’86 Giants

[Raptorfan]

While I think their demolition of SF and Washington is arguably more impressive than the 85 Bears stonewalling two offensively-challenged teams in NY and LA, I don't consider the 1986 Giants to be one of the great teams. They won a lot of close games during the year (expected W-L is 11.9-4.1) and kind of had a "team of destiny" thing going. Super Bowl aside, Phil Simms had a mediocre season (22 INTs, 9 fumbles, 45 sacks, Rate+100) and the Giants offense wasn't great. I don't really see much difference between the 1985 Giants and the 1986 Giants other than they didn't have to face the Bears in the postseason in 86. The 1986 Giants averaged 5.0 yards per play and allowed 4.8, while the 1985 Giants averaged 5.2 yards per play and allowed 4.2

He's forgotten now, but Joe Morris was a great RB for those Giant teams. He wasn't very big at all, and Parcells ran him into the ground in 1986 with 341 carries. Morris wasn't as effective in 1987 and 1988, and the Giants as a whole became just another team.

This might sound dumb, but I think the 1986 Giants 'greatness' was affected by their 1987 opener against the Bears. I remember the buildup for the game was tremendous, a "Clash of Champions" or something along those lines. The Bears had to start Mike Tomczak at QB, the Giants scored TDs on a blocked punt and an INT return...and the Giants still lost 34-19. Phil Simms and the Giants offense couldn't do anything until a garbage TD drive in the 4th quarter.

Simms TD numbers individually for the 1984-86 seasons were 22, 22, 21. His INT numbers for those yrs were 18, 20, 22. Simms wrote in his book that at least in those yrs, Parcells wanted an aggressive passing attack and if “you didn’t throw 2 INTs/game, you weren’t trying.”

The Giants Offense in 1985 was ranked 5th in the league in yards (5884) and 6th in points (399). Prior to 1985 Parcells said they’d need to score 400 pts to win the division. Good prediction.
The Giants O in 1986 was ranked 10th in yards (5378) and 10th in points (371). Their top WR Lionel Manuel who was well on his way to a 1000 yd season in 1985 missed the last 4 games that yr. In 1986 Manuel missed the last 12 games. Hence the accusation that Simms in 1986 had tunnel vision to Bavaro after Manuel went down. Their WR corps without Manuel was shaky to say the least. Manuel gave Everson Walls fits.

In 1985 George Adams also made some nice contributions (498 yds rushing, 398 yds receiving). He missed the entire 1986 season.

As for close games, people forget the 1985 Giants lost 6 games by a total of 20 points due mainly to horrendous PK. So 1986 was karmic payback in the close game department.

I think the 1985 Giants offense was better than the 1986 one. The 1986 offense was not a powerhouse but were they really ever under Parcells?

Post Mark Haynes up until 1989, their secondary was always willing to give up a big pass play.

[74_75_78_79_]

I agree the 1987 season opener in Soldier Field took away a little luster.

That game which was billed as the game that the 1986 season deserved to see was definitely a come down to earth event for Giants fans. Or as Sports Illustrated put it, the Bears D sent Simms back to Disney World.

The Giants offensive lines from 1985-1991 couldn’t handle Ryan developed D Lines.
To be fair, Too Tall Jones was giving them fits into 1987.

The 1987 'Battle of Champions'/'Super Bowl XXI 1/2' MNF opener between the Giants & Bears should not be seen as an indicator as to who would have won the year prior if both have played each nor be seen as "who's better" between the '85 Bears or '86 Giants - especially had NYG actually won. A whole new season it was. Bears would fall even further from their identity/'aura' from two years prior (less intimidating, quite paper-tigery) though it wouldn't be seen in this very game, and that's a bit due to their opponent simply starting off as SB-hungover and flat as can possibly be.

Just about all, myself included, place da '85 Bears over the '86 G-men. And some, not me, think the Bears in '86 were better than the Giants that year and would have beaten them in that hypo-NFCCG at the Meadowlands. If that's the opinion, then the '87 opener should not be used as an example as to why one would think that.

It's kind of like me feeling the Vikings beating KC in the '70 opener not meaning that they "should have" beaten them in the SB the year before. Different seasons for both. Kapp no longer there with the Chiefs simply being a significantly lesser team as their record and no playoffs would indicate.

[Raptorfan]

I agree the 1987 season opener in Soldier Field took away a little luster.

That game which was billed as the game that the 1986 season deserved to see was definitely a come down to earth event for Giants fans. Or as Sports Illustrated put it, the Bears D sent Simms back to Disney World.

The Giants offensive lines from 1985-1991 couldn’t handle Ryan developed D Lines.
To be fair, Too Tall Jones was giving them fits into 1987.

The 1987 'Battle of Champions'/'Super Bowl XXI 1/2' MNF opener between the Giants & Bears should not be seen as an indicator as to who would have won the year prior if both have played each nor be seen as "who's better" between the '85 Bears or '86 Giants - especially had NYG actually won. A whole new season it was. Bears would fall even further from their identity/'aura' from two years prior (less intimidating, quite paper-tigery) though it wouldn't be seen in this very game, and that's a bit due to their opponent simply starting off as SB-hungover and flat as can possibly be.

Just about all, myself included, place da '85 Bears over the '86 G-men. And some, not me, think the Bears in '86 were better than the Giants that year and would have beaten them in that hypo-NFCCG at the Meadowlands. If that's the opinion, then the '87 opener should not be used as an example as to why one would think that.

It's kind of like me feeling the Vikings beating KC in the '70 opener not meaning that they "should have" beaten them in the SB the year before. Different seasons for both. Kapp no longer there with the Chiefs simply being a significantly lesser team as their record and no playoffs would indicate.

I can’t comment on the 1970 Vikes or Chiefs but I do remember that 1987 Giants season.

From a Giants fan perspective, there was unfinished business from the 1985 playoff game. By the 87 opener, we believed that the gap btw the Bears had at very least been closed if not having completely surpassed the Bears, and McMahon was out. The Giants got George Adams back and had drafted WRs with 3 of the first 4 picks in the 87 draft. On paper they appeared better than the 86 team. So hopes were high and then…
Humiliation. And as for coming out flat, well they were even flatter the following Sunday losing to the Gordon Banks Cowboys.
People often mention the 0-3 Giants strike team as the reason why they had a bad season in 87. That’s excusing a 6-6 regular squad record.

The 1986 Bears D was statistically better than the 86 Giants D. 4130 yds vs 4757. So who knows about a theoretical 1986 matchup.

[CSKreager]

86 Giants > 84 49ers

[Raptorfan]

86 Giants > 84 49ers

I can’t disagree

[74_75_78_79_]

86 Giants > 84 49ers

I can’t disagree

Here's where I ranked the 1986 Giants as far as best '80s Lombardi winners are concerned...

https://profootballresearchers.com/foru ... 903#p46903

[7DnBrnc53]

The 1986 Giants were another in a 12-year run of NFC teams that were overrated because they pounded a below-average AFC team (with a few exceptions, like the 88 Bengals, 90 Bills, 95 Steelers, and 96 Pats, who lost partially because Tuna had one foot out the door).

[74_75_78_79_]

That game which was billed as the game that the 1986 season deserved to see was definitely a come down to earth event for Giants fans. Or as Sports Illustrated put it, the Bears D sent Simms back to Disney World.

The Giants offensive lines from 1985-1991 couldn’t handle Ryan developed D Lines.
To be fair, Too Tall Jones was giving them fits into 1987.

The 1987 'Battle of Champions'/'Super Bowl XXI 1/2' MNF opener between the Giants & Bears should not be seen as an indicator as to who would have won the year prior if both have played each nor be seen as "who's better" between the '85 Bears or '86 Giants - especially had NYG actually won. A whole new season it was. Bears would fall even further from their identity/'aura' from two years prior (less intimidating, quite paper-tigery) though it wouldn't be seen in this very game, and that's a bit due to their opponent simply starting off as SB-hungover and flat as can possibly be.

Just about all, myself included, place da '85 Bears over the '86 G-men. And some, not me, think the Bears in '86 were better than the Giants that year and would have beaten them in that hypo-NFCCG at the Meadowlands. If that's the opinion, then the '87 opener should not be used as an example as to why one would think that.

It's kind of like me feeling the Vikings beating KC in the '70 opener not meaning that they "should have" beaten them in the SB the year before. Different seasons for both. Kapp no longer there with the Chiefs simply being a significantly lesser team as their record and no playoffs would indicate.

I can’t comment on the 1970 Vikes or Chiefs but I do remember that 1987 Giants season.

From a Giants fan perspective, there was unfinished business from the 1985 playoff game. By the 87 opener, we believed that the gap btw the Bears had at very least been closed if not having completely surpassed the Bears, and McMahon was out. The Giants got George Adams back and had drafted WRs with 3 of the first 4 picks in the 87 draft. On paper they appeared better than the 86 team. So hopes were high and then…
Humiliation. And as for coming out flat, well they were even flatter the following Sunday losing to the Gordon Banks Cowboys.
People often mention the 0-3 Giants strike team as the reason why they had a bad season in 87. That’s excusing a 6-6 regular squad record.

The 1986 Bears D was statistically better than the 86 Giants D. 4130 yds vs 4757. So who knows about a theoretical 1986 matchup.

One way you can look at it, though the weaker take, is that an 0-5 start is such a huge hole to dig out of. And being that those three games did count, an 0-5 start it was. A simple win (especially against Dallas, come on), or especially two wins, and not as bad.

Had there been no strike, the Giants' Week #3 opponent would have been at Miami who'd finish at 7-5; but that game was cancelled as we know. Then the next three games, which would be the scab games IRL, would not have been the easiest anyway: San Fran, Washington, and at non-playoff-but-now-respectable-at-least, Buffalo, who'd finish 6-6. What record do the Giants have after those six (not five) games had there been no strike is the question?

Either way, back to what really happened, they beat the Cards first week back to make it 1-5 (a start). But then lose again, and to Dallas again! They then go back-to-back over NE (6-6) and at Philly who, though not playoff-caliber just yet, did finish 7-5. But then against two Big Boys, lose at New Orleans and then at Washington. They complete the sweep over the Eagles the following week (Parcells' last win over Buddy until the '90 opener), lose at the Cards, then win their final two over easy Packers & Jets but it was all too late by then.

A hungover fringe playoff team at absolute best, it seems, that they were with or without that 0-5 start, with or without the strike.

[Raptorfan]

The 1987 'Battle of Champions'/'Super Bowl XXI 1/2' MNF opener between the Giants & Bears should not be seen as an indicator as to who would have won the year prior if both have played each nor be seen as "who's better" between the '85 Bears or '86 Giants - especially had NYG actually won. A whole new season it was. Bears would fall even further from their identity/'aura' from two years prior (less intimidating, quite paper-tigery) though it wouldn't be seen in this very game, and that's a bit due to their opponent simply starting off as SB-hungover and flat as can possibly be.

Just about all, myself included, place da '85 Bears over the '86 G-men. And some, not me, think the Bears in '86 were better than the Giants that year and would have beaten them in that hypo-NFCCG at the Meadowlands. If that's the opinion, then the '87 opener should not be used as an example as to why one would think that.

It's kind of like me feeling the Vikings beating KC in the '70 opener not meaning that they "should have" beaten them in the SB the year before. Different seasons for both. Kapp no longer there with the Chiefs simply being a significantly lesser team as their record and no playoffs would indicate.

I can’t comment on the 1970 Vikes or Chiefs but I do remember that 1987 Giants season.

From a Giants fan perspective, there was unfinished business from the 1985 playoff game. By the 87 opener, we believed that the gap btw the Bears had at very least been closed if not having completely surpassed the Bears, and McMahon was out. The Giants got George Adams back and had drafted WRs with 3 of the first 4 picks in the 87 draft. On paper they appeared better than the 86 team. So hopes were high and then…
Humiliation. And as for coming out flat, well they were even flatter the following Sunday losing to the Gordon Banks Cowboys.
People often mention the 0-3 Giants strike team as the reason why they had a bad season in 87. That’s excusing a 6-6 regular squad record.

The 1986 Bears D was statistically better than the 86 Giants D. 4130 yds vs 4757. So who knows about a theoretical 1986 matchup.

One way you can look at it, though the weaker take, is that an 0-5 start is such a huge hole to dig out of. And being that those three games did count, an 0-5 start it was. A simple win (especially against Dallas, come on), or especially two wins, and not as bad.

Had there been no strike, the Giants' Week #3 opponent would have been at Miami who'd finish at 7-5; but that game was cancelled as we know. Then the next three games, which would be the scab games IRL, would not have been the easiest anyway: San Fran, Washington, and at non-playoff-but-now-respectable-at-least, Buffalo, who'd finish 6-6. What record do the Giants have after those six (not five) games had there been no strike is the question?

Either way, back to what really happened, they beat the Cards first week back to make it 1-5 (a start). But then lose again, and to Dallas again! They then go back-to-back over NE (6-6) and at Philly who, though not playoff-caliber just yet, did finish 7-5. But then against two Big Boys, lose at New Orleans and then at Washington. They complete the sweep over the Eagles the following week (Parcells' last win over Buddy until the '90 opener), lose at the Cards, then win their final two over easy Packers & Jets but it was all too late by then.

A hungover fringe playoff team at absolute best, it seems, that they were with or without that 0-5 start, with or without the strike.

Agreed. They were heading to a bad season and certain things (the offensive line especially) that seemed like they had become strengths in 1986 showed they had significant weaknesses.

[Raptorfan]

86 Giants > 84 49ers

I can’t disagree

Here's where I ranked the 1986 Giants as far as best '80s Lombardi winners are concerned...

https://profootballresearchers.com/foru ... 903#p46903

I read the post and you were nicer than others who made lists in that topic

A powerhouse? It seemed that way especially on Defense but in hindsight the passing game was definitely not a powerhouse. I do think a healthy Manuel would have improved that maybe significantly.

I can understand some of the others who listed them 7th mainly because they collapsed so badly in 1987. But I think they forget how actually good the 1985 team was when they accuse the 86 team of being a “flash in the pan.” 1985, 6 losses by 20 points.