Big Blue Huddle

Rangers fans were WAY too optimistic after the first three games of the series.  All were one goal wins, and two in OT.  Taking nothing away from the Rangers, as they did win, but they were not dominant in any way. 

Starting in game three especially, the Canes played with a ton of energy, purpose, and desperation.  As you would expect.  Rangers matched them pretty well in game three and won.  Didn't match them nearly as well in game four, but again, you would expect that a team down 0-3 would have a ton more energy and desperation.  And a team up 3-0 might let up a bit (even though you never should take your foot off your opponent's neck, but alas, we are human too).  Even so, except for a late penalty, we could have won.

Once they lost their first game of the playoffs, I then expected game five to have them come out looking to obliterate the Canes and for the garden to be rocking.  Neither happened.  The garden seemed quiet all night (maybe it was the ESPN audio, who knows) and the Rangers were completely listless.  Zero energy, zero offensive pressure.  I don't remember one shot on goal, except the Trouba shorty, that was a high danger shot.  And ZERO physicality, except for the Trouba hit.  This is not the old Rangers teams from the past that were small and pushed around.  Kreider, Trocheck, LaFren, Cuylle, Vesey, Rempe, Goodrow, Lindgren, Schneider, Trouba... all bigger / chippier / willing to mix it up guys, and virtually NONE were to be seen.  If the Canes want to dump and chase and hit the Rangers D, not to mention take some liberties, then I expect these guys to stand up and pummel them into the boards.  But they are letting the Canes be physical with them and have zero pushback.

This team BETTER be flying in Game 6.  Better be hitting everything that moves.  Better be driving play.  The time is now for them to be desperate, aggressive, angry.  Because this is very close to a winner take all game seven, and after the third period last night, the Canes believe 100% they can win this.  Including that arrogant punk ass DeAngelo.  Time to take care of business.... and this will be just a blip.  That this was a good thing for them to get punched in the mouth and have some adversity to overcome... better to have that when you are up 3-0 than in the next round when you don't have as much cushion.  But this team needs a leader and I am not sure we have someone that can even partially emulate Messier and get them through this.

Sorry for the length of this..... I needed to vent.

We've had next to no mid to late round hits in 15 plus years, which is why we have been stuck in the mud as a franchise.

We've already tried the "move LT to RT" thing and that hasn't worked out well at all.  It still might, but so far it isn't good.  I was more than open to taking a tackle, but not in Round one and to move him to the right side.  I preferred Nabers for sure.

Tommy is worth trying to develop into a competent backup QB.  That is the best that can be expected.

Far be it for me to defend the Giants, as the last decade plus proves that they have been well behind average as a franchise, but this guy makes zero sense.  Take JJ just because positional value dictates a QB?  Take an OT and move him to ROT just like we did a few years ago?  And what, make trades to shake things up and be more inspiring?  This guy sounds like an idiot.

Sure, I could have made a good case to trade down in the first and get more picks and draft into the WR strength in the draft, but I give the Giants credit for not trading up, or not taking a QB at 6 they did not have convictions on.  They will be judged harshly if they missed on QB, but they didn't do the "easy" thing and pick a QB and try to do something with a player that they didn't believe in.

Defensive zone play in the 3rd was atrocious, but considering they are down three defensemen, likely not a shock that things might be catching up with them and Igor's ability to always bail them out.  That they keep finding ways to win though is huge.  As is the walking wounded coming back soon to fortify the defense.

This rule change will be a major victory for the receiving team in terms of starting position, but will likely cut down on long returns.

First of all, a kicker that puts it into the end zone will almost certainly be downed no matter what.  Even if it is an inch in the end zone, as it goes to the 35.  With the kicking team starting at the 40, why would you ever return a kick.

Secondly, a return man will almost certainly get to the 25 or so before even having a tackle attempted on him.  He will be quicker than most of the kicking team, so if a kicker is reasonably accurate and gets it to the 5, the midpoint would be around the 22 yard line, but that is assuming the kicking players are just as fast (only a few will be) and that there are no blockers, both of which aren't true.

Third, most guys can cover a kick and go 40 yards in an average of what, say 4.5 or so seconds?  So under the old rules, you would be around the opponent 25 before the ball is caught (assuming 4-5 seconds of hang time for the kick), and have a full head of steam.  Now they will be at the 40 and stationary.  So again, big advantage for the receiving team.

This all said, because players aren't scattered all over the field under the old rules, it seems to me that long returns will be harder to make, but starting position will be better.

I also want to see how squib kicks are handled.  No real way to do that and slow down a returner, or to kick it to a slower guy and prevent a return, under the new rules.

Quote from: babywhales on March 19, 2024, 10:27:45 AMCould be as simple as lacking the mental discipline for the NFL, he abandons his technique when under duress.

Or it could be poor coaching, Bobby Johnson was horrible and has been horrible for the majority of his career.

Or it could be the scheme, I have read Daboll asks Olineman to use a mix of zone and man:man blocking that can be very hard for certain players to implement.

Either way the guy is a mess on the field more than not
 

I'm hoping it is scheme or coaching.  Which is what I have questioned about the Giants for awhile.  We blame the draft for a lot, and rightly so, but I feel like we are not getting the most out of our players.  But I have not done an analysis on this, it is just more of an opinion than based on hard facts.

I trust the Giants QB evaluations.  The problem with QB is that I really doubt the Giants see all four QB's being talked about at the top of round 1 to be interchangeable.  So, if they want a QB, they almost certainly need to try and move up.  You can't wait and hope your guy drops, as the opportunity cost is so high on QB.  So if we stay at six, I have to assume that they want another position other than QB, or are hoping one falls and they can trade out and pick up more picks.  Playing chicken when you want a QB isn't the right move.

This all said, I don't see JJ as a top six pick.  I would not be thrilled with picking him.

I have no idea why Schoen would say that.  Jones has not shown enough to have that degree of confidence.  While not a blatantly open competition, at least give guys a chance to compete.  Hell, Fields should have been considered too.

All this said, I would now be surprised if the Giants went QB.  I know this all could be a smokescreen, and sure, a new draft pick could easily replace Tommy Cutlets, but I don't get the idea of signing a young vet to come here, even on a short contract, if we are going QB in the draft.

I don't get Neal at all.  He was considered as close to a sure thing as there was.  Not necessarily to be a superstar, but to at least be a very good tackle.  And he came from a top school.  Something is amiss here.

Quote from: WheresDayne on March 19, 2024, 09:50:50 AMThe Pats model was have Brady, be in a terrible division and build a great defense.  Guaranteed 5-6 wins in division, go 5-5 versus the rest of the league and you instantly have 10-11 wins and a shot at home field and a bye.  Worked for 10 years.  I think Buffalo could do the same thing.

This is a great take and very underreported. In the Tom Brady years, the Pats won 76% of their games, while every other team in the AFC East was under .500, with an average of 44%.  The Patriots had 18 years of double digit wins (95% of the time), and more than 10 wins in every year since 2003, while no other team had more than 5 years of double digit wins (all other teams on average had double digit wins 19% of the time). The Bills were below 10 wins in all years other than 10 wins in Brady's last Patriots year. So, while not trying to denigrate Belichick or Brady, The Patriots benefited quite significantly from a very weak division.

Amazing that this team has sucked for a decade, but every year, we are up against the cap.

I rated it a 4.  I don't love that contract, mostly because how long will it be before the Giants are legitimate contenders?  Before the massive step back last year, I thought that if Jones, etc kept progressing off of two years ago, maybe the Giants could make some noise this year. Now, forget that.  So, will Burns be 30 before we can legitimately compete?  Will he even be on the team by then, or be a cap casualty?

We are essentially rebuilding, so I would much rather draft than spend big bucks on FA's. 

  If this is truly a rebuild, then we really should draft a QB.  Assuming that they like one of the top ones.  This all said, sounds like at least three will go before we pick.  I would rather go for one of the top WRs anyway.  Or maybe trade down if someone offers a lot.  We really need to start to accumulate picks and build this team.  Again. 

  Wow this franchise has really fallen a long way.  We have pretty much been a bad franchise for over thirty years now except for a few random years, as well as the early to mid Eli years.  We literally have had losing seasons 50% of the time since SB 25. Not acceptable.