Jordan tweets:
@JordanRaanan
Found it interesting that D-lineman B.J. Hill (third-round pick) hadn't heard or spoken to any defensive veterans yet. Leadership was a problem last year on that defense. #Giants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Snacks responds:
@snacks
You’re reaching Jordan. Keep it up though...just stay away from me
Link - (
New Window )
I think that’s the point I, Snacks and those of us that disagree with Raanan tryin to make the comparison have... how does not reaching out point to a lack of leadership? I’m still not seeing it.
As for Eli, I think reaching out to what might be your eventual replacement of the highest profile job in sports is a bit different than a DT reaching out to a player who will play at the same time as him, especially as we load up for a change in scheme. I don’t happen to think Eli calling someone is some immense leadership trait, but his position and job and legacy are bigger than Snacks’ and with that comes different expectations. Not my rule, but it is what it is.
In sum, Ranaan is a coward. Should have just posted it as a statement like a man. No one is asking for cheerleader, this was just a very weak attempt at getting a story.
Quote:
I think that’s the point I, Snacks and those of us that disagree with Raanan tryin to make the comparison have... how does not reaching out point to a lack of leadership? I’m still not seeing it.
Well if Eli reaching out to the new QB points to leadership, isn't it fair to ask if nobody reaching out to the DT draft pick suggests a lack of leadership?
I guess that depends on if you think Eli doing that is a show of leadership or something nice being done by someone who happens to be one of the established leaders on the team? If Gallman sent Barkley a text, does that make him a leader as well? If Ogletree called Carter to welcome him to the team (because of the Georgia connection), that automatically make him a leader even though he just got here?
These are examples of why it’s kind of silly, in my opinion, to equate something as... trivial (for lack of a better term)... as calling someone to welcome them to the organization as any real, tangible sign of leadership. Anyone can do it and although it may mean a bit more coming from someone like an Eli Manning as opposed to a Wayne Gallman or Davis Webb, how much more weight does it carry? It’s just a simple ‘Hello, welcome to the team. Good luck and holla at me if you need any help.’. Shit... Tim Scott can do that just like Eli can.
x2. It’s lazy and pathetic.
On the count of three, name your favorite dinosaur. Don't even think about it. Just name it. Ready? One, two, three.
Favorite non-pornographic magazine to masturbate to?
If you were a chick, who's the one guy you'd sleep with?
Quote:
I also think Jordan Raanan is doing this to cause trouble for clickbait and is a disgrace of a "journalist".
Raanan is doing nothing wrong, he is doing his job. He is reporting a new fact and pairing it was another fact for which there may or may not be a relationship. He isn't drawing a conclusion, he is presenting it as a question without actually asking the question (which is perfectly fine). It's for us to decide whether or not there is a connection. Or simply to decide that it's something that's worth paying attention to. And it's certainly something worth pointing out if Raanan is also pointing out that Eli texted Webb and Lauletta while Favre and Roethlisberger seemed to show the draft pick the cold shoulder. If one is newsworthy than so is the other.
It isn't Raanan's job to be a cheerleader for the Giants, that's what Michael Eisen and John Schmeelk are paid to do.
Huh?
Pairing a new fact with another fact is exactly drawing a conclusion! Especially as you have stated there may or may not be a relationship between those facts. If that's not drawing a conclusion, what is?
I miss the days when the media's job was to report news not help create it.
from all accounts the DL was a pretty tight group but with jpp gone and hankins gone and 2 new DT's drafted they havent exactly made it easy for him to welcome these guys either
In sum, Ranaan is a coward. Should have just posted it as a statement like a man. No one is asking for cheerleader, this was just a very weak attempt at getting a story.
I don't know what's going on with Harrison, but it's fair to ask questions, because these aren't just isolated facts that are accumulating. What it all adds up to remains unknown, but it's worthy of discussion.
If you and Ranaan want to continue to question whether a single player not receiving a welcome message somehow points to a continued lack of leadership then please continue waving that flag and keeping an eye out for any other subtle moves (or non-moves) made over the course of the summer. Who knows... you guys may be right and the defense may be on the verge of a mutiny because McIntish also never received such a call/text.
As far as Snacks is concerned, we have a bunch of dots to work with that we didn't have six or so months ago. One of those dots is that he just had a baby, another is that he just got his degree. These are dots that may or may not be meaningful in terms of his recent behavior/state of mind with the Giants. The fact that the Giants spent two of their six picks at the DT position when they already have Snacks and Tomlinson is another dot which may or may not be meaningful (i.e., are the Giants preparing for this being Snacks last year with the team? and I get that Tomlinson and McIntosh can play DE in a 3-4, but they are run-stuffers like Snacks, not pass-rushers). And there are several other dots as well that have been pointed out with Harrison, all of which may or may not be meaningful.
It's the beat writers job to give us as many dots as possible, it's up to us to draw the picture. Right now it's an incomplete picture, but there are more dots to come and at this point there is no reason to ignore any of the dots we've so far accumulated. Each of them may or may not be relevant.
Good luck on your search for ‘the truth’ Milton.
Good luck on your search for ‘the truth’ Milton.
Totally agree.
They're just friggin dots, and no, we're not all connecting them like Milton suggests.
It seems to me the writer is trying to get people to connect them, but like Snacks said, he's reaching. He's trying to sell something that most of us aren't buying.
p.s.--I'll leave you with a quote from Dostoevsky when he was just 18-years old...
Quote:
You’re psychoanalyzing this to the same degree that Raanan is attempting to do. Which is why you’re continuing to try to debate something that in the grand scheme of things is a very trivial matter.
What I'm continuing to debate isn't so much the degree to which the factoid is meaningful, but Raanan's justification for reporting it. With BBI everything has to be black or white. It's either "In Reese we trust" or Reese is the anti-Christ. When Raanan first arrived on the scene, he was getting rave reviews as a breath of fresh air compared to Ralph V (another who takes far too much undeserved abuse for doing his job). Garafalo was fortunate to leave at a time when he was popular, so now he is always remembered fondly, even though he was really not much different than any of the others. Timing is everything. And confirmation bias rules the day: if you believe Eli is a leader, texting the draft pick is another sign of it; if you believe Snacks is a leader, not texting a draft pick is completely irrelevant.
Or if you don’t think texting a rookie has anything to do with actual leadership, then it matters little to you whether Eli texts someone or Snacks doesn’t. THAT, my friend, is the point. You’re talking about BBI being so ‘black and white’ and yet that’s precisely what you’re doing here. If a guy texts a guy, that’s showing leadership... but if he doesn’t, it’s not.
Again, you (and Ranaan) are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Quote:
And sometimes... they’re just dots Milton. Nothing more, nothing less.
Good luck on your search for ‘the truth’ Milton.
Totally agree.
They're just friggin dots, and no, we're not all connecting them like Milton suggests.
It seems to me the writer is trying to get people to connect them, but like Snacks said, he's reaching. He's trying to sell something that most of us aren't buying.
Exactly! Except... Milton!
Have a good one buddy.
Have a good one buddy.
Ranaan has grasped at stories before and he seems to be doing it again. He’s going to get himself blackballed by the locker room if he isn’t careful. His problem, not mine.
He's more about drumming up click bait than actually reporting things of substance.
And that's why some more of them aren't here anymore!
I agree that this is a silly reason to question the leadership on D.
Would you say that questioning the overall leadership on D is off base though based on what we saw last season? Though I am of the opinion that it was a result of the coaching staff last season.
At what point did John Mara become Damon Harrison's father? A 30 year old man with kids does not have to "keep his head down and his mouth shut" if he wants to object to having his character damaged by the media.
Quote:
The press often look to create a story. That's the way it is. Being a pro involves more than just what you do on the field. It's how you handle yourself in all aspects of your career. That includes dealing with the press in a manner in which Mara would approve. And I would suggest that Mara would not approve of Snacks "response" - and would have told Snacks he should have kept his mouth shut, his head down, and continued being a man on the field and in the locker room.
At what point did John Mara become Damon Harrison's father? A 30 year old man with kids does not have to "keep his head down and his mouth shut" if he wants to object to having his character damaged by the media.
If I'm paying him several million dollars, I'm paying him for every way he conducts himself, including interacting with the media. And believe it that Mara talks to players when they act in ways he doesn't appreciate (ala Beckham)... I doubt Mara gets involved in this ... too petty ... but it is Snacks job to be a complete professional ... and imo he's demonstrating he is just a school yard kid who can't control himself because some other kid stuck his tongue out at him
Quote:
The press often look to create a story. That's the way it is. Being a pro involves more than just what you do on the field. It's how you handle yourself in all aspects of your career. That includes dealing with the press in a manner in which Mara would approve. And I would suggest that Mara would not approve of Snacks "response" - and would have told Snacks he should have kept his mouth shut, his head down, and continued being a man on the field and in the locker room.
At what point did John Mara become Damon Harrison's father? A 30 year old man with kids does not have to "keep his head down and his mouth shut" if he wants to object to having his character damaged by the media.
Exactly, he has every right to respond to a hack like Raanan
Quote:
In comment 13963602 baadbill said:
Quote:
The press often look to create a story. That's the way it is. Being a pro involves more than just what you do on the field. It's how you handle yourself in all aspects of your career. That includes dealing with the press in a manner in which Mara would approve. And I would suggest that Mara would not approve of Snacks "response" - and would have told Snacks he should have kept his mouth shut, his head down, and continued being a man on the field and in the locker room.
At what point did John Mara become Damon Harrison's father? A 30 year old man with kids does not have to "keep his head down and his mouth shut" if he wants to object to having his character damaged by the media.
Exactly, he has every right to respond to a hack like Raanan
Well, if so, then what is his response? Did he call? Does he feel the kid doesn't deserve a call? Does he think it was some other defenseman's job to call?
Snacks is the one who comes across like a hack as far as I'm concerned. If Snacks feels the question was inappropriate, then he can tell me why. But right now, all he did was basically give the guy the finger, leaving me to believe the story was right on target and Snacks had no good answer.
Hats bullshit. You are basically saying Mara should be allowed to censor his employees. Snacks didn’t call him a racial slur or threaten to beat the shit out of him. He asked him to stay away if he’s going to make shit up. Mara may prefer he take the Eli Manning approach but that’s about it.
You are talking about muting an employee which if is what Mara wants, than I’m not sure I want to root for the team he owns.
At what point is the supposed professional in the media supposed to act like a professional? You guys chalking shit like this up to, oh well, he’s just doing his job, are a huge part of the problem
Quote:
The press often look to create a story. That's the way it is. Being a pro involves more than just what you do on the field. It's how you handle yourself in all aspects of your career. That includes dealing with the press in a manner in which Mara would approve. And I would suggest that Mara would not approve of Snacks "response" - and would have told Snacks he should have kept his mouth shut, his head down, and continued being a man on the field and in the locker room.
Hats bullshit. You are basically saying Mara should be allowed to censor his employees. Snacks didn’t call him a racial slur or threaten to beat the shit out of him. He asked him to stay away if he’s going to make shit up. Mara may prefer he take the Eli Manning approach but that’s about it.
You are talking about muting an employee which if is what Mara wants, than I’m not sure I want to root for the team he owns.
I guess you don't work for a large company. Virtually every major company "mutes" their employees when it comes to talking publicly about business that relates to the company. I guess you haven't heard about employees being fired because of stupid shit they've said on facebook even though it wasn't negative about the company, but made the company look "unprofessional"
But - the bottom line is this. Snacks should act like his employer is paying him to act. Like an adult. Stop getting involved in "nah nah na na na" shit. He's not in 6th grade any more. He should grow the fuck up. And - if he is going to respond - then he could at least answer the fucking question. His failure to address the question itself tells me that's likely because he doesn't have a good answer.
I guarantee you his contract has clauses that dictate his behavior well beyond the football field.
Ereck Flowers hits a reporter and nothing happens but Snacks asks a guy to leave him alone and he gets this kind of backlash?
Good lord some of you people suck.
At what point is the supposed professional in the media supposed to act like a professional? You guys chalking shit like this up to, oh well, he’s just doing his job, are a huge part of the problem
The media will respond when we - the fans - let the writer's employer know we won't read him any more because of the nature of this reporting. That's going to carry a hell of a lot more weight than anything a player says.
Especially when the player doesn't even address the issue. The story implied some lineman should have called and didn't. If Snacks has a problem with that, then say so. But just giving the finger to the media is acting like a little boy (and, again, tells me that he didn't have a good answer to the story because, if he did, why doesn't he tell us that good answer?)
Ereck Flowers hits a reporter and nothing happens but Snacks asks a guy to leave him alone and he gets this kind of backlash?
Good lord some of you people suck.
The funny thing is, it was the SAME “reporter”, wasn’t it? Huh