I'm not a happy fan. I've been dealing with the ups and downs of pre-seasons most of my 58 years on this planet. I know all the platitudes... it's only pre-season ... it's only the first (or second) game ... they are not putting in their full packages and schemes ... they are holding out many starters who would normally be playing if the games were for real ... these are games played by players who won't be on any NFL roster come September ... blah blah blah.
All of that is true. But all of that is also completely beside the point. I'm disappointed. I've not seen anything that has me excited. I'm unhappy. It certainly has nothing to do with the scoring. And I'm certainly not worried about the play of the 2nd or 3rd stringers. And I realize it's difficult to make evaluations with so many injured players kept completely out of the games.
But - and this is a very big but - what I expect to see from these games is some inkling that the major issues of 2009 have been addressed. That 2010 will be completely different than 2009. I expect to see things that give me hope. And thus far I've seen nothing of the sort. Not even a glimmer. So, yes, it is only pre-season and maybe everything is fine. But on the other hand maybe not. That's the point. Thus far, the Giants' starters have not provided even the slightest reason to believe that they have turned the corner and that 2009 is in the past and that they have righted their ship.
It was, and remains, my opinion that the biggest problem of 2009 was the Giants inexplicable inability to stop the run. Stopping the run on defense is basic stuff. Football 101. Something that should be evident from even game one of any pre-season. And, based upon my eyes, they have been horrific against the run thus far, despite the platitudes thrown around by Carl Banks last evening. In game one the Jets gashed them up the middle and last night Pittsburgh continued the assault.
Coughlin correctly pronounced stopping the run as criteria number one for turning things around in 2010. And thus far, by my eyes, the Giants have failed miserably in that endeavor. So, yes, it's only pre-season. But I know this much. What I hoped to see was the Giants stuffing every single run attempt between the tackles. Instead what I've seen is a total failure in that regard. Does it matter? Maybe not. But one thing is for sure - they haven't given me any reason to believe they are going to be dominant against the run in 2010.
I'm less concerned about the other two critical failures of 2009 - the pass rush and the running game. The pass rush is too dependent upon schemes that are simply not going to be shown or put on display during a pre-season game. And the offensive line woes thus far make evaluating the running game impossible. Suffice it to say that neither area has me jumping out of my seat in joy - but I at least feel comfortable knowing there is a reason for that.
But, special teams, on the other hand, has to be a major concern. I don't know the statistics, but I have to believe the Giants ended 2009 towards the bottom of the NFL with respect to opponents starting field position after a kickoff. And I see very little evidence of improvement in 2010. Worse yet, it appears the Giants punting game will be worse - perhaps much much worse - in 2010. Football is all about field position and it appears likely the Giants will fight the field position battle with one hand tied behind their backs throughout 2010.
So, yes, it's "only the pre-season". But I know this much for certain. Their play thus far has left me disappointed and failed to generate any excitement. In fact, truth be told I can't recall any other pre-season in my 58 years that has left me more disappointed. I keep telling myself these are meaningless pre-season games, but all I know is that feeling fantastic about their play sure would have been a nice alternative.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Sunday, August 01, 2010
As 2010 Camp Opens Questions Linger
For the first time since I've been documenting my thoughts on the Giants, I've failed to post any analysis regarding the failures of 2009 and the needs for 2010. And the reason is straight forward. I don't have a clue why the 2009 team struggled so mightily last year. The run defense was perhaps the worst I've ever seen in the 50 years I've been a Giants fan. The vaunted pass rush was invisible. The offense lost its physicality and the running game was a shadow of its former self. The only thing that worked was the passing game, the one part of the team considered to be the weak link heading into the 2009 season. All of the purported strengths turned out to be horrendous failures.
But why? Without knowing the underlying cause, it isn't possible to design a solution. That was my struggle and my ensuing silence spoke volumes about my inability to latch onto reasons that made sense to me. Sheridan's firing made it easy to simply shift all the problems onto his shoulders. It sure would be soothing to believe that all the problems in 2010 were simply the fault of the defensive coordinator. For me, however, blaming Sheridan isn't an "analysis". How can any outsider truly analyze the actual impact of a defensive coordinator? Moreover blaming Sheridan simply ignores the self evident truth that Sheridan didn't miss a single tackle and it wasn't Sheridan who was consistently blocked without generating any pressure on the QB (and blaming him for the offensive woes is obviously ludicrous). I find it difficult, intellectually, to accept that some of the best football talent in the world suddenly lost their ability to tackle and pass rush because of a coach standing on the sidelines. Did he play a role? I have no doubt about it. But I am equally convinced he was not the primary cause of the 2010 failures. His presence may explain schemes (or lack thereof) but simply has nothing to do with the sudden inability of players to tackle or otherwise make football plays on the field.
What about injuries? There sure were a lot of them. On both sides of the ball. And a lot of players were recovering from major surgeries heading into the season. Obviously the 2009 team would have played better if every player had been 100% healthy throughout the season. However, I have great difficulty using injuries to explain the struggles the Giants were having during their initial 5-0 winning streak. The only part of the team consistently clicking during that streak was the passing game. They were not generating anything resembling a ferocious pass rush. The Giants run defense was horrendous - near the middle of the league overall and virtually at the bottom of the league in giving up runs of 20 yards or more. And they were not running the ball with authority (Jacobs was even "called out" on national TV by Goose for dancing and not lowering his shoulder - and as much as I can't stand the guy, he was right). The problems that would haunt the Giants throughout 2010 were clearly evident from day one and simply "hidden" by their 5-0 start assembled against the dregs of the league.
So, for me, I could not (and still do not) subscribe to the "blame everything on Sheridan" scenario nor do I find solace in the "blame it all on the injuries" explanation. And, since I didn't (and still don't) have any idea why the 2009 team struggled so mightily in the very areas that were the purported strengths of the team, I wasn't able to record my thoughts since I didn't have any. Worse, I haven't heard one solitary attempt by Giants management to explain what they believe went wrong which, I suspect, is because they are as perplexed as we all are.
S0, I am in the only mode that makes sense for me ... wait and see. I honestly don't have any sense of how good or bad the 2010 team will be. Except I can make some easy predictions:
1. The overall team will play better than they did in 2009. I say this simply based upon statistical probability, not because I think they discovered and corrected the problems of 2009. The Giants defense in 2009 was, statistically speaking, the 2nd worst performance by a Giants defense in the history of the franchise (almost 100 years). It is simply beyond comprehension to consider they could possibly play even worse in 2010.
2. The passing game will not enjoy the same success in 2010 as it did in 2009. If so, it will not be because of failures by Smith, Nicks, Manningham, Boss, or Eli. They continue to represent the best passing combination in Giants history and for that reason should be a force in 2010. Rather, the expectations of the fan base and media are very different heading into 2010 than they were heading into 2009 - and, as a result, the criticism will flow much more easily and much more quickly. More importantly, they are not going to surprise any teams this year. In 2010 defensive coordinators will spend much more time scheming against the Giants passing game than they did in 2009 (a show of respect) and they will have a much greater body of film evidence to work with that simply didn't exist last year.
Beyond that? I simply don't know. Most people I speak to tend to focus their hopes on a return to the Giants pass rush. They point to the plethora of talent across the defensive line, and correctly so. However, in my mind, the primary key to the success (or failure) of the 2010 Giants will hinge on the running game - on both sides of the ball. If the Giants have any hope of returning to the playoffs and any dream of winning another Lombardi in 2010, they absolutely must start by achieving top 10 status statistically in running the ball and defending against the run. Do that, and everything else maybe (likely) falls into place. The flipside is, failure to achieve either, is likely to result in a second straight season sitting at home when the playoffs begin.
Lastly, to document the Giants 2010 draft for future reference:
1. (#15) DE Jason Pierre-Paul, South Florida
2. (#46) DT Linval Joseph, East Carolina
3. (#76) S Chad Jones, LSU
4. (#115) LB Phillip Dillard, Nebraska
5. (#147) G Mitch Petrus, Arkansas
6. (#184) DE Adrian Tracy, William & Mary
7. (#221) P Matt Dodge, East Carolina
But why? Without knowing the underlying cause, it isn't possible to design a solution. That was my struggle and my ensuing silence spoke volumes about my inability to latch onto reasons that made sense to me. Sheridan's firing made it easy to simply shift all the problems onto his shoulders. It sure would be soothing to believe that all the problems in 2010 were simply the fault of the defensive coordinator. For me, however, blaming Sheridan isn't an "analysis". How can any outsider truly analyze the actual impact of a defensive coordinator? Moreover blaming Sheridan simply ignores the self evident truth that Sheridan didn't miss a single tackle and it wasn't Sheridan who was consistently blocked without generating any pressure on the QB (and blaming him for the offensive woes is obviously ludicrous). I find it difficult, intellectually, to accept that some of the best football talent in the world suddenly lost their ability to tackle and pass rush because of a coach standing on the sidelines. Did he play a role? I have no doubt about it. But I am equally convinced he was not the primary cause of the 2010 failures. His presence may explain schemes (or lack thereof) but simply has nothing to do with the sudden inability of players to tackle or otherwise make football plays on the field.
What about injuries? There sure were a lot of them. On both sides of the ball. And a lot of players were recovering from major surgeries heading into the season. Obviously the 2009 team would have played better if every player had been 100% healthy throughout the season. However, I have great difficulty using injuries to explain the struggles the Giants were having during their initial 5-0 winning streak. The only part of the team consistently clicking during that streak was the passing game. They were not generating anything resembling a ferocious pass rush. The Giants run defense was horrendous - near the middle of the league overall and virtually at the bottom of the league in giving up runs of 20 yards or more. And they were not running the ball with authority (Jacobs was even "called out" on national TV by Goose for dancing and not lowering his shoulder - and as much as I can't stand the guy, he was right). The problems that would haunt the Giants throughout 2010 were clearly evident from day one and simply "hidden" by their 5-0 start assembled against the dregs of the league.
So, for me, I could not (and still do not) subscribe to the "blame everything on Sheridan" scenario nor do I find solace in the "blame it all on the injuries" explanation. And, since I didn't (and still don't) have any idea why the 2009 team struggled so mightily in the very areas that were the purported strengths of the team, I wasn't able to record my thoughts since I didn't have any. Worse, I haven't heard one solitary attempt by Giants management to explain what they believe went wrong which, I suspect, is because they are as perplexed as we all are.
S0, I am in the only mode that makes sense for me ... wait and see. I honestly don't have any sense of how good or bad the 2010 team will be. Except I can make some easy predictions:
1. The overall team will play better than they did in 2009. I say this simply based upon statistical probability, not because I think they discovered and corrected the problems of 2009. The Giants defense in 2009 was, statistically speaking, the 2nd worst performance by a Giants defense in the history of the franchise (almost 100 years). It is simply beyond comprehension to consider they could possibly play even worse in 2010.
2. The passing game will not enjoy the same success in 2010 as it did in 2009. If so, it will not be because of failures by Smith, Nicks, Manningham, Boss, or Eli. They continue to represent the best passing combination in Giants history and for that reason should be a force in 2010. Rather, the expectations of the fan base and media are very different heading into 2010 than they were heading into 2009 - and, as a result, the criticism will flow much more easily and much more quickly. More importantly, they are not going to surprise any teams this year. In 2010 defensive coordinators will spend much more time scheming against the Giants passing game than they did in 2009 (a show of respect) and they will have a much greater body of film evidence to work with that simply didn't exist last year.
Beyond that? I simply don't know. Most people I speak to tend to focus their hopes on a return to the Giants pass rush. They point to the plethora of talent across the defensive line, and correctly so. However, in my mind, the primary key to the success (or failure) of the 2010 Giants will hinge on the running game - on both sides of the ball. If the Giants have any hope of returning to the playoffs and any dream of winning another Lombardi in 2010, they absolutely must start by achieving top 10 status statistically in running the ball and defending against the run. Do that, and everything else maybe (likely) falls into place. The flipside is, failure to achieve either, is likely to result in a second straight season sitting at home when the playoffs begin.
Lastly, to document the Giants 2010 draft for future reference:
1. (#15) DE Jason Pierre-Paul, South Florida
2. (#46) DT Linval Joseph, East Carolina
3. (#76) S Chad Jones, LSU
4. (#115) LB Phillip Dillard, Nebraska
5. (#147) G Mitch Petrus, Arkansas
6. (#184) DE Adrian Tracy, William & Mary
7. (#221) P Matt Dodge, East Carolina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)