PDA

View Full Version : With one game to play, Giants rank 30th in the NFL in yards allowed per game at 387.8



G-Men4Supes
12-26-2012, 01:52 AM
Giants defense at a loss for words after complete breakdown

Jenny Vrentas/The Star-Ledger

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2012/12/giants_defense_at_a_loss_for_w.html

VBGiantsFan
12-26-2012, 09:47 AM
Last year the defense was rated in the bottom 20 of most defensive stats too. Under Perry Fewell the defense has digressed each season, relying solely on the pass rush getting hot last season to bail him out. How long until it is not just bad players, but bad coaching too?

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 10:07 AM
I keep telling people that the bend don't teak defense is TERRIBLE.

BK07071
12-26-2012, 10:12 AM
Giants defense at a loss for words after complete breakdown

Jenny Vrentas/The Star-Ledger

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2012/12/giants_defense_at_a_loss_for_w.html

You're kiddin' me! They are at a loss for words as to why the defense sucked???? Any Giant fan can explain it with two words and they are not Merry Christmas either!!!! try.........Perry Fewell. That will sum it up in a nut shell.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 10:31 AM
The last two games where horrible but up until then they where allowing the 8th lowest points against.

hadenough
12-26-2012, 10:34 AM
The last two games where horrible but up until then they where allowing the 8th lowest points against.


Bend but dont' break....all that does is keep your defense on the field longer and keep your offense on the bench. Awesome idea

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 10:35 AM
Bend but dont' break....all that does is keep your defense on the field longer and keep your offense on the bench. Awesome ideaGoing 3 and out is what keeps the offense off the field.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 10:35 AM
Bend but dont' break....all that does is keep your defense on the field longer and keep your offense on the bench. Awesome ideaNot only that but it wears your defense out like crazy.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 10:36 AM
Not only that but it wears your defense out like crazy.So do 3 and outs by their offense.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 10:37 AM
So do 3 and outs by their offense. This thread isnt about the offense.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 10:38 AM
This thread isnt about the offense.Actually it is. They work together.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 10:46 AM
Actually it is. They work together. Didn't know the offense allowed 378 yards a game, that's pretty incredible. It's also incredible how the offense misses tackles and their overpaid corner gets picked on over and over again lolol some team we have.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 10:47 AM
Didn't know the offense allowed 378 yards a game, that's pretty incredible. It's also incredible how the offense misses tackles and their overpaid corner gets picked on over and over again lolol some team we have.The offense inability to score or sustain drives works against their own defense.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 10:49 AM
The offense inability to score or sustain drives works against their own defense.So with that logic..3 and out= blown coverages and missed tackles on defense.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 10:52 AM
So with that logic..3 and out= blown coverages and missed tackles on defense.No, the defense was not great. However, the most important stat is points and the before the last two games they where 8th in points against. The offense can't score points. How is that so hard to understand? Even if the defense held them to 10 points that wouldn't be enough to win with this offense. Again, 14 points, 7 in garbage time in the last two games. At least the defense did make some stops in those games and had the offense did its job maybe they could have gotten back into the game. Not a chance with this offense. The coach said something about himself.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 10:59 AM
No, the defense was not great. However, the most important stat is points and the before the last two games they where 8th in points against. The offense can't score points. How is that so hard to understand? Even if the defense held them to 10 points that wouldn't be enough to win with this offense. Again, 14 points, 7 in garbage time in the last two games. At least the defense did make some stops in those games and had the offense did its job maybe they could have gotten back into the game. Not a chance with this offense. The coach said something about himself.It's hard to understand because you aren't analyzing the defense correctly. Just because we only give up 14 points doesnt mean that our defense was not bad, and making a few stops won't change anything. We made like what..2 stops? Big deal, should the defense be let off the hook for 2 measly stops? It's not that you're wrong, it's that your logic is flawed. The offense is horrible..but in its own right, they aren't forcing the defense to get picked on time and time again.

VBGiantsFan
12-26-2012, 11:05 AM
For those of you who think our offense is the sole reason for the defensive decline, look no further than our cross town rivals the Jets. They have a WORSE offense than us and still their defense is leaps and bounds better.

You can't pin the offense for such horrendous defense.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 11:07 AM
It does make sense. The job of the defense is to make stops. They at least did make some. The job of the offense is to score. They did not score at all in the Falcons game and they did slightly better against the Ravens. What happened to Webster was embarrassing no doubt. Still, the defense did give the offense a couple of chances to get back in the game and the offense did nothing.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 11:11 AM
It does make sense. The job of the defense is to make stops. They at least did make some. The job of the offense is to score. They did not score at all in the Falcons game and they did slightly better against the Ravens. What happened to Webster was embarrassing no doubt. Still, the defense did give the offense a couple of chances to get back in the game and the offense did nothing.I understand that, but that doesnt mean the defense can't make stops either. The offense isnt forcing them to not make stops. I agree the offense is responsible for scoring, they had trouble doing that and we lost, the defense did not do its job and make the necessary stops it needed to make, which is why 500 yards of offense from Baltimore was put on them. They both did a horrible job, and for most of the season as well. No one forced the other to come up short.

stormblue
12-26-2012, 11:13 AM
With one game to play, Giants rank 30th in the NFL in yards allowed per game at 387.8

well ....with another game to play...
there is a still a chance we could actually lead the league in something....

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 11:16 AM
I understand that, but that doesnt mean the defense can't make stops either. The offense isnt forcing them to not make stops. I agree the offense is responsible for scoring, they had trouble doing that and we lost, the defense did not do its job and make the necessary stops it needed to make, which is why 500 yards of offense from Baltimore was put on them. They both did a horrible job, and for most of the season as well. No one forced the other to come up short.They did make some stops though. Ever said they where a great defense, but they did at least make some stops to allow the offense to get them back in the last two games. If you think the defense was bad the offense was even worse.

hadenough
12-26-2012, 12:02 PM
They did make some stops though. Ever said they where a great defense, but they did at least make some stops to allow the offense to get them back in the last two games. If you think the defense was bad the offense was even worse.

If the best defense for your team is a good offense....your defense stinks

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 01:02 PM
If the best defense for your team is a good offense....your defense stinksEvery defense needs an offense.

Roosevelt
12-26-2012, 01:09 PM
This thread isnt about the offense.

Coach brought that up recently - that the 3 and outs keep the defense on the field and they are wearing down.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Coach brought that up recently - that the 3 and outs keep the defense on the field and they are wearing down.True, but in some cases that isn't always why the defense gets shredded. In thr Saints game, Drew Brees scored a touchdown in 27 seconds and if it were for our OFFENSE to score again, that would have been on te defense.

SimmsandLT
12-26-2012, 01:14 PM
Coach brought that up recently - that the 3 and outs keep the defense on the field and they are wearing down.

Maybe they should get a 3 and out themselves...

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 01:15 PM
Maybe they should get a 3 and out themselves...+1

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 01:18 PM
True, but in some cases that isn't always why the defense gets shredded. In thr Saints game, Drew Brees scored a touchdown in 27 seconds and if it were for our OFFENSE to score again, that would have been on te defense.Funny you bring up a game that the defense and special teams covered up for the the offense by spotting them the all deep in the Saints territory every time. The offense also spotted the Saints 7 points and another interception.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 01:18 PM
Maybe they should get a 3 and out themselves...They did a couple of times and the offense did nothing.

SimmsandLT
12-26-2012, 01:21 PM
Baltimore's 1st drive of the game on our defense went for 13 plays and 6:01, so clearly that jog from the locker room and the warm up fatigued them. Please stop blaming the offense for the defensive ineptitude. each unit failed miserably.

Roosevelt
12-26-2012, 01:23 PM
True, but in some cases that isn't always why the defense gets shredded. In thr Saints game, Drew Brees scored a touchdown in 27 seconds and if it were for our OFFENSE to score again, that would have been on te defense.

I agree, our defense has serious problems.

First off, we can't tackle, and secondly, our secondary can't cover squat in PF's zones.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 01:25 PM
Baltimore's 1st drive of the game on our defense went for 13 plays and 6:01, so clearly that jog from the locker room and the warm up fatigued them. Please stop blaming the offense for the defensive ineptitude. each unit failed miserably.They both failed. Never said they didn't. The defense did give the offense a couple of opportunities to get back in the game. The offense did nothing to help win the game.

Roosevelt
12-26-2012, 01:26 PM
Baltimore's 1st drive of the game on our defense went for 13 plays and 6:01, so clearly that jog from the locker room and the warm up fatigued them. Please stop blaming the offense for the defensive ineptitude. each unit failed miserably.

That's good, but of course you realize you are poking fun and Coughlin's comments.

I would certainly get a good laugh watching you try and say that to his face in response to what he said. That would be even more comical than your post.

SimmsandLT
12-26-2012, 01:34 PM
That's good, but of course you realize you are poking fun and Coughlin's comments.

I would certainly get a good laugh watching you try and say that to his face in response to what he said. That would be even more comical than your post.

Agreed.. more comical than watching fans try to blame one side of the ball for the other's failures. Or more comical than watching Baltimore convert a 3rd and 19. I blame the offenses problems on the offense and the defenses problems on the defense.

giantsfan420
12-26-2012, 01:34 PM
Bc the d has trouble stopping anything, its put the offense in horrible situations that makes it easy for opponents to defend us. Balt scored two tds their first two drives on long drives. Even after we got a td, the d conceded another one. The d is part of the reqson the offense is struggling so much on top of the offenses own problem.
this is just liek 2010 when the offense tried doing too much to compensate for the defense they saw in 09. Prob the worst d in the league imo bc we cannot force punts most the time. Only way we end their drive is by turnovers, and u cant depend on that.
man, offense has sucked, but up until the d collapsed midway thru this season, they were top 10 in like every category. The offense is too overwhelmed having to do too much and its led to little success...

And no, i dont believe this. Just using buddys ******ed flawed logic

giantsfan420
12-26-2012, 01:36 PM
Um, people focusing solely on tcs statement about the offense, u do realize tc has commented about the ds missed tackles and inability to do anything. Tc has talked about thw sttruggling d wayyyyy more than the offense

SimmsandLT
12-26-2012, 01:39 PM
Basically, the team is soft and wet like baby wipes. The AFC North showed us that by smacking us in the mouth offensively and defensively.

giantsfan420
12-26-2012, 01:39 PM
That's good, but of course you realize you are poking fun and Coughlin's comments.

I would certainly get a good laugh watching you try and say that to his face in response to what he said. That would be even more comical than your post.

Wait, so hoow he is he being comical by stating the d gave up two tds the first two drives (vs a team u HAVE TO get a lead on early for a shot to win) not bc the offense. But bc they got fatigued jogging onto the field pregame lol. And im curious, tc pointed out the o recently, but all yr tc has pointed out the ds awful play. Tc has commentd about the ds lack of success WAYYYYYY more than the offense. So by ur logic, tc blames the d.

giantsfan420
12-26-2012, 01:42 PM
True, but in some cases that isn't always why the defense gets shredded. In thr Saints game, Drew Brees scored a touchdown in 27 seconds and if it were for our OFFENSE to score again, that would have been on te defense.i agree. Plus i dont get the notion of claiming tc blames the offense bc he commented on it recently when tc has commented on the ds issues from week one on way more than the o. The d has screwed the team over way mre than the offense

ShakeandBake
12-26-2012, 01:44 PM
Bc the d has trouble stopping anything, its put the offense in horrible situations that makes it easy for opponents to defend us. Balt scored two tds their first two drives on long drives. Even after we got a td, the d conceded another one. The d is part of the reqson the offense is struggling so much on top of the offenses own problem.
this is just liek 2010 when the offense tried doing too much to compensate for the defense they saw in 09. Prob the worst d in the league imo bc we cannot force punts most the time. Only way we end their drive is by turnovers, and u cant depend on that.
man, offense has sucked, but up until the d collapsed midway thru this season, they were top 10 in like every category. The offense is too overwhelmed having to do too much and its led to little success...

And no, i dont believe this. Just using buddys ******ed flawed logic

And the offense went 3-and-out how many times? The offense put the defense in terrible field position all game, however with that being said the defense was absolutely terrible as well. We couldn't put up any points because the offense couldn't stay on the field, couple that with a terrible defensive performance and you get a beatdown like last week.

joemorrisforprez
12-26-2012, 01:46 PM
Giants need to go after Romeo Crennel after KC fires him.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 01:47 PM
Doubt they change DC's. They need some payers.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 01:51 PM
Giants defense at a loss for words after complete breakdown

Jenny Vrentas/The Star-Ledger

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2012/12/giants_defense_at_a_loss_for_w.html


Countdown to someone claiming they were actually good because the points against numbers were half decent for a while............

giantsforce
12-26-2012, 01:52 PM
You're kiddin' me! They are at a loss for words as to why the defense sucked???? Any Giant fan can explain it with two words and they are not Merry Christmas either!!!! try.........Perry Fewell. That will sum it up in a nut shell.Exactly! But I will take it a step further and I will say Coughlin too. He is the HC and while he see the stats and the putrid performance, he stands there doing nothing. Coughlin has been nothing more but a bystander. How do you explain the atrocious play calling game after game? How do you explain the disgraceful defensive performance? Why no changes? We can blame Killdrive and Fewell as much as we want, but ultimately the HC has to step in and at least attempt to fix things. Coughlin is just riding the SB win and he has no incentive to rock the boat. While we can rightfully blame the players for not performing, we should not overool the overall lack of leadership by the HC. When the HC himself is unable to explain the collapse, then he has failed as leader and needs to either step down on his own or be shown the door. This kind of collapse has happened way too often under this coach and it should not be tolerated anymore.

jomo
12-26-2012, 01:52 PM
Doubt they change DC's. They need some payers.The only thoughtful and useful scheme change I saw from PF was the 3 safety set against the Packers. Otherwise he rolled craps all year.

Roosevelt
12-26-2012, 01:53 PM
Agreed.. more comical than watching fans try to blame one side of the ball for the other's failures. Or more comical than watching Baltimore convert a 3rd and 19. I blame the offenses problems on the offense and the defenses problems on the defense.

I don't see a problem discussing broader issues especially when it's obvious, and when the head coach publicly has supported that position.

It's no different than discussing the effect that the return game has on the offense.

Sometimes things go hand in hand.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 01:54 PM
Didn't know the offense allowed 378 yards a game, that's pretty incredible. It's also incredible how the offense misses tackles and their overpaid corner gets picked on over and over again lolol some team we have.


You're feeding a troll. It works like this:

defense = inept = it's the offense's fault
offense = inept = it's the offense's fault

At no point will there be any balance that sates the most obvious of truths which is that the entire team is underperforming, both units suck and neither is the cause of the other's sucking. Both simply suck.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 01:54 PM
The only thoughtful and useful scheme change I saw from PF was the 3 safety set against the Packers. Otherwise he rolled craps all year.Yeah, but his two premier DE's and CB got old over night. They need to replace some players and stay healthy.

giantsfan420
12-26-2012, 01:54 PM
Countdown to someone claiming they were actually good because the points against numbers were half decent for a while............lmao. Already happened...this d sucks and killed us. I dunno how often we should rely on the offense to carry the last or close to last ranked defenses. Sure last yr the offense was able to, but that was the exception not the rule. This is one of our worst defenses in the tc era

joemorrisforprez
12-26-2012, 01:55 PM
Doubt they change DC's. They need some payers.

The players we are much better at causing havoc than reading plays. Fewell's defense relies on turnovers and mistakes by the offense, plus a strong 4 man pass rush, and against disciplined teams like the Falcons and Ravens, that's not a good recipe.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 01:57 PM
lmao. Already happened...this d sucks and killed us. I dunno how often we should rely on the offense to carry the last or close to last ranked defenses. Sure last yr the offense was able to, but that was the exception not the rule. This is one of our worst defenses in the tc era

OK, but let's not go giving the offense any slack here. They may not be the cause of the defense sucking (as so many on this board clearly are desperately attempting to conjure as truth) but they sure aren't any kind of help. Their utter ineptitude can not be overlooked nor excused, they're horrendous as well and if they were playing even decently the defensive screw ups would be lessened.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 01:58 PM
You're feeding a troll. It works like this:defense = inept = it's the offense's faultoffense = inept = it's the offense's faultAt no point will there be any balance that sates the most obvious of truths which is that the entire team is underperforming, both units suck and neither is the cause of the other's sucking. Both simply suck.That is not true at all. They have to work together. That's why it's called a team sport. Where they both bad? Yes. If they fix anything first though it should be the offense. That is where they have $100 invested in one player and they need to be a lot better than kicking field goals and going 3 and out.

gumby74
12-26-2012, 02:03 PM
Both sides of the ball suck. However, the defense at least sucked less because we gave up 20 points per game and led the league (or close to) in turnovers created. At least they were doing something. The offense was just abysmal. Both sucked, but the offense sucked more.

So yeah. We suck but I said that already I think.

Roosevelt
12-26-2012, 02:04 PM
Wait, so hoow he is he being comical by stating the d gave up two tds the first two drives (vs a team u HAVE TO get a lead on early for a shot to win) not bc the offense. But bc they got fatigued jogging onto the field pregame lol. And im curious, tc pointed out the o recently, but all yr tc has pointed out the ds awful play. Tc has commentd about the ds lack of success WAYYYYYY more than the offense. So by ur logic, tc blames the d.

Dude, you need to quit texting your responses. I don't want to have to break your code every time you post.

Your position aside, I truly thought SimmsandLT's post was funny, but simply reminding him that Tom acknowledged the D's performance was in part based on fatigue because the offense could not sustain a drive.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 02:04 PM
That is not true at all. They have to work together. That's why it's called a team sport. Where they both bad? Yes. If they fix anything first though it should be the offense. That is where they have $100 invested in one player and they need to be a lot better than kicking field goals and going 3 and out.

Sing that tired **** somewhere else. The Giants like most other successful teams are built around an expensive core and role players. If you are a team with a franchise QB, that position will generally command the most money, that's the market.

The Giants aren't unique in that regard. Nor are they unique in their overpaying of defensive players that are underperforming magnificently. Their top earners aren't getting it done. That includes the QB but is by no means exclusive to the QB. That position just garners the most notice from the superficial fan because it's the most obvious.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 02:09 PM
Sing that tired **** somewhere else. The Giants like most other successful teams are built around an expensive core and role players. If you are a team with a franchise QB, that position will generally command the most money, that's the market.The Giants aren't unique in that regard. Nor are they unique in their overpaying of defensive players that are underperforming magnificently. Their top earners aren't getting it done. That includes the QB but is by no means exclusive to the QB. That position just garners the most notice from the superficial fan because it's the most obvious.So thy shouldn't expect more from their $100 million investment? Not saying its all on him, but the team has made it clear by paying him that money that they expect a top tier offense. They do not have that? All the top earning QB's are not struggling to score points like the Giants are.

Gmen 802
12-26-2012, 02:12 PM
Blame Fewell all you want..and I'm not exactly a huge fan either..but we had a number 9 ranked defense in his first year, and have forced a ton of turnovers since he's got here also. Unfortunately our offense simply cannot stay on the field or capitalize on ANY of these opportunities, or maybe 1 out of 5 of them. Gilbride is truly a problem here. I don't understand why we can't try a more modern and efficient offensive system, with higher percentage passes, and quicker passes which we NEED to do because our o-line is simply god awful. One bash I definitely have on Fewell however is this damn 4 d end nascar package. It was great last year when everyone was actually producing and it wasn't figured out. This year it clearly has been and we're getting little to no effort from most players. I also cannot stand seeing it on situations like 3rd and 4. I mean jesus they're either going to leave 6 to protect, pass it in 1.5 seconds right at number 23 (who'll probably miss the tackle and give up another 15 yards) or audible to a run play and have the 300+ guards in the middle push our 270 pound ends right out of the way. It is common sense. We need more beef out there in pass rushing situations to draw double teams and get push up the middle, which has been a huge issue. I know we need help at the DT position but we have players that are capable. They just elect to sit them every 3rd down. GAH this season has been frustrating to watch

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 02:12 PM
Both sides of the ball suck. However, the defense at least sucked less because we gave up 20 points per game and led the league (or close to) in turnovers created. At least they were doing something. The offense was just abysmal. Both sucked, but the offense sucked more. So yeah. We suck but I said that already I think.This. Just saying the team needs some work but they should address the offense first. They are not getting he production they want from their investment on offense.

Mercury
12-26-2012, 02:13 PM
When your defense lets up an average of 387 yds per game, you need a new DC. Yes, you need new players too, but you definitely need a new DC. It may even rejuvinate our suddenly too old players.

Another good example is the Arizona Cardinals. Their offense might be the most inept in the NFL this year, but their defense isn't terrible because of it.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 02:19 PM
So thy shouldn't expect more from their $100 million investment? Not saying its all on him, but the team has made it clear by paying him that money that they expect a top tier offense. They do not have that? All the top earning QB's are not struggling to score points like the Giants are.


I'm sorry man, I can't take you seriously. You clearly have your own bias and agenda and the fact that it doesn't hold together logically makes discussing it with you pointless.

If you really want to discuss it, I'll need to understand whether or not you agree that the market for a franchise QB is what it is, a top 10 QB ought to be making top 10 money because that's the market and the Giants have a top 10 franchise QB.

If you do, great, let's discuss it further. If not, then you are proposing changing the entire structure of the team and the players around the QB which is an organizational structure discussion, not a QB discussion.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 02:20 PM
This. Just saying the team needs some work but they should address the offense first. They are not getting he production they want from their investment on offense.

Nor their defense. There's a lot of money tied up in only a few players on that side of the ball. Are we talking about them as well or only one side?

gumby74
12-26-2012, 02:24 PM
I'm sorry man, I can't take you seriously. You clearly have your own bias and agenda and the fact that it doesn't hold together logically makes discussing it with you pointless.

If you really want to discuss it, I'll need to understand whether or not you agree that the market for a franchise QB is what it is, a top 10 QB ought to be making top 10 money because that's the market and the Giants have a top 10 franchise QB.

If you do, great, let's discuss it further. If not, then you are proposing changing the entire structure of the team and the players around the QB which is an organizational structure discussion, not a QB discussion.

You are correct. However, Eli will be #2 in the league in overall cap hit behind Tom Brady next year - at roughly 20 million next year. If Eli puts up another clunker, are you then going to able to say that re-assessing Eli's value is warranted? 20 million is an enormous amount of money. Heck, you could get Matt Schaub and Vincent Jackson for 16.

Note: I'm NOT saying Eli is not worth his $$ btw.

SimmsandLT
12-26-2012, 02:27 PM
Dude, you need to quit texting your responses. I don't want to have to break your code every time you post.

Your position aside, I truly thought SimmsandLT's post was funny, but simply reminding him that Tom acknowledged the D's performance was in part based on fatigue because the offense could not sustain a drive.

I agree with that position. The offense does leave the defense in bad positions sometimes. But that doesn't excuse their performance. I think that the offensive philosophy (not a fan of Gilbride or Fewell) when it is failing will always leave the defense on the field longer, so yes, they will wear down some. That being said, their showing has been abysmal just like the offense. It all starts up front. We get pushed around way too much.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 02:43 PM
You are correct. However, Eli will be #2 in the league in overall cap hit behind Tom Brady next year - at roughly 20 million next year. If Eli puts up another clunker, are you then going to able to say that re-assessing Eli's value is warranted? 20 million is an enormous amount of money. Heck, you could get Matt Schaub and Vincent Jackson for 16.

Note: I'm NOT saying Eli is not worth his $$ btw.


I understand where you're coming from but it's not that simple as I'm sure you know.

We can't take one year out of a multi year contract and attempt to extrapolate a singular result. We either look at the entire body of work for the entire time paid against the market at the time otherwise we're just cherry picking a result and then backing into the logic. I'm sorry, I can't play along with that it's neither consistent nor logical enough for me. By the way, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying in general that if he keeps playing like this and the escalations in the contract follow as written it's not a great deal in one of the years of the contract....but for me, it has to be viewed in the proper context and in totality..otherwise we're just a couple of chimps flinging our own crap.

NYtoSanDiego
12-26-2012, 02:50 PM
ive always said this D works against other offenses like the packers and patriots that like to attack within a 5-20yd window, but against a run heavy team or teams that like to attack vertically they are very suspect.

its a catch 22. play man and blitz like spags and a team with a top 10 qb will rip it apart with quick throws. play zone and come across a team like the lions and falcons and they'll beat you up top unless you get pressure. play a team that likes to pound like the niners without a healthy canty and tuck and they are in for a long day.

fewell like gilbride loves his system but he needs all 7 guys (LB and DB) that now their assignments. they get gashed big when one or two forget where they need to be and is followed by and its caught on camera " i thought you had him". when all 7 is working that's when you see the qb hold on to the ball longer and that's when they get a coverage sack.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 03:12 PM
I'm sorry man, I can't take you seriously. You clearly have your own bias and agenda and the fact that it doesn't hold together logically makes discussing it with you pointless.If you really want to discuss it, I'll need to understand whether or not you agree that the market for a franchise QB is what it is, a top 10 QB ought to be making top 10 money because that's the market and the Giants have a top 10 franchise QB. If you do, great, let's discuss it further. If not, then you are proposing changing the entire structure of the team and the players around the QB which is an organizational structure discussion, not a QB discussion.A top ten QB should be making that much. A top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone and not constantly go 3 and out. Can't believe this even needs to be explained.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 03:13 PM
Nor their defense. There's a lot of money tied up in only a few players on that side of the ball. Are we talking about them as well or only one side?No one on the team makes close to what they pay Eli. No one. They need better offensive production if they are committing that kind of money to their offense.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 03:14 PM
A top ten QB should be making that much. A top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone and not constantly go 3 and out. Can't believe this even needs to be explained.Obviously KG isnt the probl in that situation...

giantsfan420
12-26-2012, 03:14 PM
A top ten QB should be making that much. A top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone and not constantly go 3 and out. Can't believe this even needs to be explained.why did the d suck balls last yr then buddy? They were pretty bad last reg season, but the offense kicked ***. How do u explain that? Ur not explaining a damn thing btw. Ur just going around excusing the d based on horrible logic. Cant believe u cant grasp that with dozens of people pointing out ur flawed logic

giantsfan420
12-26-2012, 03:15 PM
With the money invested in the d, they have to play better or theyll just keep dragging the offense down

No i dont really feel this way. Ive just been posting using buddys reasoning in this thread. Imo, both the o and d have sucked.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 03:15 PM
Obviously KG isnt the probl in that situation...No. They need players. The OL is in need of a major overhaul. Only one guy on that like right now playing well.

giantsfan420
12-26-2012, 03:18 PM
If we hadnt had the offense make so many gw drives/comebacks last yr, the d would have been looked at the same as it is this yr.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 03:20 PM
No. They need players. The OL is in need of a major overhaul. Only one guy on that like right now playing well.Then what's with the "top 10 QB's don't fail in the red zone" if you realize our glaring weaknesses?

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 03:21 PM
Then what's with the "top 10 QB's don't fail in the red zone" if you realize our glaring weaknesses?What are you talking about?

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 03:25 PM
What are you talking about? Originally Posted by Buddy333 A top ten QB should be making that much. A top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone and not constantly go 3 and out. Can't believe this even needs to be explained. Originally Posted by Buddy333 No. They need players. The OL is in need of a major overhaul. Only one guy on that like right now playing well.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 03:55 PM
Originally Posted by Buddy333 A top ten QB should be making that much. A top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone and not constantly go 3 and out. Can't believe this even needs to be explained. Originally Posted by Buddy333 No. They need players. The OL is in need of a major overhaul. Only one guy on that like right now playing well.Yeah. They do need players but he also needs to play better. Is that hard to understand? Never said he was the oly problem on offense, but other QB's have bad OL's and played a lot better than him this year.

Rudyy
12-26-2012, 03:58 PM
Yeah. They do need players but he also needs to play better. Is that hard to understand? Never said he was the oly problem on offense, but other QB's have bad OL's and played a lot better than him this year. I agree he does need to play better. My point was the top 10 QB thing. He doen't have an offense line consistent enough for him to produce consistent numbers, he also doesnt have receivers who can get separation. It's not just because he sucks. That's all I'm trying to get at.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 04:09 PM
A top ten QB should be making that much. A top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone and not constantly go 3 and out. Can't believe this even needs to be explained.

Nice try. But as you know, you didn't explain anything.

You made one correct, fact based statement: "A top ten QB should be making that much"

Then you started talking about your feelings.

You gave two of your personal opinions, neither of which are supported by any stats or facts: first one: " A top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone" and the second one: "and not constantly go 3 and out."

If you want you can combine those last two emotions into one which would be: "My feeling is that a top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone and not constantly go 3 and out".

So, yeah since we're dealing with your feelings here and not any kind of quantifiable facts you should not be the least bit surprised that it "even needs to be explained". How the hell is anyone supposed to know what your feelings are?

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 04:13 PM
No one on the team makes close to what they pay Eli. No one. They need better offensive production if they are committing that kind of money to their offense.


Please do not ask me to repeat myself, I have already explained it to you once. You either understand the market or you do not. If you don't that's fine - plenty of fans don't - but continually and constantly whining about it while making no attempt to understand it is annoying and a waste of other's time.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 04:56 PM
I agree he does need to play better. My point was the top 10 QB thing. He doen't have an offense line consistent enough for him to produce consistent numbers, he also doesnt have receivers who can get separation. It's not just because he sucks. That's all I'm trying to get at.Right, so the point is that when you invest $100 million into a QB that offense better be a lot better than kicking field goals in the red zone and going 3 and out. That's why the offense needs to be the first thing thy address.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 04:58 PM
Nice try. But as you know, you didn't explain anything. You made one correct, fact based statement: "A top ten QB should be making that much" Then you started talking about your feelings. You gave two of your personal opinions, neither of which are supported by any stats or facts: first one: " A top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone" and the second one: "and not constantly go 3 and out."If you want you can combine those last two emotions into one which would be: "My feeling is that a top ten QB should also be head of an offense that can score in the red zone and not constantly go 3 and out". So, yeah since we're dealing with your feelings here and not any kind of quantifiable facts you should not be the least bit surprised that it "even needs to be explained". How the hell is anyone supposed to know what your feelings are?Um...no. That's not a feeling or an opinion. If you pay a guy $100 million you have to be better on offense. That's a fact.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 04:59 PM
Please do not ask me to repeat myself, I have already explained it to you once. You either understand the market or you do not. If you don't that's fine - plenty of fans don't - but continually and constantly whining about it while making no attempt to understand it is annoying and a waste of other's time.Did they get what they paid for this year? The answer is no. The offense is broken and needs to be fixed.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 05:19 PM
Um...no. That's not a feeling or an opinion. If you pay a guy $100 million you have to be better on offense. That's a fact.


Wow. OK, if that is actually what you believe then we should not attempt to discuss it further.

Doing so requires at least an elementary understanding of the difference between facts and personal beliefs.

I will leave you to your feelings.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 05:23 PM
Wow. OK, if that is actually what you believe then we should not attempt to discuss it further.Doing so requires at least an elementary understanding of the difference between facts and personal beliefs.I will leave you to your feelings.Right so an organization pays $100 million to a QB so they can watch his unit not score TD's in the red zone and have tons of 3 and outs.

Roosevelt
12-26-2012, 06:48 PM
I agree with that position. The offense does leave the defense in bad positions sometimes. But that doesn't excuse their performance. I think that the offensive philosophy (not a fan of Gilbride or Fewell) when it is failing will always leave the defense on the field longer, so yes, they will wear down some. That being said, their showing has been abysmal just like the offense. It all starts up front. We get pushed around way too much.

Agreed. We lost the battle at the LOS on both sides of the ball this season.

Cloud57
12-26-2012, 06:59 PM
Right so an organization pays $100 million to a QB so they can watch his unit not score TD's in the red zone and have tons of 3 and outs.We have what some consider an Elite QB yet Tynes is the leading scorer in the redzone lol

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 07:11 PM
Right so an organization pays $100 million to a QB so they can watch his unit not score TD's in the red zone and have tons of 3 and outs.

Again with your feelings. Look, I'm not trying to be all Grinchy on your Christmas but your feelings are not really material here. You're just whining.

53canton
12-26-2012, 07:21 PM
Wow, how do you bring back Fewell with numbers like this?

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 07:39 PM
Again with your feelings. Look, I'm not trying to be all Grinchy on your Christmas but your feelings are not really material here. You're just whining.Yeah. Why would the expect more from ther offense? Most teams pay $100 million to their franchise QB with expectations of horrible red zone offense and 3 and outs.

radar-ray
12-26-2012, 09:40 PM
Agreed. We lost the battle at the LOS on both sides of the ball this season. This!!!

gumby74
12-26-2012, 10:30 PM
Um...no. That's not a feeling or an opinion. If you pay a guy $100 million you have to be better on offense. That's a fact.


Wow. OK, if that is actually what you believe then we should not attempt to discuss it further.

Doing so requires at least an elementary understanding of the difference between facts and personal beliefs.

I will leave you to your feelings.

Technically very few things are "fact" since none of us know what's going on in the Giants locker room. If we were only allowed to discuss pure fact here, there would be no message board. The QB is by far the single most important position in football by a mile. Your fortunes as a team usually hinges on QB play. If Buddy wants to think that investing a significant amount of money into one player - especially at the QB position should influence the overall outcome of the game or at least the score, i don't think that's far fetched at all.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 10:41 PM
Yeah. Why would the expect more from ther offense? Most teams pay $100 million to their franchise QB with expectations of horrible red zone offense and 3 and outs.


You keep changing the angle in an attempt to save something here but I can't imagine what it is. I understand you'd like to whine that the QB is over paid but that statement has failed the logic test numerous times based on the market so when that blew up on you, you simply change the story to a more vague but equally whiny theme.

I have not nor will I defend the offense or the QB's play this season. It's indefensible. But your attempts to use anecdata as facts, your inability to absorb and understand even the most basic tenets of the game both on the field and off coupled with your overwhelming need to whine without any factual support confirms that it was a mistake to try to engage you in an intelligent conversation. It's clear that you are simply not equipped for it. Peace.

gumby74
12-26-2012, 10:46 PM
You keep changing the angle in an attempt to save something here but I can't imagine what it is. I understand you'd like to whine that the QB is over paid but that statement has failed the logic test numerous times based on the market so when that blew up on you, you simply change the story to a more vague but equally whiny theme.

I have not nor will I defend the offense or the QB's play this season. It's indefensible. But your attempts to use anecdata as facts, your inability to absorb and understand even the most basic tenets of the game both on the field and off coupled with your overwhelming need to whine without any factual support confirms that it was a mistake to try to engage you in an intelligent conversation. It's clear that you are simply not equipped for it. Peace.

Anecdata? You don't happen to know Chaosist do you?

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 10:46 PM
Technically very few things are "fact" since none of us know what's going on in the Giants locker room. If we were only allowed to discuss pure fact here, there would be no message board. The QB is by far the single most important position in football by a mile. Your fortunes as a team usually hinges on QB play. If Buddy wants to think that investing a significant amount of money into one player - especially at the QB position should influence the overall outcome of the game or at least the score, i don't think that's far fetched at all.

Nor do I. And while I fully expect him to return and claim that's what he was saying, it's not what he was saying. Of course it may be what he meant but I can't read his mind, only his posts.

But taking your point that the QB is the by far the single most important position in football by a mile, a point with which I agree essentially validates what I've been saying: the market for a franchise QB is what the NYG QB makes. That's because he's a franchise QB.

More succinctly put, he's a top 10 QB who gets top 10 QB money. That's the market. What it's not is some sort of guarantee of any specific result. That's the difference in our positions.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 10:58 PM
Anecdata? You don't happen to know Chaosist do you?


We're in the same book club.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 11:30 PM
You keep changing the angle in an attempt to save something here but I can't imagine what it is. I understand you'd like to whine that the QB is over paid but that statement has failed the logic test numerous times based on the market so when that blew up on you, you simply change the story to a more vague but equally whiny theme.I have not nor will I defend the offense or the QB's play this season. It's indefensible. But your attempts to use anecdata as facts, your inability to absorb and understand even the most basic tenets of the game both on the field and off coupled with your overwhelming need to whine without any factual support confirms that it was a mistake to try to engage you in an intelligent conversation. It's clear that you are simply not equipped for it. Peace.Ok, so a football team invests $100 million in a QB and the unit he leads struggles. There is no need to fix that problem. Got it. Seems reasonable that a team would do that. They should not make offense their priority in the off season then. No, still doesn't make sense. They believe they have a $100 million QB. Well he has played like it at times, not this year, so it would make sense they would want to protect him and make and make them function better. The offense should be their first priority because they failed worse than he defense this season.

gmen0820
12-26-2012, 11:47 PM
I really could care less about the yards, it's really all about points allowed per game now. Unfortunately, we blow hard in that department as of late, too.

Sarcasman
12-26-2012, 11:51 PM
Ok, so a football team invests $100 million in a QB and the unit he leads struggles. THere is no need to fix that problem. Got it. Seems reasonable that a team would do that. They should not make offense their priority in the off season then. No, still doesn't make sense. They believe they have a $100 million QB. Well he has played like it at times, not this year, so it would make sense they would want to protect him and make and make them function better. The offense should be their first priority because they failed worse than he defense this season.


Stop trying to put your stupid words into my mouth, I've never said any of this idiotic nonsense and would never spout such moronic crap.

So, assuming you are not setting up a strawman (which is a gift since you clearly are and have been for half a dozen posts now as you continue to backpedal from your initial but now well blown up initial statement), of course they need to fix the offense. And of course the offense is supposed to be carrying a bit more than 50% of the weight because that's how the team is structured and they aren't doing that this year.

So yeah, I agree that the team as structured is say 55/45 offense to defense and that the offense and defense should be fixed in the offseason. And if you want to fix the offense first, that's fine but don't kid yourself, you've got plenty of money allocated to your defense as well and they have not come close to carrying their share of the load.

So unless you plan to fix the offense to the point where they'll average 50 points a game, you better save some of that money you are currently pissing down a hole on the defense because you're gonna need it because they suck too.

Buddy333
12-26-2012, 11:54 PM
As of late yes, although in the game against the Falcons they gave up 10 points after turnovers and another 10 came late on the game when they where getting shut out. Not excusing it, just saying the numbers can look worse than they really are sometimes. As far as yards go the difference in the 30th ranking and the 10th ranking is 58 yards a game. It is also only a difference of 2.6 points a game.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 12:01 AM
I really could care less about the yards, it's really all about points allowed per game now. Unfortunately, we blow hard in that department as of late, too.


I agree but interestingly while we are always so quick to point out how the offense's inability to stay on the field hurts the defense (and it does) we never really look at it the other way around. I think it's interesting because it's a model the Giants have used fairly successfully against good offensive teams in the past.

Of course that's theory, the reality is that neither unit is of any help to the other this year. They both suck.

Buddy333
12-27-2012, 12:04 AM
Stop trying to put your stupid words into my mouth, I've never said any of this idiotic nonsense and would never spout such moronic crap. So, assuming you are not setting up a strawman (which is a gift since you clearly are and have been for half a dozen posts now as you continue to backpedal from your initial but now well blown up initial statement), of course they need to fix the offense. And of course the offense is supposed to be carrying a bit more than 50% of the weight because that's how the team is structured and they aren't doing that this year. So yeah, I agree that the team as structured is say 55/45 offense to defense and that the offense and defense should be fixed in the offseason. And if you want to fix the offense first, that's fine but don't kid yourself, you've got plenty of money allocated to your defense as well and they have not come close to carrying their share of the load. So unless you plan to fix the offense to the point where they'll average 50 points a game, you better save some of that money you are currently pissing down a hole on the defense because you're gonna need it because they suck too.Don't know why you are tying to make this harder than it has to be. If you have $100 million invested in one player and the unit he plays on struggled it would make sense to fix that unit first. As far as money, even with the money they paid defenders that did not perform this year it still doesn't come close to what Eli makes. Take what Tuck, Webster, and Osi make and you won't get near Eli type money. Any team that pays a QB that kind of money should make it their priority to get that side of the ball fixed first. Take a look at the other $100 million QB's and with the exception of the other Manning their defense stink. Their offenses are so good though that hey cover for their defenses. That's not a great thing to rely on and that's why they do need to address the defense. Just have to fix he offense first.

gmen0820
12-27-2012, 12:07 AM
I agree but interestingly while we are always so quick to point out how the offense's inability to stay on the field hurts the defense (and it does) we never really look at it the other way around. I think it's interesting because it's a model the Giants have used fairly successfully against good offensive teams in the past.

Of course that's theory, the reality is that neither unit is of any help to the other this year. They both suck.Agreed. It's all about discipline, though. If you buy into the system, you force offensive teams to be methodical in order to move down the field. It requires discipline from the defense, but it really tests an offense's discipline. A lot of plays means a higher chance of turnovers, and teams that are accustomed to quick strikes down the field tend to struggle.

But yeah, to put it frankly, they just blow right now. Not much you can do when you blow.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 12:31 AM
Don't know why you are tying to make this harder than it has to be. If you have $100 million invested in one player and the unit he plays on struggled it would make sense to fix that unit first. As far as money, even with the money they paid defenders that did not perform this year it still doesn't come close to what Eli makes. Take what Tuck, Webster, and Osi make and you won't get near Eli type money. Any team that pays a QB that kind of money should make it their priority to get that side of the ball fixed first. Take a look at the other $100 million QB's and with the exception of the other Manning their defense stink. Their offenses are so old though that hey cover for their defenses. That's not a great thing to rely on and that's why they do need to address the defense. Just have o fix he offense first.


Actually I'm not, it just seems that way since you have recently come around to a defensible position from your previous one.

You started out complaining that $100 million wasn't getting you the results you expected. You now are saying that if you are going to build your team around a franchise QB which means he will be paid market - not more and not less, market - you should support that investment by focusing on fixing it after it performs like it has this year.

Thanks for the round earth report. Had you said that earlier instead of wallpapering whiny crap like "$100 million on one player should carry the team every year" we could have saved a lot of bandwidth.

Lastly, at least I now know why you don't quote data or facts, it gets messy:

"Take a look at the other $100 million QB's and with the exception of the other Manning their defense stink."

A very typical example of the type of anecdote you seem to prefer. Sounds logical, rational even...it even has a faux authoritative sort of ring to it.

So I did take a look.

Of the 10 top paid QBs this year all have better ranked defenses than the Giants with one exception, Drew Brees of the Saints. So much for anecdata.

Unless you re-sort the defenses by points against instead of yards against, then you get much different results. Not.

Under that criteria only 8 of the 10 top QBs have a better defense than the Giants so all but 2 (the Eagles and the Saints) instead of 1 of the 10 top paid QBs have a better defense than the Giants playing alongside them. I guess you win.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 12:32 AM
Agreed. It's all about discipline, though. If you buy into the system, you force offensive teams to be methodical in order to move down the field. It requires discipline from the defense, but it really tests an offense's discipline. A lot of plays means a higher chance of turnovers, and teams that are accustomed to quick strikes down the field tend to struggle.

But yeah, to put it frank, they just blow right now. Not much you can do when you blow.


Good point, discipline has never really been this team's strong suit.

giantsfan420
12-27-2012, 01:32 AM
Actually I'm not, it just seems that way since you have recently come around to a defensible position from your previous one.

You started out complaining that $100 million wasn't getting you the results you expected. You now are saying that if you are going to build your team around a franchise QB which means he will be paid market - not more and not less, market - you should support that investment by focusing on fixing it after it performs like it has this year.

Thanks for the round earth report. Had you said that earlier instead of wallpapering whiny crap like "$100 million on one player should carry the team every year" we could have saved a lot of bandwidth.

Lastly, at least I now know why you don't quote data or facts, it gets messy:

"Take a look at the other $100 million QB's and with the exception of the other Manning their defense stink."

A very typical example of the type of anecdote you seem to prefer. Sounds logical, rational even...it even has a faux authoritative sort of ring to it.

So I did take a look.

Of the 10 top paid QBs this year all have better ranked defenses than the Giants with one exception, Drew Brees of the Saints. So much for anecdata.

Unless you re-sort the defenses by points against instead of yards against, then you get much different results. Not.

Under that criteria only 8 of the 10 top QBs have a better defense than the Giants so all but 2 (the Eagles and the Saints) instead of 1 of the 10 top paid QBs have a better defense than the Giants playing alongside them. I guess you win.u just owned him and completely proved how illogical his stances are

giantsfan420
12-27-2012, 01:37 AM
Ok, so a football team invests $100 million in a QB and the unit he leads struggles. There is no need to fix that problem. Got it. Seems reasonable that a team would do that. They should not make offense their priority in the off season then. No, still doesn't make sense. They believe they have a $100 million QB. Well he has played like it at times, not this year, so it would make sense they would want to protect him and make and make them function better. The offense should be their first priority because they failed worse than he defense this season.lmfao. Yeah that's what he's saying, that the offense doesn't need to improve and is perfect the way it is. Ur a barrel of fallacies lmao

Buddy333
12-27-2012, 08:49 AM
Actually I'm not, it just seems that way since you have recently come around to a defensible position from your previous one. You started out complaining that $100 million wasn't getting you the results you expected. You now are saying that if you are going to build your team around a franchise QB which means he will be paid market - not more and not less, market - you should support that investment by focusing on fixing it after it performs like it has this year. Thanks for the round earth report. Had you said that earlier instead of wallpapering whiny crap like "$100 million on one player should carry the team every year" we could have saved a lot of bandwidth. Lastly, at least I now know why you don't quote data or facts, it gets messy: "Take a look at the other $100 million QB's and with the exception of the other Manning their defense stink." A very typical example of the type of anecdote you seem to prefer. Sounds logical, rational even...it even has a faux authoritative sort of ring to it.So I did take a look. Of the 10 top paid QBs this year all have better ranked defenses than the Giants with one exception, Drew Brees of the Saints. So much for anecdata. Unless you re-sort the defenses by points against instead of yards against, then you get much different results. Not. Under that criteria only 8 of the 10 top QBs have a better defense than the Giants so all but 2 (the Eagles and the Saints) instead of 1 of the 10 top paid QBs have a better defense than the Giants playing alongside them. I guess you win.Never changed my stance. No they didn't get what they wanted from their $100 million QB. Never said he was the only problem either. Did say he is the leader of that unit and he did not play well this year. Talking about him carrying the team it's comical to hear people say that at $100 million he should not be expected to carry his team every year. Why not? Keep looking at those ranking all you want but those other defense stink too. The difference with the Giants ranked at 30 defensively and the number 10 team is a whopping 58 yards a game. So now that team has a good defense. No, that would be the Green Bay Packers and yes their defense stinks. The difference in points allowed is 2.6 a game and that has recently been inflated with the last two games. The other difference with those two teams is that offensively you won't see Green Bay have a slump most of the year. So again, fix the offense first. It's a bigger, not all that much bigger, problem.

alentown pa
12-27-2012, 09:03 AM
Never changed my stance. No they didn't get what they wanted from their $100 million QB. Never said he was the only problem either. Did say he is the leader of that unit and he did not play well this year. Talking about him carrying the team it's comical to hear people say that at $100 million he should not be expected to carry his team every year. Why not? Keep looking at those ranking all you want but those other defense stink too. The difference with the Giants ranked at 30 defensively and the number 10 team is a whopping 58 yards a game. So now that team has a good defense. No, that would be the Green Bay Packers and yes their defense stinks. The difference in points allowed is 2.6 a game and that has recently been inflated with the last two games. The other difference with those two teams is that offensively you won't see Green Bay have a slump most of the year. So again, fix the offense first. It's a bigger, not all that much bigger, problem.Hey sweetie, I noticed you bumped an old thread where you talked about how they should have rested nicks earlier in the season. I have another thread from last season that we should be discussing.

gumby74
12-27-2012, 09:46 AM
Anecdata? You don't happen to know Chaosist do you?


We're in the same book club.

I'm not surprised. You guys have the same writing style and similar ways of approaching things.

EliDaMANning
12-27-2012, 09:59 AM
The Jets have a much better defense than ours and an even worse offense. Same thing applies for the Cardinals.

But for some reason their defense plays well from start to finish regardless of how bad their offenses are playing. This idea that the defense needs a boost from the offense would hold some water if we didn't always fall behind by 2 TD in the first quarter. Unfortunately, you cannot blame fatigue when you're just starting the game and getting picked apart by scrubs like Flacco.

Rudyy
12-27-2012, 10:06 AM
The Jets have a much better defense than ours and an even worse offense. Same thing applies for the Cardinals.But for some reason their defense plays well from start to finish regardless of how bad their offenses are playing. This idea that the defense needs a boost from the offense would hold some water if we didn't always fall behind by 2 TD in the first quarter. Unfortunately, you cannot blame fatigue when you're just starting the game and getting picked apart by scrubs like Flacco.Good post.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 01:15 PM
I'm not surprised. You guys have the same writing style and similar ways of approaching things.


He must be a real a-hole then.

Meanwhile please keep that between us, you understand I'm sure.


PS - did I use the email only feature correctly?

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 01:39 PM
Never changed my stance. No they didn't get what they wanted from their $100 million QB. Never said he was the only problem either. Did say he is the leader of that unit and he did not play well this year. Talking about him carrying the team it's comical to hear people say that at $100 million he should not be expected to carry his team every year. Why not? Keep looking at those ranking all you want but those other defense stink too. The difference with the Giants ranked at 30 defensively and the number 10 team is a whopping 58 yards a game. So now that team has a good defense. No, that would be the Green Bay Packers and yes their defense stinks. The difference in points allowed is 2.6 a game and that has recently been inflated with the last two games. The other difference with those two teams is that offensively you won't see Green Bay have a slump most of the year. So again, fix the offense first. It's a bigger, not all that much bigger, problem.


You either completely changed it or you clarified it in subsequent posts to be what it morphed into because it sure as hell didn't start that way.

Here's what's comical...your comparison of him to other similarly paid QBs.

I'll type slowly here because it gets a bit complicated: similarly paid QBs.

That population includes many other NFL QBs whose names are not Peyton Manning, Rodgers, Brees or Brady. Do I think Manning has carried the Giants this year the way those guys do consistently? Of course not. And your point about the Packers not having a sustained offensive slump is absolutely valid and some of that is directly attributable to the difference between Rodgers and Manning, no question about it. However, that's not the entire population of top paid Qbs...and that seems to be where you are getting lost. It's a common error and it surprises me that so many posters on these boards don't understand it all either but, it is what it is. Finding out who the top paid QBs isn't that difficult and the market pays the most for the highest profile position. Incidentally, the Giants have some top paid players at other positions as well, notably among the defense. Sure they don't get QB money but there's a good, logical reason for that: they're not QBs and the market for a franchise QB vs. a franchise left tackle or pass rush specialist ain't the same.

Also, nice try picking apart the stats...just as the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism, the last refuge of an anecdatist is to attempt to invalidate the data. It is what it is, man...yes, the Packer defense has gotten slightly better while the Giant defense has gotten progressively worse, the fact remains that the Packer D is better than the Giant D. Sad but true.

I anxiously await your excuse as to why that is. Surprise me, make it something like "if the offense was better, the defense wouldn't suck so much" or everyone's favorite line of crap, "the defense is exhausted because they're always on the field" but make sure you blame that completely on the offense, as opposed to the more glaringly obvious reason which is the defense's complete inability to get off the field on 3rd down (no matter how many yards apparently) or to stop the run, or to not give up the big play on another blown coverage (or simply crappy play) because that may help sustain your inane argument a bit longer.

Buddy333
12-27-2012, 03:00 PM
Never changed my stance. Eli did not play like $100 million QB. They we agree on. As far as the defenses go, yeah Green Bays defense is better. They are better by a whopping 58 yards and 2.6 points per game. Good thing their offense is good enough to put up points more consistently than the Giants. Why? Already told you. They work together and as the offense got worse so did he defense.

Ruttiger711
12-27-2012, 03:04 PM
The Jets have a much better defense than ours and an even worse offense. Same thing applies for the Cardinals.

But for some reason their defense plays well from start to finish regardless of how bad their offenses are playing. This idea that the defense needs a boost from the offense would hold some water if we didn't always fall behind by 2 TD in the first quarter. Unfortunately, you cannot blame fatigue when you're just starting the game and getting picked apart by scrubs like Flacco.

Sadly this will go ignored by those latching on to the "fatigue" issue.

Roosevelt
12-27-2012, 03:26 PM
Sadly this will go ignored by those latching on to the "fatigue" issue.



Here's Coughlin's own words for those having trouble grasping the fatigue angle.


Coughlin: I thought our week was a good week. I thought last night our meetings were well done. I think we came in here and we tried hard. We worked hard at it. We obviously have a very bad formula going on right here. We’re having trouble stopping people and our offense doesn’t hold the ball at all to give our defense a chance to catch their breath. We’ve had two games in a row, pretty much the exact same scenario, with 47 offensive snaps last week, 41 this week. The other guy had double, almost 40 minutes time of possession. As I told the players, it’s a very difficult time for all of us. I take full responsibility for this team. I am the head coach. What has happened over the course of the last couple of weeks is very difficult to explain. We had a resounding win against New Orleans and felt real good about ourselves, and then I have no explanation as to why we’re in the position that we’re in. We’re playing a lot of people, we’re putting a lot of people in positions where they need to make plays and frankly, right now, we’re not making any. We’re not making any plays on defense. We didn’t make any plays necessarily on special teams, although we did a pretty good job of controlling a very, very good returner [Jacoby Jones], whether via kick-off returner or punt-returner—so we did a decent job of that. But that’s all. We did nothing offensively.

Roosevelt
12-27-2012, 03:30 PM
The Jets have a much better defense than ours and an even worse offense. Same thing applies for the Cardinals.

But for some reason their defense plays well from start to finish regardless of how bad their offenses are playing. This idea that the defense needs a boost from the offense would hold some water if we didn't always fall behind by 2 TD in the first quarter. Unfortunately, you cannot blame fatigue when you're just starting the game and getting picked apart by scrubs like Flacco.

Not sure what game you were watching but unlike our team, Flacco was no "scrub" last Sunday. He made a lot of great passes and his receivers made a lot a great catches.

It wasn't like we were up against the Jets or the Cardinals who have no offense.

JJC7301
12-27-2012, 03:34 PM
Giants defense at a loss for words after complete breakdown

Jenny Vrentas/The Star-Ledger

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2012/12/giants_defense_at_a_loss_for_w.html
They haven't been good in this category for...I can't even remember how long anymore.

We've had a D and D-philosophy that can obviously win SB's, but never a truly dominant D, for an entire season. I'd love to see us get back to the type of dominating D that we had in the '80s. The 2 SB's are nice, obviously, but I'm not a fan of Fewell and I'm not a fan of these D players, to be honest. I think they mirror Tuck too much.

I can't believe the day has come when, IMO, mirroring Tuck is a bad thing. And I can't believe that I sound down about 2 SB's, but I expect more consistency, and really the only thing that this "terrorizing" D has given us is inconsistency.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 03:44 PM
Never changed my stance. Eli did not play like $100 million QB. They we agree on.


No. Once again you fail to understand nuance in favor of what your agenda is. I never said that; further, it's incorrect.

You are lumping top paid QBs and generally acknowledged league best QBs together. It's not the same group.

I took a lot of time trying to explain that error to you previously. I think you're smart enough to understand it, my guess is that you simply choose not to because you have your own bias and you don't want to abandon it.

So, just to be clear, here's what I've been saying to you:

He's as good and in many cases better than many of the 10 top paid QBs in the league. He is not as good as the generally accepted top performing (ie: Brady, P Manning, Rodgers, Brees) QBs in the league. You keep whining "$100 million QB" yet you clearly don't actually understand what population of players you are trying to compare him to since you then attempt to support that by saying he's not as good as the generally accepted top performing QBs, not the top paid QBs. I'm still frankly not sure that you will ever understand your disconnect but it's either because you are unable or because you choose not to..the whole agenda thing. I just can't tell which it is.

As far as changing your stance is concerned, OK, you never changed your stance, you're just extremely poor at communicating what you're thinking. That's fine, we can leave that there.

Buddy333
12-27-2012, 04:14 PM
No, I'm communicating just fine. The Giants have a $100 million invests net in their QB which mean they should be a lot better the that they where on offense. That's just a fact. Been saying it the entire time. Spin all you want but that's what's been said throughout. So the offense needs fixing. It's simple but you are making it difficult. Oh, and Eli compared himself to those elite top guys so by his own standards he wants to be better than he was this year.

Hooligans
12-27-2012, 04:15 PM
With Vick at QB, I bet our boys can get us the 32nd ranking in the League.....especially if Tuck AND Osi play!

giantsfan420
12-27-2012, 04:31 PM
Here's Coughlin's own words for those having trouble grasping the fatigue angle.you do realize tc has been going off on the d for most of the season right? No ones disputing tc said that but i think u may be ignoring conveniently that tc has had to wonder/talk about the ds complete inability to stop teams on third down no matter the distance. I think we have allowed the most third and long conversions i remember reading a snipet on it but itsi could be wrong. Tc has had to talk about the d needing to play with pride bc they didnt for many games. Basically, tc has gone off on the as much if not way more than he has on the offense

giantsfan420
12-27-2012, 04:36 PM
Not sure what game you were watching but unlike our team, Flacco was no "scrub" last Sunday. He made a lot of great passes and his receivers made a lot a great catches.

It wasn't like we were up against the Jets or the Cardinals who have no offense.huh? Thats completely irrelevant. Hes merely stating that az and the jets etc etc have way worse offenses like way worse, and yet their defenses dont play like complete ****. How many 3rd and 30s have we conceded this year lmfao. If the d doesnt want to be fatigued, make a stop and get off the field....i mean by ur and buddys logic, i could come up with a way more logical argument that the d repeatedly putting us behind in games has helped the offense struggle. That the d is holding back the offense.
but i dont feel that way nor wish to use *** backwards logic.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 05:10 PM
No, I'm communicating just fine. The Giants have a $100 million invests net in their QB which mean they should be a lot better the that they where on offense. That's just a fact. Been saying it the entire time. Spin all you want but that's what's been said throughout. So the offense needs fixing. It's simple but you are making it difficult. Oh, and Eli compared himself to those elite top guys so by his own standards he wants to be better than he was this year.


I haven't spun anything your words are all over the boards and they damn you, not me. I'm not trying to make it difficult because in reality it's actually quite simple. The fact that it seems difficult to you reveals an enormous amount about your ability to understand anything more than a very remedial concept.

Your premise:

"The Giants have a $100 million invests net in their QB which mean they should be a lot better the that they where on offense." remains completely unsupported.

As I've said often, that's a statement about your feelings, nothing more. And I know your feelings are important, I'm sure your Mom tells you that often, but they're not important to me; moreover they are not relevant and certainly not accurate when you attempt to craft your feelings into some kind of football analysis.

Now, what you probably mean to say is that he's not playing at the level of the absolute best QBs in the league and I've never disagreed with that point.

But that's where it breaks, you keep taking it back to money. You equate the dollars with the top performing QBs in the league. It's a common mistake, boiling things down to money is simplistic. Americans like simplistic. "He rich so he must be smart" "She's paid the most so she must be the best" See? Nice and simple. But that logic is highly flawed and that's been shown to you over and over.

Yet you keep taking it back to money when it's painfully clear that the top paid and top performing QBs are not the same subset. There's a little bit of overlap but the majority of the top paid QBs are not the top performing ones. Do you even know who the 10 top paid QBs are? I doubt it. However, if you want to look them up and then we can compare them one by one, I'm happy to do that. But you won't do that, either because you are lazy - physically or intellectually - or you simply don't want to admit you've been wrong this whole time. I think it's a bit of both but no matter.

You either can not understand the difference between top paid and top performing or you simply choose not to understand it because you don't want to admit how wrong you are or simply because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived albeit flawed notion.

We could keep going through it but that's pointless. You believe what you want to believe, not what's real.

Continue to be blissful.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 05:12 PM
I'm not surprised. You guys have the same writing style and similar ways of approaching things.


Yeah but didn't he get banned? Uh-oh....................

Nice knowing you all, I guess!

EliDaMANning
12-27-2012, 05:17 PM
Not sure what game you were watching but unlike our team, Flacco was no "scrub" last Sunday. He made a lot of great passes and his receivers made a lot a great catches.It wasn't like we were up against the Jets or the Cardinals who have no offense. No QB plays like a scrub against us.

EliDaMANning
12-27-2012, 05:19 PM
Here's Coughlin's own words for those having trouble grasping the fatigue angle.The Coughlin quote had more to do with the Giants going 3 and out throughout the game. But it has nothing to do with the defense getting completely dominated in the first quarter of almost every game.

Buddy333
12-27-2012, 05:54 PM
I haven't spun anything your words are all over the boards and they damn you, not me. I'm not trying to make it difficult because in reality it's actually quite simple. The fact that it seems difficult to you reveals an enormous amount about your ability to understand anything more than a very remedial concept. Your premise: "The Giants have a $100 million invests net in their QB which mean they should be a lot better the that they where on offense." remains completely unsupported. As I've said often, that's a statement about your feelings, nothing more. And I know your feelings are important, I'm sure your Mom tells you that often, but they're not important to me; moreover they are not relevant and certainly not accurate when you attempt to craft your feelings into some kind of football analysis.Now, what you probably mean to say is that he's not playing at the level of the absolute best QBs in the league and I've never disagreed with that point. But that's where it breaks, you keep taking it back to money. You equate the dollars with the top performing QBs in the league. It's a common mistake, boiling things down to money is simplistic. Americans like simplistic. "He rich so he must be smart" "She's paid the most so she must be the best" See? Nice and simple. But that logic is highly flawed and that's been shown to you over and over. Yet you keep taking it back to money when it's painfully clear that the top paid and top performing QBs are not the same subset. There's a little bit of overlap but the majority of the top paid QBs are not the top performing ones. Do you even know who the 10 top paid QBs are? I doubt it. However, if you want to look them up and then we can compare them one by one, I'm happy to do that. But you won't do that, either because you are lazy - physically or intellectually - or you simply don't want to admit you've been wrong this whole time. I think it's a bit of both but no matter. You either can not understand the difference between top paid and top performing or you simply choose not to understand it because you don't want to admit how wrong you are or simply because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived albeit flawed notion. We could keep going through it but that's pointless. You believe what you want to believe, not what's real. Continue to be blissful.Apparently it's not that simple. A team pays a player a lot of money so they expect results. That's a fact. Or are you saying that $100 is not a lot if money? Of are you saying that they overpaid for Eli?

Roosevelt
12-27-2012, 05:56 PM
No QB plays like a scrub against us.

True. We have a long history of that.

Buddy333
12-27-2012, 05:57 PM
The Coughlin quote had more to do with the Giants going 3 and out throughout the game. But it has nothing to do with the defense getting completely dominated in the first quarter of almost every game.Don't confuse the last two games with almost every game.

EliDaMANning
12-27-2012, 06:03 PM
Don't confuse the last two games with almost every game.You are confused. Cincy, Cleveland, TB the list goes on.

Grow up kid.

Buddy333
12-27-2012, 06:14 PM
The Bengals game the defense did give up an early TD but the offense spotted the Bengals twice in the red zone with interceptions and the special teams set them up another time in the red zone. The Browns game they where down by two TD's but one of those was a short drive after a fumble on the first play from scrimmage. Then the evens allowed a big play. Yeah they started off wrong but shut them down for the rest of the half and the offense played well. The Tampa game had two more interceptions in the second quarter. One ran back for a pick 6 the other ran down to around the 10.

Roosevelt
12-27-2012, 06:21 PM
huh? Thats completely irrelevant. Hes merely stating that az and the jets etc etc have way worse offenses like way worse, and yet their defenses dont play like complete ****. How many 3rd and 30s have we conceded this year lmfao. If the d doesnt want to be fatigued, make a stop and get off the field....i mean by ur and buddys logic, i could come up with a way more logical argument that the d repeatedly putting us behind in games has helped the offense struggle. That the d is holding back the offense.
but i dont feel that way nor wish to use *** backwards logic.

You need to relax and try not to hurt yourself as different discussions are introduced.

I was simply commenting that Flacco & the Ravens played a great game against us. While Corey Webster had a terrible day it's fair to say that many of those passes were placed perfectly. Sometimes you have to give credit where credit's due.

I know you have your agenda, but understand that I don't have one. Offense, defense, special teams - I just want my team to win.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 06:23 PM
Apparently it's not that simple. A team pays a player a lot of money so they expect results. That's a fact. Or are you saying that $100 is not a lot if money? Of are you saying that they overpaid for Eli?


I'm saying neither and never have because neither is true.

$100 million is a lot of money to guys like you and me but it's simply the market for a NFL franchise QB.

Eli is a top 10 NFL franchise QB so no they're not overpaying him.

It really is simple that's why I can't understand why you're having so much trouble grasping it.

Buddy333
12-27-2012, 06:43 PM
It still demands better red zone offense and not so many 3 and outs though.

Hooligans
12-27-2012, 06:44 PM
I'm saying neither and never have because neither is true.

$100 million is a lot of money to guys like you and me but it's simply the market for a NFL franchise QB.

Eli is a top 10 NFL franchise QB so no they're not overpaying him.

It really is simple that's why I can't understand why you're having so much trouble grasping it.

Eli ain't no top-10 QB....he isn't top 15, and he sure as heck ain''t worth $20 Million per year. If he won't accept a paycut, then the Giants have to start thinking about a trade.

Roosevelt
12-27-2012, 06:47 PM
The Coughlin quote had more to do with the Giants going 3 and out throughout the game. But it has nothing to do with the defense getting completely dominated in the first quarter of almost every game.



I'm not suggesting that our defense hasn't totally sucked at times, but according to SI's stats, our defense has given up an average 5.73 points in the first quarter while our offense has scored 5.33.

Sarcasman
12-27-2012, 08:17 PM
Eli ain't no top-10 QB....he isn't top 15, and he sure as heck ain''t worth $20 Million per year. If he won't accept a paycut, then the Giants have to start thinking about a trade.


Sure, there you are. Thanks for posting.

Ruttiger711
12-28-2012, 10:21 AM
Here's Coughlin's own words for those having trouble grasping the fatigue angle.

This has nothing to do with starting the game flat... fatigue in the 3rd quarter and on sure, play that card. Opening up the game allowing 10-14 play drives over and over again, means something else entirely.