PDA

View Full Version : Does everyone still trust Fewell?



elifan10
03-25-2012, 06:59 PM
I dont want to sound like a hater. But I get the vibe that we got on a run this year especially from the d-line and its pass rush. I felt like Fewell, for a majority of the season, never made adjustments.
When we had Spags he would always be making adjustments and working with the players. I just dont totally trust Fewell yet. We do have to remember that before the playoff run it was a virtual certainty that he was going to be gone.

So anyway I just wanted to hear your thoughts on Fewell and for the people that are totally happy with him tell me why. I know we did win a superbowl but again without a pass rush he didnt do that much schematically.

jmike
03-25-2012, 07:05 PM
I have not been a huge fan of Fewell since he has been here, still not but I am optimistic now after the recent run.

NYG4lifeNYK
03-25-2012, 07:07 PM
Yes.


He can call absolutely GENUIS game at times... however he can also call an abysmal games at times.


I want to give him the chance with a healthy defense and another year in the scheme.

elifan10
03-25-2012, 07:10 PM
Yes.


He can call absolutely GENUIS game at times... however he can also call an abysmal games at times.


I want to give him the chance with a healthy defense and another year in the scheme.

Yeah he has defintely earned another year I just dont trust him.

GameTime
03-25-2012, 07:29 PM
The Mara's and Tisch's do so that ok be me.......

THE_New_York_Giants
03-25-2012, 07:34 PM
well we haven't won a championship since he's been DC.... oh wait.

Flip Empty
03-25-2012, 07:46 PM
He lost half his squad to injury last season, can you blame him for his defense's poor performance during much of the regular season?

logan9839
03-25-2012, 07:55 PM
When the D was healthy they played great. Fewell is part of the reason why and is a very good D Coord.

BigBlue1971
03-25-2012, 07:56 PM
yea i trust Fewell! the players buy into his plan thats why they are the champions!</P>


he'll make them better this season!</P>

allentown PA
03-25-2012, 08:01 PM
was never a big fan of all his loose zone schemes but once he started playing press coverage and letting our D-line do their thing...combine that with the defense getting healthy and you have superbowl ring number 4...im not sure but I dont thnk he is great at in game adjustments either...

GiantsInTheNFCEast
03-25-2012, 08:03 PM
He lost half his squad to injury last season, can you blame him for his defense's poor performance during much of the regular season?

the person that started this trend sounds like the NY media. State the problem (that sells) and ignore the cause. Thanks for pointing it out to him.

dave56dj
03-25-2012, 08:15 PM
How can we trust him - He lost Tuck for much of the year with the labrum and groin - osi for half a year - starting corner on IR (t2) - starting mlb on IR (goff)- 7 corners on IR - forced a safety to play nickel - had to start 3 rookie LB's - played a MLB off the couch and his D was only very good against make that GREAT against falcons - packers - 9ers and Patriots and we only won the superbowl - I think now is the perfect time to question him.

Neverend
03-25-2012, 08:22 PM
Same here, I don't trust him at all

He will at times call a tremendous game every blue moon or so (vs houston, philly, atl) but for the most part isnt very special. I don't think he has a great understanding/feel for his talent and will put players in a position to fail, not perform to the best of their ability, or unable to maximize their talents best.

His adjustments are pretty crappy. Will at times mix it up but for the most part is a stubborn play caller.

Dislike him... defense gets on despite him

Harooni
03-25-2012, 08:25 PM
This place is amazing ,if you critic gilbride you are a loser no nothing because we just won a sb. but yet a lot of you can get on fewell.

i dont get the logic .

tonyt830
03-25-2012, 09:28 PM
Do I trust Fewell?? Hmmm---maybe with a healthy defense and a full offseason of mini-camps, OTAs, training camp and preseason for the rookies and 2nd yr guys, our defense will build upon their late season success in 2011.</P>


</P>


</P>


The main thing is that Coughlin and the players trust and believe in Fewell.</P>

Mod_C
03-25-2012, 09:42 PM
This place is amazing ,if you critic gilbride you are a loser no nothing because we just won a sb. but yet a lot of you can get on fewell.

i dont get the logic .


Somewhere along the line not everyone got the ALL IN message. Winning the Super Bowl was a concerted effort by EVERYONE, coordinators included.

We haven't had the first OTA but we're still stuck at mid-season, 2011.

Kingb50
03-25-2012, 09:59 PM
I dont want to sound like a hater. But I get the vibe that we got on a run this year especially from the d-line and its pass rush. I felt like Fewell, for a majority of the season, never made adjustments.
When we had Spags he would always be making adjustments and working with the players. I just dont totally trust Fewell yet. We do have to remember that before the playoff run it was a virtual certainty that he was going to be gone.

So anyway I just wanted to hear your thoughts on Fewell and for the people that are totally happy with him tell me why. I know we did win a superbowl but again without a pass rush he didnt do that much schematically.

Sure we had a pretty beat up defense at the begining of the year. When we started getting healthy , we improved in almost every category. This year he'll have a full training camp and OTAs and some key starters back. BTW stop talking about Spags he's not coming back those days are gone both have a ring, Id like to see us have some stability at the dc position.

Coach Carter
03-25-2012, 10:41 PM
I dont want to sound like a hater. But I get the vibe that we got on a run this year especially from the d-line and its pass rush. I felt like Fewell, for a majority of the season, never made adjustments.
When we had Spags he would always be making adjustments and working with the players. I just dont totally trust Fewell yet. We do have to remember that before the playoff run it was a virtual certainty that he was going to be gone.

So anyway I just wanted to hear your thoughts on Fewell and for the people that are totally happy with him tell me why. I know we did win a superbowl but again without a pass rush he didnt do that much schematically.

A lot of menstruating men on these boards, must be the new moon. We beat Dallas and Jets to make the playoffs, then we shut out Atlanta, murder Greenbay, beat the team with the best defense in the league, and then shutdown Brady - but you don't trust him.

Man shut the **** up.

JJC7301
03-25-2012, 11:01 PM
I have not been a huge fan of Fewell since he has been here, still not but I am optimistic now after the recent run.

+1. If this team has injuries, I don't see him making adjustments. What got the D better wasn't any adjustments on his part, but just the D getting healthier.

But I gotta give him credit -- when healthy, the D was excellent and helped us win a SB when we had a 9-7 record. Well done, Fewell. Nobody can ever take that away from you.

allentown PA
03-25-2012, 11:25 PM
I have not been a huge fan of Fewell since he has been here, still not but I am optimistic now after the recent run.

+1. If this team has injuries, I don't see him making adjustments. What got the D better wasn't any adjustments on his part, but just the D getting healthier.

But I gotta give him credit -- when healthy, the D was excellent and helped us win a SB when we had a 9-7 record. Well done, Fewell. Nobody can ever take that away from you.

disagree..he used much more press coverage and got away from that loose zone..once he did that and we got healthy on the d-line they were the best team in the NFL imo...from the jets game on.

Drez
03-25-2012, 11:54 PM
This place is amazing ,if you critic gilbride you are a loser no nothing because we just won a sb. but yet a lot of you can get on fewell.

i dont get the logic .

You never cease to amaze.

BillTheGreek
03-26-2012, 01:04 AM
If you don't trust him WHO do you trust ?

elifan10
03-26-2012, 01:27 AM
If you don't trust him WHO do you trust ?
Actually a lot of people. ELI, JPP, Webster, Cruz, Nicks, and Coughlin and Gilbride. I have been one here that has hated on Fewell but I have never said anything about Gilbride I dont think hes bad.

elifan10
03-26-2012, 01:28 AM
I dont want to sound like a hater. But I get the vibe that we got on a run this year especially from the d-line and its pass rush. I felt like Fewell, for a majority of the season, never made adjustments.
When we had Spags he would always be making adjustments and working with the players. I just dont totally trust Fewell yet. We do have to remember that before the playoff run it was a virtual certainty that he was going to be gone.

So anyway I just wanted to hear your thoughts on Fewell and for the people that are totally happy with him tell me why. I know we did win a superbowl but again without a pass rush he didnt do that much schematically.

A lot of menstruating men on these boards, must be the new moon. We beat Dallas and Jets to make the playoffs, then we shut out Atlanta, murder Greenbay, beat the team with the best defense in the league, and then shutdown Brady - but you don't trust him.

Man shut the **** up.
UMADBRO

Toadofsteel
03-26-2012, 03:59 AM
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's on a much shorter leash than Coughlin or Gilbride.

gmen46
03-26-2012, 04:15 AM
No. I don't trust any DC who adjusted to losing 5-6 CBs and starting MLB for entire season, 2 of his best 3 DEs for half the season, and who coached the defense to giving up the least points per game and 3rd least yards during the post season on the way to winning the Super Bowl.

I cannot in good conscience trust a coach like that.

Give me the DC of the 2011 Colts any day.

Or one who thinks he can't win without some good ole fashioned bonus-for-kill-shots offered to his boys before each game.

Coach Carter
03-26-2012, 05:51 AM
I dont want to sound like a hater. But I get the vibe that we got on a run this year especially from the d-line and its pass rush. I felt like Fewell, for a majority of the season, never made adjustments.
When we had Spags he would always be making adjustments and working with the players. I just dont totally trust Fewell yet. We do have to remember that before the playoff run it was a virtual certainty that he was going to be gone.

So anyway I just wanted to hear your thoughts on Fewell and for the people that are totally happy with him tell me why. I know we did win a superbowl but again without a pass rush he didnt do that much schematically.

A lot of menstruating men on these boards, must be the new moon. We beat Dallas and Jets to make the playoffs, then we shut out Atlanta, murder Greenbay, beat the team with the best defense in the league, and then shutdown Brady - but you don't trust him.

Man shut the **** up.
UMADBRO

You do realize that the Giants went 5-0 vs the AFC East last season (beat the Pats twice)? Fewell was a d.coordinator in the AFC East.

I hate the zone defense and I think our corners are better suited to play press man but Fewell did a excellent job considering the amount of corners on IR last season.

Think about this, Rolle only played safety TWICE all last season. You can't play press man if you don't have the personnel. With a healthy T2, a more confident Prince, C.Webb and other, the Giants should be able to be more aggressive on defense.

Last point, that pass that Welker dropped in the SB was vs a Cover 3 but Ross or C.Web didn't get to their deep third and left a gaping hole in the defense. Our corners are not good at playing zone. So I understand where you are coming from.

Diamondring
03-26-2012, 06:37 AM
He lost half his squad to injury last season, can you blame him for his defense's poor performance during much of the regular season?But it shouldn't matter since even with injuries, the Giants defense should still be good. I have no access to red front for sarcasm.

giantyankee1976
03-26-2012, 07:14 AM
in short: No

when he lets the front 4, stunt and pass rush, my trust in him increases.

when the D falls back into a zone coverage, my confidence dips

seems like our D does better when on the attack, as much as a gamble that is---leaving a area "undefended" ripe for a checkdown or big play.

hence why I wish our second level was better quality!

buddy33
03-26-2012, 07:52 AM
I was still backing him up after the Saints game so yes, I trust him.

How many DB's did he lose in pre season? How many guys where they getting off the street that where playing well and then they where out for the year? Maybe this year Rolle will be able to play Safety the way they wanted him to when they brought him here.

Because of injuries he was forced to use two 6th round picks and a FA pick up at LB this year, a lock out year.

Then, in pre season, Tuck was injured and was not right until the end of the season. Add Osi being hurt and now the DL was not as affective. Oh, and he may have been just a rookie, but they also lost Austin for the year during pre season.

So what was PF supposed to do? People complained about the 3 man rush. Yeah it stinks, but with the injuries on the DL they where not getting pressure with the 4 man rush and getting torched with a depleted secondary.

SweetZombieJesus
03-26-2012, 08:46 AM
I have been more of a non-fan (especially with those 3 man rushes and the ludicrous number of 3rd-and-long conversions he gives up) but he got it done. And when it worked at its best, it wasn't as devastating a rush as Spags had going, but it was still good.

Nothing I love more than a pocket collapsing and a guys flying to a pile of bodies.

GameTime
03-26-2012, 08:59 AM
<FONT color=#ff0000>No. I don't trust any DC who adjusted to losing 5-6 CBs and starting MLB for entire season, 2 of his best 3 DEs for half the season, and who coached the defense to giving up the least points per game and 3rd least yards during the post season on the way to winning the Super Bowl.</FONT> <FONT color=#ff0000>I cannot in good conscience trust a coach like that. Give me the DC of the 2011 Colts any day. Or one who thinks he can't win without some good ole fashioned bonus-for-kill-shots offered to his boys before each game.</FONT></P>


well said....and I added the red.....:)</P>

gumby742
03-26-2012, 09:13 AM
Even with injuries, the Giants collectively on defense had more talent then probably 2/3's of the league. And people are saying that is excuse enough to be practically dead last on defense? Not acceptable imo.</P>


We got hot at the right time and won it all. I'm ecstatic that our defense was able to step up. But I'm still not going to be able to look someone in the eye and tell them I'm not worried about our defense at all. When we got hot, we also got healthier. All that tells me is that Fewell doesn't have the ability to adjust. Even when injured, we have decent talent, but we're almost last in the league in defense. A couple guys come back and then we're great? Something is wrong.</P>


Fact is, we were terrible, and I mean really terrible, for most of the season. Show me consistency, then I'll believe. </P>


Until then, no, I don't have faith in Fewell either.</P>

nygsb42champs
03-26-2012, 09:52 AM
<FONT color=#0000ff>I am not the biggest fan of Fewell. That being said I want to see him with a 100% healthy defensive unit this year.</FONT>

Harlem2va
03-26-2012, 09:59 AM
When someone start a paragraph or a sentence with "I don't want to be a hater" you're a hater!! The bottom line is to win football games, with the injuries we had in preseason I was just hoping for an 8-8 season. We made the playoffs and got hot, We won the Superbowl!! But some fans can't enjoy the victory without whinning about the mistakes he made during the year. I bet if I came to your job and watch you work for a year I would find mistake you made. Their are 31 other teams that would love to have the problems we had and win the Superbowl; let's enjoy our moment - focus on the draft!!

TuckYou
03-26-2012, 10:05 AM
Sending 3 at Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers on a 3rd and goal is NEVER a good idea, and Fewell does it continually. Thats my issue.

buddy33
03-26-2012, 10:55 AM
Still trying to understand how he was supposed to adjust to all the injuries. They where so depleted at the CB position they had to use their Safety to defend the slot. They used 3 rookies at LB in a lock out season and had to get Chase off the couch to come and play. One of the top 5 DE's in the league was injured in pre season and only got right at the end of the year while heir pass rushing specialist DE missed about half the season.

Until they where healthy when they rushed 4 they where getting torched by QB's.

TrueBlue@NYC
03-26-2012, 11:28 AM
Sending 3 at Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers on a 3rd and goal is NEVER a good idea, and Fewell does it continually. Thats my issue.</P>


Sending 3 on a third and goal is actually generally very effective b/c there's such a small window to operate in and there's 8 defenders clogging up the throwing lanes. </P>


The problem with the 1st GB game when that happended is that the 3 man rush litterally gave up and rodgers had almost 10 seconds to throw. Even on a 3 man rushyou don't get that much time. Bernard was the biggest culprit b/c he was single blocked for all of that 3 seconds. </P>

Kruunch
03-26-2012, 11:38 AM
I wasn't a huge fan of Fewell mostly because I'm not a fan of the "read and react" defense.

I hate when he only rushes three linemen as it almost never turns out well for us.

I hate the fact that through week 15 our secondary looked lost and often was seen wandering around the field unsure of what their assignment was.

I hate the fact that we had a Top 10 defense in 2010 but they got absolutely CRUSHED by any opponents with winning records (the Bears being the only exception).

Having said all that, Fewell did one thing I look for in a coach ... he adjusted.

So while I'm not wildly optimistic about his defenses, I am hopeful for 2012.

TrueBlue@NYC
03-26-2012, 11:44 AM
I think PF gets both too much credit when things are good and too much criticism when things are bad. </P>


Our defense hasn't changed since Spags was here. When our DL is putting up a great pass rush and we're stopping the run, we look great. When we can't get any rush with our DL we stink. </P>


Doesn't matter what kind of coverage you run behind it. If you get no rush, the opposing team will move the ball on you. It's no coincidence that the defense all of a sudden stared looking good when Osi came back and Tuck started getting healthy. </P>

Raptor22
03-26-2012, 12:35 PM
As long as he runs the D he did weeks 16 &amp; 17 through the Super Bowl... Hell Yes. That was an epically good defense.

(seriously, corrected for shoddy officiating, it held Matt Ryan, Aaron Rogers, and Tom Brady to an average of ~7 points a game.)

Bohemian
03-26-2012, 12:53 PM
I guess that I trust coach Fewell as much as I trust any coach. The defense was completely decimated by injuries to key players before the season even opened, and he was able to develop enough chemistry and momentum, allowing them to find their stride in time for the post-season. He deserves a lot of credit for fixing a devastated depth chart. I can only imagine that if we can avoid the crazy injuries this coming season, the defense should show further progress. The other thing that I noticed, was how the team finally started to realize cohesion from within the team, instead of waiting for Strahan to do everything but suit-up

yoeddy
03-26-2012, 12:57 PM
I'm fine with Fewell...just make sure the injuries are kept in check...

Kase-1
03-26-2012, 01:29 PM
I wasn't a huge fan of Fewell mostly because I'm not a fan of the "read and react" defense.

I hate when he only rushes three linemen as it almost never turns out well for us.

I hate the fact that through week 15 our secondary looked lost and often was seen wandering around the field unsure of what their assignment was.

I hate the fact that we had a Top 10 defense in 2010 but they got absolutely CRUSHED by any opponents with winning records (the Bears being the only exception).

Having said all that, Fewell did one thing I look for in a coach ... he adjusted.

So while I'm not wildly optimistic about his defenses, I am hopeful for 2012.At 1st I was on the fence about Fewell, then when we had a fully healthy starting D we were top 10 in just about every category, then when we had a ton of injuries we won the SB, dude straight up adjusts to what he has.

The 'read &amp; react' D isnt my fav either, but when its executed well its effective, we may allow receptions but usually with r&amp;r there is no YAC and when its executed correctly and we SMASH WRs the second they make a catch then we instill that fear that the WRs are gonna get mashed out the second they set hands on the ball

I wasnt really a zone fan either, I like my DBs big, mean, and tough as hell when it comes to bump n run, but when run correctly the zone D is great, QBs have nowhere to throw and if they do have a window it gets shut the second the ball gets released

Neverend
03-26-2012, 01:36 PM
The reason why the D turned it around at week 16 (aside from the fact that the jets have a crappy offense) is because for the first time all year fewell called a ton of man coverage (although he did call a lot of man against the pats)

But before that he was stubborn. Sticking to his zone defensive concepts all year to below average results. And when the defense was at its worst during mid season, he constantly loved to drop everyone back into zone and rush 3. It can work sometimes, but only when you do it rarely. But to make it the cornerstone of your game plan? It was atricious

It took him until week 16 to "get it". Will we see him continue the man coverage into next year? Hopefully, but I'm not optimstic. It was still largely a tampa 2 defense in base packages. Meh, "wait and see" I guess

TrueBlue@NYC
03-26-2012, 01:54 PM
The reason why the D turned it around at week 16 (aside from the fact that the jets have a crappy offense) is because for the first time all year fewell called a ton of man coverage (although he did call a lot of man against the pats) But before that he was stubborn. Sticking to his zone defensive concepts all year to below average results. And when the defense was at its worst during mid season, he constantly loved to drop everyone back into zone and rush 3. It can work sometimes, but only when you do it rarely. But to make it the cornerstone of your game plan? It was atricious It took him until week 16 to "get it". Will we see him continue the man coverage into next year? Hopefully, but I'm not optimstic. It was still largely a tampa 2 defense in base packages. Meh, "wait and see" I guess</P>


You're completely wrong in you statement. PF didn't change any of his coverage schemes later in the year or in the playoffs. We played plenty of man coverage at the beginning of the year as well as zone. </P>


What changed in the defense wasn't anything schematically. It was a combination of </P>


1. The defense getting healthy, specifically Osi and Tuck.</P>


2. Blackburn filling in and finally giving us a competent MLB that at least knew where he had to be on a given play. </P>


3. Rolle taking on the role as the nickle CB. </P>


We still ran the same schemes and coverages as before. It was just that now we had the horses to make it work. The only significant change that I saw was that we used alot more stunts with our DL than before. </P>

burier
03-26-2012, 02:22 PM
This thread is a flame fest waiting to happen so I'll just say this.</P>


For the people who seem to think that PF was hamstrung but injuries last season and are dying to see what he can do with a healthy Defense.</P>


What makes you think we're not going to have injuries this coming season? Don't we have injuries every season? Isn't that a part of football?</P>


All I'm saying is if you want to use injuries as an excuse prepare to make excuses every season.</P>

hadenough
03-26-2012, 02:34 PM
No....Fewell seems like a good dude so I don't really want to bash him. But he is the type of coordinator that needs really good talent to be really good.

Neverend
03-26-2012, 02:45 PM
PF didn't change any of his coverage schemes later in the year or in the playoffs.

This is incorrect. The Giants were largely a zone team all year. There was some games (pats, miami) that they played a considerable high amount of man, but overall it was largely zone. They did play an amount of man-under against the cowboys and packers, but also mixed in with a lot of zone. The game plan against the Jets was completely different from anything they had done all year, it wasn't man-under or off-man, they played a ton of press, tight man to man coverage. Just look at the week before against the redskins and the amount of zone they played. The tight man cvg continued next week against dallas. Not the only reason why the D turned it around but was a significant factor.

Although against the falcons they did play some zone and in the super bowl against the pats. But not enough to say that Perry fewell didn't change anything about his schemes/play calling from week 1-15. Thats just an absurd thing to say I'm "completely wrong" about that.


We played plenty of man coverage at the beginning of the year as well as zone.

Don't make an unsupported statement and expect me to say "oh im wrong. we played a lot of man". Back it up, man. I think you're very wrong about that as well. "Plenty" is pushing it, it was largely mostly zone cvg except games against miami and new england where the game plans centered around tight man cvg


What changed in the defense wasn't anything schematically.

Just wrong. If you had said things changed schematically but had nothing to do with why the defense improved but because of injuries -- I'd honor your opinion. But to say nothing changed and they sticked with the zone cvg concepts is completely ridiculous.


The defense getting healthy, specifically Osi and Tuck

I agree. But Osi didn't play against the Jets and wasn't the reason why that specific week the defense completely changed. What changed week 16 largely was a result of schematic changes. Obviously Osi was a huge part of the playoff run


Blackburn filling in and finally giving us a competent MLB that at least knew where he had to be on a given play.

I agree, he was a huge factor.


Rolle taking on the role as the nickle CB.

Rolle "took on the role" of nickel CB since week 1. He individually wasn't much of a reason why the D turned it around week 16. He didn't even have a great game that week either. Rolle struggled in the slot in coverage all year, although he had a nice game against dallas and in the super bowl.


We still ran the same schemes and coverages as before. It was just that now we had the horses to make it work.

Completely wrong. The Giants, starting with week 16, ran a ton of more tight man coverage at the line than ever before. We saw it in spurts in some games but not at the consistent basis we saw starting W16. Against atlanta they did play some zone and in the super bowl at times, but not enough to say Fewell still ran the schemes he did in the beginning of the year and midseason.

G-Man67
03-26-2012, 02:48 PM
this is a QB league and a league that favors the O big time</P>


so if we end up short handed on D due to injuries, especially injuries to our pass rushers, then we will struggle</P>


but when we have a healthy JPP, Tuck and Osi getting after the QB ... we are very good on D ... Fewell, like many cooridinatiors, gets far too much blame when we struggle and far too much credit when we play well</P>

Redeyejedi
03-26-2012, 11:21 PM
Ive posted this many times but I will do it again. Football Outsiders has a metric for injuries.They weigh the importance of the player so games missed by Osi weigh more then the 53 guy on the roster. They also factor in banged up players. Last years NY Giants defense had the 3rd highest lost games Metric in the last decade. The 2 teams that were worse. The 0-16 Detroit Lions and the 6-10 2008 Bills. The Giants won the freaking Super Bowl. So yes I think Fewell deserves the benefit of the doubt

JJC7301
03-26-2012, 11:48 PM
I have not been a huge fan of Fewell since he has been here, still not but I am optimistic now after the recent run.

+1. If this team has injuries, I don't see him making adjustments. What got the D better wasn't any adjustments on his part, but just the D getting healthier.

But I gotta give him credit -- when healthy, the D was excellent and helped us win a SB when we had a 9-7 record. Well done, Fewell. Nobody can ever take that away from you.

disagree..he used much more press coverage and got away from that loose zone..once he did that and we got healthy on the d-line they were the best team in the NFL imo...from the jets game on.
But wasn't he using that loose zone coverage all of 2010 as well? I know that we had a lot of INTs that year, but also a lot of busted plays as well.

The secondary looked absolutely befuddled all of 2010 and up until the Jets game in '11. That's my complaint about him -- his seeming lack of adjustment.

Yes, he made the adjustment in the secondary but what took so long? Injuries? The D played like crap when injured and playing loose zone, so he should have switched to press coverage earlier which is what I believe that our secondary was built around anyway, or at least is the strength of our secondary players.

Neverend
03-27-2012, 12:47 AM
I have not been a huge fan of Fewell since he has been here, still not but I am optimistic now after the recent run.

+1. If this team has injuries, I don't see him making adjustments. What got the D better wasn't any adjustments on his part, but just the D getting healthier.

But I gotta give him credit -- when healthy, the D was excellent and helped us win a SB when we had a 9-7 record. Well done, Fewell. Nobody can ever take that away from you.

disagree..he used much more press coverage and got away from that loose zone..once he did that and we got healthy on the d-line they were the best team in the NFL imo...from the jets game on.
But wasn't he using that loose zone coverage all of 2010 as well? I know that we had a lot of INTs that year, but also a lot of busted plays as well.

The secondary looked absolutely befuddled all of 2010 and up until the Jets game in '11. That's my complaint about him -- his seeming lack of adjustment.

Yes, he made the adjustment in the secondary but what took so long? Injuries? The D played like crap when injured and playing loose zone, so he should have switched to press coverage earlier which is what I believe that our secondary was built around anyway, or at least is the strength of our secondary players.

In 2010, the defense played a good balance of zone and man -- with more towards man. But it wasn't tight man coverage like we saw in the jets game, it was a lot of off-man/press-bail.. with at times corners being lined off as far as 10 yards off the ball. I hated seeing a physical corner like terrell thomas asked to line off the receiver and force him to play fineese techniques

I think the reason why he adjusted against the jets is due to that specific game plan that week. deon grant/kp were talking about how they were "excited" over the game plan against the jets, figures..

buddy33
03-27-2012, 07:37 AM
Ive posted this many times but I will do it again. Football Outsiders has a metric for injuries.They weigh the importance of the player so games missed by Osi weigh more then the 53 guy on the roster. They also factor in banged up players. Last years NY Giants defense had the 3rd highest lost games Metric in the last decade. The 2 teams that were worse. The 0-16 Detroit Lions and the 6-10 2008 Bills. The Giants won the freaking Super Bowl. So yes I think Fewell deserves the benefit of the doubt

Can't believe I forgot about this. Great stat.

B-Red22
03-27-2012, 07:43 AM
Lets see he helped win us a superbowl with half the defense on IR.

gumby742
03-27-2012, 08:43 AM
Ive posted this many times but I will do it again. Football Outsiders has a metric for injuries.They weigh the importance of the player so games missed by Osi weigh more then the 53 guy on the roster. They also factor in banged up players. Last years NY Giants defense had the 3rd highest lost games Metric in the last decade. The 2 teams that were worse. The 0-16 Detroit Lions and the 6-10 2008 Bills. The Giants won the freaking Super Bowl. So yes I think Fewell deserves the benefit of the doubt </P>


Even with our injuries, I challenge you to find a more talented roster then we have. We'll definitely be top 15 guaranteed. Maybe even top 10. You're saying that having that kind of talent, despite injury still excuses a dead last ranking in defense?</P>

Diamondring
03-27-2012, 09:24 AM
No....Fewell seems like a good dude so I don't really want to bash him.* But he is the type of coordinator that needs really good talent to be really good.He did well with the Bills and with Tampa. I do wish he blitz more though to give our D-line help when they go up against talented O-lines.

buddy33
03-27-2012, 09:57 AM
Ive posted this many times but I will do it again. Football Outsiders has a metric for injuries.They weigh the importance of the player so games missed by Osi weigh more then the 53 guy on the roster. They also factor in banged up players. Last years NY Giants defense had the 3rd highest lost games Metric in the last decade. The 2 teams that were worse. The 0-16 Detroit Lions and the 6-10 2008 Bills. The Giants won the freaking Super Bowl. So yes I think Fewell deserves the benefit of the doubt* </P>


Even with our injuries, I challenge you to find a more talented roster then we have. We'll definitely be top 15 guaranteed.* Maybe even top 10.* You're saying that having that kind of talent, despite injury still excuses a dead last ranking in defense?</P>

How where they a top 15 or even top 10 defense with two of their DE's either out or not playing healthy, losing their #2 CB along with most of their depth at the position, using 3 rookie LB's during a lock out season, using their Safety to play the slot WR, and losing their 1st picks in the draft that play defense?

At the end of the year when they started to get healthy, or as healthy as they could get, they played better.

gumby742
03-28-2012, 08:41 AM
Ive posted this many times but I will do it again. Football Outsiders has a metric for injuries.They weigh the importance of the player so games missed by Osi weigh more then the 53 guy on the roster. They also factor in banged up players. Last years NY Giants defense had the 3rd highest lost games Metric in the last decade. The 2 teams that were worse. The 0-16 Detroit Lions and the 6-10 2008 Bills. The Giants won the freaking Super Bowl. So yes I think Fewell deserves the benefit of the doubt </P>


Even with our injuries, I challenge you to find a more talented roster then we have. We'll definitely be top 15 guaranteed. Maybe even top 10. You're saying that having that kind of talent, despite injury still excuses a dead last ranking in defense?</P>


How where they a top 15 or even top 10 defense with two of their DE's either out or not playing healthy, losing their #2 CB along with most of their depth at the position, using 3 rookie LB's during a lock out season, using their Safety to play the slot WR, and losing their 1st picks in the draft that play defense? At the end of the year when they started to get healthy, or as healthy as they could get, they played better.</P>


I said talent. If you have top 10 talent, you're expected to perform as such. If you have rock bottom talent, you're expected to be near the bottom. What is not acceptable is having top 10 talent and being near the bottom. How many defenses would love to have JPP, Joseph, Tuck, Osi part time, Boley, Webster, Rolle, Philips, Canty, etc. Heck, even our nickel Aaron Ross got signed to a lucrative contract.</P>

buddy33
03-28-2012, 08:50 AM
Again, when they where healthy they played better. Look all the players you just mentioned. How many games did they all play together healthy. Tuck was not right until the last couple of games. Osi was out for a number of games to start the season and in between as well. Probably the worst games the secondary played last year where when KP was hurt. Losing Boleynfor a couple of weeks didn't help either. Ross was statistically not very good and this year and the Giants opted to keep a guy who tore his ACL twice over him.

On paper they are a very talented team. They where at their healthiest at the end of the season and that is when it started to all click.

gumby742
03-28-2012, 10:27 AM
Again, when they where healthy they played better. Look all the players you just mentioned. How many games did they all play together healthy. Tuck was not right until the last couple of games. Osi was out for a number of games to start the season and in between as well. Probably the worst games the secondary played last year where when KP was hurt. Losing Boleynfor a couple of weeks didn't help either. Ross was statistically not very good and this year and the Giants opted to keep a guy who tore his ACL twice over him. On paper they are a very talented team. They where at their healthiest at the end of the season and that is when it started to all click.</P>


At the end of the day, did we play up to our talent level? I'd imagine a defense of Canty, JPP, Joseph, Webster, KP, Rolle would be at least average or above average talent wise. There's no excuse for playing so poorly. Hell, the Rams had a better defense then we did.</P>


If people want to blame injuries, that's cool. It's a legit excuse. But every defense goes through them, and it's the good co-ordinators that adjust and make due with what they have.We went from being almost dead last defense to a really really good one last year when a couple people came back. </P>


It seemed like Fewell was trying to build a defense much like he would a poorly built engine. If you just happen to lose a few cogs, the entire thing won't work. I would be binary condition - on or off. Where as a properly built defense/engine would still be able to operate at partial efficiency if a few pieces were missing.</P>

buddy33
03-28-2012, 10:48 AM
Again, when they where healthy they played better. Look all the players you just mentioned. How many games did they all play together healthy. Tuck was not right until the last couple of games. Osi was out for a number of games to start the season and in between as well. Probably the worst games the secondary played last year where when KP was hurt. Losing Boleynfor a couple of weeks didn't help either. Ross was statistically not very good and this year and the Giants opted to keep a guy who tore his ACL twice over him. On paper they are a very talented team. They where at their healthiest at the end of the season and that is when it started to all click.</P>


At the end of the day, did we play up to our talent level?* I'd imagine a defense of Canty, JPP, Joseph, Webster, KP, Rolle would be at* least average or above average talent wise.* There's no excuse for playing so poorly.* Hell, the Rams had a better defense then we did.</P>


If people want to blame injuries, that's cool.* It's a legit excuse.* But every defense goes through them, and it's the good co-ordinators that adjust and make due with what they have.**We went from being almost dead last defense to a really really good one last year when a couple people came back.* </P>


It seemed like Fewell was trying to build a defense much like he would a poorly built engine.* If you just happen to lose a few cogs, the entire thing won't work.* I would be binary condition - on or off.* Where as a properly built defense/engine would still be able to operate at partial efficiency if a few pieces were missing.</P>

Yeah, injuries are a part of the game, but not like hey ones hey had this year. It was already posted many times that the defense was one of the hardest hit units over the last decade. The only units that where worse where a very bad Bills team and the 0-16 Lions.

How could he make adjustments? He loses TT, Johnson, and Whitherspoon in pre season. He losses his stud 1st round pick for half the season in pre season. So he has Ross, who lost his job to TT, and a bunch of guys that probably don't make the team without all those injuries. So Coe starts to play good. What happens to him? He gets injured. They get Tyron to come in. He makes some plays and then he is out for the season. Of course this is with him having to use 3 rookie LB's in a lock out season.
Tuck by his own admission was not playing well for most of the year. Meanwhile Osi was out for half the year. Let's also add that they lost for some periods of time Boley and KP.

By the way, those stats on defense are based on yards. I'm not saying they played well for most of the season, but the difference between the #10 defense and the #27 defense was 44 yards a game.

gumby742
03-28-2012, 11:03 AM
Again, when they where healthy they played better. Look all the players you just mentioned. How many games did they all play together healthy. Tuck was not right until the last couple of games. Osi was out for a number of games to start the season and in between as well. Probably the worst games the secondary played last year where when KP was hurt. Losing Boleynfor a couple of weeks didn't help either. Ross was statistically not very good and this year and the Giants opted to keep a guy who tore his ACL twice over him. On paper they are a very talented team. They where at their healthiest at the end of the season and that is when it started to all click.</P>


At the end of the day, did we play up to our talent level? I'd imagine a defense of Canty, JPP, Joseph, Webster, KP, Rolle would be at least average or above average talent wise. There's no excuse for playing so poorly. Hell, the Rams had a better defense then we did.</P>


If people want to blame injuries, that's cool. It's a legit excuse. But every defense goes through them, and it's the good co-ordinators that adjust and make due with what they have.We went from being almost dead last defense to a really really good one last year when a couple people came back. </P>


It seemed like Fewell was trying to build a defense much like he would a poorly built engine. If you just happen to lose a few cogs, the entire thing won't work. I would be binary condition - on or off. Where as a properly built defense/engine would still be able to operate at partial efficiency if a few pieces were missing.</P>


Yeah, injuries are a part of the game, but not like hey ones hey had this year. It was already posted many times that the defense was one of the hardest hit units over the last decade. The only units that where worse where a very bad Bills team and the 0-16 Lions. How could he make adjustments? He loses TT, Johnson, and Whitherspoon in pre season. He losses his stud 1st round pick for half the season in pre season. Some has Ross, who lostbhisnjob to TT, and a bunch of guys that probably don't make the team without all those injuries. So Coe starts to play good. What happens to him? He gets injured. They get Tyron to come in. He makes some plays and then he is out for the season. Of course this is with him having to use 3 rookie LB's in a lock out season. Tuck by his own admission was not playing well for most of the year. Meanwhile Osi was out for half the year. Let's also add that they lost for some periods of time Boley and KP. By the way, those stats on defense are based on yards. I'm not saying they played well for most of the season, but the difference between the #10 defense and the #27 defense was 44 yards a game.</P>


I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>


imo, unless you're losing starters, it doesn't warrant that big a drop on the defense rankings. For the most part, we lost mostly depth - which is huge don't get me wrong just not as huge to warrant that sort of movement in the defensive rankings.</P>


We were 27th in yards, 29th in passing, 19th rushing, 25th in points allowed. Not good numbers overall.</P>


It's just my opinion, but because of this and going back to my whole "building an engine" analogy. I have no faith in Fewell at this point - SB or no SB.</P>

buddy33
03-28-2012, 11:20 AM
Their performance was greatly improved when Tuck started to play like the top 5 DE that he is, Osi was healthy, KP was healthy, Boley was healthy, and even Prince started to show flashes. The pass rush was back and they helped the secondary look better. Chase also added some much needed leadership.

BeatYale
03-28-2012, 06:52 PM
2010 rankings.

Yards per game: 310.8 (7th)
Passing: 209.5 (9th)
Rushing: 101.3 (8th)
Points: 21.7 (17th)
Takeaways: 39 (1st)

2011 rankings

Yards per game: 376.4 (27th)
Passing: 255.1 (29th)
Rushing: 121.3 (19th)
Points: 25.0 (25th)
Takeaways: 31 (4th)

Yeah the rankings look a lot worse, however, we were still top 5 in takeaways and our points allowed was only 3.3 more than the previous year. With all the injuries we had, is giving up 60 extra yards a game that bad? It could have been worse.

I think we'll be a lot better in 2012.

buddy33
03-28-2012, 09:50 PM
They also played some very good offenses this year. They played the top 3 offenses and the 4th ranked offense twice.

B&RWarrior
03-28-2012, 11:07 PM
Our safeties are good not great. Our DEs are the best in the league. Our DT are mediocre. Our LBs are average at best as a unit. Our DBs were below average as a unit for most of the season. This defense is elite at the DE position only. We have one proven consistent DB, C-Web; one proven LB Boley.

When we started our run the players said they convinced Fewell to play man instead of zone. We outscored people this year for the most part but the D got hot at the end of the year.

I can understand people not sold on Fewell and people who recognize that we don't have the talent level of an elite defense.

Neverend
03-28-2012, 11:28 PM
When we started our run the players said they convinced Fewell to play man instead of zone. We outscored people this year for the most part but the D got hot at the end of the year.

Thank you. Some actually believe fewell still called the same plays at the end of year like he did midseason. The zone coverages/3 man rushes went down considerably

BeatYale
03-28-2012, 11:28 PM
Our safeties are good not great. Our DEs are the best in the league. Our DT are mediocre. Our LBs are average at best as a unit. Our DBs were below average as a unit for most of the season. This defense is elite at the DE position only. We have one proven consistent DB, C-Web; one proven LB Boley.

When we started our run the players said they convinced Fewell to play man instead of zone. We outscored people this year for the most part but the D got hot at the end of the year.

I can understand people not sold on Fewell and people who recognize that we don't have the talent level of an elite defense.

How are our DT's mediocre? Linval Joseph had a great season. Someone posted an article that explained how well he did against the run all season.

buddy33
03-29-2012, 08:09 AM
The DT's are a lot better than mediocre.

Joseph was the 5th best DT against the run last year.

buddy33
03-29-2012, 08:09 AM
The DT's are a lot better than mediocre.

Joseph was the 5th best DT against the run last year.

gumby742
03-29-2012, 10:46 AM
Our safeties are good not great. Our DEs are the best in the league. Our DT are mediocre. Our LBs are average at best as a unit. Our DBs were below average as a unit for most of the season. This defense is elite at the DE position only. We have one proven consistent DB, C-Web; one proven LB Boley.

When we started our run the players said they convinced Fewell to play man instead of zone. We outscored people this year for the most part but the D got hot at the end of the year.

I can understand people not sold on Fewell and people who recognize that we don't have the talent level of an elite defense.

Safeties not great? I think KP and Rolle would start on almost every team in the NFL.

B&RWarrior
03-29-2012, 11:35 AM
We ranked 19th in rush defense last year. Can you please share the article or proof of Joseph being the 5th best DT in the NFL versus the run. That means Ngata, Wilfork, Raji, Justin Smith, then JOSPEPH baby- you cannot be serious.

I repeat DT was a not an area of strength throughout the year. As a group they fair better versus the pass than they do the run.

Marvelousmik
03-29-2012, 11:48 AM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</p>

This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.

gumby742
03-29-2012, 12:05 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase.* When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me.* When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</p>

This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.


At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above.

I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given.

sodbuster
03-31-2012, 11:02 AM
you can't play press coverage when half of your D-line is hurt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!WITH NO PRESSURE ON THE QB

Neverend
03-31-2012, 02:25 PM
you can't play press coverage when half of your D-line is hurt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!WITH NO PRESSURE ON THE QB

Yet, somehow, you have to ask your players to play zone?

Jaquain Williams, a rookie who looked lost early-on, to somehow make reads in zone cvg with so little experience? (and he continuously was biting underneath and allowing big plays behind him)

Antrel rolle, who was completely lost in zone coverage? (poor route recognition and understanding of leverages due to inexperience at nickel)

Playing the likes of JPP inside? Who was great as an edge rusher early in the season?

Playing the likes of a CB like webster who is a shut down guy when he's playing up at the line.. in off-man?

The 3-man rushes on 3rd down? (its only good when you rarely use it as a surprise)

I can keep going on. The fact is, fewell deserves every criticism he was getting midseason. The injuries hurt, but he could of called games a lot better than he did and the coverages were just awful. He, like ANY OTHER DC can look good when the 4-man pass rush is dominating.. but when they're not Fewell turns into a very, very ordinary and stubborn coordinator. Doesn't even come up with great pressure packages to compensate for it.

BeatYale
03-31-2012, 02:47 PM
We ranked 19th in rush defense last year. Can you please share the article or proof of Joseph being the 5th best DT in the NFL versus the run. That means Ngata, Wilfork, Raji, Justin Smith, then JOSPEPH baby- you cannot be serious.

I repeat DT was a not an area of strength throughout the year. As a group they fair better versus the pass than they do the run.

http://nflmocks.com/2012/03/08/linval-joseph-unhearlded-reason-for-new-york-giants-success-in-2012/

You shouldn't just associate our 19th rank run defense with our DT's because the 9 other guys on the field have responsibilities against the run also. Players need to contain the edges, fill gaps, take proper angles to the ball carrier, make tackles etc. And not every successful inside run is the fault of the interior DLinemen.

I'm not saying we have the best DT's in the league, but they sure as heck aren't mediocre.

gmen46
03-31-2012, 03:28 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase.* When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me.* When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</p>

This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.


At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above.

I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given.

So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship."

Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words.

You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough.

And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year.

Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league?

Or is it to win the Championship?

Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC?

So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"?

It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters.

Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers.

The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all.

And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?

sodbuster
03-31-2012, 03:45 PM
you can't play press coverage when half of your D-line is hurt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!WITH NO PRESSURE ON THE QB

Yet, somehow, you have to ask your players to play zone?

Jaquain Williams, a rookie who looked lost early-on, to somehow make reads in zone cvg with so little experience? (and he continuously was biting underneath and allowing big plays behind him)

Antrel rolle, who was completely lost in zone coverage? (poor route recognition and understanding of leverages due to inexperience at nickel)

Playing the likes of JPP inside? Who was great as an edge rusher early in the season?

Playing the likes of a CB like webster who is a shut down guy when he's playing up at the line.. in off-man?

The 3-man rushes on 3rd down? (its only good when you rarely use it as a surprise)

I can keep going on. The fact is, fewell deserves every criticism he was getting midseason. The injuries hurt, but he could of called games a lot better than he did and the coverages were just awful. He, like ANY OTHER DC can look good when the 4-man pass rush is dominating.. but when they're not Fewell turns into a very, very ordinary and stubborn coordinator. Doesn't even come up with great pressure packages to compensate for it.you said it with no rush all DC look the same.you can get away with zone with out as much pressure on the QB..no pressure in press coverage your dead.also fewell did not have the horses in the beginning of the year. after he got them back and got pressure up front everyone looked great players and all the coaches..pressure pressure pressure.also they said fewell changed the defence made it simpler. that is a adjustment.and you want a rookie to play press coverage in the NFL on a LB or RB.. fewell dose not deserve the criticism he is getting.like it or not he won a super bowl and he had the defence playing great when it mattered the most!!!

buddy33
03-31-2012, 04:01 PM
Again, two of their best pass rushers where hurt for a good portion of the year and they lost a number of DB's to injury.

When they did rush 4 when Tuck was not playing like Tuck and Osi was hurt they could not get pressure with 4.

When they where healthier they where able to do more. It's not that complicated.

sodbuster
03-31-2012, 04:04 PM
Again, two of their best pass rushers where hurt for a good portion of the year and they lost a number of DB's to injury.

When they did rush 4 when Tuck was not playing like Tuck and Osi was hurt they could not get pressure with 4.

When they where healthier they where able to do more. It's not that complicated.BINGO!

B&RWarrior
04-01-2012, 10:19 PM
We ranked 19th in rush defense last year. Can you please share the article or proof of Joseph being the 5th best DT in the NFL versus the run. That means Ngata, Wilfork, Raji, Justin Smith, then JOSPEPH baby- you cannot be serious.

I repeat DT was a not an area of strength throughout the year. As a group they fair better versus the pass than they do the run.

http://nflmocks.com/2012/03/08/linval-joseph-unhearlded-reason-for-new-york-giants-success-in-2012/

You shouldn't just associate our 19th rank run defense with our DT's because the 9 other guys on the field have responsibilities against the run also. Players need to contain the edges, fill gaps, take proper angles to the ball carrier, make tackles etc. And not every successful inside run is the fault of the interior DLinemen.

I'm not saying we have the best DT's in the league, but they sure as heck aren't mediocre.

Linval may have played better than I'm giving him credit for, but the stat is flawed. DT is not a glory position measured in numbers as much as it is measured in effort and influence. They (DTs) usually have an indirect effect on plays. My argument stands that Joseph is incomparable to Wilfork in terms of his ability to take on blockers, double teams, reroute running play designed to go inside to the outside, push up the middle, and creatiing lanes for his LBs to make plays. Joseph is not the 5th best run defending DT and not close to Wilforks abilities.

I think we are soft in the middle. It may be Canty more than Joseph, but it is not an area of strength. I want Keith Hamilton prototype DT. A three technique we changed to a 4 that can eat up blockers shut down the interior running game and get push up the middle. The most dominant Giants defenses always had that. This type of DT also makes your LBs and DEs more effecitve.

gumby742
04-02-2012, 12:25 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in. I've been preaching consistency since day one. People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing. What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight. And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight. Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden. I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way. Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles. Maybe real life has made me too cynical. But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first. Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out. Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit: Does some of this sound familiar? I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>

B&RWarrior
04-02-2012, 01:41 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase.* When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me.* When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you* have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in.* I've been preaching consistency since day one.** People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing.* What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight.* And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight.* Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden.* I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way.* Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles.* Maybe real life has made me too cynical.* But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first.* Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out.* Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit:* Does some of this sound familiar?* I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>

"You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden."

Great point. We won the SB but the fact is our vaunted pass rush was for the most part nuetralized in the SB. I'm not saying DE is a weakness I'm saying we need to separate who won from how we performed. I've seen a lot of assumptions on the board about what we're good at or will be good at that doesn't coincide with the play I see on the field.

IDK if it's the system or the players. I think it's some of both. I do know that injury was not as big a factor as some say it was. The key players we lost on defense had season-ending injuries for the most part, so they didn't contribute to the run at the end.

dayeh33
04-02-2012, 01:51 PM
He clearly made adjustments.. the defense played lights out since week 16

buddy33
04-02-2012, 01:52 PM
You wanted consistency with Osi out half the year, Tuck not healthy until the last couple of regular season games, using 3 rookie LB's, losing both KP and Boley for a short time during the season, and all the season ending injuries to starters?

M0rbid
04-02-2012, 02:02 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</p>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</p>


The original post is whether or not you have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in. I've been preaching consistency since day one. People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing. What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight. And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight. Do you disagree?</p>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden. I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way. Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles. Maybe real life has made me too cynical. But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first. Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out. Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</p>


Edit: Does some of this sound familiar? I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</p>

"You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden."

Great point. We won the SB but the fact is our vaunted pass rush was for the most part nuetralized in the SB. I'm not saying DE is a weakness I'm saying we need to separate who won from how we performed. I've seen a lot of assumptions on the board about what we're good at or will be good at that doesn't coincide with the play I see on the field.

IDK if it's the system or the players. I think it's some of both. I do know that injury was not as big a factor as some say it was. The key players we lost on defense had season-ending injuries for the most part, so they didn't contribute to the run at the end.

How can the Dline pressure the QB when he's completing quick (3 step drop) passes? The pass rush wasn't the problem in the SB. The LB's didn't do their job stopping those quick plays for the most part.

gmen46
04-02-2012, 05:46 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase.* When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me.* When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you* have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in.* I've been preaching consistency since day one.** People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing.* What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight.* And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight.* Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden.* I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way.* Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles.* Maybe real life has made me too cynical.* But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first.* Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out.* Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit:* Does some of this sound familiar?* I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>

Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense.

Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing.

A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad.

Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument.

It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done.

And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance.

Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs.

In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game.

They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory.

What's the weight of your stats, there?

Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what?

The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons).

And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points.

In the Super Bowl.

But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC.

This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).

B&RWarrior
04-02-2012, 07:39 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase.* When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me.* When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you* have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in.* I've been preaching consistency since day one.** People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing.* What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight.* And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight.* Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden.* I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way.* Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles.* Maybe real life has made me too cynical.* But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first.* Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out.* Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit:* Does some of this sound familiar?* I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>

Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense.

Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing.

A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad.

Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument.

It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done.

And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance.

Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs.

In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game.

They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory.

What's the weight of your stats, there?

Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what?

The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons).

And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points.

In the Super Bowl.

But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC.

This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).

I think you both have valid points. Any DC needs to show consistency in it's PERFORMANCE. Predictability in terms of performance level is always a good thing. As DC you need to know what players you can count on to get the job done. The onus falls on the players in this respect. However, a predictable SCHEME is never a good thing and is the DC's fault.

Our defense played pretty good in the SB but I think the ability of our offense to keep NE off the field had a lot to do with their lack of offensive production.

DC scheme for things that the players on the team have consistenlty shown they perform well in. In other words they put their players in the best place to make plays. Inconsistent effort makes this difficult because it's hard to determine what are are your players true strengths and weaknesses and what is just a lack of effort.

Drez
04-02-2012, 07:48 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</p>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</p>


The original post is whether or not you have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in. I've been preaching consistency since day one. People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing. What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight. And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight. Do you disagree?</p>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden. I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way. Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles. Maybe real life has made me too cynical. But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first. Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out. Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</p>


Edit: Does some of this sound familiar? I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</p>

Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense.

Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing.

A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad.

Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument.

It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done.

And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance.

Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs.

In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game.

They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory.

What's the weight of your stats, there?

Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what?

The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons).

And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points.

In the Super Bowl.

But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC.

This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).

Ahhh, Gumby and his precious "consistency." Reminds me of the old Emersonism, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the biggest fan of Fewell, but not because of some foolish notion like inconsistency. I'm just not the biggest fan of read-and-react type defenses. I also think he has a penchant for trying to be too cute and trying to out think the room (see Colts game last year or the Cowboys game where both Webster and Rolle let Bryant go due to a confusing play). Add to that that he is at times slow to adjust when things aren't working.

When he has a full compliment of players he's an okay DC. However, I don't think his defenses will ever be dominant, just decent.

gian_18778
04-02-2012, 09:22 PM
How can we trust him - He lost Tuck for much of the year with the labrum and groin - osi for half a year - starting corner on IR (t2) - starting mlb on IR (goff)- 7 corners on IR - forced a safety to play nickel - had to start 3 rookie LB's - played a MLB off the couch and his D was only very good against make that GREAT against* falcons - packers - 9ers and Patriots and we only won the superbowl - I think now is the perfect time to question him.


+5

sc_markt
04-02-2012, 09:44 PM
I dont want to sound like a hater. But I get the vibe that we got on a run this year especially from the d-line and its pass rush. I felt like Fewell, for a majority of the season, never made adjustments.
When we had Spags he would always be making adjustments and working with the players. I just dont totally trust Fewell yet. We do have to remember that before the playoff run it was a virtual certainty that he was going to be gone.

So anyway I just wanted to hear your thoughts on Fewell and for the people that are totally happy with him tell me why. I know we did win a superbowl but again without a pass rush he didnt do that much schematically.

I don't think he's as good as Spags was. But we did win a SuperBowl under him so I have to give him some credit for it.

gumby742
04-03-2012, 02:25 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in. I've been preaching consistency since day one. People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing. What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight. And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight. Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden. I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way. Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles. Maybe real life has made me too cynical. But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first. Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out. Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit: Does some of this sound familiar? I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>


Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense. Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad. Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument. It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done. And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance. Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs. In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game. They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory. What's the weight of your stats, there? Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what? The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons). And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points. In the Super Bowl. But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC. This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).</P>


Uhm. What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?</P>


The original question was if I had faith in Fewell, not if I thought he was a bad DC. Who's criticizing? For whatever reason, you're taking my lack of confidence as a direct attack. If people want to forget all of the issues we had as a defense pre post season. That's fine. I realize that when you're on a high, it's easy to do. But I'm not like that.</P>


How a person approaches football has everything to do with how he approaches things in real life.</P>


Again, this is personal opinion. That was the point of the OP. The defense was not consistent all season. You even said as much. If being good for only 6 games is enough for you, then fine. Who am I to critisize what most Giant fans feel. But for me, personally, I'm not that way. But don't think , even for a second, that I'm hating. We were decent in 2010. Horrible in 2011.</P>


Again, Eli discussion deja vu all over again. Pretty soon, I'll be labeled a Fewell hater. Haha.</P>

gumby742
04-03-2012, 02:27 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in. I've been preaching consistency since day one. People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing. What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight. And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight. Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden. I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way. Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles. Maybe real life has made me too cynical. But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first. Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out. Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit: Does some of this sound familiar? I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>


Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense. Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad. Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument. It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done. And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance. Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs. In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game. They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory. What's the weight of your stats, there? Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what? The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons). And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points. In the Super Bowl. But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC. This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).

Ahhh, Gumby and his precious "consistency." Reminds me of the old Emersonism, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the biggest fan of Fewell, but not because of some foolish notion like inconsistency. I'm just not the biggest fan of read-and-react type defenses. I also think he has a penchant for trying to be too cute and trying to out think the room (see Colts game last year or the Cowboys game where both Webster and Rolle let Bryant go due to a confusing play). Add to that that he is at times slow to adjust when things aren't working.

When he has a full compliment of players he's an okay DC. However, I don't think his defenses will ever be dominant, just decent.
</P>


Hold on a sec. Putting an emphasis on consistency is foolish? Are you nuts?!</P>

Drez
04-03-2012, 02:33 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</p>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</p>


The original post is whether or not you have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in. I've been preaching consistency since day one. People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing. What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight. And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight. Do you disagree?</p>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden. I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way. Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles. Maybe real life has made me too cynical. But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first. Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out. Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</p>


Edit: Does some of this sound familiar? I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</p>


Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense. Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad. Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument. It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done. And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance. Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs. In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game. They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory. What's the weight of your stats, there? Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what? The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons). And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points. In the Super Bowl. But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC. This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).

Ahhh, Gumby and his precious "consistency." Reminds me of the old Emersonism, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the biggest fan of Fewell, but not because of some foolish notion like inconsistency. I'm just not the biggest fan of read-and-react type defenses. I also think he has a penchant for trying to be too cute and trying to out think the room (see Colts game last year or the Cowboys game where both Webster and Rolle let Bryant go due to a confusing play). Add to that that he is at times slow to adjust when things aren't working.

When he has a full compliment of players he's an okay DC. However, I don't think his defenses will ever be dominant, just decent.
</p>


Hold on a sec. Putting an emphasis on consistency is foolish? Are you nuts?!</p>
In your case, yes.

gmen46
04-03-2012, 03:38 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase.* When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me.* When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you* have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in.* I've been preaching consistency since day one.** People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing.* What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight.* And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight.* Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden.* I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way.* Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles.* Maybe real life has made me too cynical.* But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first.* Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out.* Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit:* Does some of this sound familiar?* I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>


Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense. Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad. Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument. It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done. And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance. Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs. In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game. They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory. What's the weight of your stats, there? Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what? The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons). And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points. In the Super Bowl. But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC. This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).</P>


Uhm.* What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?</P>


The original question was if I had faith in Fewell, not if I thought he was a bad DC. Who's criticizing?* For whatever reason, you're taking my lack of confidence as a direct attack.* If people want to forget all of the issues we had as a defense pre post season.* That's fine.* I realize that when you're on a high, it's easy to do.* But I'm not like that.</P>


How a person approaches football has everything to do with how he approaches things in real life.*</P>


Again, this is personal opinion.* That was the point of the OP.* The defense was not consistent all season.* You even said as much.* If being good for only 6 games is enough for you, then fine.* Who am I to critisize what most Giant fans feel.* But for me, personally, I'm not that way.* But don't think , even for a second, that I'm hating.* We were decent in 2010.* Horrible in 2011.</P>


Again, Eli discussion deja vu all over again.* Pretty soon, I'll be labeled a Fewell hater.* Haha.</P>

Clearly, you miss the point, so I don't know how else I can make it. But here goes, anyway--

Yes, "if being good for only 6 games" results in the team winning the championship, I AM fine with that. Although actually the Giants were good for 13 games, not just 6.

Not exactly a trivial point, since had the Giants played well for only 6 games, it's highly unlikely they'd have made it to the Super Bowl.

And if you are not "criticizing" Fewell by claiming you have no faith in him as DC, then what ARE you doing? Are you saying you have no faith in a good, championship-winning coach? Then what the hell does THAT mean?

As to your first question, "What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?"

"Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out." YOU said that. You.

Do you not know what predictability means?

I'll tell you. Predictability means knowing "exactly what you're getting day in and day out".

Green Bay was an example of a very "consistent" team with their 15-1 regular season record in 2011, wouldn't you say?

Until they weren't.

You don't think there's the SLIGHTEST chance that game planning against a highly consistent team--the Packers-- played any part in the Giants--the "inconsistent" team--defeating the Packers when it mattered most?

Inconsistency could also be a term applied to a person who constantly shifts the premise of his argument as a weak attempt at a response to legitimate challenges to his argument.

gumby742
04-03-2012, 05:06 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in. I've been preaching consistency since day one. People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing. What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight. And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight. Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden. I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way. Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles. Maybe real life has made me too cynical. But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first. Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out. Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit: Does some of this sound familiar? I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>


Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense. Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad. Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument. It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done. And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance. Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs. In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game. They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory. What's the weight of your stats, there? Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what? The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons). And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points. In the Super Bowl. But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC. This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).</P>


Uhm. What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?</P>


The original question was if I had faith in Fewell, not if I thought he was a bad DC. Who's criticizing? For whatever reason, you're taking my lack of confidence as a direct attack. If people want to forget all of the issues we had as a defense pre post season. That's fine. I realize that when you're on a high, it's easy to do. But I'm not like that.</P>


How a person approaches football has everything to do with how he approaches things in real life.</P>


Again, this is personal opinion. That was the point of the OP. The defense was not consistent all season. You even said as much. If being good for only 6 games is enough for you, then fine. Who am I to critisize what most Giant fans feel. But for me, personally, I'm not that way. But don't think , even for a second, that I'm hating. We were decent in 2010. Horrible in 2011.</P>


Again, Eli discussion deja vu all over again. Pretty soon, I'll be labeled a Fewell hater. Haha.</P>


Clearly, you miss the point, so I don't know how else I can make it. But here goes, anyway-- Yes, "if being good for only 6 games" results in the team winning the championship, I AM fine with that. Although actually the Giants were good for 13 games, not just 6. Not exactly a trivial point, since had the Giants played well for only 6 games, it's highly unlikely they'd have made it to the Super Bowl. And if you are not "criticizing" Fewell by claiming you have no faith in him as DC, then what ARE you doing? Are you saying you have no faith in a good, championship-winning coach? Then what the hell does THAT mean? As to your first question, "What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?" "Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out." YOU said that. You. Do you not know what predictability means? I'll tell you. Predictability means knowing "exactly what you're getting day in and day out". Green Bay was an example of a very "consistent" team with their 15-1 regular season record in 2011, wouldn't you say? Until they weren't. You don't think there's the SLIGHTEST chance that game planning against a highly consistent team--the Packers-- played any part in the Giants--the "inconsistent" team--defeating the Packers when it mattered most? Inconsistency could also be a term applied to a person who constantly shifts the premise of his argument as a weak attempt at a response to legitimate challenges to his argument.</P>


1) If you're fine with that. that's cool. I never said that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. It's all opinion. Our defense was not consistent, thus I have no faith that we'll do well next season.</P>


2) What I'm saying about Fewell is that I have no idea what kind of defensive performance I'm going to get out of him next year. Thus, I have no faith. That is not criticizing. Criticism is along the lines of a little more accute. ie. Fewell is not good because he runs a read and react defense.</P>


3) Hold a sec. Regarding predictability and consistency, you said: "In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses". So, what you're actually saying is that, it's not a good thing to play at a high level game in and game out, because opposing defenses can figure you out? Seriously?</P>


4) Now I'm shifting my argument? How so? I've been saying the same thing over and over again.</P>

gmen46
04-03-2012, 09:54 PM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase.* When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me.* When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you* have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in.* I've been preaching consistency since day one.** People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing.* What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight.* And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight.* Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden.* I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way.* Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles.* Maybe real life has made me too cynical.* But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first.* Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out.* Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit:* Does some of this sound familiar?* I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>


Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense. Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad. Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument. It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done. And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance. Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs. In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game. They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory. What's the weight of your stats, there? Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what? The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons). And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points. In the Super Bowl. But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC. This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).</P>


Uhm.* What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?</P>


The original question was if I had faith in Fewell, not if I thought he was a bad DC. Who's criticizing?* For whatever reason, you're taking my lack of confidence as a direct attack.* If people want to forget all of the issues we had as a defense pre post season.* That's fine.* I realize that when you're on a high, it's easy to do.* But I'm not like that.</P>


How a person approaches football has everything to do with how he approaches things in real life.*</P>


Again, this is personal opinion.* That was the point of the OP.* The defense was not consistent all season.* You even said as much.* If being good for only 6 games is enough for you, then fine.* Who am I to critisize what most Giant fans feel.* But for me, personally, I'm not that way.* But don't think , even for a second, that I'm hating.* We were decent in 2010.* Horrible in 2011.</P>


Again, Eli discussion deja vu all over again.* Pretty soon, I'll be labeled a Fewell hater.* Haha.</P>


Clearly, you miss the point, so I don't know how else I can make it. But here goes, anyway-- Yes, "if being good for only 6 games" results in the team winning the championship, I AM fine with that. Although actually the Giants were good for 13 games, not just 6. Not exactly a trivial point, since had the Giants played well for only 6 games, it's highly unlikely they'd have made it to the Super Bowl. And if you are not "criticizing" Fewell by claiming you have no faith in him as DC, then what ARE you doing? Are you saying you have no faith in a good, championship-winning coach? Then what the hell does THAT mean? As to your first question, "What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?" "Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out." YOU said that. You. Do you not know what predictability means? I'll tell you. Predictability means knowing "exactly what you're getting day in and day out". Green Bay was an example of a very "consistent" team with their 15-1 regular season record in 2011, wouldn't you say? Until they weren't. You don't think there's the SLIGHTEST chance that game planning against a highly consistent team--the Packers-- played any part in the Giants--the "inconsistent" team--defeating the Packers when it mattered most? Inconsistency could also be a term applied to a person who constantly shifts the premise of his argument as a weak attempt at a response to legitimate challenges to his argument.</P>


1)* If you're fine with that.* that's cool.* I never said that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.* It's all opinion.* Our defense was not consistent, thus I have no faith that we'll do well next season.</P>


2)* What I'm saying about Fewell is that I have no idea what kind of defensive performance I'm going to get out of him next year.* Thus, I have no faith.* That is not criticizing.* Criticism is along the lines of a little more accute.* ie.* Fewell is not good because he runs a read and react defense.</P>


3)* Hold a sec.* Regarding predictability and consistency, you said:* "In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses".* So, what you're actually saying is that, it's not a good thing to play at a high level game in and game out, because opposing defenses can figure you out?* Seriously?</P>


4)* Now I'm shifting my argument?* How so?* I've been saying the same thing over and over again.</P>

Look, I'm not suggesting that a high or low quality of team play over the course of a season has no importance to a team's success or lack of it. Of course it does.

But just playing at a "consistent" level--whatever that means--PER SE is not necessarily a path to excellence. Excellence in the NFL being defined by winning the Super Bowl.

And the Giants 2011 path included varying levels of success, with both units, throughout the regular season, ending with your prized consistent level of play at the optimum time.

The 2011 Packers (or the 2007 Patriots for that matter) were a classic example of your consistency argument. The Giants were admittedly the opposite of your argument.

The Giants won the championship, the Packers did not.

Not only did the Packers not get past their first post season game, the Giants made them look pretty bad in the process.

Apparently, you prefer the 2011 Packers to the 2011 Giants.

That's fine. I don't.

In fact, the uncertainty of how the season would ultimately end--and end in favor of the Giants--is what makes the NFL of today so exciting to me. It is the ups and downs (along with the certainty that our team does in fact have a tremendous amount of talent in most key areas, of course) that makes following this team fun, mixed in with a little angst.

You don't "hate" Fewell. You just don't "trust" him. I get that.

But, so what?

I trust Coughlin. Fewell is accountable to Coughlin. As long as TC trusts PF, as long as we keep developing hugely talented players like JPP, Tuck, Osi, Kiwi, KP, etc, AND WE WIN, that's good enough for me.

buddy33
04-03-2012, 10:03 PM
Again, how where they supposed to be consistent when Tuck was hurt most of the season, Osi missed half of the season, they lost their second best CB for the season, where forced to use 3 rookie LB's in a lock out season due to injuries, and for short periods of time lost KP and Boley? How where they to be consistent when even their backups, guys they where bringing in after losing all their depth, who where starting to show signs where also lost for the season.

It has been posted many times already that the only defensive units hit harder than the Giants this past season over the past decade where the 0-16 Lions and a very bad Bills team.

Drez
04-03-2012, 10:17 PM
Again, how where they supposed to be consistent when Tuck was hurt most of the season, Osi missed half of the season, they lost their second best CB for the season, where forced to use 3 rookie LB's in a lock out season due to injuries, and for short periods of time lost KP and Boley? How where they to be consistent when even their backups, guys they where bringing in after losing all their depth, who where starting to show signs where also lost for the season.

It has been posted many times already that the only defensive units hit harder than the Giants this past season over the past decade where the 0-16 Lions and a very bad Bills team.

You should know by now that Gumby will devalue anything that might explain any inconsistencies while still decrying that consistency somehow is the highest benchmark.

gumby742
04-04-2012, 08:27 AM
.



I'm trying to find reason for such a huge drop off and then such a huge performance increase. When evaluating pretty much everything, consistency is a key thing for me. When there is no consistency, that's a concern.</P>




This made me laugh because you haven't evaluated a thing. Lets look at the big picture. Fewel has been here 2 seasons now. His first season we had one of the best defenses in the NFL and led the league is causing turnovers. His second year, we had injuries, and some rookies who has to fill the void. But in the end everyone played good, and we went on to win a championship.

basically we were one of the top defenses last year, and this year we won the Superbowl. its that simple.

If you wan't to truely evaluate "everything" then you need game film. You need to look at the tape and get into all of the details such as why our defense didnt play good early on. Was it scheme? Missed assignments? Players not listening? Missed tackles? Bad angles? Not physical enough? You haven't evaluated anything.
At the end our defense played well and we won the championship. It doesn't take away from the fact that our defense was absolute crap most of the season. As for the injury thing. My personally, I'm not buying it. See my post above. I evaluate what I can. This was also a general statement. Everything we talk about on this board is conjecture. No one knows for sure what's going on. That's a given. So, according to your own words, "At the end our defense played well and we won the championship." Also, "As for the injury thing. My (sic) personally, I'm not buying it.", according to your own words. You don't think injuries should be given any import any given season, because indeed all teams suffer from them. Fair enough. And you acknowledge the Giants did, in fact, win the Super Bowl this year. Let me ask you--what is the goal of every team in the NFL, every single season? To be the #1 defense in the league? To have the #1 offense in the league? Or is it to win the Championship? Unless you give no importance at all to winning a championship, what, again, is your problem with Fewell as our DC? So what if YOU think the defense played "like crap most of the season"? It's ALWAYS how you finish that matters. Ask the 15-2 2011 Packers. The defense obviously DID come together for the last 6 games--regular and post season--as statistics, 6 consecutive "win or go home" games, including the SB, reveal. Players and coach did ultimately converge efforts, ability, and scheme to win it all. And is it truly impossible to consider that coach and players will POSSIBLY carry over that successful convergence into 2012?</P>


The original post is whether or not you have confidence in our defense and Fewell coming in. I've been preaching consistency since day one. People disregard individual performance and stats as if they are nothing. What stats tell you is that that particular unit is pulling its own weight. And regardless of what happened during the post season, the defense was not pulling it's weight. Do you disagree?</P>


You can win the SB, but that doesn't mean your team is all of a sudden golden. I'm as pumped as the next Giant fan that we won it all, but I don't work that way. Winning the SB doesn't just change regular season struggles. Maybe real life has made me too cynical. But, it's always the guy that's up and down and inconsistent performance wise that gets fired first. Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out. Until Fewell has shown consistency, I have no confidence.</P>


Edit: Does some of this sound familiar? I've said the exact same thing when we were all talking about Eli.</P>


Just as I disagreed with your view of Eli, I disagree with your view of Fewell and his 2011 defense. Consistency is nice and all, but it doesn't guarantee anything, other than some measure of predictability. In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses. A predictable defense can be predictably bad. Despite all arguments to the contrary, Football is NOT "real life", so applying your "real life experience cynicism" does not really mean much in your argument. It's not so much how much one does in the game, as it is WHEN it is done. And a player, or a team, stepping up big in the big games is far more important than a player or team doing the same thing on a consistent basis, but is unable to do the extraordinary in the unusual circumstance. Eli--who has been mercilously criticized throughout his career as being "inconsistent", has, as it turns out, been consistently excellent in the BIG games more than most QBs. In the NFCC game, Pascoe had 1 reception the entire game. In that game Manningham had 1 reception the entire game. They just happened to be the only 2 TDs for the Giants in their victory. What's the weight of your stats, there? Sure, our defense was inconsistent during much of the season. So what? The point is that the defense DID become consistent the final 6 games. It DID enable the Giants to win 6 consecutive games while allowing fewer than 20 points in 5 of those 6 games (including the shut out of Falcons). And it DID hold the 2nd best offense in the league (yards) to 80 fewer yards than its 2011 season average, and it DID hold the 3rd best offense (points) to just over half its season average in points. In the Super Bowl. But, hey, he wasn't consistent all year long, so Fewell is obviously crap as DC. This criticism of Fewell's coaching skills as DC of the Giants is..............I'll say misplaced (to be polite about it).</P>


Uhm. What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?</P>


The original question was if I had faith in Fewell, not if I thought he was a bad DC. Who's criticizing? For whatever reason, you're taking my lack of confidence as a direct attack. If people want to forget all of the issues we had as a defense pre post season. That's fine. I realize that when you're on a high, it's easy to do. But I'm not like that.</P>


How a person approaches football has everything to do with how he approaches things in real life.</P>


Again, this is personal opinion. That was the point of the OP. The defense was not consistent all season. You even said as much. If being good for only 6 games is enough for you, then fine. Who am I to critisize what most Giant fans feel. But for me, personally, I'm not that way. But don't think , even for a second, that I'm hating. We were decent in 2010. Horrible in 2011.</P>


Again, Eli discussion deja vu all over again. Pretty soon, I'll be labeled a Fewell hater. Haha.</P>


Clearly, you miss the point, so I don't know how else I can make it. But here goes, anyway-- Yes, "if being good for only 6 games" results in the team winning the championship, I AM fine with that. Although actually the Giants were good for 13 games, not just 6. Not exactly a trivial point, since had the Giants played well for only 6 games, it's highly unlikely they'd have made it to the Super Bowl. And if you are not "criticizing" Fewell by claiming you have no faith in him as DC, then what ARE you doing? Are you saying you have no faith in a good, championship-winning coach? Then what the hell does THAT mean? As to your first question, "What does consistently performing at a high level have anything to do with predictability?" "Being consistent breeds confidence, because you know exactly what you're getting day in and day out." YOU said that. You. Do you not know what predictability means? I'll tell you. Predictability means knowing "exactly what you're getting day in and day out". Green Bay was an example of a very "consistent" team with their 15-1 regular season record in 2011, wouldn't you say? Until they weren't. You don't think there's the SLIGHTEST chance that game planning against a highly consistent team--the Packers-- played any part in the Giants--the "inconsistent" team--defeating the Packers when it mattered most? Inconsistency could also be a term applied to a person who constantly shifts the premise of his argument as a weak attempt at a response to legitimate challenges to his argument.</P>


1) If you're fine with that. that's cool. I never said that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. It's all opinion. Our defense was not consistent, thus I have no faith that we'll do well next season.</P>


2) What I'm saying about Fewell is that I have no idea what kind of defensive performance I'm going to get out of him next year. Thus, I have no faith. That is not criticizing. Criticism is along the lines of a little more accute. ie. Fewell is not good because he runs a read and react defense.</P>


3) Hold a sec. Regarding predictability and consistency, you said: "In football, predictability is often NOT a good thing. A predictable defense can be planned against by clever opposing offenses". So, what you're actually saying is that, it's not a good thing to play at a high level game in and game out, because opposing defenses can figure you out? Seriously?</P>


4) Now I'm shifting my argument? How so? I've been saying the same thing over and over again.</P>


Look, I'm not suggesting that a high or low quality of team play over the course of a season has no importance to a team's success or lack of it. Of course it does. But just playing at a "consistent" level--whatever that means--PER SE is not necessarily a path to excellence. Excellence in the NFL being defined by winning the Super Bowl. And the Giants 2011 path included varying levels of success, with both units, throughout the regular season, ending with your prized consistent level of play at the optimum time. The 2011 Packers (or the 2007 Patriots for that matter) were a classic example of your consistency argument. The Giants were admittedly the opposite of your argument. The Giants won the championship, the Packers did not. Not only did the Packers not get past their first post season game, the Giants made them look pretty bad in the process. Apparently, you prefer the 2011 Packers to the 2011 Giants. That's fine. I don't. In fact, the uncertainty of how the season would ultimately end--and end in favor of the Giants--is what makes the NFL of today so exciting to me. It is the ups and downs (along with the certainty that our team does in fact have a tremendous amount of talent in most key areas, of course) that makes following this team fun, mixed in with a little angst. You don't "hate" Fewell. You just don't "trust" him. I get that. But, so what? I trust Coughlin. Fewell is accountable to Coughlin. As long as TC trusts PF, as long as we keep developing hugely talented players like JPP, Tuck, Osi, Kiwi, KP, etc, AND WE WIN, that's good enough for me.</P>


Haha. I agree with everything you said. And yes, if I were a betting man, I would prefer the 2011 Packers instead of the 2011 Giants. In fact, I'd be willing to guarantee you that Vegas won't make the Gmen the favorites to win the SB next year. </P>


Hey. I'm just answering the OP question. I don't trust Fewell. If you don't agree with me, that's cool. But, at least I hope people know where I'm coming from.</P>

gumby742
04-04-2012, 08:43 AM
Again, how where they supposed to be consistent when Tuck was hurt most of the season, Osi missed half of the season, they lost their second best CB for the season, where forced to use 3 rookie LB's in a lock out season due to injuries, and for short periods of time lost KP and Boley? How where they to be consistent when even their backups, guys they where bringing in after losing all their depth, who where starting to show signs where also lost for the season. It has been posted many times already that the only defensive units hit harder than the Giants this past season over the past decade where the 0-16 Lions and a very bad Bills team.

You should know by now that Gumby will devalue anything that might explain any inconsistencies while still decrying that consistency somehow is the highest benchmark.
</P>


It might be or at least it's extremely important. Especially when it comes to public perception. When the Giants won the SB in 2011 and 2007, did most of the experts pick the Giants to repeat? Nope. In fact, ESPN ranked us #1 in the power rankings ONLY BECAUSE we won the SB. They made it very clear that they thought there were better teams. I'll bet you Vegas doesn't place as high of an odd for us to repeat compared to some of the other teams out there. Why do you think it is? And it's not because a lot of people out there just hate the Giants. Bottom line is that "catching lightning in a bottle" or "getting hot at the right time" whichapplied to our 2007 and 2011 seasons, ie. which denotes inconsistency, doesn't fly.</P>


And yes, I know that all those rankings and predictions, outside of Vegas, means crap in terms of which team is actually better. Someone is bound to say I'm stupid for even thinking about the rankings. But the question here is public perception and why people perceive the way they do.</P>

buddy33
04-04-2012, 09:10 AM
Why do you care about public perception? What do you, as a Giants fan feel? If you still think they where inconsistent, I'd refer you to my post earlier.

What was the publics perception about the Eagles last year and Dallas every year?

gumby742
04-04-2012, 09:32 AM
Why do you care about public perception? What do you, as a Giants fan feel? If you still think they where inconsistent, I'd refer you to my post earlier. What was the publics perception about the Eagles last year and Dallas every year?</P>


I already said that I'm not confident in Fewell due to the inconsistency of our defense. I only bring up public perception because a lot of it is predicated on consistency. Because of that, my lack of confidence isn't far fetched because others feel it too. </P>


I think wehad this discussion before, or maybe it was with someone else. You mentioned injury. That's a fair statement. </P>


This is opening up another dimension to my lack of confidence in Fewell, but I"ll try and make it quick. Even with injuries the Giants had more collective talent then half of the NFL I think. Canty, Joseph, JPP, Tuck, Osi, KP, Rolle, Webster, Boley. If you have top 10 or 15 talent, it does NOT warrant a bottom 5 defensive finish. If a couple guys coming back and getting healthy all of a sudden makes you jump 20 some odd places to a top 5 defense (which we arguably were at the end of the season), then something is up.</P>


My analogy to Fewell was like a builder building an engine. Fewell building a defense would be like building a poor engine. Have a few cogs missing and it no longer works. How a good builder should build something is that if a few cogs are missing, then it would operate at reduced power - say 30% or 50%. None of this binary on/off crap.</P>

buddy33
04-04-2012, 10:23 AM
Why do you care about public perception? What do you, as a Giants fan feel? If you still think they where inconsistent, I'd refer you to my post earlier. What was the publics perception about the Eagles last year and Dallas every year?</P>


I already said that I'm not confident in Fewell due to the inconsistency of our defense.* I only bring up public perception because a lot of it is predicated on consistency.* Because of that, my lack of confidence isn't far fetched because others feel it too.* </P>


I think wehad this discussion before, or maybe it was with someone else.* You mentioned injury.* That's a fair statement.* </P>


This is opening up another dimension to my lack of confidence in Fewell, but I"ll try and make it quick.* Even with injuries the Giants had more collective talent then half of the NFL I think.* Canty, Joseph, JPP, Tuck, Osi, KP, Rolle, Webster, Boley.* If you have top 10 or 15 talent, it does NOT warrant a bottom 5 defensive finish.* If a couple guys coming back and getting healthy all of a sudden makes you jump 20 some odd places to a top 5 defense (which we arguably were at the end of the season), then something is up.</P>


My analogy to Fewell was like a builder building an engine.* Fewell building a defense would be like building a poor engine.* Have a few cogs missing and it no longer works.* How a good builder should build something is that if a few cogs are missing, then it would operate at reduced power - say 30% or 50%.* None of this binary on/off crap.</P>

Again, how can you have consistency with all the injuries? They didn't just have injuries like othe teams. They where one of the hardest hit defensive units over the last decade and the only teams to have it worse where the 0-16 Lions and a bad Bills team. This team won the Super Bowl.

On paper, when healthy, they are a very talented team. When Tuck is hurt for all but two regular season games, Osi misses half the season, KP misses a few games, and Boley misses a few games they are not. Add in the loss of a number of men from the secondary and because of it Rolle has to play out of position and no they are not a top defense.

Here is an example. The 1st time they played Dallas Tuck looked like he not going to make it through the game, Osi didn't play, KP, didn't play, and Boley was still not %100. How would you get consistency from that? What happened the next time they played? When Tuck was playing like Tuck, Osi was back, KP was back, and Boley was back? Much different results. Same thing goes for the second time they played Green Bay.

Here is something to also consider. With all those injuries the played the top 4 offensive teams in the league including playing the #4 team twice. Also, the difference between their ranking of 27 and 10 which Cleveland was in total defense is 44 yards a game.

gumby742
04-04-2012, 10:59 AM
Why do you care about public perception? What do you, as a Giants fan feel? If you still think they where inconsistent, I'd refer you to my post earlier. What was the publics perception about the Eagles last year and Dallas every year?</P>


I already said that I'm not confident in Fewell due to the inconsistency of our defense. I only bring up public perception because a lot of it is predicated on consistency. Because of that, my lack of confidence isn't far fetched because others feel it too. </P>


I think wehad this discussion before, or maybe it was with someone else. You mentioned injury. That's a fair statement. </P>


This is opening up another dimension to my lack of confidence in Fewell, but I"ll try and make it quick. Even with injuries the Giants had more collective talent then half of the NFL I think. Canty, Joseph, JPP, Tuck, Osi, KP, Rolle, Webster, Boley. If you have top 10 or 15 talent, it does NOT warrant a bottom 5 defensive finish. If a couple guys coming back and getting healthy all of a sudden makes you jump 20 some odd places to a top 5 defense (which we arguably were at the end of the season), then something is up.</P>


My analogy to Fewell was like a builder building an engine. Fewell building a defense would be like building a poor engine. Have a few cogs missing and it no longer works. How a good builder should build something is that if a few cogs are missing, then it would operate at reduced power - say 30% or 50%. None of this binary on/off crap.</P>


Again, how can you have consistency with all the injuries? They didn't just have injuries like othe teams. They where one of the hardest hit defensive units over the last decade and the only teams to have it worse where the 0-16 Lions and a bad Bills team. This team won the Super Bowl. On paper, when healthy, they are a very talented team. When Tuck is hurt for all but two regular season games, Osi misses half the season, KP misses a few games, and Boley misses a few games they are not. Add in the loss of a number of men from the secondary and because of it Rolle has to play out of position and no they are not a top defense. Here is an example. The 1st time they played Dallas Tuck looked like he not going to make it through the game, Osi didn't play, KP, didn't play, and Boley was still not %100. How would you get consistency from that? What happened the next time they played? When Tuck was playing like Tuck, Osi was back, KP was back, and Boley was back? Much different results. Same thing goes for the second time they played Green Bay. Here is something to also consider. With all those injuries the played the top 4 offensive teams in the league including playing the #4 team twice. Also, the difference between their ranking of 27 and 10 which Cleveland was in total defense is 44 yards a game.</P>


Yeah I'm definitely over simplifying things. No doubt. It's hard to evaluate exactly how hurt, those guys were. But, from what I remember, we were still pretty poor in the beginning of the season. That can also be because of the no minicamp and all that stuff. So I don't know. There are plenty of reasons to go around. </P>


Anyone who thinks we can be a dominant defense next season has every reason to think that. In fact, there is probably more evidence saying we will be a very good defense next season then not. Fewell's defense was pretty good his first year here. But, from a personal point of view, let's just say that I won't be surprised if our defense plays well, I'm just not confident in it.</P>

giantscolombia
04-04-2012, 02:01 PM
its the same as always.... if next year we happen to lose two games because of the defense we are going to have ppl saying that its fewell's fault and as always ask for his head. same goes for the offense.... its all the same every year...