Shockey blames the coaches

I actually watched the entire game, and felt like throwing up numerous times in the first half. Shockey brings up some good points against Coughlin though. Coughlin had no real gameplan in the first half. Of course he cannot be entirely blamed at the dismal performance of the o-line, but there wasn't a strong gameplan. Seattle threw the interception on the first series of the game, which should have sparked the Giants to string some scoring together. They never established the run, never really used Jacobs, and heavily relied on the passing game- even before they were down by an impossible amount of points. Shockey on the other hand, was playing hurt, and could have probably been more of a factor playing at 100% (or close to it). Either way, the Giants should have run more no huddle, and work on the silent count this bye week. One more knock against Coughlin- why would you waste both of your timeouts with roughly eight or nine minutes left in the 4th quarter, and on a second down? Those calls made absolutly no sense to me, and could have cost the Giants some precious time.

posted by Kendall at 02:53 PM - reply - flag:

Interestingly, I don't recall a player ever saying our coaches really did a great job out-coaching their team. When they win it's always we (the players) are so great aren't we, we deserve all the credit. In the NFL anything over a 10 point loss is a humiliating blow-out. I wonder if Seattle may have taken the attitude when up by 4 touchdowns, 'let's get this thing over with and move on to next week'..

posted by jaygolf at 03:08 PM - reply - flag:

Eli is damn good at coming back last minute though isn't he? He just needs to do what he did in OT against the the Eagles and what he did in the second half against Seattle the whole game

posted by SDM at 03:09 PM - reply - flag:

jaygolf, I don't know where you live, but here in Denver the players always seem willing to give Mike Shanahan plenty of credit for a win. Then again, he's also the GM and thus signs the contracts. ;)

posted by drumdance at 03:20 PM - reply - flag:

Shockey is basically an idiot. I would take his words with a oil tanker of salt. The Giants were outclassed all over the field, save the last 15 minutes when the Seahawks went to the Prevent and gave Eli all the time in the world to throw his laserbeams (damn he's good when he gets protection). I don't think the Giants could outcoach their way to a victory 9 time out of ten against that team in that stadium. Seattle just performed better in every facet.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:28 PM - reply - flag:

Shockey is basically an idiot. I have nothing to add. Except the words prima donna

posted by mjkredliner at 04:34 PM - reply - flag:

Shockey is basically an idiot. Finally something that we can all agree on.

posted by LaKeR4LiFe at 04:47 PM - reply - flag:

Ditto.

posted by tommytrump at 05:00 PM - reply - flag:

First, what Eli did to get out of playing for the Chargers is something for which I'll never be able to forgive him. (Don't bother bringing up Elway, Lindros or Steve Francis pulling the same stunt. I feel the same way about them.) Second, there's a nice thick line between being an authoritarian taskmaster and being a sadistic dick, and Tom Coughlin is on the wrong side of that line. And Shockey... well, far as I care, he's still just an ignorant hillbilly who never heard the word no in his life. (No knock on ignorant hillbillies. I is one myself.) In fact, if it wasn't for Tiki and possibly Michael Strahan (depending on the week), I could loathe the entire New York Football Giants with a all-covering deep acid burning hatred, without reservation.

posted by chicobangs at 05:05 PM - reply - flag:

Count on it, if Shockey is going public, the whole locker room has about had it with Stalag Coughlin. His act wears thin pretty quick even if you are winning. He thinks he is Lombardi, but there`s a big difference. Lombardi`s players had some combination of fear. respect, and love for him. Coughlin`s players have some combination of loathing and pure hate.

posted by gradioc at 05:37 PM - reply - flag:

Shockey's act wears thin on most people, it's not a redeeming quality. It was a BAD game. Period. Unfortunately that creates the perfect storm for Hurricane Jeremy. But, there's one point I'd like more info on..were the Giants really unprepared for the Seahawks defense in the first half? If so, that is a coaching issue. I personally think there are more issues on the defensive side of the ball, but Shockey will be Shockey.

posted by YukonGold at 05:51 PM - reply - flag:

I almost died laughing when I hear shockey on sportscenter complaining about how its impossible to do anything if the other team switches things up on you. Is that the most retarded thing anyone has ever said? Of course they switched it up. You really think an NFL team is going to come out and run the same game plan 2 weeks in a row? Maybe the Giants should think about switching things up a little.

posted by LaKeR4LiFe at 06:05 PM - reply - flag:

coughlin is a dinosaur. no matter what you think of shockey, he was only saying what others on the team feel and some such as tiki barber have already said. the benching of plaxico burress for most of the game was an example of a coach out of control and putting his own feelings for a player above what was best for the team. i'm not a giants fan, but i can see that this coach is clearly holding his team back, much like dan reeves did in denver in the elway years. the broncos used to struggle for 3 quarters under reeve's game plan and then he would turn elway loose in the 4th, thus all elway's comeback wins. the same pattern is emerging in new york. if the g-men ever get a 21st century coach like mike shanahan, they would be tough to beat.

posted by tnip23 at 06:27 PM - reply - flag:

Count on it, if Shockey is going public, the whole locker room has about had it with Stalag Coughlin. Yes, when that reticent old soul, so slow to anger, finally stirs to speak, something must truly . . . be up.

posted by yerfatma at 07:42 PM - reply - flag:

There seems to be plenty of blame to go around, but Shockey was just rambling. Did Coughlin make some mistakes? Sure. Did Shockey make any sense beyond that? Not much. No coach knows exactly what to expect from the other team. The Seahawks crossed him up. It happens. The coaching staff tried to make adjustments (and by Shockey's logic, Coughlin can't be blamed that the adjustments didn't work because you can make all the adjustments you want and it won't matter). And what was that blather about the no huddle? Eli is so much better at calling plays, but we can't go no huddle all the time because we have coaches who are paid to call the plays and they want us to win and...holy crap! No huddle works primarily because the defense doesn't have time to substitute and make adjustments of its' own. You call plays that work against the weaknesses of the current defensive package and don't allow them enough time to make changes. It's limited by the fact that you can't usually implement the whole playbook that way, so you run out of variety. Seems like an NFL player, even a tight end, would know that. If Eli was really good enough to take over the play calling and go no huddle all game (and that's not a slam to Eli because very few QB's could pull it off), I think the coaching staff would shut up and be satisfied to teach the plays and perfect the execution and then get the hell out of the way. Winning would go a long way toward soothing any bruised egos. Finally, how do we even know that the original game plan and adjustments were bad? Did Coughlin get called for the penalties? Throw the picks? Fumble it away? Fail to execute the blocking schemes? Who knows how the game would have played out if the players had had four solid quarters? A team won't succeed no matter how good the game plan is if the players don't make the plays.

posted by ctal1999 at 07:47 PM - reply - flag:

Another T.O. just bigger and dumber. Hey ctal ja ever notice people kinda zonin' out while your talkin'?

posted by Fillyfan711 at 09:14 PM - reply - flag:

posted by dyams at 07:19 AM - reply - flag:

Filly, it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sitch. I try to be brief, but then people give me crap about my opinions and I have to come back with details to defend my position anyway. Brevity at the cost of clarity just screws me in the long run, so I'm better off being a little long winded at the start. I don't see much point of saying anything if half the people won't understand your point anyway (and understanding doesn't mean agreeing with, just clear on the meaning and context).

posted by ctal1999 at 08:11 AM - reply - flag:

Maybe the Giants were just severly over-rated at the start of the season. Kind of like the Panthers and the Falcons and Ben Rothlesburger or however its spelled?????

posted by LaKeR4LiFe at 03:34 PM - reply - flag:

Still too early to say if any one was over-rated unless your talkin' about the Redskins. Back on point, "Jeremy Shockey". The point, ctal1999, Is that Shockey spoke out to the media, in a negative way about his coach. That "is" the point. That's why we're talking about it. The play calling, and even the outcome of the game were irrelevant. The coach is the coach and the player the player. Team discipline, Chain of command, are all vital to winning football. Shockey acted uprofessionally and immaturely. His actions are a detriment to the team. (See any T.O. reference in the past two years) You lost me when you used "Shockey" and "logic" in the same sentence.

posted by Fillyfan711 at 08:23 PM - reply - flag:

Filly, maybe I misunderstood you on your previous comment. I was responding to your question about people zoning out on me. I thought you were implying that I was long winded and I made the point that if I try to make short comments, I end up having to follow up with a longer explanation anyway. That was what I was referring to when I talked about no point in saying anything if half the people won't understand. It wasn't a comment about the Shockey situation or this thread, just an explanation of why I tend to go on sometimes. If you read my original comment, you have to know that you and I are pretty much in agreement. All I said, in short, was that Shockey may have had a point that Coughlin didn't coach a perfect game (but so what, who does?), and beyond that, everything he said was stupid rambling (and I gave examples). If Shockey had a problem with the coaching, he should have taken it up with the coaching staff, not the media. That kind of stuff should stay in house. Your comment sounded like you thought I was way too wordy, so I explained why I did it that way. I've found that if I offer an opinion without backing it up, somebody gets all in my shit about 75% of the time.

posted by ctal1999 at 09:49 PM - reply - flag:

BTW, as it turns out, this may have fallen into the 25% of the time when my CYA wasn't needed since it looks like almost everybody thought Shockey was an ass.

posted by ctal1999 at 09:54 PM - reply - flag:

No misunderstanding Bud. I think your long winded, and yup! Shockey's an ass. Loved your last post

posted by Fillyfan711 at 10:36 PM - reply - flag:

Shockey is an ass, but Coughlin has grated on his players everywhere he's been. He's been so like B.A. Strothers for so many years, I can't tell 'em apart anymore.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:01 PM - reply - flag:

Monday, September 25, 2006

Comments