News Archives

New York Giants’ Victor Cruz Nominated for “GMC Never Say Die Moment of the Year”

January 7th, 2013 at 11:45 AM
By Dan Benton

Victor Cruz's 2012 campaign didn't produce as many memorable moments as 2011 did, but that's not to say there weren't any. His 77-yard touchdown in week seven against the Washington Redskins with 1:13 left propelled the New York Giants to what was a very important and crucial win at the time. Accordingly, it has been nominated as the "GMC Never Say Die Moment of the Year."

Cruz's late TD lifts Giants past Redskins: As Robert Griffin III continues to evolve into one of the game's most exciting players, the New York Giants' dynamic duo of Eli Manning and Victor Cruz continue to rise to the occasion at the most crucial times. In a Week 7 back-and-forth game, RG3 gave the Washington Redskins a 23-20 lead with a minute and a half left. But Cruz and Manning answered with a 77-yard scoring strike with 1:13 to go, giving the Giants a 27-23 NFC East win over the eventual division champs.

The touchdown sent the wild MetLife Stadium crowd into a frenzy and was, perhaps, one of the loudest moments we at Giants 101 have ever experienced. But was it enough to win the 2012 "GMC Never Say Die Moment of the Year" award?

It is up against the Baltimore Ravens' Torrey Smith (huge performance after death of brother), New Orleans Saints' Drew Brees (sets NFL record for consecutive games with a touchdown pass), Denver Broncos' Peyton Manning (led Broncos to 35-24 win over San Diego Chargers after trailing 24-0 at halftime) and Washington Redskins' Kirk Cousins (leads Skins to victory over Baltimore Ravens following injury to Robert Griffin III).

To vote, head on over the NFL.com.

Also…

Tags: Football, MetLife Stadium, New York, New York Giants, NFL, Victor Cruz, Washington, Washington Redskins

No related posts.

14 Responses to “New York Giants’ Victor Cruz Nominated for “GMC Never Say Die Moment of the Year””

  1.  jfunk says:

    Well, if you’re to take the name of the award at face value (“moment”), I’d say Cruz hands down. It seems like it’s up against some complete game and complete career performances though, so I’m not sure what to think of it.

    Not really sure how a breaking a consecutive game record qualifies as a “Never say die moment” in any way, but whatever.

    Coming back from a 24-0 halftime deficit is certainly more impressive than Cruz’s single play though as long as we’re sticking to “never say die” and forgetting about the “moment” part.

    •  Krow says:

      I think when he accepts the award he should wear one of his fugly Young Whales shirts.

    •  clever username says:

      Well, if you’re to take the name of the award at face value (“Never Say Die”), I’d say Torrey Smith hands down. best grieving performance since Favre on MNF after his father passed away.

  2.  GOAT56 says:

    To add my 2 cents to the Fewell talk here’s my take. I recall watching the Atl vs Denver game early in the season and the thing that stood out to me with Atl defensive wasn’t that they blitzed a ton, it’s they always looked like they were going to blitz. Unlike some here I don’t really have a problem with us not blitzing as much as some teams. I think if we have the DL most feel we have then why not take advantage with more in coverage. Blitzing is a risk. My issue is it seems very easy to figure out from a QB’s perspective that we are not blitzing and therefore the reads a QB has to make are simpler. I think Fewell for the most part does a poor job of fooling the offense in terms of who’s coming. We have some good winkles in coverage but if they know 7 will be in coverage that’s a big advantage. While the DL does need to pressure better we need to do a better job of confusing the offense with how many are coming. This means we do actually have to blitz more than 1 player more than we do now. Looking at the bears with a similar scheme they seem in the last year or 2 found ways to be better at foling oppenets which is why their forced TO number is even higher but they still play sound defense. While they have better LBs we are as good or better in several areas so the Bear’s defense is one that we can mirror if we are going to mainly modify things instead of huge changes.

    The first thing that needs to be done in my view is make Prince the #1 CB. I think Prince is capable and that Webster facing #2 WR will see improvement without even being better than he was this year. Also, I think Fewell should look at matchups more often and try to avoid putting Webster on a speed WR. For example DJax, Wallace, Torrey Smith, etc. regardless of the #1 WR designation.

    •  Krow says:

      That’s where I was coming from too. Not a suicide blitzing approach. But keep them guessing. More blitz packages, but not excessive. It’s a tweak.

  3.  jfunk says:

    I don’t like the defensive scheme for the Giants for 3 reasons:

    1. It’s painful to watch. Attacking defense is more fun, regardless of results.

    2. It’s not effective if you don’t stop the big play with it.

    3. It’s not effective if your offense is inconsistent and/or also a big play offense.

    Allowing the opposing team to hold the ball and grind out yards isn’t a big deal with this defense as long as you’re making them grind it out and your offense puts up points when you give them the ball. This, in theory, should lead to the opponent being behind, which leads them to press for big plays, which should mean they’re throwing right into the teeth of your “turnover machine” and the game just spirals out of control for them. When you give up the big play, that whole idea is out the window.

    Second, when your own offense doesn’t sustain drives or is built primarily on quick strikes, it puts your defense on the field too long and they tire out. Not only are they somewhat deliberately allowing long plodding drives, they get no rest in between.

    For those reasons, I’d rather take my chances attacking. Not only do you have a greater chance of getting a quick out (which accomplishes the same goal as a turnover after a long drive anyway…you just gave up the yards on a punt instead on offense), but the only real downside is a greater chance of giving up the big play, which this Giants defense can’t seem to stop anyway so what’s the difference? Put it on that elite offense to pick the defense up when they give up that big play, knowing that they should force some quick 3-6 play drives along the road too.

    It’s just not right for our team. But that’s not necessarily Perry Fewell’s fault, this is what he knows how to do. Give him a couple pure cover corners and a stud MLB and the results would probably look a lot better. Right man for the wrong job.

  4.  LUZZ says:

    Perry Fewel is tough one for me. Having been in the coaching profession when I was in my early and mid twenties, i rarely ever criticize coaches.

    but just as a pure fan, I really don’t like his defense. Allowing QBs to stand in the pocket and find the weakness in a zone just isn’t fun viewing. What he’s running might be technically sound, but I just hate watching it. There’s nothing worse than getting all fired up for a game on sunday only watch the Giants rush 4 and give up way too many 3 and longs. It also tires out our DL.

    I’m 99% positive in my posting when talking about this team, but our defensive coordinator is a sore spot for me. Even worse is that it appears he’s staying.

    •  JimStoll says:

      can’t say it is technically sound when the results are so meh

      that said, expecting Fewel to change his coaching philosophy is preposterous

      as long as he is here the approach will be the same

      just as as long as Gilbride is here we will alternate between the long bomb and the shotgun draw

      and as long as Coughlin is here we will be forever .500

  5.  jfunk says:

    Jim,

    I take issue with the frequent invocation of “luck” as the only explanation for Coughlin’s two championships. Bottom line, that’s a bunch of crap.

    Overall, Coughlin has produced excellent results as a coach wherever he has been. What he did with the Jaguars was incredibly impressive up until the whole thing kind of got away from him the last couple years.

    Could he be better? Of course, and I certainly don’t take issue with we fans discussing the ways in which we believe or hope he could do a better job. However, that doesn’t mean he’s a mediocre coach or he is “lucky” to have two rings (any more so than everybody is, because it certainly requires breaks along the way to win it for anybody).

    His system works. Period. His teams are consistent contenders. Major holes/failures are almost always corrected the following season.

    I understand your gripe, I really do. But what does that gripe boil down to? That he needs to find a way to win one more game each year. One more game each year, and he doesn’t suffer through these near misses like 10 & 12. But I think it’s absurd to take that sliver of failure that may keep him from the ranks of all time greats and knock him down into the realm of really good but mortal coaches and say it means his championships were just luck.

    Those teams weren’t in position to challenge because of luck. They didn’t win 4 consecutive games against playoff teams because of luck. They didn’t play their best football in the biggest moments because of luck. They did those things because they were prepared to succeed. They were prepared to succeed by Tom Coughlin’s system. And it works, better than most coach’s systems do.

    •  JimStoll says:

      I hear you on the luck thing — they didn’t win their games in the ’07 and ’11 playoffs by luck — they won them by outplaying their opponents
      what I refer to as “luck”, is playing pretty poor football all season long and then suddenly flipping a switch and playing gang-busters
      I don’t know how to explain it
      but it can’t be (IMHO) good coaching — where is that coaching the entire season
      and to say we are contenders, well, while true, we contend at or about .500 — that’s the nature of a 32 team league with 12 teams playoff eligible
      wait until the playoffs get expanded to 16 teamsl; then 7-9, maybe even 6-10 , will contend — will that be good coaching?

      in the end, you are what your record says you are and our record more often than not says .500-ish — and in my book that’s mediocre

      •  LUZZ says:

        This is where we differ, my friend. I say you r as good as the amount of rings you have.

      •  clever username says:

        good coaching is getting your team better throughout the season and playing their best football heading into the playoffs. in our two title years, TC did that better than anyone. there was no luck in any of those wins as the guys were prepared throughout the season to be playing their best when the games meant the most. other than last years SF game, we outplayed every team along the way. the SF game was evenly contested, and it was 100% coaching that won that game (Harbaugh leaving a rookie punt returner to muff/fumble two punts lost SF that game). I think Harbaugh going with Kapernick is going to cost them another chance at a SB again this year.

  6.  Grateful Giants says:

    jfunk thank you!

    As we all sat and watched the games played this weekend, I can’t help but be annoyed when someone STILL calls this team winning 12 games last year luck. Call it what you want, we won 12 games, 9-7 got us in, thats all we needed, this year, 9-7 didn’t the year before was 10-6 and we didn’t make it.

    What you need to realize is that the places you seem to want the giants to be consistent, in the regular season in the NFC east, in the North eastern united states, its just not possible. Sure there is a team in New Englad, but dude, we can’t compare ourselves to them, they get 6 free wins.

    Put us in ANY OTHER DIVISION, any other division ESPECIALLY THE AFC EAST and I guarentee we make the playoffs 100 times out of 100 and that isn’t because we are any better, or our talent is any better, it is simply because we don’t get cakewalks like the Pats, Packers, Steelers, and anyone else who you I guess compare us to.

    I just don’t understand how any statement can be made “with the exeption of 07 and 11.” “average” teams don’t win the superbowl…EVER. ever, never ever ever ever.

  7.  LUZZ says:

    I don’t think the Steelers are good because they win a lot of regular season games, I think they are good because they have the hardware. I think the same of the Pats, and to some degree the Packers.

    On the other side of the equation, I roll my eyes at The Falcons when I hear them referred to as great. Win a trophy Atlanta.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: