Big Blue Huddle

That was very ugly today.

I'm not going to do a deep dive autopsy on this game, because it was just brutal all-around, but the Knicks will need to do some soul-searching before game five and come up with a much better effort than that if they want to preserve a decent chance of winning this series.

Beating anyone decent without OG, Randle, and Mitch plus Brunson playing on one foot may simply be too much to ask. I feel like it all finally caught up with them today. I'm honestly not sure if they'll win another game with this group.

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 01:42:29 PMI saw both you and @DaveBrown74 bring up injuries.  That seems to be an invention to let the author off the hook, though, as the author never suggested he had injury concerns.  He said "limitations," which implies talent, rather than "uncertainty," which one might claim is an injury issue (even if the author never mentioned injury concerns

He used "limitations" referring to the whole offense, not specifically to Daniel Jones. He used the word "uncertainty" to describe what Daniel Jones might be able to bring to the table this year. That wording is consistent with what one might say about a player whose precise level of health is unclear.

Honestly, who cares about any of this anyway? Even if the guy is a "Jones hater", which I have no idea if that's the case, who gives a damn? I don't see the point of getting so sensitive about the opinions of some random stranger whose views have no bearing on anything the front office or coaches will do.

Quote from: jgrangers2 on Today at 11:50:37 AMI appreciate the energy aspect but, beyond that, I'm not sure what else he brings. He's not a highly skilled offensive or defensive player and not a great skater. He's a liability against a team like Carolina that can skate circles around him. There's also that the refs clearly have an eagle eye on him and he's a penalty waiting to happen, which is probably part of why Laviolette hasn't had him out there late. I think the fact that he played just 4 minutes of an 80+ minute game on Tuesday speaks volumes. I just don't know that the positives with him outweight the negatives.

If he is a liability as you have said, why is the Rangers' record with him active (20-2) materially better than their record without him ?

I think it would be fair to say that he is not the reason for that great 20-2 record given he isn't on the ice that much, but, given the results, I think it's hard to argue he is a material liability that other teams have successfully exploited. If that were true, his presence would have led to more losses in 22 games than just 2.

I think Rempe is what he is - a borderline player who brings a lot of energy and physicality to the table. I would also suggest that it's a bit unfair to conclusively judge him as a player given he is a rookie who played basically 1/3 of the season. If we did that with LaFreniere he'd be off the team by now. Rempe's presence on the ice was felt plenty of times this year, and I don't just mean fighting.

And as far as the fighting goes, he has been fighting way less in the last ten or so games he played than he did originally. From what I have seen, he has been out there throwing the body around and getting in the slot and setting screens, etc.

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 11:11:35 AMI am not sure what the point of that extreme binary question is.  Are you suggesting the offense wouldn't have looked significantly better with their two most important players healthy?

My original point was that you had people on this forum saying the Giants were going to be "something special" in 2023 based on their observations over the summer through the preseason, and that the eventual reality on the ground was in stark contrast to that. I further noted that that disconnect has occurred plenty of times in the past, both with us and with other fan bases around the league. I specifically noted the disconnect between the intense optimism seen here and the woefully poor performance in week one, which is generally the most reflective week of how well prepared the team was over the various stages of camp and the preseason.

You seemed to disagree with (and want to discredit) my observation by pointing out that Waller, who played the whole game and for another 7 weeks after that, wasn't 100% perfectly healthy and that Andrew Thomas missed some of the game. I personally don't agree that those two issues are why we lost 40-0 or that had every relevant member of the team been 100% healthy (an extreme rarity for any NFL team in any game), that things would have been dramatically different in that game.

To me that game illustrated a lack of preparation of the team and also the team's lack of overall talent and depth. To isolate one or two injuries, even to starters, simply does not debunk the above.

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 11:05:34 AMThomas was injured very early in the game and Waller had been injured prior to the game and was not playing like he had in camp.

So your argument is that if both of those players had been 100% healthy in all four quarters, we would have instead looked good in that game instead of losing 40-0?

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 11:02:15 AMDo you think key injuries to Thomas (arguably the offense's best player), Waller, and Jones might have impacted what was expected versus what was produced?

How did any of those impact the week one game, which is what I was referencing?

Quote from: Philosophers on Today at 09:58:17 AMJMS has not looked like a good center yet as a 2nd round pick.  Even if Neal improves, JMS needs a big jump as well.

Precisely my point. The failures (to this point) go well beyond the Neal pick.

Quote from: Philosophers on Today at 10:01:40 AMI am not going to focus on all these training moments.  Gets way overhyped.

I'll pay attention to more finished products at the end of August.

Well said, and I couldn't agree more.

I would even take it a step further and argue that the whole of camp and preseason get overhyped too in terms of their meaningfulness and correlation to real games. Look at all the optimism we had on this board in late August/early Sep, and then look at the historically terrible week one performance. That was not the only time we've seen this disconnect either. Not by a longshot, sadly.

Quote from: jgrangers2 on Today at 10:31:22 AMThe series has been chippy since game 1. Rempe won't change that and the idea of a deterrent is an old school hockey trope that needs to die. He also can't skate with this team and would be a liability when on the ice. There's a reason he played just 4 minutes of a game that went over 80.

I'd argue that yesterday might have been their best game at evens in this series. If not for some bad early turnovers and a bad penalty late, this series might be over. Also, the Trouba discussion has to happen sooner rather than later. He's been on the ice for something like the last 7 goals against. We could legitimately see a guy get handed the cup by Bettman and bought out a month later.

I don't think Rempe is just a deterrent and nothing more than that. His being in the lineup fires up the fans and the rest of the team. I don't know if you've been to a home game since his arrival, but when he is on the ice fans start immediately chanting his name and the energy level both in the stands and on the ice percolates visibly.

I'm not suggesting he is more than what he is, which is a fringe player on the outside looking in (hence his not having been active recently). I would disagree that he brings nothing additive to the table though, if that is what you are saying.

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 09:39:10 AMJeff,

It's not like the 2023 disaster of an offense was all on Daniel Jones.  Hell, Jones didn't even play in the majority of games.  So your quote about "the defense" only highlights this author's obsession with Daniel Jones, as there is plenty to be concerned about on the offensive side of the ball, namely the offensive line.

Edit to add-  The Giants got to round 2 of the playoffs with Daniel Jones, so the whole commentary seems disingenuous and only an indication of the Jones hatred that is so pervasive

Fair enough. He could have just highlighted the offense instead of naming a player. I suspect the reason he named Jones is that the QB is the single most important player in the offense, and Jones is coming off an injury that has been known to take two seasons to fully recover from. To me, that is not necessarily indicative of "hate", but I understand your point.

I always do Conections first, because I like it more, and then when I get to this one I just only have so much patience haha.

Strands #70
"Picture perfect"
💡🔵💡🔵
💡🔵🔵🟡
🔵

Connections
Puzzle #336
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟪🟪🟪🟪

Interestingly, we're actually a slight underdog at home tomorrow night.

Right now I am not worried. If we don't win tomorrow night I will be somewhat.

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 09:25:06 AMIf this was an article about Daniel Jones or the Giants, offense, then yes.  Otherwise, this question seems to create a false framing as it ignores the point that this was an article about Burns and his impact on the Giants.

I guess the point is that if the title of the article is "who will have the biggest impact." "Biggest impact" in this context presumably means biggest impact on wins and losses. The author seems to be saying that Burns could end up playing really well, but his ultimate impact on the Giants' record could be capped by the uncertainty around the offense, led by Daniel Jones who is coming off a bad season that ended early with a serious injury that could affect his performance in 2024.

I think if this article were written about a QB coming to a team with a bad defense, it wouldn't be unreasonable to write something like "this QB, while very good, may have a tough time leading his team to more wins this year given the uncertainty around the team's defense, which struggled materially in 2023."

"Hate" just seems like a strong word in this context.

Quote from: Gmo11 on May 11, 2024, 11:37:36 PMBut that's the thing. He played it exactly right because he wanted an OL and Thibs. I imagine their grades on both OL were basically the same. But Thibs was the best pass rusher they were going to find. So he got both. Nobody not a single solitary soul questioned that pick on draft day because it made all the sense in the world. We were told Neal was the most pro ready OL in the draft. He clearly was and is not but at the time the pick was a no brainer. And if it goes the other way and suddenly the Giants have bookend tackles for the next decade that makes the whole thing look a lot better.

We were told that, yes, by pundits and draftnik types. None of us actually scouted the guy. And by scouting I mean actually going to visits, workouts, interviews, watching Alabama games standing on the sideline, reviewing high school tape, talking to his coaches, talking to opposing coaches, etc. We didn't do the work. The Giants did. The Giants decided they wanted to prioritize Thibodeaux over having the first O line pick in that draft. Would they have taken Ekwonu over Neal? We'll never know that. But their course of action is still their responsibility.

Also what about all his other O line decisions? Why does it just come down to Neal? He could have still done a lot better with the O line than he has, even with the bust Neal pick.