

 

But hey, I do see your point about Fewell. In many ways Fewell is becoming the Gilbride of the defense... several times last year and also against the 'Skins Sunday, Fewell will stick to something that is failing miserably, most notably, his zone schemes. And as I said before, it is completely befuddling... seriously, I searching for an adjective to describe how ridiculous it was that Fewell didn't have a game plan for blitzing the shit out of Grossman on a heavy, heavy basis. Grossman should've had at minimum 5 pass rushers coming at him every time he dropped back, if not 6. You have to realize that you're playing Rex Grossman, and he makes your defensive game plan easy to draft.

[fishgutmartyr]

And don't know what those years are or were... were they worse than the Dave Brown years?

 

Much worse. No offense, no defense, no hope. Craig Morton (our QB during some of that mess) spent more time on his back than a tunnel-whore on roofies. At least in the Brown years, you had Hampton, a line that could occasionally make positive yardage, an occasional completion; and the defense was actually decent.

 

Fish, while you can say that because things sucked soooooo bad during those old days, that we should all be thankful that this offense isn't so bad, but I don't think that's a very good defense of Gilbride. Things aren't good... but back then it was awful! Well, we should want more than just better than back then. I know that you are a long time Giants fan and you've never given up, and like Joe said, when it comes to Giants talk you always have the ability to bring levity to the conversation and you are really one of the best posters in this forum. I really enjoy reading your posts, when you post, it's must read material for me.

 

Jim, your posts are usually well thought out, and this is one of them. However, I didn't defend Gilbride at all in the post you're referring to. Got a little snitty about "I hope all the fools who are jumpn ship dont try grtn back on board," s'all. That's why I brought up the 70's.

 

(Wow. I got to use the word "snitty." Cool...)

 

The only coaches I'm willing to defend after this game is our offensive line coach (he's done amazing jobs in the past, including last year--so he's earned some patience), our dline coach, and Pope (who actually seems to have made a bit of chicken salad).

 

My going back to the 70's had to do with defending my fandom, not with anything that we're currently seeing.

[BronxRik]

 

(Wow. I got to use the word "snitty." Cool...)

 

 

And "s'all". All in one post. You're my hero.