PDA

View Full Version : NY06 Hands Team



violet1
01-06-2011, 07:50 AM
I hope this clears up the confusion on your part of not understanding what a hands team is. From the NY Post today:


"Another season when Tom Coughlin’s club sank instead of rising down the stretch, but at 10-6 he rightly is coming back. Failing to put the "hands team" on the field in the meltdown vs. Philadelphia will keep him up at night. Still has command of the locker room, and at 64 yeas old isn’t slowing down. Perry Fewell in his first year as defensive coordinator prodded a league-leading 39 forced turnovers out of a unit that has to develop more consistency. Kevin Gilbride’s offense moves the ball but probably is too enamored with the pass and definitely far too sloppy. We’ll see about the future of special teams coordinator Tom Quinn. His schemes and personnel were unable to generate anything in the return game"

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/vote_what_grades_would_you_give_nwBpHYceScmYJ0h94t 6p3O#ixzz1AG6jR4Z7

yoeddy
01-06-2011, 08:08 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...

violet1
01-06-2011, 08:22 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...


The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 08:57 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>

SweetZombieJesus
01-06-2011, 08:59 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick


The ball was titled sideways on the tee, giving away their trick. You'd think an NFL coaching staff and players would have noticed what viewers at home did.

SweetZombieJesus
01-06-2011, 09:02 AM
You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</p>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching?</p>

I've said this many times already, but the significant evidence that the players don't listen to the coaches anymore (throw Dodge's insubordination on the kick to Jackson in there) -- is that really any better?</p>

This also fits nicely into Coughlin's complete inability to correct problems anymore. None of the team's problems gets corrected.
</p>

If the players aren't listening to the coaches and the coaches aren't doing anything about it, it's STILL a coaching failure and really it means Coughlin's staff is toast. We already saw the telltale sign of a players-only meeting. Such a waste having them back for 2011. It's going to be Fassel's 2003 all over again.
</p>


</p>

Kruunch
01-06-2011, 09:09 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick


The ball was sideways on the tee, giving away their trick.* You'd think an NFL coaching staff and players would have noticed what viewers at home did.


I was watching for the onside kick and didn't see it coming so I'm not sure what you saw that tipped you off but apparently it was good enough to lull the Giants crew.

Not to mention that it was probably one of the best onside kicks I've ever seen.

This is not to take away some sense of responsibility on the player's (or coaching staff's part) but sometimes you can prepare all you want and still come up short. It was just one more thing in a myriad of things that contributed to that game's collapse.

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 09:18 AM
You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching?</P>


I've said this many times already, but the significant evidence that the players don't listen to the coaches anymore (throw Dodge's insubordination on the kick to Jackson in there) -- is that really any better?</P>


This also fits nicely into Coughlin's complete inability to correct problems anymore. None of the team's problems gets corrected.
</P>


If the players aren't listening to the coaches and the coaches aren't doing anything about it, it's STILL a coaching failure and really it means Coughlin's staff is toast. We already saw the telltale sign of a players-only meeting. Such a waste having them back for 2011. It's going to be Fassel's 2003 all over again.
</P>



</P>


</P>


I don't think it was a function of Dodge not listening to his orders to punt the ball out of bounds as much as it was his inability to do so on that play.</P>


Also, the players should be disciplined enough to not have that kind of breakdown on their own. The kick return thing is a fundamental that I remember being taught in HS. I don't think that falls on Coughlin so much as it does Blackburn and the other players. Other than flat out lining up the hands team, what else could have Coughlin done right then? They were told to play it. They didn't. It's on the guys up front. Maybe CB won't be back next year, or if he is, maybe he wont' be the captain. The next time a similar situation arose, he actually sent the hands team out, which meant he did correct it. Sometimes the players need to accept accountability, too, and step up and execute what they have been told to do.</P>

GMENAGAIN
01-06-2011, 09:25 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


</P>


Wow . . . . I sense a history here . . . </P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 09:30 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>

It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY.

PLEASE!

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 09:38 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


</P>


Wow . . . . I sense a history here . . . </P>


</P>


Other than the5000 threads where this moron has hashed this out? Violet just doesn't get it.</P>

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 09:41 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 09:44 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...


na its not... i mean he was expecting it and warned the front line about it. If you think its coming, then do something about it.

Our return game sucks anyway, what woukld it of cost us, 5 yards to be safe?

IF we get that onside kick we win the game more than likely

violet1
01-06-2011, 09:45 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>

One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:05 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>


One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.</P>


And I notice the ******s are just ******ed, regardless of their age.</P>

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 10:14 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...


na its not... i mean he was expecting it and warned the front line about it. If you think its coming, then do something about it.

Our return game sucks anyway, what woukld it of cost us, 5 yards to be safe?

IF we get that onside kick we win the game more than likely
</P>


If we recover that on side kick, we are the #2 seed and the Eagles don't make the playoffs. Even with an Eagles win over Dallas week 17.</P>

lawl
01-06-2011, 10:23 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.

violet1
01-06-2011, 10:29 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.

Thank you guys. It really is that simple. I don't get what these people don't understand. It is exactly as simple as what lawl and I stated. There is no magic to it. Expect the on side kick and plan for it no matter what in that case.

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:31 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 10:31 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>


One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.</P>


And I notice the ******s are just ******ed, regardless of their age.</P>

You must wear a Giant jersey on Sundays during football season, right? What player jersey do you wear????

violet1
01-06-2011, 10:32 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out in*their regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probabllt had the hands out there to begin with, but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</P>

This isn't high school football. You are still wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:34 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>


One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.</P>


And I notice the ******s are just ******ed, regardless of their age.</P>


You must wear a Giant jersey on Sundays during football season, right? What player jersey do you wear????</P>


What the hell does this have to do with absolutely anything whatsoever?</P>

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:36 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probabllt had the hands out there to begin with, but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</P>


This isn't high school football. You are still wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong</P>


Exactly, which means the return team should be able to be prepared enough to recover an onsides kick. Especially when the other team doesn't have their hands team out there, nor is lined up in an onsides formation. It was a breakdown of fundamentals, not coaching. The regular return team is should be more than capable of recovering an onsides kick, especially in that situation.</P>

BlueSanta
01-06-2011, 10:37 AM
vs the skins we were up 3 points with 6 minutes left in the game, and we had the hands team on the field for a return.

Yet, vs the Eagles we were up 14 points with 7:48 minutes left and DIDNT have the hands team on the field.

I'd say the coaches learned their lesson because the later seems like a much more probable situation to try and onside than the former.

violet1
01-06-2011, 10:39 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>


One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.</P>


And I notice the ******s are just ******ed, regardless of their age.</P>


You must wear a Giant jersey on Sundays during football season, right? What player jersey do you wear????</P>


What the hell does this have to do with absolutely anything whatsoever?</P>

More proof Dummy and I knew you wore the jersey:



They didn't have their hands team, so it was basically five men against two on that side of the field," Akers said amid a raucous locker-room celebration. "It was great. We really got them there."

Coughlin said the Giants weren't expecting an onside kick at that moment, even though Philadelphia was down 31-17 with just 7:43 remaining in the game.

Coughlin considered that too much time was left on the clock, but the Eagles disagreed. Philadelphia special teams coach Bobby April ordered the onside kick when he realized the Giants didn't have the hands team (receivers and defensive backs) on the field.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh

YATittle1962
01-06-2011, 10:39 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming.....

and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!"....

I heard them with my own ears.....

aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field....

simply be aware that the kick may be coming....

plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off....

no need for hands in that situation

ny06
01-06-2011, 10:41 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</P>


Thank you YA</P>


I have stated that numerous times.</P>


</P>

YATittle1962
01-06-2011, 10:42 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</P>


Thank you YA</P>


I have stated that numerous times.</P>


*</P>

gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game

ny06
01-06-2011, 10:43 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:48 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>


One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.</P>


And I notice the ******s are just ******ed, regardless of their age.</P>


You must wear a Giant jersey on Sundays during football season, right? What player jersey do you wear????</P>


What the hell does this have to do with absolutely anything whatsoever?</P>


More proof Dummy and I knew you wore the jersey: They didn't have their hands team, so it was basically five men against two on that side of the field," Akers said amid a raucous locker-room celebration. "It was great. We really got them there." Coughlin said the Giants weren't expecting an onside kick at that moment, even though Philadelphia was down 31-17 with just 7:43 remaining in the game. Coughlin considered that too much time was left on the clock, but the Eagles disagreed. Philadelphia special teams coach Bobby April ordered the onside kick when he realized the Giants didn't have the hands team (receivers and defensive backs) on the field. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh (http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh[/quote)You do realize that in that little snippet you posted actually takes away from your argument, insofar as the Eagles didn't line up originally with the idea to kick on onsides kick?</P>


And no I don't wear a jersey on gamedays, not that that has absolutely any bearingon anything substantive. In fact, I don't even own a jersey.I had Meggett jersey whan I was a kid. What a disgrace of a human he turned out to be. After this season, I am seriously considering getting a Seubert jersey. But, let's say I did wear a jersey, what would it matter? Would it make me less intelligent? Would the fact that you don't make you smarter? Whether or not one wears a jersey on gameday or not has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever. I can tell you can feel the ice breaking under your feet if you need to resort to such an absurd argument.</P>


For the record... I am usually at work on gamedays, so I'm wearing my chef's coat. </P>

lawl
01-06-2011, 10:49 AM
I would tend to think that the %ages of us winning that game with the coverage unit we had out there even if they hadn't bailed early, were lower than if we had come out fully expecting an onside kick and they kicked the ball deep instead of even attempting the onside, the field position would have been fine and the chances of recovery are vastly improved.

It's just a matter of leaving nothing to chance and creating the best opportunity of winning the game. Another example of this comes in the redskins game. There's about 30 seconds left in the half, we run the bAll for about a 3 yard gain, randomly call a timeout, then throw an incomplete pass, and on 3rd down we take a knee, leaving about 5 seconds on the clock. Shanahan was too stupid at the time to call a timeout and make us punt the ball and give his team a chance of returning a punt or blocking one as time expired in the second half. Likewise, it was a misjudgment by our coaching staff to even let the possibility exist. The point is to stop something before it has a chance of even happening, the eagles took advantage of this opportunity whereas the redskins didn't. Little things like that are what makes the difference between winning and losing

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:50 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</P>


Thank you YA</P>


I have stated that numerous times.</P>


</P>


gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game</P>


Seriously. I shouldn't let it get to me, but good lord...</P>

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 10:51 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation.</P>

YATittle1962
01-06-2011, 10:51 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</P>


Thank you YA</P>


I have stated that numerous times.</P>


*</P>


gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game</P>


Seriously. I shouldn't let it get to me, but good lord...</P>

I know....

dead horse....meet louisville slugger

violet1
01-06-2011, 10:53 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</P>


Thank you YA</P>


I have stated that numerous times.</P>


*</P>

gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game

I not only understand, but you proved my point. Reid kicks off and we win the game. Thank you YA for proving MY point. I really appreciate it. You gotta love how you proved MY point.

ny06
01-06-2011, 10:53 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>


One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.</P>


And I notice the ******s are just ******ed, regardless of their age.</P>


You must wear a Giant jersey on Sundays during football season, right? What player jersey do you wear????</P>


What the hell does this have to do with absolutely anything whatsoever?</P>


More proof Dummy and I knew you wore the jersey: They didn't have their hands team, so it was basically five men against two on that side of the field," Akers said amid a raucous locker-room celebration. "It was great. We really got them there." Coughlin said the Giants weren't expecting an onside kick at that moment, even though Philadelphia was down 31-17 with just 7:43 remaining in the game. Coughlin considered that too much time was left on the clock, but the Eagles disagreed. Philadelphia special teams coach Bobby April ordered the onside kick when he realized the Giants didn't have the hands team (receivers and defensive backs) on the field. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh (http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh[/quote)You do realize that in that little snippet you posted actually takes away from your argument, insofar as the Eagles didn't line up originally with the idea to kick on onsides kick?</P>


And no I don't wear a jersey on gamedays, not that that has absolutely any bearingon anything substantive. In fact, I don't even own a jersey.I had Meggett jersey whan I was a kid. What a disgrace of a human he turned out to be. After this season, I am seriously considering getting a Seubert jersey. But, let's say I did wear a jersey, what would it matter? Would it make me less intelligent? Would the fact that you don't make you smarter? Whether or not one wears a jersey on gameday or not has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever. I can tell you can feel the ice breaking under your feet if you need to resort to such an absurd argument.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>For the record... I am usually at work on gamedays, so I'm wearing my chef's coat.</FONT> </P>


</P>


http://i53.tinypic.com/av5vtx.jpg</P>

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:53 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation.</P>


</P>


That isn't so much a lack of coaching rather than it is players ignoring their coaching.</P>

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:54 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>


One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.</P>


And I notice the ******s are just ******ed, regardless of their age.</P>


You must wear a Giant jersey on Sundays during football season, right? What player jersey do you wear????</P>


What the hell does this have to do with absolutely anything whatsoever?</P>


More proof Dummy and I knew you wore the jersey: They didn't have their hands team, so it was basically five men against two on that side of the field," Akers said amid a raucous locker-room celebration. "It was great. We really got them there." Coughlin said the Giants weren't expecting an onside kick at that moment, even though Philadelphia was down 31-17 with just 7:43 remaining in the game. Coughlin considered that too much time was left on the clock, but the Eagles disagreed. Philadelphia special teams coach Bobby April ordered the onside kick when he realized the Giants didn't have the hands team (receivers and defensive backs) on the field. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh (http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh[/quote)You do realize that in that little snippet you posted actually takes away from your argument, insofar as the Eagles didn't line up originally with the idea to kick on onsides kick?</P>


And no I don't wear a jersey on gamedays, not that that has absolutely any bearingon anything substantive. In fact, I don't even own a jersey.I had Meggett jersey whan I was a kid. What a disgrace of a human he turned out to be. After this season, I am seriously considering getting a Seubert jersey. But, let's say I did wear a jersey, what would it matter? Would it make me less intelligent? Would the fact that you don't make you smarter? Whether or not one wears a jersey on gameday or not has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever. I can tell you can feel the ice breaking under your feet if you need to resort to such an absurd argument.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>For the record... I am usually at work on gamedays, so I'm wearing my chef's coat.</FONT> </P>


</P>


http://i53.tinypic.com/av5vtx.jpg</P>


</P>


I would so get that, but we're not allowed to wear any clothing that has writing or logos on it.</P>

GMENAGAIN
01-06-2011, 10:56 AM
I agree with Chaosist, YA and NY06.</P>


That was a player, not a coaching foul up. Could the "hands" team have been out there? Yes. But it was not a coaching error to not have them out there.</P>


That play was just a perfect storm. What hasn't really been mentioned is that the Ayers on-side kick was absolutely perfect . . . I don't know if I've ever seen a better one. </P>


Also, Duke Calhoun took the opportunity to again show that he has no business being on an NFL roster, when he started runningaway from the ball before it was kicked, despite having been warnedto watch for an on-sides kick (he took advantage of anotheropportunity to show that hedoesn't belong in the NFL later in the game, when he whiffed on an attempted tackle of Jackson on the game's final play . . . . . . ).</P>


</P>

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 10:57 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation.</P>


</P>


That isn't so much a lack of coaching rather than it is players ignoring their coaching.</P>


</P>


You have spent the entire off season coaching them. You spent training camp and 15 weeks during the season. And ALL 11 ignore you?</P>


Was it mass brain failure? No. Yelling from the sidelines in a loud stadium is not the same as gathering the team before the play and specifically instructing them.</P>


This tells me that it was NOT given sufficientconsideration by the coaching staff. It also tells me that the regular return team was never coached up for on side situations.</P>

ny06
01-06-2011, 10:58 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 10:58 AM
I agree with Chaosist, YA and NY06.</P>


That was a player, not a coaching foul up. Could the "hands" team have been out there? Yes. But it was not a coaching error to not have them out there.</P>


That play was just a perfect storm. What hasn't really been mentioned is that the Ayers on-side kick was absolutely perfect . . . I don't know if I've ever seen a better one. </P>


Also, Duke Calhoun took the opportunity to again show that he has no business being on an NFL roster, when he started runningaway from the ball before it was kicked, despite having been warnedto watch for an on-sides kick (he took advantage of anotheropportunity to show that hedoesn't belong in the NFL later in the game, when he whiffed on an attempted tackle of Jackson on the game's final play . . . . . . ).</P>


</P>


</P>


If it was one player making a bonehead play I would agree with you. But it was the ENTIRE UNIT.</P>


Thats coaching.</P>

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:00 AM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.</P>


You really are ******ed aren't you violet1? Chase Blackburn, the captain of the ST unit, was told to have the return unit prepared to play the onsides kick. He didn't.</P>


What is so ****ing hard to understand about that? What don't you get about it being a breakdown on the PLAYERS part, not the coaching? What is soooo hard to understand about return units not taking off until the ball is kicked, which is something that the return team did not do?</P>


You are just a complete and total ****ing idiot. Please for the sake of humanity, do not reproduce, and if you have already, please kill your young.</P>


It amazes me how you could be so dumb and ignore the fact that THE HANDS TEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIELD AND INSTRUCTED TO PLAY AS IF IT WAS AN ON DIDE KICK NO MATTER WHAT. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE THICK. READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. DON'T BE A DUMMY. PLEASE!</P>


I don't need to read what other people are writing, I've read what the coaching staff and players have said, such as Blackburn saying he failed in his duty to get the return unit properly prepared as he was instructed to be on the lookout for the kick. As Philly did not come out in their hands team, we did not, either. Even Andy Reid said he wasn't sure at first if he was actually going to go for the onsides. It was only moment before the kick that he decided to go for it. This gaffe was on the players, not the coaching. There comes a point where the players actually have to do what they are told.</P>


It is not my fault that you are too ******ed to realize that.</P>


One more time. It doesn't matter what the Eagles did. Hands team and play for on side kick. That was the proper call. Period. I notice that the dummy posters all appear to be 28-35 years of age. Immaturity and lack of knowledge I guess.</P>


And I notice the ******s are just ******ed, regardless of their age.</P>


You must wear a Giant jersey on Sundays during football season, right? What player jersey do you wear????</P>


What the hell does this have to do with absolutely anything whatsoever?</P>


More proof Dummy and I knew you wore the jersey: They didn't have their hands team, so it was basically five men against two on that side of the field," Akers said amid a raucous locker-room celebration. "It was great. We really got them there." Coughlin said the Giants weren't expecting an onside kick at that moment, even though Philadelphia was down 31-17 with just 7:43 remaining in the game. Coughlin considered that too much time was left on the clock, but the Eagles disagreed. Philadelphia special teams coach Bobby April ordered the onside kick when he realized the Giants didn't have the hands team (receivers and defensive backs) on the field. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh (http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giants/did_that_just_happen_QUd0i2pAj7XjeSTvpAABCK#ixzz1A GnsiiTh[/quote)You do realize that in that little snippet you posted actually takes away from your argument, insofar as the Eagles didn't line up originally with the idea to kick on onsides kick?</P>


And no I don't wear a jersey on gamedays, not that that has absolutely any bearingon anything substantive. In fact, I don't even own a jersey.I had Meggett jersey whan I was a kid. What a disgrace of a human he turned out to be. After this season, I am seriously considering getting a Seubert jersey. But, let's say I did wear a jersey, what would it matter? Would it make me less intelligent? Would the fact that you don't make you smarter? Whether or not one wears a jersey on gameday or not has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever. I can tell you can feel the ice breaking under your feet if you need to resort to such an absurd argument.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>For the record... I am usually at work on gamedays, so I'm wearing my chef's coat.</FONT> </P>


</P>


http://i53.tinypic.com/av5vtx.jpg</P>


</P>


I would so get that, but we're not allowed to wear any clothing that has writing or logos on it.</P>


</P>


That sucks. </P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 11:01 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out in*their regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself.* Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well.* But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess.* But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant.* Which gets me back to my original point.* The hands team should be out there.</P>


*</P>


BUT.</P>


*I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick.* All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line)* Who do we blame for that?* Thats a lack of coaching.* I'm sorry.* Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient.* thats a lack of coaching.* Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


*</P>

YA's answer was perfect. He said:

plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off....

There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game.


It's over boys!

BlueSanta
01-06-2011, 11:01 AM
Again, the coaches felt the need to have the hands team on the field vs the Skins when they were up by a mere 3 points with 6 minutes left.

Yet, vs the eagles with 7:48 left and a 14 point lead they did no have the hands team on the field.

The latter seems like a much more common situation to have an onsides kick attempted. So, saying its all on the players is nonsense. The hands team should have been on the field. The players were caught off guard when they shouldnt have been, but so were the coaches.

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:02 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:04 AM
I agree with Chaosist, YA and NY06.</P>


That was a player, not a coaching foul up. Could the "hands" team have been out there? Yes. But it was not a coaching error to not have them out there.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>That play was just a perfect storm. What hasn't really been mentioned is that the Ayers on-side kick was absolutely perfect . . . I don't know if I've ever seen a better one. </FONT></P>


Also, Duke Calhoun took the opportunity to again show that he has no business being on an NFL roster, when he started runningaway from the ball before it was kicked, despite having been warnedto watch for an on-sides kick (he took advantage of anotheropportunity to show that hedoesn't belong in the NFL later in the game, when he whiffed on an attempted tackle of Jackson on the game's final play . . . . . . ).</P>


</P>


</P>


Agree 100%</P>

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:06 AM
I agree with Chaosist, YA and NY06.</P>


That was a player, not a coaching foul up. Could the "hands" team have been out there? Yes. But it was not a coaching error to not have them out there.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>That play was just a perfect storm. What hasn't really been mentioned is that the Ayers on-side kick was absolutely perfect . . . I don't know if I've ever seen a better one. </FONT></P>


Also, Duke Calhoun took the opportunity to again show that he has no business being on an NFL roster, when he started runningaway from the ball before it was kicked, despite having been warnedto watch for an on-sides kick (he took advantage of anotheropportunity to show that hedoesn't belong in the NFL later in the game, when he whiffed on an attempted tackle of Jackson on the game's final play . . . . . . ).</P>


</P>


</P>


Agree 100%</P>


</P>


I hate to disagree with my friend, but this was a coaching foul up. The team was not prepared for the on side kick. Hands team or not, the unit retreated early as if it was a normal kickoff situation.</P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 11:06 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out in*their regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself.* Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well.* But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess.* But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant.* Which gets me back to my original point.* The hands team should be out there.</P>


*</P>


BUT.</P>


*I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick.* All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line)* Who do we blame for that?* Thats a lack of coaching.* I'm sorry.* Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient.* thats a lack of coaching.* Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


*</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>

I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:08 AM
Honestly I don't think it makes a difference. Giants put the hands team out. Get the ball at their own 18. Then go three and out. And punt right back.

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:11 AM
Honestly I don't think it makes a difference. Giants put the hands team out. Get the ball at their own 18. Then go three and out. And punt right back.</P>


And take 2 minutes off the clock. We win.</P>

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:12 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he or sheis then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>

YATittle1962
01-06-2011, 11:14 AM
Ill tell you what.....Im 58.......and when I was 16 I could have hung with every person here in any argument involving the NY Giants and or the game of football......

so lets keep age out of this

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:15 AM
Ill tell you what.....Im 58.......and when I was 16 I could have hung with every person here in any argument involving the NY Giants and or the game of football...... so lets keep age out of this</P>


It's his only arguement. </P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:16 AM
The giants offense got the ball back up a TD with four minutes left. And they couldn't end the game. Don't forget as time was running out the offense had the ball again... The eagles had time to get the ball back if they didn't do the onside kick

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:16 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>


</P>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</P>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</P>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</P>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</P>

Ruttiger711
01-06-2011, 11:16 AM
I'm still wondering what the point was about wearing a jersey on gameday was.

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 11:17 AM
Ill tell you what.....Im 58.......and when I was 16 I could have hung with every person here in any argument involving the NY Giants and or the game of football...... so lets keep age out of this</P>


It's his only arguement. </P>


</P>


No, s/he has one more... The one where I must wear a jersey on gameday; which was even less to do withfootball knowledge thanage.</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:17 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</p>


Thank you YA</p>


I have stated that numerous times.</p>


</p>


gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game</p>


Seriously. I shouldn't let it get to me, but good lord...</p>

but obviously even with all those warning the LBers that were on the front line got, they weren't ready for it still and dind't even wait to look. They all sprinted back like it was a regular kick off even tho it wasn't.

Hence why the hands team should of been in. The fact that YA heard the coaches screaming for it all day and these guys still didn't care shows that we should of had our hands team in

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:19 AM
The giants offense got the ball back up a TD with four minutes left. And they couldn't end the game. Don't forget as time was running out the offense had the ball again... The eagles had time to get the ball back if they didn't do the onside kick</P>


They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left. If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win. If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</P>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</P>

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 11:20 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</P>


Thank you YA</P>


I have stated that numerous times.</P>


</P>


gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game</P>


Seriously. I shouldn't let it get to me, but good lord...</P>




but obviously even with all those warning the LBers that were on the front line got, they weren't ready for it still and dind't even wait to look. They all sprinted back like it was a regular kick off even tho it wasn't.

Hence why the hands team should of been in. The fact that YA heard the coaches screaming for it all day and these guys still didn't care shows that we should of had our hands team in
</P>


I've said previously that they probably should have had the hands team out there, but all things considered the bigger gaffe was made by the players. </P>

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:21 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>


</P>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</P>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</P>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</P>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</P>


</P>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</P>

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:21 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</P>


Thank you YA</P>


I have stated that numerous times.</P>


</P>


gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game</P>


Seriously. I shouldn't let it get to me, but good lord...</P>




but obviously even with all those warning the LBers that were on the front line got, they weren't ready for it still and dind't even wait to look. They all sprinted back like it was a regular kick off even tho it wasn't.

Hence why the hands team should of been in. The fact that YA heard the coaches screaming for it all day and these guys still didn't care shows that we should of had our hands team in
</P>


Which would support my contention that they were not prepared by the coaching staff. They all don't run downfield if they had a meeting on the sidelines about the possibility of an on side kick.</P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:21 AM
[They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left.* If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win.* If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</P>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</P>

Right. So if the giants played the kick properly and attempted one passing play that went incomplete they still lose the game

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:21 AM
The giants offense got the ball back up a TD with four minutes left. And they couldn't end the game. Don't forget as time was running out the offense had the ball again... The eagles had time to get the ball back if they didn't do the onside kick</p>


They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left. If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win. If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</p>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</p>

absolutely

barring an ugly turnover which is probably more likely considering we had more turnovers combined than any two teams in the world..

so i'd say 85%

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:23 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>


</P>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</P>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</P>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</P>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</P>


</P>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</P>


</P>


They ALL ran downfield. How is that possible if they were prepared properly by the coaching staff?</P>


It defies logic.</P>

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:23 AM
The giants offense got the ball back up a TD with four minutes left. And they couldn't end the game. Don't forget as time was running out the offense had the ball again... The eagles had time to get the ball back if they didn't do the onside kick</P>


They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left. If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win. If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</P>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</P>




absolutely

barring an ugly turnover which is probably more likely considering we had more turnovers combined than any two teams in the world..

so i'd say 85%
</P>


Lets call it 87.5% and call it a day.</P>

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:23 AM
Ill tell you what.....Im 58.......and when I was 16 I could have hung with every person here in any argument involving the NY Giants and or the game of football...... so lets keep age out of this</P>


It's his only arguement. </P>


</P>


No, s/he has one more... The one where I must wear a jersey on gameday; which was even less to do withfootball knowledge thanage.</P>


</P>


lol</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:24 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</p>


Thank you YA</p>


I have stated that numerous times.</p>


</p>


gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game</p>


Seriously. I shouldn't let it get to me, but good lord...</p>




but obviously even with all those warning the LBers that were on the front line got, they weren't ready for it still and dind't even wait to look. They all sprinted back like it was a regular kick off even tho it wasn't.

Hence why the hands team should of been in. The fact that YA heard the coaches screaming for it all day and these guys still didn't care shows that we should of had our hands team in
</p>


I've said previously that they probably should have had the hands team out there, but all things considered the bigger gaffe was made by the players. </p>

i disagree. The point of the onside kick obviously wasn't drilled in to their heads and if we were truely that worried about hands should of been in...

obviously its not COMPLETELY on the coaching staff since they did give verbal warnings, but im going to go with most of it..

plus the side the onside kick occured on was the philly sideline right? Isn't it possible that the dudes on that side of the field didn't hear the beware of onside kick calls from the giants sideline?

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:25 AM
[They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left. If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win. If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</p>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</p>

Right. So if the giants played the kick properly and attempted one passing play that went incomplete they still lose the game

how do u figure that?

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:25 AM
Either way. There's a heck of alot more that led to that loss. I'd put the onside kick like 6th in the screwups that cost us the game list

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:25 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>


</P>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</P>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</P>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</P>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</P>


</P>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</P>


</P>


They ALL ran downfield. How is that possible if they were prepared properly by the coaching staff?</P>


It defies logic.</P>


</P>


They were told to watchout for an onside kick. </P>


And they still ran downfield to go into blocking assingments. </P>


Still not the players fault?</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:25 AM
The giants offense got the ball back up a TD with four minutes left. And they couldn't end the game. Don't forget as time was running out the offense had the ball again... The eagles had time to get the ball back if they didn't do the onside kick</p>


They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left. If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win. If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</p>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</p>




absolutely

barring an ugly turnover which is probably more likely considering we had more turnovers combined than any two teams in the world..</p>


</p>

so i'd say 85%
</p>


Lets call it 87.5% and call it a day.</p>

86 and thats my final offer

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:27 AM
you dont need your "hands team" to recover an on side......you simply need to be aware that it may be coming..... and sitting directly behind the Giants bench that day I can attest that just about every coach was yelling...."watch the on side..watch the onside!!!!".... I heard them with my own ears..... aside from what these half informed beat writers say.....there was no need to put the "hands team" on the field.... simply be aware that the kick may be coming....</P>


Thank you YA</P>


I have stated that numerous times.</P>


</P>


gotta love how some folks read an article or two and claim to understand the game</P>


Seriously. I shouldn't let it get to me, but good lord...</P>




but obviously even with all those warning the LBers that were on the front line got, they weren't ready for it still and dind't even wait to look. They all sprinted back like it was a regular kick off even tho it wasn't.

Hence why the hands team should of been in. The fact that YA heard the coaches screaming for it all day and these guys still didn't care shows that we should of had our hands team in
</P>


I've said previously that they probably should have had the hands team out there, but all things considered the bigger gaffe was made by the players. </P>




i disagree. The point of the onside kick obviously wasn't drilled in to their heads and if we were truely that worried about hands should of been in...

obviously its not COMPLETELY on the coaching staff since they did give verbal warnings, but im going to go with most of it..

plus the side the onside kick occured on was the philly sideline right? Isn't it possible that the dudes on that side of the field didn't hear the beware of onside kick calls from the giants sideline?
</P>


If the success of the season depended on whether or not the players hear a coach yelling accross the field to beware of the on side kick, thats DEFINATELY a coaching problem.</P>


Thats lack of preparation. PERIOD.</P>

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:28 AM
The giants offense got the ball back up a TD with four minutes left. And they couldn't end the game. Don't forget as time was running out the offense had the ball again... The eagles had time to get the ball back if they didn't do the onside kick</P>


They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left. If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win. If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</P>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</P>




absolutely

barring an ugly turnover which is probably more likely considering we had more turnovers combined than any two teams in the world..</P>



</P>


so i'd say 85%
</P>


Lets call it 87.5% and call it a day.</P>




86 and thats my final offer
</P>


I'm going to insist on 89 now. Don't **** with Morehead.</P>

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 11:28 AM
86 and thats my final offer
</P>


Hey, Matt, did you see that your old buddy, the metro cowboymade an appearance in the, "No Offensive Creativity," thread?</P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:29 AM
[They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left.* If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win.* If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</p>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</p>

Right. So if the giants played the kick properly and attempted one passing play that went incomplete they still lose the game

how do u figure that?



Because its still dependent on the giants offense running out the clock... Which they were not capable of doing. Even at the end of the game with a tie they couldn't manage to run the clock down to zero and had to punt before the 4th quarter ended.

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:29 AM
Either way. There's a heck of alot more that led to that loss. I'd put the onside kick like 6th in the screwups that cost us the game list

really?

cuz i mean if we punt away for deseason or kick it out of bounds, they might of been able to get a play off and get out of bounds for a FG. Or just out right win in OT

Coverage in the middle of the field for the Celek TD? Okay i'll put that one higher

but other than that I really can't think of much more.

And like Pappy said, this was early enough that if we recoverd that onside we win

and not to mention Reid already said if he saw our hands tema he would of had a regular kick off. Theres no way they would of had enough of clock to win that gmae if we get that ball back

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:30 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>


</P>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</P>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</P>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</P>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</P>


</P>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</P>


</P>


They ALL ran downfield. How is that possible if they were prepared properly by the coaching staff?</P>


It defies logic.</P>


</P>


They were told to watchout for an onside kick. </P>


And they still ran downfield to go into blocking assingments. </P>


Still not the players fault?</P>


</P>


How were they told? YA said that he heard coaches yelling it just before the play. Thats proper preparation?</P>


If they gathered on the sidelines and instructed the players why on earth would they be yelling it accross the field?</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:30 AM
[They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left. If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win. If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</p>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</p>

Right. So if the giants played the kick properly and attempted one passing play that went incomplete they still lose the game

how do u figure that?



Because its still dependent on the giants offense running out the clock... Which they were not capable of doing. Even at the end of the game with a tie they couldn't manage to run the clock down to zero and had to punt before the 4th quarter ended.

i mean u say that but the drive where we made philly waste their timeouts we had two first downs then wanted to milk their TOs figuring we had it under control.

If we have another offensive possession and get the ball back we would of AT LEAST ran the clock out more, basically making it impossible for them to come back the way they did

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:31 AM
Either way. There's a heck of alot more that led to that loss. I'd put the onside kick like 6th in the screwups that cost us the game list

really?

cuz i mean if we punt away for deseason or kick it out of bounds, they might of been able to get a play off and get out of bounds for a FG. Or just out right win in OT

Coverage in the middle of the field for the Celek TD? Okay i'll put that one higher

but other than that I really can't think of much more.

And like Pappy said, this was early enough that if we recoverd that onside we win

and not to mention Reid already said if he saw our hands tema he would of had a regular kick off. Theres no way they would of had enough of clock to win that gmae if we get that ball back


</P>


Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:31 AM
86 and thats my final offer
</p>


Hey, Matt, did you see that your old buddy, the metro cowboymade an appearance in the, "No Offensive Creativity," thread?</p>

lol yea he avoids trolling me so i avoid messing with him

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:32 AM
Either way. There's a heck of alot more that led to that loss. I'd put the onside kick like 6th in the screwups that cost us the game list

really?

cuz i mean if we punt away for deseason or kick it out of bounds, they might of been able to get a play off and get out of bounds for a FG. Or just out right win in OT

Coverage in the middle of the field for the Celek TD? Okay i'll put that one higher

but other than that I really can't think of much more.

And like Pappy said, this was early enough that if we recoverd that onside we win

and not to mention Reid already said if he saw our hands tema he would of had a regular kick off. Theres no way they would of had enough of clock to win that gmae if we get that ball back


</p>


Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</p>

oh absolutely. They would of had no momentum and been cold

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:32 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</p>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </p>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</p>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <font color="#0000ff">but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</font></p>


</p>


well said</p>


</p>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</p>


</p>


BUT.</p>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</p>


<font color="#0000ff">Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</font>.</p>


</p>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</p>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</p>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </p>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </p>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </p>


</p>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</p>


It's been over..</p>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</p>


Stop with this b.s age group. </p>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</p>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </p>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </p>


The rest think your nuts...</p>


</p>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</p>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</p>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</p>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</p>


</p>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</p>

oh absolutely, but theres a reason Hands teams even exist.

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 11:34 AM
86 and thats my final offer
</P>


Hey, Matt, did you see that your old buddy, the metro cowboymade an appearance in the, "No Offensive Creativity," thread?</P>




lol yea he avoids trolling me so i avoid messing with him
</P>


Haha. Those were some funny exchanges you two had a while back. It'd be funny if you gave him a Manning sig.</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:34 AM
The giants offense got the ball back up a TD with four minutes left. And they couldn't end the game. Don't forget as time was running out the offense had the ball again... The eagles had time to get the ball back if they didn't do the onside kick</p>


They scored the tying TD with around 1 and a half minutes left. If we recover an on side kick inside Philly territory we win. If we get the ball at our own 20 yard line with 7 and a half left it would have been much more difficult for them to tie the game.</p>


I say there is a 90% chance we win the game if we played that kick properly.</p>




absolutely

barring an ugly turnover which is probably more likely considering we had more turnovers combined than any two teams in the world..</p>



</p>


so i'd say 85%
</p>


Lets call it 87.5% and call it a day.</p>




86 and thats my final offer
</p>


I'm going to insist on 89 now. Don't **** with Morehead.</p>

back to 85, just call me cashman and i'll call u jeter

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:34 AM
Either way. There's a heck of alot more that led to that loss. I'd put the onside kick like 6th in the screwups that cost us the game list

really?

cuz i mean if we punt away for deseason or kick it out of bounds, they might of been able to get a play off and get out of bounds for a FG.* Or just out right win in* OT

Coverage in the middle of the field for the Celek TD? Okay i'll put that one higher

but other than that I really can't think of much more.

And like Pappy said, this was early enough that if we recoverd that onside we win

and not to mention Reid already said if he saw our hands tema he would of had a regular kick off.* Theres no way they would of had enough of clock to win that gmae if we get that ball back




Ross blows contain on 3rd and 10 when the eagles are on their own 20. Grant misses a clean shot on a sack of Vick. Manninghams ridiculous fumble. Blown coverage because of missed communication between CWeb and TT leading to Maclins first TD.

There were a bunch of opportunities for the giants to win that game. Saying we lost because the two guys on the line misplayed an onside kick? I don't buy it

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:34 AM
86 and thats my final offer
</p>


Hey, Matt, did you see that your old buddy, the metro cowboymade an appearance in the, "No Offensive Creativity," thread?</p>




lol yea he avoids trolling me so i avoid messing with him
</p>


Haha. Those were some funny exchanges you two had a while back. It'd be funny if you gave him a Manning sig.</p>

lol na im pretty sure im gonna get in trouble for messing with appletrees sig... but oh well im a bitter giants fan and ican't stomach the sight of eagles swag lol

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:35 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>


</P>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</P>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</P>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</P>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</P>


</P>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</P>


</P>


They ALL ran downfield. How is that possible if they were prepared properly by the coaching staff?</P>


It defies logic.</P>


</P>


They were told to watchout for an onside kick. </P>


And they still ran downfield to go into blocking assingments. </P>


Still not the players fault?</P>


</P>


How were they told? YA said that he heard coaches yelling it just before the play. Thats proper preparation?</P>


If they gathered on the sidelines and instructed the players why on earth would they be yelling it accross the field?</P>


</P>


Either way they were aware of what was going on. </P>


The players should be held accountable as well. </P>


As a player you must be aware of what is going on at all times. </P>


Majority of fans saw the onside kick coming and we are fans. </P>


Do these players not watch film and know what to expect from an opponent they face twice a year?</P>


</P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:35 AM
Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</P>

No emotional lift difference, Eagles kick off normally, giants get the ball inside their own 20. Eagles defense forces a three and out, Same exact momentum.

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 11:37 AM
86 and thats my final offer
</P>


Hey, Matt, did you see that your old buddy, the metro cowboymade an appearance in the, "No Offensive Creativity," thread?</P>




lol yea he avoids trolling me so i avoid messing with him
</P>


Haha. Those were some funny exchanges you two had a while back. It'd be funny if you gave him a Manning sig.</P>




lol na im pretty sure im gonna get in trouble for messing with appletrees sig... but oh well im a bitter giants fan and ican't stomach the sight of eagles swag lol
</P>


Haha. No doubt. I have a feeling appletree will take it in stride, though. He seems to have a good sense of humor for an Eagles fan. Now, the powers that may be in the Mod heirarchy might get a little upset...</P>


Just makes me wish I thought to do that when I was an admin of a MB.</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:40 AM
Either way. There's a heck of alot more that led to that loss. I'd put the onside kick like 6th in the screwups that cost us the game list

really?

cuz i mean if we punt away for deseason or kick it out of bounds, they might of been able to get a play off and get out of bounds for a FG. Or just out right win in OT

Coverage in the middle of the field for the Celek TD? Okay i'll put that one higher

but other than that I really can't think of much more.

And like Pappy said, this was early enough that if we recoverd that onside we win

and not to mention Reid already said if he saw our hands tema he would of had a regular kick off. Theres no way they would of had enough of clock to win that gmae if we get that ball back




Ross blows contain on 3rd and 10 when the eagles are on their own 20. Grant misses a clean shot on a sack of Vick. Manninghams ridiculous fumble. Blown coverage because of missed communication between CWeb and TT leading to Maclins first TD.

There were a bunch of opportunities for the giants to win that game. Saying we lost because the two guys on the line misplayed an onside kick? I don't buy it

Manninghams TO happened in the middle of the 3rd quarter. Granted it led to a score and was brutal, it had nothing to do with an ULTIMATE collapse of the last 8 minutes of the game.

They got the ball on the 13 for Maclins first TD and it was due to the Manningham TO. If giving the Eagles 10 points in the middle of the 3rd quarter is something that u consider bigger than letting them get the ball right back in crunch time right after they score a TD then me and u just have totally different philosophies.

And its not misplayed an onside kick, they didnt play it at all. It was a HUGE momentum swing and if the coaches did a better job by either stressing the onside kick or putting the hands tema in (like u should if u feel an onside kick is coming) then this game is over.

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:40 AM
86 and thats my final offer
</p>


Hey, Matt, did you see that your old buddy, the metro cowboymade an appearance in the, "No Offensive Creativity," thread?</p>




lol yea he avoids trolling me so i avoid messing with him
</p>


Haha. Those were some funny exchanges you two had a while back. It'd be funny if you gave him a Manning sig.</p>




lol na im pretty sure im gonna get in trouble for messing with appletrees sig... but oh well im a bitter giants fan and ican't stomach the sight of eagles swag lol
</p>


Haha. No doubt. I have a feeling appletree will take it in stride, though. He seems to have a good sense of humor for an Eagles fan. Now, the powers that may be in the Mod heirarchy might get a little upset...</p>


Just makes me wish I thought to do that when I was an admin of a MB.</p>

na hes a good dude, we always break his chops. I wouldn't just do that to anybody

violet1
01-06-2011, 11:40 AM
Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</P>

No emotional lift difference, Eagles kick off normally, giants get the ball inside their own 20. Eagles defense forces a three and out, Same exact momentum.

Yeah and Darius Reynaud is a good returner right Slip?

lawl
01-06-2011, 11:42 AM
Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</P>


No emotional lift difference, Eagles kick off normally, giants get the ball inside their own 20. Eagles defense forces a three and out, Same exact momentum.</P>


The three and out isn't a guaranteed 50/50 occurence, alot more things can happen other than jsuta three and out. Whereas on the onside kick we either get it or we dont. In this case, with the hands team on the field we would have gotten it since the Eagles would have kicked it deep. The %ages are undoubtedly in favor of putting the hands team on the field. Coaches always say to play the %ages, and in this case they didnt. </P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:42 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</p>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </p>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</p>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <font color="#0000ff">but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</font></p>


</p>


well said</p>


</p>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</p>


</p>


BUT.</p>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</p>


<font color="#0000ff">Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</font>.</p>


</p>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</p>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</p>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </p>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </p>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </p>


</p>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</p>


It's been over..</p>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</p>


Stop with this b.s age group. </p>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</p>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </p>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </p>


The rest think your nuts...</p>


</p>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</p>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</p>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</p>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</p>


</p>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</p>


</p>


They ALL ran downfield. How is that possible if they were prepared properly by the coaching staff?</p>


It defies logic.</p>


</p>


They were told to watchout for an onside kick. </p>


And they still ran downfield to go into blocking assingments. </p>


Still not the players fault?</p>


</p>


How were they told? YA said that he heard coaches yelling it just before the play. Thats proper preparation?</p>


If they gathered on the sidelines and instructed the players why on earth would they be yelling it accross the field?</p>


</p>


Either way they were aware of what was going on. </p>


The players should be held accountable as well. </p>


As a player you must be aware of what is going on at all times. </p>


Majority of fans saw the onside kick coming and we are fans. </p>


Do these players not watch film and know what to expect from an opponent they face twice a year?</p>


</p>

your right thye should, but the fact is that the majority of it is on coaches. You can't just say something and expect it all to stick. You have to get your points across, obviously since the whole return team didn't even hesitate to get back into their typical return spots the points wasn't put across.

Personally what I think happened was that TC really didn't see the onside kick coming and thats why it wasn't stressed. I just dont think he'd ever say that and hed get murdered for it

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:44 AM
Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</p>

No emotional lift difference, Eagles kick off normally, giants get the ball inside their own 20. Eagles defense forces a three and out, Same exact momentum.

yea except maybe a minute 30 is taken off the clock and then a punt which would of hopfully put them deeper than where they got the ball. Hence ending the game

a 3 and out and onside kick recovery is NOT the same kind of momentum.

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:44 AM
>Manninghams TO happened in the middle of the 3rd quarter. Granted it led to a score and was brutal, it had nothing to do with an ULTIMATE collapse of the last 8 minutes of the game.

Of course it did. Would have put the eagles down by another TD.

As I said, there is a list of things that led to that loss, onside kick being one of them but far from being the key play

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:45 AM
Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</P>

No emotional lift difference, Eagles kick off normally, giants get the ball inside their own 20. Eagles defense forces a three and out, Same exact momentum.

Yeah and Darius Reynaud is a good returner right Slip?

Keep up the wonderful arguments purple.

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:46 AM
yea except maybe a minute 30 is taken off the clock and then a punt which would of hopfully put them deeper than where they got the ball.* Hence ending the game

a 3 and out and onside kick recovery is NOT the same kind of momentum.*


Or dodge puts another one right down the middle and Jackson returns it for a TD. You can't play this "in hindsight" game. The onside kick was one of many screw ups. And not the turning point in the game

violet1
01-06-2011, 11:47 AM
Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</P>


No emotional lift difference, Eagles kick off normally, giants get the ball inside their own 20. Eagles defense forces a three and out, Same exact momentum.</P>


The three and out isn't a guaranteed 50/50 occurence, alot more things can happen other than jsut*a three and out. Whereas on the onside kick we either get it or we dont. In this case, with the hands team on the field we would have gotten it since the Eagles would have kicked it deep. The %ages are undoubtedly in favor of putting the hands team on the field. Coaches always say to play the %ages, and in this case they didnt. </P>

That's all I'm saying. Coughlin made a mistake. That's all. He made a bad call (omission). No more no less. And despite the fact that Slip thinks that he can predict the future, he can't.

lawl
01-06-2011, 11:48 AM
I would tend to think that the %ages of us winning that game with the coverage unit we had out there even if they hadn't bailed early, were lower than if we had come out fully expecting an onside kick and they kicked the ball deep instead of even attempting the onside, the field position would have been fine and the chances of recovery are vastly improved. It's just a matter of leaving nothing to chance and creating the best opportunity of winning the game. Another example of this comes in the redskins game. There's about 30 seconds left in the half, we run the bAll for about a 3 yard gain, randomly call a timeout, then throw an incomplete pass, and on 3rd down we take a knee, leaving about 5 seconds on the clock. Shanahan was too stupid at the time to call a timeout and make us punt the ball and give his team a chance of returning a punt or blocking one as time expired in the second half. Likewise, it was a misjudgment by our coaching staff to even let the possibility exist. The point is to stop something before it has a chance of even happening, the eagles took advantage of this opportunity whereas the redskins didn't. Little things like that are what makes the difference between winning and losing

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:48 AM
Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</P>


No emotional lift difference, Eagles kick off normally, giants get the ball inside their own 20. Eagles defense forces a three and out, Same exact momentum.</P>


Your nuts if you don't think there was a HUGE emotional lift with recovering that on side kick. The Celek TD was irritating but it was the on side kick that represented the momentum change in that game.</P>

Ruttiger711
01-06-2011, 11:48 AM
yea except maybe a minute 30 is taken off the clock and then a punt which would of hopfully put them deeper than where they got the ball.* Hence ending the game

a 3 and out and onside kick recovery is NOT the same kind of momentum.*


Or dodge puts another one right down the middle and Jackson returns it for a TD. You can't play this "in hindsight" game. The onside kick was one of many screw ups. And not the turning point in the game

What do you think was?

To me it was the Celek TD - quick strike, and instantly put them back in the game.... onside kick followed right after.

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:49 AM
&gt;Manninghams TO happened in the middle of the 3rd quarter. Granted it led to a score and was brutal, it had nothing to do with an ULTIMATE collapse of the last 8 minutes of the game.

Of course it did. Would have put the eagles down by another TD.

As I said, there is a list of things that led to that loss, onside kick being one of them but far from being the key play

As a giants fan when I see the 3rd quarter end and we only gave up 10 points to the Eagles... ur happy with that

I'd say the play to Celek was the only other occurance that ****ed us. A quick score like that was deadly. Not getting the ball back and giving them full momentum swing, is a half step less deadly

this game should of been won with or without that Mannginham turnover and that TD they scored after it

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:49 AM
[]

That's all I'm saying. Coughlin made a mistake. That's all. He made a bad call (omission). No more no less. .

Which may or may not have made the outcome of the game different. No way of knowing.

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:50 AM
yea except maybe a minute 30 is taken off the clock and then a punt which would of hopfully put them deeper than where they got the ball. Hence ending the game

a 3 and out and onside kick recovery is NOT the same kind of momentum.


Or dodge puts another one right down the middle and Jackson returns it for a TD. You can't play this "in hindsight" game. The onside kick was one of many screw ups. And not the turning point in the game

absolutely was the turning point in the game. If Giants get the ball back, can we at least agree that they'd run the ball AT LEAST 2 times?

Thats game set match right there

violet1
01-06-2011, 11:50 AM
[]

That's all I'm saying. Coughlin made a mistake. That's all. He made a bad call (omission). No more no less. .

Which may or may not have made the outcome of the game different. No way of knowing.

Exactly. But many people don't think he made a big mistake by not planning for an on sides kick. And that I believe is incorrect.

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:50 AM
yea except maybe a minute 30 is taken off the clock and then a punt which would of hopfully put them deeper than where they got the ball. Hence ending the game

a 3 and out and onside kick recovery is NOT the same kind of momentum.


Or dodge puts another one right down the middle and Jackson returns it for a TD. You can't play this "in hindsight" game. The onside kick was one of many screw ups. And not the turning point in the game

What do you think was?

To me it was the Celek TD - quick strike, and instantly put them back in the game.... onside kick followed right after.

i literally just said that and totally agree

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:51 AM
Plus they would have lost the emotional lift of recovering the onside kick.</p>


No emotional lift difference, Eagles kick off normally, giants get the ball inside their own 20. Eagles defense forces a three and out, Same exact momentum.</p>


Your nuts if you don't think there was a HUGE emotional lift with recovering that on side kick. The Celek TD was irritating but it was the on side kick that represented the momentum change in that game.</p>


slip - are u suggesting that an interception or caused fumble and recovery isn't a bigger momentum swing than a 3 and out?

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:51 AM
What do you think was?

To me it was the Celek TD - quick strike, and instantly put them back in the game.... onside kick followed right after.

Ross's blown contain. They had the eagles stopped on their own 20. Instead Ross let's Vick outside where he runs for like 45 yards. Then Grant has Vick dead in the pocket and Vick somehow manages to duck under him and get his team inside the 20.

That drive ended the game.

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:52 AM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>


</P>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</P>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</P>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</P>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</P>


</P>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</P>


</P>


They ALL ran downfield. How is that possible if they were prepared properly by the coaching staff?</P>


It defies logic.</P>


</P>


They were told to watchout for an onside kick. </P>


And they still ran downfield to go into blocking assingments. </P>


Still not the players fault?</P>


</P>


How were they told? YA said that he heard coaches yelling it just before the play. Thats proper preparation?</P>


If they gathered on the sidelines and instructed the players why on earth would they be yelling it accross the field?</P>


</P>


Either way they were aware of what was going on. </P>


The players should be held accountable as well. </P>


As a player you must be aware of what is going on at all times. </P>


Majority of fans saw the onside kick coming and we are fans. </P>


Do these players not watch film and know what to expect from an opponent they face twice a year?</P>


</P>


</P>


Thats what you expect from a coaching staff.</P>


"Yes players, just watch the film and you can all come up with the team strategy for the game"</P>


Thats crazy talk.</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:52 AM
[]

That's all I'm saying. Coughlin made a mistake. That's all. He made a bad call (omission). No more no less. .

Which may or may not have made the outcome of the game different. No way of knowing.

Exactly. But many people don't think he made a big mistake by not planning for an on sides kick. And that I believe is incorrect.

bottom line per Andy Reid, if Hands team was out there he would of kicked deep

if he kicks deep we run the clock out more... and theres no time for them to score that much in that little time, it common sense at this point.

Celek TD - biggest killer
Onside Kick - 2nd biggest killer

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 11:53 AM
slip - are u suggesting that an interception or caused fumble and recovery isn't a bigger momentum swing than a 3 and out?


I think in this case its insignificant. Eagles already had a ton momentum after the celek TD. Anything that gets the ball back to their offense adds more momentum, doesn't matter how.

Ruttiger711
01-06-2011, 11:53 AM
What do you think was?

To me it was the Celek TD - quick strike, and instantly put them back in the game.... onside kick followed right after.

Ross's blown contain. They had the eagles stopped on their own 20. Instead Ross let's Vick outside where he runs for like 45 yards. Then Grant has Vick dead in the pocket and Vick somehow manages to duck under him and get his team inside the 20.

That drive ended the game.

Big one.. if only Ross were as fast as he thought he was.

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:58 AM
slip - are u suggesting that an interception or caused fumble and recovery isn't a bigger momentum swing than a 3 and out?
I think in this case its insignificant. Eagles already had a ton momentum after the celek TD. Anything that gets the ball back to their offense adds more momentum, doesn't matter how.</P>


Kicking the ball to the other team isn't "getting the ball back". Isn't it "giving the ball to the other team".</P>


Where am I wrong here?</P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 11:58 AM
slip - are u suggesting that an interception or caused fumble and recovery isn't a bigger momentum swing than a 3 and out?


I think in this case its insignificant. Eagles already had a ton momentum after the celek TD. Anything that gets the ball back to their offense adds more momentum, doesn't matter how.

You are "Slippin Slip." You can't predict the future and the Giants would have had a "better chance" to win the game. Logic baby, logic!

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:59 AM
slip - are u suggesting that an interception or caused fumble and recovery isn't a bigger momentum swing than a 3 and out?


I think in this case its insignificant. Eagles already had a ton momentum after the celek TD. Anything that gets the ball back to their offense adds more momentum, doesn't matter how.

Your tlaking two HUGE plays back to back...

ur nuts to say it would have the same effect of momentum.

and even again for arguments sake, even if a 3 and out would have the same effect (it wouldn't) but it would of burned enough time off the clock

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 11:59 AM
[] That's all I'm saying. Coughlin made a mistake. That's all. He made a bad call (omission). No more no less. . Which may or may not have made the outcome of the game different. No way of knowing. Exactly. But many people don't think he made a big mistake by not planning for an on sides kick. And that I believe is incorrect.

bottom line per Andy Reid, if Hands team was out there he would of kicked deep

if he kicks deep we run the clock out more... and theres no time for them to score that much in that little time, it common sense at this point.

Celek TD - biggest killer
Onside Kick - 2nd biggest killer
</P>


Matt, when Celek scored I was still sure we would win the game. When they recovered the on side kick I was really worried.</P>


The major momentum swing was the on side recovery.</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 11:59 AM
What do you think was?

To me it was the Celek TD - quick strike, and instantly put them back in the game.... onside kick followed right after.

Ross's blown contain. They had the eagles stopped on their own 20. Instead Ross let's Vick outside where he runs for like 45 yards. Then Grant has Vick dead in the pocket and Vick somehow manages to duck under him and get his team inside the 20.

That drive ended the game.

Big one.. if only Ross were as fast as he thought he was.

or as his fiancee

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 12:01 PM
[] That's all I'm saying. Coughlin made a mistake. That's all. He made a bad call (omission). No more no less. . Which may or may not have made the outcome of the game different. No way of knowing. Exactly. But many people don't think he made a big mistake by not planning for an on sides kick. And that I believe is incorrect.

bottom line per Andy Reid, if Hands team was out there he would of kicked deep

if he kicks deep we run the clock out more... and theres no time for them to score that much in that little time, it common sense at this point.

Celek TD - biggest killer
Onside Kick - 2nd biggest killer
</p>


Matt, when Celek scored I was still sure we would win the game. When they recovered the on side kick I was really worried.</p>


The major momentum swing was the on side recovery.</p>

30 seconds and u go 70 yards for a TD.. thats killer that made everything else possible in that last 8 minutes.

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 12:03 PM
moorehead just couldn't take he and i agreeing o nsomething... he has to throw some kind of wedge between the two of us lol

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 12:08 PM
moorehead just couldn't take he and i agreeing o nsomething... he has to throw some kind of wedge between the two of us lol
</P>


Its a small point. Lets just say there wouldn't have been near as much momentum for Philly if they had kicked off instead of recovering the on side kick.</P>


And I'm more than happy to agree with you on the very few occasions that you are actually right.</P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 12:18 PM
, even if a 3 and out would have the same effect (it wouldn't) but it would of burned enough time off the clock


maybe. maybe not.

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 12:20 PM
Kicking the ball to the other team isn't "getting the ball back".* Isn't it "giving the ball to the other team".</P>


Where am I wrong here?</P>

i meant kicking deep then the giants going 3 and out.. that gives the eagles the ball back.

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 12:22 PM
You are "Slippin Slip." You can't predict the future and the Giants would have had a "better chance" to win the game. Logic baby, logic!

lets be honest, the giants had a wonderful chance to win that game no matter what happened. Everything worked right for the eagles in those last 8 minutes.

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 12:27 PM
You are "Slippin Slip." You can't predict the future and the Giants would have had a "better chance" to win the game. Logic baby, logic! lets be honest, the giants had a wonderful chance to win that game no matter what happened. Everything worked right for the eagles in those last 8 minutes.</P>


And everything had to in order for them to win, including recovering an on side kick.</P>


Making my point.</P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 12:28 PM
And everything had to in order for them to win, including recovering an on side kick.</P>


Making my point.</P>

Right. Though I still think they could have won without getting that onside kick.

Kruunch
01-06-2011, 12:29 PM
Are we having issues letting this go?

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 12:31 PM
moorehead just couldn't take he and i agreeing o nsomething... he has to throw some kind of wedge between the two of us lol
</p>


Its a small point. Lets just say there wouldn't have been near as much momentum for Philly if they had kicked off instead of recovering the on side kick.</p>


And I'm more than happy to agree with you on the very few occasions that you are actually right.</p>

didn't the Celek play happen directly before the onside kick tho?

I mean because even if they have a scoring drive, but you dont let it happen in 30 seconds and u make them grind it out or even punt - its game over.

Even if that drive takes 2 minutes off the clock and they score and they still go and get the onside kick, the game still would of been over. They wouldn't of had the time

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 12:32 PM
, even if a 3 and out would have the same effect (it wouldn't) but it would of burned enough time off the clock


maybe. maybe not.

this hypothetical game your playing is getting tiresome.

BEcause everything could be maybe, maybe not.

Probability is that yes it would of been over had we got the ball...

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 12:33 PM
Probability is that yes it would of been over had we got the ball...




I disagree.

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 12:37 PM
moorehead just couldn't take he and i agreeing o nsomething... he has to throw some kind of wedge between the two of us lol
</P>


Its a small point. Lets just say there wouldn't have been near as much momentum for Philly if they had kicked off instead of recovering the on side kick.</P>


And I'm more than happy to agree with you on the very few occasions that you are actually right.</P>




didn't the Celek play happen directly before the onside kick tho?

I mean because even if they have a scoring drive, but you dont let it happen in 30 seconds and u make them grind it out or even punt - its game over.

Even if that drive takes 2 minutes off the clock and they score and they still go and get the onside kick, the game still would of been over. They wouldn't of had the time
</P>


I completely agree. If we made them at least take a few minutes off the clock we would have won the game. I was talking about the momentum. Being 2 scores down with 7 minutes is still a huge uphill climb. But recovering an onside kick right after gave them a huge momentum lift. I'm sure thats the moment when they truly thought they could win the game.</P>


When Celek scored, all they had done was exchange TD's with us when we were up 14.</P>


If we have the ball up 14 with 7 minutes to go, the momentum wouldn't have been nearly what it was.</P>

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 12:37 PM
Probability is that yes it would of been over had we got the ball...




I disagree.

would u agree that we would of tried to run the ball and drained the clock with AT LEAST two of our 3 plays in the worst case scenerio of a 3 and out

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 12:38 PM
Probability is that yes it would of been over had we got the ball...


I disagree.</P>


Only because you're disagreeable.</P>


Many OTHER bad things would have had to happen that didn't for us to lose if we had the ball, up 14.</P>

Kruunch
01-06-2011, 12:38 PM
Probability is that yes it would of been over had we got the ball...




I disagree.

Maybe, maybe not.

*teehee*

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 12:40 PM
>would u agree that we would of tried to run the ball and drained the clock with AT LEAST two of our 3 plays in the worst case scenerio* of a 3 and out


Yea.. and maybe the eagles use their timeouts then, maybe the eagles go for the onside kick later despite the giants having their hands team out there and still get the ball back... theres far too many unknowns to say that one play cost the giants the game, or that making one play would have saved the game.

MattMeyerBud
01-06-2011, 12:40 PM
moorehead just couldn't take he and i agreeing o nsomething... he has to throw some kind of wedge between the two of us lol
</p>


Its a small point. Lets just say there wouldn't have been near as much momentum for Philly if they had kicked off instead of recovering the on side kick.</p>


And I'm more than happy to agree with you on the very few occasions that you are actually right.</p>




didn't the Celek play happen directly before the onside kick tho?

I mean because even if they have a scoring drive, but you dont let it happen in 30 seconds and u make them grind it out or even punt - its game over.

Even if that drive takes 2 minutes off the clock and they score and they still go and get the onside kick, the game still would of been over. They wouldn't of had the time
</p>


I completely agree. If we made them at least take a few minutes off the clock we would have won the game. I was talking about the momentum. Being 2 scores down with 7 minutes is still a huge uphill climb. But recovering an onside kick right after gave them a huge momentum lift. I'm sure thats the moment when they truly thought they could win the game.</p>


When Celek scored, all they had done was exchange TD's with us when we were up 14.</p>


If we have the ball up 14 with 7 minutes to go, the momentum wouldn't have been nearly what it was.</p>

true and when it comes to momentum i'd have to say that the momentum the onside kick had, woudln't of been as big had they not just had a 2 play 80 yard drive for a TD

lawl
01-06-2011, 12:41 PM
Probability is that yes it would of been over had we got the ball...


I disagree.</P>


More time on the clock=more time to come back=greater %age that it was possible for them to come back.</P>


If we get the ball on that kick, the rest of the game is completely different, every single play. You can't assume grant misses a tackle, nor ross breaking contain etc.</P>


Thinking a team down with 8 minutes has the same chances of winning the game as opposed to a team down by the same exact score with 6 minutes left is extremely counterintuitive</P>

bandwgn86
01-06-2011, 12:41 PM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P> YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus <FONT color=#0000ff>Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. </FONT>The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!if thatis the case we definitely should have had the hands team out there than..

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 12:43 PM
Thinking a team down with 8 minutes has the same chances of winning the game as opposed to a team down by the same exact score with 6 minutes left is extremely counterintuitive</P>

but thats assuming all the plays after that kick would have been identical to what happened, which you cant do.

It was just a bunch of missed opportunities for the giants to put the game away.

Morehead State
01-06-2011, 12:45 PM
Thinking a team down with 8 minutes has the same chances of winning the game as opposed to a team down by the same exact score with 6 minutes left is extremely counterintuitive


</P>


but thats assuming all the plays after that kick would have been identical to what happened, which you cant do. It was just a bunch of missed opportunities for the giants to put the game away.</P>


So we would have played even worse defense than we did?</P>


How is that possible?</P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 12:47 PM
So we would have played even worse defense than we did?</P>


How is that possible?</P>

No, its assuming the eagles couldnt get the onside kick later in the game despite the giants having their hands team out there. Its assuming the giants offense could put together a decent drive again, its assuming Dodge if he punts actually puts it somewhere Jackson doesnt bring it back. Its assuming the giants offense didnt turn the ball over. Lots of assumptions either way.

Putting the hands unit out there doesnt mean the game is a lock, far from it. Maybe a slightly better chance to win, but we will never know for sure.

lawl
01-06-2011, 12:57 PM
Thinking a team down with 8 minutes has the same chances of winning the game as opposed to a team down by the same exact score with 6 minutes left is extremely counterintuitive


</P>


but thats assuming all the plays after that kick would have been identical to what happened, which you cant do. It was just a bunch of missed opportunities for the giants to put the game away.</P>


You probably missed the part of my post that said "Every single play after that would have been different", although I;m sure you overlooked that.</P>


Simple intuition and probability yields that less opportunities means less chance of something occurring. They had less time, therefore less opportunities, and in their case it would have been even more hurried opportunites, thus their chances of winning go down. There really isn't a counter argument to be made.</P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 01:02 PM
Simple intuition and probability yields that less opportunities means less chance of something occurring.

Right, and thats the thing, you cant assume they would have had fewer opportunities. Giants could have fumbled or threw an interception once they got the ball... (would anyone have been surprised?) and the eagles could have gone for the onside kick later instead of kicking off normally.

lawl
01-06-2011, 01:08 PM
Simple intuition and probability yields that less opportunities means less chance of something occurring. Right, and thats the thing, you cant assume they would have had fewer opportunities. Giants could have fumbled or threw an interception once they got the ball... (would anyone have been surprised?) and the eagles could have gone for the onside kick later instead of kicking off normally.</P>


Or once we received that kick we could have ran the clock out. It's truly quite simple, sure, we can't assume they would have had fewer opportunites, BUT because we would have been on offense and they wouldnt have been(whereas they were on offense right after the kick), automatically increases the chances that they would have less possessions. Stop making this out to more than it has to be. By not making the onside kick they would have had a higher chance of having less possessions and an overall less chance of winning the game. </P>

slipknottin
01-06-2011, 01:10 PM
Or once we received that kick we could have ran the clock out.

Or they could have ran the clock out later when the eagles kicked the ball off....

lawl
01-06-2011, 01:15 PM
Or once we received that kick we could have ran the clock out. Or they could have ran the clock out later when the eagles kicked the ball off....</P>


The point of that sentence was to point that the "ors" and "if"s are limitless. However, as you notably like to do, ignored the meat of the post.</P>

Ruttiger711
01-06-2011, 01:20 PM
Are we having issues letting this go? A bit. This game wasnt just a monumental Giants collapse, but an all time NFL collapse and will be brought up time and time again like the Bills/Oilers game.

Kruunch
01-06-2011, 01:23 PM
Are we having issues letting this go? A bit. This game wasnt just a monumental Giants collapse, but an all time NFL collapse and will be brought up time and time again like the Bills/Oilers game.

No it wasn't. Wasn't even what knocked us out of the playoff hunt.

02 playoffs against the 49ers ... THAT was a collapse for the ages.

This game was just heart wrenching ... but nothing for the ages (or at least not my ages).

And just like that game, there wasn't any ONE thing that caused it. It was a ton of things that they did combined with a ton of things we didn't do.

But let me not interrupt the "What If" game .... carry on.

ny06
01-06-2011, 01:34 PM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.</P>


If you think there's a chance of the onsides coming, but the other team comes out intheir regular set, you are not wrong for sending out your regular return team while telling them to look for the onsides. Hell, when I played in HS the regular return team even practiced recovering onsides kicks. </P>


The regular return team majorly screwed up by retreating before Akers kicked it. That's a big no-no, regardless of the situation. Had they stayed up until Akers kicked the ball, they very well may have recovered it. The gaffe was more on the players than on the coaches.</P>


I had even previously stated in one of the threads where I argued with this idiot, that yes, TC should have probably had the hands out there to begin with, <FONT color=#0000ff>but all things considered, the return team screwed up more by not maintaining basic fundamentals. The bigger mistake was made by the return team, not by not having the hands team out there.</FONT></P>


</P>


well said</P>


</P>


Quite honestly I would have liked to see the hands team out there because I was expecting the on side kick myself. Clearly from what YA said, the coaches were as well. But having the normal return team out there but playing the on side kick is OK I guess. But the problem is that if they are playing the on side kick, the training they have to play the return becomes irrelevant. Which gets me back to my original point. The hands team should be out there.</P>


</P>


BUT.</P>


I have to tell you, the players on the field acted as if there was no risk or thought of an on side kick. All 11 of them (or at least those up on the line) Who do we blame for that? Thats a lack of coaching. I'm sorry. Thats exactly what that is.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Yelling from the sidelines isn't sufficient. thats a lack of coaching. Its a lack of preparation</FONT>.</P>


</P>


So not having your head in the game and being aware of what was going on has no blame on the players?</P>


Should have Tom Coughlin had the hands team on the field? Sure..</P>


But at the end of the day the players were the ones who let that play happen. </P>


All the Giants had to do was wait for Akers to kick the ball, but in reality the Giant players were already backpedaling before he even was near the ball. </P>


Maybe you should blame the special teams coach for having inexperienced players at the front of the special teams unit. </P>


</P>


YA's answer was perfect. He said: plus Andy Reid has clearly stated....if he sees the hands team....he kicks off.... There it is. The defense rests. I knew an older guy would help ME out. Reid kicks off regular with the hands team out there and we win the game. It's over boys!</P>


It's been over..</P>


I know it's over and I think YA would have to agree with me now like the majority of the respondents (other than the couple of guys in the 28-35 years of age group). Thanks for playing though.</P>


Stop with this b.s age group. </P>


If you have to judge a fan by how old he is then your ignorant.</P>


Majority of fans here don't care about how old you are, you seem to be the only one. </P>


For the record only lawl and morehead agreed with you. </P>


The rest think your nuts...</P>


</P>


I think he's nuts too. And a ****head.</P>


I just thinkthe onside situationwas a major coaching error that cost us the season.</P>


Again...if a player makes a bad play or a bad decision that is generally on him. But the whole team together making the same decision? The laws of probability would suggest thats impossible.</P>


Lack of seriousness paid by the coaching staff for the possibility of an on side kick.</P>


</P>


Shoulden't the blame go on the players as well?</P>


</P>


They ALL ran downfield. How is that possible if they were prepared properly by the coaching staff?</P>


It defies logic.</P>


</P>


They were told to watchout for an onside kick. </P>


And they still ran downfield to go into blocking assingments. </P>


Still not the players fault?</P>


</P>


How were they told? YA said that he heard coaches yelling it just before the play. Thats proper preparation?</P>


If they gathered on the sidelines and instructed the players why on earth would they be yelling it accross the field?</P>


</P>


Either way they were aware of what was going on. </P>


The players should be held accountable as well. </P>


As a player you must be aware of what is going on at all times. </P>


Majority of fans saw the onside kick coming and we are fans. </P>


Do these players not watch film and know what to expect from an opponent they face twice a year?</P>


</P>


</P>


Thats what you expect from a coaching staff.</P>


"Yes players, just watch the film and you can all come up with the team strategy for the game"</P>


Thats crazy talk.</P>


</P>


It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game? </P>


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


</P>

lawl
01-06-2011, 01:37 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first placeso that they wouldn'teven had a chance of ****ing up.</P>

ny06
01-06-2011, 01:39 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first placeso that they wouldn'teven had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>

OX1
01-06-2011, 02:00 PM
That was a player, not a coaching foul up. Could the "hands" team have been out there? Yes. But it was not a coaching error to not have them out there.</P>


That play was just a perfect storm. What hasn't really been mentioned is that the Ayers on-side kick was absolutely perfect . . . I don't know if I've ever seen a better one. </P>


</P>


Akers has an almost 50% success rate @ onside kicks. Just another little tidbit that the coaches overlooked, IMO. You have to assume that someone on giants coaching should have known how good Akers was at them.</P>


http://mvn.com/2010/12/22/crazy-kicker-of-week-15/</P>


</P>


</P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 02:16 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


*</P>





</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first place*so that they wouldn't*even had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>

Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!

ny06
01-06-2011, 02:19 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first placeso that they wouldn'teven had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 02:27 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


*</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first place*so that they wouldn't*even had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>


Unfortunately for you, your original post is in writing in the thread "The case against TC" And here is your quote:

"Who cares if the hands team was not on the field.

When your Head Coach and staff are screaming at the players to watch out for the on-side kick who does the blame go on?"


Now that NY06 is embarassing!

violet1
01-06-2011, 02:31 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


*</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first place*so that they wouldn't*even had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>


Unfortunately for you, your original post is in writing in the thread "The case against TC" And here is your quote:

"Who cares if the hands team was not on the field.

When your Head Coach and staff are screaming at the players to watch out for the on-side kick who does the blame go on?"


Now that NY06 is embarassing!

Any response? Gottcha!

ny06
01-06-2011, 02:31 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first placeso that they wouldn'teven had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>


Unfortunately for you, your original post is in writing in the thread "The case against TC" And here is your quote: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field. When your Head Coach and staff are screaming at the players to watch out for the on-side kick who does the blame go on?" Now that NY06 is embarassing!</P>


Isn't that true?</P>


If the coaches are telling the players to watchout for an onside kick then they should be watching out for an onside kick.</P>


The post where I say it was on Coughlin as well is because lawl was stating that the hands team should have been on the field. </P>


And that is somewhat correct, my arguement from the start is that it should not matter who is on the field; the players should have been aware of what was taking place on the field. </P>


You might as well share with the other posters your infatuation with me. </P>


Please post that thread up so everyone can see how I destroyed your arguement, but you won't do that because they all might see how you can't spell serious...</P>


Now that is embarrassing.....</P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 02:46 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


*</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first place*so that they wouldn't*even had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>


Unfortunately for you, your original post is in writing in the thread "The case against TC" And here is your quote: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field. When your Head Coach and staff are screaming at the players to watch out for the on-side kick who does the blame go on?" Now that NY06 is embarassing!</P>


Isn't that true?</P>


If the coaches are telling the players to watchout for an onside kick then they should be watching out for an onside kick.</P>


The post where I say it was on Coughlin as well is because lawl was stating that the hands team should have been on the field. </P>


And that is somewhat correct, my arguement from the start is that it should not matter who is on the field; the players should have been aware of what was taking place on the field. </P>


You might as well share with the other posters your infatuation with me. </P>


Please post that thread up so everyone can see how I destroyed your arguement, but you won't do that because they all might see how you can't spell serious...</P>


Now that is embarrassing.....</P>

YOUR WORDS:

"Who cares if the hands team was not on the field."

SORRY, we as Giant Fans cared!

ny06
01-06-2011, 02:49 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first placeso that they wouldn'teven had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>


Unfortunately for you, your original post is in writing in the thread "The case against TC" And here is your quote: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field. When your Head Coach and staff are screaming at the players to watch out for the on-side kick who does the blame go on?" Now that NY06 is embarassing!</P>


Isn't that true?</P>


If the coaches are telling the players to watchout for an onside kick then they should be watching out for an onside kick.</P>


The post where I say it was on Coughlin as well is because lawl was stating that the hands team should have been on the field. </P>


And that is somewhat correct, my arguement from the start is that it should not matter who is on the field; the players should have been aware of what was taking place on the field. </P>


You might as well share with the other posters your infatuation with me. </P>


Please post that thread up so everyone can see how I destroyed your arguement, but you won't do that because they all might see how you can't spell serious...</P>


Now that is embarrassing.....</P>


YOUR WORDS: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field." SORRY, we as Giant Fans cared!</P>


Yeah who cares. </P>


Maybe if the players got there head in the game they would have been aware of the onside kick. </P>


</P>

lttaylor56
01-06-2011, 02:53 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick


The ball was titled sideways on the tee, giving away their trick. You'd think an NFL coaching staff and players would have noticed what viewers at home did.
This is true. We from our seats, just knew that was going to be an onsides kick. It was absolutely surreal to watch my biggest fear unfold...then the eagle make the jump up and catch that kick.

violet1
01-06-2011, 02:59 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


*</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first place*so that they wouldn't*even had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>


Unfortunately for you, your original post is in writing in the thread "The case against TC" And here is your quote: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field. When your Head Coach and staff are screaming at the players to watch out for the on-side kick who does the blame go on?" Now that NY06 is embarassing!</P>


Isn't that true?</P>


If the coaches are telling the players to watchout for an onside kick then they should be watching out for an onside kick.</P>


The post where I say it was on Coughlin as well is because lawl was stating that the hands team should have been on the field. </P>


And that is somewhat correct, my arguement from the start is that it should not matter who is on the field; the players should have been aware of what was taking place on the field. </P>


You might as well share with the other posters your infatuation with me. </P>


Please post that thread up so everyone can see how I destroyed your arguement, but you won't do that because they all might see how you can't spell serious...</P>


Now that is embarrassing.....</P>


YOUR WORDS: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field." SORRY, we as Giant Fans cared!</P>


Yeah who cares. </P>


Maybe if the players got there head in the game they would have been aware of the onside kick. </P>


*</P>


I care. If there was no hands team then they didn't expect an on sides kick. Comprende? Yelling from the sidelines not withstanding! LOGIC! If you expect an on sides kick then what do the coaches do???

Send out the hands team. Now you got it! Tell YA.

ny06
01-06-2011, 03:04 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first placeso that they wouldn'teven had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>


Unfortunately for you, your original post is in writing in the thread "The case against TC" And here is your quote: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field. When your Head Coach and staff are screaming at the players to watch out for the on-side kick who does the blame go on?" Now that NY06 is embarassing!</P>


Isn't that true?</P>


If the coaches are telling the players to watchout for an onside kick then they should be watching out for an onside kick.</P>


The post where I say it was on Coughlin as well is because lawl was stating that the hands team should have been on the field. </P>


And that is somewhat correct, my arguement from the start is that it should not matter who is on the field; the players should have been aware of what was taking place on the field. </P>


You might as well share with the other posters your infatuation with me. </P>


Please post that thread up so everyone can see how I destroyed your arguement, but you won't do that because they all might see how you can't spell serious...</P>


Now that is embarrassing.....</P>


YOUR WORDS: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field." SORRY, we as Giant Fans cared!</P>


Yeah who cares. </P>


Maybe if the players got there head in the game they would have been aware of the onside kick. </P>


</P>


I care. If there was no hands team then they didn't expect an on sides kick. Comprende? Yelling from the sidelines not withstanding! LOGIC! If you expect an on sides kick then what do the coaches do??? Send out the hands team. Now you got it! Tell YA.</P>


For the millionth time. </P>


The Coaches told the players to be aware of the onside kick. </P>


Now if a player is told that then why is the player not held accountable?</P>


It was stated that if Tom Coughlin would have put the hands team on the field then Reid would have rejected the onside kick. </P>


Your arguement is the coaching staff is at fault when they did not put the hands team on the field. </P>


My arguement is well when you are told to be aware of an onside kick it should not matter if the hands team is on the field or not. Man up and get the ball. </P>


It is as simple as that. </P>


</P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 03:08 PM
It's crazy to think that players should be held accountable for not being in tuned to the game?


My point is the players were aware that an onside kick may happen, they should have at-least waited for Akers to kick the ball before retreating into there blocking assingments. </P>


*</P>


</P>


Of course they should be held accountable since they didnt execute to their capabilities, but the bottom line is they shouldnt have even been on the field in the first place*so that they wouldn't*even had a chance of ****ing up.</P>


</P>


Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff.</P>


I just feel that the players should have been more aware of what was going on in the game. </P>


<U>Always expect the unexpected</U></P>


Thanks NY06. You FINALLY came around to my way of thinking. "Yes that goes to Tom Coughlin and staff". I am glad to see you can admit your wrong! Way to go. You have restored my faith in youth!</P>


I have not admitted I am wrong. </P>


I was just stating that the coaching staff had some blame for the on side kick, but it's on the players as well. </P>


I have stated that since the begining</P>


Unfortunately for you, your original post is in writing in the thread "The case against TC" And here is your quote: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field. When your Head Coach and staff are screaming at the players to watch out for the on-side kick who does the blame go on?" Now that NY06 is embarassing!</P>


Isn't that true?</P>


If the coaches are telling the players to watchout for an onside kick then they should be watching out for an onside kick.</P>


The post where I say it was on Coughlin as well is because lawl was stating that the hands team should have been on the field. </P>


And that is somewhat correct, my arguement from the start is that it should not matter who is on the field; the players should have been aware of what was taking place on the field. </P>


You might as well share with the other posters your infatuation with me. </P>


Please post that thread up so everyone can see how I destroyed your arguement, but you won't do that because they all might see how you can't spell serious...</P>


Now that is embarrassing.....</P>


YOUR WORDS: "Who cares if the hands team was not on the field." SORRY, we as Giant Fans cared!</P>


Yeah who cares. </P>


Maybe if the players got there head in the game they would have been aware of the onside kick. </P>


*</P>


I care. If there was no hands team then they didn't expect an on sides kick. Comprende? Yelling from the sidelines not withstanding! LOGIC! If you expect an on sides kick then what do the coaches do??? Send out the hands team. Now you got it! Tell YA.</P>


For the millionth time. </P>


The Coaches told the players to be aware of the onside kick. </P>


Now if a player is told that then why is the player not held accountable?</P>


It was stated that if Tom Coughlin would have put the hands team on the field then Reid would have rejected the onside kick. </P>


Your arguement is the coaching staff is at fault when they did not put the hands team on the field. </P>


My arguement is well when you are told to be aware of an onside kick it should not matter if the hands team is on the field or not. Man up and get the ball. </P>


It is as simple as that. </P>


*</P>

We won't resolve it.

I feel the hands team should have been on the field (TC's call) to either recover the ball OR force a deep kick.

You don't feel that way.


Done?

ny06
01-06-2011, 03:15 PM
I been done with this conversation.

violet1
01-06-2011, 03:16 PM
I been done with this conversation.

Yet you keep responding. Very interesting.

ny06
01-06-2011, 03:19 PM
I been done with this conversation. Yet you keep responding. Very interesting.</P>


This coming from aguy who had to make a thread about it.</P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 03:23 PM
I been done with this conversation. Yet you keep responding. Very interesting.</P>


This coming from a*guy who had to make a thread about it.</P>

I have been thinking about this since the early eighties.

ny06
01-06-2011, 03:26 PM
I been done with this conversation. Yet you keep responding. Very interesting.</P>


This coming from aguy who had to make a thread about it.</P>


I have been thinking about this since the early eighties.</P>


Another crack at my sig.</P>


You are pathetic.</P>


At first I thought you were just an idiot, but now I feel you have some major issues. </P>


</P>

OX1
01-06-2011, 03:28 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick


The ball was titled sideways on the tee, giving away their trick. You'd think an NFL coaching staff and players would have noticed what viewers at home did.
This is true. We from our seats, just knew that was going to be an onsides kick. It was absolutely surreal to watch my biggest fear unfold...then the eagle make the jump up and catch that kick.
</P>


</P>


Is it possible to call atime out while the kicker is in motion, like they do on fieldgoals, for an onside kick? If so, could TChave been ready with a ref by his side and called it ONLY if he saw the OS coming. For that matter, wonder why it is not done more often, creating a safety net against the OS kick (obvisouly not needed to you definately know it's coming). </P>

ny06
01-06-2011, 03:29 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick


The ball was titled sideways on the tee, giving away their trick. You'd think an NFL coaching staff and players would have noticed what viewers at home did.
This is true. We from our seats, just knew that was going to be an onsides kick. It was absolutely surreal to watch my biggest fear unfold...then the eagle make the jump up and catch that kick.
</P>


</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>Is it possible to call atime out while the kicker is in motion, </FONT>like they do on fieldgoals, for an onside kick? If so, could TChave been ready with a ref by his side and called it ONLY if he saw the OS coming. For that matter, wonder why it is not done more often, creating a safety net against the OS kick (obvisouly not needed to you definately know it's coming). </P>


</P>


I don't think so, once the kicker is in motion the play is live. </P>

violet1
01-06-2011, 03:31 PM
I been done with this conversation. Yet you keep responding. Very interesting.</P>


This coming from a*guy who had to make a thread about it.</P>


I have been thinking about this since the early eighties.</P>


Another crack at my sig.</P>


You are pathetic.</P>


At first I thought you were just an idiot, but now I feel you have some major issues. </P>


*</P>

Your opinion really doesn't matter to me. You exposed yourself with your on side kick rationalization and being a knowlegable Giants fan when you were 2 years old (early eighties).

ny06
01-06-2011, 03:35 PM
I been done with this conversation. Yet you keep responding. Very interesting.</P>


This coming from aguy who had to make a thread about it.</P>


I have been thinking about this since the early eighties.</P>


Another crack at my sig.</P>


You are pathetic.</P>


At first I thought you were just an idiot, but now I feel you have some major issues. </P>


</P>


Your opinion really doesn't matter to me. You exposed yourself with your on side kick rationalization and being a knowlegable Giants fan when you were 2 years old (early eighties).</P>


My opinion does not matter to you?</P>


I beg to differ, you have made a thread to try and convince others of your point. And you lost...</P>


You have been on numerous threads where I posted to try and make a wise crack about my age. </P>


You are a definition of a stalker who is obsessed with being proven wrong. </P>


</P>

NYGFaninILL
01-06-2011, 03:42 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...


The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.

It was documented that the coaching staff said "Watch out for the Onside kick" it was just the players being uncoachable

violet1
01-06-2011, 04:35 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...


The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.

It was documented that the coaching staff said "Watch out for the Onside kick" it was just the players being uncoachable

Once again, "watch out for the on side kick" is a joke. He needed the onside HANDS TEAM in the game. What is so hard to understand about that.

It is exactly like saying in a third and 20 situation, "don't let a deep pass be completed" and not having the right personnel in the game.

Knowlegeable Fan since the early eighties.

yoeddy
01-06-2011, 04:43 PM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.

Thank you guys. It really is that simple. I don't get what these people don't understand. It is exactly as simple as what lawl and I stated. There is no magic to it. Expect the on side kick and plan for it no matter what in that case.

The other side of the coin is...put the hands team in, and they kick it deep. The hands team is not set-up to block for the return, and the result is poor field position for the Giants....

violet1
01-06-2011, 04:47 PM
I don't know what you're getting so upset about chaosist, the guy is right. If you expect the onside kick to come then you put the hands team out there, regardless of what you tell your ST captain. It's a matter of playing the percentages, we get that ball we win the game.

Thank you guys. It really is that simple. I don't get what these people don't understand. It is exactly as simple as what lawl and I stated. There is no magic to it. Expect the on side kick and plan for it no matter what in that case.

The other side of the coin is...put the hands team in, and they kick it deep.* The hands team is not set-up to block for the return, and the result is poor field position for the Giants....


Of course you are right. I would much rather be forced into that than turning the ball over.

YATittle1962
01-06-2011, 04:52 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...


The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.

It was documented that the coaching staff said "Watch out for the Onside kick" it was just the players being uncoachable

Once again, "watch out for the on side kick" is a joke. He needed the onside HANDS TEAM in the game. What is so hard to understand about that.

It is exactly like saying in a third and 20 situation, "don't let a deep pass be completed" and not having the right personnel in the game.

Knowlegeable Fan since the early eighties.

Im beginning to think you have no idea what the "Hands Team" is......

you dont put your hands team in when you are up 3 scores early in the 4th quarter........you tell your coverage team to watch for the onside....

hands team equals poor blocking ......they kick deep with barely anyone on our side to block could be disastrous......

I cant believe this discussion is still going on

violet1
01-06-2011, 04:56 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...


The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.

It was documented that the coaching staff said "Watch out for the Onside kick" it was just the players being uncoachable

Once again, "watch out for the on side kick" is a joke. He needed the onside HANDS TEAM in the game. What is so hard to understand about that.

It is exactly like saying in a third and 20 situation, "don't let a deep pass be completed" and not having the right personnel in the game.

Knowlegeable Fan since the early eighties.

Im beginning to think you have no idea what the "Hands Team" is......

you dont put your hands team in when you are up 3 scores early in the 4th quarter........you tell your coverage team to watch for the onside....

hands team equals poor blocking ......they kick deep with barely anyone on our side to block could be disastrous......

I cant believe this discussion is still going on

It was a 2 touchdown game with 7:28 left. But thanks for the input. And you do put the hands team out there. Del Shofner agrees with me.

YATittle1962
01-06-2011, 04:59 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown.* It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it.* As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...


The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error.

It was documented that the coaching staff said "Watch out for the Onside kick" it was just the players being uncoachable

Once again, "watch out for the on side kick" is a joke. He needed the onside HANDS TEAM in the game. What is so hard to understand about that.

It is exactly like saying in a third and 20 situation, "don't let a deep pass be completed" and not having the right personnel in the game.

Knowlegeable Fan since the early eighties.

Im beginning to think you have no idea what the "Hands Team" is......

you dont put your hands team in when you are up 3 scores early in the 4th quarter........you tell your coverage team to watch for the onside....

hands team equals poor blocking ......they kick deep with barely anyone on our side to block could be disastrous......

I cant believe this discussion is still going on

It was a 2 touchdown game with 7:28 left. But thanks for the input. And you do put the hands team out there. Del Shofner agrees with me.

still no reason for a non blocking hands team

bearbryant
01-06-2011, 05:04 PM
y'all funny, man. Look, bottom line; not putting the hands team in the game was tommy boys fault, the players running back to set up blocking early is on the players. If you like mara's decision to keep tc you blame the players, if you think the Giants need a new head coach, you blame tc. I'm with the later!!!

violet1
01-06-2011, 05:16 PM
y'all funny, man. Look, bottom line; not putting the hands team in the game was tommy boys fault, the players running back to set up blocking early is on the players. If you like mara's decision to keep tc you blame the players, if you think the Giants need a new head coach, you blame tc. I'm with the later!!!

Thanks. Can't argue much with that.

ny06
01-06-2011, 09:44 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error. It was documented that the coaching staff said "Watch out for the Onside kick" it was just the players being uncoachable Once again, "watch out for the on side kick" is a joke. He needed the onside HANDS TEAM in the game. What is so hard to understand about that. It is exactly like saying in a third and 20 situation, "don't let a deep pass be completed" and not having the right personnel in the game. Knowlegeable Fan since the early eighties.</P>


You just can't help yourself can you?</P>


I demolished your arguement not in just one thread but two. </P>


So now you resort to pathetic comments to challenge my fanhood.</P>


I hope the mod's keep you around, I am not finished humiliating you...</P>


</P>

Chaosist
01-06-2011, 10:37 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error. It was documented that the coaching staff said "Watch out for the Onside kick" it was just the players being uncoachable Once again, "watch out for the on side kick" is a joke. He needed the onside HANDS TEAM in the game. What is so hard to understand about that. It is exactly like saying in a third and 20 situation, "don't let a deep pass be completed" and not having the right personnel in the game. Knowlegeable Fan since the early eighties.</P>


You just can't help yourself can you?</P>


I demolished your arguement not in just one thread but two. </P>


So now you resort to pathetic comments to challenge my fanhood.</P>


I hope the mod's keep you around, I am not finished humiliating you...</P>


</P>


</P>


Two things...</P>

<LI><FONT color=#ff0000>I bet you wear a jersey on gameday. Whose jersey do you wear?</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT color=#000000>Isn't it against the board rules to create a thread that directly calls out another poster? I'm not sure if it's been this way all day or if viohavenocluelet1 changed it, but the thread title is, "NY06 Hands Team." Seems to be a call out thread to me.</FONT></LI>

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:13 PM
I think the whole "hands team" issue is overblown. It's not like the Eagles lined up for an obvious onside kick, where the whole coverage team is set up to try to recover it. As long as the Giants don't take those steps backwards at the kick, they should have been fine...
The whole issue is about preparation. BEFORE the team lines up. Have the hands team out there and instruct the hands team to play for the ondide kick. That was the only correct call. It wasn't done and the coach must take responsibility for that error. It was documented that the coaching staff said "Watch out for the Onside kick" it was just the players being uncoachable Once again, "watch out for the on side kick" is a joke. He needed the onside HANDS TEAM in the game. What is so hard to understand about that. It is exactly like saying in a third and 20 situation, "don't let a deep pass be completed" and not having the right personnel in the game. Knowlegeable Fan since the early eighties.</P>


You just can't help yourself can you?</P>


I demolished your arguement not in just one thread but two. </P>


So now you resort to pathetic comments to challenge my fanhood.</P>


I hope the mod's keep you around, I am not finished humiliating you...</P>


</P>


</P>


Two things...</P>

<LI><FONT color=#ff0000>I bet you wear a jersey on gameday. Whose jersey do you wear?</FONT>
<LI><FONT color=#000000><FONT color=#0000ff>Isn't it against the board rules to create a thread that directly calls out another poster? I'm not sure if it's been this way all day or if viohavenocluelet1 changed it, but the thread title is, "NY06 Hands Team." Seems to be a call out thread to me</FONT>.</FONT></LI>


</P>


Your right..</P>


Ban this mother ****er</P>

bandwgn86
01-06-2011, 11:19 PM
this thread rocks!

ny06
01-06-2011, 11:24 PM
this thread rocks!</P>


[:D]</P>

bandwgn86
01-06-2011, 11:27 PM
this thread rocks!</P>


[:D]</P>for what its worth i think dilburs right but my moneys on you if there was ever a fight ;)