A major letdown.
Marc Ross—responsible for our draft board in some of the worst drafts in Giants history
Kevin Abrams-seems to have a good reputation but still he has worked in this mess and is part of the regime we are getting out
Louis Riddick-a talking head on television who was fired from the Eagles and Redskins and an architect of the dream team
Gettleman-much more promising, was part of the good years and mostly absent when things turned south, but still was here for infamous 2012 draft. Had a good run putting finishing touches on Carolina team. Of all the candidates interviewed he is by far the best. However, given his age, his reported inability to deal with players and agents, seems like an iffy choice.
Moreover, 3 of the 4 candidates have a history with the Reese regime that has left us out of the playoffs for 6 of 7 years and two super bowl teams that were more hot than dominating (although I would argue the Giants from the Buffalo game of 2007 until Plax shot himself was a dominating team).
Expand the search outside the organization and talking heads who are on TV for a reason. No more half measures, Mr. Mara—be bold.
Who should they have interviewed?
Plus Garafolo, a guy looked upon as a prophet around here seemed to indicate the Giants dream scenario is Abrams GM/Gettleman DPP.
So it doesn’t look like the Giants are just having some bs chat sessions before they get down to business after the season.
Which is a funny observation in and of itself, since Riddick has (by far) the least relevant experience of any of the candidates interviewed so far.
Riddick is the worst of the bunch. He has been fired twice and been out of football for four years. But yes he sounds great on air. So did Matt millen.
Plus Garafolo, a guy looked upon as a prophet around here seemed to indicate the Giants dream scenario is Abrams GM/Gettleman DPP.
So it doesn’t look like the Giants are just having some bs chat sessions before they get down to business after the season.
Who should they have interviewed?
Quote:
And with the supposed favorite being Gettleman, I’m somewhat concerned that Mara was all talk about wholesale changes 3 weeks ago. I’m willing to see what outside guys they bring in, but to me, this whole process seems like a predetermined dog and pony show (much like the McAdoo hire) for Gettleman.
Who should they have interviewed?
It’s not who they should have interviewed. It’s moreso about who they will interview in about 10 days and whether they’re really going to get a fair shake at the job, which I think will be Gettleman’s and has been all along as soon as Mara brought in Accorsi for help.
I can tell you, Rooney rule or not, Marc Ross had no business getting interviewed. The only interview he’s worthy of is an exit interview.
I'd say they're ahead of the game.
I said Gettleman is much more promising, but I do think he comes with some baggage Amd he isn’t young. But out of these four, Gettleman is by far the only guy I would even consider.
Should a team that has had an African American coach or GM be excused from the Rooney Rule?
I get why the rule exists, but sometimes I feel like it's insulting to have to fill a quota, especially if a team has shown willingness to hire African American coaches and GM's in the past.
And yet another thread about the ills of keeping it "in house".
That's the real letdown.
My question would be, why shouldn't they consider those who understand how their organization is structured and what their philosophies are.
Team has had a down period, they have also had much success.
Their way has proven to be successful
Absolutely nothing. There have been several posters from the Charlotte area explain to the board exactly what happened in Carolina with Gettleman but we still see posters claim “Carolina fired him for doing a terrible job! Why do we want him?”.
It’s a fruitless exercise at this point...
1.You can interview nobody until after the season, which sends a message in and of itself to other candidates that the Giants are serious about going outside their comfort zone (which is a league rep and can discourage other candidates)
2. The reporters including the much heralded Garofolo said the Giants dream is Abrams’/Gettleman
Quote:
cannot interview those under contract until the season ends, iirc?
1.You can interview nobody until after the season, which sends a message in and of itself to other candidates that the Giants are serious about going outside their comfort zone (which is a league rep and can discourage other candidates)
2. The reporters including the much heralded Garofolo said the Giants dream is Abrams’/Gettleman
Haha, riiiiiight. And then you’d be killing them for sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Unbelievable. Interview nobody to send a message? Holy shit.
My question would be, why shouldn't they consider those who understand how their organization is structured and what their philosophies are.
Team has had a down period, they have also had much success.
Their way has proven to be successful
Because this entire mess has been about not setting a new course. Hiring. Mac instead of firing coughlin and fixing oline. Then firing coughlin without Reese. The Giants need to be bold if they want things to change.
Like I said, ahead of the game.
And yet another thread about the ills of keeping it "in house".
That's the real letdown.
I understand the rules just fine.
Quote:
That anyone tied to the organization is a bad choice, then you are correct, major let down
My question would be, why shouldn't they consider those who understand how their organization is structured and what their philosophies are.
Team has had a down period, they have also had much success.
Their way has proven to be successful
Because this entire mess has been about not setting a new course. Hiring. Mac instead of firing coughlin and fixing oline. Then firing coughlin without Reese. The Giants need to be bold if they want things to change.
And for the first time in their history they fired both the Coach and GM midseason.
I'd say that's a bold move.
Awesome. So you are admittedly a dumbass then? A search has been a "major let down" and your claim is that there shouldn't even be a search yet?
Fucking ponderous stuff.
You really think that other candidates are not going to interview because the Giants have interviewed Gettleman et al already?
Quote:
I understand the rules just fine.
Awesome. So you are admittedly a dumbass then? A search has been a "major let down" and your claim is that there shouldn't even be a search yet?
Fucking ponderous stuff.
No, as I have said, to have your POV you need to believe Garafolo is talking out of his ass and that other candidates aren’t watching or seeing the reports and the interviews. Also, I have a close friend who works as a high up in a front office who told me that people in the league were laughing at the Giants interviewing Riddick, now I know you won’t believe me, and that’s fair since you don’t know me from a whole in the Wall, but it’s true (that he told me that not that it actually is true).
Quote:
Finish that off. And, these posters who are saying that other candidates who can’t legally interview now are not paying attention to what the Giants are doing and who they are interviewing are out of their minds.
You really think that other candidates are not going to interview because the Giants have interviewed Gettleman et al already?
Other candidates might do what Dorsey did because they believe the Giants will only take a guy in organization and they have certainly lived up to that reputation at beginning of this search.
yeah im kinda in the same place. people need to be patient and let the process play out
Quote:
In comment 13750769 Essex said:
Quote:
Finish that off. And, these posters who are saying that other candidates who can’t legally interview now are not paying attention to what the Giants are doing and who they are interviewing are out of their minds.
You really think that other candidates are not going to interview because the Giants have interviewed Gettleman et al already?
Other candidates might do what Dorsey did because they believe the Giants will only take a guy in organization and they have certainly lived up to that reputation at beginning of this search.
Cleveland was already working on hiring Dorsey before Reese was fired. Him taking that job had nothing to do with going out of his way to not talk to the Giants.
Quote:
In comment 13750769 Essex said:
Quote:
Finish that off. And, these posters who are saying that other candidates who can’t legally interview now are not paying attention to what the Giants are doing and who they are interviewing are out of their minds.
You really think that other candidates are not going to interview because the Giants have interviewed Gettleman et al already?
Other candidates might do what Dorsey did because they believe the Giants will only take a guy in organization and they have certainly lived up to that reputation at beginning of this search.
Cleveland fired their GM and hired Dorsey immediately after Reese got fired because they were afraid of the Giants reaching out to him. But why let facts get in the way...
Quote:
In comment 13750771 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
In comment 13750769 Essex said:
Quote:
Finish that off. And, these posters who are saying that other candidates who can’t legally interview now are not paying attention to what the Giants are doing and who they are interviewing are out of their minds.
You really think that other candidates are not going to interview because the Giants have interviewed Gettleman et al already?
Other candidates might do what Dorsey did because they believe the Giants will only take a guy in organization and they have certainly lived up to that reputation at beginning of this search.
Cleveland fired their GM and hired Dorsey immediately after Reese got fired because they were afraid of the Giants reaching out to him. But why let facts get in the way...
Isn’t that the point? Didn’t they tell him if he walks out the door there were no guarantees he gets the job?
Quote:
Quote:
I understand the rules just fine.
Awesome. So you are admittedly a dumbass then? A search has been a "major let down" and your claim is that there shouldn't even be a search yet?
Fucking ponderous stuff.
No, as I have said, to have your POV you need to believe Garafolo is talking out of his ass and that other candidates aren’t watching or seeing the reports and the interviews. Also, I have a close friend who works as a high up in a front office who told me that people in the league were laughing at the Giants interviewing Riddick, now I know you won’t believe me, and that’s fair since you don’t know me from a whole in the Wall, but it’s true (that he told me that not that it actually is true).
Why would the league be laughing? Riddick has been a legitimate GM candidate for a while now. The 49ers interviewed him last year before hiring Lynch and from an experience standpoint, he's definitely more qualified than Lynch.
So, if you know the rules, and you want them to expand outside the organization (apparently other than Riddick), who the fuck do you want them to talk to who isn't already still in season?
It isn't logical for you to whine about needing a bold move when most of the candidates you'd support are in season.
And no, we aren't a laughingstock for interviewing Riddick, which leads be to believe you are about as plugged in on that front as you are about knowing the fucking rules.
What does it mean to be " OUT " of football. I think your perception of "out of football" might be completely different. I have been " out " of an industry I have worked in for years at a time in several different stages but i was always able to go back into that industry and get quickly up to speed..
Why.. because I maintained my contact, my networks, my alliances. I still had the same reliable sources of information.. I still talked to the people IN the industry and had a very good knowledge base of who was who and where people were moving and transitioning to.. even though I wasnt " IN " the industry...
I dont see Riddick situation being very much different. in fact I see it being even MORE so.. especially since he has had interviews with the Niners last year and was rumored to be a target of the Chiefs as well.
Quote:
Expand the search outside the organization and talking heads who are on TV for a reason. No more half measures, Mr. Mara—be bold.
So, if you know the rules, and you want them to expand outside the organization (apparently other than Riddick), who the fuck do you want them to talk to who isn't already still in season?
It isn't logical for you to whine about needing a bold move when most of the candidates you'd support are in season.
And no, we aren't a laughingstock for interviewing Riddick, which leads be to believe you are about as plugged in on that front as you are about knowing the fucking rules.
No, you can’t read. I initially said that the GM search is far from encouraging. 2. I have said I have taken it seriously because the reporters seem to be taking t seriously. 3. Just because I want them to go outside the organization doesn’t mean I want some talking head from ESPN, who couldn’t get a job for the last five years. 4. As I said, I could care less how “plugged in”you think I am. I never said I was plugged in, a close personal friend happens to be a high ranking executive in the football operations of one team. I would guarantee you though that unless you know a GM and communicate with him daily, you don’t know anyone nearly as high as I do. But again, it is one person that I know and our relationship is personal, not business. So no, I am not plugged in and i could care less what you think on that matter. 5. I would rather the Giants let it be known that either we take Gettleman (which I said was more promising) or not waste our time with guys like Abrams and Ross. 6. Riddick sucks, if he didn’t he would have gotten a DPP or a GM job over the last five years. 7. So my overall point remains, I don’t love the search and that is based on us interviewing Ross, Abrams, and Riddick. I made special mention of Gettleman and gave you my reasons for concern and my thoughts why he would be an iffy choice, but I could get him and his Reese connection is much more tied into the good years than the bad. The fact is if we want Gettleman we should act like Cleveland did with Dorsey and stop interviewing talking heads and people responsible for our current situation.
Quote:
the niners search or their ownership. Riddick has been out of football for five years. It would be a monumentally bad choice
What does it mean to be " OUT " of football. I think your perception of "out of football" might be completely different. I have been " out " of an industry I have worked in for years at a time in several different stages but i was always able to go back into that industry and get quickly up to speed..
Why.. because I maintained my contact, my networks, my alliances. I still had the same reliable sources of information.. I still talked to the people IN the industry and had a very good knowledge base of who was who and where people were moving and transitioning to.. even though I wasnt " IN " the industry...
I dont see Riddick situation being very much different. in fact I see it being even MORE so.. especially since he has had interviews with the Niners last year and was rumored to be a target of the Chiefs as well.
He would make much more money being a DPP or GM than a talking head on ESPN. He has failed twice in our division. He was DPP of the dream team. But I will amend and clarify to mean, he is out of football operations for five years.
Here's what I'm getting at:
Your overall point is that they need to expand the search and go outside the organization. And you sure as hell made it sound like you wanted it to already happen.
Which begs the question:
"How the fuck can they do that if other candidates are in season"?
But you know the rules.....
If their team is playoff bound, we could wait that much longer.
Relax.
Here's what I'm getting at:
Quote:
7. So my overall point remains, I don’t love the search and that is based on us interviewing Ross, Abrams, and Riddick.
Your overall point is that they need to expand the search and go outside the organization. And you sure as hell made it sound like you wanted it to already happen.
Which begs the question:
"How the fuck can they do that if other candidates are in season"?
But you know the rules.....
Implicit ( and really explicit) in my post was that Gettleman is a more promising choice and if they hired him I would think it is a risk but a defensible position. They didn’t hire him and instead are interviewing people such as Abrams, Ross, and Riddick. Why interview Ross, Abrams, and Riddick? What is the point, explain that to me genius?
If their team is playoff bound, we could wait that much longer.
Relax.
My only question to this has been then why is Garafolo reporting that Abrams is a legit candidate and that he sees a Abrams’/Gettleman situation as a dream team. The Fatman in charlotte keeps ignoring that point in his brilliant comebacks and keeps going back to the “rules,” which we all know.
It is like the team can't win because some posters have an agenda. Moreso than intelligence.
It is like the team can't win because some posters have an agenda. Moreso than intelligence.
So your point is that you would evaluate a person based on a three hour interview over a decade of hands on experience working with that person (Ross, Abrams, and Gettleman?). Also you keep citing the rules but keep ignoring the Garafolo reporting, why is that? Do you have better sources than him?? I can tell you never ran anything in your life or have been on hiring committees.
I wouldn't mind Gettleman, but I'd like to check on a few younger folks just to see their long range views.
The Giants are interviewing who they are able too right now. Your point about waiting really doesn't resonate because waiting gains them nothing more than procrastinating what they have already signaled that they are going to do.
In fact, a thread would undoubtedly appear criticizing them for the poor form of waiting to do what they already said they would do.
Are you asking them to treat their own staff poorly after announcing they were going to be interviewed? And are you also really asking them to do nothing when they promised to make a concerted effort to find a new GM?
The logic of your points escape me.
I wouldn't mind Gettleman, but I'd like to check on a few younger folks just to see their long range views.
That is not how a front office works. Everybody in the organization knows who had what position on a player. In the end, it was Jerry’s choice, but if Abrams and Ross (the architect of the board) disagreed Mars knows.
The Giants are interviewing who they are able too right now. Your point about waiting really doesn't resonate because waiting gains them nothing more than procrastinating what they have already signaled that they are going to do.
In fact, a thread would undoubtedly appear criticizing them for the poor form of waiting to do what they already said they would do.
Are you asking them to treat their own staff poorly after announcing they were going to be interviewed? And are you also really asking them to do nothing when they promised to make a concerted effort to find a new GM?
The logic of your points escape me.
So, the logic of your point is that this is all for show?
Its early. If you are stunned as I am that they would interview Ross, then hopefully its just the Giants leaving no stone unturned. Ross was/is part of the problem in my opinion and should be shown the door in January.
There is no perfect candidate for GM or Coach and the press will find negatives and positives no matter WHO they hire, Belichick included. So don't worry about Garofolo, Myers, Leonard, Serby, Mushnick, Lupica or even Kernan have to say....
I'm citing the rules because of your dumbass comment that we need to be bold and go outside the organization (without knowing that our hands are tied in doing that).
And I'm not ignoring the Garafolo reporting. The Giants might very well think Gettleman and Abrahms could be the team to lead them. But they are doing their due diligence. And for this you're giving them shit?
Really with each post you sound less and less like you know a damn thing about the process - including some rambling about hiring committees and my career? And by the way, I've hired a few hundred people in my positions. The problem isn't the process - it is your understanding of it.
Quote:
your arguments really make no sense at all.
The Giants are interviewing who they are able too right now. Your point about waiting really doesn't resonate because waiting gains them nothing more than procrastinating what they have already signaled that they are going to do.
In fact, a thread would undoubtedly appear criticizing them for the poor form of waiting to do what they already said they would do.
Are you asking them to treat their own staff poorly after announcing they were going to be interviewed? And are you also really asking them to do nothing when they promised to make a concerted effort to find a new GM?
The logic of your points escape me.
So, the logic of your point is that this is all for show?
No, that seems to be the logic of your points.
Its early. If you are stunned as I am that they would interview Ross, then hopefully its just the Giants leaving no stone unturned. Ross was/is part of the problem in my opinion and should be shown the door in January.
There is no perfect candidate for GM or Coach and the press will find negatives and positives no matter WHO they hire, Belichick included. So don't worry about Garofolo, Myers, Leonard, Serby, Mushnick, Lupica or even Kernan have to say....
I don’t believe Mike Garafolo is the end all or be all, but he is plugged in to use a phrase FMIC used much more than any of us. If he says, Abrams is a legit candidate, I have to give it credence, no?
Quote:
that's a trainwreck of a post!
Here's what I'm getting at:
Quote:
7. So my overall point remains, I don’t love the search and that is based on us interviewing Ross, Abrams, and Riddick.
Your overall point is that they need to expand the search and go outside the organization. And you sure as hell made it sound like you wanted it to already happen.
Which begs the question:
"How the fuck can they do that if other candidates are in season"?
But you know the rules.....
Implicit ( and really explicit) in my post was that Gettleman is a more promising choice and if they hired him I would think it is a risk but a defensible position. They didn’t hire him and instead are interviewing people such as Abrams, Ross, and Riddick. Why interview Ross, Abrams, and Riddick? What is the point, explain that to me genius?
LOL. Great stuff.
Quote:
Also you keep citing the rules but keep ignoring the Garafolo reporting, why is that?
I'm citing the rules because of your dumbass comment that we need to be bold and go outside the organization (without knowing that our hands are tied in doing that).
And I'm not ignoring the Garafolo reporting. The Giants might very well think Gettleman and Abrahms could be the team to lead them. But they are doing their due diligence. And for this you're giving them shit?
Really with each post you sound less and less like you know a damn thing about the process - including some rambling about hiring committees and my career? And by the way, I've hired a few hundred people in my positions. The problem isn't the process - it is your understanding of it.
No, it was your assumption that I meant go outside the organization “today,” which i never said and show me one place where I said we must interview today. And, because you know the rules, you will know the hot candidates will be hit up by multiple teams all at the same time, so the fact that there are press reports that we are serious about other candidates could lead some to focus on jobs they might have a better chance of getting.
And I don't think Gettleman would be the worst choice. I want a clean slate too but Gettleman has had success in a couple of different places. So I wouldn't overlook him simply because he's worked for the Giants before. Belacheat worked for the Giants before as well ;)
oh, and try to ignore the personal shots taken by some on this board....
LOL. Great stuff.
I have said many times I want a new GM, new HC and for them to choose an entirely new coaching staff and support staff for the GM. However, it is not realistic to replace the entire scouting department and other front office positions that support the GM. So, some guys like Ross and Abrahms will stick. My take is, why not interview them? They should be uncovering every and any possible candidate, which they seem to be doing. Riddick was a creative choice of candidates and very unlike their M.O., so I am pleased they are going that route.
Your whole premise is that you aren't impressed with the search so far and then you end it with:
What are we supposed to think you meant?
Now, your assertion is that already interviewing people is going to dissuade those that come free when their season ends? You're all over the fucking place and not making sense anywhere.
And I don't think Gettleman would be the worst choice. I want a clean slate too but Gettleman has had success in a couple of different places. So I wouldn't overlook him simply because he's worked for the Giants before. Belacheat worked for the Giants before as well ;)
oh, and try to ignore the personal shots taken by some on this board....
Thanks, but I can take the personal shots. No problems. I have been on hiring committees in offices with 1,000s of employees and I know what goes into selection, especially when departments have failed. Not everyone in the Department has failed, but people know who is responsible and who isn’t before the leader is removed.
Quote:
At this point in time, the most desirable candidates are still working for other teams during the season.
If their team is playoff bound, we could wait that much longer.
Relax.
My only question to this has been then why is Garafolo reporting that Abrams is a legit candidate and that he sees a Abrams’/Gettleman situation as a dream team. The Fatman in charlotte keeps ignoring that point in his brilliant comebacks and keeps going back to the “rules,” which we all know.
MG is certainly entitled to his opinion, I don't know how much of that particular bit is rooted in sourced info. It could be out of respect to both gents, it could be viewed as negotiating tactic, dunno. Regardless, NYG is doing the light, convenient lifting right now, imo.
And Abrams is actually a popular guy around the league, so the giants should not hire him even if he is the best candidate because he is already with the giants?
Your whole premise is that you aren't impressed with the search so far and then you end it with:
Quote:
Expand the search outside the organization and talking heads who are on TV for a reason. No more half measures, Mr. Mara—be bold.
What are we supposed to think you meant?
Now, your assertion is that already interviewing people is going to dissuade those that come free when their season ends? You're all over the fucking place and not making sense anywhere.
Are you kidding me??? Where in that did i say interview them today? Is your point that I meant today as opposed to 9 days from now or longer for playoff teams?!? Give me a break
LOL. Great stuff.
That is some good stuff. The guy claims to be a supposed expert in hiring committees but can’t figure out why internal employees are getting interviewed. Good lord.
Quote:
me about the "today" comment?
Your whole premise is that you aren't impressed with the search so far and then you end it with:
Quote:
Expand the search outside the organization and talking heads who are on TV for a reason. No more half measures, Mr. Mara—be bold.
What are we supposed to think you meant?
Now, your assertion is that already interviewing people is going to dissuade those that come free when their season ends? You're all over the fucking place and not making sense anywhere.
Are you kidding me??? Where in that did i say interview them today? Is your point that I meant today as opposed to 9 days from now or longer for playoff teams?!? Give me a break
Then how can you be disappointed with the search when the giants can't interview people with other teams?
If the giants already hired someone I could see your beef, but how can you be disappointed when no one is hired and by all reports will wait until others become available..
And Abrams is actually a popular guy around the league, so the giants should not hire him even if he is the best candidate because he is already with the giants?
Popular guy around the league? Ok. He also has some hand in the failure, what that is I don’t know. Only Mara knows and obviously there is a chance that Mara thinks not much based on Garafolos reporting. I am just concerned that Mara makes mistakes based on familiarity as opposed to talent.
You started it with the premise that you aren't happy with the search. And ended it with we need to make bold moves
What fucking conclusion do you expect us to draw from it?
If you expected them to wait, why not start the thread when they actually have the chance to interview other people outside of the organization?
You calling other people out for logic on this thread is a fucking hoot.
Quote:
In comment 13750942 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
me about the "today" comment?
Your whole premise is that you aren't impressed with the search so far and then you end it with:
Quote:
Expand the search outside the organization and talking heads who are on TV for a reason. No more half measures, Mr. Mara—be bold.
What are we supposed to think you meant?
Now, your assertion is that already interviewing people is going to dissuade those that come free when their season ends? You're all over the fucking place and not making sense anywhere.
Are you kidding me??? Where in that did i say interview them today? Is your point that I meant today as opposed to 9 days from now or longer for playoff teams?!? Give me a break
Then how can you be disappointed with the search when the giants can't interview people with other teams?
If the giants already hired someone I could see your beef, but how can you be disappointed when no one is hired and by all reports will wait until others become available..
This is not rocket science, I said i was disapppinted we were considering Abrams, Ross, and Riddick. I also said in the title “so far, I emphasize so far””
Quote:
Will be severely dissapointed..
And Abrams is actually a popular guy around the league, so the giants should not hire him even if he is the best candidate because he is already with the giants?
Popular guy around the league? Ok. He also has some hand in the failure, what that is I don’t know. Only Mara knows and obviously there is a chance that Mara thinks not much based on Garafolos reporting. I am just concerned that Mara makes mistakes based on familiarity as opposed to talent.
Abrams is their cap expert, now you know
Also everyone thought you didn't know the rules, I actually think you didn't know the rules and you were mad they have not interviewed anyone else yet and then you had to change your argument so you didn't sound wrong
You started it with the premise that you aren't happy with the search. And ended it with we need to make bold moves
What fucking conclusion do you expect us to draw from it?
If you expected them to wait, why not start the thread when they actually have the chance to interview other people outside of the organization?
You calling other people out for logic on this thread is a fucking hoot.
I started it with the words “so far” and emphasized and never said the interviews with better candidate had to be today or tomorrow—Nor was that remotely implied. The point was I hope Mara goes outside his comfort zone whenever he makes the selection. So far, besides Gettleman all I see are people involved in the current mess and a talking head who hasn’t been employed in football front office in five years. Gentleman is a different candidate.
Also everyone thought you didn't know the rules, I actually think you didn't know the rules and you were mad they have not interviewed anyone else yet and then you had to change your argument so you didn't sound wrong
The fact that you didn’t think I know the rules speaks more about you than me. I never changed my argument. I said go bold Mara. I didn’t say go bold today Mara. Just stop making things up because you put something in my mouth that I never said or even remotely said
Quote:
In comment 13750956 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
Will be severely dissapointed..
And Abrams is actually a popular guy around the league, so the giants should not hire him even if he is the best candidate because he is already with the giants?
Popular guy around the league? Ok. He also has some hand in the failure, what that is I don’t know. Only Mara knows and obviously there is a chance that Mara thinks not much based on Garafolos reporting. I am just concerned that Mara makes mistakes based on familiarity as opposed to talent.
Abrams is their cap expert, now you know
I am quite aware that he is a salary cap guy, are you saying that salary cap guys don’t get Involved with scouting? Is that your understanding of a front office?
Should've just gave a mea culpa and been done with it.
If you truly know all the stuff you say you do, then creating this thread is a fucking stroke of aggressive cluelessness.
Basically, you are bitching about a month earlier than you should be and you seem damn proud to be that way.
Kudos.
So even the two superbowls weren't good enough for this clown. Wants no part of anyone associated with them --only candidates associated with DOMINATING subperbows need apply.
What a joke.
Should've just gave a mea culpa and been done with it.
If you truly know all the stuff you say you do, then creating this thread is a fucking stroke of aggressive cluelessness.
Basically, you are bitching about a month earlier than you should be and you seem damn proud to be that way.
Kudos.
Again, you seem to be forgetting that my post was made with the Garafolo Abrams is a legit candidate just being reported yesterday and the dream team of him and Gettleman. If that wasn’t reported yesterday and these interviews were formalities like I previously believed, then I wouldn’t have posted it today. I assumed people knew about the Garafolo tweets, I should have been more specific. And, again, I am not an expert about how front offices work, but I do know that Kevin does more than just salary cap.
However, the comment in the OP about Gettleman being here for the 2012 draft, while literally true, is off the point because he had zero to do with the draft. Strictly pro personnel.
Seemed to me garafolo was speculating on that pairing..
Gettelman, for reasons you mentioned, would not be the best choice, not even close. He is a hard headed jerk, willing to cut off his nose to spite his face. Also dont want any part of anyone with connections to the previous personnel team.
Not saying Riddick is the answer, but I say he is a very legitimate candidate.
If their team is playoff bound, we could wait that much longer.
Relax.
Bingo. This is a concept that somehow seems lost on people.
That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is be bold by going out of your comfort zone, that can be a person you never worked with before, that’s what I am saying and I am also saying Riddick shouldn’t be that guy. A talking head, not employed in the NFL for the last five years is not my idea of being bold. It is someone your fan base might know and that might be sexy, but it’s not bold, it’s stupid.
Quote:
and correct me if I'm wrong, but he believes that NYG need to make sexy moves.
That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is be bold by going out of your comfort zone, that can be a person you never worked with before, that’s what I am saying and I am also saying Riddick shouldn’t be that guy. A talking head, not employed in the NFL for the last five years is not my idea of being bold. It is someone your fan base might know and that might be sexy, but it’s not bold, it’s stupid.
Quote:
and correct me if I'm wrong, but he believes that NYG need to make sexy moves.
That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is be bold by going out of your comfort zone, that can be a person you never worked with before, that’s what I am saying and I am also saying Riddick shouldn’t be that guy. A talking head, not employed in the NFL for the last five years is not my idea of being bold. It is someone your fan base might know and that might be sexy, but it’s not bold, it’s stupid.
I’m not sure you know what bold means...
Quote:
In comment 13751155 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
and correct me if I'm wrong, but he believes that NYG need to make sexy moves.
That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is be bold by going out of your comfort zone, that can be a person you never worked with before, that’s what I am saying and I am also saying Riddick shouldn’t be that guy. A talking head, not employed in the NFL for the last five years is not my idea of being bold. It is someone your fan base might know and that might be sexy, but it’s not bold, it’s stupid.
I’m not sure you know what bold means...
You’re right, i don’t. You got me.
Abrams/Ross getting interview is more so the Giants honoring their tenure with the team and at least giving them an opportunity. Neither guy will probably get the job.
Riddick/Gettleman are the 2 guys who are not working for another team that the Giants can interview. There was also rumors that they were going to interview Dorsey until he got snatched up by the Browns.
So, the Giants have reached out to probably the 3 best candidates who were eligible to interview during the season. I'd say they've pretty much interviewed every single eligible worthy of the position up until this this point and we will probably see 3-4 more interviews after week 17, and a couple more once teams are eliminated from the playoffs.
Disappointing would be hiring a guy like John Dorsey immediately without even considering another candidate.
Quote:
and correct me if I'm wrong, but he believes that NYG need to make sexy moves.
That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is be bold by going out of your comfort zone, that can be a person you never worked with before, that’s what I am saying and I am also saying Riddick shouldn’t be that guy. A talking head, not employed in the NFL for the last five years is not my idea of being bold. It is someone your fan base might know and that might be sexy, but it’s not bold, it’s stupid.
Essex - you're a good guy and all... and that's the only reason I'm getting involved in this thread... because I too, like most of the other posters on this thread, are confused as to exactly what you want them to do at this point in time? You keep asking them to be bold and interview some candidates from outside the organization... and they have... but because YOU don't think they're good enough candidates... that's not bold enough for you. Not only that... but then you say you know that they can't interview any other candidates who are still with teams because of the rules... but call their efforts to interview potential candidates 'disappointing' because they interviewed the only candidates they CAN interview so far.
And to top if all off... you're basing a majority of what you're trying to say off of a Garafolo tweet saying what he's 'heard' (which could be anything from the truth to a flat out lie).
Can you try to explain your argument a bit more because I and a lot of other folks are confused? They can't be 'bold' (as you put it) because anyone they want to interview (that you would consider to be 'bold' I guess) is currently with a team and so they're not allowed to interview them (which you said you knew already) yet. Like Fats said earlier, it's like you're doing some preemptive complaining before what you THINK is going to happen happens.
If you don’t know what they would have done differently, anything they say now is pure speculation given that option A, the chosen path has already failed. Now, if you have contemporaneous notes or recollections that Abrams wanted this player where Reese wanted another one or Ross wanted to go this way but Reese insisted on another way, I might be more persuaded by that. But a two hour interview reflecting on past mistakes and what should be done differently doesn’t seem like the move we need at this time. These people all sit down together and collberate, John Mara is in those meetings, he knows what the score is and who each guy advised.
Quote:
They need to choose the best candidate of all the candidates that are available to them. And you accomplish that by leaving no stone unturned and that includes the stones in your own backyard. Why interview those of which you are already familiar in the organization? Because you want to hear what they would do differently from what their boss did.
If you don’t know what they would have done differently, anything they say now is pure speculation given that option A, the chosen path has already failed. Now, if you have contemporaneous notes or recollections that Abrams wanted this player where Reese wanted another one or Ross wanted to go this way but Reese insisted on another way, I might be more persuaded by that. But a two hour interview reflecting on past mistakes and what should be done differently doesn’t seem like the move we need at this time. These people all sit down together and collberate, John Mara is in those meetings, he knows what the score is and who each guy advised.
But you STILL interview him. Why wouldn't you? What's the downside?
When nearly everyone on a thread fundamentally disagrees with your premise, abandoning ship is probably a better option than saying you know a lot and we're all the ones missing the point.
When nearly everyone on a thread fundamentally disagrees with your premise, abandoning ship is probably a better option than saying you know a lot and we're all the ones missing the point.
Where have I said I know “a lot.” In fact, on the contrary, I said I am not “plugged in” as you phrased it. All i said was I happen to know one person who is high up in a football operations department who said people were laughing (including him) about Riddick. That’s all I said. I have followed football and have some idea of how player evaluation is done by NFL teams but no more than any poster on this site who normally reads NFl related articles. Not once have I ever claimed more knowledge about football. Only thing I said is that the Riddick thing is true and unless you know a GM, then you don’t know a higher ranking official than me for this tiny tidbit of info I gave.
Quote:
In comment 13751191 Milton said:
Quote:
They need to choose the best candidate of all the candidates that are available to them. And you accomplish that by leaving no stone unturned and that includes the stones in your own backyard. Why interview those of which you are already familiar in the organization? Because you want to hear what they would do differently from what their boss did.
If you don’t know what they would have done differently, anything they say now is pure speculation given that option A, the chosen path has already failed. Now, if you have contemporaneous notes or recollections that Abrams wanted this player where Reese wanted another one or Ross wanted to go this way but Reese insisted on another way, I might be more persuaded by that. But a two hour interview reflecting on past mistakes and what should be done differently doesn’t seem like the move we need at this time. These people all sit down together and collberate, John Mara is in those meetings, he knows what the score is and who each guy advised.
But you STILL interview him. Why wouldn't you? What's the downside?
Quote:
In comment 13751201 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13751191 Milton said:
Quote:
They need to choose the best candidate of all the candidates that are available to them. And you accomplish that by leaving no stone unturned and that includes the stones in your own backyard. Why interview those of which you are already familiar in the organization? Because you want to hear what they would do differently from what their boss did.
If you don’t know what they would have done differently, anything they say now is pure speculation given that option A, the chosen path has already failed. Now, if you have contemporaneous notes or recollections that Abrams wanted this player where Reese wanted another one or Ross wanted to go this way but Reese insisted on another way, I might be more persuaded by that. But a two hour interview reflecting on past mistakes and what should be done differently doesn’t seem like the move we need at this time. These people all sit down together and collberate, John Mara is in those meetings, he knows what the score is and who each guy advised.
But you STILL interview him. Why wouldn't you? What's the downside?
Exactly. Especially with Riddick, who was a surprisingly outside the box candidate. There is no harm in interviewing him.
I dunno, you might hire him and forget that he was fired by two teams and hasn’t worked in five years in an nfl front office. No three hour interview can cure that with me. He is more than welcome to go back to a front office gig and start building a resume, but to consider handing the keys to a franchise over to a guy who failed twice and has been Out of a front office is absurd and stupid. Cowher, a BBI favorite, who I wouldn’t want to coach our team, at least won and was successful when he was in the league.
My question is did you read It?
First he says Abrams is a legit candidate because he is a grinder and a hard worker..
Then he says he "thinks" Abrams and gettelman would be a good combo...
Never did he say this was the giants thinking or he heard this
Quote:
In comment 13751209 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13751201 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13751191 Milton said:
Quote:
They need to choose the best candidate of all the candidates that are available to them. And you accomplish that by leaving no stone unturned and that includes the stones in your own backyard. Why interview those of which you are already familiar in the organization? Because you want to hear what they would do differently from what their boss did.
If you don’t know what they would have done differently, anything they say now is pure speculation given that option A, the chosen path has already failed. Now, if you have contemporaneous notes or recollections that Abrams wanted this player where Reese wanted another one or Ross wanted to go this way but Reese insisted on another way, I might be more persuaded by that. But a two hour interview reflecting on past mistakes and what should be done differently doesn’t seem like the move we need at this time. These people all sit down together and collberate, John Mara is in those meetings, he knows what the score is and who each guy advised.
But you STILL interview him. Why wouldn't you? What's the downside?
Exactly. Especially with Riddick, who was a surprisingly outside the box candidate. There is no harm in interviewing him.
I dunno, you might hire him and forget that he was fired by two teams and hasn’t worked in five years in an nfl front office. No three hour interview can cure that with me. He is more than welcome to go back to a front office gig and start building a resume, but to consider handing the keys to a franchise over to a guy who failed twice and has been Out of a front office is absurd and stupid. Cowher, a BBI favorite, who I wouldn’t want to coach our team, at least won and was successful when he was in the league.
Is there a reason why my post is being ignored? Should I offend and insult you to get a response? LOL!
Quote:
with Riddick you would be PROMOTING him
That's not necessarily a bad thing. I have no problem with hiring someone with no GM experience, provided they have a solid resume supporting a GM. Riddick doesn't fully fit that description, but he was well regarded in his front office roles before going into TV.
That’s the thing he wasn’t well regarded. Read how he trashed Howie Roseman the guy who fired him. So he wasn’t well regarded where he worked.
Quote:
In comment 13751209 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13751201 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13751191 Milton said:
Quote:
They need to choose the best candidate of all the candidates that are available to them. And you accomplish that by leaving no stone unturned and that includes the stones in your own backyard. Why interview those of which you are already familiar in the organization? Because you want to hear what they would do differently from what their boss did.
If you don’t know what they would have done differently, anything they say now is pure speculation given that option A, the chosen path has already failed. Now, if you have contemporaneous notes or recollections that Abrams wanted this player where Reese wanted another one or Ross wanted to go this way but Reese insisted on another way, I might be more persuaded by that. But a two hour interview reflecting on past mistakes and what should be done differently doesn’t seem like the move we need at this time. These people all sit down together and collberate, John Mara is in those meetings, he knows what the score is and who each guy advised.
But you STILL interview him. Why wouldn't you? What's the downside?
Exactly. Especially with Riddick, who was a surprisingly outside the box candidate. There is no harm in interviewing him.
I dunno, you might hire him and forget that he was fired by two teams and hasn’t worked in five years in an nfl front office. No three hour interview can cure that with me. He is more than welcome to go back to a front office gig and start building a resume, but to consider handing the keys to a franchise over to a guy who failed twice and has been Out of a front office is absurd and stupid. Cowher, a BBI favorite, who I wouldn’t want to coach our team, at least won and was successful when he was in the league.
Quote:
GAROFOLO says. Did I miss the part where he works for the Giants and supersedes Mara and Tisch?
Its early. If you are stunned as I am that they would interview Ross, then hopefully its just the Giants leaving no stone unturned. Ross was/is part of the problem in my opinion and should be shown the door in January.
There is no perfect candidate for GM or Coach and the press will find negatives and positives no matter WHO they hire, Belichick included. So don't worry about Garofolo, Myers, Leonard, Serby, Mushnick, Lupica or even Kernan have to say....
I don’t believe Mike Garafolo is the end all or be all, but he is plugged in to use a phrase FMIC used much more than any of us. If he says, Abrams is a legit candidate, I have to give it credence, no?
Being a legitimate candidate does not equal being the only candidate.
And the team had all-pro players and high quality starters before he got there.
You make it sound like they might accidentally hire a candidate because they interviewed him. What do you think is going to happen? They might sneeze and hit "offer" in the HRMS software by mistake?
It's called due diligence. And if you've been on as many hiring committees as you claim, you'd understand that very well.
Quote:
I dunno, you might hire him and forget that he was fired by two teams and hasn’t worked in five years in an nfl front office. No three hour interview can cure that with me. He is more than welcome to go back to a front office gig and start building a resume, but to consider handing the keys to a franchise over to a guy who failed twice and has been Out of a front office is absurd and stupid. Cowher, a BBI favorite, who I wouldn’t want to coach our team, at least won and was successful when he was in the league.
You make it sound like they might accidentally hire a candidate because they interviewed him. What do you think is going to happen? They might sneeze and hit "offer" in the HRMS software by mistake?
It's called due diligence. And if you've been on as many hiring committees as you claim, you'd understand that very well.
If you think due diligence means interview every possible candidate than I am not sure what to tell you. Even a broad search has limits and I would think a guy getting fired twice in below GM roles and being out of an NFL office for five years wouldn’t be someone that would be in the category of due diligence. Gentleman is due diligence, Riddick is certainly not
Quote:
In comment 13751260 Essex said:
Quote:
I dunno, you might hire him and forget that he was fired by two teams and hasn’t worked in five years in an nfl front office. No three hour interview can cure that with me. He is more than welcome to go back to a front office gig and start building a resume, but to consider handing the keys to a franchise over to a guy who failed twice and has been Out of a front office is absurd and stupid. Cowher, a BBI favorite, who I wouldn’t want to coach our team, at least won and was successful when he was in the league.
You make it sound like they might accidentally hire a candidate because they interviewed him. What do you think is going to happen? They might sneeze and hit "offer" in the HRMS software by mistake?
It's called due diligence. And if you've been on as many hiring committees as you claim, you'd understand that very well.
If you think due diligence means interview every possible candidate than I am not sure what to tell you. Even a broad search has limits and I would think a guy getting fired twice in below GM roles and being out of an NFL office for five years wouldn’t be someone that would be in the category of due diligence. Gentleman is due diligence, Riddick is certainly not
Isn't that pretty much the very meaning of doing 'due diligence'?
Quote:
In comment 13751260 Essex said:
Quote:
I dunno, you might hire him and forget that he was fired by two teams and hasn’t worked in five years in an nfl front office. No three hour interview can cure that with me. He is more than welcome to go back to a front office gig and start building a resume, but to consider handing the keys to a franchise over to a guy who failed twice and has been Out of a front office is absurd and stupid. Cowher, a BBI favorite, who I wouldn’t want to coach our team, at least won and was successful when he was in the league.
You make it sound like they might accidentally hire a candidate because they interviewed him. What do you think is going to happen? They might sneeze and hit "offer" in the HRMS software by mistake?
It's called due diligence. And if you've been on as many hiring committees as you claim, you'd understand that very well.
If you think due diligence means interview every possible candidate than I am not sure what to tell you. Even a broad search has limits and I would think a guy getting fired twice in below GM roles and being out of an NFL office for five years wouldn’t be someone that would be in the category of due diligence. Gentleman is due diligence, Riddick is certainly not
They've interviewed two internal candidates and one former employee with ties to the organization. And one external candidate who, despite you not liking him (or your fictional high ranking friend fictionally laughing), is fairly well regarded and, if nothing else, can provide some perspective from outside the organization which could be helpful when they interview other external candidates. That is precisely what due diligence is.
One last thing, because you seem to be very hung up on Riddick having been fired from two other organizations - Bill Polian has been fired twice and been "out of football" (as you like to put it) for five years. Would he be disqualified based on your criteria?
I'm not necessarily stumping for Riddick per se (or suggesting Polian should be a candidate), just pointing out that your disdain for even interviewing him is bordering on irrational. If he's as unqualified as you seem to think, you have nothing to worry about.
I don't want any of these guys. It's time to go outside the organization nd find a 'football man' like we did with the Accorsi hire. Let's hope this is the preliminaries while we wait for the best candidates in the postseason to become available to talk to.
Quote:
In comment 13751260 Essex said:
Quote:
I dunno, you might hire him and forget that he was fired by two teams and hasn’t worked in five years in an nfl front office. No three hour interview can cure that with me. He is more than welcome to go back to a front office gig and start building a resume, but to consider handing the keys to a franchise over to a guy who failed twice and has been Out of a front office is absurd and stupid. Cowher, a BBI favorite, who I wouldn’t want to coach our team, at least won and was successful when he was in the league.
You make it sound like they might accidentally hire a candidate because they interviewed him. What do you think is going to happen? They might sneeze and hit "offer" in the HRMS software by mistake?
It's called due diligence. And if you've been on as many hiring committees as you claim, you'd understand that very well.
If you think due diligence means interview every possible candidate than I am not sure what to tell you. Even a broad search has limits and I would think a guy getting fired twice in below GM roles and being out of an NFL office for five years wouldn’t be someone that would be in the category of due diligence. Gentleman is due diligence, Riddick is certainly not
They haven't interviewed "every possible candidate." They've interviewed Ross, Riddick, Gettleman and Abrahms.
Interviewing four candidates in two weeks - when EVERYONE knows the most qualified candidates aren't yet available to be interviewed - isn't interviewing every possible candidate.
You make it sound like they've settinf up appointments with hotdog vendors and used car salesman.
Seriously. We're two weeks in. Get a grip.
I don't want any of these guys. It's time to go outside the organization nd find a 'football man' like we did with the Accorsi hire. Let's hope this is the preliminaries while we wait for the best candidates in the postseason to become available to talk to.
Wasn't Accorsi the AGM under Young for a few years before Young retired?
Quote:
To this point three of the four interviews are esentially Giant insiders. That's not how you drain the swamp and solve your glaring personnel issues. The other guy is a mouthpiece without a track record as a high level executive in a football operation. The only plus is that Riddick interview shows some outside the box approach to unearthing potential candidates but I wouldn't want him hired for the position.
I don't want any of these guys. It's time to go outside the organization nd find a 'football man' like we did with the Accorsi hire. Let's hope this is the preliminaries while we wait for the best candidates in the postseason to become available to talk to.
Wasn't Accorsi the AGM under Young for a few years before Young retired?
Shhhhhhh. We are trying to keep facts out of this discussion.
Are you serious? What about due diligence makes Riddick a must interview. I’ll wait. For a guy who pretends to know so much and is so dismissive of others, you really know nothing.
And George Young left in 97, when we were division champs—not sure how accorsi example is relevant
Quote:
this guy supposedly has a vast knowledge of hiring committees and really doesn't understand the concept of due diligence.
Are you serious? What about due diligence makes Riddick a must interview. I’ll wait. For a guy who pretends to know so much and is so dismissive of others, you really know nothing.
And George Young left in 97, when we were division champs—not sure how accorsi example is relevant
What are you not understanding about there being absolutely no downside to interviewing him? Seriously, there is absolutely zero downside or even risk of downside in bringing him in.
You should have made this thread what it really was about in your head - you don't like Louis Riddick. And that's fine; you're entitled to your opinion, just like you can make up a fictional high ranking NFL front office friend to try to cover for the fact that you had no idea that the Giants could not yet interview any candidates currently employed by other teams.
But just stop doubling down on the stupidity. An interview does not equal a job offer. One day, if/when you actually are on a hiring committee, you'll understand.
And the Accorsi example had nothing to do with you; it was a response to Torrag saying they should go outside the organization like they did with Accorsi (which was inaccurate because Accorsi was brought in to work under Young and then promoted; he wasn't an outside hire when named GM).
Quote:
In comment 13751577 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
this guy supposedly has a vast knowledge of hiring committees and really doesn't understand the concept of due diligence.
Are you serious? What about due diligence makes Riddick a must interview. I’ll wait. For a guy who pretends to know so much and is so dismissive of others, you really know nothing.
And George Young left in 97, when we were division champs—not sure how accorsi example is relevant
What are you not understanding about there being absolutely no downside to interviewing him? Seriously, there is absolutely zero downside or even risk of downside in bringing him in.
You should have made this thread what it really was about in your head - you don't like Louis Riddick. And that's fine; you're entitled to your opinion, just like you can make up a fictional high ranking NFL front office friend to try to cover for the fact that you had no idea that the Giants could not yet interview any candidates currently employed by other teams.
But just stop doubling down on the stupidity. An interview does not equal a job offer. One day, if/when you actually are on a hiring committee, you'll understand.
And the Accorsi example had nothing to do with you; it was a response to Torrag saying they should go outside the organization like they did with Accorsi (which was inaccurate because Accorsi was brought in to work under Young and then promoted; he wasn't an outside hire when named GM).
First, I didn’t respond to your first attemp to say I came on a message board to make up a fictional friend. I know it’s true, I am not here to convince you otherwise. I would be done with this thread, but for the laughable assertion that somehow interviewing Riddick is required for due diligence in this job search. I guess we should also interview everyone else who is out of a job from a front office and a talking head on tv to be diligent! We can’t do a diligent search unless Charlie Casserly comes in for an interview. Let’s bring in Lombardi too while we are at it. Didn’t Daniel Jeremiah also work in an NFL front office??? Let’s do our due diligence.
Evidently not. All I asked for was some clarification and seem to be ignored. I’m just trying to understand his point. Oh well...
Quote:
In comment 13751591 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13751577 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
this guy supposedly has a vast knowledge of hiring committees and really doesn't understand the concept of due diligence.
Are you serious? What about due diligence makes Riddick a must interview. I’ll wait. For a guy who pretends to know so much and is so dismissive of others, you really know nothing.
And George Young left in 97, when we were division champs—not sure how accorsi example is relevant
What are you not understanding about there being absolutely no downside to interviewing him? Seriously, there is absolutely zero downside or even risk of downside in bringing him in.
You should have made this thread what it really was about in your head - you don't like Louis Riddick. And that's fine; you're entitled to your opinion, just like you can make up a fictional high ranking NFL front office friend to try to cover for the fact that you had no idea that the Giants could not yet interview any candidates currently employed by other teams.
But just stop doubling down on the stupidity. An interview does not equal a job offer. One day, if/when you actually are on a hiring committee, you'll understand.
And the Accorsi example had nothing to do with you; it was a response to Torrag saying they should go outside the organization like they did with Accorsi (which was inaccurate because Accorsi was brought in to work under Young and then promoted; he wasn't an outside hire when named GM).
First, I didn’t respond to your first attemp to say I came on a message board to make up a fictional friend. I know it’s true, I am not here to convince you otherwise. I would be done with this thread, but for the laughable assertion that somehow interviewing Riddick is required for due diligence in this job search. I guess we should also interview everyone else who is out of a job from a front office and a talking head on tv to be diligent! We can’t do a diligent search unless Charlie Casserly comes in for an interview. Let’s bring in Lombardi too while we are at it. Didn’t Daniel Jeremiah also work in an NFL front office??? Let’s do our due diligence.
Whoa...
You know what... don’t worry about it Essex. I don’t even want to discuss this anymore.
Quote:
In comment 13751591 Essex said:
Quote:
In comment 13751577 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
this guy supposedly has a vast knowledge of hiring committees and really doesn't understand the concept of due diligence.
Are you serious? What about due diligence makes Riddick a must interview. I’ll wait. For a guy who pretends to know so much and is so dismissive of others, you really know nothing.
And George Young left in 97, when we were division champs—not sure how accorsi example is relevant
What are you not understanding about there being absolutely no downside to interviewing him? Seriously, there is absolutely zero downside or even risk of downside in bringing him in.
You should have made this thread what it really was about in your head - you don't like Louis Riddick. And that's fine; you're entitled to your opinion, just like you can make up a fictional high ranking NFL front office friend to try to cover for the fact that you had no idea that the Giants could not yet interview any candidates currently employed by other teams.
But just stop doubling down on the stupidity. An interview does not equal a job offer. One day, if/when you actually are on a hiring committee, you'll understand.
And the Accorsi example had nothing to do with you; it was a response to Torrag saying they should go outside the organization like they did with Accorsi (which was inaccurate because Accorsi was brought in to work under Young and then promoted; he wasn't an outside hire when named GM).
First, I didn’t respond to your first attemp to say I came on a message board to make up a fictional friend. I know it’s true, I am not here to convince you otherwise. I would be done with this thread, but for the laughable assertion that somehow interviewing Riddick is required for due diligence in this job search. I guess we should also interview everyone else who is out of a job from a front office and a talking head on tv to be diligent! We can’t do a diligent search unless Charlie Casserly comes in for an interview. Let’s bring in Lombardi too while we are at it. Didn’t Daniel Jeremiah also work in an NFL front office??? Let’s do our due diligence.
You have yet to answer the question - what is the downside to interviewing Riddick? For all you know (which isn't much, since you obviously didn't know the Giants couldn't interview outside candidates who are currently employed by other teams), the Riddick interview was a favor to an agent or someone else in the industry. Or he came highly recommended by someone whose opinion they trust. Or they want to see if he could potentially be a second-in-command under Gettleman, who may only be a short-term solution if he gets the job.
There are plenty of logical reasons for the Giants to bring in Riddick for an interview. We're all still waiting for you to provide one legitimate reason why they shouldn't have. All you have shared are reasons why you think he would be a bad choice for the job - and that's fair - but you have not yet given a single reason why they shouldn't have granted him an interview. What is the downside?
Quote:
People considered Giants people (besides Riddick), they reinforce the perception that they are only interested in someone with a connection to the Giants. Sometimes by not interviewing, you say a lot. Anyway, Ross, Gettleman, and Abrams’ are well known and while interviews are necessary in a due diligence sense, can anyone believe their interview is going to overcome all the in job experience Mara saw first hand.
Plus Garafolo, a guy looked upon as a prophet around here seemed to indicate the Giants dream scenario is Abrams GM/Gettleman DPP.
So it doesn’t look like the Giants are just having some bs chat sessions before they get down to business after the season.
Who should they have interviewed?
Youre wasting your time YAJ. Essex is one of those wonderful posters who makes dumb ass posts and never sticks around long enough to answer challenges to his "thoughts."
Quote:
In comment 13750722 Essex said:
Quote:
People considered Giants people (besides Riddick), they reinforce the perception that they are only interested in someone with a connection to the Giants. Sometimes by not interviewing, you say a lot. Anyway, Ross, Gettleman, and Abrams’ are well known and while interviews are necessary in a due diligence sense, can anyone believe their interview is going to overcome all the in job experience Mara saw first hand.
Plus Garafolo, a guy looked upon as a prophet around here seemed to indicate the Giants dream scenario is Abrams GM/Gettleman DPP.
So it doesn’t look like the Giants are just having some bs chat sessions before they get down to business after the season.
Who should they have interviewed?
Youre wasting your time YAJ. Essex is one of those wonderful posters who makes dumb ass posts and never sticks around long enough to answer challenges to his "thoughts."
I actually have answered it. I said with respect to the Abrams, Gettleman, and Ross, there is this perception around the league that the Giants won't hire a GM that they don't have a connection with, thus this reinforces that perception. The downside is that people like Dorsey might take another job or focus on another job because they won't think the Giant job is one they will get. Riddick--I cannot tell you a downside and have admitted so, other than I guess there is a chance he can talk himself into the job. There have definitely been cases of long shots interviewing well and getting the job when they really weren't on the radar. The most notable successful example is Tomlin (which was an all star hire) when Grimm was the favorite--the downside example is Schiano.
lmao
I'll bite on your question Britt....
The only thing I know wrong about Gettleman for GM, and this is only my opinion, is his late age. At 66, will he have the stamina needed to be an effective GM? The job involves so much more than scouting and draft decisions; it's salary and contract negotiations, free agent searching, it's CBA rule conformance, day to day operating decisions, and leading the teams that operate the franchise.
Beside age, his other qualities make him a very good candidate.
I like Gettleman much more in an advisory role, such as what is titled 'Director of Player Personnel'.
I know the Giants ownership puts high value on consistency in leadership, evidenced by only 5 GMs since 1947. How many years would you expect a 67 year old GM (as Gettleman will be when the season starts) to be effective?
Newsome is 61, so a good bit younger.
Reggie McKenzie is 54. Not sure that he belongs in this list.
Ozzie Newsome - 61
Tom Coughlin (de facto GM) - 71
Reggie Mckenzie- 54
While certainly a demanding job, it isn't as though these guys are traversing coast to coast scouting prospects. They're administrators. They make the tough calls and who gets hired and who gets fired.
I'm more interested in whether the guy has the gravitas to stand up to ownership when necessary and assess the teams strength and weaknesses properly, moreso than age.
Due diligence isn't vetting everyone under the sun, but it is picking a list of potential candidates and bringing them in. If you're hiring somebody, you may get thousands of resumes - of course you don't respond to every one of them, but you pick a decent amount that look good and you go from there.
Interviewing Riddick isn't REQUIRED for due diligence, but interviewing him is part of doing due diligence. What I'm amazed at is that needs to be fucking explained to you (which you will still not grasp anyway).
Quote:
I would be done with this thread, but for the laughable assertion that somehow interviewing Riddick is required for due diligence in this job search. I guess we should also interview everyone else who is out of a job from a front office and a talking head on tv to be diligent!
Due diligence isn't vetting everyone under the sun, but it is picking a list of potential candidates and bringing them in. If you're hiring somebody, you may get thousands of resumes - of course you don't respond to every one of them, but you pick a decent amount that look good and you go from there.
Interviewing Riddick isn't REQUIRED for due diligence, but interviewing him is part of doing due diligence. What I'm amazed at is that needs to be fucking explained to you (which you will still not grasp anyway).
This post is typical you, abrasive, loud, and meaningless. You concede my point, then attack me on some nonsensical distinction, which of course begs the question to one of my original points (before you get obsessed like you always do of calling people frauds), why is Riddick on the list?
I firmly stand by the fact you don't have a fucking clue what doing due diligence means, nor did you understand the tampering rules.
You basically came to bitch that you didn't like who was interviewed already and your dislike of Riddick and got called on it be nearly everyone in this thread.
I'm abrasive and loud because I'm hoping at some point you realize what a moron you're sounding like. Even though, it is unlikely you'll ever fucking realize it.
He apparently doesn’t care for me... and he apparently really thinks Riddick being interviewed was a complete joke. I guess I could draw a conclusion based on that...
And congrats on the newest addition!
And congrats on the newest addition!
Thank you sir and Merry Christmas to you and yours!
I firmly stand by the fact you don't have a fucking clue what doing due diligence means, nor did you understand the tampering rules.
You basically came to bitch that you didn't like who was interviewed already and your dislike of Riddick and got called on it be nearly everyone in this thread.
I'm abrasive and loud because I'm hoping at some point you realize what a moron you're sounding like. Even though, it is unlikely you'll ever fucking realize it.
This post is so you to a T.
You’re abrasive and loud because you have nothing to say and you have this thought everyone is lying about themselves and you need to correct us of our stupidity. Your act is old.
You say now that I came on this thread to complain because I didn’t like the people interviewed so far and have been “called” on it. No fing shit, that was in my original post. What about I am disappointed in the search have you not understood. What have I been called on, your assumption that I thought that I was saying be bold meant do it today as opposed to a week from now. I didn’t and you can’t admit you were wrong. Also you talk about due diligence, you do know it is a legal term and if I wanted to get pedantic and obtuse, like you always do, I would say what it means in a legal sense. What you mean it to mean is be thorough, which is how many people use it in many settings. But don’t get all high and mighty about knowing a term when it really is just a term ambiguously used for being thorough. Unless, of course, you are talking about the compliance aspect of it, which nobody is doing on this thread.
When i was in law school, there was this nonsense expression, if the facts are on your side pound the facts, if the law is on your side pound the law, and if neither the law nor the facts are on your side you pound the table. The last portion describes you very well.
Once again, I fail to see how interviewing 4 competant candidates, who were readily available, prevents us interviewing the others once the season is over.
You had ample opportunity to tell us why you believe this to be the case, but you havent.
I have no clue what this even means. You've not presented facts. You've presented an opinion that the Giants aren't making bold moves and they've only interviewed in-house candidates and a "talking head" - should we have a pedantic discussion on what a talking head is like you foolishly clamor for with due diligence??
- You've stated that you don't know why Abrahms and Ross have been interviewed, because the team should already
know what they offer. Just a moronic take on all fronts.
- You've been asked by several people on who the team should interview and all you've come back with are statements that you know the rules of tampering well and are on hiring committees, neither point which you seem to talk knowledgeably about
- You've ignored T-Bone's posts even though he's explicitly asked to get a response several times, but will come back to my posts about being loud and abrasive and just blabbing on about knowing your shit.
- Even the quoted text above, you go on a tangent about law school and facts and law on a thread where you aren't presenting facts, but a shitty, flawed opinion, one where you laughably think people won't interview here because we've interviewed others already
- There are at least 8 other posters on this thread saying that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and your response is that you do without backing it up with who you think should be interviewed.
Quote:
?
I'll bite on your question Britt....
The only thing I know wrong about Gettleman for GM, and this is only my opinion, is his late age. At 66, will he have the stamina needed to be an effective GM? The job involves so much more than scouting and draft decisions; it's salary and contract negotiations, free agent searching, it's CBA rule conformance, day to day operating decisions, and leading the teams that operate the franchise.
Beside age, his other qualities make him a very good candidate.
I like Gettleman much more in an advisory role, such as what is titled 'Director of Player Personnel'.
I definitely favor Abrams taking the GM and Gettleman having this type of role. My best case scenario
Shocking