“There was a lot of heat on Jerry,’’ Giants co-owner Steve Tisch said Monday during a break at the Biltmore Hotel at the NFL Annual Meeting. “John Mara, my partner, made it very clear to Jerry, ‘We’re watching you and we have very high expectations, and it’s really your time to deliver, Jerry.’
“So the moves he made last season, clearly in retrospect, were hugely significant and really changed the whole defense of the team. I’m thrilled Jerry accepted the challenge, acknowledged what he had to do and he did it. That doesn’t happen every time. It doesn’t happen really all that often..." |
I'm usually labeled a "Reese apologist" because I refuse to reflexively heap scorn upon him for all of the team's shortcomings, but I've been critical of him at times when I've felt that the criticism is warranted, and that goes all the way back to his decision not to re-sign Kawika Mitchell.
He's not God. He's not perfect. He certainly has his flaws, his "blind spots," but on balance I think he's been one of the better GMs in this league.
Link - (
New Window )
He could say nothing.
Quote:
So this praise is not unexpected seeing as how Reese still has a job.
He could say nothing.
And when it comes to football matters, he (Tisch) really should.
Bringing up the revered Ozzie Newsome and his fuck-ups are met with crickets..
In sum, he is one of the better GMs in the league who would be out of work all of a few minutes were he to be mistakenly let go, imv..
Marty, this organization hasn't fired a GM since '79,
so for the only organization in the four major sports that hasn't done so... the answer is no.
Please folks, just take the commentary at
face value and nothing more. I am not advocating firing
anyone okay. I have been critical of JR when warranted,
in the past. He did a good job last season, all in all,
now you need a good draft in 2017!
Bringing up the revered Ozzie Newsome and his fuck-ups are met with crickets..
In sum, he is one of the better GMs in the league who would be out of work all of a few minutes were he to be mistakenly let go, imv..
IMV, he is a 'top 15' GM, if one wants to put a value like that....I would not say 'top 10' however. Again, that is my viewpoint.
That's grossly oversimplifying the process. Do you realize how many times teams have gone out and bought big ticket FAs only to have them flop?
It wasn't only that they had a lot to spend, it's that they spent it effectively. They signed good, young players who fit well together.
Quote:
When we praise Reese in the OVERALL, we're apologists; when we criticize him at times (2010 screw-up with the Secondary position, Kawika as you point out, etc.,) it is ignored as people CONTINUE to label us as the "Reese can do no wrong crowd," which of course is bullshit..
Bringing up the revered Ozzie Newsome and his fuck-ups are met with crickets..
In sum, he is one of the better GMs in the league who would be out of work all of a few minutes were he to be mistakenly let go, imv..
.
IMV, he is a 'top 15' GM, if one wants to put a value like that....I would not say 'top 10' however. Again, that is my viewpoint.
Your viewpoint isn't worth diddly if you think a guy with two SB trophies who just finished an 11-5 season is middle of the pack.
Quote:
When we praise Reese in the OVERALL, we're apologists; when we criticize him at times (2010 screw-up with the Secondary position, Kawika as you point out, etc.,) it is ignored as people CONTINUE to label us as the "Reese can do no wrong crowd," which of course is bullshit..
Bringing up the revered Ozzie Newsome and his fuck-ups are met with crickets..
In sum, he is one of the better GMs in the league who would be out of work all of a few minutes were he to be mistakenly let go, imv..
.
IMV, he is a 'top 15' GM, if one wants to put a value like that....I would not say 'top 10' however. Again, that is my viewpoint.
I think that if you really tried to list 10 GM's better than Reese, you would have a hard time.
Reese deserves blame for some things, but all in all he's been one of the better GMs in the league over the 10 year span he's had the position.
Quote:
In comment 13408825 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
When we praise Reese in the OVERALL, we're apologists; when we criticize him at times (2010 screw-up with the Secondary position, Kawika as you point out, etc.,) it is ignored as people CONTINUE to label us as the "Reese can do no wrong crowd," which of course is bullshit..
Bringing up the revered Ozzie Newsome and his fuck-ups are met with crickets..
In sum, he is one of the better GMs in the league who would be out of work all of a few minutes were he to be mistakenly let go, imv..
.
IMV, he is a 'top 15' GM, if one wants to put a value like that....I would not say 'top 10' however. Again, that is my viewpoint.
Your viewpoint isn't worth diddly if you think a guy with two SB trophies who just finished an 11-5 season is middle of the pack.
We can agree to disagree, they went four consecutive years without making the playoffs before last year. Your narrative suits your point of view.
All those draft picks in rounds 3-7 over the years too.
I am just saying, people can look
at a GM from any angle to make their case.
Dude, I just had major surgery a couple weeks back,
so not going to argue. I am happy I am still around!
That $200 million didn't just magically appear in JR's checking account. He and his crew set themselves up to be able to spend that much.
No, you don't have to be a prodigy, but you do have to be a savvy GM. You don't throw big money at aging, oft-injured veterans looking for one last big payday. Instead, you sign young, ascending talent even when the "experts" decry your every move.
This team led the NFL in injuries three years in a row. What are the odds of that happening?
What would people think of Reese if people like Hakeem Nicks and David Wilson were still playing?
No way! You mean the guys whose money is being spent want to have the person spending it justify his decisions? Why...why...that's outrageous!
Reese has generally been fine, but you're going to rip people for not having him in their top 10? Why exactly?
If you believe Eli is an elite QB and borderline HoF... who oh by the way hasnt derailed a season by getting injured as happens to so many other teams since he came into the league... then is it out of line to have expected more divisional titles in this tenure? I get that two superbowl runs tick a box and that's the name of the game, but I'd have thought we'd have had more regular season success than we've had. Especially given how mediocre the NFC East has been for most of the past 10 years?
Off the top of my head is it unreasonable to rank him behind:
-Green Bay
-Seattle
-Arizona
-New England
-Denver
-Pittsburgh
And i'm not sure how you compare a GM who has a franchise QB with those that havent had one (thus dont have the playoff success, but do get their teams to the postseason most years in spite of that):
-KC
-Houston
-Cincinnati
And then there is Dallas which has had more regular season success than us, but no playoff luck. I'm not entirely sure why the latter falls on a GM.
and not sure he's separated himself from Carolina (two first round byes in past 4 years, and one superbowl) or Atlanta either.
Again not advocating his firing or anything like that, but until he shows he can build a winner around Eli again.. i think #11-15 overall sounds reasonable enough to me.
I have asked before: Why do you hate ownership? It's very strange.
Well he was on notice big time after last year so I guess the owners don't / didn't realize it either.
Not that I think Mara and especially Tisch are the omniscient people or anything -- but the supercilious attitude shown by many here of anyone questioning why we havent had more regular season success under Eli Manning... puzzling to me. I think more GMs could have produced similar results over the past 5-6 years (one double digit win regular season since 2010)
He's always had the qualities that good GM's have. But his results have been mixed due to what can only be gleaned from the comfort of a living room love seat as some form of complacency. Whatever was holding him back before seems to have dissipated. Can't complain about the results over the last year or so.
Second, not giving him credit for last year is short sighted. Critics say he had $200 million to spend. He did but unlike most other teams on a spending spree, he spent the money wisely on younger ascending players. And, this year, without alot of money to spend, he both got lucky (Marshall) and was smart.
My point about Jerry and last year in particular has always been the same...that $200M was spent because of failed draft pick after failed draft pick. The signing of JPP was the first second contract for a Giants first round pick in many, many years. That has to be on the GM and his staff.
So yes we can credit Jerry for going and getting OV, Snacks and Jackrabbit. Nonetheless, the $200M should not have been necessary had we drafted better and that, to me, is the major job of a GM. Again, I will say, JR's failure to fix the offensive line has probably cost us the best years of Eli's career.
Now, we did have a good draft last year and that is on him but we need another good draft this year and we need the OL situation fixed. If not, it will be similar to last year but tougher because we have a tougher schedule. Good D and mediocre offense.
Let's not ignore the point that not just the OL was ignored but so was the Dline or at least poor draft picks. Also, we have not drafted a good TE since Boss.
So yes, I will give credit for the job done since the end of the 2015 season. But the job was made harder and necessary by poor drafting among other issues like drafting guys with injury histories or signing FAs with injury histories etc. etc.
To me, when you have a franchise quarterback you'd better do everything in your power to protect him and give him sufficient weapons. In that sense, the jury, for me, is still out on JR.
I thought K.Mitchell was over-rated because of the 1-2 good plays he made. Over the last year Reese has done a fantastic job.
That's just me. Big picture, people.
That's just me. Big picture, people.
Agreed. Getting that third ring should shut up the haters.
Sam -- not just young ascending players -- players who were workers and not prima donnas - and whose mentalities fit the team
very rare that a FA haul like the Giants had give you the kind of return that was realized
That's just me. Big picture, people.
He'd have it already if Plax didn't shoot himself in the leg.
Quote:
Nobody will give a shot about missing on a 3rd round pick.
That's just me. Big picture, people.
He'd have it already if Plax didn't shoot himself in the leg.
Eff that season. Arrrgggh
Quote:
Nobody will give a shot about missing on a 3rd round pick.
That's just me. Big picture, people.
Agreed. Getting that third ring should shut up the haters.
Not sure about that.
Eli should have 6 Super Bowl rings- you didn't know that?
Every season should be 10+ wins as well.
Quote:
you understand how ridiculous you sound when you say things like "when you have a franchise quarterback you do everything you can to protect him"....when the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls in the Jerry Reese era. In large part due to draft picks and free agency signings that he himself made as GM.
Eli should have 6 Super Bowl rings- you didn't know that?
Every season should be 10+ wins as well.
Wouldn't you rather have the track record of the Bengals or Cardinals?
Quote:
In comment 13409038 ryanmkeane said:
Quote:
you understand how ridiculous you sound when you say things like "when you have a franchise quarterback you do everything you can to protect him"....when the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls in the Jerry Reese era. In large part due to draft picks and free agency signings that he himself made as GM.
Eli should have 6 Super Bowl rings- you didn't know that?
Every season should be 10+ wins as well.
Wouldn't you rather have the track record of the Bengals or Cardinals?
Ah yes! The calls to hire Duke Tobin! Those were the days!
For years I was a big fan of his (and Coughlin's), but as time passes I start to believe some things more and more:
1. The two Super Bowl wins were lightning in a bottle rather than the result of any particular long term plan or methodology.
2. We've only had one really good team in that 10 year span (2008).
3. We have in some ways squandered the opportunities that should have come with having 199 consecutive starts from the best QB in team history.
We should have done more.
Second, not giving him credit for last year is short sighted. Critics say he had $200 million to spend. He did but unlike most other teams on a spending spree, he spent the money wisely on younger ascending players. And, this year, without alot of money to spend, he both got lucky (Marshall) and was smart.
Very fair post which is your norm..I'll add this: It's one thing to have exorbitant amounts of money to spend, it's another to be able to have that eye for young, ascending talent, which is what JR displayed. If it was simply a case of lots of money yielding winning results, we'd see far more success stories than failures, imv..
For years I was a big fan of his (and Coughlin's), but as time passes I start to believe some things more and more:
1. The two Super Bowl wins were lightning in a bottle rather than the result of any particular long term plan or methodology.
2. We've only had one really good team in that 10 year span (2008).
3. We have in some ways squandered the opportunities that should have come with having 199 consecutive starts from the best QB in team history.
We should have done more.
Super Bowls are Super Bowls. If you make the dance you have as good a shot as anyone. I don't really buy this.
2005-2012 was a very solid run for the Giants which led to 2 Super Bowls. 2010 was a good team.
For years I was a big fan of his (and Coughlin's), but as time passes I start to believe some things more and more:
1. The two Super Bowl wins were lightning in a bottle rather than the result of any particular long term plan or methodology.
2. We've only had one really good team in that 10 year span (2008).
3. We have in some ways squandered the opportunities that should have come with having 199 consecutive starts from the best QB in team history.
We should have done more.
Agree 100%. The division since 2005 has been equally mediocre. It's not like we had to deal with a perennial winner within the division yet the team's w/l record vs Dallas and Philadelphia has hovered at/around .500.
Quote:
In that time, the team is 88-72. An average record of 9-7 pretty accurately describes how I feel about his tenure here.
For years I was a big fan of his (and Coughlin's), but as time passes I start to believe some things more and more:
1. The two Super Bowl wins were lightning in a bottle rather than the result of any particular long term plan or methodology.
2. We've only had one really good team in that 10 year span (2008).
3. We have in some ways squandered the opportunities that should have come with having 199 consecutive starts from the best QB in team history.
We should have done more.
Agree 100%. The division since 2005 has been equally mediocre. It's not like we had to deal with a perennial winner within the division yet the team's w/l record vs Dallas and Philadelphia has hovered at/around .500.
To back up the record, NYG vs East (including playoffs) in Manning Era:
Philadelphia 10-18
Dallas 14-12
Washington 17-8
He also deserved the credit he got for the 2007 draft and 2 SB titles. And as Snyder and countless other owners and GMS have shown us, having $$ doesn't mean anything unless it's spent wisely. YEs, he had $200 mill last year, but it was a year where the FA market was deep where they needed help, and he identified the right guys and signed them.Just as this year where the market was week where the needed help and he refused to throw good $$ at bad players for the sake of "doing something".
Quote:
A lot of posters here don't realize it, unfortunately.
Well he was on notice big time after last year so I guess the owners don't / didn't realize it either.
Not that I think Mara and especially Tisch are the omniscient people or anything -- but the supercilious attitude shown by many here of anyone questioning why we havent had more regular season success under Eli Manning... puzzling to me. I think more GMs could have produced similar results over the past 5-6 years (one double digit win regular season since 2010)
"Good GM" is not to be confused with "Sterling" or "Incredible"...
Reese has had a lot of premium draft picks suffer career-ending/altering injuries. I'd say he likely has a better track record than the average GM in this league over the last decade. A lot of GM's haven't even lasted that long.
It's a results-based league.. the results weren't there for various reasons recently. I'm not a Reese-apologist, but I do think he's a good GM.
The people who are defensive towards anyone who questions why the results haven't been better or more consistent really aren't any worse than those who blame Reese for literally everything that goes wrong with this football team.
Maybe our QB just isn't as good as Brady or Rodgers. Maybe he's not even as good as Russel Wilson right now.
It's a QB-driven league. I love Eli but it's also okay to admit that he's not an "elite" QB (outside of 2011) and has had a bit of an inconsistent career.
Sintim
Beckum
Barden
Jernigan
Wilson (even before the unfortunate injury it seemed like his incorporation into this offense was difficult)
Odighizuwa
Andre Williams
Randle
Adrien Robinson
With each of these players something felt wrong almost from the start.
I think it's important to have a bit of context here.
Yes, Jerry Reese has made questionable draft day selections. He's also hit on a LOT of his 1st round picks.
I think you'd have to look at how many of Reese's draft picks went on to become legit NFL players.. then you'd have to tier those players and determine how many were simply guys who carved out a niche in this league and how many were true impact players (i.e. Beckham)
It's a complicated argument.
I think it's important to have a bit of context here.
Yes, Jerry Reese has made questionable draft day selections. He's also hit on a LOT of his 1st round picks.
I think you'd have to look at how many of Reese's draft picks went on to become legit NFL players.. then you'd have to tier those players and determine how many were simply guys who carved out a niche in this league and how many were true impact players (i.e. Beckham)
It's a complicated argument.
This. Any way you cut it: This organization has been successful.
2007 was lightning in a bottle? Then where did 2008 come from?
I think Coughlin and Reese were a good pairing that won two titles and could have won more, but a combination of salary cap and injuries worked against them. The insinuation that we automatically should have won more simply because we have Eli Manning doesn't seem to match the results he has produced even when the team around him is strong. I think he's a quality franchise QB who has had some very good years, is worthy of the HOF, but isn't some all time great who should have walked away with 3 or 4 rings.
The question is WHY are those mistakes made? Everyone is going to miss on players; we all know that. But I'm not talking about missing on a guy, I'm talking about drafting a guy that doesn't fit into what the coach is doing on the field.
There have been some square pegs and round holes. I'll give you a great example: Larry Donnell. What did we know about him very early on?
- Made poor decisions with the ball in his hands
- Poor blocker
- Fumbling issues
- Good at winning 50/50 jump ball type passes in the red zone
So knowing those things about him, why did we use him the way we did? Why was he put in positions to hurt us with his mental errors, and not put in positions to help us with his ability to catch the ball in traffic? It was obvious to any observer that before we got in the red zone he never should have seen the field, but once we got in there he should have been a major threat. Considering our inability to run the ball in the red zone (a pathetic 6 rushing TDs all season), Donnell should have been featured as an alternative red zone option. What did we get out of him? 15 catches for 92 yards and 1 TD...and that TD came in the 2nd quarter of week 1.
That's a terrible use of resources for a team that struggled to score points. That's an error for which everyone (not just the GM) is responsible. But because Reese is running the show, it falls at his feet.
No, that doesn't mean it absolves Jerry Reese of making poor draft choices. But again, what is the watermark here? What's an acceptable rate of "successful" picks?
Without context that shows how he compares to his peers, the critique is essentially meaningless.
What you're doing is criticizing a major league hitter for the 7 out of 10 times he wasn't able to produce a hit without realizing that a .300 average is actually well above-average relative to the sport.
The insinuation that we automatically should have won more simply because we have Eli Manning doesn't seem to match the results he has produced even when the team around him is strong.
The Packers SHOULD HAVE WON MORE with Aaron Rodgers, but to date, he's only won ONE..There are no automatics in this league, not even Brady and the Pats, as great as they've been..
And GT, you have said it many times, ALL THAT MATTERS are SBs. Period. Sure, if we made better decisions at times and didn't suffer some key injuries, we might have been more competitive vis a vis SB-worthy, but even then, skill, talent and all things aligned must be present to take home the hardware..Reese might be worse than some, but better than most imv..
Look at our repeated failures with the DE/LB hybrid guys. Why have we been banging our heads against the wall with that spot when it doesn't seem to fit into what we're trying to do on the field?
I'm not a Reese hater...I stuck up for him when most people here wanted him fired. I'm not advocating firing him now. I'm just saying that there have been some strange decisions made over the years that fall at his feet too.
And again if you want to compare him against his peers the best measure is his record, and that shakes out to just under a 9-7 average season. And like I said earlier how many really good teams have we had in 10 seasons?
Absolutely not. I have said repeatedly that many are complicit.
I don't think Clint Sintim was going to be a good defensive player on any NFL defense.
Quote:
He surely had input. But that gets ignored here.
Absolutely not. I have said repeatedly that many are complicit.
Yup. That wasn't directed at you, just BBI in general.
When we look at the PATS and see little Bill it's hard for us to accept mediocrity.
My point about Jerry and last year in particular has always been the same...that $200M was spent because of failed draft pick after failed draft pick. The signing of JPP was the first second contract for a Giants first round pick in many, many years. That has to be on the GM and his staff.
So yes we can credit Jerry for going and getting OV, Snacks and Jackrabbit. Nonetheless, the $200M should not have been necessary had we drafted better and that, to me, is the major job of a GM. Again, I will say, JR's failure to fix the offensive line has probably cost us the best years of Eli's career.
Now, we did have a good draft last year and that is on him but we need another good draft this year and we need the OL situation fixed. If not, it will be similar to last year but tougher because we have a tougher schedule. Good D and mediocre offense.
Let's not ignore the point that not just the OL was ignored but so was the Dline or at least poor draft picks. Also, we have not drafted a good TE since Boss.
So yes, I will give credit for the job done since the end of the 2015 season. But the job was made harder and necessary by poor drafting among other issues like drafting guys with injury histories or signing FAs with injury histories etc. etc.
To me, when you have a franchise quarterback you'd better do everything in your power to protect him and give him sufficient weapons. In that sense, the jury, for me, is still out on JR.
If the Giants had drafted Vernon, Jenkins and Harrison, they still would have had to spend $200M to retain them. That whole argument is nonsense, IMO.
I can't.
Quote:
A lot of posters here don't realize it, unfortunately.
When we look at the PATS and see little Bill it's hard for us to accept mediocrity.
This post really doesn't make any sense.
Belichick's track record is literally unparalleled. You make it seem like the Patriots success is easily replicated and that we should be looking at Jerry Reese as if he's a failure for not being able to do so.
And plenty of people felate the guy over every good move and act like you just banged their wife if you question anything bad.
In general there are people here who don't believe in any opinion bit their own. And then get mad if someone decides not to be persuaded. I think Reese has redeemed himself greatly. I wanted him fired along w TC.
Kudos to him and his staff. They have nailed down almost everything. But if he can't draft or sign as a FA one great OL in 9-10 years as a GM he can be slammed for that just as his acumen in finding great WRs deserves praise.
He drafted Richburg and Pugh. Both are considered among the best at their position in the entire league. This is why nobody takes you seriously.
Quote:
But if he can't draft or sign as a FA one great OL in 9-10 years as a GM he can be slammed for that just as his acumen in finding great WRs deserves praise.
He drafted Richburg and Pugh. Both are considered among the best at their position in the entire league. This is why nobody takes you seriously.
laying it on a little thick Ryan?? :-)
Richburg "considered among the best"?
Because it's hard to compare a GM or a coach individually when you're comparing them to a single person holding both titles.
Belichick the GM's greatest asset is Belichick the coach. His ability to creatively use personnel has masked what would have otherwise at times been considered questionable personnel moves.
And still, that's not a reason not to try to emulate it - but the fact remains that others have tried and have come nowhere close.
Because, outside of Lombardi, no other coach consistently got/gets excellent performances out of players who wouldn't have been anywhere as effective as they are or were(and that includes vets generally considered on the downside of their careers), had they played for any other HC, even the acclaimed ones, imo..So, he's the outlier consistency-wise outside of Lombardi
He drafted Richburg and Pugh. Both are considered among the best at their position in the entire league. This is why nobody takes you seriously.
Ryan, not so sure about Richburg yet. I don't have access to his stats but I do remember him being driven back deep into the pocket quite a few times last year. Hope he plays as well this year as he did in 2015.
Quote:
But if he can't draft or sign as a FA one great OL in 9-10 years as a GM he can be slammed for that just as his acumen in finding great WRs deserves praise.
He drafted Richburg and Pugh. Both are considered among the best at their position in the entire league. This is why nobody takes you seriously.
Wait. Your not a fan of mine How will I survive?
How may probbowls have they made. Who views them as best in the NFL. Please site me an independent measure. Not the opinion of Ryan he asshole.
I mean I'm not a fan of you either . The one conversation u adressed me you accused me of racism. I don't forget assholes like you. Please. You ignore me like Ive ignored your stupidity
I can't.
Does Belichick count? That's 1, but I'll say he's in another stratosphere.
In my opinion, the following GM's are better (in no order)
Newsome
Demietroff
Schneider
Thompson
Colbert
Elway
I'm no Reese fan by any means, but I'll even admit he's certainly in the top 10.
You don't think teams have been trying to figure out his methodology for years now? Of course they are. The problem is that no one has been able to replicate his formula.
And as jcn mentioned earlier, the fact that he is both the coach and the GM makes for a unique situation where he is evaluating players knowing exactly how they will or will not fit into what he's doing.
If what Belichick was doing was easily replicated, more teams would have caught on by now. It's obviously not. His model also includes having arguably the best player ever at the most important position in all of sports. Teams can't just "copy" having a Tom Brady under center.
Quote:
This off-season it's been fashionable to cite Belichick as an exception that shouldn't be looked at as a model for other teams. I don't understand this thinking at all. Other greats have had their methods copied and adapted since day one. Why is Belichick an exception?
You don't think teams have been trying to figure out his methodology for years now? Of course they are. The problem is that no one has been able to replicate his formula.
And as jcn mentioned earlier, the fact that he is both the coach and the GM makes for a unique situation where he is evaluating players knowing exactly how they will or will not fit into what he's doing.
If what Belichick was doing was easily replicated, more teams would have caught on by now. It's obviously not. His model also includes having arguably the best player ever at the most important position in all of sports. Teams can't just "copy" having a Tom Brady under center.
Word.
I find the playoffs to be somewhat of a crapshoot - especially 2011 when we recovered i believe it was ALL 11 offensive fumbles on the run... had balls grazing punt returners finger tips and recovered by us to win a game.. etc. Went 9-7 that year, but i guess because of the run, our front office is a genius (?)
To me the best GMs are the ones that give the team a chance to win every year. Sustained postseason appearances and division titles.
In Reese's tenure, despite having a star QB start every game in that tenure, in 10 years we have:
-2 division titles (the Eagles and Cowboys each have 3)
-4 playoff appearances
Certain franchises spent decades looking for QBs - hell Houston (which is well run and gets to the playoffs most years anyway), Cleveland, NYJ and Buffalo are still looking...
So I guess for me to suck at the teet - or at least get offended if someone were to (gasp) call Reese fairly average at what he does relative to other NFL competition - I would have liked to have seen more sustained regular season success.
Realize its a complicated analysis... and I'm not expecting another Superbowl or another 3 Superbowls to change my view here... just more regular season success and playoff appearances. I think that's fair.
Does that sound about right to anyone?
Reese definitely has his warts. He had a 2 year stretch of putrid drafts, where the objective seemed to be high ceiling, low floor players in the hopes that they pan out, and they didn't. He's placed high values on some positions and low on others, to the point where you wonder if he'd have linebackers on the team at all if it were entirely up to him. And his 3rd round draft record pretty much throughout his tenure (with a couple of notable exceptions) is nothing to write home about.
...but...
Could you really pick 15 names who have done a better or similar job as GM of an NFL team over the past decade?
The guy managed to work the salary cap and keep some core pieces around that franchise QB to help him win a second SB 4 years later. That alone is something Ozzie Newsome hasn't been able to do.
Despite the catastrophic injury situation and some premature career endings, he's managed to field a team that hasn't bottomed out in that time, the worst being a 6-10 campaign.
So while I can understand finding fault with the guy, being frustrated at certain recurring themes (undervalued LBs, difficulty producing a decent OL) - I can understand how it turns to him being average or worse. Take a look at what average in the NFL means and then circle back. It doesn't mean a handful of division titles and a SB victory in a 10 year span, unfortunately.
And I sure as hell don't get the Belichick comparisons. Not because that's not the goal, or it's not attainable, but literally NOBODY else has gotten close to touching it. That's what makes BB so impressive, it's that he's the gold standard and everyone else is a distant second. If you're upset that Reese isn't as good as BB, you've got fans of 30 other teams as company.
I find the playoffs to be somewhat of a crapshoot - especially 2011 when we recovered i believe it was ALL 11 offensive fumbles on the run... had balls grazing punt returners finger tips and recovered by us to win a game.. etc. Went 9-7 that year, but i guess because of the run, our front office is a genius (?)
To me the best GMs are the ones that give the team a chance to win every year. Sustained postseason appearances and division titles.
In Reese's tenure, despite having a star QB start every game in that tenure, in 10 years we have:
-2 division titles (the Eagles and Cowboys each have 3)
-4 playoff appearances
Certain franchises spent decades looking for QBs - hell Houston (which is well run and gets to the playoffs most years anyway), Cleveland, NYJ and Buffalo are still looking...
So I guess for me to suck at the teet - or at least get offended if someone were to (gasp) call Reese fairly average at what he does relative to other NFL competition - I would have liked to have seen more sustained regular season success.
Realize its a complicated analysis... and I'm not expecting another Superbowl or another 3 Superbowls to change my view here... just more regular season success and playoff appearances. I think that's fair.
It's hard to be a consistent playoff team when the overall record vs the East, hardly a powerhouse, in the Manning Era sits at 40-36; 41-38 if you count 3 playoff games.
Could you really pick 15 names who have done a better or similar job as GM of an NFL team over the past decade?
Its a hard question to answer because how many have had elite QBs play every game for him over that span?
It does raise an interesting point, though - we're approaching a point where a lot of guys are going to be graded differently. Reese has had the advantage of Manning at QB for his entire GM tenure. Belichick has had Brady. I have no doubt Belichick will continue to win on, because that's what he does even when he goes stretches without Brady. For Reese, that remains to be seen.
No jinx, just my take. The Giants look poised to be a good to very good team for the next few seasons, including last season.
Every team except the Pats hits a downward trend. The Ravens have. Even Pitt has to some extent although they did make the playoffs the last 2 years. I believe they missed the playoffs the two prior to that.
We are using sample sizes to kill Reese but there's a good chance the regular season record is going to revert to the mean here over the next few years. 2013-2015 was rough but it looks like those struggles are behind us.
I Guess teams aren't allowed to rebuild on BBI.
Clint Simtim wasn't a bad fit as much as he just wasn't any good. And throughout this flock of missed draft picks we were winning so it's kind of hard to cite any disconnect.
The Giants have been operating like this for decades now. They always tend to hold on to some players too long at times. Sometimes it works, sometimes it blows up but that's just how the Giants operate. They are loyal, sometimes to a fault but the process works more often than not. If the Giants had a bad year in 2016 I wouldn't have a leg to stand on right now. I'd have a hard time believing that things are moving in the right direction. The Giants had to win in 2016 for a number of reasons. They did. I don't know what else to say other than that. If they revert back to losing in 2017 that's one thing but things look good here once again.
Agree, but we can't count on future playoffs just yet. Skins fans do that every offseason.
No one said he was 'terrible' - we are debating top 5 / would get another GM job in 5 minutes camp versus fairly mediocre camp. "Terrible" is not up for discussion.
At what point does Eli take a hit for missing the playoffs in 2012? Or the abominable offense in 2013? Or the team failing to close anyone out in 2015? I know I know...the OL and the D...right. It's never on Eli. It's Reese. Always Reese.
IF Eli was better we make the playoffs more frequently. If Reese was a better drafted we make the playoffs more frequently. See? Easy.
Top 5 is kind of tricky, in part because of the QB consideration and in part because of the flux that parity brings. You can be top team right now and go promptly back to the bottom in a couple of years courtesy of some shit luck.
Looking at the NFL, which organizations would we wish we could trade places with over the past decade, if we tossed out championships? In terms of winning on a routine basis, who is there? The Pats, the Steelers, the Ravens are all ones that come to mind. Anyone else?
Quote:
but it's far from terrible and the Giants are likely going to make the playoffs these next 2 seasons. Let's say they go 2 of the next 3. That % looks better when you have the Giants making the playoffs in 3-4 seasons.
Agree, but we can't count on future playoffs just yet. Skins fans do that every offseason.
No one said he was 'terrible' - we are debating top 5 / would get another GM job in 5 minutes camp versus fairly mediocre camp. "Terrible" is not up for discussion.
We can't take into account how good this team looks right now? isn't that the very point? The Giants aren't stuck in the woods. They aren't coming off a bad season. They aren't in cap hell losing players left and right to FA. They aren't stuck with terrible contracts.
We most definitely should be discussing where this team stands right now. It's the entire point of the discussion. Oh wait, no, we need to bring up the 2009 season. Because that's relevant.
That's Reese. He's far from perfect. No one is perfect except Belichick and he probably wishes his pats played a team that wasn't run by Reese in 2007 or 2011. Maybe then his career would truly be perfect.
Reese knows how to run a team. The evidence is right in front of everyone. Debate this and debate that all you want. He's a good GM and will be running this team for another ten years at least.
Top 5 is kind of tricky, in part because of the QB consideration and in part because of the flux that parity brings. You can be top team right now and go promptly back to the bottom in a couple of years courtesy of some shit luck.
Looking at the NFL, which organizations would we wish we could trade places with over the past decade, if we tossed out championships? In terms of winning on a routine basis, who is there? The Pats, the Steelers, the Ravens are all ones that come to mind. Anyone else?
GB and Seattle are others playoff fixtures.
Tossing out championships as you mentioned, Atlanta has had a nice 6 year run with 2 #1 seeds and an NFC championship.
You know what breeds success more than anything in the NFL? Cohesion and trusting in a process. Proactive processes. Diligence. Making the tough call or decision. Not caving into pressure or panicking.
Look around the NFL and what has transpired over the last 40 years or so. More often than not the teams that win are the teams that stay the course and keep their front office intact. They change when necessary. They adapt. They don't fire a GM after one or two shaky seasons. They look to fix the problems by doing what they always do. There's a lot of luck. But it's the same teams that win big. Giants are one of them. Don't complain.
Someone just listed Newsome as a better GM. Reese has the same number of super bowl titles. Probably a very similar win/loss record. And Newsome is coming off the bad year or two. He is a great GM but ask Ravens fans how much they love the guy. I'd bet they are this close to dusting off the pitchforks.
We can't take into account how good this team looks right now? isn't that the very point? The Giants aren't stuck in the woods. They aren't coming off a bad season. They aren't in cap hell losing players left and right to FA. They aren't stuck with terrible contracts.
We most definitely should be discussing where this team stands right now. It's the entire point of the discussion. Oh wait, no, we need to bring up the 2009 season. Because that's relevant.
Fair point, i just dont think at the same time you can presume playoffs two of the next 3 years. I hope you're right, but you cant put that kind of thing in the bank.
Unrelated to MAB's post---but anyone who actually finds a way to blame Reese for the 2016 FA HR period should just stop with football completely. Yeah, get on Reese for needing to spend the money in the first place. You obviously just don't like the guy and you don't want to like the guy. You're ridiculous.
I'm not saying it....but I am kind of saying it. The over the top hate on Reese comes from a questionable place. That's all.
I'm not saying it....but I am kind of saying it. The over the top hate on Reese comes from a questionable place. That's all.
What over the top hate? I just re-read this entire thread and I don't see one example of it.