I am not sure there has been another team who has kept a head coach for 10 plus years but that has fired five coordinators:
Tim Lewis
John Hufnagel
Bill Sheridan
Kevin Gilbride (I know, he "retired")
Perry Fewell
I think this suggests the owners/GM love TC, but not his ability to pick coordinators.
Depends on what you definition of "is" is.
Cost of a contract in 2006 WAS a very big deal for the Giants in 2006, with TC hanging by a thread and Gilbride promoted to OC for, if I recall correctly, $600 K.
No hyperbole.
I'm pretty sure we had to be turned down by Gregg Williams and Jim Haslett. Those hirings arguably could have been disastrous for us. Haslett is not a good DC, and Williams has the bountygate stuff attached to him now.
NJ.com - ( New Window )
For many years, the Giants had one of the highest paid staffs in the league.
I'm baffled at how the idea they have been cheap started in the first place, unless it was just foisted upon us by uninformed posters, which is likely the case.
Then it started being applied to coordinators.
It goes against history, but I guess some dumbasses don't care.
The determining factor in Spags initial contract was the fact he was a first time coordinator. He was an unproven commodity. This was his shot to make his mark. These deals are typically entry level for the position.
some questionable hiring/keeping/firing at the position coaches level, as well.
Ron Erhardt the OC resigned due to offensive philosophy conflict with Cowher
Dom Capers - left to be HC of the Panthers.
Dick L left because of money issues and went to the bengals as the DC
Chan G. - HC of Dallas
Haslett HC
Ray Sherman OC resigned after taking the blame for the seasons first losing season since 1991.
Mike Mularchy HC of the Bills
Kevin Gilbride fired
Tim Lewis fired
IMO Fewell, Lewis and Sheridan were part talent issues part not very good coaches. Also, I think TC is better at assessing offensive coordinator talent than defensive. Since he is a better offensive mind he can also mask a bad offensive coordinator more than bad defensive one.
For many years, the Giants had one of the highest paid staffs in the league.
I'm baffled at how the idea they have been cheap started in the first place, unless it was just foisted upon us by uninformed posters, which is likely the case.
Hey Fatman
You're generally a well informed poster, but sometimes you get carried away with unnecessary name calling Like now.
I never said the Giants were cheap. Fact of the matter is Coughlin was on his original Giants contract, which called for either $2M or 2.5M (I think 2). That put him far from the top tier pay-wise among NFL Head Coaches. That also meant that any DC would be paid substantially less, in the ballpark of what Gilbride was getting, give or take.
Being Coughlin was on double secret probation and very possibly not lasting beyond next year AND could not pay top dollar, the options were limited.
The cash draw opened for the coaching staff AFTER the Super Bowl win. Remember that? It's fact.
1) not identifying top-tier coordinators in the first place, or
2) not being a natural mentor. He may like control too much and delegation not enough.\, or
3) not being able to attract top coordinators because of (2)
Given how important coaches are, this is where you can gain a competitive advantage on your opponents.
I'm sure you could point out some DCs that were paid the same as their boss, the Head Coach.
And dumbass should be considered a term of endearment?
An uninformed dumbass is pretty accurate.
Quote:
There isn't a salary cap on coaches.
I'm sure you could point out some DCs that were paid the same as their boss, the Head Coach.
I misread your point. Got it now.
At the same time, losing most of our best players to falling off the cliff quickly and relatively young, as well as poor drafting for a few years contributed to a poorly constructed talent-starved roster in multiple seasons.
Despite two rings, they've struggled to win 10 games in a season throughout the TC/JR regime, at times displaying some absolutely inept football.
The CBA affected the value of some desirable coordination traits like teaching and in game changes.
Spags moving on was not a failure.
Gilbride was close to retirement.
For several years the draft template and the coaching strategy seemed disconnected.
And for several years we drafted a chunk of uncountable and less than all in all year round players.
So I dunno. Seems to me the core philosophy of drafting and the core competencies they look for in coordinators changed.
LoL
I recall a thread after 2012 by (I believe) RB^2 that asked how fans reconcile the belief the Giants possess a top five GM/coach/QB with the lack of playoff appearances. The Giants are a difficult team to reconcile analytically.
Let's not dismiss the Giants SB years either..For the ENTIRE SB seasons they were 14-6 and 13-7..
In '05 they won 11, '08 they won 12, in '10 they won 10..When reasonably healthy they have been very competitive..
This regime needs to apologize for zip..
Saints: 5
Packers: 7 (also made the playoffs with an 8-7-1 record)
Giants: 4 (two seasons where they made the playoffs with below 10 wins, one where they had 10 wins and didn't make it)
Seahawks: 5 (made the playoffs 3x with below 10 wins)
Patriots: 11
Broncos: 5 (also made the playoffs at 8-8 one year)
Colts: 10
Steelers: 7
Chargers: 4 (made the playoffs twice with below ten wins - I thought they had more 10 win seasons)
Eagles: 6 (one 10 win year they didn't make it, one 9-6-1 where they did)
Bears: 4 (one where they didn't make it with 10 wins)
Ravens: 6 (and one year where they made the playoffs at 9-7)
Bengals: 5 (plus one they made it at 9-7)
Falcons: 5
49'ers: 3
I only looked up teams I thought were likely to meet or beat the Giants in terms of number of double digit wins. 11 teams bested them, two tied (again, only of what I looked up) I was surprised the Chargers and Saints didn't have more.
Unless you have an elite (top 3) QB, it's hard to build a sustainable team.
We agree
Saints: 5
Packers: 7 (also made the playoffs with an 8-7-1 record)
Giants: 4 (two seasons where they made the playoffs with below 10 wins, one where they had 10 wins and didn't make it)
Seahawks: 5 (made the playoffs 3x with below 10 wins)
Patriots: 11
Broncos: 5 (also made the playoffs at 8-8 one year)
Colts: 10
Steelers: 7
Chargers: 4 (made the playoffs twice with below ten wins - I thought they had more 10 win seasons)
Eagles: 6 (one 10 win year they didn't make it, one 9-6-1 where they did)
Bears: 4 (one where they didn't make it with 10 wins)
Ravens: 6 (and one year where they made the playoffs at 9-7)
Bengals: 5 (plus one they made it at 9-7)
Falcons: 5
49'ers: 3
I only looked up teams I thought were likely to meet or beat the Giants in terms of number of double digit wins. 11 teams bested them, two tied (again, only of what I looked up) I was surprised the Chargers and Saints didn't have more.
Unless you have an elite (top 3) QB, it's hard to build a sustainable team.
Good post. It's always refreshing to come across some objective data to put things in perspective
Off smoking yet? :)
Off smoking yet? :)
You talkin' about my smokin' good looks or cigarettes? I quit the smelly stuff once the wife turned preggo in 2008. Now I can smell smokers three cars away.
These looks though.... that's a train that won't ever stop at the station.
Hardest habit to quit I ever experienced(1978)..By far..
For now on when I address you, it's Giant Clean..
Quote:
somehow getting white hot and winning two Super Bowls were the anomalies, imv. Parity has a lot to do with it, as does having the right franchise players in place in Eli, Strahan, Cruz, JPP, Tuck, Nicks, MM, et al, and the ability to create and ride a huge wave of confidence and team health.
I recall a thread after 2012 by (I believe) RB^2 that asked how fans reconcile the belief the Giants possess a top five GM/coach/QB with the lack of playoff appearances. The Giants are a difficult team to reconcile analytically.
They are kind of like the last 2 UConn basketball championships.