Giant Anomaly - Keep HC, Keep Firing Coordinators

concerning the Spagnuolo hiring was that the Giants, given time to shop for and interview perspective DCs, have a history of sucking with their picks. Spagnuolo, who was a last minute decision to even call for an interview, has been far and away their best DC. Hands down.

There isn't a salary cap on coaches.

if unnecessary name calling now means calling people uninformed, it really cheapens when I call somebody a fuckstick.

could be the result of:
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)

A nice man, but let's face it, if we fail this year, there will be some excuse to save the HC and GM. I take his anger as seriously as I take my four year olds anger, I.e, it is temporary and for show.

In comment 12392847 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

There isn't a salary cap on coaches.

Given how important coaches are, this is where you can gain a competitive advantage on your opponents.

Mara would fire Coughlin before he would ever fire Reese. He absolutely loves Reese, and I do think race would also play a part in it, Reese would have to really screw up bad in Mara's eyes for one of the flagship franchises to fire a minority GM.

In comment 12392847 BrettNYG10 said:

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.

In comment 12392912 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

if unnecessary name calling now means calling people uninformed, it really cheapens when I call somebody a fuckstick.

And dumbass should be considered a term of endearment?

compared to what I really think of some jacknut who calls the Giants cheap with a present or historical perspective.

An uninformed dumbass is pretty accurate.

In comment 12393134 MOOPS said:

Quote:

In comment 12392847 BrettNYG10 said: 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.

he consistently whiffs.

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.

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.

grandfathers and fathers and now sons. There was a time when the Giants were cheap. There was a time that Wellington Mara let the Jets sign Matt Snell & Joe Namath because he refused to pay players that much money. Ask Fred Dryer about his experiences with the Giants in the late 60's early 70's. While the Cowboys were sinking money into scouting and front office the Giants were writing in note books. The mid 60's & 70's didn't happen because of bad luck. So that history has been passed down to part of the fan base. It doesn't apply much anymore. The Giants compete but there are some things they do differently when it comes to paying players even today. The Giants manage their cap as cash. A lot of other teams don't. The Giants rarely sign their players to second contracts. They have their own way of doing business and the homers will tell you they've won 4 Super Bowls that way. There's no disputing that. For the rest of us thank god for Eli he's made the post Parcells era worth the investment. It was ugly before he got here and it's going to get ugly when he's gone. You can replace a head coach with a .540 lifetime winning percentage. Replacing a 2 time Super Bowl MVP QB good luck.

The game is changing. There are more varieties of offense and defense played to be schemed against.

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.

In comment 12391734 GMenLTS said:

Quote:

that's a new one.

LoL

In comment 12393250 JonC said:

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.

have won a plethora of 10+ games per season aside from the Pats? Philly maybe? Who else? Just curious..

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..

.

Point is, aside from the Pats and the Steelers who beside us has won more than 2 SBs since 2004?

How many teams since TC took over have won more than our 5 10+ seasons(in 2011 we won 9 regular season and 4 post for a 13 total) and two SBs? Of those who might have won 10 or more for 5+ seasons, how many aside from the Steelers and Pats have won 1 SB, much less two?

Double digit wins since 2004 (inclusive, regular season only):

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.

I'm not happy with some of the inept football this team's displayed under TC.

In comment 12394454 JonC said:

Quote:

I'm not happy with some of the inept football this team's displayed under TC.

We agree

.

In comment 12394448 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

Double digit wins since 2004 (inclusive, regular season only): 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

In comment 12394460 GiantFilthy said:

Quote:

.

Off smoking yet? :)

Quote:

Big Blue '56 : 4:19 pm : link : reply 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.

and I didn't think you'd stick to it given how much you really said you enjoyed it..Really proud of you fwiw...

Hardest habit to quit I ever experienced(1978)..By far..

For now on when I address you, it's Giant Clean..

In comment 12394142 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

In comment 12393250 JonC said: 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.