PDA

View Full Version : Stop it!



GiantSinceBirth78
07-09-2012, 07:31 PM
I keep hearing/reading that the Giants are a 9-7 team. WRONG WRONG WRONG! The Giants are a SUPER BOWL winning team. Please with the 9-7 crap. Thank you for reading my weekly rant.

RoanokeFan
07-09-2012, 07:34 PM
We were both!

GiantSinceBirth78
07-09-2012, 07:36 PM
9-7 gets washed away when a team enters the playoffs. Think about it....does it matter what your record says once you enter the playoffs?

GiantSinceBirth78
07-09-2012, 07:37 PM
18-0 sure didnt mean much

Breezely
07-09-2012, 07:41 PM
18-0 sure didnt mean much

Woooooooooooooooo!!! Point taken!!!!!

Diamondring
07-09-2012, 07:46 PM
18-0 sure didnt mean muchDamn you're good.

redbeardxxv
07-09-2012, 07:50 PM
A lot of circumstances had to fit together in order for us to even make the playoffs. From there our record was irrelevant. However, would our record be irrelevant if JPP failed to block that FG, and we eventually lost? I think the sentiment would be different had we missed the playoffs.
Yes, we are a 9-7 team. I like the idea that our players realize that. We certainly didn't win the SB by luck, nor the SF, GB, or ATL games before that. HOWEVER, We certainly got into the playoffs by luck. The Eagles went into self destruct mode early on, but had they pulled out just one more win, Eli would have been on the couch. Same with the 'Boys.
Our division has only gotten better, and our schedule is tough. We need to come out this year hungry, and we need to be better than a 9-7 team.
When you hear someone say we're a 9-7 team, they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. We're a 9-7 team that went on to win the SB, but we're still a 9-7 team.

slipknottin
07-09-2012, 08:02 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team.

I dont understand the point.

I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season.

The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in.

redbeardxxv
07-09-2012, 08:12 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team.

I dont understand the point.

I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season.

The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in.

The point is simple. We made the playoffs by luck last year. We cannot rely upon luck this year. The OP's panties are in a bunch because people call us a 9-7 team, that's what we were. I'm not taking anything away from anyone, I'm just stating the facts-We were a 9-7 team that was lucky to make the playoffs. We cannot allow ourselves to have to rely on luck this year.

Rudyy
07-09-2012, 08:42 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team.

I dont understand the point.

I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season.

The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in.

The point is simple. We made the playoffs by luck last year. We cannot rely upon luck this year. The OP's panties are in a bunch because people call us a 9-7 team, that's what we were. I'm not taking anything away from anyone, I'm just stating the facts-We were a 9-7 team that was lucky to make the playoffs. We cannot allow ourselves to have to rely on luck this year. So, are injuries in the luck category as well?

giantyankee1976
07-09-2012, 08:45 PM
9-7 gets washed away when a team enters the playoffs. Think about it....does it matter what your record says once you enter the playoffs?

start of post-season ALL records reset to 0-0...

redbeardxxv
07-09-2012, 08:59 PM
9-7 gets washed away when a team enters the playoffs. Think about it....does it matter what your record says once you enter the playoffs?

start of post-season ALL records reset to 0-0...


Yeah, and we're not entering the post season. We're entering the REGULAR SEASON. Where we finished 9-7 last year.

miked1958
07-09-2012, 09:04 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team.

I dont understand the point.

I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season.

The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in.Alot of guys below you say it's luck. Prob because Philly and Dallas had down yrs, but I agree with your points.. We win one more we are 10-6, either one of the skins games or Seattle. And like u said we controlled our own destiny and won all the games we needed to to get in. Once in records don't matter. Point made was our 9 wins gets us a ring in 2011 and the pats with double that amt of wins goes ringless in 2007.

Captain Chaos
07-09-2012, 09:10 PM
I keep hearing/reading that the Giants are a 9-7 team. WRONG WRONG WRONG! The Giants are a SUPER BOWL winning team. Please with the 9-7 crap. Thank you for reading my weekly rant.

The Giant's were a 9-7 team. The truth hurts; deal with it!!!!

Rudyy
07-09-2012, 09:16 PM
I keep hearing/reading that the Giants are a 9-7 team. WRONG WRONG WRONG! The Giants are a SUPER BOWL winning team. Please with the 9-7 crap. Thank you for reading my weekly rant.

The Giant's were a 9-7 team. The truth hurts; deal with it!!!! The Giants are a Super Bowl winning team.

GMENAGAIN
07-09-2012, 09:22 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <FONT size=4>The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</FONT>.</P>


Excellent point . . . . </P>

TucknRolle
07-09-2012, 09:25 PM
I say we are a 13-7 team.

miked1958
07-09-2012, 09:29 PM
I say we are a 13-7 team.I like it

slipknottin
07-09-2012, 09:33 PM
. We made the playoffs by luck last year.

What exactly is "lucky" about winning your division?

redbeardxxv
07-09-2012, 09:37 PM
I say we are a 13-7 team.

WOW. I cannot believe you people have so much trouble admitting that we barely made the playoffs. Call it bad luck, injuries, bad play, whatever you want to call it, but we barely made the playoffs. Yes, we're all well aware of what happened. We know about how the G-men handled the post season. But the OP's point was that it bugs him that people say we're a 9-7 team. We are entering the REGULAR SEASON, which we finished last year with a 9-7 record. Ergo, we are a 9-7 team. Put whatever slant you want on it, but before you post on here trying to argue ANYTHING, Make sure you start your first sentence with our win /loss record from last years REGULAR season. If you don't feel foolish continuing your post beyond that, I won't feel bad not reading it.

**and BTW, to say we are all 0-0 teams as soon as the post season starts, and then in the next breath argue that we're a 13-7 team doesn't work. You can't have it both ways. The season records are based on the regular season wins/losses- get over it. We were 9-7. AND we won the SB.

Drez
07-09-2012, 09:47 PM
A lot of circumstances had to fit together in order for us to even make the playoffs. From there our record was irrelevant. However, would our record be irrelevant if JPP failed to block that FG, and we eventually lost? I think the sentiment would be different had we missed the playoffs.
Yes, we are a 9-7 team. I like the idea that our players realize that. We certainly didn't win the SB by luck, nor the SF, GB, or ATL games before that. HOWEVER, We certainly got into the playoffs by luck. The Eagles went into self destruct mode early on, but had they pulled out just one more win, Eli would have been on the couch. Same with the 'Boys.
Our division has only gotten better, and our schedule is tough. We need to come out this year hungry, and we need to be better than a 9-7 team.
When you hear someone say we're a 9-7 team, they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. We're a 9-7 team that went on to win the SB, but we're still a 9-7 team.
Bull**** we got into the playoffs on luck. By your logic here there is nothing but luck for every team that makes the playoffs. Things need to break right for every team. You can play the what if game all day long for every team every year.

How about this what if... What if the refs didn't job us in GB and we won that game? Then JPPs FG block is rendered meaningless (also remember, that would have only sent the game into OT, not given Dallas the win). What if we weren't one of the most injured defenses of the past 10 years?

What ifs are meaningless.

Rudyy
07-09-2012, 09:47 PM
I say we are a 13-7 team.

WOW. I cannot believe you people have so much trouble admitting that we barely made the playoffs. Call it bad luck, injuries, bad play, whatever you want to call it, but we barely made the playoffs. Yes, we're all well aware of what happened. We know about how the G-men handled the post season. But the OP's point was that it bugs him that people say we're a 9-7 team. We are entering the REGULAR SEASON, which we finished last year with a 9-7 record. Ergo, we are a 9-7 team. Put whatever slant you want on it, but before you post on here trying to argue ANYTHING, Make sure you start your first sentence with our win /loss record from last years REGULAR season. If you don't feel foolish continuing your post beyond that, I won't feel bad not reading it.

**and BTW, to say we are all 0-0 teams as soon as the post season starts, and then in the next breath argue that we're a 13-7 team doesn't work. You can't have it both ways. The season records are based on the regular season wins/losses- get over it. We were 9-7. AND we won the SB. You're right. We barely made the playoffs, but we did it. Period.

Drez
07-09-2012, 09:48 PM
. We made the playoffs by luck last year.

What exactly is "lucky" about winning your division?
Because we weren't 13-3, I guess.

redbeardxxv
07-09-2012, 09:55 PM
You people are amazing. I'm not bashing the Giants, or belittling anything they did. I'm just saying things broke right for our playoff run. This wouldn't be open for discussion if we were 13-3 last year.
OP is upset that we're being called a 9-7 team. Someone go look up our REGULAR SEASON record, and show me where it says we were anything else. Show me one legitimate piece of information that says we finished the REGULAR SEASON with anything other than a 9-7 record, and I will admit I am wrong.
"You are what your record says you are." -Bill Parcells
We're a 9-7 team. Stop arguing.

slipknottin
07-09-2012, 10:00 PM
You keep harping on this luck thing.

That is a total nonsense argument.

Giants won the games they needed to win to make the playoffs.

They werent a "lucky 9-7 team". They were a 9-7 team. Thats it. Luck has nothing to do with it. They won their division at 9-7 and they dominated everyone in the playoffs.

Rudyy
07-09-2012, 10:02 PM
Would you rather be 9-7 and make the Super Bowl? or 15-1 and be one and done?

Rudyy
07-09-2012, 10:03 PM
You people are amazing. I'm not bashing the Giants, or belittling anything they did. I'm just saying things broke right for our playoff run. This wouldn't be open for discussion if we were 13-3 last year.
OP is upset that we're being called a 9-7 team. Someone go look up our REGULAR SEASON record, and show me where it says we were anything else. Show me one legitimate piece of information that says we finished the REGULAR SEASON with anything other than a 9-7 record, and I will admit I am wrong.
"You are what your record says you are." -Bill Parcells
We're a 9-7 team. Stop arguing.Would you rather be 9-7 and make the Super Bowl? or 15-1 and be one and done?

Roosevelt
07-09-2012, 10:05 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <font size="4">The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</font>.</p>


Excellent point . . . . </p>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

Drez
07-09-2012, 10:06 PM
You people are amazing. I'm not bashing the Giants, or belittling anything they did. I'm just saying things broke right for our playoff run. This wouldn't be open for discussion if we were 13-3 last year.
OP is upset that we're being called a 9-7 team. Someone go look up our REGULAR SEASON record, and show me where it says we were anything else. Show me one legitimate piece of information that says we finished the REGULAR SEASON with anything other than a 9-7 record, and I will admit I am wrong.
"You are what your record says you are." -Bill Parcells
We're a 9-7 team. Stop arguing.
We did not get lucky, though. We controlled our own destiny the entire time. At no point were we beholden to another team losing (not by our hands) to make the playoffs. How is that any different than winning your division at 11-5 when 10-6 won't make the playoffs for you that year?

Drez
07-09-2012, 10:08 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <font size="4">The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</font>.</p>


Excellent point . . . . </p>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.

redbeardxxv
07-09-2012, 10:27 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <font size="4">The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</font>.</p>


Excellent point . . . . </p>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.


At this point it's all semantics. Some of you people remind me of Baghdad Bob. Tell me again how Saddam's army turned back the US forces at the borders and forced the Giants to have a record better than 9-7.......? You cannot force a person to understand something they're unwilling to admit. I give up the argument as futile. See you on another thread.

Roosevelt
07-09-2012, 10:29 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <font size="4">The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</font>.</p>


Excellent point . . . . </p>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.


I know I'm splitting hairs here but the bottom line is we were not playing like a Super Bowl team for most of the season.

But now every team will be looking to catch fire at the end of the season just like we did in 07/08 and last year. But I don't think it's as simple as that.

Drez
07-09-2012, 10:39 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <font size="4">The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</font>.</p>


Excellent point . . . . </p>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.


I know I'm splitting hairs here but the bottom line is we were not playing like a Super Bowl team for most of the season.

But now every team will be looking to catch fire at the end of the season just like we did in 07/08 and last year. But I don't think it's as simple as that.





We had a rough third quarter of the season.

But, either way, needing to beat a team to get in the playoffs and needing a team to lose are very, very different things. It isn't even close to splitting hairs. If that's the case, then it'd be no different than saying that every year we need Dallas, Washington, and Philly to lose more games than us for us to make the playoffs.

However, doesn't it make it all the more ridiculous then to say that teams that had even worse regular seasons than us to be favored over us, particularly when talent levels are so similar?

Drez
07-09-2012, 10:45 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <font size="4">The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</font>.</p>


Excellent point . . . . </p>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.


At this point it's all semantics. Some of you people remind me of Baghdad Bob. Tell me again how Saddam's army turned back the US forces at the borders and forced the Giants to have a record better than 9-7.......? You cannot force a person to understand something they're unwilling to admit. I give up the argument as futile. See you on another thread.
It's a futile discussion because your position is invalid and without merit. Yes, we were 9-7, but we weren't lucky to make the playoffs. In fact, even if there weren't divisions in the the NFL, and you just took the top 6 teams from each conference for the playoffs, we still would have made the playoffs. There was no other team the deserved a spot in the playoffs over us that didn't make it. And playing that what-if game is completely pointless because you can point to all 80-100 offensive and defensive snaps in every game for every team and say, "What if this happened instead of that." The fact remains that it did not happen any other way.

Bing Crosby
07-09-2012, 11:31 PM
It's a futile discussion because your position is invalid and
without merit. Yes, we were 9-7, but we weren't lucky to make the
playoffs. In fact, even if there weren't divisions in the the NFL, and
you just took the top 6 teams from each conference for the playoffs, we still
would have made the playoffs. There was no other team the deserved a
spot in the playoffs over us that didn't make it. And playing that
what-if game is completely pointless because you can point to all 80-100
offensive and defensive snaps in every game for every team and say,
"What if this happened instead of that." The fact remains that it did
not happen any other way.

I may not always agree with you, but I have to say well said. So tired of hearing this "we got lucky" argument. I don't understand it at all... you mean we won the division and then ran threw the playoffs and won the Superbowl.... and we are lucky?

miked1958
07-09-2012, 11:45 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <font size="4">The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</font>.</p>


Excellent point . . . . </p>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.


I know I'm splitting hairs here but the bottom line is we were not playing like a Super Bowl team for most of the season.*

But now every team will be looking to catch fire at the end of the season just like we did in 07/08 and last year.* But I don't think it's as simple as that.

*


GB kinda did the same thing in 2010. They had lots of injuries and were up and down and had to win their last 3 to get in. They got hot at the right time and made their run

FeaglesPuntsEaglesRunts
07-10-2012, 12:06 AM
You're right. They were 13-7.

CDN_G-FAN
07-10-2012, 12:44 AM
I keep hearing/reading that the Giants are a 9-7 team. WRONG WRONG WRONG! The Giants are a SUPER BOWL winning team. Please with the 9-7 crap. Thank you for reading my weekly rant.

you ask me if i'd rather win the SB or be a 18-0 team, i'd take superbowl.

You ask me if i'd rather go into the playoffs with a 9-7 record or a 12+ win record, i'll take the big wins, home field and fewer games.

i really hope winning a zillion road games in a row or being the 8th seed isn't our planned road to championships.

ELI_Iz_God
07-10-2012, 01:05 AM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin

Diamondring
07-10-2012, 01:05 AM
Why is that when it comes to the Giants, they got lucky and all that other mess and we don't look at it the other way? Dallas and Egals got lucky that they had a chance to even be able to get into the playoffs.

The other teams got to play themselves and they did not lose or win cause of a draw. They lost physically.

Diamondring
07-10-2012, 01:06 AM
Yes in the 011 regular season, Giants were 9 and 7. Pats was 11 and 5 at one time and didn't even make it in the playoffs.

Diamondring
07-10-2012, 01:08 AM
I keep hearing/reading that the Giants are a 9-7 team. WRONG WRONG WRONG! The Giants are a SUPER BOWL winning team. Please with the 9-7 crap. Thank you for reading my weekly rant.

you ask me if i'd rather win the SB or be a 18-0 team, i'd take superbowl.

You ask me if i'd rather go into the playoffs with a 9-7 record or a 12+ win record, i'll take the big wins, home field and fewer games.

i really hope winning a zillion road games in a row or being the 8th seed is our planned road to championships.It seems like our Giants are built to play on the road and keep on being physical so talking about winning zillion Superbowls may be what the Giants need to do with the roster we had. In 08, Giants was one of the high seeds and they lost to Phily.

CDN_G-FAN
07-10-2012, 01:11 AM
who said anything about luck? the giants weren't lucky.

but why try and win a championship with an arm tied behind your back (finishing in the last seed)?

i'd love to see a better regular season record because i'm interested in another championship.

Hoping we get our act together in time for the last 4 games of the season is a really tough way to do it every year.

byron
07-10-2012, 01:13 AM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <FONT size=4>The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</FONT>.</P>


Excellent point . . . . </P>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.


I know I'm splitting hairs here but the bottom line is we were not playing like a Super Bowl team for most of the season.

<FONT color=#0000ff>But now every team will be looking to catch fire at the end of the season just like we did in 07/08 and last year. But I don't think it's as simple as that.
</FONT>



Its on thing to say or want to catch fire at the right time the doing it part ...I think in the giants case tohappened just like it was supposed to and thehistory proves that...youcan'tmake that **** up.....with better results for us Giants fans ....just thinkman.... whats the next one going to be like ?!

Drez
07-10-2012, 01:21 AM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin
Our schedule is based on our 9-7 record. We play our divisional foes (6 games), we play the AFCN and NFCS this season (8 games, 14 total), and then, since we finished in first place in the NFCE, we play the first place teams from the NFCW and NFCN (2 games, 16 total).

Drez
07-10-2012, 01:23 AM
who said anything about luck? the giants weren't lucky.

but why try and win a championship with an arm tied behind your back (finishing in the last seed)?

i'd love to see a better regular season record because i'm interested in another championship.

Hoping we get our act together in time for the last 4 games of the season is a really tough way to do it every year.
We were actually the 4th seed last year.

barran21
07-10-2012, 02:29 AM
9-7 SB champs sounds so great, for those who hate that go root for the 18-1 Pats

GMENAGAIN
07-10-2012, 06:25 AM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <FONT size=4>The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</FONT>.</P>


Excellent point . . . . </P>




Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

<FONT size=4>And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.
</FONT>
Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.
</P>


No one likes a wise guy . . . . . .</P>

Die-Hard
07-10-2012, 06:40 AM
Dont you guys ever get bored having this exact same conversation 180 times a week?

SweetZombieJesus
07-10-2012, 06:45 AM
I keep hearing/reading that the Giants are a 9-7 team. WRONG WRONG WRONG! The Giants are a SUPER BOWL winning team. Please with the 9-7 crap. Thank you for reading my weekly rant.

Right. That makes them a 13-7 team :)

SweetZombieJesus
07-10-2012, 06:52 AM
You keep harping on this luck thing.

That is a total nonsense argument.

Giants won the games they needed to win to make the playoffs.

They werent a "lucky 9-7 team". They were a 9-7 team. Thats it. Luck has nothing to do with it. They won their division at 9-7 and they dominated everyone in the playoffs.

I'd say they were more UNLUCKY in finishing 9-7.

That Seattle game had a 14 point swing in the closing minutes on one play (a bobbled catch by Cruz which would have given the Giants a lead but was intercepted and run back for a TD).

They had Green Bay tied at 35-35 with 0:53 left in the game.

They had a comeback drive die inside the 49er 20 yard line with time expiring on a 4th and 2.

They were mauling the Vince Young Eagles in a quagmire but gave up the winning score late in the game.

Sounds to me like they were more UNLUCKY that they didn't win at least 3 more games more than they were lucky they got in the playoffs.

yoeddy
07-10-2012, 07:02 AM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin
Our schedule is based on our 9-7 record. We play our divisional foes (6 games), we play the AFCN and NFCS this season (8 games, 14 total), and then, since we finished in first place in the NFCE, we play the first place teams from the NFCW and NFCN (2 games, 16 total).


Our schedule is based on where we finished in the division (1st), not the 9-7 record. We could have finished 16-0 or 7-9...and if that record won the division, we'd have the same schedule...

jakegibbs
07-10-2012, 07:23 AM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team.

I dont understand the point.

I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season.

The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in.

The point is simple. We made the playoffs by luck last year. We cannot rely upon luck this year. The OP's panties are in a bunch because people call us a 9-7 team, that's what we were. I'm not taking anything away from anyone, I'm just stating the facts-We were a 9-7 team that was lucky to make the playoffs. We cannot allow ourselves to have to rely on luck this year.

Luck smuck they had to win out after losing to the Egals in 2nd match & they did beating the other NY team & then the div game against the Cowboys. How is that luck?

What about last year in 2010 season were they unlucky to finish 10-6 only to miss the playoffs. Well as history dictates the Giants have at least a 50-50 chance once they get to the dance.

Heck if they weren't so unlucky in 2010 season & got in @ 10-6 they might have had back to back rings who knows.

Drez
07-10-2012, 09:58 AM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin
Our schedule is based on our 9-7 record. We play our divisional foes (6 games), we play the AFCN and NFCS this season (8 games, 14 total), and then, since we finished in first place in the NFCE, we play the first place teams from the NFCW and NFCN (2 games, 16 total).


Our schedule is based on where we finished in the division (1st), not the 9-7 record. We could have finished 16-0 or 7-9...and if that record won the division, we'd have the same schedule...
But, seeing as our 9-7 regular season record won the division, it's based on our record it what my point was.

burier
07-10-2012, 12:15 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team.

I dont understand the point.

I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season.

The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in.

The point is simple. We made the playoffs by luck last year. We cannot rely upon luck this year. The OP's panties are in a bunch because people call us a 9-7 team, that's what we were. I'm not taking anything away from anyone, I'm just stating the facts-We were a 9-7 team that was lucky to make the playoffs. We cannot allow ourselves to have to rely on luck this year. So, are injuries in the luck category as well?

do you think we're not going to have to deal with injuries this year?

Roosevelt
07-10-2012, 01:35 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <font size="4">The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</font>.</p>


Excellent point . . . . </p>

Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.


I know I'm splitting hairs here but the bottom line is we were not playing like a Super Bowl team for most of the season.

But now every team will be looking to catch fire at the end of the season just like we did in 07/08 and last year. But I don't think it's as simple as that.





We had a rough third quarter of the season.

But, either way, needing to beat a team to get in the playoffs and needing a team to lose are very, very different things. It isn't even close to splitting hairs. If that's the case, then it'd be no different than saying that every year we need Dallas, Washington, and Philly to lose more games than us for us to make the playoffs.

However, doesn't it make it all the more ridiculous then to say that teams that had even worse regular seasons than us to be favored over us, particularly when talent levels are so similar?


For whatever reason we still haven't reached that point where we're given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe because we've been too inconsistent?

I have a feeling things may change for us this year. There's no reason to think we wont be very good.

We are just not a consistent team. The media needs to see you winning over and over before they buy into it. Unless of course you are Dallas, and and I believe that . We seem to have our ups and downs. Our defense looked like total garbage at

buffyblue
07-10-2012, 02:06 PM
Argueing our 9-7 record would only be relevant if we backed into the playoffs as a wildcard. We didnít. We won our division. We won the NFC East and that means we had the best record in the division. We had an early winning streak and then Dallas Cowboys made up ground but no matter how much the naysayers want to harp on it, we were always in the hunt to win the division and we did that in the final head to head matchup with Dallas Cowboys to do so.

Heck, I donít think our regular season record matterred as soon as the playoffs started. If you think we are a rarity just ask Pittsburgh Steelers how much Denver Broncos regular season record mattered. Heck go ask NO Saints the year after they won SuperBowl if Seattle Seahawks record matterred.

pino
07-10-2012, 02:10 PM
I just want people to stop using the 9-7 excuse. It just makes them look silly. It's silly to use our 9-7 record when the Cowboys and Eagles were 8-8.

We won the division fair and square. We'll do it again.

Drez
07-10-2012, 03:58 PM
And if the giants had won one more game, they would have been a 10-6 team. I dont understand the point. I never heard a single person bash the Packers for winning the SB after they went 10-6 in the regular season. <FONT size=4>The giants controlled their own playoff destiny, therefore, it was not luck. They did not ever need another team to lose for them to make it in</FONT>.</P>


Excellent point . . . . </P>




Every team needs luck to win a Super Bowl.

And pretty sure we needed Dallas to lose in our last game.

Bottom line is the Giants had a rough regular season but a phenomenal post season.

You mean we had to beat Dallas? Yes, we had to beat Dallas in Week 17, but that is very and completely different than needing them to lose to another team for us to make it in.


I know I'm splitting hairs here but the bottom line is we were not playing like a Super Bowl team for most of the season.

But now every team will be looking to catch fire at the end of the season just like we did in 07/08 and last year. But I don't think it's as simple as that.





We had a rough third quarter of the season.

But, either way, needing to beat a team to get in the playoffs and needing a team to lose are very, very different things. It isn't even close to splitting hairs. If that's the case, then it'd be no different than saying that every year we need Dallas, Washington, and Philly to lose more games than us for us to make the playoffs.

However, doesn't it make it all the more ridiculous then to say that teams that had even worse regular seasons than us to be favored over us, particularly when talent levels are so similar?


For whatever reason we still haven't reached that point where we're given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe because we've been too inconsistent?

I have a feeling things may change for us this year. There's no reason to think we wont be very good.

We are just not a consistent team. The media needs to see you winning over and over before they buy into it. Unless of course you are Dallas, and and I believe that . We seem to have our ups and downs. Our defense looked like total garbage at
</P>


Over the past 7 seasons we haven't had a losing season, won our division 2 or 3 times, made the playoffs 5 times and won the SB twice. How much more consistent can you be (barring being the Patriots)?</P>


Over that same time, the Eagles have had spots of bad play (didn't they get shellacked by the Seahawks recently?) and Dallas has been anything but consistent (but you've addressed that, lol). But, to play devil's advocate,the only team in our division that has truly been consistent lately is the Redskins and that's been consistently poor.</P>

Diamondring
07-10-2012, 05:16 PM
Dont you guys ever get bored having this exact same conversation 180 times a week?
Well football doesn't have that many things to talk about. There are a lot of limitations when talking about football only.

Lambeau12
07-10-2012, 05:21 PM
The Giants need to beat the teams though that their supposed to beat. If they can do that they will be 14-2. They fell into alot of trap games last year. I think you guys will learn from that this year though.

Yankees807
07-10-2012, 06:24 PM
Easier said then done. Theres not many "Gimme" games on their schedule. Teams like the Panthers and Browns won't be easy. We saw what Wash did to us both times.Bottom line, If the Giants stay healthy and get hot when it counts down the stretch I like our chances against any team in the league. Most teams want home field advantage but the Giants play even better on the road so just getting in makes us dangerous.

Lambeau12
07-10-2012, 07:21 PM
The Browns lmao. You guys will destroy them, why bother worrying. Carolina could be dangerous depends on where it is at.

Kase-1
07-10-2012, 07:25 PM
The Browns lmao. You guys will destroy them, why bother worrying. Carolina could be dangerous depends on where it is at.We gotta worry about the Browns, I dont think anyone forgot about the last time we played them.... Last time I ever sat down at the bar while watching a Giants game

Rudyy
07-10-2012, 07:28 PM
The Browns lmao. You guys will destroy them, why bother worrying. Carolina could be dangerous depends on where it is at. That's what we said about the Redskins and Seahawks last year :p

Lambeau12
07-10-2012, 07:29 PM
Seahawks were a trap game for you guys. We lost to the Chiefs last year too.

egyptian420
07-10-2012, 07:32 PM
When will people appreciate the "Any Given Sunday" rule?

We beat NE in their house, and lost to the Seahawks at home last year.....we also got swept by the Skins....then we won the Superbowl.

There is a reason Vegas isn't broke......if games were predictable based on teams' stats then gambling wouldn't be a profitable business.

yoeddy
07-10-2012, 07:37 PM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin
Our schedule is based on our 9-7 record. We play our divisional foes (6 games), we play the AFCN and NFCS this season (8 games, 14 total), and then, since we finished in first place in the NFCE, we play the first place teams from the NFCW and NFCN (2 games, 16 total).


Our schedule is based on where we finished in the division (1st), not the 9-7 record. We could have finished 16-0 or 7-9...and if that record won the division, we'd have the same schedule...
But, seeing as our 9-7 regular season record won the division, it's based on our record it what my point was.


Yes, but they would have gotten the same 2012 schedule whether we finished 9-7, 7-9, or 16-0...as long as they won the division. Schedules are determined by where you finish in the division, not your actual record...

gumby742
07-11-2012, 09:02 AM
The Browns lmao. You guys will destroy them, why bother worrying. Carolina could be dangerous depends on where it is at.We gotta worry about the Browns, I dont think anyone forgot about the last time we played them.... Last time I ever sat down at the bar while watching a Giants game
</P>


As fans,I gotta worry about every team. It isn't often we make things easy on us get the the convincing win. It's always down to the final posession which gives me a heartattack every week. It might be a reason why we don't get our "respect" also. at least the Cowboys and Eagles put up gaudy numbers when they do win.</P>

burier
07-11-2012, 12:55 PM
The Giants need to beat the teams though that their supposed to beat. If they can do that they will be 14-2. They fell into alot of trap games last year. I think you guys will learn from that this year though.

Hate to say it but the Giants fall into trap games for the last 20 years.

I hope we finally learn but history suggests something else.

Did you know in 08 we lost 4 games and one of them was against the damn Browns?

slipknottin
07-11-2012, 03:47 PM
The Browns lmao. You guys will destroy them, why bother worrying..

Browns had a streak going, for like 4-5 seasons they beat the defending SB champion.

Did it to the giants in 08. Giants went into that game undefeated. Browns stomped them out pretty badly.

slipknottin
07-11-2012, 03:49 PM
Hate to say it but the Giants fall into trap games for the last 20 years.

We ran the numbers on this, giants by and large beat the teams they are supposed to beat.

They are one of the better teams in the league at winning games they are supposed to win.

Drez
07-11-2012, 03:52 PM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin
Our schedule is based on our 9-7 record. We play our divisional foes (6 games), we play the AFCN and NFCS this season (8 games, 14 total), and then, since we finished in first place in the NFCE, we play the first place teams from the NFCW and NFCN (2 games, 16 total).
Our schedule is based on where we finished in the division (1st), not the 9-7 record. We could have finished 16-0 or 7-9...and if that record won the division, we'd have the same schedule...
But, seeing as our 9-7 regular season record won the division, it's based on our record it what my point was.
Yes, but they would have gotten the same 2012 schedule whether we finished 9-7, 7-9, or 16-0...as long as they won the division. Schedules are determined by where you finish in the division, not your actual record...</P>


Yes, but 9-7 was our regular season record, which is what the original quote was in reference to, as opposed to our post-season successes.</P>

burier
07-13-2012, 11:17 AM
Hate to say it but the Giants fall into trap games for the last 20 years.

We ran the numbers on this, giants by and large beat the teams they are supposed to beat.

They are one of the better teams in the league at winning games they are supposed to win.

We? really?

Anyway...Not saying we always lose to teams we're supposed to beat but we always without fail drop at least one game we are hands down supposed to win every single season.

You'd have to go back to the very early 90s when the team was so bad there were no games that we were supposed to win.

yoeddy
07-13-2012, 11:46 AM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin
Our schedule is based on our 9-7 record. We play our divisional foes (6 games), we play the AFCN and NFCS this season (8 games, 14 total), and then, since we finished in first place in the NFCE, we play the first place teams from the NFCW and NFCN (2 games, 16 total).
Our schedule is based on where we finished in the division (1st), not the 9-7 record. We could have finished 16-0 or 7-9...and if that record won the division, we'd have the same schedule...
But, seeing as our 9-7 regular season record won the division, it's based on our record it what my point was.
Yes, but they would have gotten the same 2012 schedule whether we finished 9-7, 7-9, or 16-0...as long as they won the division. Schedules are determined by where you finish in the division, not your actual record...</P>


Yes, but 9-7 was our regular season record, which is what the original quote was in reference to, as opposed to our post-season successes.</P>

I'll say it again...our 2012 schedule is not based on our record...it is based on where we ranked in our division. If we finished 9-7 and came in 2nd in the division, our 2012 schedule would be different. Therefore...our schedule was not based on our record.

The original premise around this thread was to ask people to stop judging the Giants by their record of 9-7...and instead, judge the Giants by how they finished the regular season as division winners, as well as their Super Bowl championship...

pino
07-13-2012, 12:23 PM
No stats, no record, no expert can explain destiny. The Giants simply have it, and if our 9-7 record proves anything it's that our record means squat.

Bad teams can't do what we did in the playoffs. People can talk about how poor we played in the regulars all they want, but bad teams simply cannot do what we did. Anyone that doesn't believe that is in DENIAL.

Drez
07-13-2012, 12:33 PM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin
Our schedule is based on our 9-7 record. We play our divisional foes (6 games), we play the AFCN and NFCS this season (8 games, 14 total), and then, since we finished in first place in the NFCE, we play the first place teams from the NFCW and NFCN (2 games, 16 total).
Our schedule is based on where we finished in the division (1st), not the 9-7 record. We could have finished 16-0 or 7-9...and if that record won the division, we'd have the same schedule...
But, seeing as our 9-7 regular season record won the division, it's based on our record it what my point was.
Yes, but they would have gotten the same 2012 schedule whether we finished 9-7, 7-9, or 16-0...as long as they won the division. Schedules are determined by where you finish in the division, not your actual record...</P>


Yes, but 9-7 was our regular season record, which is what the original quote was in reference to, as opposed to our post-season successes.</P>


I'll say it again...our 2012 schedule is not based on our record...it is based on where we ranked in our division. If we finished 9-7 and came in 2nd in the division, our 2012 schedule would be different. Therefore...our schedule was not based on our record. The original premise around this thread was to ask people to stop judging the Giants by their record of 9-7...and instead, judge the Giants by how they finished the regular season as division winners, as well as their Super Bowl championship...</P>


And what determines our standing in the division? Our record relative to those in our division. </P>


You obviously failed to see the finer point that I was trying to make that it is our regular season accomplishments that decide our schedule and not anything that is done in th post season. I only said 9-7 becuase that IS what our record was for 2011. </P>

yoeddy
07-13-2012, 01:17 PM
So by your logic...our Schedule this year should of been based on our 9-7 record...not what we accomplished in the post season...Just sayin
Our schedule is based on our 9-7 record. We play our divisional foes (6 games), we play the AFCN and NFCS this season (8 games, 14 total), and then, since we finished in first place in the NFCE, we play the first place teams from the NFCW and NFCN (2 games, 16 total).
Our schedule is based on where we finished in the division (1st), not the 9-7 record. We could have finished 16-0 or 7-9...and if that record won the division, we'd have the same schedule...
But, seeing as our 9-7 regular season record won the division, it's based on our record it what my point was.
Yes, but they would have gotten the same 2012 schedule whether we finished 9-7, 7-9, or 16-0...as long as they won the division. Schedules are determined by where you finish in the division, not your actual record...</P>


Yes, but 9-7 was our regular season record, which is what the original quote was in reference to, as opposed to our post-season successes.</P>


I'll say it again...our 2012 schedule is not based on our record...it is based on where we ranked in our division. If we finished 9-7 and came in 2nd in the division, our 2012 schedule would be different. Therefore...our schedule was not based on our record. The original premise around this thread was to ask people to stop judging the Giants by their record of 9-7...and instead, judge the Giants by how they finished the regular season as division winners, as well as their Super Bowl championship...</P>


And what determines our standing in the division? Our record relative to those in our division. </P>


You obviously failed to see the finer point that I was trying to make that it is our regular season accomplishments that decide our schedule and not anything that is done in th post season. I only said 9-7 becuase that IS what our record was for 2011. </P>

I agree that our record *relative to those in our division" determines our schedule for the next year. You are missing the finer point I was trying to make that the actual record has no influence on the schedule...but how we finish *relative to those in our division* is the determining factor. The main point here, as the OP of this thread was trying to make, is that referring to the Giants as "a 9-7 team" does a disservice to the team...and that describing us as "the defending NFC East winner" is more appropriate.