I get it. We all love our team but sometimes I am left dumbfounded when I read the comments by fans of the New York Football Giants.
I get it. This is your team that your parents rooting interest passed down and now we're adults.
You may have heard the following misnomers from our fans over the last few years of losing.
-How is it that this fan base in particular loves to overrate players like Engram?
-Players like BJ Hill show promise, I'm laughing at this.
-Guys like Peppers are studs.
-Its going to take 2 or 3 drafts to get things back on the right track
-Shurmur is doing a good job with the situation Gettleman enshrouded this team with? Excuse after excuse with the cap room, or lack of.
-All these players who are terrible picks need 2-3 years to develop
-This guy isn't being used the proper way, I see you Evan Engram.
-Even after 10 years of bad drafting, we still think these high picks are going to save us (even though we whiff with players like Flowers, Apple, Engram.
This is a bad team, with a bad owner and a bad GM and a bad coach. Could it be that simple?
If I went to a Bengals board would there be comments stating how everyone is delusional because they don't like bad players?
That's the kind of crap you see posted on Twitter.
Lmao. Yeah, the biggest Pom Pom waver. No issues with this roster, none.
Quote:
he doesn't like the roster as much as Britt
Lmao. Yeah, the biggest Pom Pom waver. No issues with this roster, none.
I never said that. Never. Carry on.
Every team has something to be positive about, that’s a fact. Just because the bengals suck doesn’t mean Jessica Bates doesn’t have potential and an green sucks. Most NFL players that are drafted came from winning programs in college and went through hell and high water to get to their position. Maybe you just don’t like football as much as you think you do. Maybe you don’t like football unless your team has a winning record.
Either way, the fire everyone phase every two years is getting old. You’re either a fanatic and along for the ride, or you’re not. You shouldn’t have to make up lies like Shurmur is a good HC in order to find something positive to say about this team.
Basically, you can be unhappy with the results but its not the fault of the ownership, GM, coaches (we'll some fault Shurmur), or players. It just is.
In reality its an organization that is not forward thinking and so insular that it rarely looks outside its comfort zone for a solution, while the NFL is rapidly evolving. It's so predictable that you can read the posts of observant BBI posters (Terps, etc.) and figure out the exact course of the organization (e.g. many of us knew DG was going to be hired before Reese was out the door). These are all symptoms of a bottom rung organization.
Basically, you can be unhappy with the results but its not the fault of the ownership, GM, coaches (we'll some fault Shurmur), or players. It just is.
In reality its an organization that is not forward thinking and so insular that it rarely looks outside its comfort zone for a solution, while the NFL is rapidly evolving. It's so predictable that you can read the posts of observant BBI posters (Terps, etc.) and figure out the exact course of the organization (e.g. many of us knew DG was going to be hired before Reese was out the door). These are all symptoms of a bottom rung organization.
Yeah man, it's crazy how many victims we have on BBI these days, just speaking the truth and getting yelled out. I feel sorry for them.
There is also an equally large group who see poor performance in almost everyone...players, coaches and management. These are the pessimists.
And then there are the realists, which is how each member of both groups self-identifies.
;>)
There is also an equally large group who see poor performance in almost everyone...players, coaches and management. These are the pessimists.
And then there are the realists, which is how each member of both groups self-identifies.
;>)
This is pretty accurate, actually.
Quote:
Its a component of BBI who blast anyone that dare question the wisdom of the organization that's produced the worst on field results in the entire NFL since 2017, and bottom 5 results since 2013. Then, once the organization makes the decision the entire planet thought prudent 3 years ago, it was always the right decision.
Basically, you can be unhappy with the results but its not the fault of the ownership, GM, coaches (we'll some fault Shurmur), or players. It just is.
In reality its an organization that is not forward thinking and so insular that it rarely looks outside its comfort zone for a solution, while the NFL is rapidly evolving. It's so predictable that you can read the posts of observant BBI posters (Terps, etc.) and figure out the exact course of the organization (e.g. many of us knew DG was going to be hired before Reese was out the door). These are all symptoms of a bottom rung organization.
Yeah man, it's crazy how many victims we have on BBI these days, just speaking the truth and getting yelled out. I feel sorry for them.
Poor us...
You're right, this board is about 95% miserable and the other 5% falls into the indifferent or let it play out catetgory. Contrary to what you read here, nobody think this is a great situation.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
Well said.
'17: McAdoo and Reese suck
'18: Reese sucks; Gettleman and Shurmur were hampered cleaning up Reese's mess - we scored some points late in '18 so the mess is almost cleaned up and we'll be good in '19
'19: Shurmur sucks. Gettleman's drafts were excellent but are being held back by poor coaching.
It's like stepping on stones to cross a creek from reality to the shores of fiction and delusion. One boogeyman to the next.
The reason the pom pom guys do it, I believe, is because it creates an easy and quick path to success. "We're almost there...we just need to do X."
The penchant for self-delusion is nothing new. I remember Lavar Arrington being a target of mockery when he was Redskin. A figure of fun. But when the Giants signed him you'd think he was Wilbur Marshall. But at least the Giants were still pretty good in '05.
Now it's a defense mechanism. The pom pom guys don't want to accept that the Giants have deep rooted organizational problems, because that destroys the myth that they are just X away from competing.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
Counter argument, sometimes the steady, methodical approach is what works in the long run. It ebbs and flows and cycles back. It's not the shiny new toy that is the analytics rage, and it's not the hot up and coming give a first time guy full control HC/GM that some advocate, it's just the boring, same old approach that wins us a Superbowl every ten years or so on average, since we're the only team to win one in every decade for the last 40 years.
It ain't working too hot right now. But that doesn't mean you completely scrap it. This can be solved with something as simple as better scouting, better acquisition of players, and better coaching. It doesn't have to be a brand new futuristic model. See the Steelers. They've been doing it the same way for 50 years and getting fine results. They don't need shiny objects to keep it going, just steady and methodical.
'17: McAdoo and Reese suck
'18: Reese sucks; Gettleman and Shurmur were hampered cleaning up Reese's mess - we scored some points late in '18 so the mess is almost cleaned up and we'll be good in '19
'19: Shurmur sucks. Gettleman's drafts were excellent but are being held back by poor coaching.
It's like stepping on stones to cross a creek from reality to the shores of fiction and delusion. One boogeyman to the next.
The reason the pom pom guys do it, I believe, is because it creates an easy and quick path to success. "We're almost there...we just need to do X."
The penchant for self-delusion is nothing new. I remember Lavar Arrington being a target of mockery when he was Redskin. A figure of fun. But when the Giants signed him you'd think he was Wilbur Marshall. But at least the Giants were still pretty good in '05.
Now it's a defense mechanism. The pom pom guys don't want to accept that the Giants have deep rooted organizational problems, because that destroys the myth that they are just X away from competing.
And in 2022, when Abrams is the GM in middle of year 2 of 5-11 season with Garrett as head coach, it will be they need time to clean up the Gettlemen mess, and Jones is almost there.
'17: McAdoo and Reese suck
'18: Reese sucks; Gettleman and Shurmur were hampered cleaning up Reese's mess - we scored some points late in '18 so the mess is almost cleaned up and we'll be good in '19
'19: Shurmur sucks. Gettleman's drafts were excellent but are being held back by poor coaching.
It's like stepping on stones to cross a creek from reality to the shores of fiction and delusion. One boogeyman to the next.
The reason the pom pom guys do it, I believe, is because it creates an easy and quick path to success. "We're almost there...we just need to do X."
The penchant for self-delusion is nothing new. I remember Lavar Arrington being a target of mockery when he was Redskin. A figure of fun. But when the Giants signed him you'd think he was Wilbur Marshall. But at least the Giants were still pretty good in '05.
Now it's a defense mechanism. The pom pom guys don't want to accept that the Giants have deep rooted organizational problems, because that destroys the myth that they are just X away from competing.
And all of those could be true.
Is this call out thread necessary? What's the point? You want to call people bad fans?
This is entertainment. It's not life or death. People can choose to be entertained, or rationalize this however they want.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
Just because people don’t agree with firing DG, doesn’t mean we’re defending him. DG is not perfect, I’m sure every Giant fan realizes that, but how many Gm’s in the nfl are?? You can find reasons to fire every GM in the nfl. Don’t you remember that 95% of this board thought Eli was a bust in 2006 and early 2007??? Say what you want but loyal Giants fans have been rewarded. So yes, you’re dealing with an abnormally loyal fan base.
"And all of those could be true."
The problem is the Giants (i.e. Mara) don't know if they are true. He's guessing, and his guesses are informed by antiquated thinking rife with nostalgia, sentimentality, and nepotism. When he loses, he doesn't know why he lost. And on the rare occasions he wins, he doesn't know why he won.
As the losses continue to pile up we are learning that whether or not those things are true doesn't matter, because they aren't the problem.
The problem is this: Mara is not trying to win, but hoping to win.
Quote:
I think - from what I'm gathering - you are pointing out how a large portion of our fanbase seems overly optimistic and defensive toward any criticism of the organization.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
Counter argument, sometimes the steady, methodical approach is what works in the long run. It ebbs and flows and cycles back. It's not the shiny new toy that is the analytics rage, and it's not the hot up and coming give a first time guy full control HC/GM that some advocate, it's just the boring, same old approach that wins us a Superbowl every ten years or so on average, since we're the only team to win one in every decade for the last 40 years.
It ain't working too hot right now. But that doesn't mean you completely scrap it. This can be solved with something as simple as better scouting, better acquisition of players, and better coaching. It doesn't have to be a brand new futuristic model. See the Steelers. They've been doing it the same way for 50 years and getting fine results. They don't need shiny objects to keep it going, just steady and methodical.
Britt, serious question, I get your optimism I was there too prior to 2017. But, what have you seen from DG that makes you think he's running a competent organization - if he's even the one really making the decisions. The Oline is a bigger mess than when he inherited the team- except now big dollars are being paid to a replacement level LT.
He sunk a cornerstone pick on a running back who has predictably struggled in his second year because the Oline stinks and no team respects the passing game. Now that running back, heading into year 3 of what will likely be another lost season, will be coming up on needing material cap space allocated to him, which I believe has been pointed out (I think it was Bill Barnwell) is not something most NFL teams are looking to do - see Steelers. So its either you hamper a rebuild by allocating material cap space to Barkley or you trade/let him walk which then makes the decision to draft him head scratching because he was never part of the rebuild.
You point out the Steelers as an exercise in consistency. It's easy to be consistent when you've had only a handful of losing seasons since the mid 70s. In fact, I think the Giants have had as many losing in the past 8 years as the Steelers have had since the mid 70s.
The team has regressed in a major way in 2019, both coaching and talent wise. So I ask, what have you seen that warrants more of the same approach for consistency sake?
The Steelers have been doing it a lot better than we have even going back to the 00s when both teams were good. To the Steelers, going 9-7 is a disappointment. To the Giants, that's basically what we hope for. And I understand that the team won a SB at 9-7, but at the end of the day, that's an aberration, not a strategy.
Quote:
In comment 14709082 Lambuth_Special said:
Quote:
I think - from what I'm gathering - you are pointing out how a large portion of our fanbase seems overly optimistic and defensive toward any criticism of the organization.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
Counter argument, sometimes the steady, methodical approach is what works in the long run. It ebbs and flows and cycles back. It's not the shiny new toy that is the analytics rage, and it's not the hot up and coming give a first time guy full control HC/GM that some advocate, it's just the boring, same old approach that wins us a Superbowl every ten years or so on average, since we're the only team to win one in every decade for the last 40 years.
It ain't working too hot right now. But that doesn't mean you completely scrap it. This can be solved with something as simple as better scouting, better acquisition of players, and better coaching. It doesn't have to be a brand new futuristic model. See the Steelers. They've been doing it the same way for 50 years and getting fine results. They don't need shiny objects to keep it going, just steady and methodical.
Britt, serious question, I get your optimism I was there too prior to 2017. But, what have you seen from DG that makes you think he's running a competent organization - if he's even the one really making the decisions. The Oline is a bigger mess than when he inherited the team- except now big dollars are being paid to a replacement level LT.
He sunk a cornerstone pick on a running back who has predictably struggled in his second year because the Oline stinks and no team respects the passing game. Now that running back, heading into year 3 of what will likely be another lost season, will be coming up on needing material cap space allocated to him, which I believe has been pointed out (I think it was Bill Barnwell) is not something most NFL teams are looking to do - see Steelers. So its either you hamper a rebuild by allocating material cap space to Barkley or you trade/let him walk which then makes the decision to draft him head scratching because he was never part of the rebuild.
You point out the Steelers as an exercise in consistency. It's easy to be consistent when you've had only a handful of losing seasons since the mid 70s. In fact, I think the Giants have had as many losing in the past 8 years as the Steelers have had since the mid 70s.
The team has regressed in a major way in 2019, both coaching and talent wise. So I ask, what have you seen that warrants more of the same approach for consistency sake?
He's had to completely rebuild a roster and start very nearly from scratch in two off seasons. That's 53 guys and surely there are going to be hits and misses.
I do like a lot of the young talent acquired, and we need to keep trying new pieces until we get it right.
Despite what people say about him not having a plan, I think he's been very up front with the plan since Day 1 as far as building the team goes, and what he thinks wins in the NFL, and I believe that his moves represent that vision, right, wrong, or indifferent.
I just want to give it more time.
You think they are dumb, foolish, clueless, whatever....
I don't think they are those things. I view it from a different lense. It is what it is.
Quote:
In comment 14709102 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14709082 Lambuth_Special said:
Quote:
I think - from what I'm gathering - you are pointing out how a large portion of our fanbase seems overly optimistic and defensive toward any criticism of the organization.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
Counter argument, sometimes the steady, methodical approach is what works in the long run. It ebbs and flows and cycles back. It's not the shiny new toy that is the analytics rage, and it's not the hot up and coming give a first time guy full control HC/GM that some advocate, it's just the boring, same old approach that wins us a Superbowl every ten years or so on average, since we're the only team to win one in every decade for the last 40 years.
It ain't working too hot right now. But that doesn't mean you completely scrap it. This can be solved with something as simple as better scouting, better acquisition of players, and better coaching. It doesn't have to be a brand new futuristic model. See the Steelers. They've been doing it the same way for 50 years and getting fine results. They don't need shiny objects to keep it going, just steady and methodical.
Britt, serious question, I get your optimism I was there too prior to 2017. But, what have you seen from DG that makes you think he's running a competent organization - if he's even the one really making the decisions. The Oline is a bigger mess than when he inherited the team- except now big dollars are being paid to a replacement level LT.
He sunk a cornerstone pick on a running back who has predictably struggled in his second year because the Oline stinks and no team respects the passing game. Now that running back, heading into year 3 of what will likely be another lost season, will be coming up on needing material cap space allocated to him, which I believe has been pointed out (I think it was Bill Barnwell) is not something most NFL teams are looking to do - see Steelers. So its either you hamper a rebuild by allocating material cap space to Barkley or you trade/let him walk which then makes the decision to draft him head scratching because he was never part of the rebuild.
You point out the Steelers as an exercise in consistency. It's easy to be consistent when you've had only a handful of losing seasons since the mid 70s. In fact, I think the Giants have had as many losing in the past 8 years as the Steelers have had since the mid 70s.
The team has regressed in a major way in 2019, both coaching and talent wise. So I ask, what have you seen that warrants more of the same approach for consistency sake?
He's had to completely rebuild a roster and start very nearly from scratch in two off seasons. That's 53 guys and surely there are going to be hits and misses.
I do like a lot of the young talent acquired, and we need to keep trying new pieces until we get it right.
Despite what people say about him not having a plan, I think he's been very up front with the plan since Day 1 as far as building the team goes, and what he thinks wins in the NFL, and I believe that his moves represent that vision, right, wrong, or indifferent.
I just want to give it more time.
Fair enough. So do you then blame the regression of some players on Shurmur and his staff? And if so, do you think Shurmur should get another year?
If you see a fully loaded 747 fly into a mountain at 500 MPH, do you pretend everyone on board is ok because you don't want to confront the reality of it?
Whatever your opinion, there is one indisputable metric that paints the real picture. Wins and losses. And the picture they paint is of a fully loaded 747 flying into a mountain at 500 mph.
Quote:
In comment 14709122 lax counsel said:
Quote:
In comment 14709102 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14709082 Lambuth_Special said:
Quote:
I think - from what I'm gathering - you are pointing out how a large portion of our fanbase seems overly optimistic and defensive toward any criticism of the organization.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
Counter argument, sometimes the steady, methodical approach is what works in the long run. It ebbs and flows and cycles back. It's not the shiny new toy that is the analytics rage, and it's not the hot up and coming give a first time guy full control HC/GM that some advocate, it's just the boring, same old approach that wins us a Superbowl every ten years or so on average, since we're the only team to win one in every decade for the last 40 years.
It ain't working too hot right now. But that doesn't mean you completely scrap it. This can be solved with something as simple as better scouting, better acquisition of players, and better coaching. It doesn't have to be a brand new futuristic model. See the Steelers. They've been doing it the same way for 50 years and getting fine results. They don't need shiny objects to keep it going, just steady and methodical.
Britt, serious question, I get your optimism I was there too prior to 2017. But, what have you seen from DG that makes you think he's running a competent organization - if he's even the one really making the decisions. The Oline is a bigger mess than when he inherited the team- except now big dollars are being paid to a replacement level LT.
He sunk a cornerstone pick on a running back who has predictably struggled in his second year because the Oline stinks and no team respects the passing game. Now that running back, heading into year 3 of what will likely be another lost season, will be coming up on needing material cap space allocated to him, which I believe has been pointed out (I think it was Bill Barnwell) is not something most NFL teams are looking to do - see Steelers. So its either you hamper a rebuild by allocating material cap space to Barkley or you trade/let him walk which then makes the decision to draft him head scratching because he was never part of the rebuild.
You point out the Steelers as an exercise in consistency. It's easy to be consistent when you've had only a handful of losing seasons since the mid 70s. In fact, I think the Giants have had as many losing in the past 8 years as the Steelers have had since the mid 70s.
The team has regressed in a major way in 2019, both coaching and talent wise. So I ask, what have you seen that warrants more of the same approach for consistency sake?
He's had to completely rebuild a roster and start very nearly from scratch in two off seasons. That's 53 guys and surely there are going to be hits and misses.
I do like a lot of the young talent acquired, and we need to keep trying new pieces until we get it right.
Despite what people say about him not having a plan, I think he's been very up front with the plan since Day 1 as far as building the team goes, and what he thinks wins in the NFL, and I believe that his moves represent that vision, right, wrong, or indifferent.
I just want to give it more time.
Fair enough. So do you then blame the regression of some players on Shurmur and his staff? And if so, do you think Shurmur should get another year?
No, I want Shurmur and staff gone.
Quote:
In comment 14709133 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14709122 lax counsel said:
Quote:
In comment 14709102 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 14709082 Lambuth_Special said:
Quote:
I think - from what I'm gathering - you are pointing out how a large portion of our fanbase seems overly optimistic and defensive toward any criticism of the organization.
A lot of this faith appears to be based on the past performance of the franchise. They've won 4 SB championships and numerous other NFL championships throughout their history, so people many people trust that they know what they're doing.
As we know, however, past performance doesn't predict future results. Ideas grow stale, the methods used to win in one decade don't work for the next, and critical front office people lose their touch.
It happens to a lot of franchises. The Green Bay Packers won the first two superbowls then basically fell into 25 years of irrelevance until Brett Favre. The 49ers went from Montana - Young - Garcia to seven years of sucking until Jim Harbaugh. The Cowboys of the late 90s/early 00s were pretty lousy, and it's not like the Garrett years are a golden period anyway.
The Giants can easily get out of this with some forward-thinking and a legitimate shakeup. What us pessimists (and I imagine you are part of this group) are struggling with is the idea that the current regime/structure is going to lead us there. They seem intent on playing the hits that got them through the 00s with no evidence that this approach works anymore.
It's hard to understand the DG defenders, especially since we are faced with goalpost moving arguments. At the end of 2018, they were all praising his draft and his 3rd round picks compared to Reese. One year later - surprise! - 3rd picks apparently don't matter anymore now they haven't worked out for him.
Counter argument, sometimes the steady, methodical approach is what works in the long run. It ebbs and flows and cycles back. It's not the shiny new toy that is the analytics rage, and it's not the hot up and coming give a first time guy full control HC/GM that some advocate, it's just the boring, same old approach that wins us a Superbowl every ten years or so on average, since we're the only team to win one in every decade for the last 40 years.
It ain't working too hot right now. But that doesn't mean you completely scrap it. This can be solved with something as simple as better scouting, better acquisition of players, and better coaching. It doesn't have to be a brand new futuristic model. See the Steelers. They've been doing it the same way for 50 years and getting fine results. They don't need shiny objects to keep it going, just steady and methodical.
Britt, serious question, I get your optimism I was there too prior to 2017. But, what have you seen from DG that makes you think he's running a competent organization - if he's even the one really making the decisions. The Oline is a bigger mess than when he inherited the team- except now big dollars are being paid to a replacement level LT.
He sunk a cornerstone pick on a running back who has predictably struggled in his second year because the Oline stinks and no team respects the passing game. Now that running back, heading into year 3 of what will likely be another lost season, will be coming up on needing material cap space allocated to him, which I believe has been pointed out (I think it was Bill Barnwell) is not something most NFL teams are looking to do - see Steelers. So its either you hamper a rebuild by allocating material cap space to Barkley or you trade/let him walk which then makes the decision to draft him head scratching because he was never part of the rebuild.
You point out the Steelers as an exercise in consistency. It's easy to be consistent when you've had only a handful of losing seasons since the mid 70s. In fact, I think the Giants have had as many losing in the past 8 years as the Steelers have had since the mid 70s.
The team has regressed in a major way in 2019, both coaching and talent wise. So I ask, what have you seen that warrants more of the same approach for consistency sake?
He's had to completely rebuild a roster and start very nearly from scratch in two off seasons. That's 53 guys and surely there are going to be hits and misses.
I do like a lot of the young talent acquired, and we need to keep trying new pieces until we get it right.
Despite what people say about him not having a plan, I think he's been very up front with the plan since Day 1 as far as building the team goes, and what he thinks wins in the NFL, and I believe that his moves represent that vision, right, wrong, or indifferent.
I just want to give it more time.
Fair enough. So do you then blame the regression of some players on Shurmur and his staff? And if so, do you think Shurmur should get another year?
No, I want Shurmur and staff gone.
Agreed. I guess in that circumstance you'd have to be happy/comfortable letting DG have input on a second coach.
Quote:
think of this team, I'd have slit my wrists already. Or stopped watching at the very least.
If you see a fully loaded 747 fly into a mountain at 500 MPH, do you pretend everyone on board is ok because you don't want to confront the reality of it?
Britt's last thought just before he hit that mountain...
"Damn it! Now I'm going to miss Eli's comeback year."
Uncalled for. but I doubt someone like him would even know what to do with her. It would take him 2-3 years and he still wouldnt be productive on her.
Quote:
think of this team, I'd have slit my wrists already. Or stopped watching at the very least.
If you see a fully loaded 747 fly into a mountain at 500 MPH, do you pretend everyone on board is ok because you don't want to confront the reality of it?
Whatever your opinion, there is one indisputable metric that paints the real picture. Wins and losses. And the picture they paint is of a fully loaded 747 flying into a mountain at 500 mph.
That’s not really an accurate analogy though. If you see a fully loaded 747 fly into a mountain, do you automatically think the pilot was drunk or the engine malfunctioned, who gets fired? Everybody? Your company is going to lose money, shareholders will panic. That’s still not a good reason to fire everyone in the front office.
You have to investigate and see a solution before you know who to fire. You’ve investigated, but what’s your solution? I hope you don’t think some imaginary front office consulting group is going to come in here and fix all our problems...
But I've suggested that for a couple years, and I see you registered November '19...so who were you before?
But I've suggested that for a couple years, and I see you registered November '19...so who were you before?
Quote:
That's exactly what I'd do if I were Mara: hire at least two consultants with no previous affiliation to the Giants to tell me about best practices around the NFL and which candidates to interview to implement those practices.
But I've suggested that for a couple years, and I see you registered November '19...so who were you before?
First handle brotha, believe it or not, but uhh why are these consultants more qualified to make decisions for a billion dollar organization, then let’s say, me, you, or Ernie Accorsi? Is it completely analytics based consulting or are these previous execs in the league?
I doubt it is, but whatever.
I don't know who Mara needs to call...I don't have his contact list...but I promise you he has a contact list, and I promise you that these consultants are out there.
Shit, he can start by talking to other owners. Steve Bisciotti, David Tepper, Jeff Lurie...start there.
Quote:
In comment 14709202 Go Terps said:
Quote:
That's exactly what I'd do if I were Mara: hire at least two consultants with no previous affiliation to the Giants to tell me about best practices around the NFL and which candidates to interview to implement those practices.
But I've suggested that for a couple years, and I see you registered November '19...so who were you before?
First handle brotha, believe it or not, but uhh why are these consultants more qualified to make decisions for a billion dollar organization, then let’s say, me, you, or Ernie Accorsi? Is it completely analytics based consulting or are these previous execs in the league?
I doubt it is, but whatever.
I don't know who Mara needs to call...I don't have his contact list...but I promise you he has a contact list, and I promise you that these consultants are out there.
Shit, he can start by talking to other owners. Steve Bisciotti, David Tepper, Jeff Lurie...start there.
That’s fair enough, I haven’t seen you go this in-depth on a solution before, I honestly didn’t think you had one. I was wrong. That’s my bad.
As to the list of execs, I would hope Mara doesn’t need advice from a 2 year owner in Tepper, or we truly have much bigger problems. Where I see a problem is Chris Mara and this brain trust way of coming to decisions, specifically the one that led to bringing Eli back. If a family member should have any role in the organization, it should be as a scout only, not directing a group of scouts, that’s too much power.
The team has not had a good coach in 4 years. I gave Shurmur a chance, but he is clearly not the guy moving forward. He is a poor game manager and has not been able to put a good staff together. The results have reflected it.
Gettleman is another story. He has done some good and some bad. In my mind he is a little arrogant and abrasive than he needs to be, but his track record is good and I would like to give him another year.
I still believe his drafts have been good. Who should we have picked over Barkley? Darnold? Chubb? Personally, I would have traded down, but I can't argue too much with picking SB.
I think most of us would say that Jones looks like a good pick so far. The OBJ trade looks good at the moment.
The FA story has not gone well. Will he be flexible enough to realize that what they were doing to evaluate FAs has not worked? I believe we need to improve our pro-scouting department (Chris Mara?). Most of the FAs have come from teams where Gettleman or our coaches have been.
Next steps:
1. I would hire a new coach with input from Gettleman AND some outside consultants not named Acorsi.
2. Open the checkbook and hire the best possible staff
3. Revamp the pro scouting department and scout coaches as well as players.
Once that is in place the combination of better coaching, FA signings, and draft assets should be enough to turn things around pretty quickly.
'17: McAdoo and Reese suck
'18: Reese sucks; Gettleman and Shurmur were hampered cleaning up Reese's mess - we scored some points late in '18 so the mess is almost cleaned up and we'll be good in '19
'19: Shurmur sucks. Gettleman's drafts were excellent but are being held back by poor coaching.
It's like stepping on stones to cross a creek from reality to the shores of fiction and delusion. One boogeyman to the next.
The reason the pom pom guys do it, I believe, is because it creates an easy and quick path to success. "We're almost there...we just need to do X."
The penchant for self-delusion is nothing new. I remember Lavar Arrington being a target of mockery when he was Redskin. A figure of fun. But when the Giants signed him you'd think he was Wilbur Marshall. But at least the Giants were still pretty good in '05.
Now it's a defense mechanism. The pom pom guys don't want to accept that the Giants have deep rooted organizational problems, because that destroys the myth that they are just X away from competing.
Few of the notable "pom-pom" people disappeared. Lol
'17: McAdoo and Reese suck
'18: Reese sucks; Gettleman and Shurmur were hampered cleaning up Reese's mess - we scored some points late in '18 so the mess is almost cleaned up and we'll be good in '19
'19: Shurmur sucks. Gettleman's drafts were excellent but are being held back by poor coaching.
It's like stepping on stones to cross a creek from reality to the shores of fiction and delusion. One boogeyman to the next.
The reason the pom pom guys do it, I believe, is because it creates an easy and quick path to success. "We're almost there...we just need to do X."
The penchant for self-delusion is nothing new. I remember Lavar Arrington being a target of mockery when he was Redskin. A figure of fun. But when the Giants signed him you'd think he was Wilbur Marshall. But at least the Giants were still pretty good in '05.
Now it's a defense mechanism. The pom pom guys don't want to accept that the Giants have deep rooted organizational problems, because that destroys the myth that they are just X away from competing.
Few of the notable "pom-pom" people disappeared. Lol
There really is no limit to a person's ability to rationalize the truth. How bad does it have to get?
Link - ( New Window )