both have problem owners which is the root of all the problems.
Dolan is a worse owner than the Mara/Tisches, but a basketball team can be turned around quicker than a football team IMO, just because you're talking about 5 starters and maybe 3 key subs versus 22 starters and maybe 10 key subs.
Owners who have no clue what they are doing and meddle way too much, terrible front offices, and clueless coaching .
Spending over 5 hours watching giants and knicks is just painful. Throw in the devils who have clueless hynes as their HC and thank god for the yankees or i would lose my sanity
both have problem owners which is the root of all the problems.
Dolan is a worse owner than the Mara/Tisches, but a basketball team can be turned around quicker than a football team IMO, just because you're talking about 5 starters and maybe 3 key subs versus 22 starters and maybe 10 key subs.
I actually think it's the other way around. Basketball needs top tier stars to field a high performing team, and there's not enough of them to go around. So you're either hoping to win a draft lottery (not only you have to be bad, but you have to be bad and lucky), and in many drafts the top picks don't even really amount to all that much. The only other way is to build via FA, which requires you to navigate the cap properly and attract top flight FAs. The Knicks are a prime example - they did all the right things last year, but failed miserably - because they didn't win the lottery and because they weren't attractive enough to FAs.
In football, the salary cap (parity) forces turnover. You can buy talent, although it's not easy. Drafts are deeper with players, so although some positions are extremely difficult to fill (QB, DE) the rest can get you at least a competitive level of talent.
That the Giants have been this bad for this long is a reflection of how far off their management is.
The Giants have been bad for 6 years or so (2013 to now) Â
misunderstanding the question. I think he means who's worse at this moment, not as a franchise as a whole. its not close if that was what he was asking.
I think the Knicks are definitely in a better position to actually being a fun team to watch. Basketball is a lot easier to focus on one player to turnaround the franchise. I enjoy watching knicks games more than Giants games because I can see what we have in RJ
And I actually like the position there both in for the future. Now if we can just make the right moves going forward not to blow it. There lies the problem.
If I had to bet which of Knicks or Giants turns it around first, ie making the playoffs, I'd probably bet the Giants.
Dolan is a worse owner than the Mara/Tisches, but a basketball team can be turned around quicker than a football team IMO, just because you're talking about 5 starters and maybe 3 key subs versus 22 starters and maybe 10 key subs.
I'm excited to be a Met's fan.
And, I am a Ranger's fan and they are young, fast and fun, and have the best player they've had in years in Panarin.
Never thought I'd hope for the Giants to just be competitive.
The Knicks have been bad for so long, but boy was it fun with Patrick and the gang, even if they never won a title.
If I had to bet which of Knicks or Giants turns it around first, ie making the playoffs, I'd probably bet the Giants.
The funny thing is the Mets have been to the World Series more recently than the Yankees.
Spending over 5 hours watching giants and knicks is just painful. Throw in the devils who have clueless hynes as their HC and thank god for the yankees or i would lose my sanity
Dolan is a worse owner than the Mara/Tisches, but a basketball team can be turned around quicker than a football team IMO, just because you're talking about 5 starters and maybe 3 key subs versus 22 starters and maybe 10 key subs.
I actually think it's the other way around. Basketball needs top tier stars to field a high performing team, and there's not enough of them to go around. So you're either hoping to win a draft lottery (not only you have to be bad, but you have to be bad and lucky), and in many drafts the top picks don't even really amount to all that much. The only other way is to build via FA, which requires you to navigate the cap properly and attract top flight FAs. The Knicks are a prime example - they did all the right things last year, but failed miserably - because they didn't win the lottery and because they weren't attractive enough to FAs.
In football, the salary cap (parity) forces turnover. You can buy talent, although it's not easy. Drafts are deeper with players, so although some positions are extremely difficult to fill (QB, DE) the rest can get you at least a competitive level of talent.
That the Giants have been this bad for this long is a reflection of how far off their management is.
It's impossible to sink lower than the Knicks in any sports league.
Dolan is the 2nd worst owner in history and if he lives long enough he'll pass Sterling to be the worst.
Who owns the Rangers?
The Giants would have to be this bad for another decade plus have a complete embarrassment of an owner for them to get to Knicks-level dysfunction
Quote:
is that the Rangers are young, exciting to watch and looking like they very well may make the playoffs. That happened pretty quickly.
Who owns the Rangers?
That's why it's not completely off point. It's not just who the owner is, it's whether the owner gets the hell out of the way.
Which is in worse shape in the immediate, was what I meant.
I think the Knicks are definitely in a better position to actually being a fun team to watch. Basketball is a lot easier to focus on one player to turnaround the franchise. I enjoy watching knicks games more than Giants games because I can see what we have in RJ
Frank and Mitchell Robinson are nice pieces.
I think Knox... is what he is and I don't think that he's a starter in this league.
That's it. If they get another top 3 pick and can end up with one of Wiseman/Edwards/Cole then, we have something.
The porzingis trade set us back another few years. We didn't get anything worth wile in return.