Loading ...New York Giants head coach Tom Coughlin took the podium for his weekly press conference in a worse mood than you would have expected following a divisional win over the Washington Redskins on Sunday. But his focus was, as it always is, on the next game. And, in looking back at week one, he says the Giants "didn't deserve to win" because of the way they played, and that he expects much better on Sunday against the Dallas Cowboys.
Although opening questions centered around injuries, per the usual, there wasn't really much to cover. The pre-practice injury report was the smallest it has been all season, with only one new addition. It included Rocky Bernard (quad), Ahmad Bradsahw (foot), Hakeem Nicks (knee/foot), David Baas (ankle), Kenny Phillips (knee) and Jacquian Williams (knee).
Of the players listed, Baas, Williams, Bradshaw and Bernard will not practice on Wednesday. Coughlin says Jim Cordle will likely get some snaps at center, and would not detail any further about the significance of Baas' injury. He added that Phillips will "do more on the field" this week.
Additionally, the coach says tight end Travis Beckum – who remains on the Physically Unable to Perform (PUP) list following ACL surgury – will return to practice this week.
When asked about the performance of Martellus Bennett and his personal criticisms, Coughlin agreed with the Black Unicorn, saying there was a lot he could have done better last Sunday, and a lot he brings to the team that they have yet to take advantage of.
"He played OK; he didn't play real well [on Sunday]," Coughlin said. "There's a lot he does that we haven't taken full advantage of that yet."
As for Eli Manning, Coughlin says their quarterback is equally disappointed in his play against the Washington Redskins. He says Manning doesn't take that type of performance lightly, and he's meticulous about figuring out what went wrong and how to fix it. Immediately.
"He does not want to put his defense in a bad spot," Coughlin said.
Finally, Coughlin acknowledged that the loss of linebacker Sean Lee is huge for the Cowboys, but praised veteran Dan Connor as a guy who can step up for them and make plays. And, as always, he expects a fierce battle between the two divisional rivals on Sunday.
Photo Credit: Mike Gannon
Also…
- Be sure to like Giants 101 on Facebook, follow Giants 101 on Twitter & +1 Giants 101 on Google+
- Check out the latest line of GMENShirts, including the new pink version which supports the fight against Breast Cancer
- Listen to Gameface with The Frattman every Sunday morning at 9 AM EST on 940 ESPN Radio
Related Videos
Returning Soon!!!!No related posts.
Short URL: http://sport-ne.ws/lyj
Oh yeah, Eli’s still angry!
Monster game from Eli next week guaranteed. Start him in fantasy if you have him.
Repost:
GOAT56 says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:10 AM
There has been some interesting discussion on our future roster decisions. One question that has begun to go through my head recently is the logic of paying both Nicks and Cruz big money – let’s say each of them make 9 mil year (Brown for Pitt signed a 5 year 43 mil deal) which would be a market bargain. Does that really make sense to form the best roster? That’s a ton of money invested in WR. I know Eli is in his prime so we want to surround him with top talent. But hasn’t Eli proven that he can adjust to missing a key WR pretty easily over the years? While it seems blasphemy to suggest we let go of Cruz or Nicks, it seems like a choice probably give us the best chance at winning future SBs. We still have both WRs for next year so a final decision doesn’t have to be made yet. But with Cruz showing production without Nicks and being a restricted free agent it seems that extending Cruz is a given. The time seems to be now because we can get a discount on a long term deal with Cruz still only looking at making around 2 mil as a restricted free agent next year.
Now if you re-sign Cruz now it doesn’t mean Nicks is won’t be but it means then over the next year plus we really have to evaluate what Nicks gives us and Randle’s progress. If Randle is seemingly ready to start by the end of next year keeping Nicks at his likely number would seem to be hard. We can retain Hixon and still have Jernigan. I think the selection of another first 3 round WR in next year draft would really be the signal we are only keeping one long term. Plus Nicks would seem to cost more as a classic #1 WR and is less durable.
It’s a tough decision. But given how good Eli is I think he can lose Cruz or Nicks and be highly productive. By not keeping one of those WRs we can keep players like good players like Bennett, Rivers, Hixon, etc. To me you fully take advantage of Eli’s greatness by not having to invest crazy amounts into the WR corps and therefore making other parts of the team better.
Reply
BLU-82 says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Nicks brings a whole lot. It is not any easy decision and IMO is not a decision, but we will see what JR does. Interesting point but when you have QB like Eli, you want to surround him with as much talent as possible. And the things Nicks likely brings to the locker room for the young WR’s are probably just as valuable as his onfield play in terms of player development. He is diligent, intelligent, and truly a master of his craft with room to grow.
I also just don’t buy that he’s so injury prone. Breaking a bone doesn’t make you injury prone, just not a whole lot to be done about that. And having a 200+ lb behemoth step on your ankle (in the leg he just had a broken bone in if my memory serves me) and NOT winding up with something near a season ending injury reaffirms my opinion. If he were so injury prone, he wouldn’t have been out there the past two weeks.
He’s had his run ins with the team docs, but nothing recurrent. He hasn’t had hammy problems this year and while it remains to be seen how his foot holds up in the long run (See: Bradshaw, Ahmad), I am sure that will play a role in his negotiations anyway.
Basically- I think we ought to surround Eli with as much receiving talent as possible, even to the detriment of other areas of the team, and Nicks has way more upside than downside for a number of reasons.
Reply
GOAT56 says:
October 24, 2012 at 10:57 AM
I said durability. Nicks has missed 2-3 games every season and clearly has been far from 100% in other games. Nicks is a great talent, player and a warrior. Losing him we would no doubt lose a lot.
But my point has little to do with Nicks as a player. My point is if in 2014 we lineup Cruz, Randle (in his 3rd year) and Hixon/Jernigan or a 2nd year WR we should still be very good at WR. Add to that which should be a dynamic #1 RB in Wilson. If we re-sign Bennett and Robinson develops we have 2 talented all-around TEs. So the offense could be as good as anyone’s if we replenish the OL at RT and RG even without Nicks.
While every QB needs talent, Eli has shown the ability to succeed at a high level with numerous WRs. So while Nicks is great with Randle, Jernigan and another young WR developing, a top RB and a top pair of TEs why invest so much into Nicks? We could even reverse all of this and say keep Nicks over Cruz. The real point is that investing nearly 16-20 million in 2 WRs seems like an investment that JR could use better elsewhere.
We have to keep Beatty. JPP will cost a ton. Joseph will cost a decent amount as well and Canty getting older, Austin/Kuhn yet to really establish themselves Joseph becomes one of our possible key free agents in 2014. That’s already assuming we lose KP or re-sign him and let go of Rolle and reduce or cut Webster.
Basically, as good as both Nicks and Cruz are, I don’t think WRs are core players like DEs, LTs or CBs. Even safeties are just as important and it looks like we will lose a good one this offseason. There’s a reason we drafted Randle and Jernigan and will likely draft another WR this coming draft.
Reply
jfunk says:
October 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM
I disagree on your value of Nicks. He’s a legit #1 WR that can dominate from the X. You don’t find them laying around. You don’t replace them with somebody that is just OK.
Slot production is actually a lot easier to replace using a platoon of different guys and good play design. The X…there’s no substitute for raw physical ability out there.
Cruz’s home run hitting is what takes him from being “just” a top 2 slot receiver to unique talent status. And that is what makes this decision a tough one. If it weren’t for Cruz’s penchant for making “that play”, I’d have Nicks over him without a second thought.
But being that Nicks is a legit #1 X receiver and Cruz is a unique game breaking talent, I honestly think the correct move IS to break the bank for them. If that costs us Webster, Boley, Bennett, etc. so be it.
Reply
BLU-82 says:
October 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM
I think at this stage in Eli’s career, a guy who may miss 2 or 3 games a year but is a force in the other 13-14 is worth it. Yeah, he hasn’t been himself the past few games but as I said earlier, the broken bone is an anomaly and not indicative of durability issues (Unless it becomes bradshaw-esque). The thing with Nicks this year is he has had virtually no continuous time to get up to game speed. He looked much better last week than the week before, and I believe that trend will continue.
I mean, you must have seen how different our game has been without him. We don’t take the deep shots as often as we do with him, we just can’t. The safeties drop in and can limit our ability to make those plays. The healthier he gets, the more downfield we will see Eli throwing, and the more dangerous offense our is. Randle needs to develop but he’s no sure thing, these guys never are. He could get injured, he could be a bum, he could get arrested.
I don’t think any of that’s likely, btw, but we have a sure thing in Nicks and Cruz and the result is a devastating offense. Let the boys play and if the rest come along, more the better. I will take the known quantity when it looks as great as he does on the field every time for whatever cost. Cruz/Nicks when healthy is quite frankly one of the most unstoppable duos in the league and we must keep that continuity with Eli in his prime, IMHO.
Reply
GOAT56 says:
October 24, 2012 at 11:30 AM
My value on Nicks was only in comparison to Cruz. Before the season I would have said Nicks no doubt but now I’m not so sure Cruz could be a legit #1 as well.
The part of my argument you are missing is that Randle is expected to develop and become at least a MM level player. I’m assuming that Randle won’t become as good as Nicks or Cruz but certainly a quality starter. In addition we will have a good 3rd WR option in Hixon, Jernigan or a 2nd year WR. Then how much better would having that other elite WR really make your team or offense? Of course Nicks or Cruz is a better player than the players you mention or another player you might keep but to me the point is producing a top offense not keeping players just because they are great. I think we can still have a great offense in 2014 without one of Nicks or Cruz. By investing so much in WR we will in turn make other areas weaker.
I think we forget how good Plax, Steve Smith and MM were for us and we survived fine without them. While both Nicks and Cruz are great, Eli does help make them better. Eli is the key not the WRs. I think Indy made some mistakes in trying to pay too many skill players to put around Peyton. Look when you are that good you will make lessor players look better, just like Eli has in games without Nicks this year and years past. Randle should develop into a very good player so Eli will still have weapons. I think we have to trust Eli and maintain a team balanced in talent on both sides of the ball and on both lines.
I think in some ways this Cruz/Nicks discusion is underrating Eli.
BLU-82 says:
October 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM
I agree we can survive without Nicks but for me the difference is night and day. We are just a dynamic offense when we have him, Cruz, and ___ at WR. Randle should develop really nicely and we have a nice stable of WR’s even if he doesn’t. The Plax/SS/MM Offense worked jsut fine but was a totally different animal than what we see today, largely because CB’s have two number 1?s to cover, one of whom is a physical monster who can catch damn near anything and the other a smart, slippery, arhletic home run threat who can cut like a razor.
You may be right that Randle can eventually fill that Nicks role (there is no plug in for Cruz) but I feel as though we are in “win now” mode. I think retaining Nicks, Cruz, and preferably Bennett gives us the best chance to do that. Reasonable minds can differ, and I see what you’re saying.
Also- I am not saying we should gut the team at the expense of all others. But tough choices are on the horizon and I think we can stomach losses on the defensive side of the ball better because of the offensive firepower we can bring to bear. Our defense has won us games over the past few years, but it’s not even close when you look at how many games the offense has iced.
I don’t think it’s a knock on Eli. He has made inferior talent look superior all season. I just believe we should give him the best because he is the best, rather than force him to make do with inferior talent. Which is also not a jab at the WR’s on the roster not named Nicks and Cruz, it’s just that those guys are superstars.
+1
For all the talk of us losing Shockey, Toomer, Plax and then having multiple combinations of WR’s thus far in 2012, I think it’s safe to say that Eli f’n Manning is the common denominator here. Regardless of how “great” everyone is or can be, Eli usually puts the ball into a spot that it just can’t be dropped. While I’d love to keep Nicks AND Cruz, WR isn’t the only position on the team. I think the coaching staff has enough confidence in Eli raising the level of play around him that they won’t risk losing another key piece of the puzzle to afford a “luxury”. Having 2 potential top 5 WR’s (when healthy) is just that, a luxury.
Eli is the common denominator. He makes everyone he throws to look better than they are. But don’t underrate Nicks or Cruz either. Those two are both legitimate number one’s. We certainly can get by without one of them, but we do become less dynamic.
I would rather build on a strength than degrade it to maintain an area of lesser strength. If we are going to take away from our offense, I want to see decisions which result in a vastly improved defense. Otherwise we’re in the same boat as we were but short a pretty good downfield threat. This is especially true because the defense has been the least consistent component of our team. We have a lot of talent on that side of the ball, plenty of young and cheap talent mind you, that sometimes doesn’t perform up to snuff.
Why throw more talent at an area that already has many of the tools it needs and hasn’t been able to put it together on a consistent basis? Especially when it appears that guys like Will Hill, Stevie brown, Prince, and Hosley can all be the next man up.
Belated kudos to Haz for his excellent game analysis in the previous article.
I’m glad he gave Landfill some love. I don’t think this guy gets nearly enough credit from the fans for his contributions to the defense. That he was able to do what he did on Sunday when paired with an out-of-football-shape Canty, a very average Kuhn, and a not-ready-for-prime-time Austin made his game even more remarkable.
Landfill has been one of the few bright spots on a defense that, bluntly put, has been pretty bad this year. Yeah, yeah… I know about the whole “bend but don’t break” thing. But the dirty little secret is that this defense would be doing a whole lot more “breaking” had it not been for some timely turnovers by the opposing offense.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m delighted that the Giants defense has been able to generate as many turnovers as it has this year. As every coach will tell you, turnovers are the single biggest factor in determining the outcome of football games. Right now the Giants are ranked third in the NFL in TO differential at +9. Chicago is #1 at +13; Atlanta, #2 at +10. No surprise that the combined record of those three teams is 16-3.
Problem is that relying on turnovers is a shaky foundation upon which to build a defense. One need look no farther than last years Packers team which finished the year ranked second in turnover diff at +24… and dead last in the league in yardage per game allowed. We also saw what happened when the turnovers did not come against the Giants in the playoffs.
The Giants appear to be headed down the same path. Their third ranked TO delta has masked the fact that they currently rank 24th in yardage per game allowed at 380. The 480 yards they gave up to the Skins was an outlier – but not by much.
I’m sorry; I expect more from this defense. I do not want to be the 2012 version of the 2011 Packers – who ultimately get run off the field when the turnovers stop coming. I just don’t believe a defense that routinely surrenders nearly 400 yards a game can be expected to play all the way into February – even with Eli Manning at QB. They HAVE TO start playing better.
I see what you’re saying, but “bend or break” or not, the Giants’ defense is 9th in the league in opposing PPG. Yeah, the Packers forced a lot of turnovers last season, but they also ranked 19th in the league in opposing PPG, so I think comparing the Giants to GB is a little unfair.
The Giants gave up a lot of yards last year too, but when it was time to shut opponents down, they did. As long as they’re not giving up points, I’m fine. Sure, it would be nice for the D to not make us sweat every game, but as long as it is getting the job done, everything is cool.
norm:
Last thread you said the Giants’ defense has been playing badly and relying too heavily on TOs much like Green Bay’s last season. I responded but then realize there was an UUT so here’s my repost of it:
I see what you’re saying, but “bend or break” or not, the Giants’ defense is 9th in the league in opposing PPG. Yeah, the Packers forced a lot of turnovers last season, but they also ranked 19th in the league in opposing PPG, so I think comparing the Giants to GB is a little unfair.
The Giants gave up a lot of yards last year too, but when it was time to shut opponents down, they did. As long as they’re not giving up points, I’m fine. Sure, it would be nice for the D to not make us sweat every game, but as long as it is getting the job done, everything is cool.