New York Giants

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
Up until 8.5 games through the 1st half they were arguably the best team in the NFC. They were playing the bears, and winning. If they won that game they would have been the best team in teh NFC. We lost 3 D-linemen. #1 wideout, o-line, d-back, and a bunch of LBs. So he was watching the right team.

Of course, we're not the same team we were week 1 of last year by any means.

[/ QUOTE ]

one of those wins was a ridiculous fluke and a lot of them were played against garbage teams.

tiki barber is a huge loss. eli manning will have a completion percentage above 60% when jeremy shockey spends a season off the injury report (i.e. never).

the defense is okay but not particularly good at anything. the offense is okay but not particularly good at anything. it's a perfect recipe for 8-8 - but throw in some tom coughlin retarded playcall/punt/FG specials and we'll call it 7-9.

[Jack of Arcades]

Jacobs will be fine. He'll run for about 4 ypc with a lot of FD and TD

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been a Giants fan for 13 years and never have they committed to a project like this except by sheer accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't? When are you thinking of - when Fassel got here or when Fassel left? Either way, they still continued to bring in high priced veterans. I suppose in 97 or 98 they were the youngest team in the NFL, but again, that was sheer accident IMO - those players on the final Reeves team were so bad and old.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that they have been around a lot longer than the Jim Fassel era, correct? Are you aware that it was pretty much an overhaul that led to the Taylor/Simms era? I think that worked out pretty well for them. Since that time they have not *had* to completely rebuild. Meanwhile the folks running the team are from the same lineage as those who oversaw the rebuilding in the late 70s/early 80s ... George Young --> Ernie Accorsi --> Jerry Reese, and Wellington Mara --> John Mara. If it had to be torn down, they would do it. It doesn't have to be torn down ... yet.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been a Giants fan for 13 years and never have they committed to a project like this except by sheer accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't? When are you thinking of - when Fassel got here or when Fassel left? Either way, they still continued to bring in high priced veterans. I suppose in 97 or 98 they were the youngest team in the NFL, but again, that was sheer accident IMO - those players on the final Reeves team were so bad and old.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that they have been around a lot longer than the Jim Fassel era, correct? Are you aware that it was pretty much an overhaul that led to the Taylor/Simms era? I think that worked out pretty well for them. Since that time they have not *had* to completely rebuild. Meanwhile the folks running the team are from the same lineage as those who oversaw the rebuilding in the late 70s/early 80s ... George Young --> Ernie Accorsi --> Jerry Reese, and Wellington Mara --> John Mara. If it had to be torn down, they would do it. It doesn't have to be torn down ... yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I say something like "I've been a Giants fan for 13 years and they've never done this." without that meaning that they've never done it since I've been a fan of the team? It should be painfully obvious I was talking about the time between 1993 and now - otherwise I would say 'The Giants have never done this, ever, ever'.

And as far as I'm concerned, that lineage has produced the current Giants team, which will be 8-8 until the end of time. They draft reasonably well but make colossal first round errors - they sign free agents okay, but in between the good signings are clear blunders. They hire okay coaches but no one great. It's just business as usual with the Giants.

[VarlosZ]

Brandon Jacobs will surprise a lot of people this year. I want to go on record as saying that he will have a very good but regrettably short career. He's so fast for his size that every collision he's in releases a ton of kinetic energy. Sooner or later something will get knocked loose.

As for the Giants as a whole, I think they're a very average team almost from top to bottom. The QB is average, the WRs are a bit below average, the RB and O-line have the potential to be very good so long as LT isn't a disaster (which is may well be), the Front 7 is average, the secondary is a bit below average, special teams are ok, depth is average at best. That's a seven to nine win team if I ever saw one.

[niss]

Parcells wasn't a great coach?

[VarlosZ]

niss, did you read the first paragraph of his post or not? He's talking about the last 13 years; Parcells was hired 24 years ago.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
niss, did you read the first paragraph of his post or not? He's talking about the last 13 years; Parcells was hired 24 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you? He said the "lineage" hires average coaches blah blah blah. The "lineage" refers to Young/Accorsi/Reese.

This whole debate is stupid anyway and detracts from his completely incorrect commentary that the Giants only plug holes. There's no way to say that because they haven't had any need in the last 13 or whatever years to "blow it up". They actually have done a somewhat decent job of trying to get younger without having to blow the whole thing up, like Dallas did for example. Unfortunately their move on Eli Manning has been just short of a disaster, but he's still plenty young. If Manning fulfills his expectations, people complaining that the Giants did not "blow it up" will become silent real quick.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
niss, did you read the first paragraph of his post or not? He's talking about the last 13 years; Parcells was hired 24 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you? He said the "lineage" hires average coaches blah blah blah. The "lineage" refers to Young/Accorsi/Reese.

This whole debate is stupid anyway and detracts from his completely incorrect commentary that the Giants only plug holes. There's no way to say that because they haven't had any need in the last 13 or whatever years to "blow it up". They actually have done a somewhat decent job of trying to get younger without having to blow the whole thing up, like Dallas did for example. Unfortunately their move on Eli Manning has been just short of a disaster, but he's still plenty young. If Manning fulfills his expectations, people complaining that the Giants did not "blow it up" will become silent real quick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly think I was talking about things George Young did in the early 80s? Why would I care about that? Why would anyone? His choices of Ray Handley and Dan Reeves were stupendous - Reeves was an awful playcaller who was stuck in the 1970s. Jim Fassel was okay - but letting both Fox and Payton get away in favor of eventually hiring Tom Coughlin wasn't very good. The team has been horribly undisciplined for years - and mostly because of the players Accorsi kept bringing in. I suspect Reese is an excellent scout but we'll have to see if he's got what it takes to construct a team.

Manning won't fulfill expectations. He is an average QB. He's not about to get much better. It's moves like this that severely restrict the Giants' ability to become significantly better.

[brettbrettr]

Umm, how the [censored] are the WRs below average? Plaxico, Amani, Shockey--yes, I know he's a TE--are all well above average. People who don't watch Toomer play think he's average. He's not. He's good. BUrress is an ass but has a ton of talent is def not average.

I also think Steve Smith was a great pick and expect maybe something out of Lil Santana.

I think the Giants suck. I just don't think their WR do.