| Its about winning and Ive seen someone told one of the reporters Im in the teardown, Gettleman said recently. Were not spending $62.5 million on Nate Solder, spending the money on [28-year-old guard] Patrick Omameh, were not trading for Alec Ogletree. If its a teardown, were not doing that. We evaluated the roster, weve developed a plan moving forward. Its about winning now. Who wants to lose? I dont. |
I saw this on twitter today - link to article below. A lot of people say this wasnt a win now year or philosophy. I keep seeing the point of 60 percent roster turnover. This quote says a lot & they are staring down 5-11.
Link - (
New Window )
No GM will ever make that statement.
Let's also understand that they didn't expect Vernon to sprain his ankle and miss the first 6 games.
Add the fact that we only have 16 guys return from the season before and most of the coaching staff is new and you may have some early chemistry issues.
It was gonna take a few years to change the culture and reverse the years of bad drafting by Reese. I think they thought we could be a competitive team during the purge.
That doesn't mean it's a "damn the future, all aboard for today" melee.
What's the alternative? Sitting on their hands, doing nothing. "Uh, we passed on trying to improve the OL because we want to suck for a few years, then we'll improve it"
The problem isn't that G tried to improve the team, or the money he spent to do so. The problem is that he picked the wrong players to spend money on.
No GM will ever make that statement.
[quote] You try to win every season. In the age of parity, with a couple of breaks, things can happen. It didn't go our way this year, but a break here or there and we could be fighting for the playoffs, too. [/quote Yup If the refs do not screw us in the Carolina and second Philly game we are still alive and have a great shot to make the playoffs .So frustrating
They realized they screwed up the Omameh thing and moved on - what more do you want?
Solder is a solid LT - he's not elite but the money is what it is, starting LTs get crazy money and he's pretty good.
That said, I don't want to debate the Eli thing anymore. We'll just see what happens with him.
Pretty much how I see. You aren't going to be able to do what the Raiders are doing in NY. Fans want to act like that's a legitimate option but it really isn't for many franchises. Gutting and starting over also comes with great risk of it not working out and having to do it again and again.
Gettelman made moves assuming they players he got would be better. It didn't work out. Atleast he cut many of the mistakes and hopefully learned from it. What more do people want right now?
Quote:
Did you want him to say "Giants fans, we are going to be bad this year, but trust us, we'll be better next year."
No GM will ever make that statement.
It's not what he said, but what he did that points to a gross misevaluation of the roster.
He missed on Omameh, true. But he had garbage on the OL to start with, and you build the OL through the draft and strategic signings. You can argue he overpaid for Solder, but that was necessary b/c of the horrible Reese drafts.
2. Does Mara feel he was sold a bill of goods with DG & feels it is now time for a complete tear down?
They clearly did. They cut two starters on the O-line midseason and traded away two defensive starters mid season.
Aren't these the type of things you guys clamor for?
It's the nature of the NFL; some teams that suck one year have turned around and won 6,7,8 more games the very next year. Look at LAR - fans were ready to ride Goff out of town after 2016, then look what happened in 2017 (they went from 4-12 to 11-5).
I'm not comparing the 2018 Giants to the 2016 Rams, but turn arounds can happen quickly in the NFL.
2. Does Mara feel he was sold a bill of goods with DG & feels it is now time for a complete tear down?
The tear down was last year. Are you saying that Mara should hire a new GM and have the GM rebuild the team again?
But it is also a huge leap to say that there was a mandate to keep Eli and we are hell bent on building "around him", yet that crap is repeated ad nauseum.
Heck, the whole reason this thread was started and this quote produced is to try and support that case, right?
Quote:
It's clear as day that they obviously misjudged the talent on this roster. Let's just hope they realized this. If not, we're f*cked.
They clearly did. They cut two starters on the O-line midseason and traded away two defensive starters mid season.
Aren't these the type of things you guys clamor for?
Solid starts for sure. But more is needed.
2. Does Mara feel he was sold a bill of goods with DG & feels it is now time for a complete tear down?
We were never going to do a complete tear down. I dont even know what that means in the NFL to be honest so #2 isnt happening.
No GM will ever make that statement.
He doesn't need to make that statement, but he also doesn't need to make the one that he made. Anyone who thinks that Gettleman knew this was a teardown is fooling themselves. Self evaluation of the roster was brutal in the off-season
Rather, what occurred was the Giants doubling down on a very flawed roster and an older qb. A team that is "rebuilding" or even "retooling" simply doesn't conduct an offseason such as the the Giants front office.
I'd also add that the Giants were running a "misinformation" campaign regarding the draft, but it turned out that the Giants telegraphed their pick almost from day one. Why is the relevant to the topic at hand? Simply because what you see is what you get with DG. He says what he means. Thus, win now out of his mouth really means win now.
Therefore, staring down the barrel of 5-11 is a monumental disaster for this franchise and frankly, conducting the offseason in manner the front office did may have years of far reaching ramifications on this team. Right or wrong, the Giants changed the course of possible the next 10-15 years with the 2018 offseason.
He also brought religion into it, dont forget!
That's what Gettleman was looking for. Anyone who believes he thought he was close to a finished product is just not being fair.
The roster was in horrific shape when Gettleman took over. We had a below average aging QB and ton of shitty players with a few great ones.
Let's give Gettleman another offseason to see if he can keep things moving to turn it around eventually, it was never going to be a worst to first situation with the roster the way that it was.
The roster was in horrific shape when Gettleman took over. We had a below average aging QB and ton of shitty players with a few great ones.
Let's give Gettleman another offseason to see if he can keep things moving to turn it around eventually, it was never going to be a worst to first situation with the roster the way that it was.
Rational. Logical.
Quote:
Did you want him to say "Giants fans, we are going to be bad this year, but trust us, we'll be better next year."
No GM will ever make that statement.
He doesn't need to make that statement, but he also doesn't need to make the one that he made. Anyone who thinks that Gettleman knew this was a teardown is fooling themselves. Self evaluation of the roster was brutal in the off-season
The roster was completely overhauled. Actions speak louder than words. What comment from DG would have satisfied you?
I've asked this before but none of the Gettleman bashers answer: what were realistic expectations for turning around the rotten situation left behind by Reese/Ross? Was it going to take more than 1 year or should they have been a contender this year?
Give them time. There's a lot to fix. Solder and Ogletree were about getting the right types of guys in too. They are warriors who work hard & don't like to miss anything. We need more of that around here.
This was a transition year, a rebuilding year, and to get the pitchforks out when they don't instantaneously turn it around is ridiculous.
correct them
move on
do your best
try and win
what else can you do?
Fat man, tell me what my expectations of this franchise should be? I am will to adjust them. Just tell me, is this a franchise that will be mediocre and occasionally pop into the playoffs (i.e., the Bengals)? Should I expect a win-now mentality? We've now sat since 2013 with mostly awful teams, and a GM that doubled down on that level of play. Should I be patient, have I not been patient enough over the last- 6 years? Should I be happy with mediocre to poor qb play and a team investing the second pick on the most replaceable position in the four major sports? Tell me, I'm very reasonable and can adjust my expectations.
Fat man, how long have you been a season ticket holder? I've been one for over a decade and a half now. I've given a lot of money to this franchise to see a continuously poor product placed on the field. Only to then have a sham GM search, which essentially reinforced the decisions of the past half decade plus. You speak as though everything is right in Giants land, so I can only assume they sign your paychecks. Sp again, please let me know what I should expect going forward and I am happy to adjust.
You can't have it both ways.
If my team ever did that, I really would drop them.
Gettleman turned over 60% of the roster, to think he was going to hit on a high percentage isn't realistic.
Have another good draft, be more prudent in free agency and the Giants can easily be an 8-8 team with the arrow pointing upward.
It's the NFL.....
Instead, he turned over a significant portion of the roster (including a ton of really bad starters), had a really good draft, and the team is 5-9 mostly due to poor coaching and poor QB play. This team should easily have 7-8 wins right now but our QB is simply not playing up to the level that is needed in the NFL to win consistently, and a coach that is basically batting 230 with not a ton of good things to say other than the guys play hard for him and he has a good offensive scheme sometimes.
And yet...it is Gettleman's fault.
You can't have it both ways.
I should have been specific, the GM search was a sham. More than half of this board predicted it would be DG before JR was even fired. How many non-Giants candidates were given legitimate consideration?
It seems like I should be okay with mediocrity according to some of you. So I guess that's where I'll set my expectation, mediocrity and be happy with the occasional 9 win season.
If my team ever did that, I really would drop them.
Gettleman turned over 60% of the roster, to think he was going to hit on a high percentage isn't realistic.
Have another good draft, be more prudent in free agency and the Giants can easily be an 8-8 team with the arrow pointing upward.
It's the NFL.....
This misses the point. This team was 1-7 we traded arguably our best defender. We continued to start a 38 year old QB instead of what you should do if you are going to throw in the towel like that start a young QB. You don't want to be the 76ers. At least they had a plan. What's our plan? Act like we can compete and over invest in a bunch of win now players like Solder, Ogletree, Omameh, and Stewart find out we are way shittier than we expected. I'm sorry but you don't sign a guy like Solder to that contract unless you think your team can contend.
You want to act like beating the 49ers, Bucs and two teams with backup QBs makes us better than the 76ers? No, it doesn't make us better it means that for whatever reason the leadership of this team cares about saving a small amount of face over a superior strategy of building a team that actually has a chance to contend or bottoming out.
Instead, he turned over a significant portion of the roster (including a ton of really bad starters), had a really good draft, and the team is 5-9 mostly due to poor coaching and poor QB play. This team should easily have 7-8 wins right now but our QB is simply not playing up to the level that is needed in the NFL to win consistently, and a coach that is basically batting 230 with not a ton of good things to say other than the guys play hard for him and he has a good offensive scheme sometimes.
And yet...it is Gettleman's fault.
This is it in a nutshell, we are now celebrating a 5-9, heading toward 5-11 (maybe 6-10), just because we didn't win 0 games this season. So a two game improvement with wins over nick mullins and ryan fitzpatrick is something to relish. Oh boy how the times have changed. Hey, at least we didn't win 0 games!!
Quote:
how is Gettleman a sham, and how is he just more of the same if he's actually doing what Reese and Co never did with roster adjustments?
You can't have it both ways.
I should have been specific, the GM search was a sham. More than half of this board predicted it would be DG before JR was even fired. How many non-Giants candidates were given legitimate consideration?
It seems like I should be okay with mediocrity according to some of you. So I guess that's where I'll set my expectation, mediocrity and be happy with the occasional 9 win season.
I think you really just aren't being realistic. No one is telling you to be ok with mediocrity. What I am saying is just because you are frustrated doesn't make you right and the Giants wrong. There's a whole lot of variable to putting together a winning football team and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't know a single one of them.
That's my general problem with takes like "the GM search was a Sham" or "DG is just a Mara lackey". Its anger projected in a belligerent fashion with no evidence at all other than it didn't happen the way you wanted it to.
It seems like I should be okay with mediocrity according to some of you. So I guess that's where I'll set my expectation, mediocrity and be happy with the occasional 9 win season.
What an odd attitude some of you have. Who is suggesting you "be ok" with mediocrity? Who was it that was suggesting the plan should be to have a .500 team going forward?
The discussion is whether or not the current management misjudged the talent and ability on the roster when they took over. They made some moves that worked and some that didn't. To me, that means the jury is still out. But this idea of "win now" or "teardown" is a false choice. None of the moves made suggested going all in for a Superbowl run, and none suggested tanking for high draft picks.
If you continue to see the world in those types of binaries you will likely continue to be off in your expectations.
That was a bad football team.
This team won 5 and could have won 7. It's a better team but it's still not a good team.
They dumped 2 starters - is that still "all in"?
They are in continuous evaluation / optimization mode.
These are competitive professionals and owners - they want to win. They don't want to mail it in.
It's a relatively quick turn around league but the Browns didn't turn that around in 1 year. That's 2 years of good drafting aided highly by getting Myles Garret at # 1. And they are ahead of us. But not by a landslide.
We need another strong draft and on paper, at least going into the draft I think this is volume wise the most picks the Giants have had in at least 5 years - albeit a lot of the picks are later in the draft.
I swear it is like nobody even cares how things went down in Carolina. They think that the giants called and he is a yes man to some Mandate handed down by the owner. It flies in the face of his entire career, yet it is repeated here on a near daily basis
Quote:
It seems like I should be okay with mediocrity according to some of you. So I guess that's where I'll set my expectation, mediocrity and be happy with the occasional 9 win season.
What an odd attitude some of you have. Who is suggesting you "be ok" with mediocrity? Who was it that was suggesting the plan should be to have a .500 team going forward?
The discussion is whether or not the current management misjudged the talent and ability on the roster when they took over. They made some moves that worked and some that didn't. To me, that means the jury is still out. But this idea of "win now" or "teardown" is a false choice. None of the moves made suggested going all in for a Superbowl run, and none suggested tanking for high draft picks.
If you continue to see the world in those types of binaries you will likely continue to be off in your expectations.
Ok I accept that change is incremental. But explain this to me, why go all in on a 38 year old qb if we weren't win now? Seems like an odd strategy, does it not?
Hang on tight.
Basically because we didn't draft a QB, we are hell bent on keeping Eli as the centerpiece and building around him, right??
I really feel like ramming my head into a fucking wall.
I swear it is like nobody even cares how things went down in Carolina. They think that the giants called and he is a yes man to some Mandate handed down by the owner. It flies in the face of his entire career, yet it is repeated here on a near daily basis
See you never answered the questions I posed directly to you. Other posters did. You did not. Because you have your own agenda and completely change the topic. I'm not suggesting DG is a yes man, I'm suggesting he just might not be that good. I think that's reasonable, don't you?
Of course I addressed it:
I most definitely think that a guy who has been on the staff of 9 SB teams is good.
You think it is "reasonable" that he isn't good, but for what reasons? Did you not see the roster that he inherited and the trainwreck of drafts in the past decade?
I really wonder - what the fuck did you expect. and that's an honest question - because the expectations are severely out of whack of what you should be expecting with the roster we had.
Ok, I think that's a fair point. I don't agree that 5 wins is much improved, and I think this team is in for a long ride to replace the most important position in the game. I think the minimal improvement are bad signs headed forward.
We aren't a good team, but we aren't the disaster that last year was by any stretch.
Gettleman can't fix it in 1 offseason. Literally impossible to do unless you have a great QB, and our QB sucks.
They were all in on Eli and the plan to execute that has been an epic fail.
The owner wanted Eli to still be the QB. The GM was selected to make that work. The coach was hired because he just demonstrated QB CPR on Keenum. And Eli was provided a new oline, a re-signed top 5 WR, and a prolific, generational RB.
Of course I addressed it:
Quote:
I'm suggesting he just might not be that good. I think that's reasonable, don't you?
I most definitely think that a guy who has been on the staff of 9 SB teams is good.
You think it is "reasonable" that he isn't good, but for what reasons? Did you not see the roster that he inherited and the trainwreck of drafts in the past decade?
I really wonder - what the fuck did you expect. and that's an honest question - because the expectations are severely out of whack of what you should be expecting with the roster we had.
What I expected was an honest evaluation of a franchise that's been bad for a long time. What I read in the press was a GM and franchise as a whole insinuating that this team was close to returning as a contender. I saw a GM on draft night laughing at the idea of trading back or selecting the next potential franchise qb. Then I see another iteration of a team heading toward yet another double digit loss season and I get told I'm crazy when I think a lot of poor choices were made in the offseason.
Listen, you seem very knowledgeable, I think if you read my past posts you will see I am as well. I just don't see how you can be happy with the direction of a team that has no qb of the future on the roster and no discernable pass rush (among several other areas). Now, maybe that all gets solved in the next two seasons and I can join the rest of you in optimism land. And trust me, prior to last season I was as optimistic in Giants world as it came. For now, I am not going to be deliriously happy with Barkley putting up some stats and calling it another year of progress.
Quote:
i think you are missing my point entirely. My point was, IF we had 0 wins, everyone would blame Gettleman. We currently have 5 and the team is clearly much improved in terms of locker room and players...and everyone blames Gettleman. Do you see now?
Ok, I think that's a fair point. I don't agree that 5 wins is much improved, and I think this team is in for a long ride to replace the most important position in the game. I think the minimal improvement are bad signs headed forward.
Yes because QBs grow on trees and can be easily found and replaced.
Every franchise struggles to find a suitable QB. How many QBs have the Jets and Brown and Bill taken?
It wasn't a miscalculation of the roster. He miscalculated RT and RG and OC. Those three positions killed the season before it got started. Once he worked those out he has achieved much better success. To condemn the entire roster when the blame falls solidly on the right side of the line is a worse assessment than DG made.
I swear it is like nobody even cares how things went down in Carolina. They think that the giants called and he is a yes man to some Mandate handed down by the owner. It flies in the face of his entire career, yet it is repeated here on a near daily basis
I eagerly await your epiphany when it hits you that what you mock indeed happened.
And you always categorize it as if the mandate was a hard, code red.
It was likely softer and more measured.
For example, play along -
"Ernie, I think Eli still exhibits the qualities we need to be successful. With better coaching and more talent, we can get the best out of Eli again. And frankly, I think it's important that he finishes up as a Giant.
So I'd like to find a GM and coach who feel similarly. Create a team with that mission and execute."
Why is that not possible?
That's an entirely separate topic. Of course I'm not happy with the past several years. But that's different than going off the rails about some Mandate from ownership on building around eli, about a sham of a GM search and this whole concept of going "all in" while we've turned the roster over 60% and swapped out half of the starters. It doesn't compute.
I can say this - the GM seems to have hit on his evaluation of Barkley. We are seeing a team competing in nearly every game and who has the most games within 7 points in the league. That is improvement.
I don't know if Shurmur is the guy, but the GM certainly seems to have the self awareness to cut bait when a player isn't working out.
It seems to me too that many posters blur the lines here. Gettleman has done a massive overhaul in one season, yet he's lumped in with Reese on these rants, like he's staying pat. Then there are the ridiculous comments that he's forced to keep Eli - which goes against his entire body of work as an executive.
I can both be unhappy with the last several seasons and also think that posters who are just bitching aimlessly are pretty moronic. One can be disappointed and still not come off like a lunatic detached from reality.
Quote:
But clearly there was a gross miscalculation of this roster.
It wasn't a miscalculation of the roster. He miscalculated RT and RG and OC. Those three positions killed the season before it got started. Once he worked those out he has achieved much better success. To condemn the entire roster when the blame falls solidly on the right side of the line is a worse assessment than DG made.
What about FS, OLB and slot corner. We still can't cover the middle of the field. Basically we had all these holes. Did he fill any of them other than drafting the biggest slam dunk of a player to come along in a while with the #2 pick?
Can you tell me any weakness we had last year that he did improve on?
Oh yeah and what about a backup QB. You know we have this 38 year old QB at the most important position and apparently not even anyone promising enough brought in to merit junk time.
Is it possible this could get better? Absolutely. But to anyone acting like we have evidence to believe that is the case, that's insanity. This year was not a good job, plain and simple.
No, it's more like:
"Boo hoo, we passed up several QB prospects to draft a RB that was touched by the hand of God, but he hasn't made our team any better."
It's not going to happen overnight.
Round and round we go.
Quote:
.
No, it's more like:
"Boo hoo, we passed up several QB prospects to draft a RB that was touched by the hand of God, but he hasn't made our team any better."
The offense is significantly better. Defense still sucks balls. Though last time I checked, he's not a two way player...
Please help explain what the plan should have been if they weren't all wrong about Eli? Draft a QB no matter who? Does anyone really believe that is the right course of action?
Again, why is this something being used to defend management with?
Instead of just saying "i'm concerned about Shurmur but i have faith in Gettleman" or things of the like.
Shouldn't we be very concerned that that last two coaches we have hired look completely over-matched for the position they were put in?
And the 2nd one we hired was a re-tread who looked like he couldn't handle the role the first time. What exactly should make us confident in the leadership of this organization when that happens? Why can't they seem to get something as basic as hiring a head coach correctly?
In the first 8 games we scored fewer than 20 points 5 times. Are we supposed to be impressed because we scored some points against teams with backup QBs that had to chase games after gifting us first quarter pick sixes? By the time that even happened the season was over.
I'm supposed to give a shit about scoring 40 points against a dead Redskins team when the Titans just shut us out at home and pushed us around like we were the JV?
I am bewildered by the sentiments of the people here saying that "the arrow is pointing up" and/or "let's give these guys X years to turn it around". Truly bewildered.
I feel like Chrissy in the Sopranos when Tony is hemming and hawing on killing Vito because he has no proof he's actually gay.
I don't know how much more proof people need to see the situation for what it is.
"So what do we gotta do, Ton? Actually see him take it in the ass?" - ( New Window )
40 points? Pfffff, didn't draft a QB.
30 points 3 times which we couldn't do in over two years? pffff, didn't draft a QB
2000 yards from scrimmage and 15 plus TD's, rookie of the year? pffffff, didn't draft a QB.
God damn man, we f-cking get it already.
The offense is not a finished product by any means, but simply dismissing facts that don't fit your narrative is disingenuous. By any measure, this offense is better now that it was last year, by a pretty wide margin.
40 points? Pfffff, didn't draft a QB.
30 points 3 times which we couldn't do in over two years? pffff, didn't draft a QB
2000 yards from scrimmage and 15 plus TD's, rookie of the year? pffffff, didn't draft a QB.
God damn man, we f-cking get it already.
You clearly don't get it, and you haven't for a while.
You've more or less had your finger on the pulse of what the Giants are going to do, yes. And what they do continues to be wrong.
You are unhinged over one player, and the early returns on any of the QB's we passed on aren't exactly setting the world on fire.
Success on offense and defense within the first half the season, no time for any growing pains, and...
Answers to all the holes on the roster, without any mistakes made in FA or the draft, and...
The 15-year solution to the most difficult position to solve (QB) is in place, and...
Only saying things to the press which sound amazing to certain fans, and...
Not having anything to do with anyone in this organization over the last 30 years or so, certainly not since the Giants began winning SB's.
Didn't all that happen? Then it's a failure and the sooner we can FIRE the current staff and find the guys who can execute the above the better.
Names? I'm not sure who, but we need someone better, that's for damn sure.
Speaking of Mahomes, where did he go in the draft? Any QB's go before him? What spot?
There will be other chances to get a QB.
Please help explain what the plan should have been if they weren't all wrong about Eli? Draft a QB no matter who? Does anyone really believe that is the right course of action?
It's exhausting going into why I think keeping Eli was a mistake. Essentially it was Mara being embarrassed how the organization dealt with GenoGate. And then not recognizing that he's on the wrong side of the production curve.
So, as stated scores of times, and it would have been an easy decision. I would have gone the QB route - I'm not sure it matters who anymore - and either (a) start the rookie right away or (b) keep Eli and slowly work the new QB in. B gets tricky because of timing, but I could have tolerated it.
In other words, I would have been less concerned about the record this year, and more interested in developing the next QB. That experience is invaluable. And that would have set us up better for the future - and at a quicker pace.
Furthermore, I prescribe to the notion that RBs are very easy to find. The examples are endless in the league. So I think there were other solutions besides Barkley. Not of Barkley's total skill set, but at least 85-90%. And that is more than good enough in today's NFL.
You just hate to admit being wrong about anything. And G-d forbid you ever move off your narratives...
You could look at that as should we be excited about Barkley. Absolutely i'm excited about Barkley!
But shouldn't we also be concerned about managements ability to surround him with talent?
You are a big Eli guy right? Maybe i'm confusing you with someone else.
Aren't you pissed off that our leadership squandered some prime years of one of the great clutch QBs? Aren't you concerned about us doing the same thing with Saquon?
Quote:
You realize he was the only viable NFL QB on the roster when they took over, right? So if they didn't draft a QB in the first round, you know they thought he was the solution...how? Did it occur to you that maybe they didn't like any of the QBs coming out in the draft? Or maybe they liked them, but just liked Barkley more? But maybe they should have forced the pick because then they wouldn't be "all in" on Eli?
Please help explain what the plan should have been if they weren't all wrong about Eli? Draft a QB no matter who? Does anyone really believe that is the right course of action?
It's exhausting going into why I think keeping Eli was a mistake. Essentially it was Mara being embarrassed how the organization dealt with GenoGate. And then not recognizing that he's on the wrong side of the production curve.
So, as stated scores of times, and it would have been an easy decision. I would have gone the QB route - I'm not sure it matters who anymore - and either (a) start the rookie right away or (b) keep Eli and slowly work the new QB in. B gets tricky because of timing, but I could have tolerated it.
In other words, I would have been less concerned about the record this year, and more interested in developing the next QB. That experience is invaluable. And that would have set us up better for the future - and at a quicker pace.
Furthermore, I prescribe to the notion that RBs are very easy to find. The examples are endless in the league. So I think there were other solutions besides Barkley. Not of Barkley's total skill set, but at least 85-90%. And that is more than good enough in today's NFL.
How many guys have 85-90% of what Barkley has?
I know you think I'm miserable, but I'm really not. It's the team that's miserable. I don't kid myself about it like so many here choose to. And that's their right...like you said the other day this isn't life and death.
You're 100% correct. It isn't life and death. That's why I'm OK accepting the truth that the Giants are currently a badly run, badly constructed, directionless mess of an organization.
I'm OK accepting that because it isn't the end of the world. Lots of you guys though are living in a fantasy world because you can't handle criticizing the organization, criticizing Mara, criticizing the front office, criticizing Shurmur, criticizing Eli, and on and on.
You guys kid yourselves, all the while the losses keep piling up.
Secondly, yes, I'm mad at the front office for squandering Eli's prime, which started back in 2011.
But squandering Saquon's prime? Geez man, he hasn't even played a season yet and we're already squandering his prime?
The GM and Head Coach haven't even completed ONE YEAR yet. They replaced 2/3 of the roster in ONE OFFSEASON. Can't we give them a little more time to build a new roster? Basically from scratch save for like a handful of players?
Samiam : 5:22 pm : link : reply
Not a loaded question but how did it go down in Charlotte? I know he was fired but it seemed like he was doing ok before that. Is there a story here?
He had Richardson's backing when he cut Norman and didn't bring back DeAngelo Williams or Steve Smith.
But he started putting out feelers to trade Olsen and Davis and Richardson put his foot down. Gettleman was told that those two were not to be traded, released or restructured. The reported exchange had richardson tellin Gettleman "Just do your damn job", to which Gettleman reportedly replied, "I can't under those circumstances". He was terminated the next day.
This is why it is completely unbelievable to me that he was given a mandate to build around Eli. I have a historical context to point to. Those insinuating he has a mandate are pointing to a steaming pile of horseshit.
I know you think I'm miserable, but I'm really not. It's the team that's miserable. I don't kid myself about it like so many here choose to. And that's their right...like you said the other day this isn't life and death.
You're 100% correct. It isn't life and death. That's why I'm OK accepting the truth that the Giants are currently a badly run, badly constructed, directionless mess of an organization.
I'm OK accepting that because it isn't the end of the world. Lots of you guys though are living in a fantasy world because you can't handle criticizing the organization, criticizing Mara, criticizing the front office, criticizing Shurmur, criticizing Eli, and on and on.
You guys kid yourselves, all the while the losses keep piling up.
Not many people will (or have) argue the results haven't been poor. Practically everyone agrees there is plenty of blame to go around.
But to sit there and say there have not been any improvements over last year is simply dumb.
DG isn't going to overturn this thing in one season. He's made more good moves than bad - and even when he's made bad moves, he tries to correct them sooner rather than later (Omaneh).
But you sit there and continue to berate the Giants for not doing the things the way YOU want them to do. And you don't give them credit for anything positive that's happened.
DG has a plan. It might work, or it could be JR part 2. But just because it's not what you would do, it's not automatically doomed to fail.
DG has slightly more experience at this then you do.
I agree the Giants are a poorly run franchise, and there is plenty to criticize about Mara. But not picking a QB is not a symptom of that problem at all.
We are seeing a team competing in nearly every game and who has the most games within 7 points in the league. That is improvement.
Is that not precisely the same stat that they used to justify firing Coughlin? Most games in the league that could be called 'close losses'.
Secondly, yes, I'm mad at the front office for squandering Eli's prime, which started back in 2011.
But squandering Saquon's prime? Geez man, he hasn't even played a season yet and we're already squandering his prime?
The GM and Head Coach haven't even completed ONE YEAR yet. They replaced 2/3 of the roster in ONE OFFSEASON. Can't we give them a little more time to build a new roster? Basically from scratch save for like a handful of players?
The problem I have as I talked about on the other Gettlemen thread we have going is that the staff and scouting is largely the same people. There was a reason we needed to turn over so much of the roster and it was because we did not have good talent evaluation. There have been some serious blunders with Stewart and Omameh. Solder was more concerning from a self analysis perspective, if they really understood how far away we were from winning you don't bring in a player like Solder and certainly not at that price.
And the problem isn't just that it's the fact that while other teams are modernizing we don't seem to care about that or hire anyone internal that has any kind of modern technical knowledge or data architecture experience.
I don't know if you've read this thread yet but I took a lot of time to elaborate on these concepts and I think it is important that fans of this team are at least aware that we don't have any valid evidence that this isn't a mounting problem.
Ownership and analytics debate - ( New Window )
They don't need to follow my plan to be successful...there are many ways to skin a cat. They just need to have A plan. To this point their actions, and Gettleman's words noted in the thread starter, tell me their plan was to try to win now and they completely misevaluated their roster. Not only that, they misevaluated their coach, who can only be described as an abject failure in year one. The only defense that has been mounted for him is a shabby one: "They're still playing hard for him." Did that look like a team playing hard on Sunday? Didn't to me...they looked like they couldn't wait to get out of the rain.
I'm sorry that criticism of the Giants is tough for you to take. I really am.
But it might be time to wake the fuck up already.
Give them a chance, at least.
Speaking of Mahomes, where did he go in the draft? Any QB's go before him? What spot?
There will be other chances to get a QB.
Using Mahomes as the argument is loaded.
A) He's with a fine coach that's proven to get the most from his QBs. Yes, significantly more so than Pat Shurmur.
B) He needed a year on the bench
C) He's playing at a league MVP conversation level. The whole league underestimated his talent.
D) You're asking a GM who has never had the responsibility to draft a potential QB1 to go find one. We don't actually have any idea if even can. Most GMs in the NFL never do.
I agree the Giants are a poorly run franchise, and there is plenty to criticize about Mara. But not picking a QB is not a symptom of that problem at all.
Im aware of the risks. Further, unlike other posters, I accept that there is no sure thing in that selection of a QB. But this past year was worth the stretch because of the quality and quantity. And under the circumstances with Eli, the timing to draft a QB was perfect.
So we were on a collision course for another double digit loss season with Eli. Or we could played a rookie, got valuable experience, and likely have a similar record. Which outcome honestly would have been more beneficial for this team?
But because of ONE single draft pick/player, you've gone the polar opposite extreme and unleashed hell on them.
Does that seem rational?
He had Richardson's backing when he cut Norman and didn't bring back DeAngelo Williams or Steve Smith.
But he started putting out feelers to trade Olsen and Davis and Richardson put his foot down. Gettleman was told that those two were not to be traded, released or restructured. The reported exchange had richardson tellin Gettleman "Just do your damn job", to which Gettleman reportedly replied, "I can't under those circumstances". He was terminated the next day.
This is why it is completely unbelievable to me that he was given a mandate to build around Eli. I have a historical context to point to. Those insinuating he has a mandate are pointing to a steaming pile of horseshit.
Thanks FMiC.
But because of ONE single draft pick/player, you've gone the polar opposite extreme and unleashed hell on them.
Does that seem rational?
I absolutely would not give them a pass on everything. Drafting Darnold wouldn't solve or excuse Shurmur's ineptitude. It wouldn't excuse the sham GM "search" that saw Gettleman get here in the first place. It wouldn't excuse Gettleman's misses in FA, or his proud "old school" mentality. It wouldn't excuse this awful coaching staff assembled under Shurmur.
This isn't just about the Barkley pick. I keep telling you that.
They don't need to follow my plan to be successful...there are many ways to skin a cat. They just need to have A plan. To this point their actions, and Gettleman's words noted in the thread starter, tell me their plan was to try to win now and they completely misevaluated their roster. Not only that, they misevaluated their coach, who can only be described as an abject failure in year one. The only defense that has been mounted for him is a shabby one: "They're still playing hard for him." Did that look like a team playing hard on Sunday? Didn't to me...they looked like they couldn't wait to get out of the rain.
I'm sorry that criticism of the Giants is tough for you to take. I really am.
But it might be time to wake the fuck up already.
It's hard for me to take because of your fucking stubborness. They have A plan; you just don't happen to like it so it doesn't count.
Practically EVERY team in the NFL is in a win-now mode (except perhaps OAK, I haven't a clue of what Gruden is trying to do over there). I said this in another thread - but the turn arounds in the NFL from year to year happen a lot; most recently the Rams. Fans - and other "experts"- were all set to run Goff out of town. Then they went from 4-12 to 11-5.
Not saying the NYG have a similar roster to what the Rams had and can have that kind of improvement. Clearly they don't, and can't.
We are all painfully aware of the last 7 seasons,and are all pissed. But there is a new guy running things; a guy who has had a ton of success. So I'm willing to give him more than 9 months to try and fix things before killing him.
Guess I'm crazy like that.
It wouldn't excuse Gettleman's misses in FA,
And yet, you don't give him credit for any successes. Or the barkley pick
Quote:
would give them a pass on everything if they had drafted Darnold. You admitted you would preach patience with the roster and to give them a chance.
But because of ONE single draft pick/player, you've gone the polar opposite extreme and unleashed hell on them.
Does that seem rational?
I absolutely would not give them a pass on everything. Drafting Darnold wouldn't solve or excuse Shurmur's ineptitude. It wouldn't excuse the sham GM "search" that saw Gettleman get here in the first place. It wouldn't excuse Gettleman's misses in FA, or his proud "old school" mentality. It wouldn't excuse this awful coaching staff assembled under Shurmur.
Tired of your sham search diatribes.
2. Give Eli a dynamic weapon in the backfield who can run the ball & catch the ball & sign Beckham long term.
3. Secure a LT & RG via FA. Draft a LG - rebuild the OL.
4. Trade for a potential defensive leader in Ogletree
5. Spend a 2019 3rd round pick on Sam Beal who can help the roster this year.
6. All this while hiring a HC who has some prior experience & is a safe choice off of McAdoo who was very rough around the edges with regard to the media.
Its clear, this was an attempt to retool on the fly with Eli in place. Its easy to see - look at the Saints, Chargers & Steelers. The issue is Eli hasnt played well enough.
I will say a positive is the fact that Gettleman hasnt been shy to cut bait with Flowers & Omameh. Trading Apple & Snacks was also smart.
What annoys me is the amount of people who cant st admit that the plan has failed. 60% roster turnover for example, that explanation doesnt make 5-9 okay. It just means DG has flipped the roster which includes a lot of high priced players which hasnt worked. Yes, DG flipped the roster, but the results suck.
Will this front office realize that the plan has failed or will they just keep kicking the can down the road with Eli because there is no other option?
Why are we watching a head coach that can't manage his fucking timeouts? Why are we probably entering 2019 with a forked 38 year old QB at a $23M price tag a year after the best QB draft in years? Why don't we have a pass rush? Why are our special teams a joke? Why does our team show no attention to detail whatsoever? Why are we 32nd in the NFL in rushing attempts (and 12th in pass attempts) when we have a 38 year old statue at QB, a terrible pass blocking OL, and just spent a #2 pick on a talented RB?
I've said this before...we know what it looks like when a bad team is well coached and losing simply because they lack talent. That is not what is happening here.
This season has been utterly shambolic. A couple wins after a pathetic 1-7 start don't change that.
Quote:
Fat Man
Samiam : 5:22 pm : link : reply
Not a loaded question but how did it go down in Charlotte? I know he was fired but it seemed like he was doing ok before that. Is there a story here?
He had Richardson's backing when he cut Norman and didn't bring back DeAngelo Williams or Steve Smith.
But he started putting out feelers to trade Olsen and Davis and Richardson put his foot down. Gettleman was told that those two were not to be traded, released or restructured. The reported exchange had richardson tellin Gettleman "Just do your damn job", to which Gettleman reportedly replied, "I can't under those circumstances". He was terminated the next day.
This is why it is completely unbelievable to me that he was given a mandate to build around Eli. I have a historical context to point to. Those insinuating he has a mandate are pointing to a steaming pile of horseshit.
I don't think he had a mandate necessarily - but I do think his chances of landing the job would have been significantly lower if his evaluation of Eli pointed toward getting a new QB in 2018.
If the rumors are accurate that the Giants scouting staff had no QB favored in 2018, then Gettleman confirming as much in an interview would mean consensus. Stating he wanted a replacement in the form of any of the top rated QBs, if the scouting rumors are to be believed - would put him at odds with those guys during interview time.
I don't think his firing in Carolina means anything as far as that's concerned. Gettleman was at an age where his viability to land another GM gig likely ranged from slim to none. At that point, even if he wasn't a yes man before, he'd be a lot more likely to toe the line because it was not likely he'd get another opportunity to manage a team.
Will this front office realize that the plan has failed or will they just keep kicking the can down the road with Eli because there is no other option?
You want people to admit that a plan that is in year 1 has "failed" despite it showing improvement? It is utterly short-sighted thinking.
That should annoy you more, but the fact that you think a plan has already failed says a lot.
They're going to finish 5-11 with the last game at MetLife being a de facto Cowboy home game. Are we supposed to feel good about that because they didn't go 2-14?
God damn...you think I'm frustrating...
The reality is that there has been no progress. The team is not moving in the right direction. They're an awful, boring team. They have been that way for years and they will continue to be that way until ownership realizes that it needs to change the way that it does business. The organization, from the top down, is stagnant, wholly disconnected from reality in terms of its evaluation of both the players and the evaluators of the players, and wholly unwilling to change the way it operates. They are rotting from the head down.
They're going to finish 5-11 with the last game at MetLife being a de facto Cowboy home game. Are we supposed to feel good about that because they didn't go 2-14?
God damn...you think I'm frustrating...
I think this is the most frustrating part of all of it. People here really think there's been some breakthrough and the team is pointing up, going solely on the basis of the W-L record, neglecting the fact that the team had more injuries last year and had the benefit of very high draft picks and more FA spending over last year, combined with the division being weaker.
The team is still in shambles - despite massive turnover, the OL is still terrible. The offense is completely dysfunctional. The defense would need a promotion to be mediocre. There's nothing here that indicates the arrow is pointing anywhere but sideways/down, and the recommendation seems to be to stick with the status quo all the way around and hope things improve somehow.
I did like the hire at the start. The Accorsi involvement bugged me but yeah I thought Gettleman's hiring improved the chances that. I was completely wrong.
My take is that this has so far not worked out for them.
Not sure what the better alternatives were as the jury is still out on a lot of other, more expensive options.
2. Give Eli a dynamic weapon in the backfield who can run the ball & catch the ball & sign Beckham long term.
My take is that this part of the plan worked wonderfully
3. Secure a LT & RG via FA. Draft a LG - rebuild the OL.
My take is that this part of the plan was mixed - the LG worked out, the LT may eventually do so as well although initially he didn't earn his checks. Part of that may have been due to injury and/or playing alongside a rookie and in a brand new offense
4. Trade for a potential defensive leader in Ogletree
5. Spend a 2019 3rd round pick on Sam Beal who can help the roster this year.
While this clearly didn't work out for 2018, the jury is still out on whether this proves to have been a smart move overall.
6. All this while hiring a HC who has some prior experience & is a safe choice off of McAdoo who was very rough around the edges with regard to the media.
[I would add that the HC choice was highly regarded in many circles, and that his past performance was generally not expected to be entirely predictive of future performance. I'm not ready to evaluate the hire altogether, there are things I like about PS's initial season but many more things I'm concerned about. I do believe he deserves another shot.[/b]
Its clear, this was an attempt to retool on the fly with Eli in place. Its easy to see - look at the Saints, Chargers & Steelers. The issue is Eli hasnt played well enough.
Agree entirely, although I would add that attempting to rebuild on the fly and hoping for more out of Eli represents the best they could do in a single offseason, not necessarily the best they can do given a couple of years.
I will say a positive is the fact that Gettleman hasnt been shy to cut bait with Flowers & Omameh. Trading Apple & Snacks was also smart.
Agree with this.
What annoys me is the amount of people who cant st admit that the plan has failed. 60% roster turnover for example, that explanation doesnt make 5-9 okay. It just means DG has flipped the roster which includes a lot of high priced players which hasnt worked. Yes, DG flipped the roster, but the results suck.
Agree that the plan hasn't worked. I don't know anyone who is really happy with how things turned out, even if there are those who see signs of improvement.
Will this front office realize that the plan has failed or will they just keep kicking the can down the road with Eli because there is no other option?
I don't see why this is an either/or situation.
Can't it be both? Recognition that the plan didn't work out and keeping Eli around until a better option can be found? Is it best to force a move to a lesser QB?
Made some comments in bold - figured it was easier to do inline than separate out the comments.
Quote:
fuck with the melodrama.
Fat man, tell me what my expectations of this franchise should be? I am will to adjust them. Just tell me, is this a franchise that will be mediocre and occasionally pop into the playoffs (i.e., the Bengals)? Should I expect a win-now mentality? We've now sat since 2013 with mostly awful teams, and a GM that doubled down on that level of play. Should I be patient, have I not been patient enough over the last- 6 years? Should I be happy with mediocre to poor qb play and a team investing the second pick on the most replaceable position in the four major sports? Tell me, I'm very reasonable and can adjust my expectations.
Fat man, how long have you been a season ticket holder? I've been one for over a decade and a half now. I've given a lot of money to this franchise to see a continuously poor product placed on the field. Only to then have a sham GM search, which essentially reinforced the decisions of the past half decade plus. You speak as though everything is right in Giants land, so I can only assume they sign your paychecks. Sp again, please let me know what I should expect going forward and I am happy to adjust.
Gettleman played an integral role in building the good Giants teams in the early 00s.
Gettleman was involved with building the roster for the Panthers who made a SB.
How about giving him a little longer than 14 games to turn around a shit roster?
You want people to admit that a plan that is in year 1 has "failed" despite it showing improvement? It is utterly short-sighted thinking.
That should annoy you more, but the fact that you think a plan has already failed says a lot.
What season were you watching?
Perhaps this will help.
This year we have been largely healthy - compared to last year, which was a reasonable excuse for the slide - and we are still going to finish with double digit losses.
That's some improvement.
Gettleman played an integral role in building the good Giants teams in the early 00s.
Gettleman was involved with building the roster for the Panthers who made a SB.
How about giving him a little longer than 14 games to turn around a shit roster?
This is what I'm thinking. Once DG has Eli's clear replacement onboard, folks will relax, I'm certain.
I don't think he had a mandate necessarily - but I do think his chances of landing the job would have been significantly lower if his evaluation of Eli pointed toward getting a new QB in 2018.
If the rumors are accurate that the Giants scouting staff had no QB favored in 2018, then Gettleman confirming as much in an interview would mean consensus. Stating he wanted a replacement in the form of any of the top rated QBs, if the scouting rumors are to be believed - would put him at odds with those guys during interview time.
I don't think his firing in Carolina means anything as far as that's concerned. Gettleman was at an age where his viability to land another GM gig likely ranged from slim to none. At that point, even if he wasn't a yes man before, he'd be a lot more likely to toe the line because it was not likely he'd get another opportunity to manage a team.
I think DG got the job because they really respected him as a football man and they saw him as accomplished. I think they liked what he brought to work every day when he was with the Giants. I think they liked what Accorsi had to say about him.
If the rumor posted today about ownership preferring a QB be picked in the draft (I have no idea if that's true), but allowing DG to make his own choice, the preference for finding an Eli-friendly GM/HC should be put to rest. Even if it isn't, the track record of DG and his history with the franchise should indicate there was a lot more to the decision than simply what his take on Eli was, imo.
Jackrabbit looks like an all-pro that same season
Vernon we signed for a bunch of money and have gotten almost nothing out of him
Solder seemed to need to reach an embarrassing level of play before reaching mediocre as the highest paid LT
OBJ looked better in his first few years.
Shepard looks worse this year.
Engram is a WR that we drafted as a TE that can't block and hasn't been taught to block one lick
Apple had his best game as a pro a few games after leaving our team
We traded away the best run defender in the league for peanuts and people tried to tell us this was a good move
They seemed to think Wheeler and Curtis Riley could be starters
Has anyone that has been on this team for years improved? How about with this new staff? Can anyone name a player that improved from last year to this year?
They realized they screwed up the Omameh thing and moved on - what more do you want?
Solder is a solid LT - he's not elite but the money is what it is, starting LTs get crazy money and he's pretty good.
well-reasoned post.
Jackrabbit looks like an all-pro that same season
Vernon we signed for a bunch of money and have gotten almost nothing out of him
Solder seemed to need to reach an embarrassing level of play before reaching mediocre as the highest paid LT
OBJ looked better in his first few years.
Shepard looks worse this year.
Engram is a WR that we drafted as a TE that can't block and hasn't been taught to block one lick
Apple had his best game as a pro a few games after leaving our team
We traded away the best run defender in the league for peanuts and people tried to tell us this was a good move
They seemed to think Wheeler and Curtis Riley could be starters
Has anyone that has been on this team for years improved? How about with this new staff? Can anyone name a player that improved from last year to this year?
I don't agree with all of this, but you can also add that players who have left the Giants in free agency have gone on to have good seasons elsewhere.
Kennard, Pierre-Paul, and Okwara are all having good seasons.
Quote:
Landon Collins looks like an all-pro one season
Jackrabbit looks like an all-pro that same season
Vernon we signed for a bunch of money and have gotten almost nothing out of him
Solder seemed to need to reach an embarrassing level of play before reaching mediocre as the highest paid LT
OBJ looked better in his first few years.
Shepard looks worse this year.
Engram is a WR that we drafted as a TE that can't block and hasn't been taught to block one lick
Apple had his best game as a pro a few games after leaving our team
We traded away the best run defender in the league for peanuts and people tried to tell us this was a good move
They seemed to think Wheeler and Curtis Riley could be starters
Has anyone that has been on this team for years improved? How about with this new staff? Can anyone name a player that improved from last year to this year?
I don't agree with all of this, but you can also add that players who have left the Giants in free agency have gone on to have good seasons elsewhere.
Kennard, Pierre-Paul, and Okwara are all having good seasons.
Lol I know we will never agree on Engram ;) but regardless of what we think of his position I think we both agree that they should be getting more out of him.
They dont have the full corral of horses to run a 3-4 effectively and with depth.
They need to move on from an overpaid and diminished QB. If hes still the QB next season it shows they dont have a plan or vision on what they are going to really build here. Sadly I think hes here and I dont think theyre even going to make him take a paycut.
The team has played reasonably hard for the most part but sans Barkley they are a dull and drab product to watch and they dont exhibit winning football traits in any capacity.
Through the first 8 games, we were actually 13th in health last year vs. 16th this year.
Right now, we are 17th in health vs. finishing the year 18th in health last year.
People forget that we were winless the first part of last year with a healthier squad than this year, but carry on
Miscalculation..it happens
So Next year 500 should be realistic - not a stretch. If they do well, then hey who knows.
FMIC,
You are spot on. This team has improved. We still suck but if you look at just the draft alone I have faith in DG to improve the team even more next year.
Again - Eli Apple is currently the worst CB in the league in terms of QBR against him and he has committed the most penalties.
But because he played well against Carolina - it was a poor decision to let him go??
For a guy who is posting about analytics, you seem to give little fucks about statistics.
Through the first 8 games, we were actually 13th in health last year vs. 16th this year.
Right now, we are 17th in health vs. finishing the year 18th in health last year.
People forget that we were winless the first part of last year with a healthier squad than this year, but carry on
Do we really want to compare the health of Eli's weapons last year versus this year?
But nice try moving the goalposts to refer just to Eli's weapons.
Quote:
if the win total increases every year.
by at least + 2.
So Next year 500 should be realistic - not a stretch. If they do well, then hey who knows.
The NFL doesn't work that way. You don't just assume two more wins because we got two more this year.
seems to be not a coincidence those claiming the improvement are often the ardent Eli fans.
no one should be scorched yet but shurmur and gettleman get one more year. i prefer eli retired or rolls out and the team moves on as he is a bottom tier starter in my mind but we will see. problem is a bad eli may extend an incompetent coach as an alibi. dg is old already so not sure what his shelf life is.
Quote:
fuck with the melodrama.
Fat man, tell me what my expectations of this franchise should be? I am will to adjust them. Just tell me, is this a franchise that will be mediocre and occasionally pop into the playoffs (i.e., the Bengals)? Should I expect a win-now mentality? We've now sat since 2013 with mostly awful teams, and a GM that doubled down on that level of play. Should I be patient, have I not been patient enough over the last- 6 years? Should I be happy with mediocre to poor qb play and a team investing the second pick on the most replaceable position in the four major sports? Tell me, I'm very reasonable and can adjust my expectations.
Fat man, how long have you been a season ticket holder? I've been one for over a decade and a half now. I've given a lot of money to this franchise to see a continuously poor product placed on the field. Only to then have a sham GM search, which essentially reinforced the decisions of the past half decade plus. You speak as though everything is right in Giants land, so I can only assume they sign your paychecks. Sp again, please let me know what I should expect going forward and I am happy to adjust.
Most qualified candidate out there, worked with multiple teams building his stock around the league before the Giants hired him.
If you're gonna cry about how you willingly pay for season tickets, don't pay for season tickets.
The team has sucked since 2011. Everyone here has grown frustrated at the shitty product. Even though we drafted the best running back in the league, a guard who will have borderline all-pro potential, two d-linemen who will be contributors, signed UDFA Grant Haley who looks like a keeper, kept Rosas, and locked up LT for the next years.
He missed on Patrick Omameh and Jonathan Stewart. The reality is neither move is going to kill us moving forward.
What a lot of you are saying is basically this
"We've been such a mess for 7 years !!! Reese sucked at drafting! Our FA's signings didn't work out! The culture sucks!"
THEN, less than 1 year after these guys got hired to fix this mess, a lot of you are already saying they need to go. How can you not see that is foolish?
Again, i will drop Dave Gettleman's resume here:
As executive
2 Super Bowl champion (XLII, XLVI)
4 NFC Champion (2000, 2007, 2011, 2015)
As administrator
5 AFC Champion (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1997)
Super Bowl champion (XXXII)
If you want to debate some of moves, by all means! I already admitted some have not worked out. But if you're gonna post comments like "Gettleman is so clueless" fully recognize you are an idiot.
Can we MAYBE, just MAYBE, give them another year? Can we see how the 10 draft picks work out? Can Shurmur have a competent quarterback and offensive line before we run the guy out of town?
Can anyone answer these two questions for me?
- Did they really have an option to move the declining quarterback who makes too much money and has a no trade clause?
- Does anyone have a good counter as to why we cut half the team on September 1 right before the season started? Does your counter argument involve a quote from a media day in April? Which do you think holds more importance?
If they fuck up the draft and the offseason goes poorly, tee off on me and tell me how wrong i am. Then we should be worried. I still like both hires.
What I don't know is if DG really picked Shurmur or if it was ownership I hated the hire from day one and nothing he has done here changed my mind. I will never forget the day after he was hired my cousin a huge browns fan called me up laughing saying how the Giants blew it with his hire that the guy is a clown and just wait how he will just blow games. Well he was right. So if DG is this hard nose no nonsense GM he will move on from Shurmur but I doubt it and so we can look forward to 3-5 years of 7-9 football.
How do you know this? How do you make this statement without knowing what's going to transpire over the course of the next couple years?
Have a little faith.
Quote:
Gettleman played an integral role in building the good Giants teams in the early 00s.
Gettleman was involved with building the roster for the Panthers who made a SB.
How about giving him a little longer than 14 games to turn around a shit roster?
This is what I'm thinking. Once DG has Eli's clear replacement onboard, folks will relax, I'm certain.
I wouldn't count on it. We've got a lot of posters who'll bash Gettleman or Shurmur for any little misstep on or off the field. If we do get Eli's clear replacement, someone will bitch that we overpaid, or we reached or some other asinine thing.
Quote:
Apple had his best game as a pro a few games after leaving our team
Again - Eli Apple is currently the worst CB in the league in terms of QBR against him and he has committed the most penalties.
But because he played well against Carolina - it was a poor decision to let him go??
For a guy who is posting about analytics, you seem to give little fucks about statistics.
I'm posting random anecdotes about players and yes it bothers me to see the #9 pick in the draft traded away for nothing and then play well for another team. He had a great game. When your team is in the toilet anyway I don't understand giving up on a player like that. But again sure pick out a small part of my post. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the most important part. Has anyone improved from last year to this year?
And honestly you can break it down to one simple pivotal point: if this o-line could have been DECENT all year long (as it has been at times in the 2nd half of the season) this team certainly had the talent to go 10-6 or 11-5. The defense was pretty solid and would often fall apart in the 4th quarter due to our offensive woes and lack of ball control. Manning and the skills players on offense have been pretty good (especially Barkley) when the o-line has been decent. Rosas is going to the damn pro bowl. This could have been a well balanced talented team and Gettleman was correct in assessing that this team was just a decent o-line away from being playoff contenders, I truly believe that. But the o-line was so so so bad for the first half of the season. He could not have expected his 2 big free agent OL, a #34 overall guard, an experienced starting center, and a former #9 overall pick at OT would be SO bad. I mean it was inexplicable. Solder and Omameh were starters on successful o-lines before coming to the Giants. I cant daily Gettleman for the o-line being THAT INEXPLICABLY TERRIBLE. But- they were. And we fell deep into a hole we just couldnt dig ourself out of. I do give him and Shurmur and the team credit for righting the ship somewhat and getting a few wins.
It was a failed season, but I do not consider it a gross miscalculation on DGs part by any means. This team was a decent OL away from competing (that was true), so he addressed the o-line with th FAs and draft picks available to him, and it turns out it didnt work. I cant sit here and say he could have done better, and I dont blame him for rolling the dice when all we needed was one goddamn unit (OL) to be improved in order for us to be contending for the playoffs.
THEN, less than 1 year after these guys got hired to fix this mess, a lot of you are already saying they need to go. How can you not see that is foolish?
Nice post. I would add to the quote above that more than a few on here were against the hiring of DG before his first press conference was over.
It's been tough discussing anything with people whose minds were made up about our chances back in February.
Give them a chance, at least.
I can imagine Gettleman proving to be a good GM. I don't anticipate it, I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it, but I can imagine it.
I cannot fathom Shurmur becoming a coach who will help navigate t by e team through the playoffs.
How do you know this? How do you make this statement without knowing what's going to transpire over the course of the next couple years?
Have a little faith. [/quote]
How would you justify the play calling of Shurmur with one of the most dangerous backs in the NFL and a really good backup is ranked 31st in the NFL in Rushing attempts. I don't know how you have faith.
Quote:
THEN, less than 1 year after these guys got hired to fix this mess, a lot of you are already saying they need to go. How can you not see that is foolish?
Nice post. I would add to the quote above that more than a few on here were against the hiring of DG before his first press conference was over.
It's been tough discussing anything with people whose minds were made up about our chances back in February.
Agree with the above. Id also add that some posters on BBI would have disagreed with whatever decision the Giants made when hiring a GM. And then they used every decision made by the GM to support their position that things would be better if someone else were hired.
I dont know how DG will be as a GM. But he needs time to prove himself. And firing him after one season is idiotic.
Great conversation we're having here.
Great conversation we're having here.
You're kidding - that's your rebuttal to the STs being no good, that the kicker had a Pro Bowl season?!
It's fucking preposterous.
First, any fucking take you have that is based on a General Manager or Head Coach's media appearance is bad. You should stop yourself before you speak or hit Submit. Just stop. They're going to say anything that makes their situation look better, their relationship with players look better and say whatever instills the most confidence with the fan base. Do most of you not understand that?
Second, we had massive turnover on this team, on a team that won 3 games last year. You really thought we were going to be competitive? Please. You want to slam Shurmur? You can get after him on a mistakes in game. He has issues with time management. But you know what he's done really well? Instilled a culture of winning and a culture of team. This team has played hard all year where last year it was all at a lost.
Do you know what also is pretty good? The continuation of turning over the roster, cutting bait on shitty players, no more scholarships. That breeds competition inside the locker room. You don't think cutting Flowers and Omameh and Apple had a positive effect on the locker room?
To the dude who mentioned Apple. Delete your accounts and don't come back.
Snacks was on his last legs, had a low snap count, and realistically we weren't going to compete this year. We got what we could for him and moved on. It's a smart move.
Gettleman made some bad signings in Free Agency, but they were cheap signings. Stewart and Omameh aren't going to kill us when the cap is going to be around $190 million. 3-5 Million cap hit for both of them? This isn't fucking 2002 anymore boys. Do the god damn math and shut the fuck up.
And Barkley? The only other player I would have taken over him was Baker Mayfield. There are plenty of fucking threads on this technical abortion of a message board whining about QB vs. RB. I think the proof, at least in year one, is that we made the right decision. The NFL is a game of small windows and I don't think any of the other quarterbacks was worth looking at.
Though I will admit that not taking Rosen is something that may prove me wrong. We'll see.
Ultimately for those of you complaining about DG, fuck off. Just like you can't judge a draft until 3 years, you can't judge a GM off of one offseason and 14 games. Let's talk next Christmas.
100%. I actually love what Gettleman has done aside from Omameh, but again, that really wasn't a huge deal as they moved on from him early on once it was clear the dude just isn't good.
Shurmur's decision making has been brutal in some games which had a direct effect on losses.
Their grade is incomplete - as almost any GM in year 1 should be, especially on a team where the roster has been revamped.
Fans are frustrated and they want immediate results. They've seen other teams have immediate results and want to see them here. Then again, a lot of those teams with immediate results, usually achieve them through outstanding health, which then becomes a one-year blip. See Jax and Buffalo last year.
The fellating of Jax for their philosophy in team building was amusing to say the least in the past offseason. They will be a force for the next decade....
He has kept this team playing hard, I will say that. But they just looked like a JV team against the Titans and didn't score a single point at home- who aren't exactly a great team by any stretch. I don't think it's unfair to say that our coaching has not been that good this year. Would he be a better coach if we had better players? I'm not sure. I'd like to think so...but that remains to be seen.
I don't see how anyone here could think management went into 2018 willing to accept marginal improvement.
We went over this in preseason. Their team-building actions did not indicate that they were taking a patient, build it up approach.
I have a lot of concern over Shurmur's game management. But then again, McAdoo's game management looked great his first year.
Passing the ball 44 times on Sunday and getting away from Barkley in the Philly game are two huge red flags.
The team has sucked since 2011. Everyone here has grown frustrated at the shitty product. Even though we drafted the best running back in the league, a guard who will have borderline all-pro potential, two d-linemen who will be contributors, signed UDFA Grant Haley who looks like a keeper, kept Rosas, and locked up LT for the next years.
He missed on Patrick Omameh and Jonathan Stewart. The reality is neither move is going to kill us moving forward.
What a lot of you are saying is basically this
"We've been such a mess for 7 years !!! Reese sucked at drafting! Our FA's signings didn't work out! The culture sucks!"
THEN, less than 1 year after these guys got hired to fix this mess, a lot of you are already saying they need to go. How can you not see that is foolish?
Again, i will drop Dave Gettleman's resume here:
As executive
2 Super Bowl champion (XLII, XLVI)
4 NFC Champion (2000, 2007, 2011, 2015)
As administrator
5 AFC Champion (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1997)
Super Bowl champion (XXXII)
If you want to debate some of moves, by all means! I already admitted some have not worked out. But if you're gonna post comments like "Gettleman is so clueless" fully recognize you are an idiot.
Can we MAYBE, just MAYBE, give them another year? Can we see how the 10 draft picks work out? Can Shurmur have a competent quarterback and offensive line before we run the guy out of town?
Can anyone answer these two questions for me?
- Did they really have an option to move the declining quarterback who makes too much money and has a no trade clause?
- Does anyone have a good counter as to why we cut half the team on September 1 right before the season started? Does your counter argument involve a quote from a media day in April? Which do you think holds more importance?
If they fuck up the draft and the offseason goes poorly, tee off on me and tell me how wrong i am. Then we should be worried. I still like both hires.
Very solid post! I love DG and I think for the most part Shurmur has been good. He knows football. The main issue I have with PS has been some clock management gafs and maybe throwing the ball too much early in the season.
They base that on "who can we get who's better"? Well, who would we get that's going to get 12 plus sacks (something sorely needed) or play the run better than Snacks?
Personally, I'm ok with making those moves because I want to team to be in a better position long term. It's the same logic regarding Eli. I don't care if they get someone who actually plays better than Eli in 2019 (bar not set really high), I want them to start allocating the significant resources elsewhere to try and build a winner.
If Eli is still the starter going into next year, there will be doubts, questions, distractions regarding the QB play, and will be hard to move forward and improve. That's the biggest move that, IMO, needs to be made the day after the season ends, announce we are moving on from the Eli era - turn the page.
One strategy is to just go with Lauletta and a rookie and mail the season in, but we have people revolting this year and bitching that we're wasting Barkley's 3-year prime window - where does that leave us next year?
Any decent vet who wants to be a starter will eat up a majority of that savings.
unless you draft a QB and go with Lauletta - which means more bitching from people who will say the franchise has no plan and is wasting years without a plan, right?
One strategy is to just go with Lauletta and a rookie and mail the season in, but we have people revolting this year and bitching that we're wasting Barkley's 3-year prime window - where does that leave us next year?
Yes. Mail it in. Embrace going 2-14. The prize will be waiting for us in April of 2020. Going somewhere between 5-11 and 7-9 (which is likely what 2019 will be) does nothing for us. Bottom this bitch out.
Damn a plan, the pitchforks are out and they are angry. They'll still tune in and watch every week, buy tickets and merchandise... But by god they're not happy about it!
Quote:
is that Eli really isn't a cap discussion. He will carry a significant amount of dead money if he's cut and a replacement plus that dead money will likely eat away the majority of the savings, so you aren't getting much of a benefit.
One strategy is to just go with Lauletta and a rookie and mail the season in, but we have people revolting this year and bitching that we're wasting Barkley's 3-year prime window - where does that leave us next year?
Yes. Mail it in. Embrace going 2-14. The prize will be waiting for us in April of 2020. Going somewhere between 5-11 and 7-9 (which is likely what 2019 will be) does nothing for us. Bottom this bitch out.
And to clarify: for all we know, Eli might give us the best chance at 2-14.
Was any QB going to pull that game out? We allowed over 200 yards rushing.
That's not to say Eli didn't play poorly, but pointing to a game in the rain where the entire offense blew shouldn't really be the game that turns the tide.
Look - I've heard the arguments that mobile QB's don't have games like Eli. yet you know who did the very same week? Dak. Shutout against the Colts, without even a weather excuse.
I did not. But I do think DG did. That's a huge reason why I'm so critical.
Their grade is incomplete - as almost any GM in year 1 should be, especially on a team where the roster has been revamped.
Fans are frustrated and they want immediate results. They've seen other teams have immediate results and want to see them here. Then again, a lot of those teams with immediate results, usually achieve them through outstanding health, which then becomes a one-year blip. See Jax and Buffalo last year.
The fellating of Jax for their philosophy in team building was amusing to say the least in the past offseason. They will be a force for the next decade....
Don't get me wrong, I'm not lauding them, they have mistakes. That's going to happen. They are far from dumpster fire level that people seem to think.
I won't even touch the shitheads who like to yell at clouds and Maras.
I don't see how anyone here could think management went into 2018 willing to accept marginal improvement.
We went over this in preseason. Their team-building actions did not indicate that they were taking a patient, build it up approach.
Our team is low bar talent. I judge accordingly.
I'm just getting tired of the excuses. Hell, I'M getting tired of defending Eli. I'm just at my breaking point with this team, and he's not leading us anywhere, he's only adding to the fact that we suck. I'm just done trying to defend keeping him on the team. I love the guy, he'll be my all time favorite athlete until the day I die...but I just think it's time to move on.
If we signed a vet or played a rookie next year...it really can't get much worse. We didn't score a single point last week - and he's been downright bad in a lot of games. Now...that being said. He's been awesome in some games too. But you can't tell me that another QB who makes 1/10th of the money he does can't pretty much give us the same result.
Any decent vet who wants to be a starter will eat up a majority of that savings.
unless you draft a QB and go with Lauletta - which means more bitching from people who will say the franchise has no plan and is wasting years without a plan, right?
No, not right.
Quote:
You really thought we were going to be competitive?
I did not. But I do think DG did. That's a huge reason why I'm so critical.
Based on a press conference? Can I base whether you're a moron based on just on your post I quoted?
It's like a marriage ending or a relationship ending...there's no good way to put it...it's just over.
That's called building a roster. DG or any GM is not going to build a competitive team by only the draft. You always take the opportunity the bring perceived talent whenever you can.
Quote:
No, based on a number of moves he made this off-season: Solder, the Ogletree trade, throwing money at Omameh.
That's called building a roster. DG or any GM is not going to build a competitive team by only the draft. You always take the opportunity the bring perceived talent whenever you can.
You don't throw assets at a player like Ogletree if you're rebuilding.
And the Solder signing has thus far been very bad. So he failed on player evaluation, which was allegedly his strength.
ryanmkeane : 10:23 am : link : reply
Eli has an atrocious game, it's "well the OL wasn't good" "well, the weather sucked" or "well...you can't expect him to have a great game every week" or "he made a lot of good throws too...we were close to winning that game"
Hell, if he has a single turnover in a game we eventually lose, that is microanalyzed as being the reason. He led two TD drives in the final 5 minutes to take the lead in Carolina and people blamed him for an earlier turnover and for SCORING TOO QUICKLY as the main reason for the loss. His INT at the end of the first half against Philly is talked about as a 21 point momentum changing play.
When he has immediate pressure and takes a sack, he gets ripped.
Eli has been far from perfect. He's also far from atrocious. But that isn't the mindset of most posters. I bet a lot of people truly feel that a different QB is worth 3-4 more wins, especially a mobile QB. And I think that's horseshit.
Quote:
In comment 14225931 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
No, based on a number of moves he made this off-season: Solder, the Ogletree trade, throwing money at Omameh.
That's called building a roster. DG or any GM is not going to build a competitive team by only the draft. You always take the opportunity the bring perceived talent whenever you can.
You don't throw assets at a player like Ogletree if you're rebuilding.
And the Solder signing has thus far been very bad. So he failed on player evaluation, which was allegedly his strength.
I mean you're just wrong. We moved to a 3-4 and we needed talent. Ogletree was a good move imo. Solder was a result of the open market.
What would you have done other wise to an OL that was dogshit?
Failed on player eval? Point to me a GM that hits on 100% of his signings. Are you going to also ignore all of DGs history (decades) and judge him based on two signings?
Come the fuck on.
Quote:
Every single week that
ryanmkeane : 10:23 am : link : reply
Eli has an atrocious game, it's "well the OL wasn't good" "well, the weather sucked" or "well...you can't expect him to have a great game every week" or "he made a lot of good throws too...we were close to winning that game"
Hell, if he has a single turnover in a game we eventually lose, that is microanalyzed as being the reason. He led two TD drives in the final 5 minutes to take the lead in Carolina and people blamed him for an earlier turnover and for SCORING TOO QUICKLY as the main reason for the loss. His INT at the end of the first half against Philly is talked about as a 21 point momentum changing play.
When he has immediate pressure and takes a sack, he gets ripped.
Eli has been far from perfect. He's also far from atrocious. But that isn't the mindset of most posters. I bet a lot of people truly feel that a different QB is worth 3-4 more wins, especially a mobile QB. And I think that's horseshit.
I think he's been atrocious in the context of a $20M QB that is a two time super bowl mvp.
He's better than average in the context of all QBs and potential FA replacements.
And you have a few posters who maintain that Ogletree is absolute garbage.
There have been a lot of strange takes on him.
Gettleman tried to improve the OL and the LB corps and drafted a RB.
The reaction to that isn't that he was trying to rebuild units, the reaction was "THEY ARE ALL-IN ON ELI!!", with a lot of veiled references to a mandate from the owner that Eli has to stay and the team must build around him.
A good amount of plays and throws happen every game which directly leads to the other team getting the ball or the play just having zero chance for success. At the very thought of pressure, there is just zero chance for the play to succeed. That isn't really up for debate I don't think. Maybe it is...but anyone watching could tell you that Eli makes some really good throws from time to time...but in reality he is just extremely inconsistent to the point where it's not leading us anywhere. He'll play well in like 50% of our games, and it gives us a chance to win those games. But our team isn't good enough to hide him when he's playing terribly.
DG made a guy who has been mediocre the highest paid OT in the league. That isn't a small error. He's swung and missed on almost all of his signings.
As the GM of the Giants, he has failed miserably in free agency. His 'decades long' history is irrelevant.
That's not to say everything he's done is bad. Hernandez looks good. Barkley is probably the best back in the league already (and I would have went in a different direction in the draft, but DG was very much right here).
I don't see how anyone here could think management went into 2018 willing to accept marginal improvement.
We went over this in preseason. Their team-building actions did not indicate that they were taking a patient, build it up approach.
What specifically? And don't give me Solder. There is never a bad time to lock up one of the most important positions in football. If they didn't sign him people here would riot.
DG made a guy who has been mediocre the highest paid OT in the league. That isn't a small error. He's swung and missed on almost all of his signings.
As the GM of the Giants, he has failed miserably in free agency. His 'decades long' history is irrelevant.
That's not to say everything he's done is bad. Hernandez looks good. Barkley is probably the best back in the league already (and I would have went in a different direction in the draft, but DG was very much right here).
Dude, you are wrong. He played with a stinger till the bye week, got a week off and has played much better. He's solid. Not an All-Pro, but not a JAG either. It has in no way failed miserably.
Anything since then they seemingly ignore.
And then talk about huge swings and misses without realizing the irony of that.
Quote:
would give them a pass on everything if they had drafted Darnold. You admitted you would preach patience with the roster and to give them a chance.
But because of ONE single draft pick/player, you've gone the polar opposite extreme and unleashed hell on them.
Does that seem rational?
I absolutely would not give them a pass on everything. Drafting Darnold wouldn't solve or excuse Shurmur's ineptitude. It wouldn't excuse the sham GM "search" that saw Gettleman get here in the first place. It wouldn't excuse Gettleman's misses in FA, or his proud "old school" mentality. It wouldn't excuse this awful coaching staff assembled under Shurmur.
This isn't just about the Barkley pick. I keep telling you that.
Who should they have hired at GM instead? Who says old school mentalities can't work?
Quote:
The moment they faced a team that wasn't a pushover they wilted in the rain.
They're going to finish 5-11 with the last game at MetLife being a de facto Cowboy home game. Are we supposed to feel good about that because they didn't go 2-14?
God damn...you think I'm frustrating...
I think this is the most frustrating part of all of it. People here really think there's been some breakthrough and the team is pointing up, going solely on the basis of the W-L record, neglecting the fact that the team had more injuries last year and had the benefit of very high draft picks and more FA spending over last year, combined with the division being weaker.
The team is still in shambles - despite massive turnover, the OL is still terrible. The offense is completely dysfunctional. The defense would need a promotion to be mediocre. There's nothing here that indicates the arrow is pointing anywhere but sideways/down, and the recommendation seems to be to stick with the status quo all the way around and hope things improve somehow.
Funny, i think its the people who can't help but be negative that look at wins and losses. I stopped caring about that a while ago. Is the team playing hard? Yes. Are the young players seemingly improving as the season goes on? Yes. Is Shurmur adjsuting to mistakes? Yes. They are improving.
It's fucking preposterous.
First, any fucking take you have that is based on a General Manager or Head Coach's media appearance is bad. You should stop yourself before you speak or hit Submit. Just stop. They're going to say anything that makes their situation look better, their relationship with players look better and say whatever instills the most confidence with the fan base. Do most of you not understand that?
Second, we had massive turnover on this team, on a team that won 3 games last year. You really thought we were going to be competitive? Please. You want to slam Shurmur? You can get after him on a mistakes in game. He has issues with time management. But you know what he's done really well? Instilled a culture of winning and a culture of team. This team has played hard all year where last year it was all at a lost.
Do you know what also is pretty good? The continuation of turning over the roster, cutting bait on shitty players, no more scholarships. That breeds competition inside the locker room. You don't think cutting Flowers and Omameh and Apple had a positive effect on the locker room?
To the dude who mentioned Apple. Delete your accounts and don't come back.
Snacks was on his last legs, had a low snap count, and realistically we weren't going to compete this year. We got what we could for him and moved on. It's a smart move.
Gettleman made some bad signings in Free Agency, but they were cheap signings. Stewart and Omameh aren't going to kill us when the cap is going to be around $190 million. 3-5 Million cap hit for both of them? This isn't fucking 2002 anymore boys. Do the god damn math and shut the fuck up.
And Barkley? The only other player I would have taken over him was Baker Mayfield. There are plenty of fucking threads on this technical abortion of a message board whining about QB vs. RB. I think the proof, at least in year one, is that we made the right decision. The NFL is a game of small windows and I don't think any of the other quarterbacks was worth looking at.
Though I will admit that not taking Rosen is something that may prove me wrong. We'll see.
Ultimately for those of you complaining about DG, fuck off. Just like you can't judge a draft until 3 years, you can't judge a GM off of one offseason and 14 games. Let's talk next Christmas.
Have a fucking Rec good sir.
Anything since then they seemingly ignore.
And then talk about huge swings and misses without realizing the irony of that.
You can tell who listens to Giants reporters that actually break down film on a consistent basis and who watches the game once and makes rash decisions off what they saw.
Dial back before FA ( which is before the draft):
Flowers sucked and likely would suck on the right side
Not right to offer Pugh or Richburg
There was no RG
There was a poor choice amongst the back ups
That's the deck you are handed. Reality. Facts. In effect you are the new GM and you promised the fans you would do your best ( otherwise you would not get the gig) and yet you have zilch at Ol. Literally zilch
There were limited FA available and semi sure thing OL of any kind only exist in the first two rounds.
For those wanting a shot at a new QB...you needed an OL. For those wanting whoever the BPA was ...you need an OL
What did you want done?
Mara to shit out 5 All Pro OL in his basement in FA? At the vet Minimum. Then FA a HOF Qb...that was not there.
Then use the draft to actually draft the DL and LB and FS we also needed.
Obviously Jints Central is deficient. Every other teams fans get to see newly shit out of nowhere HOF talent. Every year
I cant believe there is actually a conversation where people think its even logical to make some of these criticisms. And I say that unimpressed by the HC and mixed on the GM and praying the top guy finally got his act together.
Twas brillig, and the slithy tackles
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogove guards,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Beware the Jabberwock!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
Take vorpal sword in hand and post like Mad:
Long time the manxome foe they seek
So no resting by the Tumtum tree,
Post with eyes of flame,
on threads whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burble as we post more and more!
I don't know why people want to pretend the first half of the year didn't happen.
Funny, i think its the people who can't help but be negative that look at wins and losses. I stopped caring about that a while ago. Is the team playing hard? Yes. Are the young players seemingly improving as the season goes on? Yes. Is Shurmur adjsuting to mistakes? Yes. They are improving.
I think it's hilarious you can say 'negative' in that sense.
As if there's something to see here that people are overlooking. The team has been brutally bad against anything but the worst competition. They opened up the season 1-7.
Yet, some get pleasure from things like 'playing hard', which can't be quantified in any way.
If you want to call me negative, fine by me. I think you're delusional, wanting to apply a positive spin on a situation that is already bad and doesn't seem to be improving in any way.
I don't know why people want to pretend the first half of the year didn't happen.
Some, like myself, think he was fighting an injury. Ill admit he has been good in the 2nd half. Hell likely never justify his contract though.
If we did absolutely nothing, would that have been acceptable? If we signed a lower level FA and he was poor, would that have been looked at as a reasonable gamble?
Hell, we signed that type of guy in Omameh and people regularly use it to illustrate exactly how Gettleman is incompetent.
a new HC who either has a track record of success or has no track record at all to bring in and design a new system/philosophy, and...
Success on offense and defense within the first half the season, no time for any growing pains, and...
Answers to all the holes on the roster, without any mistakes made in FA or the draft, and...
The 15-year solution to the most difficult position to solve (QB) is in place, and...
Only saying things to the press which sound amazing to certain fans, and...
Not having anything to do with anyone in this organization over the last 30 years or so, certainly not since the Giants began winning SB's.
Didn't all that happen? Then it's a failure and the sooner we can FIRE the current staff and find the guys who can execute the above the better.
Names? I'm not sure who, but we need someone better, that's for damn sure.
It's like many on BBI have never tried to solve a real-world complex problem involving human capital and limited resources before. Or even studied how to do it.
I couldn't agree with your last post more.
It really is amazing.
Anyone who bashed the Solder signing is not being fair. Imagine the rage if we trotted Flowers out there at LT week 1?
I asked a very relevant question. Has any player improved from last year to this year on the Giants? Don't you think that is problematic? Don't you think it's problematic to watch players like Landon Collins regress and not be put in positions to maximize their talents. Don't you think it's concerning that we drafted 4 guys in the first round (JPP, Apple, Pugh, Flowers) that we labeled malcontents later? This is the same scouting staff that drafted those players. Don't you think it's concerning that we also sign big free agents like Jackrabbit and Snacks and spend a bunch of money and they are apparently malcontents too? And the other guy we paid big bucks to, Vernon hasn't looked good at all despite being one of the highest paid pass rushers.
Yeah because Apple has been largely a disappointment and finally played a complete game and I commented on it, I should leave the board. Holy shit.
You know what they say. Without hyperbole, we'd all be lost.
Get your head out of Gettleman's ass to address some of my very relevant points instead of picking out one thing in one of the most Giant slanted rants I've seen on this board. You probably work for the team. Which explains why you are such a jackass.
I asked a very relevant question. Has any player improved from last year to this year on the Giants? Don't you think that is problematic? Don't you think it's problematic to watch players like Landon Collins regress and not be put in positions to maximize their talents. Don't you think it's concerning that we drafted 4 guys in the first round (JPP, Apple, Pugh, Flowers) that we labeled malcontents later? This is the same scouting staff that drafted those players. Don't you think it's concerning that we also sign big free agents like Jackrabbit and Snacks and spend a bunch of money and they are apparently malcontents too? And the other guy we paid big bucks to, Vernon hasn't looked good at all despite being one of the highest paid pass rushers.
Yeah because Apple has been largely a disappointment and finally played a complete game and I commented on it, I should leave the board. Holy shit.
You know what they say. Without hyperbole, we'd all be lost.
Get your head out of Gettleman's ass to address some of my very relevant points instead of picking out one thing in one of the most Giant slanted rants I've seen on this board. You probably work for the team. Which explains why you are such a jackass.
Gettleman had zero to do with drafting any of those guys.
If we did absolutely nothing, would that have been acceptable? If we signed a lower level FA and he was poor, would that have been looked at as a reasonable gamble?
Hell, we signed that type of guy in Omameh and people regularly use it to illustrate exactly how Gettleman is incompetent.
His contract has to be justified because cap allocation is critical to the team's success and it's the GMs job. I can't believe that's a serious question.
I absolutely would have been fine signing 'pedestrian' Olineman to short-term deals on gambles. I can't speak for everyone else.
Omameh was terrible and he was paid league-average money. Is that not a fair reason to criticize DG?
DG spent a lot of money on the OL and the results have been very poor (except Hernandez, who I like a lot).
I think you are frustrated. We all are and you and I just express it in different ways.
You always seem to make a point and try to back it up and that's appreciated.
Also, Jenkins was a very good signing. So your comment on him being a "malcontent" is bullshit. Why is he a malcontent?
Quote:
I just said it sucks to see a guy you spend a #9 pick on have a game like that on national TV. You delete your account.
I asked a very relevant question. Has any player improved from last year to this year on the Giants? Don't you think that is problematic? Don't you think it's problematic to watch players like Landon Collins regress and not be put in positions to maximize their talents. Don't you think it's concerning that we drafted 4 guys in the first round (JPP, Apple, Pugh, Flowers) that we labeled malcontents later? This is the same scouting staff that drafted those players. Don't you think it's concerning that we also sign big free agents like Jackrabbit and Snacks and spend a bunch of money and they are apparently malcontents too? And the other guy we paid big bucks to, Vernon hasn't looked good at all despite being one of the highest paid pass rushers.
Yeah because Apple has been largely a disappointment and finally played a complete game and I commented on it, I should leave the board. Holy shit.
You know what they say. Without hyperbole, we'd all be lost.
Get your head out of Gettleman's ass to address some of my very relevant points instead of picking out one thing in one of the most Giant slanted rants I've seen on this board. You probably work for the team. Which explains why you are such a jackass.
Gettleman had zero to do with drafting any of those guys.
I keep making this point that especially today you are as good as your team. You need lots of great information from many people including tech experts, these are best practices in organizations now. He has kept largely the same staff that scouted these players. That's the issue.
I asked a very relevant question. Has any player improved from last year to this year on the Giants? Don't you think that is problematic? Don't you think it's problematic to watch players like Landon Collins regress and not be put in positions to maximize their talents. Don't you think it's concerning that we drafted 4 guys in the first round (JPP, Apple, Pugh, Flowers) that we labeled malcontents later? This is the same scouting staff that drafted those players. Don't you think it's concerning that we also sign big free agents like Jackrabbit and Snacks and spend a bunch of money and they are apparently malcontents too? And the other guy we paid big bucks to, Vernon hasn't looked good at all despite being one of the highest paid pass rushers.
Yeah because Apple has been largely a disappointment and finally played a complete game and I commented on it, I should leave the board. Holy shit.
You know what they say. Without hyperbole, we'd all be lost.
Get your head out of Gettleman's ass to address some of my very relevant points instead of picking out one thing in one of the most Giant slanted rants I've seen on this board. You probably work for the team. Which explains why you are such a jackass.
Guy, tell me how many of those moves Gettleman made. Pugh was not a malcontent. He was injury prone and he hit his ceiling. Landon Collins is a box safety asked to do too much right now because we haven't had a good free safety since Nam. Bring in a centerfielder who can cover the deep third and watch him flourish.
Actions don't matter, quotes in the offseason matter much more.
Quote:
In comment 14226202 NoGainDayne said:
Quote:
I just said it sucks to see a guy you spend a #9 pick on have a game like that on national TV. You delete your account.
I asked a very relevant question. Has any player improved from last year to this year on the Giants? Don't you think that is problematic? Don't you think it's problematic to watch players like Landon Collins regress and not be put in positions to maximize their talents. Don't you think it's concerning that we drafted 4 guys in the first round (JPP, Apple, Pugh, Flowers) that we labeled malcontents later? This is the same scouting staff that drafted those players. Don't you think it's concerning that we also sign big free agents like Jackrabbit and Snacks and spend a bunch of money and they are apparently malcontents too? And the other guy we paid big bucks to, Vernon hasn't looked good at all despite being one of the highest paid pass rushers.
Yeah because Apple has been largely a disappointment and finally played a complete game and I commented on it, I should leave the board. Holy shit.
You know what they say. Without hyperbole, we'd all be lost.
Get your head out of Gettleman's ass to address some of my very relevant points instead of picking out one thing in one of the most Giant slanted rants I've seen on this board. You probably work for the team. Which explains why you are such a jackass.
Gettleman had zero to do with drafting any of those guys.
I keep making this point that especially today you are as good as your team. You need lots of great information from many people including tech experts, these are best practices in organizations now. He has kept largely the same staff that scouted these players. That's the issue.
Do you work with the team? How can you say so definitely you know the exact problem with the scouting department? Do you not see how moronic that sounds? They fired the GM and VP of player personnel. You realize scouts don't make the call on who they pick?
I'm saying that they should have cleaned house. I'm saying that those scouts that recommended those players are still in the building when they shouldn't be.
I'm saying that a good leader in today's world builds a competitive computer science, product management and mathmatics team in a data driven business.
I'm saying that when you make big free agent signings and first round draft picks that you label as malcontents and this number is greater than 2 or 3 (I count 7) 8 if you include DRC and Vernon both that is a big sign that the players aren't the problem it's the organization. More evidence that we really needed to clean house. You know what organization also had a bunch of malcontents? The Browns. Poor leadership breeds malcontents.
These are signs of mismanagement.
Quote:
us that Gettleman should be held responsible for all of those players? When he wasn't even employed by the Giants? Are you high right now? (if you are...I might need some of that)
I'm saying that they should have cleaned house. I'm saying that those scouts that recommended those players are still in the building when they shouldn't be.
I'm saying that a good leader in today's world builds a competitive computer science, product management and mathmatics team in a data driven business.
I'm saying that when you make big free agent signings and first round draft picks that you label as malcontents and this number is greater than 2 or 3 (I count 7) 8 if you include DRC and Vernon both that is a big sign that the players aren't the problem it's the organization. More evidence that we really needed to clean house. You know what organization also had a bunch of malcontents? The Browns. Poor leadership breeds malcontents.
These are signs of mismanagement.
Maybe he's taking time to evaluate them first?
You need an MBA and have a LinkedIn page to even pass the low bar for understanding the incredibly complex world of stats.
They also made some very bad free agent calls.
Barkely was a generational talent, anyone with eyes could see that.
Hernandez and Hill were good picks but we made a lot of mistakes in free agency, didn't make a good head coaching hire. Looked poor in strategic moves (Snacks for a 5th rounder while trying to make a playoff push is just plain dumb) Sy said the return was poor that's someone people respect so let's just point that out. And as i've said, my biggest concern is that we hired a guy that makes fun of analytics when the league is rapidly modernizing. Not only does it look like we don't have those people in the building a clip like that mocking them would make them not want to work for Gettleman.
Even if he is the right guy today, which is debatable. Even ardent Gettleman supporters have to say it was a mixed bag of moves this offseason, my larger point is that other teams are building for the future and we seem stuck in the past.
We were making a playoff push at 1-7?
Please make it stop.
The guy is a football nut who truly only cares about winning. That doesn't guarantee success. But the narratives people have about him are, for the most part, very foolish.
Rosas - night and day
Ellison
Engram - hard to judge with the injuries, but he's averaging 12.0 y/r (vs 11.3 y/r) and has improved his catch% to 68% (vs 55.7%).
Wynn - solid backup DE this year, bottom 5 roster guy last year
Tomlinson
Collins - not back to his 2016 level, but he had as many impact plays in 12 games this year vs all of last season
I think some other young guys that weren't part of the 2017 team have also exceeded expectations and performed better than those they replaced:
Hamilton
Dixon
Haley - looks like a solid #3 CB
Webb - potential long term slot CB/depth
Hill - steal in the 3rd
Simonson - maybe a long term #3 TE
Penny
Who's really regressed from last year?
Apple/Flowers sucked and Apple was actually playing better than last season (though not worthy of #9 overall)
Shepard - more flatlining than regressing
When 2/3 of the roster is turned over, there aren't many candidates remaining that can improve on their previous season with the team (and 3 of those were cut/traded).
Quote:
Looked poor in strategic moves (Snacks for a 5th rounder while trying to make a playoff push is just plain dumb)
We were making a playoff push at 1-7?
Please make it stop.
You don't trade a pro bowl player and leave in a 38 year old QB at 1-7. That is poor strategically. The 49ers and Bucs were winnable games that we could have thrown Lauletta out there to see what he had for full games. (And as i've pointed out on this thread, if not Lauletta the Gettleman regime that you all love so much should have had another young QB they were willing to try, that's what good teams do) We were playing a game against the Eagles that could have put us back in the hunt. We beat two teams with backup QBs. Yes, we made an incredibly meaningless playoff push.
Quote:
seems like an exceptionally low bar for team goals or coach evaluation.
I don't see how anyone here could think management went into 2018 willing to accept marginal improvement.
We went over this in preseason. Their team-building actions did not indicate that they were taking a patient, build it up approach.
What specifically? And don't give me Solder. There is never a bad time to lock up one of the most important positions in football. If they didn't sign him people here would riot.
Sorry, but Solder counts. An older player who had already shown signs of his play slipping, and it was so important to them to fill that position that he wouldn't be on this roster if Norwell took their money instead.
At what point this year did we make a "playoff push" or even make moves in season to do so?
We traded Snacks and Apple when we were 1-7. We didn't trade Eli - not sure what the fuck your point is.
Quote:
Every single week that
ryanmkeane : 10:23 am : link : reply
Eli has an atrocious game, it's "well the OL wasn't good" "well, the weather sucked" or "well...you can't expect him to have a great game every week" or "he made a lot of good throws too...we were close to winning that game"
Hell, if he has a single turnover in a game we eventually lose, that is microanalyzed as being the reason. He led two TD drives in the final 5 minutes to take the lead in Carolina and people blamed him for an earlier turnover and for SCORING TOO QUICKLY as the main reason for the loss. His INT at the end of the first half against Philly is talked about as a 21 point momentum changing play.
When he has immediate pressure and takes a sack, he gets ripped.
Eli has been far from perfect. He's also far from atrocious. But that isn't the mindset of most posters. I bet a lot of people truly feel that a different QB is worth 3-4 more wins, especially a mobile QB. And I think that's horseshit.
Quote:
these "scouts" alongside our new GM just drafted who is probably going to be the rookie of the year on offense, one of the best rookie OL, and two defensive players in the mid rounds who look like good finds. What the hell are you talking about?
They also made some very bad free agent calls.
Barkely was a generational talent, anyone with eyes could see that.
Hernandez and Hill were good picks but we made a lot of mistakes in free agency, didn't make a good head coaching hire. Looked poor in strategic moves (Snacks for a 5th rounder while trying to make a playoff push is just plain dumb) Sy said the return was poor that's someone people respect so let's just point that out. And as i've said, my biggest concern is that we hired a guy that makes fun of analytics when the league is rapidly modernizing. Not only does it look like we don't have those people in the building a clip like that mocking them would make them not want to work for Gettleman.
Even if he is the right guy today, which is debatable. Even ardent Gettleman supporters have to say it was a mixed bag of moves this offseason, my larger point is that other teams are building for the future and we seem stuck in the past.
Are you even going to entertain the fact you're wrong? Multiple people here are rebutting your opinions - maybe they are making valid points?
What is your rebuttal to the fact Snacks is 29, has a degenerative knee issue that is getting worse, and wasn't the best in the locker room?
He got SLAMMED by national media for taking Barkley, but you refuse to change your opinion so i guess we're running with "well he was really good so i don't give him credit". Don't you see how stupid that sounds?
Basically, everyone other than myself is full of shit.
Quote:
In comment 14225794 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
seems like an exceptionally low bar for team goals or coach evaluation.
I don't see how anyone here could think management went into 2018 willing to accept marginal improvement.
We went over this in preseason. Their team-building actions did not indicate that they were taking a patient, build it up approach.
What specifically? And don't give me Solder. There is never a bad time to lock up one of the most important positions in football. If they didn't sign him people here would riot.
Sorry, but Solder counts. An older player who had already shown signs of his play slipping, and it was so important to them to fill that position that he wouldn't be on this roster if Norwell took their money instead.
Sorry, but he doesn't. He has been praised by all of the beat reporters for playing much better since the bye week . How is his play slipping? How can someone who is playing better as the year progresses be declining?
"He wouldn't be here if the all pro guard took our money"
...you're not wrong but where is the fault in that?
But this was a case of cutting a bait a year early rather than a year late, especially in a year where we werent going anywhere.
Basically, everyone other than myself is full of shit.
Some of the people here are pretending cutting half of your team right before the season didn't signal they thought the roster sucked and that they weren't ready. In a sport where continuity and cohesiveness are crucial, the GM and HC decided to still cut half the team. You do realize the quotes being shared here are from the spring, before the summer, the period of time in which Gettleman and Shurmur watch the players in person?
The people on here, including myself, that have discussed this have yet to receive a valid response as to how that signals they were ready to win this year.
Quote:
In comment 14225982 GiantGrit said:
Quote:
In comment 14225794 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
seems like an exceptionally low bar for team goals or coach evaluation.
I don't see how anyone here could think management went into 2018 willing to accept marginal improvement.
We went over this in preseason. Their team-building actions did not indicate that they were taking a patient, build it up approach.
What specifically? And don't give me Solder. There is never a bad time to lock up one of the most important positions in football. If they didn't sign him people here would riot.
Sorry, but Solder counts. An older player who had already shown signs of his play slipping, and it was so important to them to fill that position that he wouldn't be on this roster if Norwell took their money instead.
Sorry, but he doesn't. He has been praised by all of the beat reporters for playing much better since the bye week . How is his play slipping? How can someone who is playing better as the year progresses be declining?
"He wouldn't be here if the all pro guard took our money"
...you're not wrong but where is the fault in that?
He was noted for allowing a career-high number of pass pressures of season. He started off this season as bad as you can get doing the same thing, and is being praised for turning it around to acceptable levels. That's fine that he turned it around, because it would've been a worst case scenario if he didnt. Hold off on the ticker tape parade now.
But this was a case of cutting a bait a year early rather than a year late, especially in a year where we werent going anywhere.
Exactly right. When Belichick does this, he is a genius. Why can't others see what Gettleman did?
Snacks is regressing?
Give me a break. He is still a game changing player.
Quote:
In comment 14226279 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 14225982 GiantGrit said:
Quote:
In comment 14225794 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
seems like an exceptionally low bar for team goals or coach evaluation.
I don't see how anyone here could think management went into 2018 willing to accept marginal improvement.
We went over this in preseason. Their team-building actions did not indicate that they were taking a patient, build it up approach.
What specifically? And don't give me Solder. There is never a bad time to lock up one of the most important positions in football. If they didn't sign him people here would riot.
Sorry, but Solder counts. An older player who had already shown signs of his play slipping, and it was so important to them to fill that position that he wouldn't be on this roster if Norwell took their money instead.
Sorry, but he doesn't. He has been praised by all of the beat reporters for playing much better since the bye week . How is his play slipping? How can someone who is playing better as the year progresses be declining?
"He wouldn't be here if the all pro guard took our money"
...you're not wrong but where is the fault in that?
He was noted for allowing a career-high number of pass pressures of season. He started off this season as bad as you can get doing the same thing, and is being praised for turning it around to acceptable levels. That's fine that he turned it around, because it would've been a worst case scenario if he didnt. Hold off on the ticker tape parade now.
So you're saying if kept playing badly, instead of improving like he did, we'd be having a different conversation? Thanks for pointing that out.
The above average left tackle is grading out as above average. There is no ticker tape parade. The people who are coming on here saying he sucks are being notified they are wrong, because they are. Don't believe me? Don't believe FMiC? Research the Giant beats that watch the all-22 who have been saying he is MUCH improved since the bye week.
Snacks is regressing?
Give me a break. He is still a game changing player.
Its almost like...this was a move...for the future...
You don't wait until the aging NT with a chronic knee injury falls off a cliff to trade him, you try to sell high. I will admit only a 5th in return disappointed me as well. Don't you think they shopped him around though?
Quote:
Some of the people acting like it was clear we wouldn't compete this year were singing a different tune this off-season. And now that it failed, they're pretending it was obvious from the get-go.
Basically, everyone other than myself is full of shit.
Some of the people here are pretending cutting half of your team right before the season didn't signal they thought the roster sucked and that they weren't ready. In a sport where continuity and cohesiveness are crucial, the GM and HC decided to still cut half the team. You do realize the quotes being shared here are from the spring, before the summer, the period of time in which Gettleman and Shurmur watch the players in person?
The people on here, including myself, that have discussed this have yet to receive a valid response as to how that signals they were ready to win this year.
Were those cuts above the average for an NFL team? Above the average for a new GM?
I can be persuaded on this point - I wish it would be changed, because a lot of my pessimism about Gettleman is because I think he thought the changes he made were sufficient to make this team a playoff team.
I did not. I thought this team was a bit further away. I view it as a failure of self-evaluation. And then his FA signings have been poor. A failure of player evaluation and cap allocation.
No GM is all bad or all good. But I'm worried about the process here and think the early returns are poor.
Also, I was a fan of the Shurmur hire (he was the guy I wanted) and am completely underwhelmed so far. Game management, clock management, lack of proper Barkley usage, etc. It's frustrating.
Ogletree can be argued either way, I can't defend some of his coverage issues, but he has 5 int's, a TD, and 93 tackles, plus he is the type of leader that every team must have, and we had no leaders on this team, that was part of why the team quit last season, it was easy for all of us to blame it all on McAdoo, I did also, so I am not throwing rocks here, but his addition in my opinion was needed and a good one, as was the addition of Nate Solder, we overpaid, but we needed to overpay.
The Giants will add the right tackle we need, and they will upgrade the center position also. They will add a pass rusher or two, a safety, a tight end, maybe a wideout, maybe a QB change, and they will be an improved team over this season, I believe that, I just hope it improves enough for us to be a true playoff contender throughout next season, so that every game is exciting, I would sign up for that right now.
We all may differ in how to get there, but let's not lose sight on the fact that we are all cheering and hoping for the same thing.
Ogletree can be argued either way, I can't defend some of his coverage issues, but he has 5 int's, a TD, and 93 tackles, plus he is the type of leader that every team must have, and we had no leaders on this team, that was part of why the team quit last season, it was easy for all of us to blame it all on McAdoo, I did also, so I am not throwing rocks here, but his addition in my opinion was needed and a good one, as was the addition of Nate Solder, we overpaid, but we needed to overpay.
The Giants will add the right tackle we need, and they will upgrade the center position also. They will add a pass rusher or two, a safety, a tight end, maybe a wideout, maybe a QB change, and they will be an improved team over this season, I believe that, I just hope it improves enough for us to be a true playoff contender throughout next season, so that every game is exciting, I would sign up for that right now.
We all may differ in how to get there, but let's not lose sight on the fact that we are all cheering and hoping for the same thing.
Ogletree can be argued either way, I can't defend some of his coverage issues, but he has 5 int's, a TD, and 93 tackles, plus he is the type of leader that every team must have, and we had no leaders on this team, that was part of why the team quit last season, it was easy for all of us to blame it all on McAdoo, I did also, so I am not throwing rocks here, but his addition in my opinion was needed and a good one, as was the addition of Nate Solder, we overpaid, but we needed to overpay.
The Giants will add the right tackle we need, and they will upgrade the center position also. They will add a pass rusher or two, a safety, a tight end, maybe a wideout, maybe a QB change, and they will be an improved team over this season, I believe that, I just hope it improves enough for us to be a true playoff contender throughout next season, so that every game is exciting, I would sign up for that right now.
We all may differ in how to get there, but let's not lose sight on the fact that we are all cheering and hoping for the same thing.
Great post and fully agree.
Quote:
In comment 14226321 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
Some of the people acting like it was clear we wouldn't compete this year were singing a different tune this off-season. And now that it failed, they're pretending it was obvious from the get-go.
Basically, everyone other than myself is full of shit.
Some of the people here are pretending cutting half of your team right before the season didn't signal they thought the roster sucked and that they weren't ready. In a sport where continuity and cohesiveness are crucial, the GM and HC decided to still cut half the team. You do realize the quotes being shared here are from the spring, before the summer, the period of time in which Gettleman and Shurmur watch the players in person?
The people on here, including myself, that have discussed this have yet to receive a valid response as to how that signals they were ready to win this year.
Were those cuts above the average for an NFL team? Above the average for a new GM?
I can be persuaded on this point - I wish it would be changed, because a lot of my pessimism about Gettleman is because I think he thought the changes he made were sufficient to make this team a playoff team.
I did not. I thought this team was a bit further away. I view it as a failure of self-evaluation. And then his FA signings have been poor. A failure of player evaluation and cap allocation.
No GM is all bad or all good. But I'm worried about the process here and think the early returns are poor.
Also, I was a fan of the Shurmur hire (he was the guy I wanted) and am completely underwhelmed so far. Game management, clock management, lack of proper Barkley usage, etc. It's frustrating.
Fair response and funnily enough, i wasn't big on the hire at the time.
I have no idea what the average cut number is to be honest. I just don't see how cutting half the team signals our guys thought we were ready.
I will not argue clock or game management because i would be wrong. He needs to improve.
Barkley is so good, we all want more of him. At times his usage frustrates me as well...i don't agree or disagree with this thought, but i think they are trying to use him cautiously.
If i see another Barkley check down on 3rd and long i may vomit though.
I suspect we're not as far off on things as this thread might suggest.
I'm not calling for DG's head. But I am very critical and think the leash should be short based on this off-season's performance (which I view as a failure despite a promising draft). I think some people are changing the narrative from what they said four months ago.
What was the alternative? Keep Flowers at LT? That would've been far worse, despite PFF's 'stats' saying Solder has only been slightly better. It's not like the draft was stacked with LT prospects either.
The Smith signing was awful. No way around that. Ditto Omameh as they badly missed on that projection.
I think he won the JPP trade. Recouped cap space and the pick led to Hill who could potentially out produce JPP over the next 3 seasons (albeit at slightly different positions).
Ogletree trade was so-so. He's pretty much what was expected. If DG can force a paycut for next year, it could tilt the trade to a slight positive for the Giants, but if he's counting ~$10M against the cap its a negative.
As for the draft, I think DG hit a HR here, but most people's perceptions will be based on how they feel about Barkley vs the QBs. IMO though, any time you get an all-pro quality player (don't care where you're picking) plus a player with legit pro bowl potential (Hernandez) plus a solid starter (Hill) plus potential depth (Carter and hopefully McIntosh) you're well ahead of the game.
Where DG also did very well was in a lot of the under-the-radar pickups. Guys like BW Webb (though he's a UFA), Haley, Penny, Hamilton, etc. The depth on this team was dreadful and while they still have some serious holes in the starting lineup (pass rusher, LB, FS, C, RT), the overall depth is significantly better.
I suspect we're not as far off on things as this thread might suggest.
I'm not calling for DG's head. But I am very critical and think the leash should be short based on this off-season's performance (which I view as a failure despite a promising draft). I think some people are changing the narrative from what they said four months ago.
We've basically come to the same point in the road. The truth is, we don't know yet. I know its frustrating for Giants fans that we now look most forward to the draft, but this is draft is SO important. They need to find 3-6 significant contributors. If they miss on this draft i don't see how these guys see out the rebuild - its going to set us back again.
Yeah but that's second tier QB money. Eli isn't 2nd tier anymore.
I also agree with what NGD in that there was little turnover up top outside of DG. So I don't view this as an entirely new regime worthy of a long leash. But I also don't think a single year is enough, of course.
The above average left tackle is grading out as above average. There is no ticker tape parade. The people who are coming on here saying he sucks are being notified they are wrong, because they are. Don't believe me? Don't believe FMiC? Research the Giant beats that watch the all-22 who have been saying he is MUCH improved since the bye week.
It's fine that he's grading out at above average. He's paid to be excellent. It's the fact that the GM missed on his evaluation just like he missed on Omameh. And in the name of 'positivity' we'll just wash our hand on what amounts to a $20m mistake because we like 'ol DG and he had the guts to admit a mistake. He still flushed money down the toilet. They still have to suffer a penalty for that mistake.
Norwell would have been a signing for the long term because of his age and resume. It was reasonable to overpay for a 26 year old on the upswing. He didn't want to play here. Can't control that. You CAN control not breaking the bank on a consolation prize, and getting half a season of solid work out of that overpay doesn't make it smart.
I also agree with what NGD in that there was little turnover up top outside of DG. So I don't view this as an entirely new regime worthy of a long leash. But I also don't think a single year is enough, of course.
Yeah and I just want to add at no point did I say DG should be fired. But I do absolutely think the organization should hire a director of analytics with a strong technical and/or mathematical background and i'm really not sure why people think this shouldn't be the case because DG "hired developers in Carolina." And also the fact that he mocked analytics openly kind of making this even more imperative.
I also said more heads should have rolled in the scouting department and i'm not sure why people argue against that.
Overall i'm just not sure why there isn't more general concern for our direction. And yes, all this talk of getting rid of malcontents without looking in the mirror in regards to how we managed to collect all of them.
Guess what? The impact of analytics on some organizational decisions takes years of work and mistakes. True for BB. True for most places. True in almost all industries. And its often spotty. So for example, the analytics behind stock price inflection points and correlations? Heavily embraced and funded and sophisticated. Analytics behind new product risk management at banks? Deficient, primitive and ignored
In the meantime,saying shit is much more fun
Yeah and I just want to add at no point did I say DG should be fired. But I do absolutely think the organization should hire a director of analytics with a strong technical and/or mathematical background and i'm really not sure why people think this shouldn't be the case because DG "hired developers in Carolina." And also the fact that he mocked analytics openly kind of making this even more imperative.
I also said more heads should have rolled in the scouting department and i'm not sure why people argue against that.
Overall i'm just not sure why there isn't more general concern for our direction. And yes, all this talk of getting rid of malcontents without looking in the mirror in regards to how we managed to collect all of them.
I've been behind in reading your earlier stuff, but saw that you wrote that ample "evidence" has been provided that the NYG have no such analytics comparable to the other teams you mentioned. I don't want to assume anything, so would you please reference me a spot in your postings where that evidence is provided?
My premature conclusion is that we differ on how we define and use the term "evidence", and quite possibly "ample" as well.
What evidence is there of this? And does a growing effort matter if the Giants are so far behind?
I'm not in touch with the internal workings of the Giants. There may be a bunch of hires that were made that I have no clue about it. There's an absence of evidence that the Giants are heavily involved in analytics in my eyes.
There are a lot of things I'm worried about, including the analytics efforts, that may just be solved by having knowledge that only people inside the organization have. But the past seven years and early returns on this regime has made me cautious to trust the guys in the room.
Sorry that realities intrude on the dreamy world of mind reading DG and the Maras and Tisch's despite never having met them and having no idea what they think or are doing.
BTW; its partially an entertainment industry. Entertainment industry leaders are responsible for talking up the fans.
Do we believe what Disney says about its next release? Its a likely Oscar winner. Would any of us get pissed and claim you were lied to when entertainment dollar claims to get your interest do not come true? Or do you expect them to say: "Jennifer Lawrence in the worst performance of her career in the blockbuster we are releasing on the Memorial Day Weekend"
BTW; its partially an entertainment industry. Entertainment industry leaders are responsible for talking up the fans.
Do we believe what Disney says about its next release? Its a likely Oscar winner. Would any of us get pissed and claim you were lied to when entertainment dollar claims to get your interest do not come true?
It seems to me that plenty of people take what the team says at face value. This mistake is made pretty often.
Sorry, but would like some more info. First of all, the guy mentioned is who? How have you seen his resume? How do we know he's the one leading analytics efforts?
Second, what age is he, and why is that important? What is the right age for someone to be leading analytics efforts for an NFL franchise?
Thanks in advance. I know he probably posted all that somewhere but I've honestly not been able to keep up with it all. Through all the skimming I've been doing in between work I can't seem to find anything remotely resembling evidence of the NYG analytics operations, including development or use of analytics, let alone the names, ages, and resumes of their leaders.
We completely agree
My point is that smart Giants fans may miss the inflection point by paying a thinking tax on the past beyond its expiration date.
Let me ask: Will BB be shit when he does not have his franchise QB? Was Lombardi? Noll? Shula?
Our point of context is wrecked by the past years of shit. But as you well know by being in the industry that you are in...the money is made by noticing the inflection points in the trend.
I don't know if they are there yet...no idea. But I do know past confirmation bias clouds todays judgement in most human endeavors.
We completely agree
My point is that smart Giants fans may miss the inflection point by paying a thinking tax on the past beyond its expiration date.
Let me ask: Will BB be shit when he does not have his franchise QB? Was Lombardi? Noll? Shula?
Our point of context is wrecked by the past years of shit. But as you well know by being in the industry that you are in...the money is made by noticing the inflection points in the trend.
I don't know if they are there yet...no idea. But I do know past confirmation bias clouds todays judgement in most human endeavors.
Bill2, I've said this before but likely you don't remember, either way you are one of BBI's treasures and a must read here whenever you post. I highly regard your thinking and appreciate what you write.
But this quote stands out for me:
It's so well written that it's almost lyrical. Very, very nicely put.
Thanks again, and as always I wish you and yours the very best.
We completely agree
My point is that smart Giants fans may miss the inflection point by paying a thinking tax on the past beyond its expiration date.
Let me ask: Will BB be shit when he does not have his franchise QB? Was Lombardi? Noll? Shula?
Our point of context is wrecked by the past years of shit. But as you well know by being in the industry that you are in...the money is made by noticing the inflection points in the trend.
I don't know if they are there yet...no idea. But I do know past confirmation bias clouds todays judgement in most human endeavors.
I'm not sure we've seen an inflection point, though.
I know when I think the last inflection point was - week 6 2008 in Cleveland. That was when the offensive line showed signs of cracking, and it foretold of future problems that to this day have troubled the organization. We played some good football after that point and even won a title, but I believe that's when things started to shift in this direction.
Where is the inflection point indicating that it's starting to go the other way? I don't see it.
I'm not sure we've seen an inflection point, though.
I know when I think the last inflection point was - week 6 2008 in Cleveland. That was when the offensive line showed signs of cracking, and it foretold of future problems that to this day have troubled the organization. We played some good football after that point and even won a title, but I believe that's when things started to shift in this direction.
Where is the inflection point indicating that it's starting to go the other way? I don't see it.
I think you and Bill2 are in agreement when he said:
...and for the first time in a long time on this subject Go Terps, we are also in agreement.
I don't know if we are there yet either. The evidence isn't clear.
Quote:
Dan, I'm not going to speak for NGD, but the guy mentioned as the Giants 'Data Analytics' guy has a resume about on par with my own and is around my age - he isn't someone who should be leading an analytics effort. I don't mean to shit on a guy who may be competent in other areas, but compare him to the guy the Steelers hired and it isn't close.
Sorry, but would like some more info. First of all, the guy mentioned is who? How have you seen his resume? How do we know he's the one leading analytics efforts?
Second, what age is he, and why is that important? What is the right age for someone to be leading analytics efforts for an NFL franchise?
Thanks in advance. I know he probably posted all that somewhere but I've honestly not been able to keep up with it all. Through all the skimming I've been doing in between work I can't seem to find anything remotely resembling evidence of the NYG analytics operations, including development or use of analytics, let alone the names, ages, and resumes of their leaders.
He has a consulting background. Age doesn't matter as much as background but he lacks experience in fields that matter IMV. He lacks a math/computing background. I looked him up on LinkedIn. Compare that to who the Steelers hired.
We don't know for sure that he leads the analytics effort, but there was this from SI a few years ago:
The Giants are quiet about it, but theyve pushed forward aggressively and, it was explained to me, are very optimistic with the early results theyve gotten. Jon Berger is the teams senior director of football information, and analyst Tyseer Siam is considered a rising star in the field. GM Jerry Reese is considered a proponent.
Giants Front Office - ( New Window )
We completely agree
My point is that smart Giants fans may miss the inflection point by paying a thinking tax on the past beyond its expiration date.
Let me ask: Will BB be shit when he does not have his franchise QB? Was Lombardi? Noll? Shula?
Our point of context is wrecked by the past years of shit. But as you well know by being in the industry that you are in...the money is made by noticing the inflection points in the trend.
I don't know if they are there yet...no idea. But I do know past confirmation bias clouds todays judgement in most human endeavors.
I'm hoping we're getting there, but I'm skeptical given how poorly I think DG did this off-season in FA. I think this is a franchise 2-3 years away at best. And I think DG may have initially misjudged a poor roster, delaying contention even further.
We'll see.
He has a consulting background. Age doesn't matter as much as background but he lacks experience in fields that matter IMV. He lacks a math/computing background. I looked him up on LinkedIn. Compare that to who the Steelers hired.
We don't know for sure that he leads the analytics effort, but there was this from SI a few years ago:
Thanks - I've seen both names thrown around and looked at the org charts and easily found the same SI article. I have no idea though what it means or how that stands as sufficient evidence for the kinds of claims being made.
FWIW, are we talking about Berger then or Siam? Seems one is at least highly regarded in some circles.
Assuming a 65% to 70 guess right regime as opposed to a 30% regime the last 7 years with will take a lot of digging.
to me it was always impossible to do a turnaround in a year when the QB was transitioning as well.
I ask that you just read the individual post that starts with "I honestly hope someone from Giants ownership reads this" 2/3rds of the way down the page. I spent time researching my points and supporting my thoughts with facts. I don't by any means think I have all the answers but I have worked with many different financial firms in my 7 years in AI and while there are no hard and fast rules for building out successful analytics pipelines there are much higher degrees of success working with people with friendly personality types as opposed to gruff as well as when there seems to be a good shared decision making process / power between knowledge experts and people with real technical experience. (beyond that of stats and consulting which is who the Giants appear to still have on their staff)
I'm talking about people with experience programming and hopefully applied mathematics as well, it's all fine and good to consult with the best minds but having a real technical stakeholder is very important as well. I have seen the resumes of the people in the analytics department of the Giants on linkedin and as I mentioned in my other thread, they are insufficient to get an entry level position at back end tech jobs, even at a startup. I don't know how that would be viewed as non-problematic. Most startups want a masters in data science at the very least if not a PhD in math or computer science. Why should the Giants have a lower standard for their leaders in technical abilities than startups have for entry level positions?
I'm not just throwing sand because i'm bitter or on my high horse it is because I feel like I've gathered some real evidence that I lay out in that post that the Giants aren't demonstrating best practices in terms of personality types and backgrounds for stakeholders that I have seen to be the best at building successful systems. I also think I make a pretty good case for why you want it's good to have information propagated about the quality of your analytics program as well as the the personalities and technical qualifications of the people on your internal team as a means of attracting more and more talent as a team like the Yankees have done. And honestly I don't think it is all that ridiculous to think the Giants should have more internal technical people publicized when you have a team like the Astros who make sure their minor league managers understand databases. If you say there is a fire coming great, that makes me happy but I don't think you can underestimate the value of smoke as a means to recruit the best people either. There is lots of smoke coming out of New England as I point out, smoke in Philly, smoke in Seattle. (And not just smoke, a list of qualified technical minds internally) I don't think it is unreasonable as a fan to want to see more smoke coming out of New York.
I have always respected you as a poster Bill2 and I hope you can also respect that I have knowledge of these systems or at least ask pointed questions instead of disregarding research I have actually put a lot of work into over the years. I have built out analysis pipelines for many different asset classes and functions and more importantly looked at the makeup of different internal teams. (I've been on many dog and pony shows, and while they were collecting information on us I was also collecting information on them) I think I represent my knowledge base well in that thread as well but if you have any questions about why I might have drawn the conclusions I list above or in the linked thread I would be happy to elaborate.
Also, Siam's age was an irrelevant point by me - the Toronto Maple Leafs made a 32 year old their GM and I think he was a great hire.
Bill, I think DG is in a very difficult spot without the next QB on the roster (and maybe Lauletta turns out to be that guy, although that's probably unlikely). Getting that guy seems at least another year away. I have a very low bar for next year - I just want to see the young guys do well. Shurmur's game management to improve. No dumb signings. I think my big critique of poor self-evaluation (which, again, is speculative based on how I read the evidence) won't be an issue this off-season.
The team can be 2-14 next year and I could still think the Giants are heading in the right direction.
I don't think we are competing until we get a different QB on the roster. I think Eli's been a bigger problem than most and I'm doubtful he gets better. Not that we'd be 10-6 with an average QB or anything, but I think he's below average now and I don't think we can get the conditions in place for him to get back to playing consistently good ball before his career is over.
I am a technical person with a background in in computer science, math, physics and finance. I have undergraduate degrees is computer science and physics, and graduate degrees in computer science and finance. Until recently I ran a large department at a major bank the developed portfolio performance and risk analytic software tools. So I feel somewhat qualified to give some judgement here.
Ty Siam has undergraduate and masters degrees from Cronell in Health Administration and Management.
I am going to ignore his "experience" while he was in school, "experience" that was largely internships, research assistance, and laboratory management, hardly anything that qualifies him for the role in data analytics.
Once he graduated, he was a consultant with Deloitte focusing largely on health care strategy and hospital operational performance.
That's it folks... Nothing at all to suggest he is remotely qualified to run a data analytics enterprise.
This is not to say that he isn't a smart guy... But I see nothing to suggest that he has background and skills to perform meaningful data and statistical analysis. If I were hiring for the position, I would want somebody with a background in higher math, statistics and big data analytics, as well as some computer science.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tysiam/
FMiC, I have seen you contend that Gettleman "created the analytics dept. in Carolina" . I have never seen any mention of such (not that I am saying you are wrong, I just cannot find the evidence of such). However, I do see articles and reporters who questioned him on analytics, and he generally brushed them off with "of course we use analytics... next.."
Given his responses to these questions in Carolina and here with the Giants, I think it's fair to say that he does not put much stock in analytics. That he is not looking to hire real experts in analytics. What he calls "using analytics" is likely not what most of us, nor what other teams that progressive in this area would call "using analytics".
I find Gettleman's general dismissal of analytics disturbing. However, I would say that it would be a mistake to replace him at this point. His draft was decent (he did have the advantage of picking near the top every round). and I like the fact he is willing to cut loose players that don't perform, and do it quickly. He doesn't double down down on mistakes. Jury is out.
1) Go Terps I remember that game very well and I agree with that assessment. Shaun Rodgers put on a clinic on the Achilles Heel of the NYG and man has time proven that lesson too often.
2) NYG Dayne, I will read your link and I find much I agree with (also a data science business). Give me a day or two and I will respond.
Lastly, I do not think that is the telltale sign of where the Giants are on analytics.
There are four sources of analytics for the Giants (and many other teams):
1) Different external providers of packaged/custom package analytics to:
- The Scouting process
- The Coaching staffs
- The past film and upcoming game breakdown personnel
- The FO on the draft and on assessments of FA and the Giants own players
2) That group of analysts whose job I do not know...for all I know they syndicate and coordinate input from other sources
3) Many of the better teams get separate feeds that help set up contract and FA values/risk assessments
The last is the most important. Analytics take off when the top people in the organization stop being satisified with just being sent analytics and listening to analytics-and start ASKING for analytics.
So a guy like Cashman and BB have a mental framework for what they want to know. That drives questioning and subordinates downstream to realize that unless they get into the numbers they cant be of interest to the top guys or be in on the top decisions.
Billy Beane went to analytics decades before Cashman or Epstein (and baseball is infinitely easier to analyze). According to Cashman the time he first looked into analytics to the time the organization adopted them from top to bottom in their decisions - took many years of change management with guys used to experiential learning.
Thats the piece I dont know. Imho, consistent analytical frameworks for tough decisions, not available sophisticated correlations, neural nets and AI agent infused probabilities are the hallmark of an organization using "analytics" instead of hunches
I would also remind us all that when any organization is doing very well or very poorly is often when they do not use analytics. They dont have good choices. This is my point about last year and this for the NY Giants. When you dont have an OL ( especially a LT) and there are not many available FA or top 2 round choices...how much advanced analytics does it take to get the top two you can with the cap available in FA?
As for signs...some of you wont like this answer but oddly enough here are signs of an analytical framwork at work:
Rememeber when BB traded Richard Sherman? and then others and then did not resign or even offer FA at open positions? Remember all the trades of vets for future draft picks?
OK...all that observable decision making has to be based on a view he adopted akin to setting a kind of DCF number on the future performance of his players and then playing the probability of maximizing talent and depth under the cap over the long term.
Thats a sign of a team making decisions based on an analytical framework and not on emotion or fan considerations or this year vs the long term. Cold hearted analytic driven decisions.
The inflection point is slowly greater adherence to the outcomes that only a cold analytical approach could support
We don't want sophisticated analytics. We want decisions now based on analytical probabilities in the future. That's an analytical organization
Ok now...who just traded Snacks and Apple for future picks at positions we "need" this year? and dropped Flowers? and did not panic and over offer Pugh and Richburg
Oh shit. A counterfactual to the preferred narrative... what do we do? Claim we can mind read based on an oft-hand comment to the media?
Now are there other examples I cant connect to adherence to analytics...but to me...those decisions (plus shopping Jenkins for a number and pulling it back when we did not get our number) were the first ones I have seen in years not based on emotion or feelings...but based on likely future value.
Sorry for the long winded answer...but to summarize:
1) We want hard assessments about likely future value (which is devotion to an analytical approach to the portfolio of talent) much more than we want QBRversion5 derived by fractal analysis of each QB's Brownian motion (joke)
.
2) Cant assume the on staff additions mean much. I point out that demanding certain statistical comparisons for each different position in every scouting report is more a sign of progress than the math backgrounds of guys labeled analysts.
3) Unpopular drops and trades for future assets a year or two early is one of the biggest signs of an organizations growing appreciation that hard analysis trumps emotion.
food for thought
Just how important is cutting edge probability calculations driven by computer science and applied math when correlations cant be drawn easily given 22 players on the field playing a game where emotion, confidence and degree of fatigue are huge unmeasurable factors in the outcome?
Signs of hard edged oft unpopular decisions are the signs of an analytical approach to better decisions more than the presence of expereinced quants on the org chart
There are only 17 players on this roster that were there when Gettleman took over (14 active, 3 on IR).
No matter what he said in the Spring, there is only one way to describe this... This has been a teardown and rebuild.
I agree with those who say that team officials can never actually say this, but that is what this has been.
The team had so many needs, I was in favor of trading down and adding more players. Particularly OL. I wanted maneuver pick so that we could get good value while drafting 3 OL, or maybe 2 OL and an ER.
I am still in favor of building the team before we drop in a rookie QB. Listening to the Yes/BBI podcast, it seems that Eric and the others shared the same sentiment. This team still needs ALOT of players across the board.
Any expectations that this team was going to show major improvement over 3 - 13 was and still is delusional. Should we, as fans, accept continued mediocrity ad infinitim... Of course not, but should we expect winning seasons, playoff berths and SB contention yet. No that's unrealistic. We see teams having sudden major turnarounds, but usually there are multiple factors there. A team that has been rebuilding finally hitting critical mass, new coaching, a new player at a critical position, etc... None of these apply to the Giants, since the roster is still too bare.
That said, a rebuild takes time, if all goes right, we are still at least 2 years, probably more like 4 from being able to contend for a championship.
Watch for incremental positional/unit improvements. THe overall record this year and for the next year or 2 are meaningless. Having higher expectations and getting bent about it now is also delusional.
I know Shurmur said it was a mistake and seemed to be trying to compensate a lot during the season and I have other examples but the most simple and clear one was in the Saints game, in a close game they had 1st and Goal at the 8 with 1:44 in the half and we let them kill the clock in a 10-7 game. Sure would I like him to know what to do here off the top of his head, yes. But in this day and age the front office should really be putting tools in his hands that give him information that tells him unequivocally that he can increase his win probability with timeouts there. A lot of people do try to boil the ocean with analytics but you'd like to see a team that is going in the right direction and taking care of low hanging analytical fruit like this and we haven't seen that response from the Giants this season. Even seeing this was a problem in that game they have continued to use timeouts poorly in pretty clear cut situations throughout the season.
That's something that it is hard for me to see and not have skepticism for, if they can't make moves to solve simpler problems with engineering how will they solve the more complex ones?
1) Go Terps I remember that game very well and I agree with that assessment. Shaun Rodgers put on a clinic on the Achilles Heel of the NYG and man has time proven that lesson too often.
2) NYG Dayne, I will read your link and I find much I agree with (also a data science business). Give me a day or two and I will respond.
Lastly, I do not think that is the telltale sign of where the Giants are on analytics.
There are four sources of analytics for the Giants (and many other teams):
1) Different external providers of packaged/custom package analytics to:
- The Scouting process
- The Coaching staffs
- The past film and upcoming game breakdown personnel
- The FO on the draft and on assessments of FA and the Giants own players
2) That group of analysts whose job I do not know...for all I know they syndicate and coordinate input from other sources
3) Many of the better teams get separate feeds that help set up contract and FA values/risk assessments
The last is the most important. Analytics take off when the top people in the organization stop being satisified with just being sent analytics and listening to analytics-and start ASKING for analytics.
So a guy like Cashman and BB have a mental framework for what they want to know. That drives questioning and subordinates downstream to realize that unless they get into the numbers they cant be of interest to the top guys or be in on the top decisions.
Billy Beane went to analytics decades before Cashman or Epstein (and baseball is infinitely easier to analyze). According to Cashman the time he first looked into analytics to the time the organization adopted them from top to bottom in their decisions - took many years of change management with guys used to experiential learning.
Thats the piece I dont know. Imho, consistent analytical frameworks for tough decisions, not available sophisticated correlations, neural nets and AI agent infused probabilities are the hallmark of an organization using "analytics" instead of hunches
I would also remind us all that when any organization is doing very well or very poorly is often when they do not use analytics. They dont have good choices. This is my point about last year and this for the NY Giants. When you dont have an OL ( especially a LT) and there are not many available FA or top 2 round choices...how much advanced analytics does it take to get the top two you can with the cap available in FA?
As for signs...some of you wont like this answer but oddly enough here are signs of an analytical framwork at work:
Rememeber when BB traded Richard Sherman? and then others and then did not resign or even offer FA at open positions? Remember all the trades of vets for future draft picks?
OK...all that observable decision making has to be based on a view he adopted akin to setting a kind of DCF number on the future performance of his players and then playing the probability of maximizing talent and depth under the cap over the long term.
Thats a sign of a team making decisions based on an analytical framework and not on emotion or fan considerations or this year vs the long term. Cold hearted analytic driven decisions.
The inflection point is slowly greater adherence to the outcomes that only a cold analytical approach could support
We don't want sophisticated analytics. We want decisions now based on analytical probabilities in the future. That's an analytical organization
Ok now...who just traded Snacks and Apple for future picks at positions we "need" this year? and dropped Flowers? and did not panic and over offer Pugh and Richburg
Oh shit. A counterfactual to the preferred narrative... what do we do? Claim we can mind read based on an oft-hand comment to the media?
Now are there other examples I cant connect to adherence to analytics...but to me...those decisions (plus shopping Jenkins for a number and pulling it back when we did not get our number) were the first ones I have seen in years not based on emotion or feelings...but based on likely future value.
Sorry for the long winded answer...but to summarize:
1) We want hard assessments about likely future value (which is devotion to an analytical approach to the portfolio of talent) much more than we want QBRversion5 derived by fractal analysis of each QB's Brownian motion (joke)
.
2) Cant assume the on staff additions mean much. I point out that demanding certain statistical comparisons for each different position in every scouting report is more a sign of progress than the math backgrounds of guys labeled analysts.
3) Unpopular drops and trades for future assets a year or two early is one of the biggest signs of an organizations growing appreciation that hard analysis trumps emotion.
food for thought
I agree with your assessment that decision need to be made unemotionally and based on the cold hard math. But, making those decisions on the math is not necessarily formulaic. You have to ask the right questions of the data. Asking the right questions is as much art and experience as is it science.
Equating Gettleman's moves regarding Harrison, Apple, Flowers, Omameh, Richburgh and Pugh are anything more than football common sense (which I will grant Gettleman, certainly by miles over Reese) is a reach. Harrison is on the wrong side of 30 and showing signs of breaking down, Apple has had issues here since day 1, Omameh was his own signing that simply sucked, Flowers sucked, we have all seen enough of Richburgh and Pugh to have predicted the results seen by SF and Ariz...
I don't see any strong evidence of analytics at work yet.
I know Shurmur said it was a mistake and seemed to be trying to compensate a lot during the season and I have other examples but the most simple and clear one was in the Saints game, in a close game they had 1st and Goal at the 8 with 1:44 in the half and we let them kill the clock in a 10-7 game. Sure would I like him to know what to do here off the top of his head, yes. But in this day and age the front office should really be putting tools in his hands that give him information that tells him unequivocally that he can increase his win probability with timeouts there. A lot of people do try to boil the ocean with analytics but you'd like to see a team that is going in the right direction and taking care of low hanging analytical fruit like this and we haven't seen that response from the Giants this season. Even seeing this was a problem in that game they have continued to use timeouts poorly in pretty clear cut situations throughout the season.
That's something that it is hard for me to see and not have skepticism for, if they can't make moves to solve simpler problems with engineering how will they solve the more complex ones?
I would go much further with technology than just game theory.
The team should be making broad use of virtual reality. Given the limited amount of reps players can get in practice. We should be designing game situations and have players react to the virtual reality presentation of these game situations. There are even VR suits that can provide physical feedback as well. Imagine the reps that can be achieved, especially by QBs... But even linemen can take a stance and react to players, and stunts. THe whole line can work together in a single simulation. VR technology should be used with coaches as well along with game theory to simulate test play design. This stuff is expensive, but can be immensely valuable with the current CBA.
My point is that trying to make fact based decisions precedes asking questions to help make better fact based decisions which leads to more use of analytics.
My point is that is much more desirable then loads of sophisticated sounding factoids and the same sloppy non fact based decision making based on projected future performance return on cap dollars.
We both agree that Reese did not make hard or fact based decisions.
I am not convinced that analytics as I practice it and have seen it practiced is as applicable or "sophisticatable" in football as it is to other sports and other industries. I think the analysis of say an at bat is a lot mathmatically easier than the very loose confidence intervals of any correlation and causality found in a football play.
Good talking to you
Quote:
I go into details in other points in the thread I shared but I think the timeout problems that Shurmur has could be easily corrected with some game theory and software engineering. Now I don't think these have right or wrong outcomes all the time but there are some cases this year where Shurmur clearly made the wrong decision from a game theory perspective.
I know Shurmur said it was a mistake and seemed to be trying to compensate a lot during the season and I have other examples but the most simple and clear one was in the Saints game, in a close game they had 1st and Goal at the 8 with 1:44 in the half and we let them kill the clock in a 10-7 game. Sure would I like him to know what to do here off the top of his head, yes. But in this day and age the front office should really be putting tools in his hands that give him information that tells him unequivocally that he can increase his win probability with timeouts there. A lot of people do try to boil the ocean with analytics but you'd like to see a team that is going in the right direction and taking care of low hanging analytical fruit like this and we haven't seen that response from the Giants this season. Even seeing this was a problem in that game they have continued to use timeouts poorly in pretty clear cut situations throughout the season.
That's something that it is hard for me to see and not have skepticism for, if they can't make moves to solve simpler problems with engineering how will they solve the more complex ones?
I would go much further with technology than just game theory.
The team should be making broad use of virtual reality. Given the limited amount of reps players can get in practice. We should be designing game situations and have players react to the virtual reality presentation of these game situations. There are even VR suits that can provide physical feedback as well. Imagine the reps that can be achieved, especially by QBs... But even linemen can take a stance and react to players, and stunts. THe whole line can work together in a single simulation. VR technology should be used with coaches as well along with game theory to simulate test play design. This stuff is expensive, but can be immensely valuable with the current CBA.
We are in complete agreement on that. I'm just saying they have to crawl before they can fly. I also think inputs from body suits as well as nutrition, sleep, average speed etc. should be used in game to help guide playing time. And live camera data can be used to know when to exploit certain matchups in game.
Also player ROI forecasts in terms of contract structuring, team construction / asset allocation can be considered much more broadly in terms of what players say (interviews, social media) their demeanor and other variables that are becoming increasingly easy to track.
My point is that trying to make fact based decisions precedes asking questions to help make better fact based decisions which leads to more use of analytics.
My point is that is much more desirable then loads of sophisticated sounding factoids and the same sloppy non fact based decision making based on projected future performance return on cap dollars.
We both agree that Reese did not make hard or fact based decisions.
I am not convinced that analytics as I practice it and have seen it practiced is as applicable or "sophisticatable" in football as it is to other sports and other industries. I think the analysis of say an at bat is a lot mathmatically easier than the very loose confidence intervals of any correlation and causality found in a football play.
Good talking to you
I think we can all agree that analytics can't be used in football the way it is in baseball.
However, analytics can be of immense value in game theory and scouting other teams. Understanding tendencies, and ways of exploiting other teams. It can be of immense value in roster construction, from making those decisions to cut bait a year early rather than a year late. Or assigning proper value to FA, or finding players that have proven they can fit certain roles and fill those roles economically. Scouting both at the college level and at the pro level. You need statistics on player longevity, productivity, injury history, nutritional and workout history and behaviors, intellect, and a ton more variables to be able to ask the right questions. Then there are also play by play statistics which can reveal all kinds of wisdom if you ask the right questions. In football its about asking the right questions, and long term models. In baseball its about individual players and matchups.
I dont see how this would turn while Eli is here. The Manning era here is over. Until it is acknowledged that the Coughlin/Manning era is completely over, we arent trending up.
This was from an article shortly after Gettleman was hired. These are just the facts I posted, that were then called into question by NGD because Gettleman is d68 years old and just because you implement a department doesn't mean it is worthwhile. But I've yet to see evidence posted of how it wasn't worthwhile, but then again - he might not yet have sifted through LinkedIn and the qualifications of the team members.....
That does not mean it's easy to get an organization to believe in it from top to the bottom scouts who made their living "seeing things".
imho, the hardest thing in sports management is to find guys who look long term and look past the popularity of short term decisions.
this is especially true in a sport where the length of ROI service likely from a wrong or right assessment of a talent is short and easily wiped out by 53 other variables and injuries.
Being unsentimental and using probability instead of human colored hunches still does not payoff as easily in a sport rigged to the mean and rife with mistake ridden human intervention by third party referees as it does in other sports where pure talent correlates more cleanly with eventual success.
net, net we appear to be making more unsentimental decisions to trade current bets for future chances before it's too late. we appear to be adding to the things we consider valuable like team make up. we appear to be changing the process and the inputs into the scouting to draft room process.
these approaches pay off and are far more easy to see when the team is not so desperate for talent that it has to take what it can at the offering price. like it did this past year.
all imo
It's why analytics don't apply as strongly to the sport as Bill2 is pointing out here.
It really isn't.
Quote:
Carolina is older school in their setupdirector of team administration Rob Rogers, who manages the cap, oversees analytics, and the club pulls from services like PFF. But the Panthers are now forward-thinking in integrating the information with coaching and scouting, despite being an organization that has two guys with old-school rsums running the show: head coach Ron Rivera (who has bought into fourth-down theory) and GM Dave Gettleman (who dispatches two employees to the Sloan Conference every year). The team has worked to develop its own system in-house with a staff that includes two full-time analysts, three full-time developers and three others with analytics prominent among their duties.
This was from an article shortly after Gettleman was hired. These are just the facts I posted, that were then called into question by NGD because Gettleman is d68 years old and just because you implement a department doesn't mean it is worthwhile. But I've yet to see evidence posted of how it wasn't worthwhile, but then again - he might not yet have sifted through LinkedIn and the qualifications of the team members.....
I never said that it wasn't worthwhile in Carolina, not did I say you were wrong. I never found the article you reference. I went looking. When I googled Gettleman Carolina Analytics, I came up with several articles where Gettleman was questioned about it, and he quickly brushed it off.
THat said, its good that he was interested in developing an analytics dept. in Carolina. It seems that they had a lot more folks involved that what the Giants have right now. Also part of the key to good analytics is asking the right questions, and posing them in such a way to be able to do effective analysis. This is truly the hardest part, and it requires experience and creative minds. Without it, you don't get much useful information. SO the fact that he initiated analytics is good, but who was staffed to it and what they got out of it is as much if not more important. I see no way to judge that, except by results.
Right now I am neutral on Gettleman, I see some good some not so good. But its one year, and in his position he gets the benefit of the doubt for 2 or 3 more.
His response to the factual information that Gettleman installed a department in Carolina and Brandon Beane(Gettleman's assistant GM in Carolina) installed one in Buffalo was to say that installing a team means nothing.
He then googled the head of analytics in Buffalo to say the guy didn't have a LinkedIn page and had a career in IT which made him unworthy of handling the job.
And he supposedly said all of this eloquently.
His response to the factual information that Gettleman installed a department in Carolina and Brandon Beane(Gettleman's assistant GM in Carolina) installed one in Buffalo was to say that installing a team means nothing.
He then googled the head of analytics in Buffalo to say the guy didn't have a LinkedIn page and had a career in IT which made him unworthy of handling the job.
And he supposedly said all of this eloquently.
Fair enough...
Bill2 and I are largely in agreement that analytics has a place. Its not the same as baseball or even basketball, but it has a place. I think, football requires larger datasets and more generalized questions. The questions are more about team structuring and ROI of players and contracts.
I also believe that technology should be playing a much much larger role in football than it does right now. Virtual Reality to gain more "reps" for players and coaches, game theory, simulations etc... When it comes to technology, Football is still 25 - 30 years behind the state of the art. When you are running billion dollar enterprises, it always pays to find innovative ways to integrate technology.
One flippant comment has been extrapolated to mean that Gettleman hates analytics and shuns any statistical information. and it has taken on a life of its own.
One flippant comment has been extrapolated to mean that Gettleman hates analytics and shuns any statistical information. and it has taken on a life of its own.
You are ignoring the fact the McL already said on this thread that it wasn't just one comment and his opinion about Gettleman's lack of buy in to analytics comes over the course of different interviews.
It's his entire attitude towards analytics that concerns me and others about Gettleman and you keep glossing over that.
IMO, it's a poker face most of the time. Why tip your hand?
IMO, it's a poker face most of the time. Why tip your hand?
Look the point is, it isn't extirpating when you look at the Giants staff and see no one with experience in higher math or computer science in academia or applied in the job world. Ideally you'd want both before and not just one of these people to form a team that can solve tough analytics challenges. It's not just what he says, it's also the people he seems to have around him supporting a lack of real buy in to the value.
what have I glossed over? My sole contribution to these threads has been to give a recap of what Gettleman did in Carolina.
"His entire attitude about analytics" might as well be shorthand for "My horseshit take on Gettleman is..."
Call me a luddite (which you've already done in a most uppity fashion), but I tend to think a guy who actually implemented an analytics department might care a wee bit about the topic and see value in it.
Marty Hurney, the GM before Gettleman in Carolina, employed one analyst who handled the cap, administrative duties, and market research to go along with analytics. Gettleman saw that as an area of improvement and created an actual department.
Your response to that is basically, "Great, but it doesn't show he knows anything about analytics or that he values analytics". You'd much rather hang onto words he spoke when being facetious.
If anyone is doing the glossing over - it is you. I'm not an expert on understanding if what the Panthers, Giants or Bills are doing is adequate. The bigger point - and one you should embrace - is neither do you.
Quote:
It's his entire attitude towards analytics that concerns me and others about Gettleman and you keep glossing over that.
what have I glossed over? My sole contribution to these threads has been to give a recap of what Gettleman did in Carolina.
"His entire attitude about analytics" might as well be shorthand for "My horseshit take on Gettleman is..."
Call me a luddite (which you've already done in a most uppity fashion), but I tend to think a guy who actually implemented an analytics department might care a wee bit about the topic and see value in it.
Marty Hurney, the GM before Gettleman in Carolina, employed one analyst who handled the cap, administrative duties, and market research to go along with analytics. Gettleman saw that as an area of improvement and created an actual department.
Your response to that is basically, "Great, but it doesn't show he knows anything about analytics or that he values analytics". You'd much rather hang onto words he spoke when being facetious.
If anyone is doing the glossing over - it is you. I'm not an expert on understanding if what the Panthers, Giants or Bills are doing is adequate. The bigger point - and one you should embrace - is neither do you.
Ok here is where you are wrong. I do know because there isn't a specific way to do it but frameworks that have been proven to work much better.
You need an open minded leader at the top who wants to breed a culture focused on quality of life and creativity (no evidence that Gettleman is this and some evidence to the contrary)
You need people with expertise in higher mathmatics (no evidence of this and evidence to the contrary)
You need people with expertise in computer science architecture of systems (no evidence of this and evidence of the contrary)
You need subject matter experts working closely with technical experts of these higher level skills and a mutual respect to the value brought to the table by both sides.
It's also helpful to have people on the team with product management backgrounds, familiarity with principles like agile development.
And again you can say I don't know they have these skills but the bottom line is if you go in a lot of organizations it's easy to find people with these skills on LinkedIn, that's why i'm using it. My comment is not to say unequivocally that people without these skills can't build effective systems but that it is way, way, way more likely that when you have see evidence that teams possess these skills and there are leaders that openly embrace technology and innovation you will build effective systems. (This is way different than simply "hiring developers" or making an IT consultant head of analytics)
Both involve the foremost user of analytics in football: BB
and both involve the NYGiants. And both involve the use of probability. and both illustrate why lifelong players and coaches slowly use some analytics but pay more attention to sports medicine ( every injury less or faster healed in an injury filled sport matters), roster pruning and motivation and overpaying for on field leadership factors
1) Its late in an important game ( a very very important game) against a QB who probability indicates does not make good decisions when the rush or blitz comes up the middle. His receiving corps is reduced by an injury such that the 5th WR/special teamer is out there.
Its such an important play that a non analytical poster on an anonymous message board screams: " wtf is Tyree doing out there?"
The games greatest user of probability and pre game analytics CORRECTLY calls for a blitz up the inner gaps and a safety to cover said 5th WR.
The QB eludes the very effective and deadly rush and blitz ( perhaps a 10% probability) and the 5th WR catches it on his helmet despite the defenders hand on the ball and does not fumble ( a .00005% probability).
Now that's the advantage of analytics. He made the analytically sound decisions that over time produce an edge ( just ask the Jets).
But that's also football in a microcosm. Do I get a better blitzer or add another analyst?
2) The games best user of analytics is at his specialty: defensive analytics and probability:
"Don't let Nicks or Cruz get open"
Right call. Analytically sound call.
Pass goes to a guy with a 50% drop rate who runs only one route effectively and drops into a 12 inch by 12 inch window 50 yards downfield and he keeps his feet in bounds.
Whats more important? an effective 3rd WR or adding a PHD in math to tell you its more important to cover Cruz and Nicks? ( which we all knew and know).
What we dont know is if the cascading effect of dropping players one year early in exchange for future draft picks eventually got them Malcolm Butler or another of their endless line of small tough slot receiver like an Edelman.
To me, future performance probabilities from current talent is the place where the best teams stay competitive 7 out of 10 years. This is where Seattle as a dynasty fell to the Patriots...one small talent edge gained from years of mid roster churn based on cold hard decisions.
And of course Seattle kept too much of their talent on roster too long.
Fun sidebar but I think good posters have now hashed it past utility. Thanks all
Hahaha
I mean we all agree the point of integrating analytics is to gain competitive advantage??
So why talk about it?
We are well served to remember that all these guys feed to the mainstream audience and not the much smaller set of semi obsessed fans reading every tea leaf that you might find 365 on BBI.
Derek Jeter was interviewed by regulation before and after every spring training game and regular and playoff game for 18 years. None of us remember a single thing he said. It was not his job to say things to the fans. That's what all these guys are aiming for.
You need an open minded leader at the top who wants to breed a culture focused on quality of life and creativity (no evidence that Gettleman is this and some evidence to the contrary)
You need people with expertise in higher mathmatics (no evidence of this and evidence to the contrary)
You need people with expertise in computer science architecture of systems (no evidence of this and evidence of the contrary)
And while you said this above, you most certainly did state that people aren't building effective systems, and you did that solely by looking at the qualifications you could dig up through Google or LinkedIn
What is bizarre to me is that you seemingly don't see the failings in that type of exercise.
Where you've said there's "no evidence: of this - I'd posture it is because you either are dismissing it or frankly don't know any better.
The mere fact that Gettleman implemented an analytic department should indicate he's open minded about the concept. But in your words, him doing that is "no evidence". But info from LinkedIn is "evidence".
And you think it is a sound argument.
I mean we all agree the point of integrating analytics is to gain competitive advantage??
So why talk about it?
We are well served to remember that all these guys feed to the mainstream audience and not the much smaller set of semi obsessed fans reading every tea leaf that you might find 365 on BBI.
Derek Jeter was interviewed by regulation before and after every spring training game and regular and playoff game for 18 years. None of us remember a single thing he said. It was not his job to say things to the fans. That's what all these guys are aiming for.
I don't completely agree with this. In the thread I linked I shared the article below. While I don't think it behooves anyone say share their code or exactly how their systems work in order to recruit the best engineering talent you are much more likely to do so with prestige to your project and casting a wide net ala showing what you are working on at a conference like MIT Sloan. The best analytics programs draw attention even if we don't know exactly how they work. I'm not suggesting this will happen any time soon in football but a lot of tech recruiting is done by making available the code for older versions of software and seeing who has good ideas about it's implementation or expansion.
I brought up Sean Harrington's autoencoding algorithm. This is something every team should have and takes a skilled programmer to pull off. This is just a framework to develop the right data set obviously but you do have to walk before you can run.
Pats Sean Harrington and Analytics - ( New Window )
You got me there, Chief.
Serious question. Does it make a difference if a team chooses to hire on staff analytics professionals or if they decide to contract with a firm which provides said services? What are the corporate advantages/disadvantages to both approaches?
Thanks in advance.
Quote:
that companies that have actually built successful systems have people with certain qualifications (on Linkedin) that the Giants don't seem to posses I can't help you. No one can.
Serious question. Does it make a difference if a team chooses to hire on staff analytics professionals or if they decide to contract with a firm which provides said services? What are the corporate advantages/disadvantages to both approaches?
Thanks in advance.
I think either are completely valid but as I've stated you really need an internal stakeholder with knowledge of systems architecture and outcome / usage structuring to ensure quality one way or another. I'll give you a really good example H2o.ai is what a lot of people use now but if you just throw data at it without figuring out what problem you are trying to solve, who will be using the data and how to potentially break it down into smaller problems. IE you might want to make a game by game injury predictor which feeds into a season injury predictor which feeds into a player ROI model (which has other predictions feeding into it)
The problem with hiring outside is they have no problem spending too much of your money building things that may not actually work or they may not understand your business well enough as technical people and while making a genuine effort don't provide solutions that are functional.
There are many different ways to skin a cat and lots of great service providers but without an internal stakeholder with technical skills and a subject matter expert that they work well as a team with chances are your predictive system is doomed to fail before it starts.
Ernie Adams, the team's longtime "football research director" ...
Nobody talks to Adams. Despite all that has been written about him, no one, at least in the media, has a firm grasp on what he does. One former employee on Belichick's old Cleveland Browns staff believed Adams studied the tendencies of referees, among other responsibilities. ...
Adams left a job as an analyst and trader on Wall Street to join Belichick's Cleveland Browns in the early 90s, ...
Nearly 30 years later, Sean Harrington turned down Google to join Belichick's Patriots.
Harrington holds the distinct job title of Senior Software Engineer in the Patriots player personnel department (which otherwise is comprised of pro and college scouts). Many teams employ analytics specialists or software developers. Based on a review of media guides across the NFL, Harrington is the only engineer working in player personnel in the entire league.
...
On choosing the Patriots over Google, Harrington wrote, "It was a difficult decision, but I felt that I had an opportunity to make a larger impact working for the Patriots, along with aligning my passion for football with my profession as a Software Engineer."
So what exactly does he do?
On GitHub, an open-source website where developers around the world share ideas, Harrington wrote that he runs a "software team" for the Patriots, conducting "all sorts of Machine Learning and Analytics Jobs for the coaching staff, scouting department, training staff, and IT department."
Said Ben Leiken, a former classmate in the Tufts computer science department: "My understanding is that he's basically working on software tools that help with player evaluation. He's kind of changed the way they do things and increased the efficiency of their processes."
Harrington is particularly busy during NFL Draft season, ... Harrington travels to Indianapolis for the NFL Combine each February and "gathers a lot of data on players"
[/quote]
In other words a large staff of people with real credentials and experience...
The Giants have...
Ty Siam, an expert on Health Care Operations...
I will leave the judgements to you!
You intentionally expand upon the other individuals while listing exactly one comment for Ty Siam.
Is Siam the only analyst working with analytics or is he building a team. What qualifications does he have is data while in the Health Care world are pertinent?
The Health Care field does extensive work in analytics, both from a standpojnt of implementing preventative measures, as well as choosing the optimum standard of care. But putting that aside - the above descriptions are kind of disingenuous.
What if I just said - Sean Harrington, Stock Broker?
I think either are completely valid but as I've stated you really need an internal stakeholder with knowledge of systems architecture and outcome / usage structuring to ensure quality one way or another. I'll give you a really good example H2o.ai is what a lot of people use now but if you just throw data at it without figuring out what problem you are trying to solve, who will be using the data and how to potentially break it down into smaller problems. IE you might want to make a game by game injury predictor which feeds into a season injury predictor which feeds into a player ROI model (which has other predictions feeding into it)
The problem with hiring outside is they have no problem spending too much of your money building things that may not actually work or they may not understand your business well enough as technical people and while making a genuine effort don't provide solutions that are functional.
There are many different ways to skin a cat and lots of great service providers but without an internal stakeholder with technical skills and a subject matter expert that they work well as a team with chances are your predictive system is doomed to fail before it starts.
Thanks for your candid response. I enjoy this discussion with you.
One thing I learned from leading a fairly large tech integration project for one of the world's largest banks is that you have to be careful when building solutions using internal engineers that they don't become too wed to their own solutions. This is not a minimal risk. I agree that developing in-house solutions can lead to certain advantages but can also lead to limitations compared to outsourcing, especially with solutions in their infantile stages.
I like how far this discussion has moved though - from one where we definitively know that DG has no use for analytics to perhaps the model embraced by the Giants is not a preferred one. Some of the claims made earlier on this thread and others were pretty far-reaching and perhaps at-best, premature. Thanks to all the posters for their hard work in keeping a civil discussion, especially to Bill2 who always does a good job of educating many of us.
You intentionally expand upon the other individuals while listing exactly one comment for Ty Siam.
Is Siam the only analyst working with analytics or is he building a team. What qualifications does he have is data while in the Health Care world are pertinent?
The Health Care field does extensive work in analytics, both from a standpojnt of implementing preventative measures, as well as choosing the optimum standard of care. But putting that aside - the above descriptions are kind of disingenuous.
What if I just said - Sean Harrington, Stock Broker?
I felt I went into enough depth regarding Ty Siam's bio earlier. And no, there is nothing in it about data analysis regarding healthcare. Its about hospital operations...
I can find 0 evidence of any other members of the Giants engaged in data analytics. Believe me I have looked... I have tried googling various possibilities and came up with bubkis... The best I have seen is
No mention of a department or anything more significant than Ty Siam.
Whereas, with little effort in googling, all kinds of stuff pops up for the Patriots... And the backgrounds of the folks involved seam much more appropriate. A former Analytics based trader, and a computer scientist running a department developing AI software.
Try googling it yourself. Its a stark contrast.
Generally where there is smoke there is fire. There is a lot more smoke around Patriot analytics than Giant analytics.
Could just be semantics, but the actual original quote from the SI article was a tad bit different which could actually mean something (or admittedly, may not).
2) Brady is aging
Which factor most correlates to the future probability of Patriot dominance over the next five years?
Should they triple their investment in analytics or package some draft picks to move up to perhaps be in position to a maybe good QB? Or does probability tell us they are most likely fucked over the next five years relative to the past.
As a person who now makes a living capturing IP around new edge analytics...nothing bothers me more than advocating force fits of the new.
Right now without any analytics I can assure you that the worlds most advanced model would tell us that new talent at C and RT and ER would most probably make the largest difference from current to a better future so good scouting and careful interviewing and metric comparisons of OL prospects is the analytically sound way forward. But cross checking by visual inspection of game tapes against good opponents is very important as well. You know, the stuff Knute Rockne did.
Does a computer programmer who builds the kind of selection model Ford had in 1976 to cross tab and weight factors across candidates really need to come from the Phd pool at Cal Tech - or do we need confidence that DG might package 2 5ths for a 4th to add the right OL talent?
Which is the prime key in football? Willingness to make unpopular and inexplicable but probability sound decisions over a decade to gain small talent edges or sophisticated linkedin pages and publications of stuff really good analytics/CS guys do as side projects?
This is a test of the first step in using good analytics...knowing its limits and what matters most in building a business.
You intentionally expand upon the other individuals while listing exactly one comment for Ty Siam.
Is Siam the only analyst working with analytics or is he building a team. What qualifications does he have is data while in the Health Care world are pertinent?
The Health Care field does extensive work in analytics, both from a standpojnt of implementing preventative measures, as well as choosing the optimum standard of care. But putting that aside - the above descriptions are kind of disingenuous.
What if I just said - Sean Harrington, Stock Broker?
Couple of things...
Sean Harrington is a computer scientist with a background in Machine Learning. For folk not in the field, machine learning is ALL about data analytics and statistical analysis.
Ernie Adams was not a stock broker... He was an analytics based trader. Again, a distinction that may not be readily apparent to those not familiar with the field. Trader is not equal to a Stock Broker, a Stock Broker is more of a salesman, a Trader is far more analytical. A world of difference.
Their one line bios would be
Sean Harrington - Machine Learning expert
Ernie Adams - Securities Analytics and trading expert
+ known to have a significant team
vs.
Ty Siam - Hospital Operations expert...
no information available on other team members
Sorry, that's just the facts. I think they speak for themselves which team puts an emphasis on it and which doesn't.
All evidence to the contrary, perhaps the Giants do have some super secret analytics department churning away... Even so, is Ty Siam the right guy to be leading it? His bio doesn't speak to it. If I were hiring for the job and got his resume, he wouldn't get an interview. But hey, I might be wrong. It won't be the first time.
Quote:
I think either are completely valid but as I've stated you really need an internal stakeholder with knowledge of systems architecture and outcome / usage structuring to ensure quality one way or another. I'll give you a really good example H2o.ai is what a lot of people use now but if you just throw data at it without figuring out what problem you are trying to solve, who will be using the data and how to potentially break it down into smaller problems. IE you might want to make a game by game injury predictor which feeds into a season injury predictor which feeds into a player ROI model (which has other predictions feeding into it)
The problem with hiring outside is they have no problem spending too much of your money building things that may not actually work or they may not understand your business well enough as technical people and while making a genuine effort don't provide solutions that are functional.
There are many different ways to skin a cat and lots of great service providers but without an internal stakeholder with technical skills and a subject matter expert that they work well as a team with chances are your predictive system is doomed to fail before it starts.
Thanks for your candid response. I enjoy this discussion with you.
One thing I learned from leading a fairly large tech integration project for one of the world's largest banks is that you have to be careful when building solutions using internal engineers that they don't become too wed to their own solutions. This is not a minimal risk. I agree that developing in-house solutions can lead to certain advantages but can also lead to limitations compared to outsourcing, especially with solutions in their infantile stages.
I like how far this discussion has moved though - from one where we definitively know that DG has no use for analytics to perhaps the model embraced by the Giants is not a preferred one. Some of the claims made earlier on this thread and others were pretty far-reaching and perhaps at-best, premature. Thanks to all the posters for their hard work in keeping a civil discussion, especially to Bill2 who always does a good job of educating many of us.
I completely agree with you RE: a bank. I worked on a problem involving trade forecasting with one of the worlds largest banks for years. There is a problem that I encounter consistently as a consultant where internal engineers are given too much power and are faced with a lose / lose situation where if they sign on something from an outside party they lose power if it's good or potentially replaces them in some ways and if it's bad they validated something that isn't good reflecting poorly on them.
This is why I have emphasized demeanor as one of the most important characteristics and what disappoints me about the Gettleman hire on the surface. He clashes with people. He is dismissive to outside opinions and again mocks analytics. You can say it's tongue in cheek but good leaders don't mock branches of thought that could be helpful to them. Friendly, open minded people just do better with technological implementation. My main area of expertise is finance but I have implemented classification systems in the health arena as well and the organizations that see the most success and make the most progress with analytical systems are those with leaders that embrace the idea that there shouldn't be a power struggle or combative process, there isn't right and wrong, better or worse. There is only a search for the best information possible because outcomes are all probabilistic anyway. Especially when you look at how the quantum world operates.
I am glad where the discussion went as well. I do find it frustrating to see too much support for old ways of doing things, especially in the face of poor results. But it is also not all about the results and the best way to ensure you have the best systems and information in place is an organization that distributes power to people with an array of skill sets and backgrounds and I don't think there is enough evidence that the Giants do that.
- A leadership team which asks for more rigor
- the time and solid play of the product on the field before applying the slow accumulation of analytical based advantages.
- If you suck on talent the probability edges of better decisions can be crude until you have a platform to apply advantage in a sport of 90 diverse possibilities that average about 4 years of play and one major injury during that time.
In truth analytics would dictate trading Cruz the day after his first day rehabbing for a 6thslot two years down the road. Think the fan base would root for an organization like that? The sport of football is very bounded by analytic busting paradigms
Quote:
The Giants are quiet about it, but they consider Ty Siam to be a rising star in the field. Jerry Reese is a proponent
Could just be semantics, but the actual original quote from the SI article was a tad bit different which could actually mean something (or admittedly, may not).
Quote:
analyst Tyseer Siam is considered a rising star in the field. GM Jerry Reese is considered a proponent
.
Fair enough, I was quoting from memory...
2) Brady is aging
Which factor most correlates to the future probability of Patriot dominance over the next five years?
Should they triple their investment in analytics or package some draft picks to move up to perhaps be in position to a maybe good QB? Or does probability tell us they are most likely fucked over the next five years relative to the past.
As a person who now makes a living capturing IP around new edge analytics...nothing bothers me more than advocating force fits of the new.
Right now without any analytics I can assure you that the worlds most advanced model would tell us that new talent at C and RT and ER would most probably make the largest difference from current to a better future so good scouting and careful interviewing and metric comparisons of OL prospects is the analytically sound way forward. But cross checking by visual inspection of game tapes against good opponents is very important as well. You know, the stuff Knute Rockne did.
Does a computer programmer who builds the kind of selection model Ford had in 1976 to cross tab and weight factors across candidates really need to come from the Phd pool at Cal Tech - or do we need confidence that DG might package 2 5ths for a 4th to add the right OL talent?
Which is the prime key in football? Willingness to make unpopular and inexplicable but probability sound decisions over a decade to gain small talent edges or sophisticated linkedin pages and publications of stuff really good analytics/CS guys do as side projects?
This is a test of the first step in using good analytics...knowing its limits and what matters most in building a business.
Well there is another point I've addressed which is game theory on timeout calls. Don't you think given how poor Shurmur has been in this department this season we should be putting better information in front of him leveraging simple game theory and computer science?
I'm forming my second company now and filing my 3rd joint invention patent for data analysis systems with a major university. This one is a broad based signal interpretation framework with a prominent math professor. I know the field very well myself. I don't think throwing money at a problem or thinking you can predict everything is a good idea. But don't you think having a strong "CTO" in any organization which has access to the types of data that the NFL does is a good idea?
This is why I have emphasized demeanor as one of the most important characteristics and what disappoints me about the Gettleman hire on the surface. He clashes with people. He is dismissive to outside opinions and again mocks analytics. You can say it's tongue in cheek but good leaders don't mock branches of thought that could be helpful to them. Friendly, open minded people just do better with technological implementation.
I would submit that the demeanor showed to the press is not necessarily the same one shown to other outsiders, especially true experts in their field. I don't think we should attribute DG's dismissive comments made to media who are looking for clicks as representative of an attitude toward anything or anybody who might help the team gain an advantage.
Anyway, this point has been better made by better posters than me already on this thread, so I'm sorry for belaboring it. If we can't agree on it at least we can agree that we've found a key to our disagreement.
- A leadership team which asks for more rigor
- the time and solid play of the product on the field before applying the slow accumulation of analytical based advantages.
- If you suck on talent the probability edges of better decisions can be crude until you have a platform to apply advantage in a sport of 90 diverse possibilities that average about 4 years of play and one major injury during that time.
In truth analytics would dictate trading Cruz the day after his first day rehabbing for a 6thslot two years down the road. Think the fan base would root for an organization like that? The sport of football is very bounded by analytic busting paradigms
Bill, I agree that analytics is built up over time... However there are large databases both in the public domain and available for sale, regarding all aspects of football. Plus there are many questions that can be asked that will lead to fact based decisions.
All such decisions are based on probabilites, not on sure knowledge of the result. We are all familiar with "Past performance, does not guarantee future performance". However if you have built up good models, it does provide an edge that will translate to wins. I think we can agree on that.
Yes you are right, fan bases have emotional attachements to players like Cruz and Manning. At the end of the day, the fact will speak for themselves. The decisions are still human. Maybe its better for business to keep Cruz and keep the fanbase happy. At the end of the day its a business, and the emotional reaction of the fanbase plays into the profitability of any decision. The data may say decision A is best for wins, but decision B is best for the business. Guess which decision gets made!
Will the Patiots decline when Brady is no more... For sure... Will they decline when BB leaves, absolutely. However, if they stick to the framework of decisions provided by the best analytics they can muster, the probabilities are that they will rise again sooner than other teams that don't have such a framework, and remain in contention longer. And that's the point, its all about the probabilities. Play the probabilities long enough and you will come out ahead. People argue with me saying that there isn't just one way to build a team into a winner... Sure I agree with that. But as you eloquently stated, analytics provide the path to the highest probability of success, which for the Giants for now is to find a C, RT, ER and a QB. But I also agree that the team has so many needs that there are many paths right now, and the difference is probably just nuance. Later, as a team gets closer, those nuances become more significant.
You intentionally expand upon the other individuals while listing exactly one comment for Ty Siam.
Is Siam the only analyst working with analytics or is he building a team. What qualifications does he have is data while in the Health Care world are pertinent?
The Health Care field does extensive work in analytics, both from a standpojnt of implementing preventative measures, as well as choosing the optimum standard of care. But putting that aside - the above descriptions are kind of disingenuous.
What if I just said - Sean Harrington, Stock Broker?
And yes, I was being snarky in my original post of the comparison. I'm surprised that was lost on you of all people.
Snark aside... I think the point remains valid, the evidence that is available suggests that the Giants do not put as much emphasis on analytics as other teams, such as the Patriots.
Quote:
This is why I have emphasized demeanor as one of the most important characteristics and what disappoints me about the Gettleman hire on the surface. He clashes with people. He is dismissive to outside opinions and again mocks analytics. You can say it's tongue in cheek but good leaders don't mock branches of thought that could be helpful to them. Friendly, open minded people just do better with technological implementation.
I would submit that the demeanor showed to the press is not necessarily the same one shown to other outsiders, especially true experts in their field. I don't think we should attribute DG's dismissive comments made to media who are looking for clicks as representative of an attitude toward anything or anybody who might help the team gain an advantage.
Anyway, this point has been better made by better posters than me already on this thread, so I'm sorry for belaboring it. If we can't agree on it at least we can agree that we've found a key to our disagreement.
It's not just how he deals with the media in that one interview or even his pattern of dealing with the media this way.
He has a reputation for being divisive with players and even his superior.
Someone on BBI shared a story, I don't know the thread off the top of my head but when he was hired about him being very disrespectful towards someone that works for him.
Do you think he is not a gruff person in general? Do you really not think there is evidence of this?
Don't you think the fact that he was fired despite his talents (that I won't argue with) and didn't have another job suggest he might have some personality deficiencies?
I think there was a time when people accepted personality deficiencies of talented people as a cost of doing business but I think there has been a big backlash against this especially with technologists.
Quote:
This is why I have emphasized demeanor as one of the most important characteristics and what disappoints me about the Gettleman hire on the surface. He clashes with people. He is dismissive to outside opinions and again mocks analytics. You can say it's tongue in cheek but good leaders don't mock branches of thought that could be helpful to them. Friendly, open minded people just do better with technological implementation.
I would submit that the demeanor showed to the press is not necessarily the same one shown to other outsiders, especially true experts in their field. I don't think we should attribute DG's dismissive comments made to media who are looking for clicks as representative of an attitude toward anything or anybody who might help the team gain an advantage.
Anyway, this point has been better made by better posters than me already on this thread, so I'm sorry for belaboring it. If we can't agree on it at least we can agree that we've found a key to our disagreement.
Dan, I would say that the public attitude certainly leads to questions about his commitment to technology.
Further research on the topic, which is not conclusive, but suggests that there is a lack of rigor in implementation of technology to gain such an advantage.
Taken together, these fact tend to support the narrative that the Giants and Gettleman do not have much faith in technology as an aid to decision making.
As I said before, maybe the Giants are super secretive about it. Maybe there is more than meets the eye. If there was, I think there would be more smoke around it... Like people on staff with unclear responsibilities, and whom the organization refuses to speak about. There is just such a pattern with the Patriots. Maybe the Giants are better at hiding it than the Patriots. Or maybe, the lack of smoke, suggests that there is no hidden fire.
That's a good thing! That kind of analytics is easily derived, and numerous articles about when to go for 2, or when to go on 4th down with all sorts of analytics have been written. It doesn't take a crack team of analysts to come up with that one. But its a positive sign at least.
Evidence One: BB. ornery, arrogant, dismissive and hard charging demanding.
no one ever said he was cuddly or embracing of every technology ( "i never use Instaface")
Evidence One: BB. ornery, arrogant, dismissive and hard charging demanding.
no one ever said he was cuddly or embracing of every technology ( "i never use Instaface")
I think that's where Ernie Adams comes in. It doesn't appear we have an equivalent to him in our organization. Someone with a trading background would be great IMO.
He has a reputation for being divisive with players and even his superior.
Someone on BBI shared a story, I don't know the thread off the top of my head but when he was hired about him being very disrespectful towards someone that works for him.
Do you think he is not a gruff person in general? Do you really not think there is evidence of this?
Don't you think the fact that he was fired despite his talents (that I won't argue with) and didn't have another job suggest he might have some personality deficiencies?
I think there was a time when people accepted personality deficiencies of talented people as a cost of doing business but I think there has been a big backlash against this especially with technologists.
I have no idea what his personality is like. Never met the guy, but far more importantly, I never worked with him.
My thinking is that he absolutely works well with people who value logical/critical thinking, and that he's not afraid to make cold/hard decisions if that's what is best for the business in his view.
My evidence for that is based on how many years he stayed with the Giants and how he was hired back. People who are difficult to work with tend not to be hired back. I discount significantly the noise from his ending in CAR due to the information provided differences with ownership.
I could definitely be wrong, but that's how I see it.
The fact that he didn't have another job when fired doesn't mean much to me - he went a total of 5 months and 11 days without a job in an industry where openings during that period (July-Dec) are extremely rare.
Whether he actually has a personality deficiency is beyond my ability to determine. I will say that lots of very effective people (Bill Belichick comes to mind) have personality deficiencies but are absolutely the right people for their position.
I sure wouldn't want an overly sensitive personality making critical business/financial/personnel decisions.
I want one who is well-respected but direct and honest and who makes those decisions based on their experience and the best available information available.
Nothing I've heard about DG suggests he is outside that description.
what do the Mara advisors from Goldman do?
And again, if it looked like there was more buy in based on staffing and results on the field (especially as they relate to a lack of understanding of simple game theory concepts) we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Evidence One: BB. ornery, arrogant, dismissive and hard charging demanding.
no one ever said he was cuddly or embracing of every technology ( "i never use Instaface")
Agreed, somebody has to take the lead, in researching, accepting and providing critical thinking in how to apply technology to make the team better.
That said, I don't have an "Instaface" account, nor an Instagram, nor twitter. I haven't used facebook in years, and even when I did it was minimal. I don't find that social media technologies improve my life. I'm an old fart... LOL
However, I have been more than willing to embrace technologies that I feel to impact my life. I have built a number of SmartHome features into my house, and I love that stuff.
Because I have a relationship with and personal knowledge of the situation, I'll give some insight on the Panthers (and by extension, the Bills).
The working environment in Carolina had been toxic for many years, mainly driven by the erratic behavior of Jerry Richardson. Ever since his heart transplant, the behavior became more and more inconsistent. He would go long stretches of not influencing football decisions, then demand to be involved in a flurry of them. He fired one son from the team and the other son left on his own after failing to rein in his father. He protected Marty Hurney while having some episodes of drunken behavior because those events also involved Richardson.
Through it all - Gettleman was a steady influence in the organization. So was Ron Rivera. The two of them basically held everything together. Gettleman took a guy who worked his way up the Panthers org from an entry level position to increasing responsibilities under his wing, Brandon Beane. Beane was actually the interim GM for a period of time - and ended up taking the Permanent GM role in Buffalo. Beane was going to leave the org and leave football because of the turmoil in Carolina. His background is in communications and was going to go in that direction. He stayed because of Gettleman. Looks at him as a mentor and father figure and Gettleman saw the talent in him and recommended him for the job in Buffalo.
In the face of an erratic owner, Gettleman kept his patience and did his job. He let go of popular players and had solid, if unspectacular drafts. He had every intention of even remaining patient when confronted with the issue of Thomas Davis and Greg Olson. He stood up to Richardson and figured that would be it - and he was let go.
the impact of him being let go is that many felt it was a final straw of Richardson losing it. It isn't just a coincidence that information came out about Richardson's transgressions after Gettleman left. There is still a lot of respect for Gettleman in that organization. There's a lot of respect for Gettleman around the league.
One question I have is why does there appear to be so little respect for him from our very own fans? The way he's discussed around here is that he was hired to be a puppet and has done nothing well. It is bizarre. Adding the whole topic that he's old and hates analytics just piles on.
You can start by the ridiculous way in which he was hired.
So the way a person is hired, out of their own control, speaks to the respect they've earned over an entire career?
If everything else had gone exactly as it has, but Gettleman was the hire after a protracted search, you'd still be bitching about him and floating the ridiculous strategy of carrying 3 mobile QB's on any thread where it would fit.
Quote:
One question I have is why does there appear to be so little respect for him from our very own fans? The way he's discussed around here is that he was hired to be a puppet and has done nothing well. It is bizarre. Adding the whole topic that he's old and hates analytics just piles on.
You can start by the ridiculous way in which he was hired.
Haha. So because the Giants wanted him and didn't go through a process you don't personally approve of, its now "ridiculous".
I say this a lot but I value many of your posts and you actually provide good insights to defend your stances. But this one is just bizarre. FO hirings are made based on merit and relationship building all the time, not everything is done through responding to an Indeed ad and asking the candidate to come meet for the first time.
Why would we expect that Dave Gettleman, who came in the door shaking a fist and talking about kicking ass, purging the roster of the previous GM's players, then proceeded to fail at free agency and crank out a 5-6 win year, why would we think fans would respond positively there if we don't even respect people who had legitimate success here?
There's plenty to not like about what the current GM did this year. Hell the current GM back-tracked on his own decisions to his credit.
And hiring the former GM to help replace the current GM, and the former GM recommending his old employee to be the new GM -- is highly unorthodox in any business.
1) Military Industrial Complex
2) Politics
3) Law enforcement
4) Automotive
5) Entertainment
It's the combination that I think forms legitimate gripes here and by conduit legitimate gripes with Gettleman and the people running things.
You can talk about what Gettleman did in Carolina until your blue in the face and we can debate how key it was to success or failure but the other point I've made is how rapidly changing these technologies and the data inputs are and as of now it does not look like we have the staff who is properly keyed in to implement the best technologies in a fast paced and changing environment.
You read articles coming out of Philly or Seattle or Kansas City or New England and there just seems to be a buy in that doesn't exist here. You are quibbling here because we are over emphasizing outright comments against analytics even if they are jokes but this falls way short of leadership talking up the value and how it is already being implemented with success.
Fatman, you are clearly too close to Gettleman to be objective. I don't have some ax to grind with him. I find the data on the front office, their record of success and the way they discuss (or not discuss analytics) to be troubling. You just keep taking the tact of trust me, these guys know what they are doing.
Why should us as fans believe this?
It's the combination that I think forms legitimate gripes here and by conduit legitimate gripes with Gettleman and the people running things.
You can talk about what Gettleman did in Carolina until your blue in the face and we can debate how key it was to success or failure but the other point I've made is how rapidly changing these technologies and the data inputs are and as of now it does not look like we have the staff who is properly keyed in to implement the best technologies in a fast paced and changing environment.
You read articles coming out of Philly or Seattle or Kansas City or New England and there just seems to be a buy in that doesn't exist here. You are quibbling here because we are over emphasizing outright comments against analytics even if they are jokes but this falls way short of leadership talking up the value and how it is already being implemented with success.
Fatman, you are clearly too close to Gettleman to be objective. I don't have some ax to grind with him. I find the data on the front office, their record of success and the way they discuss (or not discuss analytics) to be troubling. You just keep taking the tact of trust me, these guys know what they are doing.
Why should us as fans believe this?
Why should we trust you that you know that they don't know what they are doing when you don't know exactly what they are doing?
1. Hire Ernie Accorsi as a consultant
2. Interview Gettleman, Marc Ross (who by most accounts is an incompetent, lazy jerk), Kevin Abrams, and AFTER those guys they spoke to Louis Riddick...the one guy in the entire process without deep ties to the organization.
3. Hire Gettleman with Abrams as his right hand being groomed to replace him.
Where's the outside voice? Where's the self-evaluation after years of poor football? Even if you're going to hire Gettleman, you can learn a lot by interviewing some fresh faces.
Instead, the Giants power structure lives in an echo chamber.
1. Hire Ernie Accorsi as a consultant
2. Interview Gettleman, Marc Ross (who by most accounts is an incompetent, lazy jerk), Kevin Abrams, and AFTER those guys they spoke to Louis Riddick...the one guy in the entire process without deep ties to the organization.
3. Hire Gettleman with Abrams as his right hand being groomed to replace him.
Where's the outside voice? Where's the self-evaluation after years of poor football? Even if you're going to hire Gettleman, you can learn a lot by interviewing some fresh faces.
Instead, the Giants power structure lives in an echo chamber.
Again, multiple other teams have hired Accorsi to help in their GM search. Why do you continue to ignore this fact?
Quote:
Think about what the GM search was in December 2018 on the heels of 5 years of bad football and a completely disastrous 2017:
1. Hire Ernie Accorsi as a consultant
2. Interview Gettleman, Marc Ross (who by most accounts is an incompetent, lazy jerk), Kevin Abrams, and AFTER those guys they spoke to Louis Riddick...the one guy in the entire process without deep ties to the organization.
3. Hire Gettleman with Abrams as his right hand being groomed to replace him.
Where's the outside voice? Where's the self-evaluation after years of poor football? Even if you're going to hire Gettleman, you can learn a lot by interviewing some fresh faces.
Instead, the Giants power structure lives in an echo chamber.
Again, multiple other teams have hired Accorsi to help in their GM search. Why do you continue to ignore this fact?
Accorsi was OUR GM. He drafted our quarterback, whose fate was deeply intertwined with a key draft decision. You don't see the problem there?
1) Military Industrial Complex
2) Politics
3) Law enforcement
4) Automotive
5) Entertainment
Sure Bill, not an unheard of practice, but also industries fraught historically with nepotism, mismanagement, waste, and public/outside intervention and bailouts -- something the New York Giants haven't been immune to in the past = ).
Quote:
an easier pill to swallow if we also weren't looking at the Giants analytics staff and seeing that their skill sets are woefully deficient in some important concepts in analytics.
It's the combination that I think forms legitimate gripes here and by conduit legitimate gripes with Gettleman and the people running things.
You can talk about what Gettleman did in Carolina until your blue in the face and we can debate how key it was to success or failure but the other point I've made is how rapidly changing these technologies and the data inputs are and as of now it does not look like we have the staff who is properly keyed in to implement the best technologies in a fast paced and changing environment.
You read articles coming out of Philly or Seattle or Kansas City or New England and there just seems to be a buy in that doesn't exist here. You are quibbling here because we are over emphasizing outright comments against analytics even if they are jokes but this falls way short of leadership talking up the value and how it is already being implemented with success.
Fatman, you are clearly too close to Gettleman to be objective. I don't have some ax to grind with him. I find the data on the front office, their record of success and the way they discuss (or not discuss analytics) to be troubling. You just keep taking the tact of trust me, these guys know what they are doing.
Why should us as fans believe this?
Why should we trust you that you know that they don't know what they are doing when you don't know exactly what they are doing?
I've made a laundry list of reasons to be concerned which I will review quickly, please feel free to make a counter list.
1. Poor results broadly for 7 years
2. Lack of technical expertise on staff
3. Evidence of poor demeanor from prior GM including, unnecessary mocking of analytics, being fired from prior job, clashing with employees
4. Lack of applied game theory on the field including struggling with game management and timeouts
5. Hiring two coaches in a row who appear to be in over their heads, do we have an effective assessment process?
6. Conducting an interview process from GM that appeared to be very closed and didn't seem to evaluate people with new ideas at all
7. Labeling many players (more than I'd say any team in the league) as malcontents, despite the fact that these were 4 first round picks and 3 major free agents scouted by the same scouts we still have in house
8. Despite ridding ourselves of said malcontents having a performance last week that was truely pathetic from an effort standpoint
9. General lack of turnover for a front office that has under performed for years
10. Pursuing inconsistent strategies like not playing OBJ as a punt returner in the first game in a key situation then making him punt returner a few games later when we had a bad record. Making win now free agent signings before backtracking and saying it's more of a complete rebuild to the detriment of our cap. Again, I've never seen an example of a team unloading a pro bowl player mid season and continuing to start a 38 year old QB. This last one I know is unpopular and we get a lot of rhetoric about how you have to say you are going for wins, etc. that's just what you do but it is also "what you do" to have a young QB waiting in the wings so you see what they have if your season reaches a certain point of doom. It's another abject failure of this team that Lauletta was so unprepared to do this and there were no other options.
1. Hire Ernie Accorsi as a consultant
2. Interview Gettleman, Marc Ross (who by most accounts is an incompetent, lazy jerk), Kevin Abrams, and AFTER those guys they spoke to Louis Riddick...the one guy in the entire process without deep ties to the organization.
3. Hire Gettleman with Abrams as his right hand being groomed to replace him.
Where's the outside voice? Where's the self-evaluation after years of poor football? Even if you're going to hire Gettleman, you can learn a lot by interviewing some fresh faces.
Instead, the Giants power structure lives in an echo chamber.
Why do you assume there's no self evaluation? How can you possibly come to that conclusion just because we didn't bring in "an outsider'?
You are just guessing.
No I don't. Not everything new is good, not everything old sucks. I'm willing to give this time and see what happens.
I'm of the opinion that this isn't a simple thing to get right. We are dealing with one of the oldest franchises in the sport who's trying to figure out exactly how to let the best QB in franchise history ride into the sunset while also moving the franchise forward. Easy to say "just rip the bandaid off" but unfortunately, there's many factors to consider. Fans tend to take the mindset of "win at all costs" but in reality, there's a fuckton more to running an NFL team than just hoisting a Lombardi.
I think whoever our GM is would be caught between a rock and a hardplace. "Blowing it up" isn't on the table so people need to get over it. We have a GM who's admitted to mistakes and made roster decisions that his predecessor would have taken 3 years to make. He had a very good draft. The culture is improving (IMO, i'm guessing you will disagree since players you don't like are still here).
In sum, I'm not exactly sure what you want that's both reasonable and realistic.
I think one of the things the Giants have historically done well is think long-term - something they got away from in 2012/2013.
I don't think that highly of Mara right now (I don't think poorly of him, either), but I don't think he's a short-term thinker. At least I hope he's not.
And continues to suck.
Also, the fans didnt help last year with their outrage.
it's the nature of many of these beasts.
I mean sports teams
dolans and wilpons and at one time Steinbrenners
Sean : 3:44 pm : link : reply
The play of Eli was greatly miscalculated.
Also, the fans didnt help last year with their outrage.
I'm not going to even get into if the play of Eli was miscalculated or not. I'd rather ask if we would reasonably expect to have a better record if Eli wasn't the QB.
If not, then why is this evaluation of Eli looked at as critical to how the season has gone??
I can't reasonably make an argument that shows we would be better if we had Alex Smith, Kirk Cousins, a drafted rookie or Eli.
And continues to suck.
If you want to think that, go right ahead. I don't think "blowing it up" was ever on the table. They were never cutting Eli heading into this year, not with that cap hit and not with his legacy. You can disagree with that all you want, but here we are. We will never know who's decision that way (probably Mara) but its a decision that was made and now we have to move forward. If you are basing everything off of that decision than you aren't being fair to DG because he came into a pretty shitty scenario.
I don't really know what else to tell you.
Eli + Barkley, Chubb or Nelson
OR
Sam Darnold
It was never going to be draft Eli & have Darnold sit behind him. Eli would not want that & frankly, it wouldnt be fair for the Giants to make Eli a placeholder. So, once Eli was staying I think the focus became Barkley or Chubb.
The question now will be if the hold off another year on addressing QB. I dont think we will complete again until we address the massive elephant in the room.
We did that.
And he still acts as if nothing tangible has happened.
If the team was going to be crap anyway, just draft Darnold and start the process of developing him as the Jets are. He has shown some flashes as well.
Maybe because I'm a business owner I can sympathize with them a bit. I know I'd look at it like this:
We're a proud organization with 5 SB's over 25 years including 4 championships and the only organization who has won a SB in each of the decades (80's, 90's, 00's, 10's).
We've had our ups and downs but we have some contacts who did very well for us and helped us win in the past. One of them is a GM who retired just before the past two championships, but who was critical in acquiring the key pieces needed for both championships. He's done consulting before for franchises. We like him and trust him to help us make a good decision.
We really like the guy he had on the Pro Personnel side, who did great work for us and has really had success everywhere he's gone. He knows football, is passionate, understands our core philosophies, and can get us back on the right track. His previous departure happened to loosely coincide with the recent downturn in org performance. The biggest failures over the past half-dozen or so years are not tied in any way to him. We're canning Ross and leave it up to the new guy what to do with the scouts, etc.
There are other guys we like and admire around the league, but none are currently available.
Time is of the essence - we have FA starting in weeks, a draft in about 120 days, and we don't even have a head coach yet. We don't have time for a long drawn-out search.
The guy we like best is available now, but if we postpone our search to include SB contenders may not be. We know he is well respected around the league and do not expect him to be off the market long.
Even IF we waited or prolonged our search, while there may be people with good ideas we could consider, we're not going to find someone available with the pedigree of the guy we want, know, and already trust.
Why wait? Let's hire him now.
I totally see it this way, and I don't have a problem with it.
I'm sorry, what exactly has he done that should inspire such regard from Giants fans? He had a mediocre tenure in Carolina, was hired by the Giants after a sham interview process led by Ernie goddamned Accorsi of all people, and the team is an absolute disaster. He's mighty short on reasons to believe in him.
I don't even think an argument can be put forth that says we'd be better off with Darnold, dead cap money and no Barkley. Maybe not even in Year 2. Same place we are in now, with even more roster holes.
I'm guessing it was a little of both, just my gut. Probably went inter interviews asking each candidate how they can make it work with Eli. In part because of the legacy, part due to his large dead cap hit, part due to being pissed that Reese failed in building the line and didn't want Eli to go out like that.
But i think year 2 is completely different. OL has been playing better and Eli's been very up and down. His cap hit isn't that bad. BUT, the QB's coming out don't wow and if you don't love one, might as well just keep Eli and let his contract expire.
I think you'll see a new Mara when Eli is gone.
We did that.
And he still acts as if nothing tangible has happened.
I'll give Gettleman for getting rid of some (but not all) of the idiots.
C'mon Man. He was part of a dysfunctional Carolina organization that went to a Super Bowl. Gettleman compiled a record of 40-23-1 during his time as GM of the Panthers. That's mediocre??
I've already addressed how it is bullshit to hold a hiring process against him. How in any aspect does that detract from respect he should have??
And for Christ's Sake, he's been here one year. "The team is an absolute disaster"?? That's pinned on him and not the preceding years of terrible drafts?
It is like you guys aren't even being rational.
I doubt that, at 67 years old, Gettleman would have landed a GM job anywhere else in the league.
Due to the draft and timing DG had little choice but to keep the guys who had been scouting all year. I don't have the exact quotes, but remember vividly him describing that he was planning to keep them on "for now". In the interim, I recall him describing how he was giving them very specific set of instructions on how to evaluate/grade the players they were scouting all year.
With the scouts knowing their job was on the line he gets a chance to see them do their best with the new directions for evaluation/grading.
The results? We had what has pretty much been accepted as a good to very good draft.
In other words, maybe the scouts were part of the problem before because of a culture change that was needed. Rumors of Ross being lazy might hold some truth. Who knows, but the GM can fix that right away without having to build an entirely new scouting department. Maybe the scouts were not lazy, but were directed to evaluate players in a way that was ineffective.
Just like with any data - the quality of the data is important, but just as important is the interpretation of the data. DG may have done a good job of addressing both of those things at the same time.
I'm willing to give the amateur scouts another year to see if they've properly addressed the previous failings.
He's walked back his mistakes. He's got another chance this offseason to cut bait on more.
Two major decisions; is Shurmur a championship level coach and can Gettleman improve the talent quickly enough to coincide with the tread Manning has left?
Having said all that, I concede that there were several bad choices made. I don't blow this up immediately because I know that nobody bats 1.000 at GM. I'm going to do my personnel evaluation by looking beyond the hit/miss rate of such a small sample size. That's extreme short-term thinking.
ok.
Quote:
We know he is well respected around the league and do not expect him to be off the market long.
I doubt that, at 67 years old, Gettleman would have landed a GM job anywhere else in the league.
I'll amend to "We believe he is well respected around the league and do not expect him to be off the market long."
It's okay to disagree - I'm definitely not right, just sharing what I think the viewpoint may have been, or at least how I would have looked at it if I were in Mara's shoes.
I do think that DG is highly regarded. I'm not sure what would have happened, especially after the cancer diagnosis. Maybe he just settles into retirement at that point had he not accepted the job. Who knows?
Having said all that, I concede that there were several bad choices made. I don't blow this up immediately because I know that nobody bats 1.000 at GM. I'm going to do my personnel evaluation by looking beyond the hit/miss rate of such a small sample size. That's extreme short-term thinking.
None of the misses are going to have any long term impacts on the success of the team. It's not like he signed Albert Haynesworth to a 100 million contract that will hurt our cap for years to come. It's also not like he missed signing a bunch of talented players that he could/should have.
Quote:
Its quite simple..
Sean : 3:44 pm : link : reply
The play of Eli was greatly miscalculated.
Also, the fans didnt help last year with their outrage.
I'm not going to even get into if the play of Eli was miscalculated or not. I'd rather ask if we would reasonably expect to have a better record if Eli wasn't the QB.
If not, then why is this evaluation of Eli looked at as critical to how the season has gone??
I can't reasonably make an argument that shows we would be better if we had Alex Smith, Kirk Cousins, a drafted rookie or Eli.
None of the misses are going to have any long term impacts on the success of the team. It's not like he signed Albert Haynesworth to a 100 million contract that will hurt our cap for years to come. It's also not like he missed signing a bunch of talented players that he could/should have.
That's my take as well. Everyone's going to miss given enough swings - but with the most important swings you've got to put the ball in play. A swing and a miss early in the count doesn't mean the hitter is an absolute failure.
If the guy is known as a professional hitter - you watch closely to see if there is a trend continuing but you don't immediately bench him because of a strike early on.
I could see not signing Beckham. What would have gotten in return?
What else? trade Collins and Jenkins?
Now u need a wr and a qb and an ol and a dl and lb and a secondary.
imo it was not really a 3 win team. it was a 0 to 1 win team.
guys to root for a sports team you will live through tough times. But I'm not hearing any reasonable playful improvement from your suggestions that tells me it's a path to the playoffs one season faster.
please remember that as a GM you also will make good decisions that dont work out no matter how sound your choices.
some times choice is the choice of the lesser risk.
Quote:
Agreed that they were misses. My thinking is that they were poor choices at the time, but there were not a TON of great options available, particularly on the OL. In the past we could look at a guy like Whitworth and wonder why we didn't bring him in. Who were the great FA's this year we missed out on?
Having said all that, I concede that there were several bad choices made. I don't blow this up immediately because I know that nobody bats 1.000 at GM. I'm going to do my personnel evaluation by looking beyond the hit/miss rate of such a small sample size. That's extreme short-term thinking.
None of the misses are going to have any long term impacts on the success of the team. It's not like he signed Albert Haynesworth to a 100 million contract that will hurt our cap for years to come. It's also not like he missed signing a bunch of talented players that he could/should have.
In the aggregate Gettleman did commit a lot of guaranteed money to players who have not played well. Keep an eye on the Solder deal in the coming years.
The Eagles hired Pederson & got him Wentz.
I assumed that the Giants would draft their future QB & pair him with an offensive coach like Shurmur. That always felt the most logical to me in terms of team building.
Its done now though, now they need to figure out how to win while Barkley is playing at an all pro level.
I could see not signing Beckham. What would have gotten in return?
What else? trade Collins and Jenkins?
Now u need a wr and a qb and an ol and a dl and lb and a secondary.
imo it was not really a 3 win team. it was a 0 to 1 win team.
guys to root for a sports team you will live through tough times. But I'm not hearing any reasonable playful improvement from your suggestions that tells me it's a path to the playoffs one season faster.
please remember that as a GM you also will make good decisions that dont work out no matter how sound your choices.
some times choice is the choice of the lesser risk.
I think those who advocate "blowing it up" are referring to the top of the organization more so than to the player personnel decisions.
So it would have been - fire McAdoo, Reese, Ross, Abrams, all the scouts, and Chris Mara. Fire basically all the front office including support staff and everyone involved with football operations, including all of the coaches and trainers. DO NOT HIRE ANYONE with any connections to the previous regime to help with replacing the aforementioned. Conduct an exhaustive search and bring in the top people who are available so they can build the team correctly.
Then, expect that the new coach and GM not miss on rebuilding the franchise right away. If they start out 1-7 or similar get rid of them, they obviously haven't made enough good change.
End of the year don't accept mediocrity or fool yourself into thinking that five wins or so is any kind of improvement. If they don't get it fixed - fire them all and repeat the above process.
This is obviously the best way to run an organization, kind of surprised you missed that Bill2.
Quote:
In comment 14227964 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
Agreed that they were misses. My thinking is that they were poor choices at the time, but there were not a TON of great options available, particularly on the OL. In the past we could look at a guy like Whitworth and wonder why we didn't bring him in. Who were the great FA's this year we missed out on?
Having said all that, I concede that there were several bad choices made. I don't blow this up immediately because I know that nobody bats 1.000 at GM. I'm going to do my personnel evaluation by looking beyond the hit/miss rate of such a small sample size. That's extreme short-term thinking.
None of the misses are going to have any long term impacts on the success of the team. It's not like he signed Albert Haynesworth to a 100 million contract that will hurt our cap for years to come. It's also not like he missed signing a bunch of talented players that he could/should have.
In the aggregate Gettleman did commit a lot of guaranteed money to players who have not played well. Keep an eye on the Solder deal in the coming years.
What players have we missed out on as a result of the players that were signed?
For a while there I was lost.
I thought they did fire everyone but Abrams so I guess the goal is to hire someone you dont know to hire sure things they dont know.
Sort of alignment from top to bottom.
Is there an organization of any kind where no one knew anyone before?
Brings to mind Woody Allen. Let's have a team where everyone wouldnt want to be on a team which would chose them as a member.
And for Christ's Sake, he's been here one year. "The team is an absolute disaster"?? That's pinned on him and not the preceding years of terrible drafts?
It is like you guys aren't even being rational.
I'll support you on this one, the team was absolutely a disaster when he got here, both talent and culture were dumpster fires. Impossible to fix all that in one, or even 2 off seasons.
Given the state of the team, that this was going to be a multi year rebuild (forget about the marketing speak of competing this year), he needs more time.
In the spring, I wasn't buying that this team had any chance of being competitive this year. And I am still not buying it for next year. None of that reflects on Gettleman, it reflects on the previous regime. By year 3, Gettleman has to take responsibility for the results. There should be tangible evidence of significant improvement. Like being in contention for the playoffs. SB contention is further out than that.
People want a quick fix, unfortunately there is none to be had for this team. Just not that easy. They will point to the Rams turn around, and I point to a team that was building for years before they reached critical mass. It may seem like a quick turn around, but it wasn't, it was years in the making.
What players have we missed out on as a result of the players that were signed?
With a rolling cap all bad investments have a future impact. It's not who the Giants have missed out on, it's the future flexibility to make moves and who they will miss out on.
Gettleman fell flat in UFA, doesn't disqualify him or preclude future success. But maybe he needs to reassess his UFA calculus.
Quote:
And for Christ's Sake, he's been here one year. "The team is an absolute disaster"?? That's pinned on him and not the preceding years of terrible drafts?
It is like you guys aren't even being rational.
I'll support you on this one, the team was absolutely a disaster when he got here, both talent and culture were dumpster fires. Impossible to fix all that in one, or even 2 off seasons.
Given the state of the team, that this was going to be a multi year rebuild (forget about the marketing speak of competing this year), he needs more time.
In the spring, I wasn't buying that this team had any chance of being competitive this year. And I am still not buying it for next year. None of that reflects on Gettleman, it reflects on the previous regime. By year 3, Gettleman has to take responsibility for the results. There should be tangible evidence of significant improvement. Like being in contention for the playoffs. SB contention is further out than that.
People want a quick fix, unfortunately there is none to be had for this team. Just not that easy. They will point to the Rams turn around, and I point to a team that was building for years before they reached critical mass. It may seem like a quick turn around, but it wasn't, it was years in the making.
McL, would be great to connect off BBI BTW. Working on a retail portfolio research product, seems like you would be great to add to our beta test. bbimock@yahoo.com if you are interested, no worries if not
Quote:
What players have we missed out on as a result of the players that were signed?
With a rolling cap all bad investments have a future impact. It's not who the Giants have missed out on, it's the future flexibility to make moves and who they will miss out on.
Gettleman fell flat in UFA, doesn't disqualify him or preclude future success. But maybe he needs to reassess his UFA calculus.
Stweart and Omameh are not huge hits, we've eaten them and can move on. No big deal...
Solder is a pill to swallow, but unfortunately he was a necessary evil. There was simply no way to walk into this season without having done something in FA for the OL. Everybody, the Maras, players and fans would have been outside his house with torches and pitchforks. It simply wasn't going to happen.
That contract along with the ones that Richburg and Pugh got do highlight the fact that signing FA OL given the current state of the market is not a sustainable or viable strategy. OL is going to have to come through the draft.
None of the misses are going to have any long term impacts on the success of the team.
When a team has needs all over the roster, you can say this definitively with what to support it?
Any money that sits dead because of an expensive mistake is a wasted resource that could be used. You cant complain about years of lack of quality roster depth and then wave off wasted money as trivial. Every team gets a finite amount of money to build a roster. The details do matter.
Quote:
In comment 14227964 Dan in the
None of the misses are going to have any long term impacts on the success of the team.
When a team has needs all over the roster, you can say this definitively with what to support it?
Any money that sits dead because of an expensive mistake is a wasted resource that could be used. You cant complain about years of lack of quality roster depth and then wave off wasted money as trivial. Every team gets a finite amount of money to build a roster. The details do matter.
My take, most of the hits we took this year already. Some will carry over to next year. However I don't expect the team to be in contention for anything next year. I would work things next year to continue clearing cap space for 2020. Move as much salary and guarantees as possible into 2019. Don't go hog wild in FA just yet. By the time 202 rolls around, those contract are off the books entirely, and I can envision this team having 70+ million in cap space. So wasting 3 - 5 million in 2019 isn't going to make a significant dent in the teams ability to build the roster.
That said, he can't be repeating those mistakes going forward, they will accumulate and start to hurt.
Quote:
And for Christ's Sake, he's been here one year. "The team is an absolute disaster"?? That's pinned on him and not the preceding years of terrible drafts?
It is like you guys aren't even being rational.
I'll support you on this one, the team was absolutely a disaster when he got here, both talent and culture were dumpster fires. Impossible to fix all that in one, or even 2 off seasons.
Given the state of the team, that this was going to be a multi year rebuild (forget about the marketing speak of competing this year), he needs more time.
In the spring, I wasn't buying that this team had any chance of being competitive this year. And I am still not buying it for next year. None of that reflects on Gettleman, it reflects on the previous regime. By year 3, Gettleman has to take responsibility for the results. There should be tangible evidence of significant improvement. Like being in contention for the playoffs. SB contention is further out than that.
People want a quick fix, unfortunately there is none to be had for this team. Just not that easy. They will point to the Rams turn around, and I point to a team that was building for years before they reached critical mass. It may seem like a quick turn around, but it wasn't, it was years in the making.
This is the thing....
Some fans (like you've illustrated here) knew how big the talent issue became here. Mostly due to empty drafts that yielded nothing or close to nothing for a string spanning several years.
I don't care what anyone thinks of Dave Gettleman - forget whether or not you think he's the right guy. .
The bottom line is that no matter who came in here, this was going to have to be more than a 1 year process. There were holes EVERYWHERE. We had to gut the bad football players, the guys with the character concerns, and it left us with a roster that had more holes than we could viably fill with the limited resources we had.
Knowing that; why would anyone be surprised by this season or have expected it to be much different?
I can't come up with any series of feasible offseason moves that would have made the Giants a playoff team this year. Can anyone else? I doubt it.
Everyone's cranky and annoyed that the team is still stuck in this hole, but we need to be reasonably realistic about how we view this process.
Barkley vs. Darnold has been debated to a beyond-stale point, and guess what - if we had drafted Sam Darnold (or any of the other available QB's that were on the board @ 2), we'd still suck right now. We'd still have 5 wins. We might even have less. People would still complain, would still be annoyed... these threads would all still exist.
I get being tired of losing and crappy football - what I don't get are those who seem surprised by this or are acting like the Giants were supposed to be much better this year. Where is that coming from?
Based on an objective look at the players on the roster, I've certainly been warning folks to lower their expectations for quite some time.
Unfortunately, I think Gettleman and Shurmur talked the team up in the spring and early summer. I think a lot of folks bought into that, and now feel betrayed.
The problem is, what are they supposed to say. "Yeah, the team is devoid of talent and we will be lucky to win more 4 or 5 games. Oh, and by the way, its going to be like this for at least a couple of years. So uhm, take a deep breath and hold your nose! But it will get better. Maybe your kids will get to see it!"
</snark>
It's nothing but press conference coach speak. He knows we're not very good right now. He's not going to stand up there and throw players under the bus or belabor the point/create unnecessary waves and headlines over it.
You say the boring shit to the press, and then address issues behind closed doors.
Fans shouldn't be upset about Gettleman saying the team could win now, they should be upset with themselves for believing it or putting so much stock into it without being logical regarding what the state of the roster was and is.
It's nothing but press conference coach speak. He knows we're not very good right now. He's not going to stand up there and throw players under the bus or belabor the point/create unnecessary waves and headlines over it.
You say the boring shit to the press, and then address issues behind closed doors.
Fans shouldn't be upset about Gettleman saying the team could win now, they should be upset with themselves for believing it or putting so much stock into it without being logical regarding what the state of the roster was and is.
I saw that thread and posted what I saw as the list of needs... Concluding from that list that we are closer to bottom feeders right now than we are to being a playoff contender.
There is another thread asking how many players away are we... I reposted my list there, I noticed your's was similar.
Here is the thing... Those lists assume that nothing goes wrong. No career ending, or career diminishing injuries. Nobody knocking out some woman in a hotel elevator, and Gettleman hitting on all his premium picks, and FA signings... What are the odds that nothing goes wrong.
Unfortunately, I'm also a hopeful guy and the Giants are probably a bigger part of my life than I'd generally admit to the public, so it doesn't take much to get my hopes up. I do it every year.
I will probably do it again next year. I know this and don't mind. I'm not sure how I'd act if I went into the season with no hope at all.
Anyway - the cycle continues - being hopeful then disappointed. I've had to put my trust in the Giants ownership to help interrupt that cycle at times. I can certainly understand some giving up on that, but I really feel like looking at the larger picture we've been pretty fortunate as fans. We're not having the success I want, but I've enjoyed a lot of football along the way.
So it would have been - fire McAdoo, Reese, Ross, Abrams, all the scouts, and Chris Mara. Fire basically all the front office including support staff and everyone involved with football operations, including all of the coaches and trainers. DO NOT HIRE ANYONE with any connections to the previous regime to help with replacing the aforementioned. Conduct an exhaustive search and bring in the top people who are available so they can build the team correctly.
Then, expect that the new coach and GM not miss on rebuilding the franchise right away. If they start out 1-7 or similar get rid of them, they obviously haven't made enough good change.
End of the year don't accept mediocrity or fool yourself into thinking that five wins or so is any kind of improvement. If they don't get it fixed - fire them all and repeat the above process.
This is obviously the best way to run an organization, kind of surprised you missed that Bill2.
Unfortunately, I'm also a hopeful guy and the Giants are probably a bigger part of my life than I'd generally admit to the public, so it doesn't take much to get my hopes up. I do it every year.
I will probably do it again next year. I know this and don't mind. I'm not sure how I'd act if I went into the season with no hope at all.
Anyway - the cycle continues - being hopeful then disappointed. I've had to put my trust in the Giants ownership to help interrupt that cycle at times. I can certainly understand some giving up on that, but I really feel like looking at the larger picture we've been pretty fortunate as fans. We're not having the success I want, but I've enjoyed a lot of football along the way.
I am rational, hopeful, but also analytical... I call it as I see it. In a season like this I look for incremental improvement. This year in particular I was hoping to see something along the OL. It wasn't happening before the bye. Once Brown got here, there has definitely been improvement. Small victories
Quote:
Eli has no useful trade value and a hit to the cap.
I could see not signing Beckham. What would have gotten in return?
What else? trade Collins and Jenkins?
Now u need a wr and a qb and an ol and a dl and lb and a secondary.
imo it was not really a 3 win team. it was a 0 to 1 win team.
guys to root for a sports team you will live through tough times. But I'm not hearing any reasonable playful improvement from your suggestions that tells me it's a path to the playoffs one season faster.
please remember that as a GM you also will make good decisions that dont work out no matter how sound your choices.
some times choice is the choice of the lesser risk.
I think those who advocate "blowing it up" are referring to the top of the organization more so than to the player personnel decisions.
So it would have been - fire McAdoo, Reese, Ross, Abrams, all the scouts, and Chris Mara. Fire basically all the front office including support staff and everyone involved with football operations, including all of the coaches and trainers. DO NOT HIRE ANYONE with any connections to the previous regime to help with replacing the aforementioned. Conduct an exhaustive search and bring in the top people who are available so they can build the team correctly.
Then, expect that the new coach and GM not miss on rebuilding the franchise right away. If they start out 1-7 or similar get rid of them, they obviously haven't made enough good change.
End of the year don't accept mediocrity or fool yourself into thinking that five wins or so is any kind of improvement. If they don't get it fixed - fire them all and repeat the above process.
This is obviously the best way to run an organization, kind of surprised you missed that Bill2.
I'm curious - do you think a financial services organization that was struggling to make a profit could make a nepotistic hire and escape scrutiny or criticism? Seems like you're basing your joke on your experience elsewhere, as if a bank of any reasonable size would somehow be able to bring someone back in a senior management capacity, continue to have poor results, and not somehow be drawn and quartered in the media.
Hell - the main reason Jamie Dimon has a Park Ave address these days is because he refused to play nice with Sandy Weill's kid.
The Giants didn't even attempt to conduct a bona fide GM search. They brought in a single external candidate - someone who had never been employed at that level or even one or two below, Marc Ross, and Gettleman. The advisor they brought in? His former boss, and their former GM.
So I think I'd skip the 'anyone who's ever worked for an organization before' jokes, because anyone who's ever worked for a sizable org - especially one with visibility, like a publicly traded entity or a football team in the media capital of the world - would be laughed out of the room for suggesting that a farce of a GM search like this wouldn't be ridiculed if the results continued to be poor.
Ironically - here's what that sole external candidate, someone who hasn't even been head of pro personnel for a team before, had to say:
"Drafting a young player has to be on the ticket anyway, just by virtue of the fact that you know [Manning is] closer to the end then the beginning," Riddick said. "There's a lot of different moving parts here. But I think everybody will win in the end. I think Eli will get what he wants, and I think the Giants will just move on into the future."
I am rational, hopeful, but also analytical... I call it as I see it. In a season like this I look for incremental improvement. This year in particular I was hoping to see something along the OL. It wasn't happening before the bye. Once Brown got here, there has definitely been improvement. Small victories
In your analysis, did you consider the level of opposition that happened to coincide with the improvement along the OL?
Quote:
In comment 14227982 Bill2 said:
Quote:
Eli has no useful trade value and a hit to the cap.
I could see not signing Beckham. What would have gotten in return?
What else? trade Collins and Jenkins?
Now u need a wr and a qb and an ol and a dl and lb and a secondary.
imo it was not really a 3 win team. it was a 0 to 1 win team.
guys to root for a sports team you will live through tough times. But I'm not hearing any reasonable playful improvement from your suggestions that tells me it's a path to the playoffs one season faster.
please remember that as a GM you also will make good decisions that dont work out no matter how sound your choices.
some times choice is the choice of the lesser risk.
I think those who advocate "blowing it up" are referring to the top of the organization more so than to the player personnel decisions.
So it would have been - fire McAdoo, Reese, Ross, Abrams, all the scouts, and Chris Mara. Fire basically all the front office including support staff and everyone involved with football operations, including all of the coaches and trainers. DO NOT HIRE ANYONE with any connections to the previous regime to help with replacing the aforementioned. Conduct an exhaustive search and bring in the top people who are available so they can build the team correctly.
Then, expect that the new coach and GM not miss on rebuilding the franchise right away. If they start out 1-7 or similar get rid of them, they obviously haven't made enough good change.
End of the year don't accept mediocrity or fool yourself into thinking that five wins or so is any kind of improvement. If they don't get it fixed - fire them all and repeat the above process.
This is obviously the best way to run an organization, kind of surprised you missed that Bill2.
I'm curious - do you think a financial services organization that was struggling to make a profit could make a nepotistic hire and escape scrutiny or criticism? Seems like you're basing your joke on your experience elsewhere, as if a bank of any reasonable size would somehow be able to bring someone back in a senior management capacity, continue to have poor results, and not somehow be drawn and quartered in the media.
Hell - the main reason Jamie Dimon has a Park Ave address these days is because he refused to play nice with Sandy Weill's kid.
The Giants didn't even attempt to conduct a bona fide GM search. They brought in a single external candidate - someone who had never been employed at that level or even one or two below, Marc Ross, and Gettleman. The advisor they brought in? His former boss, and their former GM.
So I think I'd skip the 'anyone who's ever worked for an organization before' jokes, because anyone who's ever worked for a sizable org - especially one with visibility, like a publicly traded entity or a football team in the media capital of the world - would be laughed out of the room for suggesting that a farce of a GM search like this wouldn't be ridiculed if the results continued to be poor.
Ironically - here's what that sole external candidate, someone who hasn't even been head of pro personnel for a team before, had to say:
Quote:
"Drafting a young player has to be on the ticket anyway, just by virtue of the fact that you know [Manning is] closer to the end then the beginning," Riddick said. "There's a lot of different moving parts here. But I think everybody will win in the end. I think Eli will get what he wants, and I think the Giants will just move on into the future."
You don't think there is nepotism or at least cronyism in large financial institutions. You don't think there is a merry go round of the same retreads in senior management... I have news for you...
Apparently unless the Giants are a Super Bowl caliber team, we're not allowed to point out anywhere that the team may have improved because they're still struggling as a whole.
Eli was sacked 31 times in the first 8 weeks of this season.
That number has been split in half since. He's been sacked 15 times in the last 6 games. Barring some truly horrid pass pro the final two weeks, I think it's safe to say there was at least marginal improvement.
He was sacked by the Redskins seven times alone in the first meeting. The same defense only got him twice 2 weeks ago.
Improvement doesn't have to equal contentment or mean we're satisfied. The point is, you have to actually go from point A to point B by taking steps forward. You don't teleport there and just arrive with no in between. It doesn't work like that.
Quote:
I am rational, hopeful, but also analytical... I call it as I see it. In a season like this I look for incremental improvement. This year in particular I was hoping to see something along the OL. It wasn't happening before the bye. Once Brown got here, there has definitely been improvement. Small victories
In your analysis, did you consider the level of opposition that happened to coincide with the improvement along the OL?
Are you suggesting that the OL played better because they were facing backup QBs? Because the defenses they played against actually had pretty stout DLines, unless you think the Bears, Redskins, Eagles, etc have terrible lines?
And the same Jaguars team that had people lauding Tom Coughlin effusively just one year ago wound up starting not one, but TWO of our offensive line rejects from this year...
Like I keep saying - you don't go from "complete disaster" to a strength in one offseason. I have no idea how anyone could have looked at the offensive line personnel when Gettleman arrived and have thought that this should only take one year to get right.
That just isn't computing for me.
Want to rail on Jerry Reese for not doing enough? By all means - it's a valid criticism. Not only did Reese try to squeeze more out of a completely dry lemon for far too long, but once he did start trying to repair the offensive line, a lot of the guys he drafted/brought in were complete garbage.
Show me any series of moves that could have fixed this in one year and were realistic this past offseason with the allotted draft/cap capital we had available to us and I am all ears.
Andrew Norwell hasn't even been that good this year - so even if we had signed him, we'd still be talking about a disappointment or poor value.
Or that the Redskins didn't look completely listless on both sides of the ball, knowing any chance they had at that division went flying right out the fucking window and smacked Mark Sanchez in the ass when both Smith and McCoy went down?
Or that the Eagles D didn't adjust when they had to play a bunch of scrubs at CB?
Do I think that Jamon Brown made a difference to the OL? Of course I did. Did they make some kind of remarkable turnaround? Well - the second they came up against a team that wasn't missing their starting QB or all of their corners, how did they fare?
Quote:
I am rational, hopeful, but also analytical... I call it as I see it. In a season like this I look for incremental improvement. This year in particular I was hoping to see something along the OL. It wasn't happening before the bye. Once Brown got here, there has definitely been improvement. Small victories
In your analysis, did you consider the level of opposition that happened to coincide with the improvement along the OL?
Yup... I have...
There is still a marked improvement despite the fiasco against the Titans. The OL in before the bye was historically bad. Granted the competition was weaker after the bye. But the Bears are strong, the Eagles and Redskins had the same DL... And its not like the Falcons DL pt the fear of god into anybody and the pre bye line looked atrocious... Definitely improvement.
I'm curious - do you think a financial services organization that was struggling to make a profit could make a nepotistic hire and escape scrutiny or criticism? Seems like you're basing your joke on your experience elsewhere, as if a bank of any reasonable size would somehow be able to bring someone back in a senior management capacity, continue to have poor results, and not somehow be drawn and quartered in the media.
Hell - the main reason Jamie Dimon has a Park Ave address these days is because he refused to play nice with Sandy Weill's kid.
The Giants didn't even attempt to conduct a bona fide GM search. They brought in a single external candidate - someone who had never been employed at that level or even one or two below, Marc Ross, and Gettleman. The advisor they brought in? His former boss, and their former GM.
So I think I'd skip the 'anyone who's ever worked for an organization before' jokes, because anyone who's ever worked for a sizable org - especially one with visibility, like a publicly traded entity or a football team in the media capital of the world - would be laughed out of the room for suggesting that a farce of a GM search like this wouldn't be ridiculed if the results continued to be poor.
Ironically - here's what that sole external candidate, someone who hasn't even been head of pro personnel for a team before, had to say:
Quote:
"Drafting a young player has to be on the ticket anyway, just by virtue of the fact that you know [Manning is] closer to the end then the beginning," Riddick said. "There's a lot of different moving parts here. But I think everybody will win in the end. I think Eli will get what he wants, and I think the Giants will just move on into the future."
I don't think the analogy works in a field so broad as finance for a variety of reasons. If you want I can go into detail but not right now. In short I'll say that given the very limited timeframe they had to work with and the very, very limited number of qualified, experienced, successful and known individuals I think the hiring process makes a lot of sense.
I think the speed with which they moved is indicative of how highly they considered the guy who got the job.
One guy they hired was with ESPN as an analyst.
With 32 teams across the NFL - are you saying they couldn't find not *one* other guy worthy of consideration to add to this process?
I think the analogy to finance works just fine - and I think Dan drastically oversimplified his thinking, either to arrive at a preconceived conclusion or to make a joke. I'm hoping it's the latter.
But I don't think you can come up with any objective measure to say that there was no improvement in the OL after the bye. There are plenty of objective measures that it did improve.
Improvement here is a very very very low bar... Like I said, the line was the worst in the league and historically bad before the bye. The only reason there were more sacks is because Eli was averaging getting rid of the ball in 1.8 seconds for the first 8 weeks. Think about that. 1.8 seconds!!! At the time it was a full half second faster than any other team. Eli's lightening fast release made the line look better than it was. There are various measures of offensive lines out there. All of them had the Giants dead last in run blocking. There is only 1 metric for pass blocking that I put any stock into and that is pass block win %. The Giants were last in that measure as well. In fact, every starter on the Giants was last in the league for their position... Taken together the Giants run blocking and pass block win % revealed a historically bad OL. Not just the worst in the league this year up to that point. The worst in past 10 seasons where data was available.
So yeah, there has been improvement. Is it a good OL... Not yet, not by a long shot.
Quote:
very, very limited number of qualified, experienced, successful and known individuals
One guy they hired was with ESPN as an analyst.
With 32 teams across the NFL - are you saying they couldn't find not *one* other guy worthy of consideration to add to this process?
I think the analogy to finance works just fine - and I think Dan drastically oversimplified his thinking, either to arrive at a preconceived conclusion or to make a joke. I'm hoping it's the latter.
I did not post that.
Look at the Panthers. When they fired Gettleman, their old GM Marty Hurney was hired as interim GM. And is the permanent GM. I think they will make a change there soon under the new ownership, but the hiring process was non-existent.
Come to think of it, what is the norm - an exhaustive search for a GM, or often a hire among a very limited number of candidates?
And I'm still struggling to understand how the hiring of Gettleman is supposed to reflect one way or another on the way he's treated here. Was he supposed to insist that ownership look at other candidates?
Look at the Panthers. When they fired Gettleman, their old GM Marty Hurney was hired as interim GM. And is the permanent GM. I think they will make a change there soon under the new ownership, but the hiring process was non-existent.
Come to think of it, what is the norm - an exhaustive search for a GM, or often a hire among a very limited number of candidates?
And I'm still struggling to understand how the hiring of Gettleman is supposed to reflect one way or another on the way he's treated here. Was he supposed to insist that ownership look at other candidates?
Its simple. People here that think they are much, much smarter than they really are didnt like the Gettleman hire. They said it back then and now they are doubling and tripling down on it. Has an GM in the history of sports come in and have a fan base expect to completely turn around a 3-13 team in one season? Hell, it wasnt close to one season before the know it alls were screaming that he was an epic failure. Because they didnt like him, hes old so he must not like analytics (which by the way has becuthe most over used catch phrase on BBI) and every move he makes certainly sucks. The fact that Sam Darnold gets treated around here like hes Tom Brady in his prime is a perfect example. He shows flashes. And is Guaita be a top 5 QB for 15 years. I mean, talk about creating narratives. Darnold has mostly been dreadful. But he shows flashes? So, basically what he was in college and raised red flags about him. But hey, hes a QB! And thats all that matters. Oh, and the Giants would get the patience from this abysmal fan base to take 5 years to rebuild had they taken Darnold. Because at least then there would be hope..
Yeah, sure. These clowns would be so patient while watching Darnold flap around on this team minus Barkley and Beckham (most of these same guys wanted Beckham let go). Sure they would. But hey, at least hes a QB! An insanely flawed QB, but who cares!
Quote:
very, very limited number of qualified, experienced, successful and known individuals
One guy they hired was with ESPN as an analyst.
With 32 teams across the NFL - are you saying they couldn't find not *one* other guy worthy of consideration to add to this process?
I think the analogy to finance works just fine - and I think Dan drastically oversimplified his thinking, either to arrive at a preconceived conclusion or to make a joke. I'm hoping it's the latter.
I wrote that.
Maybe I'm getting a little tired because I usually don't like using sarcasm to make a point. Apologies for my previous tone.
Here's what I meant by that particular quote. How many recent "Executive of the Year" winners were available or going to be available? That award, unlike the award given by the PFWA, is based on a vote by the league's executives.
Of the very short list that entails, how many of them were known and trusted by the Giants organization as someone they knew they could work with and shared a philosophy for building a winning franchise?
I was not joking when I wrote that line.
I think whenever a hiring manager has an opening they often start by thinking of people they've worked with in the past. Someone they respect deeply and someone who has achieved stellar results. Usually those people are employed elsewhere enjoying the fruits of their labors. When one of them happens to be available you simply have to give him a call. You learn in your interview the details about why they're available and you assess whether they are truly the guy you're looking for. If so, you just hire them.
Here are some reasons I don't think the comparisons to finance (and many other industries) works.
1. Contracts and rules. NFL has rules about poaching, many other industries do not.
2. Timeframes. Rules and deadlines set around FA, the draft, interviews for coaches and other staff, etc.
3. Niche skill-set experience required. Okay, if you want to narrow the finance down A TON, you might be able to make a comparable comparison. Otherwise, the ratio of people experienced in finance to the number of experienced NFL front office/scouting people is probably something like 50,000:1.
4. Extremely different objectives. If you want to win in finance you simply need to return a profit. Some of the best financiers won because they invented their own new revenue streams. In the NFL, there is only one objective and everyone is directly competing for it.
That's just off the top of my head, but given time I could find some more reasons the comparison isn't great I'm sure.
Lombardi
Walsh
Belichek
Auerbach
Wooden
Popovich
Noll
Landry
Allen
Zidane
Young
Rockne
McGraw
Billy Martin
Joe Torre
Stick Michael
Yogi Berra
Brian Cashman
They all won multiple Championships.
They were all hired by organizations that had people who knew them before and through a hiring process that had no other candidates.
The horror. all guaranteed to be shot before they actually performed because they were part of a flawed process.
like the process that nominated George Washington. all insider recommendations.
this is about feelings. it's hard to root for a flawed team. that's cool. it's not about being reasonable or fact based or making apt comparisons
Of course, Im sure the same guys screaming this on a daily basis would be just fine with Gettlemans technology intellect had he only drafted a QB. Any QB. Because we wanted a QB. Come hell or high water, a QB! That way there would Eva future!
The point he makes about frustration is dead on the money.
I don't think you can find any fan who isn't frustrated. But the daily rendering of the garments and overreactions are simply tiring.
We have a new regime and they basically have been torn about since Day 1. From the Barkley pick. To the FA period. To the terrible season. But there's no consistency in the complaints. We made moves to shore up the weak areas. We turned over a roster that needed a purge. We drafted the top player in the draft. And yet a lot of posters, including several on this thread not only find these things abhorrent, they give not one iota of credit.
I don't expect perfect logic when it comes to fandom, but I also don't expect complete idiocy either.
The point he makes about frustration is dead on the money.
I don't think you can find any fan who isn't frustrated. But the daily rendering of the garments and overreactions are simply tiring.
We have a new regime and they basically have been torn about since Day 1. From the Barkley pick. To the FA period. To the terrible season. But there's no consistency in the complaints. We made moves to shore up the weak areas. We turned over a roster that needed a purge. We drafted the top player in the draft. And yet a lot of posters, including several on this thread not only find these things abhorrent, they give not one iota of credit.
I don't expect perfect logic when it comes to fandom, but I also don't expect complete idiocy either.
And the SAME people guilty of what you claim, were the SAME people who were actually figuring out playoff possibilities. You cant make that shit up
The ownership brings in a "character" in every sense of the word. He plays up the old school act, and the manage by his gut act by design. It's disarming.
He's not an idiot, he was a part of the success of the Super Bowl era. He's been part of many Super Bowls. Hiring him wasn't a criminal act.
He comes in, he talks a bunch, he spends a lot of money (trades, UFA, extensions more than Reese's abhorrent 'spree') -- and a lot of those moves failed. Again not a crime.
He's going to get criticism. He deserves it. He's going to get "disrespect" on the internet.
Now he's got all the skill, experience, and bravado to go kick major ass this off-season. He needs to, the Giants need to make decisions on 20 or more players starting in 3 weeks. If he doesn't do better the fans will keep it up, and in some small part the ownership will hear it.
But the losses continue to mount. Expecting a turn around requires faith because proof doesn't exist.
Lombardi
Walsh
Belichek
Auerbach
Wooden
Popovich
Noll
Landry
Allen
Zidane
Young
Rockne
McGraw
Billy Martin
Joe Torre
Stick Michael
Yogi Berra
Brian Cashman
They all won multiple Championships.
They were all hired by organizations that had people who knew them before and through a hiring process that had no other candidates.
The horror. all guaranteed to be shot before they actually performed because they were part of a flawed process.
like the process that nominated George Washington. all insider recommendations.
this is about feelings. it's hard to root for a flawed team. that's cool. it's not about being reasonable or fact based or making apt comparisons
I'm not sure what "feelings" mean, but for me it's fairly straightforward why I find the Gettleman hire the wrong one - culture. He's been part of the "Giants Way" culture. And I thought the last thing this organization needed was any connection to that because we have a culture problem.
This was the perfect time - after so many hires with connections to the "Giant Way" - to pull the pin on the grenade and blow up that inclination. There have been just too many seasons now with the wrong outcome. Just get out of this comfort zone and pivot the complete, opposite direction. It's an effective tool and approach in the business world. I've lived it numerous times. Build a new culture with new faces, voices, ages, ideas, etc.
But then the Accorsi announcement was made. And sadly it was too clear - the old man lost his nerve and blinked. The excitement of doing a real, wide search for something new was just a canard. He tipped his hand and the fix was in - Dave Gettleman. No, this wasn't like Apple hiring back Steve Jobs. It was back to the "Giants Way". If Gettleman was the NFL equivalent of Jerry West, a master of the rebuild, than I would have supported the hire. But he's just ordinary and safe.
So the old man couldn't compartmentalize the Manning Saga - via GenoGate - and buckled under the guilt. And it didn't take long to connect the damn dots - Mara was interested in only the short term and doing whatever it takes to send Eli out in style. A decision I believe, and I really hope I'm wrong, that will set this organization back at least another decade.
Absolutely fucking odd doesnt describe it.
Show your math on that.
Absolutely fucking odd doesnt describe it.
The odd thing is getting so bent out of shape over debate.
My guess is you do know what I'm talking about. And there is no hidden, subliminal code here at all. The "Giants Way" is sort of how you described it - everyone in the club knows each other. So Mara stays within his club as much as he can; and those members of that club fall in line.
Why you find it odd that someone would think it's actually a good idea to bring in fresh voices and fresh thoughts is more a reflection on you.
if you have been though a lot in business then you know how important it is to have a clear head. especially when others and the situation is not yet clear.
take your post above and all your recent posts and re read and re read and re read.
they contain so much mind reading,unknowable projection and magical thinking firmly asserted that the people usually seen doing the same are very stressed at the time.
bw, no one can navigate life "thinking" the same way in other avenues of their lives.
it's not about Mara or DG or whatever. you might be right. it does not matter. you powerfully assert motives and assign connections that are magical in their unknowability.
no one else I see is doing that even when they do not like DG or Mara or they are very frustrated.
I dont know how to reach you brother any other way but here. Take some time to look in the mirror when re reading and instead of tak ing more and more leaps of faith swinging wider and wider from the chandelier just ask if you are transferring stress from elsewhere into this subject. Take care of yourself more in these times. drop the Giants and see if they rise to meet you in the years ahead or better roads emerge for your travels.
again, all the best
they are not going to get a new owner
if his presence ruins it for you it's not analysis it's you are tired of the Giants. it happens. it's a loss to lose a thing you root for.
but that's all it is
Or, it's a comment that cant be substantiated but you'll pretend you're smarter than the room instead of poorly supporting it with a bunch of subjective takes. Strong approach. I'm sure you were cheering your pants off in 07, 08, and 11 with that bad culture ruining everything. And it's more likely than not that Gettleman accomplishes nothing close to that.
One of the first things that happened when DG came in was to start cleaning house. Getting rid of guys or not resigning guys who didn't seemingly care. Hart was first. Eventually DRC, Jerry, Flowers and Apple were gone. Pugh, Richburg and Fluker weren't resigned.
He signed two OL guys, drafted another one, traded for a LB and tried to shore up those positions that hadn't been upgraded in some time. He churned the roster.
He actually addresses the media. He also did something we hadn't seen in some time here - he admitted a mistake, cut his losses and moved on.
I think you'll find that if DG is here a few years, we'll actually get on him more for his lack of sentimentality. He'll likely cut the cord on vets too soon - and it likely won't be a bad thing.
We can debate if he'l be successful, or even if he'll do better than Reese, but if you don't think there's a difference between the two, even just in Year 1, you're being obtuse for the sake of it.
The unsaid part of the equation on "Giants Way" to me all revolves around Manning. QB is an oversized variable, in some ways you can trot 52 different guys out there, and with influence on perception and on the field, it's a very similar team.
Gettleman is his own man and a very different manager than Reese. I don't know how anyone can miss that.
But until Manning is gone, he's building a team around a player Accorsi picked, Reese shined with, and now we're onto the third GM trying with him.
Coupled with a huge cap hit for getting rid of Eli, I think he stuck with him as QB. That's why I think it is foolish to either say Gettleman is doing a great job or that he's doing a poor job. He can't fully be assessed until Eli's successor is here.
And I just don't know what people expected this year. Even if optimistic folks thought everything would fall into place, going 9-7 was about the ceiling. With the roster churn, new systems from new coaches being put into place, and having to try and fix the OL with a weak FA crop of players, I'd say we are in the +/- range of what should have been expected.
And if we drafted a QB and didn't have Barkley, the season would have been even worse, IMO, and although I've heard people saying they'd have patience, I don't see that realistically happening here.
And if we drafted a QB and didn't have Barkley, the season would have been even worse, IMO, and although I've heard people saying they'd have patience, I don't see that realistically happening here.
👍
until we see 2 years of a new Qb, we cant evaluate DG.
imo
Lombardi
Walsh
Belichek
Auerbach
Wooden
Popovich
Noll
Landry
Allen
Zidane
Young
Rockne
McGraw
Billy Martin
Joe Torre
Stick Michael
Yogi Berra
Brian Cashman
They all won multiple Championships.
They were all hired by organizations that had people who knew them before and through a hiring process that had no other candidates.
The horror. all guaranteed to be shot before they actually performed because they were part of a flawed process.
like the process that nominated George Washington. all insider recommendations.
this is about feelings. it's hard to root for a flawed team. that's cool. it's not about being reasonable or fact based or making apt comparisons
I'm not sure what to make of that list, Bill. For starters, I'm pretty sure that didn't apply for at least two (if my memory of their history serves correct) - Belichick did have competition, and was almost not hired because a snowstorm impeded his interview date (IIRC, they almost went with Capers instead).
Further - having to dig pretty far back to prove you *can* win without going through a process seems to ignore the opposite - the vast number of other winners that did actually entertain more than one candidate.
Or the fact that the Giants themselves felt it necessary to add two other candidates to the list, which is what really made it look ridiculous. One was Marc Ross - who stood exactly 0.00% chance of being hired (we'll call this the courtesy interview for a long standing employee). Then there was Louis Riddick - someone who wasn't working in a FO capacity, and wasn't very senior before he left, either.
Dan - we'll agree to disagree on some of the differences you've mentioned. If you're hiring rank and file, sure, there's no noncompete clause to deal with, and a larger pool of talent. Finance has plenty of niche roles that are without a huge pool of talent, where banks fall over each other for the right to overpay for one of the few available candidates. And plenty of senior management changes firms carrying over a NC that prevents them from poaching people they're comfortable with from their prior role.
You're both entitled to your opinions and I think you've both made sound arguments, but they're not facts. Further, you've provided little argument to support the fact that expanding the GM search outward wouldn't have been helpful. Part of any interview process, in addition to getting to know the candidate, is to get their views on how they'd approach the position. Gettleman wasn't at risk of being snatched out from under them - they could have taken a week and spoken to a few people, if at a bare minimum to get to hear some other takes on what the Giants problems were and how other candidates might attempt to resolve them.
People aren't frustrated because the Giants are losing. Most of the frustration comes from the belief that the Giants don't have a plan. When looking at this year's FA signings and trades, I'm not sure how you can walk away thinking they did have a plan, or have one for 19/20. Gettleman will get at least another year and probably more, so the upside is this debate will be resolved at some point in the future, and for the record I hope I'm on the wrong side of it.
It's one thing to not like their plan - but to wonder if they have one at all seems a bit silly. I'm fairly certain they're not just proceeding at random here without actually having discussed any course of action.
It's one thing to not like their plan - but to wonder if they have one at all seems a bit silly. I'm fairly certain they're not just proceeding at random here without actually having discussed any course of action.
OK, so let's rephrase - a coherent plan.
People point out a number of possibilities - like the fact that the team had a lot of holes, that Eli was nearing the end but they might have been forced to keep him because of the cap hit. Fine - at that point, trading guys like JPP and Snacks make perfect sense. Overpaying for Solder and a journeyman like Omameh, not to mention Stewart because BBI has resolved him to being a rounding error - don't exactly scream coherent plan.
but it is not incompetent to move fast and avoid uncertainty with little time on the clock ...and a very uncertain scouting effort still in gear so a sure hand fast mattered.
The point is that moving fast was a defensible choice at the time. other teams were looking for GMs which meant a 6 to 8 week process would compromise both Fa and the draft.
The next GM choice matters a ton for it's a person we might live with awhile
To me the Maras have earned current doubt. But not a kangaroo court before this plays out 2 to 3 years
It's one thing to not like their plan - but to wonder if they have one at all seems a bit silly. I'm fairly certain they're not just proceeding at random here without actually having discussed any course of action.
In general, they certainly have a global plan. Make the roster better, manage the cap to allow for that, draft needs, etc.
But I am leaning more towards the point of view that they are improvising a plan for QB - short and long term. And that is unsettling.
Gettleman came out with a lot of bluster, spent a lot of cash and made some clear mistakes. I think his plan was based on the Giants being closer than he realized.
There were a couple of clear points where his actions showed he got how far away the team was. 1) Week before game 1 when we was still mix-matching, knowing guys would have ZERO reps going into a real game 2) moving Snacks and Apple for arguably low return.
I don't like Gettleman, but I respect his actions in-season.
Again, this is all about the QB. It's a third-rail, daring to sniff post-Manning got his predecessor fired.
It's no excuse, and the next 2 years will judge his actions. But the fan base, ownership, Manning Inc. all have to be considered, not just what's right on the field.
Quote:
Do people really believe the Giants have no plan at all? Like they're just flailing wildly with no calculated rhyme or reason behind it?
It's one thing to not like their plan - but to wonder if they have one at all seems a bit silly. I'm fairly certain they're not just proceeding at random here without actually having discussed any course of action.
In general, they certainly have a global plan. Make the roster better, manage the cap to allow for that, draft needs, etc.
But I am leaning more towards the point of view that they are improvising a plan for QB - short and long term. And that is unsettling.
I think it's just a unique and difficult situation with the QB. This isn't "okay, we need to move on from Blake Bortles - he's not getting it done.."
This is us trying to move on from a 2x Super Bowl MVP and Giants legend who keeps insisting he wants to play and wants to play here. It's hard to shove him out the door. After the uproar last year during the entire Geno Smith fiasco and remembering how it ended with Simms, I think Mara is petrified of creating a rift between the org and Eli or this becoming a major ordeal that makes the Giants look bad.
I think the procession plan and everything else will fall into place easier when we have closure regarding #10. That entire situation is kind of clouding everything else right now and making it hard to move on.
In other words, it takes time to tear down and rebuild a roster. Especially one that was top heavy in terms of the salary cap, and not well cobbled together on the whole to begin with by the prior regime. It takes time to get rid of bad contracts, and sometimes negative personalities, and time to restock with quality that fits your master plan.
I hate watching my team lose. Being a team that is struggling and at times feeling like there is no plan or evolution in progress is bothersome as hell. How could all of these seasoned professionals seem so clueless, etc. Ultimately, teams take 2-3 years to build properly. We seeing these teams turn it around in one year, but most of them hard their key pieces in place, and saw some benefit from a weaker schedule, having no film on tape to game plan against, no $20M QB who won titles in the past to say goodbye to.
This process will require patience. BBI is the place to vent, I get it, but this will take some time. Can't tell others how to act and comport themselves, but fuming over 2018 is an exercise in futility. Even with a precise blueprint in hand, there's 31 other teams to compete with for talent, on and off the field.
Hope to see a bump up in 2019 and keep building up the talent base, get those systems in place, lose the players that won't be part of the next run. Get lean under the cap, be wise with pricey acquisitions. I'm not sold on DG or PS, and perhaps they aren't here two years from now if this thing burns to the ground again.
It will take at least through next year to clear the deadwood completely and even with the right pieces I would be surprised with 8-8 in 2019.
Let's see what the plan is before condemning DG. I'm sure pieces will be let go come late January and early February so you will get a sense of their direction or plan.
I'm not saying any are inevitable -- but moving on from the face of the franchise is scary. It would be easier if he was an asshole like Favre.
I think it's just a unique and difficult situation with the QB. This isn't "okay, we need to move on from Blake Bortles - he's not getting it done.."
This is us trying to move on from a 2x Super Bowl MVP and Giants legend who keeps insisting he wants to play and wants to play here. It's hard to shove him out the door. After the uproar last year during the entire Geno Smith fiasco and remembering how it ended with Simms, I think Mara is petrified of creating a rift between the org and Eli or this becoming a major ordeal that makes the Giants look bad.
I think the procession plan and everything else will fall into place easier when we have closure regarding #10. That entire situation is kind of clouding everything else right now and making it hard to move on.
I get it.
But we're heading down a path, and I know you get it too, where there is going to be a lot more barking about what we should have done instead; and how many years may have been wasted playing the situation too delicately.
Interesting how HC/GM/Pied Piper Bill Belichick was reportedly ready to execute his transition plan by keeping JimG and sending Brady to the exits. By ole Bob Kraft stepped in, drew a line in the sand, and said that ain't happening...
Different circumstances because Brady continues to be productive and win, but we see there was a plan in place, cold blooded and all...
This is us trying to move on from a 2x Super Bowl MVP and Giants legend who keeps insisting he wants to play and wants to play here. It's hard to shove him out the door. After the uproar last year during the entire Geno Smith fiasco and remembering how it ended with Simms, I think Mara is petrified of creating a rift between the org and Eli or this becoming a major ordeal that makes the Giants look bad.
I think the procession plan and everything else will fall into place easier when we have closure regarding #10. That entire situation is kind of clouding everything else right now and making it hard to move on.
[quote] You try to win every season. In the age of parity, with a couple of breaks, things can happen. It didn't go our way this year, but a break here or there and we could be fighting for the playoffs, too. [/quote Yup If the refs do not screw us in the Carolina and second Philly game we are still alive and have a great shot to make the playoffs .So frustrating
did you really see us as a playoff team playing the Titans last week, I sure didn't, it was humiliating as hell..
Or the fact that the Giants themselves felt it necessary to add two other candidates to the list, which is what really made it look ridiculous. One was Marc Ross - who stood exactly 0.00% chance of being hired (we'll call this the courtesy interview for a long standing employee).agree on this. Then there was Louis Riddick - someone who wasn't working in a FO capacity, and wasn't very senior before he left, either.I think everyone was a little surprised by this interview. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a courtesy done for his agent/at his request to get some experience, which is the kind of thing neither party would publicize. Most likely (and we're all guessing here) the Giants had a good idea that they wanted DG all along and the interview was little more than a formality. That obviously bothers those who feel that a massive change was needed more than those who liked DG and felt he could make necessary changes while not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My take anyway.
Dan - we'll agree to disagree on some of the differences you've mentioned. If you're hiring rank and file, sure, there's no noncompete clause to deal with, and a larger pool of talent. Finance has plenty of niche roles that are without a huge pool of talent, where banks fall over each other for the right to overpay for one of the few available candidates. Agreed, and in those cases might they not feel a need to act quickly? Given that the talent is specialized enough? And plenty of senior management changes firms carrying over a NC that prevents them from poaching people they're comfortable with from their prior role. Again, agreed, and in the cases where they require a specific talent who is not under contract (poachable) where the pickings are very slim, is it not likely we see a similar approach? Is it wrong if they make an offer to a senior leader with unique skills after a very brief interview process? In my opinion, I think it would be normal/acceptable.
Responses inline in bold
Quote:
Or, it's a comment that cant be substantiated but you'll pretend you're smarter than the room instead of poorly supporting it with a bunch of subjective takes.
One of the first things that happened when DG came in was to start cleaning house. Getting rid of guys or not resigning guys who didn't seemingly care. Hart was first. Eventually DRC, Jerry, Flowers and Apple were gone. Pugh, Richburg and Fluker weren't resigned.
You labeling players as 'guys who seemingly didnt care' is more of that stuff that sounds great but ultimately isnt supported by anything. Your best argument here is Hart and Pugh, guys who actually had stories about them follow. Everything else comes off as 'dissatisfied fan wants to see someone come down hard on players because of a bad season. Is there something that would support that Jerry, Fluker, Richburg, and DRC just didnt care about their jobs?
There's something about management laying down the law on the labor that somehow thrills fans. 'Roster churn'? so 17 players are left from last year, and the year was a bomb anyway. But bonus points and a clear win for the grumpy tough guy because they didnt quit on the field, it must be because last year they just werent scared enough of losing their jobs. Maybe Gettleman should be more afraid of losing his job so he can cut down on the dead money and mistake contracts.
JonC will support that these whispers existed.
Outside of Fluker, the rest of those players are gone primarily because of attitude or a combination of attitude and performance.
Are you really going to act like we didn't hear anything about those players? And I'm just going on what's at the surface, and not the underlying information I know.
Jesus.
You labeling players as 'guys who seemingly didnt care' is more of that stuff that sounds great but ultimately isnt supported by anything. Your best argument here is Hart and Pugh, guys who actually had stories about them follow. Everything else comes off as 'dissatisfied fan wants to see someone come down hard on players because of a bad season. Is there something that would support that Jerry, Fluker, Richburg, and DRC just didnt care about their jobs?
There's something about management laying down the law on the labor that somehow thrills fans. 'Roster churn'? so 17 players are left from last year, and the year was a bomb anyway. But bonus points and a clear win for the grumpy tough guy because they didnt quit on the field, it must be because last year they just werent scared enough of losing their jobs. Maybe Gettleman should be more afraid of losing his job so he can cut down on the dead money and mistake contracts.
I agree with you - there are whispers and anonymous reports about attitudes but I haven't heard anything official. It's a little too easy to simply label all those guys as not caring.
I liked Bill2's contribution yesterday on this thread where discussing analytics he described its use in evaluating player value. I think it much more likely that if the Giants are using some kind of present/future value model and assigning a cap value to players which leads to some otherwise head-scratching moves.
Fans and media using only their own evaluation techniques may not understand and the result is what we're hearing now about players no longer here.
Bottom line - I don't think anyone outside of the org knows for sure why specific players were let go.
Responses inline in bold
Dan - I think we agree to disagree here. IMO, the Giants had absolutely nothing to lose by interviewing another viable candidate, even if they had pretty much decided that Gettleman was the guy (for the reasons outlined above). They stood no chance of losing him, so the opportunity cost of having additional discussions was only time - and that could have been measured in days, not weeks.
The worst part is that Gettleman is older and after the hiring was revealed to have a serious health issue, which means the Giants could be in the GM boat the next time around. This hiring process could have identified some up and comers who weren't ready to be hired yet, but warranted monitoring, no different from trying out players who you don't sign at first but keep an eye on. Instead, the search ended early, with the only real benefit being time. I don't see how a few more days of GM search would have cost the Giants anything.
Dan - I think we agree to disagree here. IMO, the Giants had absolutely nothing to lose by interviewing another viable candidate, even if they had pretty much decided that Gettleman was the guy (for the reasons outlined above). They stood no chance of losing him, so the opportunity cost of having additional discussions was only time - and that could have been measured in days, not weeks.
The worst part is that Gettleman is older and after the hiring was revealed to have a serious health issue, which means the Giants could be in the GM boat the next time around. This hiring process could have identified some up and comers who weren't ready to be hired yet, but warranted monitoring, no different from trying out players who you don't sign at first but keep an eye on. Instead, the search ended early, with the only real benefit being time. I don't see how a few more days of GM search would have cost the Giants anything.
Fair enough.
I think you should know that I hold you and your opinions in high regard. IMO you are truly a valued BBI contributor.
Cheers and hope your holiday season is/has been a great one.
Dan - I think we agree to disagree here. IMO, the Giants had absolutely nothing to lose by interviewing another viable candidate, even if they had pretty much decided that Gettleman was the guy (for the reasons outlined above). They stood no chance of losing him, so the opportunity cost of having additional discussions was only time - and that could have been measured in days, not weeks.
The worst part is that Gettleman is older and after the hiring was revealed to have a serious health issue, which means the Giants could be in the GM boat the next time around. This hiring process could have identified some up and comers who weren't ready to be hired yet, but warranted monitoring, no different from trying out players who you don't sign at first but keep an eye on. Instead, the search ended early, with the only real benefit being time. I don't see how a few more days of GM search would have cost the Giants anything.
This is very well said. Ive said similar remarks just not as well...
it may reveal who might have been spoken to and how wide the hidden net went. Not for the GM job (the one where someone in charge without a time of drift during the end of year and pre-fa and draft evaluation process) but for the coaching job.
Take a definitive statement like we had a good draft people want to say this as if its a fact, some of our favorite luddites on this board are brandishing this with their I <3 Gettleman T Shirts. Yet I would say the jury is very much still out on this. And I know this may be difficult for some to understand but this statement has nothing to do with who Barkley is as a player who I love more than any Giants in a long time. I think from a game theory analytical perspective it is healthy to look at Barkleys closest comps in lieu of complex model results that I dont have. Players like Peterson and Sanders two of the very best RBs in history. The Vikings were 80-79 with Peterson on the team and the Lions were 78-82 with Sanders. If you look at the records after their rookie deals 44-51 and 48-48 it brings up some important questions. Questions that clearly concerned the Steelers with LeVeon Bell. Now they hired this Carnegie Mellon professor in 2015 and their team seemed to think that it could win with Bell at $15 Million but not at $18 Million this is the kind of thing that absolutely points to analytics. Here is where Gettleman comes in and fateful clip. My issue is not with the pick of Barkley. My issue his response to this question. He had the wrong answer. It did not reflect an understanding behind probability theory necessary to minimize the mistakes in his data driven job. The bottom line is we dont know if Barkley is not so good at a time that many of us all agree that the team isnt ready to compete that he requires resources that from a team construction standpoint will not allow us to compete when we are ready. Say Barkley like Bell and because of the wear and tear on his body in 3 years says I want $25M a year or I sit? Dont you dare franchise me. Do we know that he wont do that? Do we know that he wont break down? Can a team win with an RB making $25M a year? $20M? What if he does get injured? The point is, there are still worlds out there where this is a good or bad move and getting into the analytics of it all is an important part of a process in ensuring you are making these choices for all the right reasons. The right answer is we weighed a lot of factors and believe we made the right choice or something in that vein. What makes this clip even more troubling is that he uses Jonathan Stewart as an example to defend his point. There is no other way to slice this, but he looks very stupid for saying that. Not because he fell off the cliff, there was only some probability that that would happen this year. But the bravado which he states he hasnt fallen off yet. He is framing the problem in the wrong way mathematically. The fact that Stewart hasnt dropped off and his age in fact raises the probability that he will imminently, it is not a basis to think a player is immune to wear and tear. Now it would be nice if it looked as though when they were evaluating signing Stewart that someone was in his ear reminding him of this. Perhaps our GM wouldnt say things that he honestly should regret saying, he didnt need to go out on a limb like this, but it shows the kind of overconfidence in an outdated process that should send up red flags to any technologist. (Id be interested in your take on this as a technologist Bill2, I share this clip so often because all my friends that are football fans and data people have not stopped mocking me about it)
This leads me to my next point. You could say back that the contracts Gettleman handed out to these people were mistakes anyone would make, I say back, well, are all teams using the same search parameters now? Could we be more backed into a corner in ways of fixing our team because of our process? Could things that worked for Gettleman 5 years ago not have the same efficacy now given the advancements of other teams? This is where the article shared today on another thread comes in on the current state of analytics. First, they bring up the Giants and the Gettleman video as an example of a team that is behind. Do any of us really want the Giants to be a team that stands out for this? Shouldnt our ownership be ashamed of itself given its access to Wall St. and being a hub of business that we are a team on the wrong side of this article? Is it not embarrassing that given our record against the Eagles that they have had an advanced analytics program for 20 years and a guy with Ty Siams background is our rising star? This broad analytics article shared in another thread very much supports a lot of the points I have been making all season.
Its about translating that data ASAP and being very, very in tune with the numbers. You cant be a year behind, you cant be a month behind. Thomas Dimitroff, Atlanta Falcons general manager
Its about translating that data ASAP and being very, very in tune with the numbers. You cant be a year behind, you cant be a month behind, said Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff.
Teams are examining details theyve never studied before to get an edge. One scouting department graded a defensive back prospect as an undrafted free agent due in part to his slow 40-yard dash. When that department was able to measure his game speed using tracking data, it determined that it should have listed him as a midround pick. Other teams in the market for linebackers have homed in on what kind of closing speed elite tacklers need. For instance, Zebra Technologies, a company whose MotionWorks service collects game-day data, found that the Cowboys Leighton Vander Esch reaches 16 to 17 miles per hour on his best plays.
Teams can go deep on rosters to leverage the tracking data to scout players for the future, maybe in free agency, said John Pollard, vice president of Zebra Technologies.
Ive been saying for a bit now that this is the reality. And Ive been criticized for bringing up age in relation to this, but this article does as well, and it is generally true that younger people are more interested in incorporating new ideas. Ive brought up Zebra several times because I do think that is one of the keys, but it is honestly just a small part of what it is I think we need to do. This arms race and articles like this are also important to note. If you have an original football model or ideas what are the chances you shoot an email to a guy like Gettleman vs. Ernie Adams or Howie Roseman? This is a problem that if we dont start addressing today, we ARE doomed to fall in a deeper and deeper competition chasm. We need to be known widely as a team that embraces new ideas and technologies not scoffing at it. And the fact remains, and I dont think this can be emphasized enough, even if we compete the next few years with Gettleman he could be causing damage in competitive advantage that lasts multiples of years longer. This is why I really am trying to emphasize that while the jury is out on Gettlemans ability to compete today, there is enough evidence that we need to bring a strong analytics mind near the top of our organization ASAP if we want to prevent a serious long-term competitive disadvantage.
Reading between the lines of these threads Id say that it might be the case that Bill2 either knows the Tisch family or is one of the people the Giants talk to about these issues. So despite the fact that Ive resisted doing this given the fact that I perceive this to be valuable information that I could be paid for Im going to go ahead and share it because if they arent already implementing a system like this, they should be. And Ill be the first to say, great if they are but their internal staff does not suggest they have the knowhow to do this and I will explain that even if they are working with an outside firm this is not optimal to gain or maintain any kind of performance advantage.
Its best to start with how to frame these problems from a high level. People that know me as a big optimist, I think you need to be one in order to make good forecasting systems. Every time I begin to try to predict something new the first take is going to be nothing compared to what I end up with after a few months of work. Ive predicted NPV of cash flows for every securitized mortgage in the US, huge college and corporate loan packages, stock outcome probabilities and index addition probabilities, trade predictions for a global banks entire fixed income portfolio (22K ISINs paired with 13K clients), healthcare classifications and at one point I even dabbled in Football. Ive done this for many years, each time I improve my process and the technology platform I use gets better and smarter. This is all to say even if we hired the best person in the world at making football predictions or our staff learned really well on the job there are things you pick up in academia trying to solve many different signal processing issues or in the working world dealing with many different problems that we are still most likely falling short in. This is why I brush back at the idea that Ty Siam or Buffalo IT consultant guy can accomplish something like what is needed to provide value in football. There is nothing to suggest that they can even leverage open source tree-based algorithm code, let alone boosting, bagging or neural net code. They would have to have a deeper understanding of this before they could build bespoke systems that can try to optimize around different hyperparameters and time series modifications within the training of algorithms which requires writing or changing code within these algorithms. Situational ensembling is also quite necessary for these complex non-linear equations IE if I want to predict the outcome of the next play is a single neural net might be best or random forest combined with a few weak learning XGboost algos and a recurrent neural net. And maybe, maybe when trying to predict the simple Buffalo Bills you need just a regression but when predicting the Pats you do need a complex amalgam of algorithms for the most efficacy. It could also be true that different constructions could be better if a team is playing in the rain or snow or a dome. What Ive just outlined is really the difference between a machine learning system and an effective AI system. And with that, my plan:
1) I stopped working on my fantasy football prediction project because I concluded I needed play by play data which was out of the scope of my core business and too expensive. I first tried to forecast individual player performance but there was too much volatility in the touchdown models (which I separated from yardage models). Next I tried forecasting scores in games individually using team based numbers and then distributing the touchdowns to players individually which yielded better results but I realized I did need better data because when I tested my system live my eye test vs the results told me that I wasnt accounting for the individual CB v WR and line play matchups well enough. IE if you just take a teams rankings vs. opposing WRs you are grouping too much because some teams have 1 shutdown corner that can take a top WR out of the game and others have 3 great ones that is better neutralizing a pass attack with an even distribution of WRs. I suspected the problem would be too complex for the data I had, but you always learn things by trying out a solution with whatever you have, and I determined these to be the next step in building something that might have more efficacy.
a. A play type forecaster - this is how you solve your little timeout problem with game theory. Feed in game scores and timestamp every play with amount of time left, quarter, down, distance and then start with something Id say as simple as timeout, run offensive play, FB, punt, run defensive play, FG block, punt block, punt return then 2-point conversion as well. Each of these will have a win probability associated with choosing that type in a vacuum. This isnt a very hard system to build and something that either we should have built after Shumur butchered not taking the timeouts in the Saints game with 1:44 left and if not just subscribed to EDJ Sports at the very least, people ask why are you so sure the Giants dont have good in house analytics? This is Exhibit ABCDEFGHIJ not getting this kind of simple game theory-based prediction correctly in game should drive any technologist crazy. So its not really a leap at all to suggest that we dont have a good technologist in house.
b. An outcome forecaster - First you would need one of those handy dandy autoencoders that the Patriots have. This would convert film into signals that could be processed with timestamps. I will not get into how to make one of these (must hold something back) but there are many different ways to make these learn better IE do you want to put a label on what a play is? Do you want to label if there appears to be an audible? Do you want to label if your receiver is on an option route? The more you teach the machine, the better it understands what it is seeing and the better it will predict). Throw in the Zebra data. As well as, as much individual information on the players as possible attached with player IDs. This can give you the beginnings of an excellent per play forecaster where different types of plays and play outcomes are assigned probabilities and these can be rolled up into yardage and expected points for quarters, games, then seasons.
c. Combine a and b the better you label the better the more you can get out of it. IE run off guard to the right vs. off tackle to the right, what are the different win probabilities deltas given the situation?
d. Improve labeling efforts for better results IE was there a star on this play? Was a player victimized? These are the foundations of matchup exploitation.
This is also just one segment, the approach for a draft model, injury model and even personality model weighing psychological questions as well as social media data would could all be nested into a broader ROI / team construction model. Best practices on this is not to have a fixed algorithm or analysis structure but instead a dynamic one which also considers feedback from the system which is also engineered. IE encoding after the fact for certain situations what various staff members would have done. Or forming this feedback in different ways to send different information into the system like asking who would you have picked in the draft is a very different question than rank your top 10 picks in that spot or project stats for all of the following players or a complex draft simulation methodology where all of your scouts individually pick players given many random simulations of who is available. It looks like we are deficient in various areas needed to build this system on staff as well as an understanding of the kind of way an organization needs to position itself in order to attract the right kind of people.
A final note on reinforcement learning. Google it, understand it. I posted about Chess Centaurs and the biggest part that is needed to understand the value reinforcement learning is that the data created by subject matter experts interacting with predictive data is most probably an even more valuable data set than the predictions themselves. There is nothing better for a reinforcement learning system than various opinions as well feeding in other sources like an EDJ model which has its own win probability data which is only additive. All that being said, using an outside firm or outside data is not only delaying the creation of our own data set but it is hurting our competitive advantage overall and Ill tell you why. This architecture I laid out, different teams, different architects would all end up with different code and different results even if both systems were built by world class talents there are so many ways to skin the cat here. Even if we have Shurmur or Gettleman leveraging these systems (which there is no evidence whatsoever of and evidence to the contrary) using outside firms or people we are giving away our institutional knowledge instead of encoding and storing it ourselves where only we can leverage it. If we believe we have the best people, it is quite dumb to engage any outside company to build our system. Even if we are working with a provider exclusively for now, unless it is a lifetime exclusive, we are essentially saying hey, let us help you train your algorithms with our experts, so you can then sell it to other people.
Again, I want to say that I have no ax to grind with anyone here, especially not Gettleman who I want to succeed. I do want him to start hiring the right people though. And also I think it is important as a fanbase that we hold the team accountable to this which is why people like Fatman bother me because even if he convinces one person this isnt a problem when there is plenty of evidence that it is a legitimate one, from a probability standpoint, there is a lesser chance that a move is made because the Maras actually do care about public opinion.
Other teams might have systems like this built out already or the team in place to do so as shown in the broad analytics article I shared. This industry is billions of dollars we should be able to spend the $1-2M a year needed to build out a proper implementation internally even if we want to continue to outsource in the short term. We need to see that Giants page updating with real technical minds soon, there is absolutely no reason to be secretive about it, if we have something going it's time to spill the beans so we can begin to organically attract many more of the kinds of people needed to win the technology arms race already underway.
it may reveal who might have been spoken to and how wide the hidden net went. Not for the GM job (the one where someone in charge without a time of drift during the end of year and pre-fa and draft evaluation process) but for the coaching job.
B2, not to miller the thread but not on here much. Wishing you and yours a very happy holidays.
Take a definitive statement like we had a good draft people want to say this as if its a fact, some of our favorite luddites on this board are brandishing this with their I <3 Gettleman T Shirts. Yet I would say the jury is very much still out on this. And I know this may be difficult for some to understand but this statement has nothing to do with who Barkley is as a player who I love more than any Giants in a long time. I think from a game theory analytical perspective it is healthy to look at Barkleys closest comps in lieu of complex model results that I dont have. Players like Peterson and Sanders two of the very best RBs in history. The Vikings were 80-79 with Peterson on the team and the Lions were 78-82 with Sanders. If you look at the records after their rookie deals 44-51 and 48-48 it brings up some important questions. Questions that clearly concerned the Steelers with LeVeon Bell. Now they hired this Carnegie Mellon professor in 2015 and their team seemed to think that it could win with Bell at $15 Million but not at $18 Million this is the kind of thing that absolutely points to analytics. Here is where Gettleman comes in and fateful clip. My issue is not with the pick of Barkley. My issue his response to this question. He had the wrong answer. It did not reflect an understanding behind probability theory necessary to minimize the mistakes in his data driven job. The bottom line is we dont know if Barkley is not so good at a time that many of us all agree that the team isnt ready to compete that he requires resources that from a team construction standpoint will not allow us to compete when we are ready. Say Barkley like Bell and because of the wear and tear on his body in 3 years says I want $25M a year or I sit? Dont you dare franchise me. Do we know that he wont do that? Do we know that he wont break down? Can a team win with an RB making $25M a year? $20M? What if he does get injured? The point is, there are still worlds out there where this is a good or bad move and getting into the analytics of it all is an important part of a process in ensuring you are making these choices for all the right reasons. The right answer is we weighed a lot of factors and believe we made the right choice or something in that vein. What makes this clip even more troubling is that he uses Jonathan Stewart as an example to defend his point. There is no other way to slice this, but he looks very stupid for saying that. Not because he fell off the cliff, there was only some probability that that would happen this year. But the bravado which he states he hasnt fallen off yet. He is framing the problem in the wrong way mathematically. The fact that Stewart hasnt dropped off and his age in fact raises the probability that he will imminently, it is not a basis to think a player is immune to wear and tear. Now it would be nice if it looked as though when they were evaluating signing Stewart that someone was in his ear reminding him of this. Perhaps our GM wouldnt say things that he honestly should regret saying, he didnt need to go out on a limb like this, but it shows the kind of overconfidence in an outdated process that should send up red flags to any technologist. (Id be interested in your take on this as a technologist Bill2, I share this clip so often because all my friends that are football fans and data people have not stopped mocking me about it)
This leads me to my next point. You could say back that the contracts Gettleman handed out to these people were mistakes anyone would make, I say back, well, are all teams using the same search parameters now? Could we be more backed into a corner in ways of fixing our team because of our process? Could things that worked for Gettleman 5 years ago not have the same efficacy now given the advancements of other teams? This is where the article shared today on another thread comes in on the current state of analytics. First, they bring up the Giants and the Gettleman video as an example of a team that is behind. Do any of us really want the Giants to be a team that stands out for this? Shouldnt our ownership be ashamed of itself given its access to Wall St. and being a hub of business that we are a team on the wrong side of this article? Is it not embarrassing that given our record against the Eagles that they have had an advanced analytics program for 20 years and a guy with Ty Siams background is our rising star? This broad analytics article shared in another thread very much supports a lot of the points I have been making all season.
Quote:
Weve reached this high point for a couple of reasons. The rise of smarter, younger GMs and coaches is part of it. A bigger part of it, though, is the spread of the NFLs player-tracking data, which is being shared leaguewide for the first time this season. Having access to that data allows teams to build models to analyze plays and players differently, and to simply know more about the game. Thats been a boon to a movement that had already been embraced by a handful of the smartest teams. As other teams try to catch up, theyve created an arms race to get the best numbers. Essentially, the smartest teams are getting significantly smarter, the average teams are trying to get better, and the dumbest teams are going to be very dumb if they dont act soon.
Its about translating that data ASAP and being very, very in tune with the numbers. You cant be a year behind, you cant be a month behind. Thomas Dimitroff, Atlanta Falcons general manager
Its about translating that data ASAP and being very, very in tune with the numbers. You cant be a year behind, you cant be a month behind, said Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff.
Teams are examining details theyve never studied before to get an edge. One scouting department graded a defensive back prospect as an undrafted free agent due in part to his slow 40-yard dash. When that department was able to measure his game speed using tracking data, it determined that it should have listed him as a midround pick. Other teams in the market for linebackers have homed in on what kind of closing speed elite tacklers need. For instance, Zebra Technologies, a company whose MotionWorks service collects game-day data, found that the Cowboys Leighton Vander Esch reaches 16 to 17 miles per hour on his best plays.
Teams can go deep on rosters to leverage the tracking data to scout players for the future, maybe in free agency, said John Pollard, vice president of Zebra Technologies.
Ive been saying for a bit now that this is the reality. And Ive been criticized for bringing up age in relation to this, but this article does as well, and it is generally true that younger people are more interested in incorporating new ideas. Ive brought up Zebra several times because I do think that is one of the keys, but it is honestly just a small part of what it is I think we need to do. This arms race and articles like this are also important to note. If you have an original football model or ideas what are the chances you shoot an email to a guy like Gettleman vs. Ernie Adams or Howie Roseman? This is a problem that if we dont start addressing today, we ARE doomed to fall in a deeper and deeper competition chasm. We need to be known widely as a team that embraces new ideas and technologies not scoffing at it. And the fact remains, and I dont think this can be emphasized enough, even if we compete the next few years with Gettleman he could be causing damage in competitive advantage that lasts multiples of years longer. This is why I really am trying to emphasize that while the jury is out on Gettlemans ability to compete today, there is enough evidence that we need to bring a strong analytics mind near the top of our organization ASAP if we want to prevent a serious long-term competitive disadvantage.
Reading between the lines of these threads Id say that it might be the case that Bill2 either knows the Tisch family or is one of the people the Giants talk to about these issues. So despite the fact that Ive resisted doing this given the fact that I perceive this to be valuable information that I could be paid for Im going to go ahead and share it because if they arent already implementing a system like this, they should be. And Ill be the first to say, great if they are but their internal staff does not suggest they have the knowhow to do this and I will explain that even if they are working with an outside firm this is not optimal to gain or maintain any kind of performance advantage.
Its best to start with how to frame these problems from a high level. People that know me as a big optimist, I think you need to be one in order to make good forecasting systems. Every time I begin to try to predict something new the first take is going to be nothing compared to what I end up with after a few months of work. Ive predicted NPV of cash flows for every securitized mortgage in the US, huge college and corporate loan packages, stock outcome probabilities and index addition probabilities, trade predictions for a global banks entire fixed income portfolio (22K ISINs paired with 13K clients), healthcare classifications and at one point I even dabbled in Football. Ive done this for many years, each time I improve my process and the technology platform I use gets better and smarter. This is all to say even if we hired the best person in the world at making football predictions or our staff learned really well on the job there are things you pick up in academia trying to solve many different signal processing issues or in the working world dealing with many different problems that we are still most likely falling short in. This is why I brush back at the idea that Ty Siam or Buffalo IT consultant guy can accomplish something like what is needed to provide value in football. There is nothing to suggest that they can even leverage open source tree-based algorithm code, let alone boosting, bagging or neural net code. They would have to have a deeper understanding of this before they could build bespoke systems that can try to optimize around different hyperparameters and time series modifications within the training of algorithms which requires writing or changing code within these algorithms. Situational ensembling is also quite necessary for these complex non-linear equations IE if I want to predict the outcome of the next play is a single neural net might be best or random forest combined with a few weak learning XGboost algos and a recurrent neural net. And maybe, maybe when trying to predict the simple Buffalo Bills you need just a regression but when predicting the Pats you do need a complex amalgam of algorithms for the most efficacy. It could also be true that different constructions could be better if a team is playing in the rain or snow or a dome. What Ive just outlined is really the difference between a machine learning system and an effective AI system. And with that, my plan:
1) I stopped working on my fantasy football prediction project because I concluded I needed play by play data which was out of the scope of my core business and too expensive. I first tried to forecast individual player performance but there was too much volatility in the touchdown models (which I separated from yardage models). Next I tried forecasting scores in games individually using team based numbers and then distributing the touchdowns to players individually which yielded better results but I realized I did need better data because when I tested my system live my eye test vs the results told me that I wasnt accounting for the individual CB v WR and line play matchups well enough. IE if you just take a teams rankings vs. opposing WRs you are grouping too much because some teams have 1 shutdown corner that can take a top WR out of the game and others have 3 great ones that is better neutralizing a pass attack with an even distribution of WRs. I suspected the problem would be too complex for the data I had, but you always learn things by trying out a solution with whatever you have, and I determined these to be the next step in building something that might have more efficacy.
a. A play type forecaster - this is how you solve your little timeout problem with game theory. Feed in game scores and timestamp every play with amount of time left, quarter, down, distance and then start with something Id say as simple as timeout, run offensive play, FB, punt, run defensive play, FG block, punt block, punt return then 2-point conversion as well. Each of these will have a win probability associated with choosing that type in a vacuum. This isnt a very hard system to build and something that either we should have built after Shumur butchered not taking the timeouts in the Saints game with 1:44 left and if not just subscribed to EDJ Sports at the very least, people ask why are you so sure the Giants dont have good in house analytics? This is Exhibit ABCDEFGHIJ not getting this kind of simple game theory-based prediction correctly in game should drive any technologist crazy. So its not really a leap at all to suggest that we dont have a good technologist in house.
b. An outcome forecaster - First you would need one of those handy dandy autoencoders that the Patriots have. This would convert film into signals that could be processed with timestamps. I will not get into how to make one of these (must hold something back) but there are many different ways to make these learn better IE do you want to put a label on what a play is? Do you want to label if there appears to be an audible? Do you want to label if your receiver is on an option route? The more you teach the machine, the better it understands what it is seeing and the better it will predict). Throw in the Zebra data. As well as, as much individual information on the players as possible attached with player IDs. This can give you the beginnings of an excellent per play forecaster where different types of plays and play outcomes are assigned probabilities and these can be rolled up into yardage and expected points for quarters, games, then seasons.
c. Combine a and b the better you label the better the more you can get out of it. IE run off guard to the right vs. off tackle to the right, what are the different win probabilities deltas given the situation?
d. Improve labeling efforts for better results IE was there a star on this play? Was a player victimized? These are the foundations of matchup exploitation.
This is also just one segment, the approach for a draft model, injury model and even personality model weighing psychological questions as well as social media data would could all be nested into a broader ROI / team construction model. Best practices on this is not to have a fixed algorithm or analysis structure but instead a dynamic one which also considers feedback from the system which is also engineered. IE encoding after the fact for certain situations what various staff members would have done. Or forming this feedback in different ways to send different information into the system like asking who would you have picked in the draft is a very different question than rank your top 10 picks in that spot or project stats for all of the following players or a complex draft simulation methodology where all of your scouts individually pick players given many random simulations of who is available. It looks like we are deficient in various areas needed to build this system on staff as well as an understanding of the kind of way an organization needs to position itself in order to attract the right kind of people.
A final note on reinforcement learning. Google it, understand it. I posted about Chess Centaurs and the biggest part that is needed to understand the value reinforcement learning is that the data created by subject matter experts interacting with predictive data is most probably an even more valuable data set than the predictions themselves. There is nothing better for a reinforcement learning system than various opinions as well feeding in other sources like an EDJ model which has its own win probability data which is only additive. All that being said, using an outside firm or outside data is not only delaying the creation of our own data set but it is hurting our competitive advantage overall and Ill tell you why. This architecture I laid out, different teams, different architects would all end up with different code and different results even if both systems were built by world class talents there are so many ways to skin the cat here. Even if we have Shurmur or Gettleman leveraging these systems (which there is no evidence whatsoever of and evidence to the contrary) using outside firms or people we are giving away our institutional knowledge instead of encoding and storing it ourselves where only we can leverage it. If we believe we have the best people, it is quite dumb to engage any outside company to build our system. Even if we are working with a provider exclusively for now, unless it is a lifetime exclusive, we are essentially saying hey, let us help you train your algorithms with our experts, so you can then sell it to other people.
Again, I want to say that I have no ax to grind with anyone here, especially not Gettleman who I want to succeed. I do want him to start hiring the right people though. And also I think it is important as a fanbase that we hold the team accountable to this which is why people like Fatman bother me because even if he convinces one person this isnt a problem when there is plenty of evidence that it is a legitimate one, from a probability standpoint, there is a lesser chance that a move is made because the Maras actually do care about public opinion.
Other teams might have systems like this built out already or the team in place to do so as shown in the broad analytics article I shared. This industry is billions of dollars we should be able to spend the $1-2M a year needed to build out a proper implementation internally even if we want to continue to outsource in the short term. We need to see that Giants page updating with real technical minds soon, there is absolutely no reason to be secretive about it, if we have something going it's time to spill the beans so we can begin to organically attract many more of the kinds of people needed to win the technology arms race already underway.
TL;DR - You're Welcome, Shock.
there is little doubt the Giants are behind at some aspects of analytics. no doubt.
But I dont know if the mistakes of the past wont tighten up the talent evaluation side of decision making. that's usually the side of things we would know the least about.
all we would see is generally sharper decisions.
lastly, right now, imo, they dont have enough talent to execute game analytics.
and I sure hope someone does something about better game time management.
that's been a problem from the TC era and they cant seem to adopt best practices
one thing we might not be aware of is who ( it might not be the GM) is responsible for a greater investment in analytics? I have no idea whose portfolio that falls under. So I have assumed the coach on his stuff and the GM on his and the FO on contract risk management
Of course - although with some comfort that there were other options evaluated, and that maybe one of those might not have made the same mistakes.
Without having done so - all you can do is wonder if the Giants painted themselves into a corner by not exploring all options.
Fair enough.
I think you should know that I hold you and your opinions in high regard. IMO you are truly a valued BBI contributor.
Cheers and hope your holiday season is/has been a great one.
The feeling is mutual Dan, and I thank you for taking the time to articulate your views even if I don't agree with them. I have said before and I'll say again - I hope I'm proven wrong with my feelings about the Giants management and their competence, because I'd much rather watch meaningful football than be right about this.
Happy holidays and a happy and healthy 2019 to you and yours!
It depends who they spoke with to a large degree. In other words, we they just kicking the tires, doing courtesy interviews, meeting the Rooney Rule requirement, etc.
So maybe, but doubtful because they still played it safe.
This organization needed to be bold for a change. Reinvent themselves and their view of the football landscape. At least fail forward for a change...
Ive actually been in loose contact with the ownership group of another team for years so the work Ive done here isnt entirely benevolent Im going to send it over to them soon. Will definitely incorporate your comments, Ive suspected you were involved in some powerful analytics since it was just a glimmer in my eye in terms of a subject matter I very much wanted to gain some mastery in. Certainly on the way youve discussed some geopolitical issues in the past it was pretty clear.
Unfortunately, I suspect that these criticisms are true. So I actually do hope some folks on the Giants read some of this stuff, and maybe it results in some hard self evaluation which leads them to make some changes.
I have no way of knowing but I think Mara was living in a bubble sent upwards from Reese and Ross and McAdoo that he finally got the downside of delegating to "football men"
I dont pay any attention to what they say. I am hopeful that the speed at which decisions and moving on past mistakes are made are a positive sign that this may be 2 to 3 years instead of the hopeless horror of 1966 to 1983.
I have no way of knowing but I think Mara was living in a bubble sent upwards from Reese and Ross and McAdoo that he finally got the downside of delegating to "football men"
I dont pay any attention to what they say. I am hopeful that the speed at which decisions and moving on past mistakes are made are a positive sign that this may be 2 to 3 years instead of the hopeless horror of 1966 to 1983.
The problem as I see it, is that a guy with much better instincts and management capability such as Gettleman vs. Reese (I am giving Gettlemen the benefit of the doubt here, but I truly believe it) can make the brod or as you put it crude decisions now and make them effectively.
As the team ascends, and the obvious issues are addressed, the remaining issues become increasingly nuanced. There are many variables to reaching a championship all they way down to a single bad call by an official which you obviously have no control over. But the probability of reaching the mountaintop is tightly intertwined with sustained success across a broad front.
The decisions that drive sustained long term success, should be deeply rooted in analytics. The decision to cut bait a year early rather than a year late, making all kinds of adjustments. Even driving overall scheme due to the strengths and weaknesses of your players. WIthout rooting the decisions in cold hard data, you see the team ascend, have a window of opportunity, the win or lose, descend and start over. I much prefer ascending and staying near the top for long periods. ;)
Fooled by randomness in a book I read early in my investing career before I programmed my first algorithm. Even if Gettleman is successful it doesnt mean we have set up the infrastructure to succeed long term. Ignoring all the other teams I think its pretty clear that the Pats have that infrastructure. Why even emphasize secrecy when thats out on the open and it puts us at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting.
I think its really a shame because I feel like one call
from Gettleman to Brian Cashman could totally change the trajectory of this team. And ultimately thats the problem with a personality type like Gettleman when he speaks the way he does. Could he call someone like Cashman and learn how to delegate analytics to the proper
people? Could he call Christian or Dan in the springs or Bill2 or McL or me and say go build me something I can use. (Again not saying any of us are the right people but there are enough like us that we shouldnt be getting timeouts wrong) He is overdue in doing that. And anyone that doesnt think at least that conversation is worthwhile isnt looking out for the best interests of the team whether they know it or not.
For the love of god if you dont want to pay for the analytics just read the a) part of my post. That is all you need to do and would take a week and about 10K to build with overseas developers, you have the data.
We might not be asking the right questions.
We might not be interpreting the data correctly.
We might not have the appropriate data to answer a key questions.
If you are trying to interpret the data, and are asking questions and you fail. Then you learn from it, and get better at asking questions, and get better at interpreting the data.
If you don't ask the questions, you don't try to interpret the data, you don't get better.
The data is NEVER wrong!!!