News: Scouting The Schedule: Giants Added Key Pieces In Free Agency & The Draft

[ShiningStar]

As compared to 13-3? Great "math" there...



When you can't handle simple math, I don't need to "try". You keep slobbering all over 11-5, I'll take 13-3.



They were among the very worst in the league in offensive points at 310, worst in the division by far, and 110 points off of Dallas' pace. That's not "compensating", that's being carried by your defense.




No, they didn't. They upgraded positions that were already strong while failing to address their biggest needs.



No, but you'll try to praise them for it?

a win is a win is a win, correct? they dont ask you "how you won" they ask you "if you won". No the records dont go by what you did to win, they go by the win. So if they compensate with a better defense, as i pointed out they had , than who cares. 11-5 and a 13-3 record with the same results in the playoffs, its the same thing, maybe a tad less embarrasing because Dallas had HFA and blew it.

That being said, if the Giants do it again, than their "needs" were not that much of a factor. They lacked in offense with 1 stellar piece, but a superior defense. We had a more complete offense with a band aid defense, both teams netted the same results. So whether they upgraded their "needs" which is only a talking piece at best, is not our concern or up to us to grade because they can compensate for it. We might have compensated for a band aid defense, but we got as far as we could as well. Same result. Again, even if we think we upgraded and it doesnt pan out, did we than really upgrade our "needs" No, so its all talk until we see the end results. We might even not do well this season but plan for next season, which is what i hope they do. So even if a media head says "well it didnt seem Dallas took care of their needs in the draft since they went 6-10. I would call that BS because Dallas put the pieces in and gave them a year to learn, but the media doesnt account for that.

Heck we might even have a good year, lose Rod and the next guy might need another season to implement his system, does that mean Dallas didnt fill their needs? No, just means another factor got accounted for. Im not really concerned if the Giants did or did not fill their so called "needs" because their coaches can compensate for them.

They had a solid offseason, whether you agree with that or not doesnt really matter. Garrett and the Cowboys had one of Garretts best off season, but that may not result in a winning season. The mere fact Dallas came up with a plan to fix things, stuck by it, I think that was one of the better things the FO has done in a long time. If the Giants add a piece here or there and still go 11-5, they did well too, and their off season was still solid.

The league goes by wins, not opinions or asteriks. Everything else is just chatter.

 

[Idgit]

a win is a win is a win, correct? they dont ask you "how you won" they ask you "if you won". No the records dont go by what you did to win, they go by the win. So if they compensate with a better defense, as i pointed out they had , than who cares. 11-5 and a 13-3 record with the same results in the playoffs, its the same thing, maybe a tad less embarrasing because Dallas had HFA and blew it.....The league goes by wins, not opinions or asteriks. Everything else is just chatter.

"A win is a win is a win. The Cowboys had more wins, which amounts to the same thing as a team with fewer wins, only maybe a bit more embarrassing because they had home field advantage." I think that's airtight reasoning right there.

Not every team that loses in the same round of the playoffs is of similar ability. That ought to be pretty obvious to anybody who watches football for at least one playoff season.

And, while I like some of what the Giants did this offseason, it's tough to get high marks after overcommitting to JPP and neglecting the easiest opportunity to address a legitimate weakness in their offensive line. Yes, it's possible that they improved despite basically neglecting the easiest opportunity to upgrade, but they almost certainly passed up on an opportunity to improve more than they did.

I have a hard time slagging on them too hard, though, because I thought what they did last offseason was ridiculously mortgaging their future, and it ended up looking like they hit big on Snacks and Jenkins, and the Vernon overpayment still netted them a good player. Unfortunately, they've got a fairly well-run organization there, and they're pretty aggressive.

I still like what the Commanders did better, though.

 

[ShiningStar]

"A win is a win is a win. The Cowboys had more wins, which amounts to the same thing as a team with fewer wins, only maybe a bit more embarrassing because they had home field advantage." I think that's airtight reasoning right there.

Not every team that loses in the same round of the playoffs is of similar ability. That ought to be pretty obvious to anybody who watches football for at least one playoff season.

And, while I like some of what the Giants did this offseason, it's tough to get high marks after overcommitting to JPP and neglecting the easiest opportunity to address a legitimate weakness in their offensive line. Yes, it's possible that they improved despite basically neglecting the easiest opportunity to upgrade, but they almost certainly passed up on an opportunity to improve more than they did.

I have a hard time slagging on them too hard, though, because I thought what they did last offseason was ridiculously mortgaging their future, and it ended up looking like they hit big on Snacks and Jenkins, and the Vernon overpayment still netted them a good player. Unfortunately, they've got a fairly well-run organization there, and they're pretty aggressive.

I still like what the Commanders did better, though.

im not denying any of that, they had a solid offseason. Nothing more nothing less. If they net around 10 wins agian, than their "needs" are not that important. They have won the SB before with less.

Im definding my words, so i wasnt asked about the Commanders on this thread. Stash took my words and i was defending that. The Giants had a solid off season and i backed up why i said that.

And yes, if you are 13-3 and 1 and done , to the league, thats the same thing. They dont go by which team is which and why. At the end of the seaosn you get a record, how, what why doesnt matter, A win is a win is a win because they DONT give them back. They dont ask you how, or evaulute, they ask "who won" Doesnt matter what any thinks or why. 5 wins is 5 wins whether you have the best QB or not.

They dont rank it any other way in the leagues eye. Here is your record, thats what you are. 9-7 ad winning the super bowl is a better team than 16-0 and 1 and done. Its just how it is. Stats dont matter, what we think doesnt matter, who has what doesnt matter, at the end of the day "who won"

 

[Idgit]

im not denying any of that, they had a solid offseason. Nothing more nothing less. If they net around 10 wins agian, than their "needs" are not that important. They have won the SB before with less.

Im definding my words, so i wasnt asked about the Commanders on this thread. Stash took my words and i was defending that. The Giants had a solid off season and i backed up why i said that.

And yes, if you are 13-3 and 1 and done , to the league, thats the same thing. They dont go by which team is which and why. At the end of the seaosn you get a record, how, what why doesnt matter, A win is a win is a win because they DONT give them back. They dont ask you how, or evaulute, they ask "who won" Doesnt matter what any thinks or why. 5 wins is 5 wins whether you have the best QB or not.

They dont rank it any other way in the leagues eye. Here is your record, thats what you are. 9-7 ad winning the super bowl is a better team than 16-0 and 1 and done. Its just how it is. Stats dont matter, what we think doesnt matter, who has what doesnt matter, at the end of the day "who won"

I threw in the Skins bit just because I think they had a really good offseason, it was just a bonus.

Disagree for obvious reasons about the playoff round you lose in being an equalizer for how good a team is. There are tons of examples of very good teams getting very tough draws in a playoff bracket and not surviving.

In this case, both teams even got eliminated by the same team. It's tough to compare the shelacquing the Giants took at the hands of Green Bay and compare it to our game a week later.

They were and are a matchup problem for us, though. Dak needs to find a way to overcome them the way Tony eventually did. Gonna be a couple of great games this season. The whole NFCE, really, is going to be awesome to watch.

 

[Stash]

a win is a win is a win, correct? they dont ask you "how you won" they ask you "if you won". No the records dont go by what you did to win, they go by the win. So if they compensate with a better defense, as i pointed out they had , than who cares. 11-5 and a 13-3 record with the same results in the playoffs, its the same thing, maybe a tad less embarrasing because Dallas had HFA and blew it.

That being said, if the Giants do it again, than their "needs" were not that much of a factor. They lacked in offense with 1 stellar piece, but a superior defense. We had a more complete offense with a band aid defense, both teams netted the same results. So whether they upgraded their "needs" which is only a talking piece at best, is not our concern or up to us to grade because they can compensate for it. We might have compensated for a band aid defense, but we got as far as we could as well. Same result. Again, even if we think we upgraded and it doesnt pan out, did we than really upgrade our "needs" No, so its all talk until we see the end results. We might even not do well this season but plan for next season, which is what i hope they do. So even if a media head says "well it didnt seem Dallas took care of their needs in the draft since they went 6-10. I would call that BS because Dallas put the pieces in and gave them a year to learn, but the media doesnt account for that.

Heck we might even have a good year, lose Rod and the next guy might need another season to implement his system, does that mean Dallas didnt fill their needs? No, just means another factor got accounted for. Im not really concerned if the Giants did or did not fill their so called "needs" because their coaches can compensate for them.

They had a solid offseason, whether you agree with that or not doesnt really matter. Garrett and the Cowboys had one of Garretts best off season, but that may not result in a winning season. The mere fact Dallas came up with a plan to fix things, stuck by it, I think that was one of the better things the FO has done in a long time. If the Giants add a piece here or there and still go 11-5, they did well too, and their off season was still solid.

The league goes by wins, not opinions or asteriks. Everything else is just chatter.

You're doing an epically bad job of trying to support your argument, tragically bad.

"Chatter" is trying to claim the Giants had a "solid offseason" whilemdoing nothing to back it up.

That's "chatter".

And if "a win is a win", 13 is better than 11. Math.

 

[Stash]

im not denying any of that, they had a solid offseason. Nothing more nothing less. If they net around 10 wins agian, than their "needs" are not that important. They have won the SB before with less.

Im definding my words, so i wasnt asked about the Commanders on this thread. Stash took my words and i was defending that. The Giants had a solid off season and i backed up why i said that.

And yes, if you are 13-3 and 1 and done , to the league, thats the same thing. They dont go by which team is which and why. At the end of the seaosn you get a record, how, what why doesnt matter, A win is a win is a win because they DONT give them back. They dont ask you how, or evaulute, they ask "who won" Doesnt matter what any thinks or why. 5 wins is 5 wins whether you have the best QB or not.

They dont rank it any other way in the leagues eye. Here is your record, thats what you are. 9-7 ad winning the super bowl is a better team than 16-0 and 1 and done. Its just how it is. Stats dont matter, what we think doesnt matter, who has what doesnt matter, at the end of the day "who won"

You haven't "backed up" anything.

You claimed they had "a solid offseason" and then started on about their 2016 record as somehow a reason why. Didn't make sense then, doesn't now.

 

[ShiningStar]

You haven't "backed up" anything.

You claimed they had "a solid offseason" and then started on about their 2016 record as somehow a reason why. Didn't make sense then, doesn't now.

oh noes.

 

[ShiningStar]

I threw in the Skins bit just because I think they had a really good offseason, it was just a bonus.

Disagree for obvious reasons about the playoff round you lose in being an equalizer for how good a team is. There are tons of examples of very good teams getting very tough draws in a playoff bracket and not surviving.

In this case, both teams even got eliminated by the same team. It's tough to compare the shelacquing the Giants took at the hands of Green Bay and compare it to our game a week later.

They were and are a matchup problem for us, though. Dak needs to find a way to overcome them the way Tony eventually did. Gonna be a couple of great games this season. The whole NFCE, really, is going to be awesome to watch.

exactly right, the skins defense under Hazlet alwys had Tonys number, did that make the skins better as a team, by talking no, but in the leagues eye yes it did. Which ever team won, is the better team that day. In the Leagues Eye, the wins matter more. dont care if you are 10-6 , 10-6 and 2 play off wins, if the 9-7 team gets in and wins the Sb, theres your champs.

the rest i agree with you, no arguing that.

 

[Stash]

oh noes.

Just "chatter".

 

[ShiningStar]

Just "chatter".

now you are learning.

 

[Stash]

now you are learning.

Actually, I noticed it right away.

You make a claim, fail to support it.

And then talk about better arguments being "chatter".

 

[ShiningStar]

Actually, I noticed it right away.

You make a claim, fail to support it.

And then talk about better arguments being "chatter".

The league goes by wins, not opinions or asteriks. Everything else is just chatter.

The media and their anaylze is all chatter. Or if people are saying "the Giants are the better team because such and such." Well if they lose, its just chatter because said person was wrong. The league has an eye that it goes by, its real simple. Who wins, is all thats asked. It doesnt care about opinions, who has the better what, who does this better, it doesnt matter. Who wins, all it goes by. Doesnt even care if you cheat. You won, you get the win. at the end of the year, there is a record, thats all you are. Everything else is chatter to the league. It doesnt care what Skip says, SAS, espn or fox news sports. Those people are paid to say words, they are not prophet, they are not truth. They are chatter to the league. 11-5 great, thats all you are, no SB win, you are 11-5, Needs dont matter, they dont matter in losses, they dont matter in wins. If you compensate and win, bam, thats all that matters. "did you win?"

 

[Stash]

The media and their anaylze is all chatter. Or if people are saying "the Giants are the better team because such and such." Well if they lose, its just chatter because said person was wrong. The league has an eye that it goes by, its real simple. Who wins, is all thats asked. It doesnt care about opinions, who has the better what, who does this better, it doesnt matter. Who wins, all it goes by. Doesnt even care if you cheat. You won, you get the win. at the end of the year, there is a record, thats all you are. Everything else is chatter to the league. It doesnt care what Skip says, SAS, espn or fox news sports. Those people are paid to say words, they are not prophet, they are not truth. They are chatter to the league. 11-5 great, thats all you are, no SB win, you are 11-5, Needs dont matter, they dont matter in losses, they dont matter in wins. If you compensate and win, bam, thats all that matters. "did you win?"

Wow! Do you have brain damage?

 

[ShiningStar]

Wow! Do you have brain damage?

you can insult me all you want. doesnt make you more right or a better person.

 

[Stash]

you can insult me all you want. doesnt make you more right or a better person.

I made the question because your "argument" makes zero sense. And that's "insulting" when people who can support their arguments have to deal with it.

You're not good at this so you should stop pretending to be.

 

[ShiningStar]

I made the question because your "argument" makes zero sense. And that's "insulting" when people who can support their arguments have to deal with it.

You're not good at this so you should stop pretending to be.

lol, ok whatever.

 

[Verdict]

I threw in the Skins bit just because I think they had a really good offseason, it was just a bonus.

Disagree for obvious reasons about the playoff round you lose in being an equalizer for how good a team is. There are tons of examples of very good teams getting very tough draws in a playoff bracket and not surviving.

In this case, both teams even got eliminated by the same team. It's tough to compare the shelacquing the Giants took at the hands of Green Bay and compare it to our game a week later.

They were and are a matchup problem for us, though. Dak needs to find a way to overcome them the way Tony eventually did. Gonna be a couple of great games this season. The whole NFCE, really, is going to be awesome to watch.

Yes I agree with your comment about the Commanders. I think a lot of their future is going to ride on what they decide to do with Cousins. They seem to have really misplayed that hand which seems odd for as well as they have done in other areas. Maybe they know some things the rest of us don't that make that a rational play. IDK, but it sure seems odd.

 

[CCBoy]

Stash...