Does anyone else feel this team is not trying hard enough

[JackStroud]

After seeing us smash Philadelphia, charged with revenge and emotion, I cannot honestly say we have come out of the tunnel with the proper warrior mentality in other games.

 

I see a lot of guys going through the motions instead of playing like Troy Pommelanou, AJ Hawk, or Clay Matthews

 

Not everyone, mind you, but the team seems to adopt the golly gee wiz attitude of its QB.........Eli needs to start getting on people like his O-line. We need a warrior leader on this team or we are not going to get to the promised land.......Gilbride and Perry too are not "Mike Singletary" enough.......maybe we need to hire Mike as DC

 

That warrior guy is Tuck.......and Dammmm the Jets he's not 100%.....JPP could emerge but hes too new, and a bit laid back himself.

Osi is wellllllll Osi

 

There are no born leaders in the back 7........well maybe Boley is emerging

 

On the O-Line......No......maybe McKenzie

 

On O the most fiery guys are Nicks, Bradshaw, and Cruz

 

To me this is why the Giants are not putting other teams away despite all our talent

[Treehugger]

You're all in!

[hlb37]

Disagree.

 

I certainly don't see a lack of effort on defense, hell their tied for 5th in the league in takeaways and their first in sacks. That doesn't point to a lot of guys dogging it out there. You have to work for those.

 

Our biggest single problem on defense this year has been 1st downs in general and playing against the hurry up. I think this is mainly do to the fact that injuries have forced the defense to piece things together and use a lot of situational substitution. Sometimes we get caught with the wrong people on the field

 

 

 

 

On offense, with the exception of that complete lame ass Beckum, everyone seems to be playing hard as well. As for fire? According to The Star Ledger Bradshaw was quite vocal with the O-Line

 

We lost 3 starters on the line ( Boss, Seubert and O'Hara ) and then had a shortened preseason. Again injuries and FA departures are taking their toll but that is hardly on player effort.

 

 

 

The one area that killed us last week and should be addressable is stupidity.

 

I understand that a "whistle was heard" on the Osi off sides play but you have to at least run down field with the wr to be sure.

 

No way should Eli be throwing into double coverage on 1st and goal like he did at the end of teh game. No Way. I understand that it was a sin of agresiveness and u want the QB to play with confidence but sometimes you have to use your head

[BIGBLUE01]

Cool thread bro, make another.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry BIC, I couldnt resist.........

[ksm7]

After seeing us smash Philadelphia, charged with revenge and emotion, I cannot honestly say we have come out of the tunnel with the proper warrior mentality in other games.

 

I see a lot of guys going through the motions instead of playing like Troy Pommelanou, AJ Hawk, or Clay Matthews

 

Not everyone, mind you, but the team seems to adopt the golly gee wiz attitude of its QB.........Eli needs to start getting on people like his O-line. We need a warrior leader on this team or we are not going to get to the promised land.......Gilbride and Perry too are not "Mike Singletary" enough.......maybe we need to hire Mike as DC

 

That warrior guy is Tuck.......and Dammmm the Jets he's not 100%.....JPP could emerge but hes too new, and a bit laid back himself.

Osi is wellllllll Osi

 

There are no born leaders in the back 7........well maybe Boley is emerging

 

On the O-Line......No......maybe McKenzie

 

On O the most fiery guys are Nicks, Bradshaw, and Cruz

 

To me this is why the Giants are not putting other teams away despite all our talent

 

but, but wait. the dog read somewhere that the QB is consistently wonderful at playing silly pranks. if that is not leadership, the dog doesn't know what is...

 

seriously, the dog thinks your first line sets the stage for your own frustration. wins like the eagle win, while obviously a very good win, wasn't exactly the smashing you are building it up to be. the giants were on the ropes up until the final 10 minutes, but the fans get supercharged and caught up with finally beating the eagles, and suddenly the expectation soared to levels that this team isn't capable of fulfilling at this time. the giants effectively overachieved in 2007 and with an amazing run, won the super bowl. the following year they collapsed in the playoffs, and since then it has been the same story. win early against lesser competition, falter late when the competition gets tough. building up wins like the eagles game to something more than it was sets the stage for believing that this team is a dominant team. the dog doesn't think they are. could possibly develop to that, but odds are it's not happening this year...

[Mr. P]

whats your team dog?

[JackStroud]

but, but wait. the dog read somewhere that the QB is consistently wonderful at playing silly pranks. if that is not leadership, the dog doesn't know what is...

 

seriously, the dog thinks your first line sets the stage for your own frustration. wins like the eagle win, while obviously a very good win, wasn't exactly the smashing you are building it up to be. the giants were on the ropes up until the final 10 minutes, but the fans get supercharged and caught up with finally beating the eagles, and suddenly the expectation soared to levels that this team isn't capable of fulfilling at this time. the giants effectively overachieved in 2007 and with an amazing run, won the super bowl. the following year they collapsed in the playoffs, and since then it has been the same story. win early against lesser competition, falter late when the competition gets tough. building up wins like the eagles game to something more than it was sets the stage for believing that this team is a dominant team. the dog doesn't think they are. could possibly develop to that, but odds are it's not happening this year...

 

 

your thinking is all screwed up here Dog.......We have the players to be dominant........Dallas does not

[ksm7]

your thinking is all screwed up here Dog.......We have the players to be dominant........Dallas does not

 

 

the dog doesn't think either one of those teams has the players to be dominant...

[JackStroud]

the dog doesn't think either one of those teams has the players to be dominant...

 

I know what the Dog thinks.......lets see how reality plays out..........your team is slow, small, and has a defeatist attitude

 

as they say "Reality Bites"

[ksm7]

I know what the Dog thinks.......lets see how reality plays out..........your team is slow, small, and has a defeatist attitude

 

as they say "Reality Bites"

 

for one, the dog has no interest in the cowboys...you are confusing bad egg here.

 

two, to be realistic, where do you see the giants having the talent to be dominant?

[JackStroud]

everywhere...........they just have not jelled yet

 

the talent is there nad the team is young and deep

[Nas]

but, but wait. the dog read somewhere that the QB is consistently wonderful at playing silly pranks. if that is not leadership, the dog doesn't know what is...

 

seriously, the dog thinks your first line sets the stage for your own frustration. wins like the eagle win, while obviously a very good win, wasn't exactly the smashing you are building it up to be. the giants were on the ropes up until the final 10 minutes, but the fans get supercharged and caught up with finally beating the eagles, and suddenly the expectation soared to levels that this team isn't capable of fulfilling at this time. the giants effectively overachieved in 2007 and with an amazing run, won the super bowl. the following year they collapsed in the playoffs, and since then it has been the same story. win early against lesser competition, falter late when the competition gets tough. building up wins like the eagles game to something more than it was sets the stage for believing that this team is a dominant team. the dog doesn't think they are. could possibly develop to that, but odds are it's not happening this year...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but weren't we like 10-1 in 2008 before the jackass shot himself in the leg?

[CrazedDogs]

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but weren't we like 10-1 in 2008 before the jackass shot himself in the leg?

 

oh yeah, something like that. The Super Bowl fell in the middle of a 15-1 run by the Giants.

 

but you know, winning Super Bowls is over achieving for 15-1 teams, so obviously the Giants just got lucky.

[ksm7]

everywhere...........they just have not jelled yet

 

the talent is there nad the team is young and deep

 

the dog admires your optomism, but to be real, this is a team with just as many weaknesses as any other. to say they are dominant everywhere is fan talk relative to realistic talk.

[JackStroud]

the dog admires your optomism, but to be real, this is a team with just as many weaknesses as any other. to say they are dominant everywhere is fan talk relative to realistic talk.

 

WR anf TE- Dominant

 

RB- not so much, need to use Scott

 

O-Line- average

 

QB- Dominant

 

DL- Dominant

 

LB- Average to Good

 

DB- Average

 

you're right Dog I was being a bit of a fan, but the areas that are Average have very good potential to achieve

[NightFire]

Disagree.

 

I certainly don't see a lack of effort on defense, hell their tied for 5th in the league in takeaways and their first in sacks. That doesn't point to a lot of guys dogging it out there. You have to work for those.

 

Our biggest single problem on defense this year has been 1st downs in general and playing against the hurry up. I think this is mainly do to the fact that injuries have forced the defense to piece things together and use a lot of situational substitution. Sometimes we get caught with the wrong people on the field

 

This does seem to be the case. The NFL Network reported that Fewell may make armbands so the D knows what the plays are.

[ksm7]

oh yeah, something like that. The Super Bowl fell in the middle of a 15-1 run by the Giants.

 

but you know, winning Super Bowls is over achieving for 15-1 teams, so obviously the Giants just got lucky.

 

ha ha ha ha...man, the dog thinks you have such a complex as a fan. if you can't recognize the fact that the giants overachieved in 2007, so be it. but a 10-6 team that was inconsistent the better part of the year and went on a remarkable playoff run is a dominant team? the dog never said they got lucky, that is you letting your insecurities fly. and, as an fyi, the dog didn't say they were bad or lucky the following year, just that they COLLAPSED IN THE PLAYOFFS, which they did. since then, the dog stands by what was said above. really, take a breath. deep breathing. the giants struggling through the season will not (the dog hopes) have a significant impact on your life...breath....breath....

[ksm7]

WR anf TE- Dominant

 

RB- not so much, need to use Scott

 

O-Line- average

 

QB- Dominant

 

DL- Dominant

 

LB- Average to Good

 

DB- Average

 

you're right Dog I was being a bit of a fan, but the areas that are Average have very good potential to achieve

 

jack, the dog admires your passion, but let's be realistic:

 

WR: Nicks is an immense talent, but weather or not he can remain healthy could preclude him from reaching full potential. manningham is a solid #2, and cruz has explosive potential, but 3 games does not make for a hall of famer yet. the group is strong overall with stronger potential.

 

TE: dog isn't touching this one except to say dominant TE's are Davis, Gates, Gonzalez...not sure who the giants even have to constitute dominance.

 

O-line: area of weakness overall. Not bad, but far from dominant. look no further than the inability to run the ball

 

RB: the dog isn't impressed, which is hard to say b/c the dog always liked bradshaw...still could be great. jacobs is an underachieving mouth who can't complete a full season...not dominant.

 

QB: inconsistency...inconsistency...inconsistency....

 

D-line: on paper they are dominant, but again, to be dominant, you have to be on the field. stay healthy and they are the best unit collectively in the league.

 

LB: not impressed. not bad, but not dominant

 

DB: see LB, only a little better.

[CrazedDogs]

ha ha ha ha...man, the dog thinks you have such a complex as a fan. if you can't recognize the fact that the giants overachieved in 2007, so be it. but a 10-6 team that was inconsistent the better part of the year and went on a remarkable playoff run is a dominant team? the dog never said they got lucky, that is you letting your insecurities fly. and, as an fyi, the dog didn't say they were bad or lucky the following year, just that they COLLAPSED IN THE PLAYOFFS, which they did. since then, the dog stands by what was said above. really, take a breath. deep breathing. the giants struggling through the season will not (the dog hopes) have a significant impact on your life...breath....breath....

 

Your trolling would be more effective if you knew the Giants, football in general, in far more depth. Jesus man, playoff collapse in 2008? Do you just make shit up as you go along? That was the year Plaxico went full retard out there, took himself out with a few games to play, and the Giants had dropped like 3 of 4 or 4 of 5 heading into the playoffs. We might have hoped the season would end differently, but it takes someone special to pretend that was a 'playoff collapse', because that team was done. Hell, it was probably done before Plaxico did his thing, because the linebackers got real slow by the end of 2008, they couldn't cover anybody, and offenses were exploiting it constantly. The writing was on the wall, I knew the run was over.

 

If you want to know what I 'recognize', its that football is best assessed as a series of single game seasons. I know that may seem strange to most, but think about it - football is all at once a game of highly coordinated teamwork, an emotional game, and a war of attrition, such that the best team in week 4 isn't necessarily the best team in week 5. And only a damn fool makes any assumptions about the playoffs or Super Bowl based on what happened in week 1.

 

By any reasonable measurement, that 2007 season championship fell smack in the middle of a brief run in which the Giants were clearly the most dominant team in football. Overacheived? They made it in to the dance with a 10-6 record, a comensurate points for/against ratio, and played a tough schedule too. To me thats not overacheiving. Given the way they played the following season too, at least the first 3/4ths of it, its completely trollish and disingenuous to suggest that the Giants somehow got to and won the Super Bowl but didn't really deserve it.

 

For what its worth, I think 'overacheive' is a bullshit word anyway. You acheive what you acheive, there isn't any over or under, you are what you are. If you have to work harder to do it, then work harder, but when you get what you're striving for, you didn't overacheive... you acheived.

[JackStroud]

jack, the dog admires your passion, but let's be realistic:

 

WR: Nicks is an immense talent, but weather or not he can remain healthy could preclude him from reaching full potential. manningham is a solid #2, and cruz has explosive potential, but 3 games does not make for a hall of famer yet. the group is strong overall with stronger potential.

 

TE: dog isn't touching this one except to say dominant TE's are Davis, Gates, Gonzalez...not sure who the giants even have to constitute dominance.

 

O-line: area of weakness overall. Not bad, but far from dominant. look no further than the inability to run the ball

 

RB: the dog isn't impressed, which is hard to say b/c the dog always liked bradshaw...still could be great. jacobs is an underachieving mouth who can't complete a full season...not dominant.

 

QB: inconsistency...inconsistency...inconsistency....

 

D-line: on paper they are dominant, but again, to be dominant, you have to be on the field. stay healthy and they are the best unit collectively in the league.

 

LB: not impressed. not bad, but not dominant

 

 

It would be interesting to see a similar Cowboy assesment from you ....not that you are a Cowboy fan or anything like that......I respect your independence

as I am neither a Demopublican or a Republicat.......I'm an independent thinker

 

You got it pretty right on the Giants....and coaching is a c minus for them

 

but you have Cruz out of order he is now Enigma's favorite receiver......at least #2......Mannningham has fallen off the face of the earth.......wanna trade him for Myles?

 

Then we could put Garfield next to Paterson NJ

 

DB: see LB, only a little better.

[ksm7]

Your trolling would be more effective if you knew the Giants, football in general, in far more depth. Jesus man, playoff collapse in 2008? Do you just make shit up as you go along? That was the year Plaxico went full retard out there, took himself out with a few games to play, and the Giants had dropped like 3 of 4 or 4 of 5 heading into the playoffs. We might have hoped the season would end differently, but it takes someone special to pretend that was a 'playoff collapse', because that team was done. Hell, it was probably done before Plaxico did his thing, because the linebackers got real slow by the end of 2008, they couldn't cover anybody, and offenses were exploiting it constantly. The writing was on the wall, I knew the run was over.

 

If you want to know what I 'recognize', its that football is best assessed as a series of single game seasons. I know that may seem strange to most, but think about it - football is all at once a game of highly coordinated teamwork, an emotional game, and a war of attrition, such that the best team in week 4 isn't necessarily the best team in week 5. And only a damn fool makes any assumptions about the playoffs or Super Bowl based on what happened in week 1.

 

By any reasonable measurement, that 2007 season championship fell smack in the middle of a brief run in which the Giants were clearly the most dominant team in football. Overacheived? They made it in to the dance with a 10-6 record, a comensurate points for/against ratio, and played a tough schedule too. To me thats not overacheiving. Given the way they played the following season too, at least the first 3/4ths of it, its completely trollish and disingenuous to suggest that the Giants somehow got to and won the Super Bowl but didn't really deserve it.

 

For what its worth, I think 'overacheive' is a bullshit word anyway. You acheive what you acheive, there isn't any over or under, you are what you are. If you have to work harder to do it, then work harder, but when you get what you're striving for, you didn't overacheive... you acheived.

 

OK oh football guru, the dog will come to you to bring guidance to all thoughts football related. so guide:

 

the giants finished the 2008 season as the number 1 seed, with home field throughout. if the loss of burress due to his own stupidity took the team that was so dominant as you said they were during that stretch, then that team wasn't so dominant afterall. the playoff loss was a collapse. it was a number 1 seed losing to a wildcard team at home. slowing linebackers? really? stop.

 

the 2007 giants got hot at the right time. read again. the dog isn't being insulting, and never once said they didn't deserve it. but they overachieved that year (by the way, overachieving is not a bad thing guru, it is a good thing, and speaks to character and coaching leadership). the dog never said they got lucky for a stretch of time and fell ass backwards into a super bowl...you overachieve when you work harder to achieve greater than your talent level is. say what you want, the patriots were a dominant team that year. one loss doesn't dispell that they were the better team. but not on that day. it happens. would you say given the talent level in philadelphia, they are a bad, 1-4 team over the, how would you put it, 5 single game seasons they have played thus far? or is it possible they are not achieving to their talent level?

 

the dog is wondering what position you hold in the giants organization, because your passion to jump without comprehending what was written leads the dog to believe that you must have a stake in this that goes beyond fandom...

[ksm7]

It would be interesting to see a similar Cowboy assesment from you ....not that you are a Cowboy fan or anything like that......I respect your independence

as I am neither a Demopublican or a Republicat.......I'm an independent thinker

 

You got it pretty right on the Giants....and coaching is a c minus for them

 

but you have Cruz out of order he is now Enigma's favorite receiver......at least #2......Mannningham has fallen off the face of the earth.......wanna trade him for Myles?

 

Then we could put Garfield next to Paterson NJ

 

DB: see LB, only a little better.

 

the dog sees the cowboys this way:

 

O-line: area of weakness. too young and not sure if the talent is there or not, but right now, weak, weak, weak.

WR: like the giants, strong with the potential to be very strong. bryant is a huge talent, but like nicks there is the health concern. the dog likes austin as a strong number 2. the other receivers are all servicebale in the roles they play.

 

TE: dominant. witten is an excellent TE that gives defenses fits

 

QB: inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent...the dog likes romo's skill set, and quite honestly he adds a playmaking ability and outward leadership that the dog likes ahead of manning, but he is also a frustrating "enigma" as you say, because of his inconsistency

 

RB: another enigma. good potential but not achieving. the dog likes jones the way the dog likes bradshaw, but both leave you wanting more right now

 

DLine: dominant - not to the degree of the giants when healthy, but very strong

 

LB: strong group...not quite dominant, but strong overall

 

DB: weak, weak, weak...

 

coaching - the dog likes garret, but hard to say at this stage if he is legit or not...he did take over for a bumbling fool, so he has his work cut out for him...

[JackStroud]

The only dominance the Giants have ever shown in their entire history was the 1986 team in its playoff run only

mostly due to Jim Burt who had a mad ass temper, LT, and Little Joe Morris

 

Thats the pain of being a Giants fan you never get blow-outs one way or the other .....other teams revel in ass kicking

we never get to administer one

 

 

This what I try to tell these guys on here but they never get it, defend every starter no matter how piss poor, think Coughlin is a genius (he is nowhere near), and think every sub is a sub because they dont look like Jim Brown in practice

 

If a sub should play and does not immediately look like Johnny Unitas they are NO GOOD

 

they will never get it, and the Giants will only get blowouts and cheerleaders when the last Mara is gone.........or the team is sold

 

they could not even put a retractable roof on a 1.5 billion dollar stadium...........we have idiots for owners

 

They even alienated Phil Simms by cutting him when he still had a 3 quarters worth of gas in his tank, to cut costs.

 

Conservatism is our motto

[CrazedDogs]

OK oh football guru, the dog will come to you to bring guidance to all thoughts football related. so guide:

 

the giants finished the 2008 season as the number 1 seed, with home field throughout. if the loss of burress due to his own stupidity took the team that was so dominant as you said they were during that stretch, then that team wasn't so dominant afterall. the playoff loss was a collapse. it was a number 1 seed losing to a wildcard team at home. slowing linebackers? really? stop.

 

the 2007 giants got hot at the right time. read again. the dog isn't being insulting, and never once said they didn't deserve it. but they overachieved that year (by the way, overachieving is not a bad thing guru, it is a good thing, and speaks to character and coaching leadership). the dog never said they got lucky for a stretch of time and fell ass backwards into a super bowl...you overachieve when you work harder to achieve greater than your talent level is. say what you want, the patriots were a dominant team that year. one loss doesn't dispell that they were the better team. but not on that day. it happens. would you say given the talent level in philadelphia, they are a bad, 1-4 team over the, how would you put it, 5 single game seasons they have played thus far? or is it possible they are not achieving to their talent level?

 

the dog is wondering what position you hold in the giants organization, because your passion to jump without comprehending what was written leads the dog to believe that you must have a stake in this that goes beyond fandom...

 

Our opinions aren't all that different.... if you were being completely straight with us, I think you would agree that championships in the modern NFL are always won by the team that gets hot at just the right time. So why should we be surprised when a team that has consistently made it to the playoffs gets hot and then gets their rings? Thats one reason why the 'overachievers' label doesn't apply; at best, its a back-handed compliment.

 

The 2007 Patriots were winding down through the playoffs. In the middle of that season they were hands down the best football team I'd ever seen. But at the very end, like the 2008 Giants, the writing was on the wall. I honestly don't think the Patriots, at that point, were the better team. They had protection problems that the Giants had no trouble exploiting; they were going to get to Brady all day long, no matter how many times those two teams lined up. Likewise, the Giants could move the ball on the Patriots more effectively . They controlled the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, and believe it or not they had better match ups in their secondary.

 

Philadelphia?.... (by the way, is that your team?)... no, like I said, I think this over- or underachiever shit is total bull. Philadelphia is playing exactly to their overall talent level.

[Steitzenhaus]

All the regular season does is give you the chance to play meaningful games in the postseason. That's it. Look at baseball right now. There isn't a fan out there who would disagree that the Phillies were the clear favorites to at least represent the National League in the World Series. It's about peaking at the right time. New England's greatest sin in 2007 was that they were so incredibly dominant they probably didn't have a clear plan when they got punched in the mouth. I really can't blame them either that's the best team I have ever seen. And I think the overachiever label is bullshit. That's for other teams fans to use and make it look like some crap Rudy-like story. They beat a 13 win Dallas team in their building, who already beat them twice that year. They beat the Packers at Lambeau in one of the coldest games on record and then they beat a team that was one win away from literally being the greatest team ever assembled.