per Defenderdawg links, there is an excellent article on Tanney. In spite of Walsh's protestations that he is not a coach, it sure sounds like he is and the arrangement works for everyone. He is an excellent one.
Since he is mostly inactive, I think it's a win-win for all.
As a bonus, there is an old link to his "Trick Shots" video that went viral. Since that is not proprietary to the Athletic, I think I can share it.
Enjoy!!
Tick Shot Tanney - (
New Window )
Tanney on the roster is not one of them
Beyond that, give the guy a coach job and find a journeyman so we don't waste previous draft picks next spring on a #2 QB.
Not saying we have that overall,but -tamp - that - down early.
It's got to be on merit alone which means what you do on the field - on game day. Period.
No golf, no kahkies, no clubs, none of that crap counts.
When did we see him play, preseason? I remember being impressed with some of his throws or do we only count the bad ones.
Jay, you re asking BBI to stop griping, haha, good luck with that👍
You could always read the article, which explains his value as a player vs being a coach.
Or, simply regurgitate the same gripe over and over...
As Tom would say on This Old House...We can do better than that.
Because a coach is limited with the amount of time they can spend with a player under the current cba. A player does not fall under the coach / player limitations and restrictions.
instead Guerrero just lives with Brady and they get by with a useful player on the roster.
instead Guerrero just lives with Brady and they get by with a useful player on the roster.
Guerrero is a medical practitioner and a health and diet specialist. He does not help Brady with mechanics after practice or go over film study. 2 totally different people and value to a team.
+1
Quote:
why not just have him be the qb coach then. We all saw him play, and he is not good. But, it is what it is, I've accepted that he'll last the season and possibly more.
Because a coach is limited with the amount of time they can spend with a player under the current cba. A player does not fall under the coach / player limitations and restrictions.
He'd also have to take a big cut in pay as a coach.
The article is really excellent.
I agree. And for those saying make him a coach, maybe he doesn't want to be a coach yet or ever.
Quote:
of a roster spot, Belichick would have Alex Guerrero on the team.
instead Guerrero just lives with Brady and they get by with a useful player on the roster.
Guerrero is a medical practitioner and a health and diet specialist. He does not help Brady with mechanics after practice or go over film study. 2 totally different people and value to a team.
but neither contributes to the team in an on-field capacity and neither should take up a roster spot.
If someone gave you a job description of "help QB with mechanics and film study" that says QB coach to me, not backup QB. especially if you're a shitty QB. Like Tanney.
People go do the mental gymnastics to justify this however they want and say it's the 53rd roster spot, he helps the QB's, he's great in the room, and any other arguments, but none make sense to use a roster spot.
The Giants have a 2 time champion at back up, a head coach who's a QB expert, an offensive coordinator, a QB coach ... and Tanney is the character doing yeoman's work? That is weird.
Quote:
In comment 14632932 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
of a roster spot, Belichick would have Alex Guerrero on the team.
instead Guerrero just lives with Brady and they get by with a useful player on the roster.
Guerrero is a medical practitioner and a health and diet specialist. He does not help Brady with mechanics after practice or go over film study. 2 totally different people and value to a team.
but neither contributes to the team in an on-field capacity and neither should take up a roster spot.
If someone gave you a job description of "help QB with mechanics and film study" that says QB coach to me, not backup QB. especially if you're a shitty QB. Like Tanney.
People go do the mental gymnastics to justify this however they want and say it's the 53rd roster spot, he helps the QB's, he's great in the room, and any other arguments, but none make sense to use a roster spot.
Yes, it screams quarterback coach, but he is part of the roster which means tanney can sit in during the offensive meetings. He can watch jones prepare, study and work on his mechanics. It also means that tanney as a player (not a coach) can go over film study with jones. He can offer insights into what he sees and offer suggestions after practice is completed and the coaches are no longer allowed to work with the players. Eli also contributes in this area as well.
Once again we are talking about essentially the 53rd player on the roster who is inactive on game day.
There is nothing Guerrero does that even remotely needs him to know what the offensive gameplan is, what defense Brady is facing or anything related to what the coaches are preparing for on game day. Apples and oranges
Quote:
In comment 14632892 Nine-Tails said:
Quote:
why not just have him be the qb coach then. We all saw him play, and he is not good. But, it is what it is, I've accepted that he'll last the season and possibly more.
Because a coach is limited with the amount of time they can spend with a player under the current cba. A player does not fall under the coach / player limitations and restrictions.
He'd also have to take a big cut in pay as a coach.
The article is really excellent.
Who says he'd have to take a pay cut? Clearly the Giants have determined his value to be ~$1M/yr. There's no salary cap on coaches, so if they want to overpay their QB coach instead of overpaying their pretend QB coach, what's the difference?
Even if you want to completely buy into the value that Tanney brings, I think we can all agree that we would prefer if he never actually plays in a game, so his valuation isn't necessarily about what he represents in terms of play on the field.
Also, in terms of really making a compelling argument, do you honestly believe that anyone who takes issue with Tanney's role as a roster-bound QB coach is going to consider your point about his fucking salary and think, "oh, I hadn't thought about that - you're totally right, we can't have the legendary Alex Tanney making less money AND freeing up a roster spot!"
I never thought I'd actually encounter a Tanney fanboy, but I guess some people like trick shots.
Quote:
In comment 14632932 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
of a roster spot, Belichick would have Alex Guerrero on the team.
instead Guerrero just lives with Brady and they get by with a useful player on the roster.
Guerrero is a medical practitioner and a health and diet specialist. He does not help Brady with mechanics after practice or go over film study. 2 totally different people and value to a team.
but neither contributes to the team in an on-field capacity and neither should take up a roster spot.
If someone gave you a job description of "help QB with mechanics and film study" that says QB coach to me, not backup QB. especially if you're a shitty QB. Like Tanney.
People go do the mental gymnastics to justify this however they want and say it's the 53rd roster spot, he helps the QB's, he's great in the room, and any other arguments, but none make sense to use a roster spot.
Im not sure why youre using fans on BBI for their apparent mental gymnastics. Youre acting like they are making shit up. Everything you put in quotes are things the Giants have said about Tanney and why they keep him around. They obviously think he has much more value than you do. BBIs mental gymnastics and all....
I think most fans should disagree with having anyone on the roster, spot #1 - #53 and even the PS who has no on-field value and is not being coached or developed to increase their on-field value. I don't even think this is a debate, it seems pretty obvious to me. The "he's just the 53rd player on the roster and players #47 - #53 don't dress" is a very lazy response and intellectually dishonest IMO.
How many other teams have a QB coach taking up a roster spot because he is good in the room or helps the QB with mechanics or to watch film. Serious question. I don't know the answer and I doubt many of us are this familiar with other teams rosters to know if this is common. My sense is no, it's not common.
Accepting what your team publishes essentially as PR and being spoon fed that information without question doesn't make you right.
and it doesn't make the Giants right.
Let's face it despite some fans perceptions the Giants are not exactly a model franchise the past 7 years.
I think most fans should disagree with having anyone on the roster, spot #1 - #53 and even the PS who has no on-field value and is not being coached or developed to increase their on-field value. I don't even think this is a debate, it seems pretty obvious to me. The "he's just the 53rd player on the roster and players #47 - #53 don't dress" is a very lazy response and intellectually dishonest IMO.
How many other teams have a QB coach taking up a roster spot because he is good in the room or helps the QB with mechanics or to watch film. Serious question. I don't know the answer and I doubt many of us are this familiar with other teams rosters to know if this is common. My sense is no, it's not common.
Accepting what your team publishes essentially as PR and being spoon fed that information without question doesn't make you right.
and it doesn't make the Giants right.
Let's face it despite some fans perceptions the Giants are not exactly a model franchise the past 7 years.
Teams absolutely keep players at the very bottom of the roster because they believe they bring something to the table other than strictly on-field performance. If the spot was needed for an active game day player they will cut him (as they already have done). Yes 7 players do not dress on game day. That is not lazy ITS FACT. Who exactly is player #53 preventing from dressing? Im still waiting for an answer. The hoopla over this is unreal.
And who knows who the player pushed off the roster is, maybe it's Paul Perkins when the Giants are left with a garbage practice squad player at RB due to injury (Hilliman).
Maybe it's Matt McCants who was the final cut one year to keep a 3rd QB and he started at OL for the Raiders that same season. (shitty player, but he contributed on-field)
Maybe it's the next Victor Cruz.
Or maybe it's a no-name who will amount to nothing - like Alonzo Russell - who would remain a free agent drawing zero interest around the league.
Whoever it is, I'd rather have them, even if they don't pan out even a little over Alex Tanney.
Teams absolutely keep players at the very bottom of the roster because they believe they bring something to the table other than strictly on-field performance. If the spot was needed for an active game day player they will cut him (as they already have done). Yes 7 players do not dress on game day. That is not lazy ITS FACT. Who exactly is player #53 preventing from dressing? Im still waiting for an answer. The hoopla over this is unreal.
It's not the discussion that's unreal it's the exaggeration by those that say it's no big deal. Nobody is flipping out that Tanney is on the roster. It would have been more beneficial had the Giants kept an extra RB rather than Tanney to start the season which would have prevented Hilliman from starting.
It sounds like Tanney is the QB coach who is taking up a roster spot. I think it would have been better had they released him before week one and then kept in contact with him to see if he was willing to begin his coaching career. After a few weeks with no interest from any teams a guaranteed coaching job would eventually be too good to pass up.
Quote:
In comment 14632930 TrueBlue56 said:
Quote:
In comment 14632892 Nine-Tails said:
Quote:
why not just have him be the qb coach then. We all saw him play, and he is not good. But, it is what it is, I've accepted that he'll last the season and possibly more.
Because a coach is limited with the amount of time they can spend with a player under the current cba. A player does not fall under the coach / player limitations and restrictions.
He'd also have to take a big cut in pay as a coach.
The article is really excellent.
Who says he'd have to take a pay cut? Clearly the Giants have determined his value to be ~$1M/yr. There's no salary cap on coaches, so if they want to overpay their QB coach instead of overpaying their pretend QB coach, what's the difference?
Even if you want to completely buy into the value that Tanney brings, I think we can all agree that we would prefer if he never actually plays in a game, so his valuation isn't necessarily about what he represents in terms of play on the field.
Also, in terms of really making a compelling argument, do you honestly believe that anyone who takes issue with Tanney's role as a roster-bound QB coach is going to consider your point about his fucking salary and think, "oh, I hadn't thought about that - you're totally right, we can't have the legendary Alex Tanney making less money AND freeing up a roster spot!"
I never thought I'd actually encounter a Tanney fanboy, but I guess some people like trick shots.
As the article points out, think what this will do to the salary structure of the other coaches.
sure would have been nice to have another RB on the roster.
I think most fans should disagree with having anyone on the roster, spot #1 - #53 and even the PS who has no on-field value and is not being coached or developed to increase their on-field value. I don't even think this is a debate, it seems pretty obvious to me. The "he's just the 53rd player on the roster and players #47 - #53 don't dress" is a very lazy response and intellectually dishonest IMO.
How many other teams have a QB coach taking up a roster spot because he is good in the room or helps the QB with mechanics or to watch film. Serious question. I don't know the answer and I doubt many of us are this familiar with other teams rosters to know if this is common. My sense is no, it's not common.
Accepting what your team publishes essentially as PR and being spoon fed that information without question doesn't make you right.
and it doesn't make the Giants right.
Let's face it despite some fans perceptions the Giants are not exactly a model franchise the past 7 years.
Well it sure seems to be a massive issue for some. We get daily threads, sometimes multiple threads daily, with fans bitching about it. Look, Id prefer Tanney be gone as well, but this is just getting stupid at this point. Tanner hasnt prevented the Giants from bringing in another RB. They could have and should have cut Hiliman a long time ago and replaced him with another RB. Having him on the roster has been a much bigger issue than Tanney. This teams main goal this season is to develop their future franchise QB. And if they feel Tanney is helping with that, then hes much more valuable than some of the other dregs on this roster. You keep saying its not a huge deal, but the incessant bitching about it sure makes it feel like it is.
In real time, not hindsight, people were questioning the wisdom of going with fewer RB and more QB.
Would it have made a difference at RB if we'd done otherwise? Would DJ be worse? Who knows, but it is a shining example of how roster numbers/depth at various positions is a valid discussion. Allocating one more at position X means you have to take one away from a different position.
sure would have been nice to have another RB on the roster.
It's the NFL, teams get banged up and use 47-53 for short term injured players.
Didn't Cruz get the start at Philly because of injuries at WR? And only the Giants being Giants were thinking real hard of cutting him, needed a roster spot for a mascot.
I also think it is a joke that he is still on the roster.
That last preseason game against the Pats told me all I
need to know about Tanney ON the field. He is in there
against 3rd stringers fumbling and throwing picks.
In the meantime, they cut Lauletta, my guess is they didn't want two young QB's on the roster.
I am not saying Lauletta is anything special, but he sure looks better than Tanney.
How many organizations has Tanney been with before he arrived here? I believe he has played in one game in his career as well.
Quote:
why not just have him be the qb coach then. We all saw him play, and he is not good. But, it is what it is, I've accepted that he'll last the season and possibly more.
Because a coach is limited with the amount of time they can spend with a player under the current cba. A player does not fall under the coach / player limitations and restrictions.
BINGO
Quote:
In comment 14632892 Nine-Tails said:
Quote:
why not just have him be the qb coach then. We all saw him play, and he is not good. But, it is what it is, I've accepted that he'll last the season and possibly more.
Because a coach is limited with the amount of time they can spend with a player under the current cba. A player does not fall under the coach / player limitations and restrictions.
BINGO
Is there a succinct summary of what the time restrictions are for coaches interfacing with players during the season under the current CBA?
Quote:
In comment 14632948 Jay in Toronto said:
Quote:
In comment 14632930 TrueBlue56 said:
Quote:
In comment 14632892 Nine-Tails said:
Quote:
why not just have him be the qb coach then. We all saw him play, and he is not good. But, it is what it is, I've accepted that he'll last the season and possibly more.
Because a coach is limited with the amount of time they can spend with a player under the current cba. A player does not fall under the coach / player limitations and restrictions.
He'd also have to take a big cut in pay as a coach.
The article is really excellent.
Who says he'd have to take a pay cut? Clearly the Giants have determined his value to be ~$1M/yr. There's no salary cap on coaches, so if they want to overpay their QB coach instead of overpaying their pretend QB coach, what's the difference?
Even if you want to completely buy into the value that Tanney brings, I think we can all agree that we would prefer if he never actually plays in a game, so his valuation isn't necessarily about what he represents in terms of play on the field.
Also, in terms of really making a compelling argument, do you honestly believe that anyone who takes issue with Tanney's role as a roster-bound QB coach is going to consider your point about his fucking salary and think, "oh, I hadn't thought about that - you're totally right, we can't have the legendary Alex Tanney making less money AND freeing up a roster spot!"
I never thought I'd actually encounter a Tanney fanboy, but I guess some people like trick shots.
As the article points out, think what this will do to the salary structure of the other coaches.
Who gives a fuck? If you're willing to piss away a roster spot in an attempt to circumvent the CBA's rules on player/coach interactions, you're going to draw the line at disrupting the salary structure of coaches?
Do you realize how batshit crazy that sounds?
Who do you propose we add to the active roster instead of Tanney?
There are at least 10 guys here that don't belong on an NFL roster, but for some reason this is the one that everybody is fixated on.
It's not about being a Tanney "fanboy" it's about not giving a fuck because it isn't relevant. The roster spot isnt "precious". We suck. If we were loaded with talent and he was taking up a roster spot while we cut better players, then this obsession would be warranted. It's not.