Giants @ Packers Playoff Thread

[Soul_Survivor88]

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the game is much closer if DRC plays but it goes deeper than that, the giants couldnt run and their star player came up small. Special teams was bad too, But I do think its clear that the loss of DRC was critical, The strongest part of that defense is their secondary. Their pass rush relies on their secondary which lost a great player. Wade got abused

It's football. Unless something happens on, basically, the final play of a game, it always "goes deeper than that". That doesn't make the point about DRC any less valid.

Again, every single poster here knows this. We've gone through it, time and time again.

Brady injury 2008
Gronk injury 201 --- Oh, hell, almost every freakin' season, at some point
Talib injury, twice

This is not new. This is not shocking. This is nose of your face obvious.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Oh well. Was hoping for Pats/Giants round 3, but I guess that ship has sailed.

Regards,
Chris

 

[fightingirish595]

It's football. Unless something happens on, basically, the final play of a game, it always "goes deeper than that". That doesn't make the point about DRC any less valid.

Again, every single poster here knows this. We've gone through it, time and time again.

Brady injury 2008
Gronk injury 201 --- Oh, hell, almost every freakin' season, at some point
Talib injury, twice

This is not new. This is not shocking. This is nose of your face obvious.

I think we pretty much agree that the loss of him was obviously a problem. What I'm saying is that their backup wasn't good enough, and that they weren't good enough in other areas to mask the deficiencies of the backup. The cowboys lost a starting quarterback who is really good. They have a great offensive line and a great running back which largely makes up for that. other players have to step up

 

[Deus Irae]

I think we pretty much agree that the loss of him was obviously a problem. What I'm saying is that their backup wasn't good enough, and that they weren't good enough in other areas to mask the deficiencies of the backup.

And I'm saying that's a cop out. Every team is limited. This isn't college football. As I, and others have noted, the Patriots have lost players and seen it devastate their hopes, as well.

The notion that losing a game because you lost a player means you're not a great team, or a good team, or whatever level you wish to argue, is asinine.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I think the debate is when a key defensive player goes down during a game, how big of a ripple effect it has over the entire defense. Game plan, matchups, packages, coverages, dime, zone, blitz CB3 is now CB2, CB4 is now CB3, etc.

When DRC went down, while it took a bit, the Giants pass D developed fissures it could not overcome.

Just like Talib

Your comparison doesn't get to live in a clean vacuum in order to say 'if not for losing player X we and them would have won instead of getting throttled'.
The Giants were arguably facing one of the softest defense remaining - they may not have faced a softer the rest of the way. They mustered 13 against this statistically established mediocre D. BTW, that isn't that far off of their recent norm. Last 6 games point totals for Giants: 13, 13, 19, 6, 10, 14. (they did underperform their previous Oct meeting with GB, they mustered 16 in that game).

The 2014 Patriots were playing in their historically most difficult place to play against the #1 seed (Giants were playing the #4 seed). The Patriots were not only hampered by injuries (I believe they had lost Wilfork, Spikes, Mayo, I believe Kelly among others) and they were hampered by lack of personnel (don't make me have to pull out the 2013 pre-playoff Giant protagonists posts about our late season 2o13 situation). Weren't we relying on Collie at WR? I think even Dobson was being relied on. The Patriots losing that game, Talib not withstanding, was not a shock to anyone. We were clearly flawed going into that game.

So why is the comparison now limited to DRC and Talib only? Why isn't how flawed we were compared to how flawed the Giants were? We all know how flawed the 2013 AFCCG Patriots were, why isn't there also a comparison on the house of cards 2013 Patriots and 2016 Giants??? Two teams that were so good yet apparently one defensive player away from getting walloped and embarrassed. Well except the Patriots opponent was better than GB and the Patriots made it a semi-respectable 10 point margin.

2016 Giants' Historical headline Options:
(1) A good but flawed team that some newspapers, and a few Internet posters, considered a potent threat for the SB. The team's single potent component was able to carry them into the playoffs but they lost 38 to 13 in the wild card game to the fourth seed Packers.
OR
(2) A potent team primed to win the SB. However, the loss of their #1 CB at the end of the first quarter of the wild card game took victory from the palm of their hands resulting in being trampled under foot.

 

[fightingirish595]

And I'm saying that's a cop out. Every team is limited. This isn't college football. As I, and others have noted, the Patriots have lost players and seen it devastate their hopes, as well.

The notion that losing a game because you lost a player means you're not a great team, or a good team, or whatever level you wish to argue, is asinine.

Okay but the Giants today and the Patriots in the pats have lost players, which we both agree devastated their hopes. They weren't good enough. That doesn't mean they weren't good. They just weren't good enough that day. Giants weren't good enough today

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I think we pretty much agree that the loss of him was obviously a problem. What I'm saying is that their backup wasn't good enough, and that they weren't good enough in other areas to mask the deficiencies of the backup. The cowboys lost a starting quarterback who is really good. They have a great offensive line and a great running back which largely makes up for that. other players have to step up

Agreed. Obviously when you lose an important player it will have an effect. But it also paints the larger picture that the Giants were a flawed team to begin with -- and they were flawed, clearly so.
The Giant track record was there to plainly show they were flawed (they hadn't scored over 19 points in 6 weeks). They were unworthy of the recent stupid "rope-a-dope" headlines and unworthy of the fear of them playing the most well balanced 2016 team, the Patriots. The Giants not winning and instead getting throttled (the most lopsided loss of the whole WC weekend) being dismissed as simply losing a defensive player borders on silly simplicity.

 

[fightingirish595]

Agreed. Obviously when you lose an important player it will have an effect. But it also paints the larger picture that the Giants were a flawed team to begin with -- and they were flawed, clearly so.
The Giant track record was there to plainly show they were flawed (they hadn't scored over 19 points in 6 weeks). They were unworthy of the recent stupid "rope-a-dope" headlines and unworthy of the fear of them playing the most well balanced 2016 team, the Patriots. The Giants not winning and instead getting throttled (the most lopsided loss of the whole WC weekend) being dismissed as simply losing a defensive player borders on silly simplicity.

There were plays in the second half where the coverage was good but they just couldn't get to Rodgers. Their pass rush was just okay this year. Not bad but not great either

 

[deroc5050]

Rogers literally had 5-7 seconds to make plays consistently. What was impressive about Rogers today was how he was faking out the interior linemen consistently.. he would fake like he was going to run, making the linemen back off and then have to start pass rushing again buying him a few extra seconds. And he did it all game long. His pocket presence was great.

However the Giants really blew there chances.. dropping multiple touch downs and giving up the hail mary at the end of the half was poor. After completely dominating the Packers for the 1st half they were down 14-6. It was a very strange game over all.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Your comparison doesn't get to live in a clean vacuum in order to say 'if not for losing player X we and them would have won instead of getting throttled'.
The Giants were arguably facing one of the softest defense remaining - they may not have faced a softer the rest of the way. They mustered 13 against this statistically established mediocre D. BTW, that isn't that far off of their recent norm. Last 6 games point totals for Giants: 13, 13, 19, 6, 10, 14. (they did underperform their previous Oct meeting with GB, they mustered 16 in that game).

The 2014 Patriots were playing in their historically most difficult place to play against the #1 seed (Giants were playing the #4 seed). The Patriots were not only hampered by injuries (I believe they had lost Wilfork, Spikes, Mayo, I believe Kelly among others) and they were hampered by lack of personnel (don't make me have to pull out the 2013 pre-playoff Giant protagonists posts about our late season 2o13 situation). Weren't we relying on Collie at WR? I think even Dobson was being relied on. The Patriots losing that game, Talib not withstanding, was not a shock to anyone. We were clearly flawed going into that game.

So why is the comparison now limited to DRC and Talib only? Why isn't how flawed we were compared to how flawed the Giants were? We all know how flawed the 2013 AFCCG Patriots were, why isn't there also a comparison on the house of cards 2013 Patriots and 2016 Giants??? Two teams that were so good yet apparently one defensive player away from getting walloped and embarrassed. Well except the Patriots opponent was better than GB and the Patriots made it a semi-respectable 10 point margin.

2016 Giants' Historical headline Options:
(1) A good but flawed team that some newspapers, and a few Internet posters, considered a potent threat for the SB. The team's single potent component was able to carry them into the playoffs but they lost 38 to 13 in the wild card game to the fourth seed Packers.
OR
(2) A potent team primed to win the SB. However, the loss of their #1 CB at the end of the first quarter of the wild card game took victory from the palm of their hands resulting in being trampled under foot.

You are arguing that the lack of complimentary football was a contributing factor to the loss and I would somewhat agree.

Also I don't think this GMen team was very tough and their offense sucked

 

[RobertWeathers]

At the end of the day, Injuries can catch up to you, but when one guy goes down and the D collapeses, how good can it really be. The pass rush wasnt there in the second half. There pass rush was underrated this year, but it wasnt that good either. The Broncos last year would have been equipped to lose a talib or harris, this giants team and the Patriots of 2012 and 2013 wasnt equipped to lose a great corner

Giants were not a mentally tough team.

They make it 14-13 and their D caves like a cardboard box in a rainstorm