Giants will have to prove that they weren't a fluke
by ETVal
on Jul 17, 2008 6:00 AM EDT
in News
Lack of respect for the DEFENDING SUPER BOWL CHAMPION New York Giants has seemed like a constant theme this off-season.
We discussed it Wednesday in regards to Eli Manning.
We discussed it way back in March when Yahoo! Sports dissed the Giants in a pre-season ranking.
Now, it seems, we have to discuss it again. This time it's ESPN's John Clayton piling on the Giants. Answering a mailbag question, here is what Clayton had to say.
Their Super Bowl run was unpredictable and special, but it will be hard to repeat. They enter camp projected behind a Cowboys team with 13 Pro Bowl starters, while the Eagles and Redskins are dangerous sleepers.
Face it, it's hard playing in a division that doesn't have a losing team and arguably has four playoff contenders. Whether they make the playoffs as a division-winner or a wild card, the Giants proved the team that survives the NFC East the best can go to the Super Bowl.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Giants don't make the playoffs this year. They took some hits on defense in free agency and lost leadership with Michael Strahan's retirement. The Giants should have traded Jeremy Shockey this offseason. If they had acquired a second- and a fifth-round pick from the Saints, they could have filled in for him by pairing a talented rookie tight end with Kevin Boss. If the Giants don't make the playoffs, a disgruntled Shockey could make life miserable for the Giants' management.
Of course it will be hard to repeat, and we shouldn't expect the Giants to do that. It just seems to me that the Giants are being treated like a fluke, rather than a very good team that played its best football at the perfect time.
You can bet that coach Tom Coughlin has noticed the various put downs, and will use them to help the Giants avoid complacency.
Even with Super Bowl rings on their fingers, it seems Big Blue still has some things to prove.
0 recs |
18
comments
Email
PrintComments
Clayton's comments...
aren’t out of line. Even on this site many have expressed the opinion that we made a mistake by not trading Shockey. I don’t necessarily share that view but it’s certainly a debateable issue. I do think he is wrong about our defense, which should be better than last year even with Strahan’s retirement not because we won’t miss him but rather due to improvements in our secondary.
The Cowboys are probably going to get a lot more consideration as this year’s Super Bowl winner than we are. Of course that’s the way it was last year too…..on paper, that is.
Any of the teams in the NFC East could win it all. We are back as the toughest division in the NFL and I lile it that way.
by giant fan since 57 on Jul 17, 2008 6:40 AM EDT 0 recs
nothing like waking up in the morning
with a hearty bowl of Giants’ hating. yum.
hey, i have a Super Bowl prediction – Cowboys vs. Colts – because the ultimate determining factor for playoff success is the amount of Pro Bowlers on your team.
that’s why the Colts/Cowboys have combined for one SB appearance since 2002 right?
by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Jul 17, 2008 6:57 AM EDT 0 recs
Clayton
I don’t think he’s totally out of line either. While I think we should improve on defense, there still are a lot of holes to fill. Strahan as a leader and a run stopper … I love the young guys, but none of them can stop the run like MS. Gibril as a playmaker. We’re hoping that Phillips takes over as playmaker at safety, but he’ll likely still have a learning curve. When will he get comfortable back there? Can these rookies make an immediate impact like last years group? What about filling in for Kawika Mitchell? Can someone be as consistent (Wilkinson I hope)? We think Reese has figured this out, but we won’t know how these will play out until the season hits.
At any rate, I’m in complete agreement that being a paper champion doesn’t mean jack.
by potroast on Jul 17, 2008 8:17 AM EDT 0 recs
Wilkinson...
I like the way he is always tuned into the play. In his big opportunity last year it should not be forgotten that he made several big plays and was always near the ball.
Am I the only one worried about our middle linebacker? Pierce calls the defense very well, but is lacking in tackling technique, is a bit too small for the position, and takes some rather dumb penalties at the worst time. On a positive note I think he is capable of stepping it up at other critical times via emotion. But I do believe we need to start seriously looking for the next Harry Carson
by giant fan since 57 on Jul 17, 2008 8:33 AM EDT 0 recs
pierce
That’s the first I’ve heard anyone knocking his tackling. His size is a problem. Teams figured out two years you could run right at him. I think last year our secondary looked so inviting most teams forgot about that last year.
by queler on
Jul 17, 2008 11:03 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Agree about Pierce
I would bet Blackburn would be more than adequate. Wish the coaching staff would give him a shot if only in preseason.
We're only gonna score 17 points?
by big blue wrecking crew on
Jul 17, 2008 12:42 PM EDT
up
0 recs
i love blackburn
But are you saying he’s a step up from AP? That seems like a stretch.
by queler on
Jul 17, 2008 12:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Blackburn
is going to have a very difficult time even making this team. He’s a nice player, but he’s not nearly as good as Pierce. And, if Goff is as good as they think their is your middle linebacker of the future, and there goes Blackburn’s roster spot.
by ETVal on
Jul 17, 2008 3:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Nope
I think in the very limited starting time he had a few years ago he was that good. He deserves a shot to sink or swim though.
We're only gonna score 17 points?
by big blue wrecking crew on
Jul 18, 2008 6:33 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Wilksinson
I’m big on Wilkinson too. He was flying all over the field in that last regular season game vs the Pats. My hope is that he takes this position by the reigns this year and becomes more consistent.
by potroast on
Jul 17, 2008 3:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I hope so too.
When he ran step for step in coverage on Randy Moss in that came i think my eyes opened as wide as dinner plates. If this speed could translate to total game speed he could open a lot of peoples eyes. Why hasn’t he been on the feild yet? Hopefully it’s not for shoddy tackling skills. Otherwise the sky’s the limit.
We're only gonna score 17 points?
by big blue wrecking crew on
Jul 18, 2008 6:39 AM EDT
up
0 recs
It seems I'm more optimistic than most.
I’m totally convinced this year’s team will be better than last year’s. That being the case, I believe we’ll have a better record. I won’t predict we’ll win the East, but we should make the playoffs.
by george cronin on Jul 17, 2008 12:00 PM EDT 0 recs
Optimistic
I’m there with you. I think the Giants will end up a better team as well. They simply have more talent than they appeared to have a year ago. The rooks were much better than advertised and now I have faith in Reese to continue good drafts. I’m just saying that I’m not surprised people have doubts. The Giants have shown no regular season consistency and they have some holes to fill from last year. I think they’ll be a better and more consistent team, but there not going to be considered an elite team by the experts until they perform that way on a regular basis.
That being said, I think Clayton must be on crack saying the Giants won’t make the playoffs. That is the one thing that this team HAS been consistent about.
by potroast on
Jul 17, 2008 3:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Curse of the Super Bowl Loser....
If you believe the stats on the performance of the team that loses the Super Bowl, there is a much better chance that the Pats don’t make the playoffs!
The Seahakws have been the only team since 2000 to make the playoffs after losing the SB!
2000 New York Giants – Lost Super Bowl XXXV
2001 New York Giants – 7-9 record, no playoffs
2001 St. Louis Rams – Lost Super Bowl XXXVI
2002 St. Louis Rams – 7-9 record, no playoffs
2002 Oakland Raiders – Lost Super Bowl XXXVII
2003 Oakland Raiders – 4-12 record, no playoffs
2003 Carolina Panthers – Lost Super Bowl XXXVIII
2004 Carolina Panthers – 7-9 record, no playoffs
2004 Philadelphia Eagles – Lost Super Bowl XXXIX
2005 Philadelphia Eagles – 6-10 record, no playoffs
2005 Seattle Seahawks – Lost Super Bowl XL
2006 Seattle Seahawks – 9-7 record (made playoffs, 1st round exit)
2006 Chicago Bears – Lost Super Bowl XLI
2007 Chicago Bears – 7-9 record, no playoffs
2007 New England Patriots – Lost Super Bowl XLII
2008 New England Patriots – ??
http://www.sportaphile.com/2008/02/22/can-the-patriots-break-the-super-bowl-losers-curse/
by Cody K on Jul 17, 2008 6:09 PM EDT 0 recs
Why not the Superbowl again
why not another superbowl for the G-Men? It’s even more unpredictable than last year, which is just the way Coughlin and the Giants like it. Forget ‘em and they’ll remind you in February with their ring.
Besides, sports predictors are usually wrong anyways. They picked Dallas to got to the SB last year and the Redskins the year before. ALso the Chargers were picked two years ago, so don’t believe everything you hear. As far as I’m concerned there are about 7-8 teams with a chance to get to the superbowl this year and the Giants chances are as good as any, if not better seeing as how Eli and the secondary will both be better. Tuck will fill Strahan’s shoes play-wise. Don’t forget about DeOssie and Kuehl at LB, plus more weapons of offense to keep drives along longer and do more scoring. I think the Giants will be even better.
by giantbeliever on Jul 17, 2008 8:17 PM EDT 0 recs
Super Bowl
I believe, as our man George loves to point out, that the best is yet to come for this group of Giants. Does that mean they can repeat? No way I make that prediction, but anything is possible.
by ETVal on
Jul 17, 2008 8:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't expect
them to win it all again this year. I really don’t. I think they’re gonna be good, and I could see them making the playoffs again, but I don’t have my expectations too high, since last years SB run was so improbable.
That said, I DO believe they will win another Super Bowl within the next 3 years. I think Reese really knows what he is doing and is building a really solid, young team, which I don’t think has peaked yet. In a way, I think they almost “stole” a Super Bowl before they were actually ready for it (not complaining about that at all, of course), and I see them turning into one of the league’s dominant teams over the next few years, just not necessarily THIS year. In a funny way, I sorta see them mirroring the Pats, who looked like a fluke when they won the 2001 Super Bowl, then went 7-9 and missed the playoffs the next year, before really turning into a powerhouse and winning 2 in a row.
by cjmulrain on
Jul 18, 2008 7:22 AM EDT
up
0 recs
a very good team that played its best football at the perfect time
But also one that got lucky
Look, I enjoyed the Giants run last year as much as anyone – It was great, but even so, you have to admit that there was more than a little luck in the wins.
There are two things that would get the Giants more respect
1) consistency – remember last year in addition to playing some very good football there were also some times that they looked pretty bad last year. Remember the Minnesota game that they lost 41-17? or how about the Redskin game 22-10? No, they don’t have to have a perfect record, but they will need more consistency than we saw last year
2) At least occasional domination – Last year, they only one 4 games by more than 2 touchdowns. They almost dominated the 1st playoff game against Tampa, but won the others by 4 points, 3 points, and 3 points. In other words, any one of those games could have very easily gone the other way.
Look, the Giants played some really good football through the playoff run – they are a young team, that has the potential to get better, and they played with grit and intensity. They deserved their wins
- But to prove that it wasn’t a fluke, the wins need to be more convincing
by NYERinSF on Jul 19, 2008 1:07 AM EDT 0 recs
New FanPost
