| “It’s about winning and I’ve seen someone told one of the reporters I’m in the teardown,’’ Gettleman said recently. “We’re not spending $62.5 million on Nate Solder, spending the money on [28-year-old guard] Patrick Omameh, we’re not trading for Alec Ogletree. If it’s a teardown, we’re not doing that. We evaluated the roster, we’ve developed a plan moving forward. It’s about winning now. Who wants to lose? I don’t.’’ |
I saw this on twitter today - link to article below. A lot of people say this wasn’t 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 )
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?
It’s simple. People here that think they are much, much smarter than they really are didn’t 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 wasn’t close to one season before the know it alls were screaming that he was an epic failure. Because they didn’t like him, he’s 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 he’s 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, he’s a QB! And that’s 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 he’s 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, I’m 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 can’t 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 doesn’t describe it.
Show your math on that.
Absolutely fucking odd doesn’t 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.
đź‘Ť
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.