The Record Is Secondary

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, OK, sure. If the Giants had been 8--8 last year, that wouldn't have gotten them into the NFC Playoffs (but it could have done so in the AFC) and so it's "obvious" even to someone as dumb as me that they wouldn't have been in a position to win the Super Bowl...though I can't for the life of me figure out why you observe that in response to my post.

And thanks for pointing out that "playing well" is kind of pointless unless you're winning. I'll be sure to write that down somewhere and keep it in mind the next time I mistakenly think that it's just yippee, boy-howdy, dadgum great to play really well and lose.

And yes, it's a matter of record that the Giants started 6--2 and ended 3--5, which latter was actually a 1--5 "streak" followed by a 2--0 finish. Thanks for pointing that out too, but I live in New York City and follow the Giants' season pretty closely. They're 4--2 now and I expect Eli to lost interest and kick into his mid-season slumber any day now.

The Giants were, however, 7--2 in December and January, not 3--2 as you stipulate, winning their last six in a row. So, I have no idea what you're saying there.

How "moral victories" got into this, I'll never know and it kind of makes me realize that, in fact, I actually have no idea what the objective of your entire response is, other than to rack up post 31,100 and something or the other. Congrats on that...I guess.

My point was and remains simple.

Winning enough games to make the playoffs and playing your best football in January and February is a reasonable and internally logical aspiration for a team that wants to have a shot at winning the Super Bowl.

Sure, it would be better to go into the playoffs 13--3, finishing the season 8--0 after a loss to, well, the Giants, as did the Pats last year or, better yet, 15--1, as did the Packers...but it's whether you're peaking once you get there that is more important.

A post count shot? Seriously?

You jumped in to something between me and another poster with the ridiculous claim that I was taking a cheap shot. I explained myself, and now you're doubling down on the snark, so now trying to defend yourself with "my point" is a bit of a joke, particularly when you start it with

Winning enough games to make the playoffs

which is a clear acknowledgment of the painfully obvious reality that the record is what matters. The Saints found a way to win the Super Bowl in 2009 despite losing the last 3 games of the regular season. They would not have found a way to win the Super Bowl if their record had prevented them from getting into the playoffs.

Losing games early can cost you the playoffs late. It's a simple thing. And the "moral victories" comment is blatantly obvious in context. Now, rather than deal with yet another person who got his panties in a twist over something obvious and non-controversial, I'll just bid you a good night.

 

[jah]

I'm sick of hearing that this D is built to stop the big play. It gives up nothing BUT big plays. Seriously, last week, from play to play, the defense either looked dominant or high-school.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'm sick of hearing that this D is built to stop the big play. It gives up nothing BUT big plays. Seriously, last week, from play to play, the defense either looked dominant or high-school.

who the hell said that?

 

[ausbacker]

I'm sick of hearing that this D is built to stop the big play. It gives up nothing BUT big plays. Seriously, last week, from play to play, the defense either looked dominant or high-school.

The D appears to be built to stop the run and Chandler Jones is our only real pass rushing beast. I'm hanging my hat on that.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, when you disagree, you're directly calling it irrelevant.

That is not even close to true. Your argument amounts to me saying looks are more important than personality, and you saying personality is relevant and me saying yes but looks are more important.
That is in now way saying anything is irrelevant.
But go ahead and find where I said it was irrelevant, because I started out the thread qualifying my comments by the importance of the record.

That's what you are doing. Now, in the interest of avoiding a pissing contest, I'll just drop it from here. I'm sure you'll respond to it though so feel free to get the last work on the matter.

Mighty nice of you to allow me to have the last word about MY thoughts that you are trying to claim you have a better understanding of than me.

What error would that be? Would that be the "error" of stating that, while improvement is important, the record is important too? Are you really ready to disagree with that stance?

Your error in understanding the point.

 

[Ring 6]

Aside from you making excuses, I am pointing that the Pats are heading down the same road if Dennard and Dowling dont step it up. A swiss cheese secondary that cannot hold the lead.

I haven't made a single excuse.
If the same road is getting to the SB and winning if Wes Welker holds onto that pass, I will take it 10 times out of 10. That is where your argument stinks.

Its amazing that anyone could spin the Pats secondary as being good, but with your experience here, Id put money on you to give it a go.

Where have I said that, or anything close to that?

Other NFL DCs and coaches dont buy your nonsense.

What is that based on? How do DCs and coaches disagree that McCourty was barely thrown at all game (its a fact) or that he has played well? Please explain where you get this bizarre thought from. Did you take a poll?

The Jets are very familiar with Mr McCourty. Look for them to test him early and often. Like I said, if Arrington is benched, McCourty moves into to target # 1. Im not really concerned about Dennard and hope the Jets go after him.

This is a meaningless comment. It is nothing more than your own ill-informed belief, backed up by nothing.

False

Hardly

Your argument sucks. See photo below for enlightenment.

What does a photo against the Eagles have to do with this?
26 isn't even close to the play. There was no need to throw it anywhere but where Welker was wide open, and he was WIDE open, Thanks, you did prove that.

Youre ignorant to the facts and dont know what youre talking about.

Bottom left frame, Phillips # 26 prevented Brady from throwing the ball inside.

26 is barely in the frame (isnt in the bottom left at all, nor is Welker) and is OUTSIDE of Welker. Total FAIL by you.

Youre just being a fool.

I should just shut up and let you post, you are winning my argument for me.

A bad secondary in the regular season was a bad secondary in the Super Bowl.

And??????
The yards allowed during the regular season, which was the point, were allowed mostly in situations where the defense was protecting a large lead. That play has little to do with what could, would or should happen in other situations.
While allowing those yards, the team went 13-3, went to the SB and were 1 play from winning it. I can't believe you aren't smart enough to follow this.

 

[Ring 6]

The OC went empty backfield on the interception inside the ten which was 3rd and 1 from the 6, the 3rd and 7 late in the game with the lead and on the 3rd and goal to end the half which led to the intentional grounding.

And he has done that many times, and it has worked.
You can take any play that failed and blame it on the call, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism.

The 3rd and 1 which led to a pick is inexcusable. Personally I think you run it and go for it on 4th.

With all due respect, Jodh McDaniel and Bill Belichick have had a tremendous amount of success with their philosophy, so you disagreeing with one decision that didn't work out doesn't convince me it was stupid.

But even if you're going to pass why not play action? Why not make them honor the run and hit one of the TEs? You don't need to score you just need the first down.

There are many reasons for paly calls. Play action slows down the pass play. Against a penetrating D tryng to stop a 3rd and 1, it greatly increases the chance of a sack.
Why go empty? Because it gives you 5 receivers who can immediately be open.
There are postives and negatives to every formation and play call.

The 3rd down late in the game they had already gashed Seattle with a draw. Why not at least put that in their mind? Fake a draw and hold the linebackers? Going empty made no sense.

See above.

The end of the half they really screwed up the time out situation and draw would have been perfect with one but again I thought faking the draw would have been a great call but granted it's debatable with 6 seconds I'll admit.

Definitely F-ed up the clock. Faking a draw with 6 seconds makes the play take longer, and increases the chance of a sack.

I am so sick of empty backfield in situations like this and it's not revisionist history. I was rolling my eyes at the TV when it went down.

This team has had remarkable success with an empty backfield. I get that you don't like it, but that doesn't mean you are right. In fact, you are probably unintentionally biased against it because you don't like the idea to begin with. I see the logic in it, and the results. I can't understand how something not working once, or a few times in a football game adds up to proof it is bad,because anything you do will fail often.

 

[everlong]

And he has done that many times, and it has worked.
You can take any play that failed and blame it on the call, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism.

That also doesn't mean it's a smart practice.

With all due respect, Jodh McDaniel and Bill Belichick have had a tremendous amount of success with their philosophy, so you disagreeing with one decision that didn't work out doesn't convince me it was stupid.

There's lot of instances where they've failed on the goal line with this exact type of play calling. Would those drives have failed using play action? Sure. I still disagree with it and think they would do better putting a seed of doubt in the defenses mind. Not everything Bill and Josh do are gold.

This team has had remarkable success with an empty backfield. I get that you don't like it, but that doesn't mean you are right. In fact, you are probably unintentionally biased against it because you don't like the idea to begin with. I see the logic in it, and the results. I can't understand how something not working once, or a few times in a football game adds up to proof it is bad,because anything you do will fail often.

It's not that I hate the empty back feld. I hate it in certain situations. On the goal line and in clock killing situations I would far prefer play action because the defense has no choice but to take you seriously. It puts doubt in their mind and sets you up for success.

I do agree it's all just our opinions but that's what a message board is about voice your opinion.