Last year, of course, the Giants started 5-0, hit the halfway point at 5-3 and then went 3-5 over the final eight games. Instead of saying he planned to assert himself as a leader and remind his teammates to fight through adversity and learn from last year’s collapse, Manning seems to think what happened in the past stays in the past.
That’s short-sighted….
“Athletes don’t think that way. We don’t think that way.”
But doesn’t it go deeper than simply thinking about the next game?
“No, it doesn’t,” Manning said. “You prepare. You play Philly. You prepare for your next game and you go play. It’s all you can do. It’s all you think about. The only thing I’m worried about is Philly’s defense and their scheme and us getting ready for them.”
– Gary Myers, N.Y. Daily News.
As Chris M pointed out in the comments section yesterday, just last week everyone was penciling the Giants into the Super Bowl. They played poorly against Dallas, no doubt, but it’s still one game.
While it’s hard to fault Myers for pointing to the Giants’ second-half struggles under Tom Coughlin, it’s also difficult to determine exactly the source of those struggles. Certainly the ever-present spectre of randomness could play a part.
Otherwise, if we’re absolutely desperate for a good reason the Giants have gone 41-15 in the first halves of their regular seasons and 20-29 in the latter halves under Coughlin, I’d guess it has more to do with strategy and the coaches’ inability to adjust the Giants’ gameplans for teams that have a half-season worth of video to scout than the complacency and lack of accountability Myers seems eager to diagnose.
Because Manning’s quotes in the column seem to embody exactly the type of mental fortitude we usually celebrate in winning players and teams. Mariano Rivera, most notably, is constantly praised for his ability to put his rare mishaps behind him and focus on the task at hand.
I can’t say that this is necessarily the case for all athletes, but it seems that — and Manning suggests — they are generally better served planning for the next challenge then worrying about the past or distant future (those responsibilities fall on the coaches and GMs).
Plus Manning is probably in a no-win situation when asked if he’s thinking about the past: If he says he is, he’s sure to be lambasted for letting the “collapses” get into his head. If he says he isn’t, he’s guilty of “short-sighted” thinking.
Tedquarters 
Something you also have to consider is the schedule. People point to the 5-0 start last year all the time, but look at who they played. The only tough game was in Dallas. They beat Washington, KC, Tampa, and Oakland, 3 of the worst teams in the league. Then lost 4 in a row to New Orleans, Philly, Arizona, and Sand Diego.
You can say they ‘collapsed’ which at the very end they did. But more likely they were really just an 8-8 team from the begining, they just played the soft part of the schedule first.
And the prior two years how can you really complain? 2007 they won the damn super bowl and in 2008 they had the #1 seend in the NFC. I realize they started 11-1 that year, and lost 3 of thier last 4, but really look at it. After 11-1, they lost to Philly and at Dallas, prob 2 of the tougest games on thier schedule (and this was also right after the Plaxico Arrest). But after that they managed to beat Carolina, the #2 seed, to clinch the top spot. The last loss that year to the Vikes was a meaningless game where the starters only played a half.
Point of all this being, you need to really dig into it and look at what actually happened, and not just look at some first half vs second half record and make conclusions about what happened.
You also have to consider that in 2004, they replaced Kurt Warner with a rookie QB about half way through the season. In 2005, basically every linebacker on the roster got hurt and they were starting guys off the street the last few weeks (and for that awful playoff loss to the Panthers). And in 2008, Plaxico shot himself in the leg in November.
Yea Sherm,
I didnt even bother going back that far, but your right. The Giants realized they werent going to go anywhere in 2004 and did the right thing by getting Eli’f feet wet, but it cost them a bunch of what would have likely been meaningless wins, which all go into that oh so important record that the columnists like to use, without really giving any context.
If they’d won the game by 70 Eli’s answers wouldn’t have been appreciably different. Have to love that guy.
Of course then the story, based on that same question and answer session, would have been that Eli’s ability to focus on the task at hand and not relax based on this seasons accomplishments lead by example for his team.
Things have be given context and reason to draw attention but that can push someone into writing based on a flimsy premise. But how can you blame them? Who wants to read “The Giants played badly but not as badly as you may think and it doesn’t likely offer significant insight into how the the remaining season will go”?
Writing to make that interesting is hard work.
I still think that the Giants are a paper tiger. Nearly every win was against a terrible team or one that was fatally flawed at the time the Giants played them. For example, Seattle started Charlie Whitehurst, or the Bears having a bunch of O-line injuries, and a completely tuned-out Cowboys. I suspect the Giants will be exposed in the late-season and going into the playoffs.
I dont thinks that entirely fair…. you could probably say that about most teams if you dig into thier record. Almost any team with a good record is likely to have beaten up on bad teams and lost to some good ones. Thats just generally how it goes.
And you cant just dismiss wins over good teams the way you are doing. The bears are 6-3 right now and the Giants dominated that game. Seattle was leading thier division going into that game and while Whitehurst was the starter, Seattle is a tough place to play and the Giants again dominated every aspect of that game. If you are going to use injuires on the Bears O’line and to the Seattle QB, you have to be fair and realize the Giants last week were down a a bunch of O-linemen themselves and a pro bowl receiver. They were down to only 3 receivers, on being an undrafted rookie in the second half on Sunday.
And the win over Dallas should not be easily dimissed either. Dallas was by no means out of anything at that point, and the Giants were dominating that game even before Romo went out.
Do I think the Giants are the best team in the NFL, no, but I think they are a good team who should IMO make the playoffs.
In addition to the schedule, timing is so crucial.
Of course the Cowboys were going to get at least a one-game bump from having a new coach. The Giants were just unfortunate enough to be on the other end.
Likewise, the Patriots were really impressive against the Steelers last week. But they caught them on a short week right after the Steelers lost two starting offensive linemen on Monday and didn’t really have time to adjust.