December 27, 2006

Armand's Christmas Weekend Football Observations

Coming in a few days late, as I only got back in town late last night. First, from what I've seen of the bowls so far the team that stood out most to me has been (surprisingly) Troy. Yeah, weak conference, you probably don't even know exactly where that school's located, and they were playing Rice - but still, damn. They dominated that bowl game. Were quite impressive on both sides of the ball. And sure, they are not the second coming of Michigan or Auburn, but if I was a big program AD I'd think twice (or three or four times) before adding them to my schedule.

As to the pros, I don't know the last time I saw an NFL team look as bad as the New York Giants do right now. This weekend's game was just plainly sad. Pathetic, lost losers - that's the phrase that comes to mind when thinking back on how they played. They probably should have lost by a score of about 80-7. They were just that bad. If Moon was watching - well, I'll be surprised if he didn't turn off the set in the 3rd quarter. Awful - they were truly awful.

Posted by armand at December 27, 2006 02:07 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Sports


Comments

I really wonder who'd win a Giants-Raiders game right now.

Posted by: jacflash at December 27, 2006 02:38 PM | PERMALINK

Giants-Washington should be only marginally more interesting. I imagine two teams racing each other to the runway to the off-season. Seriously. If the Giants win, and they should even in their piteous state -- especially now that they have replaced their offensive play-caller (file under, too little too late) -- they will be arguably the least-qualified playoff team in recent memory.

They're broken, and the combined fortunes of Roethlisberger, Rivers, Cutler, and Young, inter alia, illustrates the poor decisionmaking that led the Giants to trade away two first-round draft picks and Rivers just so they could claim king of the hill be landing Eli; Rivers + two first-round picks (+, in fairness, an astonishing halfback) = (evidently) prohibitive Super Bowl favorite. Giants + Eli - those picks = a serious mess for whoever gets tapped to replace Coughlin to sort out.

I think they should start by drafting Leonard from Rutgers. Thunder and Thunder (with Jacobs), with Leonard and Finn (off the bench) both able receivers out of the backfield. That and a(nother) retooled secondary.

I've been resisting the quick-to-freak-out New Yorkers' tendency to villify Manning at various stages of his career, but at this point I'm really starting to question whether this team will ever win big during the six or eight years he'll be running the offense. I'm pretty skeptical at this point. I expect all of the above young QBs and his brother to get to the Big Game before Eli does.

Posted by: moon at December 27, 2006 03:42 PM | PERMALINK

I think you are putting far to much of this on Eli. QBs are hardly the whole show - I mean Trent Dilfer led his team to a championship and if Trent Dilfer can do it ... I think it's too early to judge Eli or Rivers (who looked lousy on Sunday) - though yeah, Eli's not near the top of my most impressive young QB list and if I was choosing between the two of them ...

The Giants problems at the moment seem far wider than those of just one or two or three players. On Sunday they looked quite literally stunned. Like the entire team was suffering from post-traumatic stress and had no idea what was going on around them. Replacing the play caller might help. But they need major help.

Oh, and though I'm not betting, if I was I'd pick the Redskins. They've looked much improved over the last month. The Giants might be the more talented team on paper, but on the field I'd go with what I've seen - and the 'Skins have looked better.

Posted by: Armand at December 27, 2006 05:17 PM | PERMALINK

i think the offense's problem is deeper than play calling, and that's where manning comes in. he's able if not great in theory, and able quarterbacks who will never come as close to greatness as eli surely can win the big one, but eli's got something missing. i don't buy the new york press body language ridiculousness, but in their slide i've been astonished by how often he's overlooked open receivers downfield in favor of low percentage passes in the under-10-yard range. the injury excuse doesn't apply to the offense, even with pettitgout down, especially with one of the best rushers in NFL history, still in his prime, lining up behind Manning. if Eli isn't consistent at hitting spots and making smart reads and adjustments at the line after nearly three years under center, i don't think he's going to be.

the ESPN folks, pre-season, observed that only a few QB's have ever improved significantly (as measured by a flawed passer rating, to be fair) in their third years over their first two years' performances, and no one has done so in his fourth year, except for maybe one or two anomalous seasons that interrupted a long run of mediocrity. eli's rating the first two seasons was too low to be explained away by the poor state of the team in his first season, and last year's team really had a dream offense that should have done far better than it did (notwithstanding manning's gaudy touchdown tally). i just think he's destined to mediocrity. i've taken my time getting there, but now i'm convinced. as a mediocre qb, as you note, he could go all the way, but my dream of several years of dominance thanks to tiki, manning, strahan and the linebacker corps obviously was just that. time to settle in for a rebuild. and i hope eli proves me wrong; i'm just not holding my breath.

and did i mention i'm getting pretty sick of shockey and burress? shockey was somewhat of a novelty, but now his kind can be replaced. not so burress, so i'd rather like to see him stick around (he's one of the ones most notably cheated by manning's lack of downfield vision, and it probably cost him the pro bowl, as well as costing the giants a few games -- one might hope with a more aggressive game plan he'd quiet down as he did last year).

Posted by: moon at December 27, 2006 05:37 PM | PERMALINK

It's not just Eli's performance that's the problem, though Eli's lack of self-confidence might be part of the larger problem. When a team falls as far below on-paper expectations as the Giants have, there's often a morale problem of some kind -- or at least some sort of below-the-surface team chemistry issue. Team owners usually address those issues by firing the coach, but that doesn't always work. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Posted by: jacflash at December 27, 2006 07:36 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?