Of a very limited team like Tennessee with their backup QB they traded a late round pick for and having one good weapon - their running game winning on the road in New England and then on the road in heavy favorite Baltimore with the MVP running QB and taking a first half lead at KC with last years MVP is that
Running the ball and stopping the run is dead?..
They ran all over NE, they ran all over Baltimore, they totally shut down Baltimores running, they took away all of KCs options for 3Qs and Mahomes made the plays with his legs
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Maybe I missed something, but the Titans just played in the AFC Championship game, so, yeah, that mantra still works. Sometimes you play a better team.
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
What do you mean KC didnt shut the run down?? They held Derrick Henry to under 100 yards and only 3.6 ypc. Had they not stopped the run Henry wouldve done what he had been doing for weeks, which was running for 150-200 yards. And had he done that, wouldve been a different game.
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
You're leaving out an extremely important aspect of winning: being good in the redzone (or as TC called it, the "green" zone) on both offense and defense.
Getting chunk plays is great, but if you can't convert redzone opportunities into TDs, you're not doing the most important thing in all of sports which is putting points on the board.
The same goes for playing defense. So many Belichick teams of the past have made it as far as they have without having the best players in the league on D-- by being great in the redzone. So often you see his teams like 30th in yards allowed but 15th in points allowed, or 15th in yards allowed, and 2nd in points allowed, etc.
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
They did what they do best, better than any other team, and thats throw the football. If my team has Mahomes at QB, Hill at WR and Kelce at TE, I really wouldnt expect them to run the ball more than they pass the ball. Tennessee on the other hand....
Different things for different teams. Do what you do best based on your personnel.
Tennessees power running game put them in great position in the 1st half to win that game
Tennessees D took away KCs biggest strength - its deep vertical game and severely limited Mahomes options for 3Qs
Unfortunately for Tennessee, Patrick Mahomes still managed to make some incredible plays with his feet running for key 1st downs on pivotal 3rd downs and then the huge game changing TD.
Tennessee is very limited wild card team and are not incredibly talented. They are extradonarily well coached and they have a good, not great defense. They have a great power running game. This very nearly got to them to the Super Bowl despite having to get to New England, Baltimore and Kansas City. Despite matching up against Brady, Jackson and Mahomes, despite matching up against Belichick, Harbaugh and Reid.
This is an argument in favor of the old school mantra. Not against. It was a remarkable run by Tennessee.
Run the ball, stop the run, pass the ball, defend the pass. They're
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. There are multiple ways to win in the NFL. Offensive teams seem to hoist the trophy less often than teams that feature a strong defense combined with a running game historically.
Maybe I missed something, but the Titans just played in the AFC Championship game, so, yeah, that mantra still works. Sometimes you play a better team.
In comment 14786007 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
In comment 14785998 RobCarpenter said:
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
Yup and I think the OP missed the fact KC out rushed the Titans by double whilealso stopping the Titans running game.
Seems like the mantra is alive and well to me. Especially when you consider it's exactly what also got Tenn this far.
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Well, y'know, it's not an either-or. You can stop the run, run the ball, and do those things. The mistake comes when you run the ball instead of making chunk plays on offense. And when you stop the run but can't stop chunk plays on defense. (See 2019 Giants).
at a decent level knows the importance of both stopping the run and being able to run the ball. People like to shit in Gettleman but it is just becoming ridiculous. I'm not going to go into all the benefits of both. This doesn't mean a team will run the ball 100% of the time. Far from it. It doesn't mean there is only one way to win in the NFL. Far from it.
With a loaded defense that was ranked #1 and were 13-3 with home field advantage throughout and then went in and didnt win a single playoff game then maybe I could see the point.
Titans were 21st in yds allowed and 12th in pts allowed. They were 12th in rush yds allowed.
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Well, y'know, it's not an either-or. You can stop the run, run the ball, and do those things. The mistake comes when you run the ball instead of making chunk plays on offense. And when you stop the run but can't stop chunk plays on defense. (See 2019 Giants).
Thankfully we have a coach who recognizes that different games call for different measures. If all you do is run the ball you find yourself unable to play from behind or take advantage of a team with a banged up secondary or facing a loaded box. If all you do is throw the ball, you find can struggle running out the clock/closing out games or against an opponent with a fierce pass rush.
Our team is going to run the ball 60 times if thats what it takes, the next week we may not run it at all. You damn well better get used to it our identity is whatever is called for, game to game, quarter to quarter.
And Tennessee lost because Tannehill isnt a good QB
hes perfect for that team but he isnt good enough to ever win a shootout.
But they made the playoffs and beat 2 top defensive and the best offense in the NFL because they run and atop the run. San Francisco runs and stops the run. Baltimore runs and stops the run. Clearly it works, but that doesnt mean its the only reason why, thought that was obvious but apparently you have to go full end of spectrum around here.
You want to stop the run, stop the pass, run the ball and pass the ball.
LOL, bravo. Can we agree that while there’s no one formula, all the teams that have used top 10 picks on RBs didn’t make the playoffs. So whatever the winning formula, it still comes down to positional value in the draft and cap management.
Was Mahomes off of 53 yards scrambling. Williams has all of 45 yards legit rushing yards.
Last week this place was flaming scrambling QBs and saying they could never win and Tennessee was poised to go to the Super Bowl because Derrick Henry runs the football and Tennessee played great defense.
Henry would have hit 100 yds or more if they kept feeding him. They didnt stop the run. Tennessee had to play catch-up in the points department and had to abandon the run because they wouldnt have had time to catch the Chiefs.
This game was the very opposite of traditional football. This was modern offense whooping old school football.
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Well, y'know, it's not an either-or. You can stop the run, run the ball, and do those things. The mistake comes when you run the ball instead of making chunk plays on offense. And when you stop the run but can't stop chunk plays on defense. (See 2019 Giants).
Shhhhh, let him keep going...
You really are an ass.
This place is overrun with people that will just default to whatever the Giants do without any interest in thinking critically. Doesn't matter how often they're shown to be wrong.
right back at you man. You never fail to repeat your same arguments over and over, completely ignoring any and all counterpoints including ones that partially agree with you.
You are posting like everyone on BBI thinks running and stopping the run is the only way to win. I know you dont believe thats true but somehow thats how you post, its really strange.
Even stranger is your boy Lamar Jackson gets chunk plays because they run well, but for some reason thats never talked about.
Because they run and stop the run.. especially on defense you also have to stop the pass.. you have to pressure the QB.. we suck at the latter 2.. by miles.. you also have limits on number of okayed you can put on the field.. so hoarding 4 DTs who are good against the run and suck or at best are sub optimal at pressuring QB really limits what the defense can do..
Because they run and stop the run.. especially on defense you also have to stop the pass.. you have to pressure the QB.. we suck at the latter 2.. by miles.. you also have limits on number of okayed you can put on the field.. so hoarding 4 DTs who are good against the run and suck or at best are sub optimal at pressuring QB really limits what the defense can do..
Couple of mistakes there.. there is supposed to be only in the title..
Was Mahomes off of 53 yards scrambling. Williams has all of 45 yards legit rushing yards.
Last week this place was flaming scrambling QBs and saying they could never win and Tennessee was poised to go to the Super Bowl because Derrick Henry runs the football and Tennessee played great defense.
Henry would have hit 100 yds or more if they kept feeding him. They didnt stop the run. Tennessee had to play catch-up in the points department and had to abandon the run because they wouldnt have had time to catch the Chiefs.
This game was the very opposite of traditional football. This was modern offense whooping old school football.
You sing this same song every week or so ... strongly suggest you stick to
madden and FF ... its what you know best.
Was Mahomes off of 53 yards scrambling. Williams has all of 45 yards legit rushing yards.
Last week this place was flaming scrambling QBs and saying they could never win and Tennessee was poised to go to the Super Bowl because Derrick Henry runs the football and Tennessee played great defense.
Henry would have hit 100 yds or more if they kept feeding him. They didnt stop the run. Tennessee had to play catch-up in the points department and had to abandon the run because they wouldnt have had time to catch the Chiefs.
This game was the very opposite of traditional football. This was modern offense whooping old school football.
You sing this same song every week or so ... strongly suggest you stick to
madden and FF ... its what you know best.
Yes I am. Like I said for the start of this thread there is more than one way to get it done in the NFL.
I also think you said that one way, the old school way, is dead. That is not what Im seeing as I watch the Chiefs stop the run and watch the 9ers dominate in a very old school way.
Yes I am. Like I said for the start of this thread there is more than one way to get it done in the NFL.
I also think you said that one way, the old school way, is dead. That is not what Im seeing as I watch the Chiefs stop the run and watch the 9ers dominate in a very old school way.
Mahomes won that game because he's a special QB, possibly headed for the Hall of Fame if he doesn't get hurt with his talent...running the ball and stopping the run is still a major thing
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Fucking bullshit. It's the FOUNDATION of winning football, if you can't do those two things you have no prayer of winning consistently, absofuckinglutely none, no matter what you're tired Grumpy Smurf asshole takes are you whiny self absorbed cunt faced fuck. Because Gettleman said it you don't believe it. Watching the 49ers? They have thrown it SIX FUCKING TIMES because the Packers CANNOT STOP THE RUN. IT's not hard, but self proclaimed geniuses like you who in fact don't know fuck all about this game and how it's played like to spout ill advised fucking bullshit that mean nothing. Football is a really easy game once you do the simple things right. No one gives a flying rat fuck what you say anymore you fucking no good crying waste of a heartbeat. Fuck you.
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Fucking bullshit. It's the FOUNDATION of winning football, if you can't do those two things you have no prayer of winning consistently, absofuckinglutely none, no matter what you're tired Grumpy Smurf asshole takes are you whiny self absorbed cunt faced fuck. Because Gettleman said it you don't believe it. Watching the 49ers? They have thrown it SIX FUCKING TIMES because the Packers CANNOT STOP THE RUN. IT's not hard, but self proclaimed geniuses like you who in fact don't know fuck all about this game and how it's played like to spout ill advised fucking bullshit that mean nothing. Football is a really easy game once you do the simple things right. No one gives a flying rat fuck what you say anymore you fucking no good crying waste of a heartbeat. Fuck you.
Seems like a good time to bid this place adieu. This place isn't really worth frequenting anymore.
I made a mistake coming back for this season. I won't make the same mistake twice. Have fun lying to yourselves.
Strange take here. There are plenty of posters here who have been pissed off. This place has mostly been negative with regards to the team. You make it sound like this place is littered with complete homers for the team.
It applies to both sides - some ppl defend everything they do, but others bash everything they do. I dont get the feeling this place is state run media with regards to the Giants.
Seems like a good time to bid this place adieu. This place isn't really worth frequenting anymore.
I made a mistake coming back for this season. I won't make the same mistake twice. Have fun lying to yourselves.
You do what you have to do but don't blame this on others. I hope you don't leave but a word of advice if you will. You aren't going to change most people's minds. You aren't going to change the structure of this franchise. You have an opinion and that is all it is. It is tiresome for most on here to read the same negative stuff over and over and over and over and over. We get it. But if you are so miserable with how this team/organization are run then why are you still a fan? We all enjoy sports because it is entertainment and we have a connection to it that cannot always be described with words. Most of us have hope that this will turn it around. Now, this has ZERO to do with being right or wrong. Even when you are right you beat a dead horse and most don't want to hear it. You are on a one man crusade. I respect your passion and opposing stance to what is popular. I think you are a good poster but there is also a reason that people respond to you the way they do. Hell, I have said things too that bring out those responses too. All I ask is that you understand where others coke from because at times it seems to be that only your way will work and anything else is frowned upon. It just wears thin.
So, to reiterate, I hope you don't stop posting because of Joey getting excited. I hope you still post but ultimately that is up to you.
Hell, this place was negative after the recent Super Bowls..
A game like this vindicates Gettleman. It's obvious you can't NOT stop the run and win. But if Gettleman devotes more resources and high picks/FA contracts towards that at the expense of other areas (not saying he will but... not saying he won't), I think we'll still suck.
It just seems an aberration that could easily occur even if Gettleman pulls off building a defense that's really good at stopping at the run. Or if not, if the Giants were in the Packers' place and were stopping these run plays, the 9ers would simply put up 200 yards by passing to Kittle alone.
A game like this vindicates Gettleman. It's obvious you can't NOT stop the run and win. But if Gettleman devotes more resources and high picks/FA contracts towards that at the expense of other areas (not saying he will but... not saying he won't), I think we'll still suck.
It just seems an aberration that could easily occur even if Gettleman pulls off building a defense that's really good at stopping at the run. Or if not, if the Giants were in the Packers' place and were stopping these run plays, the 9ers would simply put up 200 yards by passing to Kittle alone.
Thats the funny part about this whole thing. People who hate Gettelman actually think that he thinks that running the ball and stopping the run is the ONLY way to win. Thats why this hole thing is hilarious.
Its as if people just forgot he loaded up on CBs and drafted a QB at 6. Youd swearing reading the opinions of some that Gettleman drafted 5 running backs and 5 DTs both years here.
Its nothing more than taking a sound byte and running with it - its now infected this site with ridiculous arguments on both ends.
Periodically taking a break after years of unwatchable football is a good idea.
Even under optimistic (but reasonable) future scenarios, the need for patience and tolerance for a wide range of takes is in the NYG future for awhile
.
The Niners game. Moronic post that didnt even last a few hours to look stupid. Yeah.
Tanehill is pretty much Trent Dilfer and May not be even that good. Never mind Titans dont have that half of thst Ravens type of defense to stop Mahomes who is most likely the next great NFL And he may tear up the Niners but do us all a favor and go back to playing Madden
Point toward the empirical evidence that over a significant period of time running and stopping the run have a statistically stronger correlation to reaching and/or winning playoff games. I've never seen it, maybe it exists?
The aggressive broad claims don't do much to advance the conversation or contribute to a better understanding of anything.
Best guess, it's a point/counter point league and there are several ways to win, several outliers, and stopping what your opponent is the best at is probably the best indicator of winning.
But if you're going to fucking scream in someone's face, bring the facts. If they are right, you'll get an acknowledgement from many (including me). Otherwise you're just screaming in someone's face, which makes for what now?
too long to got into now for one has to isolate and through out so many games that are statistically run centric but situationally specific ( teams leads by 3 scores in the 2Q and runs the rest of the game to work the clock va team with a 3rd QB in there vs teams with a poor FG kicker who have no choice or a team with long runs but who cant make 3 and 3 when it counts and on and on and on).
But what stats say when like for like sample sizes are hard to get and what successful coaches who win a lot say are different...who you gonna listen to?
And if you could win by pounding the run instead of the riskier pass against a well coached pass defense...whats the risk adjusted plan?
To me, the runs the NYG have are far far from a dependable running game. The best illustration I saw of this was a Pittsburg late season had to win game in the snow. Pittsburg is down by 4 in the 4th and there is no Ben. So the only way to win is give the ball to the Bus behind Hutchison and Faneca from their own 15 yard line. Everyone in the stadium and watching knew what was coming and they still got it done. That's a running game. Rock solid dependable when you have to or should run.
The NYG are no where close to that. I half expect a downfield bowling ball in the late rounds.
and stop the run. However, the Titans-Chiefs game doesn't dispel that and the 49ers-Packers game doesn't prove it. No single game does.
The Chiefs didn't completely shut down the run. In fact, early on, that was a good ballgame precisely because Henry was running well. The difference, is they can score in bunches and accumulate chunk plays. The Titans had a nice run, but the reality is Tannehill is not a guy who is going to win many games on his own, and this would have been one of those games once the Chiefs got rolling. If the Titans D was able to stop Maholmes or Hill, this is a different game. Thie Chiefs, however, are a better all around team with more weapons and speed. Once they got going, the outcome was as expecte.d
IMO Andy Reid is a brilliant offensive coach whose
greatest claim to fame until now was always how his teams choked - at least partly because of their very reliance on the passing game - on the road to the SB.
It's been pointed out innumerable times that no Reid team has yet won a SB.
Now if he wins this one - with a true outlier individual player at QB - is it wise to use the Reid model of relying almost exclusively on the passing game to carry one's offense?
You wanna hitch yourself to that wagon? Good luck finding and drafting the next Patrick Mahomes!
I will say that he was one of my favorite posters for a long time - very willing to think differently and defend the contrarian position in a way that forced you to think deeply. The guy loves football and is smart.
Having said that, it's clear that football has been consuming him just based on the amount of time he's spent on here. Very few meaningful threads I've read where he doesn't pop in for a bit to engage. Hoping for his own well-being he gets a nice break by stepping away from BBI for a while. He can still read without having to comment all the time.
I've been through this from time to time myself, although I never stop reading BBI I definitely step away from posting and engaging in discussion. The way the threads have been going lately discussion hasn't been much fun for me, so I'm back to mostly lurking.
Joey should and probably will apologize for his outburst. It wasn't warranted and he just does it sometimes.
It's also rich for anyone to criticize a pattern in someone's posting. Any of us who post a lot can close our eyes and name who said it with high accuracy.
Manny brings up a good point about Gettleman's mantra: run, stop the run, rush the passer.
I always found it quite funny actually. Putting a QB under pressure is in fact the best way to lower quarterback rating. Proven every year as long as both stats have been measured.
This means stopping the pass is important, therefore passing the ball is important.
So Gettleman is basically saying:
- Run the ball
- Stop the run
- Pass the ball
- Stop the pass
sucks the oxygen out of discussions. And he seems to have become preoccupied with feeling smarter than everyone else solely by virtue of taking unpopular positions. And, yes, his overall point of view has become riddled with contradictions.
But the way Joey spoke to him was completely uncalled for and out of line. I can't imagine becoming so unglued and unhinged over a football opinion I disagree with.
"the Giants are always wrong" default position sucks the oxygen out of discussions. And he seems to have become preoccupied with feeling smarter than everyone else solely by virtue of taking unpopular positions. And, yes, his overall point of view has become riddled with contradictions.
But the way Joey spoke to him was completely uncalled for and out of line. I can't imagine becoming so unglued and unhinged over a football opinion I disagree with.
(I love how this website still can't handle quotations in the comment subjects.)
"the Giants are always wrong" default position sucks the oxygen out of discussions. And he seems to have become preoccupied with feeling smarter than everyone else solely by virtue of taking unpopular positions. And, yes, his overall point of view has become riddled with contradictions.
But the way Joey spoke to him was completely uncalled for and out of line. I can't imagine becoming so unglued and unhinged over a football opinion I disagree with.
(I love how this website still can't handle quotations in the comment subjects.)
Exactly. Its not the first time either and he basically threatened to kill someone about a week ago. Its not a good look for anyone.
and think it has a place, but I still think the rules of the game dictate passing and defending the pass are the best paths to victory.
So give me a pass rush, dependable OL, and something we desperately need to finally flip - creating turnovers to be on the right side of the plus-minus differential. We are just dreadful at taking the ball away...
RE: These last few post drew my attention up to Joey's
post and IMO that's gotta be a banable offense. Joey needs a time out far worse than Terps, IMO.
MODS?
Good assessment by Robbie above too, and of course Bill2.
It's only football folks, as passionate as we are about it, it's a game.
If you think thats bad check the ones out on this thread:
Quote:
Jwebb
Joey in VA : 1/11/2020 9:49 pm : link : reply
You are the stupidest poster this site has ever seen. That's a badge of honor my friend, embrace your lack of brains, enjoy being the singular example of why abortion should be legal, why lobotomies are still a good idea and why ritual suicide or lynching has a place in our society. You give us all a reason to hope, that you get hit by a train.
And
Quote:
I hope you step on a razor blade, then on a pool of Tabasco laced with Hepatitis and you feed it to your family.
Joey should and probably will apologize for his outburst. It wasn't warranted and he just does it sometimes.
It's also rich for anyone to criticize a pattern in someone's posting. Any of us who post a lot can close our eyes and name who said it with high accuracy.
Manny brings up a good point about Gettleman's mantra: run, stop the run, rush the passer.
I always found it quite funny actually. Putting a QB under pressure is in fact the best way to lower quarterback rating. Proven every year as long as both stats have been measured.
This means stopping the pass is important, therefore passing the ball is important.
So Gettleman is basically saying:
- Run the ball
- Stop the run
- Pass the ball
- Stop the pass
Sounds a lot like football.
Now it sounds like football? Because for the past two years it has been considered archaic and out of touch.
This is what happens when you take throwaway quips and soundbites from the GM and run with them, creating entire conspiracy theories around them, and now that the entire playoffs have dictated that running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer STILL wins in this league well now it's just oversimplification....
Teams are averaging 130.7 rushing yards per game and 236.8 passing yards per game.
Winning teams are averaging 154.5 rushing, 211.4 passing.
Losing teams are averaging 106.8 rushing, 262.2 passing.
Bah! That's just citing yards. You need to compare to some next-gen stat metric that twists it to show that advanced passing yards are the true driver of winning!
Now it sounds like football? Because for the past two years it has been considered archaic and out of touch.
This is what happens when you take throwaway quips and soundbites from the GM and run with them, creating entire conspiracy theories around them, and now that the entire playoffs have dictated that running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer STILL wins in this league well now it's just oversimplification....
"Sounds a lot like football, duh..." lol.
First, the entire playoffs aren't over. But that doesn't matter -- if the Chiefs fucking blow the doors off the 9ers with 500 yards passing -- it's still one game and a small sample size.
The bigger point is why does Gettleman make three points 1) run 2) stop the run 3) rush the passer.
Why doesn't he include 4) protect the passer.
The reason it's important to rush the passer is because it's the most efficient way to stop a pass game. If you can protect the passer it's the best way to have an effective pass game.
Over any significant period of time plenty of teams will win by being good running, stopping the run, passing and stopping the pass.
Hes been here forever, used to write game summaries for Eric (pretty good ones too), but he goes off the rails sometimes. Old timers here, like myself and BW know you have to totally ignore Joey when he gets like that. He comes around pretty quick. He did that at camp in Albany once where it was harder to ignore him. Hes an OK guy in the final analysis. Terps grates on peoples nerves- just the kind of guy to set Joey off.
Teams are averaging 130.7 rushing yards per game and 236.8 passing yards per game.
Winning teams are averaging 154.5 rushing, 211.4 passing.
Losing teams are averaging 106.8 rushing, 262.2 passing.
You do realize how skewed those numbers are by San Fran and Tennessee? Where in three of those 10 games their QBs combined passing attempts totaled 39. Those numbers reflect football in the 1970s.
I love it, but I think those results are more outliers than trends.
Hes been here forever, used to write game summaries for Eric (pretty good ones too), but he goes off the rails sometimes. Old timers here, like myself and BW know you have to totally ignore Joey when he gets like that. He comes around pretty quick. He did that at camp in Albany once where it was harder to ignore him. Hes an OK guy in the final analysis. Terps grates on peoples nerves- just the kind of guy to set Joey off.
Ive been around for a long time and it always sticks out and I would think its a liability. Writing for the site shouldnt give him a life time pass for extremely poor behavior that Im sure in the right hands could shut this whole place down.
Now it sounds like football? Because for the past two years it has been considered archaic and out of touch.
This is what happens when you take throwaway quips and soundbites from the GM and run with them, creating entire conspiracy theories around them, and now that the entire playoffs have dictated that running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer STILL wins in this league well now it's just oversimplification....
"Sounds a lot like football, duh..." lol.
First, the entire playoffs aren't over. But that doesn't matter -- if the Chiefs fucking blow the doors off the 9ers with 500 yards passing -- it's still one game and a small sample size.
The bigger point is why does Gettleman make three points 1) run 2) stop the run 3) rush the passer.
Why doesn't he include 4) protect the passer.
The reason it's important to rush the passer is because it's the most efficient way to stop a pass game. If you can protect the passer it's the best way to have an effective pass game.
Over any significant period of time plenty of teams will win by being good running, stopping the run, passing and stopping the pass.
Protecting the passer is obvious. It's foundational, just like the rest of what Gettleman said.
The fact that what Gettleman said was in any way controversial to begin with is head scratching. But yet, it's been used to beat us over the head going on two years that the team is run by incompetent, out of touch dinosaurs that don't know how to win.
Running the ball, stopping the run, rushing the passer is the foundation for which winning teams are built. Even if KC passes for over 500 yards and wins the Superbowl. Not every can draft a Patrick Mahomes, but every team can attempt to win football games using the aforementioned philosophy.
No one gives a flying rat fuck what you say anymore you fucking no good crying waste of a heartbeat. Fuck you.
You're right to leave GoTerps. This place has become absolutely toxic. Zero chance of debating anything with even a remote degree of civility.
Yup, I'd like to see this addressed by those in charge here. I enjoy Joey's actual football analysis but this is pretty disgraceful stuff that shouldn't go unaddressed just the guy used to write game reviews. Come on now.
I understand how Terps' style can grate on people, but the quality of this board only takes a hit if we continue to lose good posters that are willing to think differently and bring critical analysis to the discussion. Terps may find a bit too much enjoyment in telling people when he's right, but the record would show he's been right more often than not. This is all a shame.
Protecting the passer is obvious. It's foundational, just like the rest of what Gettleman said.
The fact that what Gettleman said was in any way controversial to begin with is head scratching. But yet, it's been used to beat us over the head going on two years that the team is run by incompetent, out of touch dinosaurs that don't know how to win.
What many fans want is a GM who puts protecting the passer at the very top of the list. I want a GM who prioritizes it above running the ball.
The Giants have sucked at protecting their QB and it's a big part of why they have been the worst team in the NFL for the last 3 years.
Manning got beat like a bag in 18, Jones got beat like a bag in 19.
I don't think what Gettleman said is controversial, I just think it's incomplete.
If part of what you're saying is pressuring the other team's QB....
No one gives a flying rat fuck what you say anymore you fucking no good crying waste of a heartbeat. Fuck you.
You're right to leave GoTerps. This place has become absolutely toxic. Zero chance of debating anything with even a remote degree of civility.
Yup, I'd like to see this addressed by those in charge here. I enjoy Joey's actual football analysis but this is pretty disgraceful stuff that shouldn't go unaddressed just the guy used to write game reviews. Come on now.
I understand how Terps' style can grate on people, but the quality of this board only takes a hit if we continue to lose good posters that are willing to think differently and bring critical analysis to the discussion. Terps may find a bit too much enjoyment in telling people when he's right, but the record would show he's been right more often than not. This is all a shame.
Fair enough. I think having a balanced team that can play the run and pass well when the situation calls for it is the best bet. Based on everything the new head coach has said he categorically agrees.
I don't a few stats from a small sample size indicates anything. And certainly doesn't justify a dopey quote the GM made -- especially when after 2 years the team isn't high in the league at any of the three pillars be described.
If Gettleman wants to be the Niners, he's got a transformation to make.
Nonsense, I'm not asking for a safe space, but maybe some decency in conversing with people you disagree with? If BBI has always tolerated people interacting in that manner then I must have missed it in my 13 years here.
Nonsense, I'm not asking for a safe space, but maybe some decency in conversing with people you disagree with? If BBI has always tolerated people interacting in that manner then I must have missed it in my 13 years here.
Decency in conversation includes listening and considering what others have to say, especially ones with alternative view points. I don't see a lot of that around here. In terps situation, either you saw it his way or you were wrong like Robbie said above.
This seems important to you. In the interest of full disclosure of what seems like noble intent- did you ever get called out by Joey before? Are your posts on the thread those of a standup guy or someone who is a little verklempt and sees their chance ? That would help understand the dogged pursuit of an outcome in defense of someone elses pain. Thanks BBDBS.
2) Imo, when someone goes off on someone who has gotten a lot of feedback from other posters that their thinking is too biased and it's annoying or they are flat out annoying yet they cant stop themselves uncaring that they are annoying ...I have a lot less sympathy for both players. The guy who cant stop and the guy who cant say it without going overboard share one characteristic: self indulgence and personal self assigned exceptionalism.
Dont distort my post. I'm not blaming the internet victim for someone elses over reaction. I'm pointing out they share common characteristics in regard to the rest of us. They dont respect anyone elses right to effective exchanges on an internet site except when it goes too far for too long.
Go Terps has had the need for time to regain perspective before. Ditto Joey. Usually in the emotional time of offseason when no one yet has much evidence behind any of the usual offseason opinions
Could see both trains going too fast to hold the rails for a week or so. Which poster was in front of the derailments was somewhat happenstance. Imo.
Wait, are we allowed to threaten to murder other posters??
This seems important to you. In the interest of full disclosure of what seems like noble intent- did you ever get called out by Joey before? Are your posts on the thread those of a standup guy or someone who is a little verklempt and sees their chance ? That would help understand the dogged pursuit of an outcome in defense of someone elses pain. Thanks BBDBS.
2) Imo, when someone goes off on someone who has gotten a lot of feedback from other posters that their thinking is too biased and it's annoying or they are flat out annoying yet they cant stop themselves uncaring that they are annoying ...I have a lot less sympathy for both players. The guy who cant stop and the guy who cant say it without going overboard share one characteristic: self indulgence and personal self assigned exceptionalism.
Dont distort my post. I'm not blaming the internet victim for someone elses over reaction. I'm pointing out they share common characteristics in regard to the rest of us. They dont respect anyone elses right to effective exchanges on an internet site except when it goes too far for too long.
Go Terps has had the need for time to regain perspective before. Ditto Joey. Usually in the emotional time of offseason when no one yet has much evidence behind any of the usual offseason opinions
Could see both trains going too fast to hold the rails for a week or so. Which poster was in front of the derailments was somewhat happenstance. Imo.
There is big difference between typical BBI banter back and forth and the way he acts. If he was anyone else this would be different.
I like BBI I wouldnt visit for 20 years if I didnt, I will always draw a hard line when it comes to telling someone to go commit suicide. That is not acceptable, no matter who they are.
Has arrests on their record ( which covers all kinds of times and possibilies) is it the cool guy who slips private information in there or is it a shitty thing to do?
How about the seventh grade level game of exaggerating to the extreme and putting that out there as if its an accurate take?
Quote:
You are the stupidest poster this site has ever seen. That's a badge of honor my friend, embrace your lack of brains, enjoy being the singular example of why abortion should be legal, why lobotomies are still a good idea and why ritual suicide or lynching has a place in our society. You give us all a reason to hope, that you get hit by a train.
And
Quote:
I hope you step on a razor blade, then on a pool of Tabasco laced with Hepatitis and you feed it to your family.
Yeah, it's other people who are the 7th graders. Uh-huh. Good stuff.
Nonsense, I'm not asking for a safe space, but maybe some decency in conversing with people you disagree with? If BBI has always tolerated people interacting in that manner then I must have missed it in my 13 years here.
Decency in conversation includes listening and considering what others have to say, especially ones with alternative view points. I don't see a lot of that around here. In terps situation, either you saw it his way or you were wrong like Robbie said above.
For sure, Ive disagreed with him plenty of times. It can be frustrating. But I still am consistently interested to see his opinion. I dont think were better off losing his perspective.
But he doesnt need me to defend him, hes an adult who can make his own decisions. Also not calling for Joey to be banned either. Just thought he took it too far this time. Moving on
Not really. I have friends, too. Doesn't mean I defend every single thing they say and/or do, especially when it comes to saying stuff as he's said in the past. You're better than that. But to each his own.
I did not defend what he said or did. That's my point. I did not defend Go Terps either. Clearly labeled as such in the first post. Clear paragraph in anticipation of a suboptimal way to read and respond.
I did not anticipate a long time fellow poster on 200 Yankee threads to be the one who fell in the soup. Sorry about that
And for the record, I actually like and interact with both Go Terps and Joey and read their points of view whenever I read them. Have learned from and exchanged well with both of them. Have for many years.
Think its good to move on. See you when our other rooting interest threads start to pick up
I did not defend what he said or did. That's my point. I did not defend Go Terps either. Clearly labeled as such in the first post. Clear paragraph in anticipation of a suboptimal way to read and respond.
I did not anticipate a long time fellow poster on 200 Yankee threads to be the one who fell in the soup. Sorry about that
And for the record, I actually like and interact with both Go Terps and Joey and read their points of view whenever I read them. Have learned from and exchanged well with both of them. Have for many years.
Think its good to move on. See you when our other rooting interest threads start to pick up
I get it. But I don't see how saying posts like that I quoted of his are...out there and really not necessary. There are ways to even insult someone (if that's really what you want to do) without going where he goes sometimes. Have a good one.
My point was that the annoyance cycle from years of the team getting stuck has our posters stuck in misery as well
In regard to the particulars, yes, especially after prior year over reactions, it was over the line. Sorry. I assumed that was common ground we all shared
Now it sounds like football? Because for the past two years it has been considered archaic and out of touch.
This is what happens when you take throwaway quips and soundbites from the GM and run with them, creating entire conspiracy theories around them, and now that the entire playoffs have dictated that running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer STILL wins in this league well now it's just oversimplification....
"Sounds a lot like football, duh..." lol.
First, the entire playoffs aren't over. But that doesn't matter -- if the Chiefs fucking blow the doors off the 9ers with 500 yards passing -- it's still one game and a small sample size.
The bigger point is why does Gettleman make three points 1) run 2) stop the run 3) rush the passer.
Why doesn't he include 4) protect the passer.
The reason it's important to rush the passer is because it's the most efficient way to stop a pass game. If you can protect the passer it's the best way to have an effective pass game.
Over any significant period of time plenty of teams will win by being good running, stopping the run, passing and stopping the pass.
Youre either missing the point or trying to jump through hoops to diminish Gettlemans point.
Running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer is a philosophy that has stood the test of time in the NFL regardless of the rule changes or various innovations of the last 30 or 40 years. This is why the Patriots consistently beat the Peyton led Colts. This is why the vast majority of the high powered offenses of the last 30 years couldnt win it all.
The philosophy speaks to the brand of football the team plays. Think 07 Giants. Think Steelers football around the same time. The niners now. Its about dominating the line of scrimmage.
Most importantly, its about the decisions you make to build your roster with a finite amount of resources. Its about spending money and picks to have a talent edge in the trenches instead of burning the same resources on wide receivers and cornerbacks. Its about finding players who can stuff the run blitz instead of finesse coverage linebackers. Its about valuing guys who can block as much as a matchup nightmare for safeties and linebackers.
Trying to spin this as something obvious that every team tries to do is just doubling down on stubbornness. Its plain to see the teams built this way or trying to be built this way and the teams taking an alternate approach.
Why does the team completely lack talent despite turning over the entire roster with his signings/draft picks/players he traded for?
Because hes missed on some players/decisions and had to turn over the entire roster. When the core players are Engram, Sheppard, and Tomlinson, that isnt much to build around.
Not Stopping the Run
Not Running the ball
Not Rushing the passer
is any sort of path to winning. Though to be honest, I'm not sure that the Giants are far off from meeting those 3 criteria (in the negative as stated).
Its hard to close out a win if you can't run the ball effectively.
Its hard prevent the opposing team from scoring and getting the ball back to your offense if you can't stop the run.
Its hard to stop the opposing team from running up the score if you can't get to the passer.
In all cases its hard to win if you can't do those things.
THe problem with what Gettleman said was that he left out Protect the passer. Some may think its implied, but the everything about the mantra is so motherhood and apple pie that it should all be implied. So leaving out the protect the passer part is both glaring and jarring. THat said, I don't think Gettleman is stupid enough to think that he doesn't need to build an offensive line capable of protecting the passer.
In the end this all comes down to subtle priorities. By stating it the way he does, Gettleman implies that he gives a a greater priority to running and stopping the run. And his roster construction seems to support the notion that he puts the most priority on stopping the run. When I think just about everybody who watches modern football realizes that teams need to balance their capabilities to some extent.
At the end of the day, Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line, when the point at which the took over the team he had 0 starting offensive lineman. He went to FA where you generally don't find talent and wasted time and a bucket load on Solder, and some more on Omameh. He allowed Jamon Brown to walk for a contract slightly more than what he blew on Omameh. And while Brown will never be mistaken for an All-Pro, his price/performance ratio isn't bad, he is an ok starter. Keeping Brown would have allowed the trade of Vernon for a plus level C or RT. That would mean 1 less position to fill right now. What's more, is that there is no real pipeline of potential future players (maybe we get lucky with Gates, but I think that is still a longshot). So you can say Gettleman is trying with the OL... But his philosophy is broken in major ways. The team should have been grabbing OL early middle and late to replenish a position group that was horribly depleted.
When he fails to effectively address the position, and he leave the position out of his mantra, it gives people pause. It's glaring and jarring. I think its very hard to say that DG has used the resources available to him over the past 2 years effectively. IMO his drafting has be average to marginally above average (but the jury is still out), and part of my biggest problem with him has been his drafting philosophy. It's philosophy where he has almost entirely ignore OL. Which nowadays the only place to find decent OL is in the draft. I would be think quite differently had he picked a couple of OLs out of his 3rd rounders instead of 2 out of 3 of Carter, Hill and Ximines. Or had he traded down from #2 in in 2018 and target OL in that draft... People say that he had no choices... I disagree, he had lots of choices. He just failed to make them.
4% of "draft equity"?? Sounds like another fancy way to complain.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
Good post FMiC.
And I'd like to add, in the light of the recent discussion about screaming vitriol at one another because of differing opinions, wry humor and/or sarcasm suits your posting style quite well.
People say that he had no choices... I disagree, he had lots of choices. He just failed to make them.
+1000.
I was certain that Gettleman would go hot and heavy for O-Linemen in last year's draft. Not just with high picks, but with the next Trai Turner or Daryl Williams. I was looking forward to it. Naturally, I was shocked and disappointed when it didn't happen.
One year later, the only thing I'm certain of is that I would have fired him along with Pat Shurmur.
4% of "draft equity"?? Sounds like another fancy way to complain.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
Good post FMiC.
And I'd like to add, in the light of the recent discussion about screaming vitriol at one another because of differing opinions, wry humor and/or sarcasm suits your posting style quite well.
Choices at the time and consequences after the choice are two very different things.
The creative data factoids could also include that of the available likely to be NFL players and the positions available we selected 26.7% of all likely candidates. ( obviously I'm making up the numbers but the point is that the method used to support and opinion weakens the argument?
What's more real insight might be gained by looking at how much longer a rookie needed to get the ball out as compared to a veteran strained the ol holding time to 35% more.
Or absent good performance at center alone caused 56.2% of all pressures. That kind of analysis might help
To me, the players coaches and front office did better than what was left but far short of what we want.
I dunno, I like it when we analyze the play on the field. I think we are on shakey ground and as likely to be wrong as right when we try to pin the tail of product dissapointment on one donkey when we have no idea of the causality and factors ( injuries, bad line calls, etc, etc)
Choices at the time and consequences after the choice are two very different things.
The creative data factoids could also include that of the available likely to be NFL players and the positions available we selected 26.7% of all likely candidates. ( obviously I'm making up the numbers but the point is that the method used to support and opinion weakens the argument?
What's more real insight might be gained by looking at how much longer a rookie needed to get the ball out as compared to a veteran strained the ol holding time to 35% more.
Or absent good performance at center alone caused 56.2% of all pressures. That kind of analysis might help
To me, the players coaches and front office did better than what was left but far short of what we want.
I dunno, I like it when we analyze the play on the field. I think we are on shakey ground and as likely to be wrong as right when we try to pin the tail of product dissapointment on one donkey when we have no idea of the causality and factors ( injuries, bad line calls, etc, etc)
Basically, hindsight is 20/20.
Using "analysis" on unknown variables and causality
DG made choices. Some so far good and somee bad and a bunch very much yet inconclusive.
Hopefully he now has stronger voices at the table so the final percent that work out is higher. Couldnt care less who gets credit. I think we are all trying too hard to show we can analyze past the unknowable factors..
I root for the overall product. I dont root for NFGML. Not a sport I understand how to score.
People say that he had no choices... I disagree, he had lots of choices. He just failed to make them.
+1000.
I was certain that Gettleman would go hot and heavy for O-Linemen in last year's draft. Not just with high picks, but with the next Trai Turner or Daryl Williams. I was looking forward to it. Naturally, I was shocked and disappointed when it didn't happen.
One year later, the only thing I'm certain of is that I would have fired him along with Pat Shurmur.
Instead, we drafted a hundred DBs; and now that, unfortunately, may still be a position on need. And that was after DG acquired Peppers.
Its just remarkable that he was able to keep his job.
View you tend to take possible problems and paint them as reality. I understand pointing out possible shortcomings, but to me it seems you make up your mind even though the reality of the situation is unknown (the db's, peppers). I also am aware the flip side of that by viewing a situation as a success before it is warranted.
View you tend to take possible problems and paint them as reality. I understand pointing out possible shortcomings, but to me it seems you make up your mind even though the reality of the situation is unknown (the db's, peppers). I also am aware the flip side of that by viewing a situation as a success before it is warranted.
Was it a reality that the secondary was a problem the ENTIRE year? Did you see any trends in the group's play to suggest it was going to be better going forward?
I'm all ears if you did.
Granted, a piece could have been coaching. And that may play out this year. But I wouldn't take too much comfort in that right now. It's not like we hired an upper echelon DC.
View you tend to take possible problems and paint them as reality. I understand pointing out possible shortcomings, but to me it seems you make up your mind even though the reality of the situation is unknown (the db's, peppers). I also am aware the flip side of that by viewing a situation as a success before it is warranted.
Was it a reality that the secondary was a problem the ENTIRE year? Did you see any trends in the group's play to suggest it was going to be better going forward?
I'm all ears if you did.
Granted, a piece could have been coaching. And that may play out this year. But I wouldn't take too much comfort in that right now. It's not like we hired an upper echelon DC.
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
View you tend to take possible problems and paint them as reality. I understand pointing out possible shortcomings, but to me it seems you make up your mind even though the reality of the situation is unknown (the db's, peppers). I also am aware the flip side of that by viewing a situation as a success before it is warranted.
Was it a reality that the secondary was a problem the ENTIRE year? Did you see any trends in the group's play to suggest it was going to be better going forward?
I'm all ears if you did.
Granted, a piece could have been coaching. And that may play out this year. But I wouldn't take too much comfort in that right now. It's not like we hired an upper echelon DC.
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
I also remember some young secondary people hurt or recovering from surgery and thus, having difficulty catching up. Too, the coaching was far from first-rate. Theres talent there. How it plays out, Im hoping is positive with health and better coaching.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
What are you talking about? What have I missed about Terps?
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
Okay, so you are leaning on the coaching being more of a problem than the talent. Fine.
Of all the coaches we had, I think Bettcher got the rawest deal with a dearth of talent and inexperience. I don't think he forgot on the plane ride from Arizona when he took the job.
4% of "draft equity"?? Sounds like another fancy way to complain.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
I said draft capital...
Of course you are too stupid to figure out how to figure that out...
Try figuring it out using the draft value chart.
Also consider he has 3 firsts. I also didn't even use the fact that he traded a pick for Ogletree.
And even using your way overly simplistic formula of 2 picks out of 16, the OL represents 23% of the starting lineup, 5 out of 22.
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line
Like I said - it was just going through gymnastics to try and say he has ignored the OL in the draft, which he hasn't. By the way - were you too stupid to realize that I was using the 2 picks out of 16 as a jab at your advanced stat that really didn't mean much?
Here is what we know. Gettleman has brought in two tackles and two guards currently in the starting lineup through a variety of means. I'm not sure what the point was about draft equity - or as you are trying to revise - draft capital. Argue he didn't bring in the right players possibly. Don't argue there was a clear better method to choose. Top drafted OL actually have a fairly high rate of not succeeding in the league.
Down these tunnels for there is no cheese are the end, but what is the proper draft equity allocation when you have no no no talent and need to replace your QB (which may require bundling choices to move up)?
No answer expected. The point is that the metric does not stand without context and neither does the choices.
If one choice...Solder was NFL average and did not have or need foot surgery and the QB had better pocket awareness one could claim the GMs choice now looks closer to good after the choice.
Sort of like the Pettigout and Elliott and Robert's choices worked out in some years and looked bad in others. And in reverse, the lack of investment and gamble on Seubert did happen to work out.
Does the choice to invest in lower lower draft picks for the vital left guard make Reese and Accorsi good or lucky it was Richie and he had good coaching???
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
He's got to be able to take it on the chin. I wish he didn't leave as I do value most of what he brings to the table, but when he gets into the holier than thou mantra that he's been aggressively pushing the last few months, he's going to face some backlash.
I don't condone at all what Joey said to him, that was ridiculous. But Terps posted what he did knowing it would cause backlash. He purposely left out that "chunk plays" can and do come from being able to run well as it opens up play action (a basic concept of football 101) and that his favorite player (Lamar Jackson) throws well because he/the team run really well.
When you leave out simple stuff like that on purpose then you are just trolling. He got called out on it and didn't like it (though Joey's was extreme and uncalled for).
Down these tunnels for there is no cheese are the end, but what is the proper draft equity allocation when you have no no no talent and need to replace your QB (which may require bundling choices to move up)?
No answer expected. The point is that the metric does not stand without context and neither does the choices.
If one choice...Solder was NFL average and did not have or need foot surgery and the QB had better pocket awareness one could claim the GMs choice now looks closer to good after the choice.
Sort of like the Pettigout and Elliott and Robert's choices worked out in some years and looked bad in others. And in reverse, the lack of investment and gamble on Seubert did happen to work out.
Does the choice to invest in lower lower draft picks for the vital left guard make Reese and Accorsi good or lucky it was Richie and he had good coaching???
Bill I think you missed the point I was making.
When I said that GD had choices, that is a rebuttal to people who say that he signed Solder because "He had no choice".
He had plenty of other paths/choices he could have made. He has to own the choice of signing Solder. There was no gun to head.
The Patriots traded for Trent Brown, they alse drafted Fields.
The Giants had a ton of draft capital available in that draft due to picking 2nd. That draft capital could have been parleyed into multiple first and second round picks, in a draft that was unusually heavy in good OL talent. Which I for one advocated BEFORE the draft.
If another GM found choices at left tackle, and fan at home can identify multiple choices other than Solder, then it is fair to say that Gettleman had more choices that just signing Solder. Gettleman did not *HAVE* to sign Solder he had other choices. Full stop. That is where that analysis ends.
Free Agency takes place before the draft. Whether signing Solder was the right move or not, he invested a lot of money into him to plug into the LT position.
Knowing how much was invested, you are arguing he still should have used "draft capital" to invest in the LT position?
Can you imagine the backlash he would have not only on this site, but in the media for investing even more "draft capital" into a position he just invested so heavily in free agency on?
Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make sense.
Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line
Like I said - it was just going through gymnastics to try and say he has ignored the OL in the draft, which he hasn't. By the way - were you too stupid to realize that I was using the 2 picks out of 16 as a jab at your advanced stat that really didn't mean much?
Here is what we know. Gettleman has brought in two tackles and two guards currently in the starting lineup through a variety of means. I'm not sure what the point was about draft equity - or as you are trying to revise - draft capital. Argue he didn't bring in the right players possibly. Don't argue there was a clear better method to choose. Top drafted OL actually have a fairly high rate of not succeeding in the league.
Why does my advanced stat, meaningless? Just for arguments sake, would you say that he invested the same amount of draft capital in the OL if he instead drafted Nelson with the 2018 #2 pick (not that I am advocating this), and say Dillard or Howard (again not necessarily advocating)? I mean that would be 12.5% of his picks right?
What's meaningless is everything that you put in this forum.
Also, apparently you missed the fact that I acknowledged his moves in FA and trades in my original post. I also acknowledge that he was lucky enough to have Jamon Brown fall in his lap and he let him walk when he could have been kept fairly cheaply. So since you didn't get it from what I wrote, taken as a whole, his moves outside the draft to bolster the OL, IMO, were piss poor. Also, you have it wrong about the number of starting tackles he brought in. Remmers is not under contract at this moment. Another way of looking at his moves is that in 2 years he has brought in 2 effective OL players that are currently on the roster. At that rate, we have 3 more years to wait before we have a decent OL.
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts. I don't see anything in regards to analysis or critical thinking (and that doesn't mean being critical of others just so you know). You never add anything of value from which others can learn something. Everything you do is a sick attempt to tear down others for your own self aggrandizement. You mock my post, because, I supposedly went through "gymnastics" to come up with 4%. For me it took almost no effort at all, it wasn't gymnastics.... I'm good at math. And it does more accurately represent the draft capital (I am using draft equity and draft capital synonymously here, is that really a quibble?) invested in the position.
I would be really interested to see you bring something of real value to the discussion for a change!
Free Agency takes place before the draft. Whether signing Solder was the right move or not, he invested a lot of money into him to plug into the LT position.
Knowing how much was invested, you are arguing he still should have used "draft capital" to invest in the LT position?
Can you imagine the backlash he would have not only on this site, but in the media for investing even more "draft capital" into a position he just invested so heavily in free agency on?
Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make sense.
Signing Solder was a bad idea from the get go... Many believed that to be so and questioned it at the time of the signing. Hindsight has proven them right.
Did DG explore trading for Trent Brown?
How about trading for other players buried on other teams depth charts?
How about going into the draft *NOT* locked in on a RB, and trading down and picking up one of the many now starting LTs from that draft? There were other options in FA as stop gaps if he felt he need to hedge this bet, Solder wasn't a hedge.
The point is, there were other options. Probably many more options of which I have no knowledge. The whole point is that people say that DG had no choice but to sign Solder. That is revisionist history. There were other options. And that is all that I am saying.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
It's not all black and white.
One can think that the Giants need to make some changes and also not believe that the entire organization is hopelessly flawed from top to bottom and that the "Giant way" is fundamentally bad. The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
Terps problem is two fold. First, he is so entrenched in his position that everything the Giants do is bad that he is blinded by it. It becomes frustrating to interact with him because he is so dug in.
The second problem is that he arrogantly believes that he is the only one smart enough to see some great truth about the organization. People react to that.
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts.
Just in this thread alone, I provided the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL. You may not like my tone, but don't say I'm not making points simply because I'm challenging your position.
In the past couple of weeks, I've broken to the board developments regarding the Panthers. I announced they were hiring Phil Snow last week.
But then again - you probably look at this as providing "facts" to the board:
Quote:
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
DG filled the OL with a combination of methods. Like I said above - argue with teh guys he took, not the method in which they were selected. Wow. Did I foist an opinion there, Bub?
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts.
Just in this thread alone, I provided the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL. You may not like my tone, but don't say I'm not making points simply because I'm challenging your position.
In the past couple of weeks, I've broken to the board developments regarding the Panthers. I announced they were hiring Phil Snow last week.
But then again - you probably look at this as providing "facts" to the board:
Quote:
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
DG filled the OL with a combination of methods. Like I said above - argue with teh guys he took, not the method in which they were selected. Wow. Did I foist an opinion there, Bub?
Fucking ponderous.
First, I don't give a crap about the Panthers, I would not even open a thread about them. Let me know when you "break" something with regards to the Giants.
As far as providing "the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL.". Bravo, you told everybody something everybody already knew. Well done, you've caught up with the rest of us!
As far as DG's combination of methods... Again, facts we all already know, and I acknowledged in my original post. And the whole point of my post which you are too busy self fellating to realize or notice is that, I take issue with not only the players he has picked, but his philosophy regarding filling out the position in general. That was the whole point of my post. And if I disagree with his whole philosophy, it is my prerogative to hold that opinion. Don't presume to tell me what opinions that I can and cannot hold! I.E. that I can ONLY have an issue with the players, and not have an issue with his approach/philosophy. And you dare to call others smug and arrogant!
I don't agree with signing aging and average talent to record breaking contracts, I don't agree with signing marginal talent to multi-year deal that anticipates them as a starter (Omameh), I don't agree with allowing average talent to walk when you can pay them slightly below average starter money (Brown). If you don't let Brown walk, the you can trade Vernon for an OC or a ORT. Once he blundered into the situation he was in, I guess trading for Zietler was good, but he should have been in a very different situation by then. I'm fine with the 1 year Remmers signing. I don't agree with not focusing on the draft to replenish the line and acquire some backups that may develop into starters later.
The philosophy I would like to see, is using FA to pick up 1 year (maybe 2 year) stopgap types, while long term filling out the position group through a draft heavy approach. Young and decent OL are almost never available in FA. I'm good with an appropriate trade as well.
Given the starting point he had, spending only 4% of draft capital, (and just to make you happy) based on the draft value chart, does not meet the philosophy I would like to see. Is that clear enough sink into that cement block you have sitting on your shoulders?
The Giants had no business signing a 30 year old tackle to a 4 year deal when they should have known that they were in rebuilding mode. By the time the team is built, he won't be around anymore and you have to find another one anyway.
This move only makes sense in Gettleman's bizarro world in which he felt he could compete and rebuild at the same time. At least he admitted he was wrong about that.... Once you admit that mistake, signing Solder was a part of that mistake, and a mistake in its own right.
What is Gettleman's long term plan at the tackle spots. 2 years in and we've seen absolutely nothing in that regards. That is a catastrophically bad approach IMO.
I still put the odds that Mara/Tisch and/or any coaching they interviewed said fix the LT until you get a new QB at 30%.
Yeah yeah he said it was him. No GM blames their owner until they write a book after retiring. And good soldier GMS definitely aren't going to imply anything like that.
imo, that's what they all hoped or they started with the idea they had more talent from 2016/2017 knowing they could reverse into Plan B. Who Knows...we don't know with enough certainty to dig in on the conclusion that DG will always do the wrong thing which is what I hear when I hear this stuff.
We also need to remember that there wasn't the counter opinions on talent the new staff is likely to jawbone back.
At the time Solder was a 3-5 year "solution" that was an available average to slightly better LT (and the market for those is not cheap for any GM).
Going into condemnation mode when we don't know leaves me convinced a lot of all out scorched earth all wrong all the time Dg folks never ran a business with the velocity of decisions and the claustrophobic rule sent of constraints the NFL has.
Whats more Im tired of NFGML. I watch the team on the field. By definition all GMS are going to be 50% wrong. ( and that 50% is composed of stretches of outstanding outcomes and stretches of 25% outcomes. 50% is the average ten year team track record in the NFL. Averages are composed of 35% period s and 65% periods). Even the NE Patriots are more than 50% wrong in their unimpressive drafting record (but an impressive front line coaching machine).
To me, this "game" implies we think we would make a better GM. Its likely not true and likely never will be. Its not fun to me to be a critic. To me, close connections between thinking and actions we actually can take is a healthier life.
But that's just me. Its all ok if others get something from it. Lifes too short and this is just about how we spend our time.
And NE put in a close bid for Solder...so this doesn't fit as GM malpractice. It was a judgement call...not a travesty
I think SB was a far riskier choice to payback when other options were on the board.
TO me, the fairer critique is the likely payback vs alternatives on the SB decision. That was far riskier than the Solder decision....at the time it was made
is a good signing if he played/plays well regardless of how long the rebuild takes. Theres value in Jones not getting hit with an old, but good LT that wont be around for his prime years.
I dont know why people think its feasible to rebuild yet never spend until the rebuild is done. That just isnt realistic. I dont suggest spending like we did in 2016 again but we have to increase our talent and it isnt just going to come from the draft.
And NE put in a close bid for Solder...so this doesn't fit as GM malpractice. It was a judgement call...not a travesty
I think SB was a far riskier choice to payback when other options were on the board.
TO me, the fairer critique is the likely payback vs alternatives on the SB decision. That was far riskier than the Solder decision....at the time it was made
Oh, I fully agree that SB was riskier...
By now everybody should know my feelings on drafting SB.
My comments here are specifically in the context of the fact that we are discussing DG's mantra and leaving out "protecting the passer". So my comments are restricted only to the the fact that he seems to have a flawed philosophy toward building the OL. That flaw is that, he appears to have prioritized other positions in the draft over OL. And that de-prioritization seems to be in line with his mantra, leaving out the protect the passer part. Could it just be coincidence. Of course. I tend not to believe in coincidence, but even still, I am not drawing a final conclusion. Just pointing out the fact that his actions coincide with a literal interpretation of his mantra. And we all know that Gettleman is in fact very literal.
With regards to his decisions vs. ownership. First, the reality is that the GMship of the Giants is a combination of the the Maras and Gettleman. The GMship failure to date falls on that whole group. As a group, I have no confidence in their competency. Yes its not clear who wanted what. But either DG truly believed he could rebuild and compete, he convinced himself he could do it, or he was incapable of winning enough trust and confidence from ownership to get them to follow an alternative plan, his plan. Any way you cut it, its some form of incompetency. In fact the latter is perhaps the most damning for the long term because it means that the Mara's will continue to drive the ship.
A couple of factors ignored when evaluating Solder at the time. He wasn't the typical 4th or 5th year player coming off a rookie deal and primed for a big pay day. He had 7 years of wear and tear. He'd also been sick and had a pretty good injury to his bicep.
I'm not saying any of those factors were disqualifying, but add that to a pretty high penalty rate, and never having played at a premium level, and I just didn't see a guy who would be a great investment at record pay.
Lineman age a little better than most positions, but it's not a shock he was at the back half of his curve when he got here.
Just about every human I ever met is smart enough to be situational when they think a situation calls for it or its convenient to do so.
As for the Mara's, I dunno, the last three weeks actions sure were completely consistent with the prior years mantras assigned to them weren't they?
Perhaps flaws in the prior construct? Maybe time to re consider the certainty built into the model?
Good night
Now you are being too literal...
Gettleman has been more literal than not. We have been surprised by something things he has said, and people have defending him saying well he didn't mean it literally that way, its just something to say. Then later we find out, he did, in fact, mean it exactly that way. He has even joked aobut it, saying, "I told you <thus and such>, and you didn't believe me". So at this point, I think it is safer to take what he says at face value, rather than to try and find some hidden meaning. He is, generally speaking, not deceptive. That is what I meant by being literal.
I have no certainty in much regarding the Giants. About the only thing I am certain about is that what they have been doing for the past 9 years has been, to date, a failure. The failures seem to be top to bottom, ownership, front office, coaching and players. Beyond that it's all opinion. And you will notice that everything I said where I speculated about reasons, or better paths, etc., I made caveats with things like "seems", "appears", and "IMO".
Nowhere did I intentionally express certainty in anything except the basic state of failure. Maybe I missed a caveat, but if you reread what I wrote, I made liberal use of those caveats. I find it disingenuous, and frankly unlike you, to make such accusations about certainty. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.
And we all know that Gettleman is in fact very literal.
The very in there leaves room for him to occasionally not be 100% literal. I think, by now, our experience with him, that we should all be able to accept that is a fair statement. He generally means what he says, and he is not deceptive. When he doesn't want important information to leak out, he simply doesn't talk or refuses to answer. But I cannot think of an instance where he said something as intentionally deceptive GM speak. I'm sure he has done it, but the instances are rare.
To me, this "game" implies we think we would make a better GM. Its likely not true and likely never will be.
I am not suggesting that I would make a better GM... I am also not paid millions of dollars to be the GM!!!
However, I am capable of taking a critical look at a GM and realizing that the GM is flawed, and what those flaws are. And perhaps the the flaws are too consequential or there are too many of them.
And, IMO, (there is that caveat again), Gettlemen is so far under water against that 50% threshold you posit, that if he were ever to reach that level in the future, he would have to make so many right decisions in a row that the Giants should become a very good football team. But if past is any indication here, that seems highly unlikely.
A couple of factors ignored when evaluating Solder at the time. He wasn't the typical 4th or 5th year player coming off a rookie deal and primed for a big pay day. He had 7 years of wear and tear. He'd also been sick and had a pretty good injury to his bicep.
I'm not saying any of those factors were disqualifying, but add that to a pretty high penalty rate, and never having played at a premium level, and I just didn't see a guy who would be a great investment at record pay.
Lineman age a little better than most positions, but it's not a shock he was at the back half of his curve when he got here.
The problem with Solder was straightforward - the Patriots had Dante Scarnecchia and we didnt. And like anything with the Pats, you have to be skeptical with any of their available players because Belichick is so good.
So unless Dante was part of the Solder acquisition, there was a big flashing sign reading Buyer Beware.
Lets face it. Gettleman is straight forward with his thinking and lacks imagination. So he saw Solder as a safe pick and banked on Solders skills conveying. He misjudged badly and now we have an OL crisis...
is a good signing if he played/plays well regardless of how long the rebuild takes. Theres value in Jones not getting hit with an old, but good LT that wont be around for his prime years.
I dont know why people think its feasible to rebuild yet never spend until the rebuild is done. That just isnt realistic. I dont suggest spending like we did in 2016 again but we have to increase our talent and it isnt just going to come from the draft.
We need to spend on UFA offensive lineman. No way we want to see Jones get killed week in and week out again.
Draft LT with pick 4
Get a starting OC and a top backup.
Solder slides to RT.
Instant improvement.
I think that's the crux of the argument. It hasn't. The Parcells way produced two. The Coughlin way produced two. Between the two period and now almost a decade since 2011, it's been a lot a mediocrity or worse.
We had two and a half great pockets of football over that last 40 years.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
It isnt that the Giants Way is successful. Its that the Maras had the foresight to hire two top notch football leaders in Parcells and Coughlin and that resulted in top quality football. I would count Young in that tally except we all know how he got the job.
One hope I have from the last month is the John Mara has looked in the mirror and decided that he needed to bring in that sort of leadership and saw it in Judge. Given the buzz around Rhule, I think the owners went into the search looking for this quality and were surprised to find it in one of their second tier candidates (Judge). But thats supposition.
cosmic - wish I could be as optimistic about Mara as you
One thing that came out in the pressers that scared the shit out of me is how Mara told Judge that the Giants are a family business. And there are a shit ton of Mara's out there now that will be looking for jobs that could potentially squeeze out more qualified candidates.
When his look in the mirror moment and wanting to make people feel uncomfortable applies to the FO, I'll start to believe. Until then, all these moves are not exactly rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, but nor far off
We had two and a half great pockets of football over that last 40 years.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I think that's the crux of the argument. It hasn't. The Parcells way produced two. The Coughlin way produced two. Between the two period and now almost a decade since 2011, it's been a lot a mediocrity or worse.
And to this point... The Giants were mired in 17 years of lousy football when they were forced to take on Young. Wellington and Tim were forced to take a backseat and let Young run the football operations. He was followed by Accorsi who Wellington allowed to run football operations without meddling.
After Wellington died and Accorsi retired, John and Chris have returned to the 17 years of lousy football period where we had two meddling brothers trying to interject their will into football operations.
The Giants were successful when they had 3 things lining up.
1. The ownership wasn't meddling
2. They had a good coach
3. They had a good QB
The Giants haven't met of those criteria for quite a while now.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I was young and just hitting my teenage years in the late '80s, but that era of football is the gold standard for Giants football. Great product, great rivalries, great expectations.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I was young and just hitting my teenage years in the late '80s, but that era of football is the gold standard for Giants football. Great product, great rivalries, great expectations.
👍
Interestingly I really started getting into the NFL in between the off-season of 89-90. I discovered Lawrence taylor. So my first season as a Giants "fan" is the 1990 season ( I was 12). I came right at the very tail end of that era unfortunately. I don't count XXV unfortunately because I had zero perspective of the task that winning a super how was. I certainly don't begrudge any fans who don't feel that way in regards to experiencing a championship season.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
It's not all black and white.
One can think that the Giants need to make some changes and also not believe that the entire organization is hopelessly flawed from top to bottom and that the "Giant way" is fundamentally bad. The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
Terps problem is two fold. First, he is so entrenched in his position that everything the Giants do is bad that he is blinded by it. It becomes frustrating to interact with him because he is so dug in.
The second problem is that he arrogantly believes that he is the only one smart enough to see some great truth about the organization. People react to that.
George, great post. Terps has one mantra and repeats it time after time. And if others dont take it as gospel he talks down to them in an arrogant and condescending fashion.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that his posts garner the angriest rebuttals of perhaps anyones on BBI. Thats no accident, and Terps could do some self-examination when faced with that reality. Instead he shows no self-awareness or desire to recognize his part of the responsibility for threads going off the track.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that his posts garner the angriest rebuttals of perhaps anyones on BBI. Thats no accident, and Terps could do some self-examination when faced with that reality. Instead he shows no self-awareness or desire to recognize his part of the responsibility for threads going off the track.
Without having read the whole thread I know this much
was that he was the first one on the trade Odell train, from the very first signs of their being an issue. He took a lot of sh-t for it but was vindicated in the end.
Other than that, I'm not remembering anything all that distinct other than falling into the Gettleman sucks group from Day 1 which I don't think has played out yet one way or the other?
but I've learned that he is a freight train you don't want to get in front of.
He is right way more often than he is wrong.
Being right is irrelevant. It doesnt take much to go against the grain on a lot of topics regarding football - theres a high failure rate in this league and lobbying for the opposite isnt some difficult task.
Ive given him a ton of credit on things in the past and instead of being gracious hes turned into some caped crusader that wont stop until every Giants fan sees things his way.
So, if hes reading this I hope he does come back and post, but if the rhetoric is going to continue hes going to get people pushing back on him.
Terps was very early on the Lamar Jackson train. It's also not fair to say he hated DG from day one. He immediately disliked the moves, IIRC, but was fine with the actual hire.
It's very frustrating to advocate in a setting where your passions and insights will not translate into actions.
So a substitute is insistence. Soon the stew includes intractable bias and magical thinking and more and more time searching for explanations for all the unknowable in football analysis.
Then trying to analyze the rationale and motives of owners and decision makers we will never know with quarter of the context and tons of confounding and exogenous scraps ..
It just gets hard and frustrating.
Rooting for a perpetual losing team really twists fandom. And frankly it hurts to identify with and root for a perpetual loser.
We all love flawed people,institutions and ideals but no progress is stressful. Ditto the NYG
when you hype up Lamar Jackson before the draft, but then at the last minute, express grave concerns over his mom being his agent. If he works out in the NFL, you're right. If he flops, you were also right about having significant concerns.
Or when you think Duke prospect Daniel Jones is the best option to succeed Eli, but then after the pick is made, you're not happy, because Eli was kept. And then after Eli leaves and it's Jones' job, you suggest that if the new coach wants to move on from Jones at #4, he should. If Jones works out, you were right. If Jones doesn't work out, you were also right.
Or you can insist for years that winning a league MVP doesn't matter to you, because you don't frame and hang on the wall the newspapers when a guy wins an MVP, like you do for championships. But then when it looks like Lamar Jackson is going to win the MVP (after flopping in the playoffs for the second time), you can mention that every time you want to remind people how right you were about him.
Or you can insist that Beckham should be traded, but then when he actually is traded, you can criticize how it was done...
We can go on and on...
RE: Go Terps biggest claim to fame that I'm remembering....
was that he was the first one on the trade Odell train, from the very first signs of their being an issue. He took a lot of sh-t for it but was vindicated in the end.
Other than that, I'm not remembering anything all that distinct other than falling into the Gettleman sucks group from Day 1 which I don't think has played out yet one way or the other?
Predicted Lamar Jackson success
Was one of the Eli fan boys who saw that his time was over
Im sure he opposed the solder and other DG signings but dont have direct memory of that
Going way back, he predicted the saints to win the SB the year that they did.
constantly telling the board you're right, is that it naturally highlights when you aren't.
Like advocating that TJ Hockenson should have been the first round pick for us.
Like saying Garrett was going to be the HC and when we lost out on Rhule, spending the next hour having several posts pointing out how correct that Garrett prediction was.
When a team is doing poorly, it isn't really insightful to say that the team sucks. Nor does saying the if the team had done things differently that the results would be demonstrably different.
The last year has been post upon post saying how terrible the team is, how every move has sucked and how bleak the next several years will be.
That isn't a matter of right vs. wrong, it is just overt pessimism that assumes the people running the team are incompetent and that no decision has been a good one simply because the W/L record has been terrible.
I won't even mention how Indy and Oakland were pointed out as two teams we should emulate. Conveniently pointed out midway through the season when they were in a playoff position.
Terps gets threatened on a thread from the most ridiculous internet tough guy post i have ever seen... and the thread goes on to discuss why somehow it was his fault.
and you have the guys who have been dead wrong on the giants of late discussing it. only here... only now... would that happen.
Britt you don't recall Terps being right often because you wont acknowledge being wrong often. its that simple
Terps gets threatened on a thread from the most ridiculous internet tough guy post i have ever seen... and the thread goes on to discuss why somehow it was his fault.
and you have the guys who have been dead wrong on the giants of late discussing it. only here... only now... would that happen.
Britt you don't recall Terps being right often because you wont acknowledge being wrong often. its that simple
Pretty amazing isn't it. Well with him gone, I'm sure we'll get many more threads that put that glue in lieu of mayonnaise.
Terps gets threatened on a thread from the most ridiculous internet tough guy post i have ever seen... and the thread goes on to discuss why somehow it was his fault.
and you have the guys who have been dead wrong on the giants of late discussing it. only here... only now... would that happen.
Britt you don't recall Terps being right often because you wont acknowledge being wrong often. its that simple
Right, wrong, who gives a shit? What am I wrong about? My opinion? It's a f-cking opinion. That's it. Do I present it as fact? No.
and cap analysts that started to believe their own sh-t, and started getting overly aggressive and arrogant about it, and would shout down anything that didn't align with that. They know better than everybody.
We get it. The Giants are sh-t. The point has been made, and made, and made, and made, and made over again...
Then you have the professional sh-t stirrers that like to go in there and troll for their own amusement, and rile everybody up and then you have what you have here.... a mess.
I'm not sure I follow. Never viewed myself as much of a scorekeeper.
No do I have any problem - ever - taking heat for my opinions. And I never complain about how my viewpoints are attacked, or I'm attacked. To me, it's all part of the participating in the BBI jungle.
That's pretty much the whole story, here. Terps isn't some martyr.
Terps is fine. Hes not an asshole. Its internet tough guys that make this place terrible.
Why is it ok for someone to threaten someone here and then I check their Twitter page and there is not one hint of being that abusive. Its because he doesnt get a free pass to write whatever he wants there.
I put up a perfectly reasonable thread last night that I took down because the first thing he did was threaten me on it.
They, and they know who they are, will remind the board of their predictions in a not so subtle way; but then try to claim higher ground by feigning innocence that their tone was simply misconstrued when challenged.
Oddly, they really are some of my favorites to read. ;)
Or you could be like FMIC and not really state an opinion on the football team at all and only exist to bash other posters on this site.
If I don't really state an opinion on the team, why am I classified as a pollyanna or by some fucking lunatics either a paid shill by the team or Dave Gettleman himself?
and optimism based on fantasy.
Still waiting for that "Eli's revenge tour."
Optimism is based on me finding no point to be down on the teams I root for. Being a pessimist doesnt actually make the team wake up and do things differently, but you guys sure post like it does.
The Giants can go 0-16 next year and Ill still be optimistic for the 2021 season.
Or you could be like FMIC and not really state an opinion on the football team at all and only exist to bash other posters on this site.
If I don't really state an opinion on the team, why am I classified as a pollyanna or by some fucking lunatics either a paid shill by the team or Dave Gettleman himself?
You would have to ask the people who made those comments but Im sure it has to do with attacking posters with a certain view point.
What those guys miss is that you rarely make a counter argument, or discuss the team at all. Just like in this response you only discuss BBI posters.
I'd ask myself..
FatMan in Charlotte : 10:09 am : link : reply
if I put Wentz on Washington or Dak on Washington, would they look good. I think Wentz would. Alex Smith looked good there. I don't think Dak would. He doesn't carry his team.
Wentz has the edge and it isn't slight. He also can't stay healthy though.
I think in 3 years if this question is asked, Jones will be #1.
Quote:
That's awesome..
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/21/2020 5:27 pm : link : reply
he was at a cookout one of my friends hosted a few years back. Really nice guy. He loved playing for Parcells.
Quote:
Interestingly..
FatMan in Charlotte : 8:29 am : link : reply
enough, Quinn's name keeps getting brought up even after the ST units have improved.
That should really be the bizarre part.
Quote:
The..
FatMan in Charlotte : 9:57 am : link : reply
league is littered with failed HC's who returned to being successful coordinators and position coaches.
A lot of guys aren't cut out to be the head guy.
It isn't like Kitchens has been a failure at his stops.
Quote:
There's smoke here..
FatMan in Charlotte : 9:41 am : link : reply
but I'm not sure how it will pan out. JonC is right about the ramifications for Patricia.
The Lions aren't happy with the way Stafford handled his injury this season and some comments he made. Also, the injury is a pretty severe one that is likely to give problems going forward. A lot of back injuries are like that.
I can see a play for another QB, but there will be a short-term hit and I'm not sure Patricia wants to sign up for that.
Could it be that perhaps you just focus on the negative posts, in part because I've called you out before. If you don't like my style, fine. But at least know what the fuck you're talking about.
Or you could be like FMIC and not really state an opinion on the football team at all and only exist to bash other posters on this site.
If I don't really state an opinion on the team, why am I classified as a pollyanna or by some fucking lunatics either a paid shill by the team or Dave Gettleman himself?
You would have to ask the people who made those comments but Im sure it has to do with attacking posters with a certain view point.
What those guys miss is that you rarely make a counter argument, or discuss the team at all. Just like in this response you only discuss BBI posters.
I've been making this point about FMiC forever. He attacks posters when they have a certain PoV... Particularly anything negative about the team in general. Then, when the poster's PoV turns out to be correct, his claim is that he never stated the opposing opinion, but just that the poster in question sucked.
Talk about a shit stirrer... And whenever you call him out on it, he complains that you are following him around and trolling him. When of course that is exactly what he does. And there is no need to follow him around to troll him since he leave his turds everywhere on the board.
I'd ask myself..
FatMan in Charlotte : 10:09 am : link : reply
if I put Wentz on Washington or Dak on Washington, would they look good. I think Wentz would. Alex Smith looked good there. I don't think Dak would. He doesn't carry his team.
Wentz has the edge and it isn't slight. He also can't stay healthy though.
I think in 3 years if this question is asked, Jones will be #1.
Great you have an opinion about Eagle players and Cowboy players getting transplanted somehow to the Redskins. Does anybody really care?
Quote:
That's awesome..
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/21/2020 5:27 pm : link : reply
he was at a cookout one of my friends hosted a few years back. Really nice guy. He loved playing for Parcells.
Good to know you have friends, with your personality I figured that was a longshot.
Quote:
Interestingly..
FatMan in Charlotte : 8:29 am : link : reply
enough, Quinn's name keeps getting brought up even after the ST units have improved.
That should really be the bizarre part.
No opinion really stated, and really not very interesting at all.
Quote:
The..
FatMan in Charlotte : 9:57 am : link : reply
league is littered with failed HC's who returned to being successful coordinators and position coaches.
A lot of guys aren't cut out to be the head guy.
It isn't like Kitchens has been a failure at his stops.
Clear a sideways knock against somebody who expressed concerns about Kitchens... and again, no real opinion stated.
Quote:
There's smoke here..
FatMan in Charlotte : 9:41 am : link : reply
but I'm not sure how it will pan out. JonC is right about the ramifications for Patricia.
The Lions aren't happy with the way Stafford handled his injury this season and some comments he made. Also, the injury is a pretty severe one that is likely to give problems going forward. A lot of back injuries are like that.
I can see a play for another QB, but there will be a short-term hit and I'm not sure Patricia wants to sign up for that.
Something about the Lions, again who really cares. You seam to like to post stuff about other teams... And is there an opinion there. If there is one, its so hedged it's impossible to make out.
Quote:
Could it be that perhaps you just focus on the negative posts, in part because I've called you out before. If you don't like my style, fine. But at least know what the fuck you're talking about.
Let's face it, for every post like the ones above (which were mostly meaningless), you have 10 posts attacking somebody.
The thing I appreciate about Terps is his opinions are supported by evidence and not flippant. Conversing with him has actually changed my mind on a few occasions and helped me understand the game and the team more.
That's a quality exchange, and presumably one of the better reasons to participate in conversation about the team with strangers.
There's nothing more inherently beneficial in being positive or optimistic when discussing the team.
When I read that intimated on threads I think about that guy on here who posts a lot about the Mets and truly believes every offseason was dynamite and it's unequivocally their year. It's definitely a positive outlook, but if for some reason I wanted to learn about the Mets, I wouldn't seek him out.
I *think* most of us want intellectually honest, interesting conversation about the team. When the team keeps losing 10 games a year, is it a surprise a lot of dialogue is negative?
The thing I appreciate about Terps is his opinions are supported by evidence and not flippant. Conversing with him has actually changed my mind on a few occasions and helped me understand the game and the team more.
That's a quality exchange, and presumably one of the better reasons to participate in conversation about the team with strangers.
There's nothing more inherently beneficial in being positive or optimistic when discussing the team.
When I read that intimated on threads I think about that guy on here who posts a lot about the Mets and truly believes every offseason was dynamite and it's unequivocally their year. It's definitely a positive outlook, but if for some reason I wanted to learn about the Mets, I wouldn't seek him out.
I *think* most of us want intellectually honest, interesting conversation about the team. When the team keeps losing 10 games a year, is it a surprise a lot of dialogue is negative?
Losing does perpetuate negativity.
I have been on BBI since year 1. The negativity has increased over time and I don't think it is just due to losing. I think "social media" in general is BIGGER and there are more bully mentalities out there now than in years past. Just my opinion....
I *think* most of us want intellectually honest, interesting conversation about the team. When the team keeps losing 10 games a year, is it a surprise a lot of dialogue is negative?
Well said my friend.
I would like to add that I feel communication is a major ingredient in expressing our views. If I express my view(s) in a manner that presents my view as fact then I have made it difficult for honest conversation, if I express my view with arrogance then I have made it difficult for honest conversation. I think these are factors that we all struggle with at times. I am leaning more so towards a philosophy of taking my time to think through before acting.
I appease personal pride (arrogance) at times which derails conversation. My personal pride is a hindrance to common ground with opposing views. We learn a lot from opposing views (if represented honestly) so I certainly should take an appropriate amount of time to measure what someone is expressing.
To me it seems conversation is treated as a competition frequently which causes an issue with trusting and measuring what the "opponent" is expressing.
I *think* most of us want intellectually honest, interesting conversation about the team. When the team keeps losing 10 games a year, is it a surprise a lot of dialogue is negative?
Well said my friend.
I would like to add that I feel communication is a major ingredient in expressing our views. If I express my view(s) in a manner that presents my view as fact then I have made it difficult for honest conversation, if I express my view with arrogance then I have made it difficult for honest conversation. I think these are factors that we all struggle with at times. I am leaning more so towards a philosophy of taking my time to think through before acting.
I appease personal pride (arrogance) at times which derails conversation. My personal pride is a hindrance to common ground with opposing views. We learn a lot from opposing views (if represented honestly) so I certainly should take an appropriate amount of time to measure what someone is expressing.
To me it seems conversation is treated as a competition frequently which causes an issue with trusting and measuring what the "opponent" is expressing.
THIS. This is the heart of the matter. Whatever it is you support, if you speak in absolutes and are condescending to the poster you are having the conversation with, is that productive? No.
The poster above who mentioned social media is right. That's the difference. We have a group of people that were raised to communicate on social media, and we have a group of people that were raised on face to face conversation. They are largely clashing here.
Interesting pov regarding those who grew up and are growing up in an age where a face is being replaced with text, therefore in a way dwindling the person to an object (text)
That had not occurred to me as ridiculous as that may sound that I was unaware of the significance of growing up where in an age where face to face conversation is on it's way of being viewed as inconvenience
It's funny, the communication on here that offends my sensibilities comes from the guys who I presume are a little older and I suspect actually would speak like that face-to-face.
I think Joey probably wouldn't shy from saying that to someone. He's never appeared to be shy or disingenuous. I don't think FMiC would shy from calling someone something condescending if the opportunity presented itself.
I think Terps has a pretty fixed sense of the world. But Britt, read back what you just typed. Can you see how someome could interpret you as staying your opinion as facts?
What, that a large generation has grown up with social media....
It's funny, the communication on here that offends my sensibilities comes from the guys who I presume are a little older and I suspect actually would speak like that face-to-face.
I think Joey probably wouldn't shy from saying that to someone. He's never appeared to be shy or disingenuous. I don't think FMiC would shy from calling someone something condescending if the opportunity presented itself.
I think Terps has a pretty fixed sense of the world. But Britt, read back what you just typed. Can you see how someome could interpret you as staying your opinion as facts?
Here's the other thing... Have you met anybody from BBI? Because, while I have not met Joey or Fatman in person, I have met countless others WAY back in the day when we all used to go to training camp in Albany. And there was WAY more vitriol spewed on BBI back in those days. It was like the Wild West compared to now. And some of the most vitriolic posters back then were some of the nicest guys you could meet in person and have a beer with.
all arrangements were made on BBI. Stay at this hotel. Meet at the hotel bar. Meet in the lobby for practice. We're all going here for dinner, etc...
But beyond that, you had to walk into a group of 30-40 complete strangers from all walks of life, introduce yourself face to face, and join the conversation. In person.
So you suspect wrong. Because it wasn't like that at all. And that was when it was ME who was in his mid-twenties, interacting with the older posters.
What I didn't do was go in there with some smarmy ass attitude that I was the smartest person in the room, and condemn all others who didn't think like me. THAT's what wouldn't have gone over well in person. And it wouldn't be a big deal, just nobody would want to hang out with you.
imo,the flash point is not pessimists vs optimists
imo, the flash point is certainty and arrogance. Not a generational thing at all. Lets use a parallel to this observation from 2400 years ago
The truth is that what goes on in our heads ( the Forms) as humans is not reality. Reality is out there outside our experience. And the only way to get closer to a real picture is to listen to others in the Cave.
imo,the flash point is not pessimists vs optimists
imo, the flash point is certainty and arrogance. Not a generational thing at all. Lets use a parallel to this observation from 2400 years ago
The truth is that what goes on in our heads ( the Forms) as humans is not reality. Reality is out there outside our experience. And the only way to get closer to a real picture is to listen to others in the Cave.
Keeping that in mind every day...helps a lot
I agree that certainty and arrogance are at the heart of the matter, Bill.
But we have to acknowledge that the way we communicate has evolved, and I think we all understand that words on a screen don't always jive with words spoken directly, lack inflection and emotion, and can sometimes be interpreted not as intended.
BBI in the 90s was raw and unplugged. Very Darwinistic. It was so much better than todays PC version of BBI.
But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...
Here's the other thing... Have you met anybody from BBI? Because, while I have not met Joey or Fatman in person, I have met countless others WAY back in the day when we all used to go to training camp in Albany.
T-Bone in person was the biggest asshole in the world!!!
I kid I kid.
Just a word of advice, if you ever meet up with CiP, bring a set of snips so you can cut the lock off of his wallet.....
BBI in the 90s was raw and unplugged. Very Darwinistic. It was so much better than todays PC version of BBI.
But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...
Are you not a fan of common courtesy towards others? Serious question.
I think the concept of "common courtesy" is a difficult one for a message board.
We are in a population where a portion of posters are here to incite or create multiple handles to steer the dialogue or promote certain narratives. It isn't like in person where the guy you see is the same guy you'll see the next time
The key to "common courtesy" is the common part. Oftentimes, two posters don't have that commonality. You can even see in this thread from responses from ron and McL, that they don't believe I am ever courteous. That is their perception because I've not been courteous TO THEM. You may have a different take. A lot of posters on this site have a different take.
Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.
I think the concept of "common courtesy" is a difficult one for a message board.
We are in a population where a portion of posters are here to incite or create multiple handles to steer the dialogue or promote certain narratives. It isn't like in person where the guy you see is the same guy you'll see the next time
The key to "common courtesy" is the common part. Oftentimes, two posters don't have that commonality. You can even see in this thread from responses from ron and McL, that they don't believe I am ever courteous. That is their perception because I've not been courteous TO THEM. You may have a different take. A lot of posters on this site have a different take.
Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.
Thanks, that gives me something to chew on for a bit.
So you suspect wrong. Because it wasn't like that at all. And that was when it was ME who was in his mid-twenties, interacting with the older posters.
When I lived in San Francisco I met a ton of BBIers from 2000-2014 at a number of Raider, 9ers games, and bars for games. Probably 50-75. Most of them were everything I'd expected from interacting here. Lots of really great guys and a few who were a little much with their opinions.
No one surprised me, and no one was dramatically different.
Is there nuance and subtlety lost when typing versus in-person? Sure. But I don't buy there is some generational divide that makes those who came of age before social media better communicators on or offline.
for the record my complaint isn't that you aren't curtous
its that you spend most of your time discussing other BBIers and very little time actually discussing the team. At least this current version of the team. That my perception anyway.
But whatever man, I'm not a mod. Post how you want.
BBI in the 90s was raw and unplugged. Very Darwinistic. It was so much better than todays PC version of BBI.
But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...
Are you not a fan of common courtesy towards others? Serious question.
In general? Sure.
Do I expect it around here? I don't. But I accept those terms and manage around it.
Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.
Too bad you don't live by this quote.
You're criteria for being courteous is based on whether or not in your view the opinion is critical of the team, or oddly enough, if somebody expresses an opinion and tries to back that opinion with with something more than just blurting it out.
You will notice that there really isn't anybody on this board that I am generally discourteous towards other than you. But, to illustrate the kind of cancer you promote, I have been sharp with crick in the past. In my head, I felt that he had been discourteous towards me in the past. When I looked back I realized why. He has never been directly discourteous, but he has supported you on a few occasions where you were being particularly vile. Googs pointed out to me that he found crick to generally be a thoughtful/introspective poster, and watching him more carefully I agree with Googs. I still don't have a warm fuzzy about him, because he supported some of your vitriol, but, he doesn't deserve being lumped in with you. The way you behave impacts the way others behave, and the way others are perceived. It generally lowers the civility of the discourse, it inhibits honest debate and divides people.
When I express opinions, especially ones that I expect will be somewhat controversial or debatable, I try to provide information that supports my opinion. For example, in this thread, I did the math on how much draft capital based on the draft value chart has actually been spent on the oline. It is things like that which inform my opinion, so I provide it.
When you provide an opinion with supporting information, it makes it much harder to argue an alternative opinion. Not impossible but harder. I think that offends some people and they feel their opinion is being shut out. They feel that I am posting with "certainty" or being "arrogant". But when you read what I write, my opinions are either clearly stated as such, or stated with some caveat. It happened on this thread with a poster whom I generally like and respect. What it means is that it raises the bar for the debate, and if you disagree, it likely means you have to be able to show that the support or evidence isn't valid, and that is a much tougher thing to do, especially if you haven't researched the the evidence being used. Its easier to just attack the poster and claim that they are posting with certainty or arrogance. I am saying this from my personal experience, but, I see others on this site that also use evidence to support their opinions, and I see them being treated the same way in response. It is what it is, but I thought I would throw that out there.
I had hoped to have pointed out by now that a huge percentage ofanalysis and analytics in football are going to wind up very debatable and in fact easily debatable.
I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.
Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.
So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
I had hoped to have pointed out by now that a huge percentage ofanalysis and analytics in football are going to wind up very debatable and in fact easily debatable.
I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.
Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.
So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
Bill, I agree with you that much of the analytics and analyses are debatable, and I have always been willing to engage in that debate. You of all people should know that about me by now. In many of our debates, you have forced me to think harder about certain things.
Was I piecing together various bits of information and speculating a conclusion. Absolutely, but it is clearly marked so. I have an opinion about the GMship of the Giants, but I didn't come to that opinion in a vacuum. We can disagree about some of the specifics that led me that opinion, and we can debate those. But I am allowed my opinion. What cannot be debated is that the product they have put on the field has been crappy for a long time. What cannot be debated is that they have failed. Whether it's because they are at 45% good decision making, or 25%, and how much under the 50% threshold does it have to be to result in lousy football, is debatable, but frankly I am not sure it's a debate worth having. There are clearly individuals who are capable of sustaining something over the threshold, and other who are not. What the threshold is and how much above defines success, is immaterial to me.
You're point is that all debate, all opinions are moot because it's all just noise in the machine, random luck, everything reverts to the mean. And in the macro sense over a very long period of time, that is true, I get it, I agree.
But we are not talking about macro trends and such long periods. As I am sure you are aware, there are organizations that know how to make money in a long term flat market. Why, because they know how to trade on the micro trends. As fans our view is generally in the micro... Mostly within a 5 year period. The fact that we have seen guys sustain success for 10, 15, 20 year periods, and others that no matter what can never achieve it, suggests that there is a human element to be considered as part of the micro trend analysis. I want the Giants to be the ones cutting through the noise and riding the crest of those micro trends, as clearly guys like Belichick, Walsh and even Parcels were able to do.
The Giants GMship has ridden under that threshold for a very long time, that is not debatable, and I don't believe that it is just bad luck. It's bad management, and bad decisions.
And while I can't realistically hold out hope for a change in ownership (neither the people, nor their approach), I can hold out hope of a GM that is strong enough to be able take that bull by the horns and manage it, and also be a good enough GM to carry the team to one of those crests. I don't think that description can be applied the Gettleman at this point. As a result, he is useless to me.
and using that data to draw conclusions, is not the same thing as evidence of a reality. Data is suggestive of a reality, not conclusive of it.
Hyperbole used when presenting opinions is generally what causes backlash. IMO one should be careful with the presentation of their opinions. If one fails to see that their opinion is informed by analysis of data (therefore suggestive) and truly believes that it is conclusive, they will likely believe that it to be superior to others. This then leads to arrogance and certainty that Bill2 is referring to.
Not a great way to win friends and influence people.
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Christian, I would say it's popular for us humans to fall into the trap of thinking too highly of ourselves therefore stating our view as if it cannot be challenged. I think it's important to communicate as clearly as possible and not leave things to assumptions. As humans I think we love to show how smart we are which to me leads to an interruption in communicating our message. Why choose to communicate an opinion as fact if that isn't what we intend?
Crick, I agree. I assume (maybe incorrectly) exchanges on the internet are nothing more than balled up opinions on sticky notes tossed at the wall for others to read.
I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.
The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
Crick, I agree. I assume (maybe incorrectly) exchanges on the internet are nothing more than balled up opinions on sticky notes tossed at the wall for others to read.
I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.
The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
I think crick is correct, we should take care when stating opinions that they are stated as such.
On the other hand, as listeners/readers, we should keep in mind that no matter how something is stated, there is plenty that is unknowable by us, so just about everything is opinion.
Bill2, what magical thinking are you referring to? Deriving an opinion/drawing a conclusion from incomplete data? Isn't that what makes us human? The ability to synthesize incomplete data, form a model in our minds (whether correct or incorrect) and base future actions and decisions on that model. Isn't that how science works and advances. We form the model, test it, and while it works we use it until proven otherwise. Newton's laws of gravity are widely considered a brilliant achievement that advanced science considerably. However, in the end the model was wrong. Not that I am comparing what we do on this board to Newton in any way shape or form. Just the fact that as far as we know, the ability to create a abstract model (and thus an opinion) is uniquely human and isn't something to be scoffed at. THe fact that we realize that the model informs our opinion, but that it is still just an opinion is the recognition of of the fact that the data is incomplete. That doesn't change the opinion.
Unless stated otherwise, isn't it assumed exchanges on the internet are opinions to be defended/supported/debated?
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Often times posters state things as facts, and often provide "evidence" of those facts, when in fact they are opinions. The evidence is carefully curated to support those opinions and any evidence to the contrary is discounted or even disregarded in its entirety.
It is not always enough to be clear about what is your opinion and what isn't. We see today what happens to civilized discussion when opinion is represented as fact and repeated loudly and often enough to where it is nearly universally accepted as fact.
Should this bother anyone? I don't know, clearly the world is too big to worry about all misrepresentations and falsehoods. However, those things you hold dearest (like family) you are more likely to defend from inaccurate statements.
I've spent too much time on BBI since the Dave Gettleman hire trying to fight falsehoods from being unchallenged. A couple of months ago I gave up - I don't have the energy anymore that it takes to come on this site and point out to people where their logic is flawed or where they have overstated their opinions. The NYG are my team that I've been loyal to for decades and I've been bothered by so many falsehoods being spread, but I cannot let it become such a big part of my life. I've got other more important fish to fry.
And in the end, I'm still going to (hopefully) enjoy the games on Sundays regardless of what is believed generally about the team.
Often times posters state things as facts, and often provide "evidence" of those facts, when in fact they are opinions. The evidence is carefully curated to support those opinions and any evidence to the contrary is discounted or even disregarded in its entirety.
So lets use my 4% figure that I calculated before on how much DG has spent on the OLine... Is that a "carefully curated" piece of evidence? FMiC seems to think so, he offered 12.5%.
Lets take a look and see which number is more deceptive... Let use a stock portfolio as an example. Lets say you own 2 shares of stock, 1 share in each of two companies. You can say that your portfolio is "balanced" right... 50% of your share are in each company. But is that the right way to look at it. Lets say that 1 company is trading at $1 and the other $99. Isn't it more accurate to say that 99% of your capital is concentrated in 1 company and only 1% in the other?
Back to 4% vs 12.5%. The 4% represents the actual capitalized value based on the a widely accepted metric, the draft value chart. Out of all the 16 picks, there was the 34th pick and one in the 7th (maybe 6th I forget, its not impactful)... But there has been choices that were the 2nd pick, 6th pick, 17th pick, and 30th pick (also numerous in the 3rd 4th and 5th rounds that do affect the weighting significantly). I don't think anybody here is dumb enough to think that a 7th round pick is an equivalent investment to a 1st round pick. Nor is the 34th pick equivalent to the 2nd, 6th, 17th or 30th pick. So which number is the "better" fact? Which one is really the more "curated" one? You can dispute it as FMiC did, you can call it a falsehood, but is it really? But really, which is a more valid representation of the total DRAFT CAPITAL spent by DG?
You can argue that 4% is an incomplete picture, there is FA, waivers, and trades. This is true... But you are right, I discount that, because there are others "facts" out there that show that it has become increasingly rare that good OL become available in FA. Trades are wildcards and difficult to factor in. I appreciate that DG traded for Zietler. But I also put a discount on it because, he had Brown in the spot, Brown stated he wanted to stay, and he wasn't expensive. That means that had he been resigned, and the TRADE CAPITAL could have been better spent on another position... So I don't give a positive grade on the trade when taken as a whole, but that is my opinion. Again, its opinion, but it does have a factual basis underlying it. So, one person might find DGs moves in FA and trades as a compelling evidence that DG is "building" the oline. I look at it as a flawed approach not likely to succeed. My opinion is that the draft is the best way to "build" the OL for the long term. Thus my focus on 4%.
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
1) im sick and tired of losing and I want SB an DJ to succeed but I support the length of time it would take to sort through the failure rate and development time for an ol while other areas also need. then I ruthlessly ridicule anyone who doesn't take my slow higher failure rate approach.
2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )
this is priceless. Debating why people get mad about other peoples posting only to keep posting the same exact way.
I have to ask myself this. If its so simple to allocate resources appropriately why isnt it done across the board? Whats your secret sauce that very few people in the NFL know about?
We already know how high the bust rate is for for Olineman, we experienced plenty of it. So what now?
The way the RG position has been managed the last few seasons drives me batty. We have cycled through three starting quality players at that position (Fluker, Brown, Zeitler) and meanwhile paid our injured mediocre starting RT, what I think is one of the most important positions on the team, $1.5mm, and started a journeyman at C. Forget the Solder signing - whats up with the RG?
refuse to get the point because I am the poster challenging you, so you get defensive:
Quote:
So lets use my 4% figure that I calculated before on how much DG has spent on the OLine... Is that a "carefully curated" piece of evidence? FMiC seems to think so, he offered 12.5%.
The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.
Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.
Like Uconn just said - there is not special formula yet you want to foist numbers on the board that assumptively say the Giants are building the line incorrectly.
You used numbers and in your mind, that's presenting evidence and stating to the board the right way to do things. And you still fail to see why people take issue with it. Could be a self importance, or it could be because you are concentrating on crafting a 6 string post to address me, an exercise which in itself contradicts a lot of what you've said in the past.
You have the right to an opinion on how DG was building the Ol. Perfectly fine.
But what you advocated as the right approach has concerns as well. Namely time and risk up against all the needs of the team
Neither is "right or wrong". they are tradeoffs. Hence an analyst exposes both to the light and also remains humble and open to the downsides of choice.
When you start with the GM sucks then the data just shows up to support the pre set conclusion.
That's not a supported opinion. That's a supported take closer to propaganda in its incompleteness.
The point is that no one here has time to complete all the second and third derivatives of any choice in football. So even common sense protection from POV containing the many ways to second guess in a sport with so many variables should leave one with very few declarative positions.
That's feels logical to me.
McL, its not meant as an attack. None of my posts are. Im hoping they help form your own style of getting even better as an analyst of a very tough game to analyze
that some of these falsehoods you mention or neither true nor false?
Could you be the one claiming your opinion is fact?
As much time as I've spent on here in the past 20 years or so I'm sure I've had my opinion taken as a presentation of fact once or twice, but I don't think you'll find many who feel that way about me. Certainly not where I dig in my heels and argue repeatedly with conviction. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting causes for outcomes - I just don't believe I know as much about the game of football as most posters here, so I tend to try and learn what I can. That attitude guides pretty much all my football posts, even ones where I posit an opinion.
I don't deny I could be blind to my own behavior, but I'd welcome evidence that shows me to be wrong in this way.
There are very few absolute facts that get distorted on here, but sometimes they are repeated over and over again and I have tried to set the record straight unsuccessfully about it.
For example, the facts presented around Eli's "benching" regularly get stated wrong, both here and in the general media. There are some absolute facts, but mostly what gets repeated are people's opinions, interpretations, feelings, etc.
I don't want to get into that discussion again right now, but rarely do you get an actual historically accurate description of those events.
I agree that the facts around Eli’s benching get misrepresented
As do a lot of other things. People were convinced Tuck was afraid to get surgery because the usual first course of action is to see if it heals in its own....for example.
Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.
I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.
The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.
Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.
Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.
I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.
In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
RE: I agree that the facts around Eli’s benching get misrepresented
As do a lot of other things. People were convinced Tuck was afraid to get surgery because the usual first course of action is to see if it heals in its own....for example.
Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
Maybe sometime at training camp or something? I'm open to visiting on the subject in person - I think it would be better that way.
The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.
Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.
Do I need to explain that the OL represents 5 of 22 stating players or about 23%? When I have posted that 4% in the past, I pointed that out... Do I need to rehash it every time I quote the stat?
Do I need to rehash that we have seen a steady decline in available OL in FA? And a decline in the quality? It has been discussed ad-nauseum.
I also did state that when he took over, the team had 0 starting offensive lineman (I'm not counting Flowers, he lasted only a few games, and everybody knew he has a problem).
By the way, I made mention of all of that context on this thread...
from my original post
Quote:
At the end of the day, Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line, when the point at which the took over the team he had 0 starting offensive lineman. He went to FA where you generally don't find talent
Quote:
And even using your way overly simplistic formula of 2 picks out of 16, the OL represents 23% of the starting lineup, 5 out of 22.
Quote:
The philosophy I would like to see, is using FA to pick up 1 year (maybe 2 year) stopgap types, while long term filling out the position group through a draft heavy approach. Young and decent OL are almost never available in FA.
I went into far more context about the specific FA moves, and trades as well... Saying I stated it completely out of context, disingenuous to say the least, and clearly false. I used the word CAPITAL, and not PICKS... At least to me, CAPITAL implies the weighting, sorry if that wasn't clear.
I never waded too deep into the linked in discussion
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.
I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.
The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.
Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.
Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.
I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.
In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
That is fair... And I have always been willing to engage, and engage courteously in debates like that.
For the record, we have no proof of anything with regards to DG and analytics (except that they recently hired 4 people). However there is bits of various evidence that taken as a whole suggest (notice the caveat, people tend to disregard these) that DG is at best far behind in his approach to analytics. And, based on that, I have an opinion about DG and analytics. But it is an opinion.
On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
I.E. back to my stock analogy, the person with 2 shares has 99% of their equity in one stock and 1% in the other. In this context the words are interchangeable.
On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
Those debates were long enough and wasteful enough already, right? Although it may have seemed that we were on opposite sides, I think you are more likely right than the other side. My argument was that the lack of evidence isn't evidence, and the constant posting as "facts" what we really didn't know needed to stop.
Hope you have a pleasant evening - going to go enjoy what's left of mine now.
It ebbs and flows. No matter what course of action the Giants take, they'll be back in contention shortly (in the big picture). Take a breath, let it play out, and be entertained.
We're not making life and death decisions here. The conversation has gotten too serious (for the past two years).
But there is no guarantee the giants return to competitiveness any time soon.
We could smack in the middle of our next 15 years of lousy football.
I dont think the conversations are any more serious or vitriolic now than any other time Ive been in the board. And that includes when we were winning Super Bowl. Plus, when the team stinks, battles in BBI are a good fall back option for entertainment.
I also think every team wants a good QB.
A team can only carry a bad QB so far usually (unless you are the 2000 Baltimore Ravens).
I also think every team wants a good QB.
A team can only carry a bad QB so far usually (unless you are the 2000 Baltimore Ravens).
Back tracking a little bit
Sy56 has Spoken - ( New Window )
Thats an exaggeration. But I do believe the way they are building will lead to long term success.
Running the ball and stopping the run is dead?..
They ran all over NE, they ran all over Baltimore, they totally shut down Baltimores running, they took away all of KCs options for 3Qs and Mahomes made the plays with his legs
Its the only reason they get this far.
Run the ball
Stop the run
Anyone still want to make the foolish claim that the approach is outdated?
Quote:
Run the ball
Stop the run
Anyone still want to make the foolish claim that the approach is outdated?
No offense but you sound like a child. What is the purpose of this thread other than being a dick?
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
In comment 14786007 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
They held Henry to 69 yards and 3.6 YPC. You can make the argument that the game has changed while not being disingenuous.
So nice not to see BB, Brady and the Pats.
Congrats KC!
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
What do you mean KC didnt shut the run down?? They held Derrick Henry to under 100 yards and only 3.6 ypc. Had they not stopped the run Henry wouldve done what he had been doing for weeks, which was running for 150-200 yards. And had he done that, wouldve been a different game.
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
You're leaving out an extremely important aspect of winning: being good in the redzone (or as TC called it, the "green" zone) on both offense and defense.
Getting chunk plays is great, but if you can't convert redzone opportunities into TDs, you're not doing the most important thing in all of sports which is putting points on the board.
The same goes for playing defense. So many Belichick teams of the past have made it as far as they have without having the best players in the league on D-- by being great in the redzone. So often you see his teams like 30th in yards allowed but 15th in points allowed, or 15th in yards allowed, and 2nd in points allowed, etc.
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
They did what they do best, better than any other team, and thats throw the football. If my team has Mahomes at QB, Hill at WR and Kelce at TE, I really wouldnt expect them to run the ball more than they pass the ball. Tennessee on the other hand....
Different things for different teams. Do what you do best based on your personnel.
Tennessees D took away KCs biggest strength - its deep vertical game and severely limited Mahomes options for 3Qs
Unfortunately for Tennessee, Patrick Mahomes still managed to make some incredible plays with his feet running for key 1st downs on pivotal 3rd downs and then the huge game changing TD.
Tennessee is very limited wild card team and are not incredibly talented. They are extradonarily well coached and they have a good, not great defense. They have a great power running game. This very nearly got to them to the Super Bowl despite having to get to New England, Baltimore and Kansas City. Despite matching up against Brady, Jackson and Mahomes, despite matching up against Belichick, Harbaugh and Reid.
This is an argument in favor of the old school mantra. Not against. It was a remarkable run by Tennessee.
In comment 14786007 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
In comment 14785998 RobCarpenter said:
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
Yup and I think the OP missed the fact KC out rushed the Titans by double whilealso stopping the Titans running game.
Seems like the mantra is alive and well to me. Especially when you consider it's exactly what also got Tenn this far.
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
It might happen one day Shore...
Titans were 21st in yds allowed and 12th in pts allowed. They were 12th in rush yds allowed.
Quote:
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Well, y'know, it's not an either-or. You can stop the run, run the ball, and do those things. The mistake comes when you run the ball instead of making chunk plays on offense. And when you stop the run but can't stop chunk plays on defense. (See 2019 Giants).
Shhhhh, let him keep going...
Our team is going to run the ball 60 times if thats what it takes, the next week we may not run it at all. You damn well better get used to it our identity is whatever is called for, game to game, quarter to quarter.
But they made the playoffs and beat 2 top defensive and the best offense in the NFL because they run and atop the run. San Francisco runs and stops the run. Baltimore runs and stops the run. Clearly it works, but that doesnt mean its the only reason why, thought that was obvious but apparently you have to go full end of spectrum around here.
LOL, bravo. Can we agree that while there’s no one formula, all the teams that have used top 10 picks on RBs didn’t make the playoffs. So whatever the winning formula, it still comes down to positional value in the draft and cap management.
Last week this place was flaming scrambling QBs and saying they could never win and Tennessee was poised to go to the Super Bowl because Derrick Henry runs the football and Tennessee played great defense.
Henry would have hit 100 yds or more if they kept feeding him. They didnt stop the run. Tennessee had to play catch-up in the points department and had to abandon the run because they wouldnt have had time to catch the Chiefs.
This game was the very opposite of traditional football. This was modern offense whooping old school football.
Quote:
In comment 14786009 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Well, y'know, it's not an either-or. You can stop the run, run the ball, and do those things. The mistake comes when you run the ball instead of making chunk plays on offense. And when you stop the run but can't stop chunk plays on defense. (See 2019 Giants).
Shhhhh, let him keep going...
You really are an ass.
This place is overrun with people that will just default to whatever the Giants do without any interest in thinking critically. Doesn't matter how often they're shown to be wrong.
Enjoy your shitty board.
It might happen one day Shore...
I have not at all been saying this for 10+ years.
Nope I have not mister Dupe
You are posting like everyone on BBI thinks running and stopping the run is the only way to win. I know you dont believe thats true but somehow thats how you post, its really strange.
Even stranger is your boy Lamar Jackson gets chunk plays because they run well, but for some reason thats never talked about.
I just dont get it, what are you trying to prove?
Couple of mistakes there.. there is supposed to be only in the title..
Okayed = players..
I think the 49ers and the Titans are old school - my favorite brand of football
Last week this place was flaming scrambling QBs and saying they could never win and Tennessee was poised to go to the Super Bowl because Derrick Henry runs the football and Tennessee played great defense.
Henry would have hit 100 yds or more if they kept feeding him. They didnt stop the run. Tennessee had to play catch-up in the points department and had to abandon the run because they wouldnt have had time to catch the Chiefs.
This game was the very opposite of traditional football. This was modern offense whooping old school football.
You sing this same song every week or so ... strongly suggest you stick to
madden and FF ... its what you know best.
Yes I am. Like I said for the start of this thread there is more than one way to get it done in the NFL.
Quote:
Was Mahomes off of 53 yards scrambling. Williams has all of 45 yards legit rushing yards.
Last week this place was flaming scrambling QBs and saying they could never win and Tennessee was poised to go to the Super Bowl because Derrick Henry runs the football and Tennessee played great defense.
Henry would have hit 100 yds or more if they kept feeding him. They didnt stop the run. Tennessee had to play catch-up in the points department and had to abandon the run because they wouldnt have had time to catch the Chiefs.
This game was the very opposite of traditional football. This was modern offense whooping old school football.
You sing this same song every week or so ... strongly suggest you stick to
madden and FF ... its what you know best.
Ok Boomer.
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
KC didnt shut down the run? Henry had what, 70 yards? Did you even watch the game?
Run the ball, stop the run, HARASS the QB.
The Niners are doing just that today.
Quote:
They seem to be doing OK with their run game...
Yes I am. Like I said for the start of this thread there is more than one way to get it done in the NFL.
I also think you said that one way, the old school way, is dead. That is not what Im seeing as I watch the Chiefs stop the run and watch the 9ers dominate in a very old school way.
Maybe you were just wrong.
Quote:
In comment 14785998 RobCarpenter said:
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
KC didnt shut down the run? Henry had what, 70 yards? Did you even watch the game?
I addressed that in above post my Troll Dupe friend.
Quote:
In comment 14786210 DonQuixote said:
Quote:
They seem to be doing OK with their run game...
Yes I am. Like I said for the start of this thread there is more than one way to get it done in the NFL.
I also think you said that one way, the old school way, is dead. That is not what Im seeing as I watch the Chiefs stop the run and watch the 9ers dominate in a very old school way.
Maybe you were just wrong.
I posed a question.
Quote:
In comment 14786007 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
In comment 14785998 RobCarpenter said:
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
KC didnt shut down the run? Henry had what, 70 yards? Did you even watch the game?
I addressed that in above post my Troll Dupe friend.
You should delete this dumb ass thread. Im embarrassed for you.
Are you watching the SF game?
Quote:
In comment 14786219 WillVAB said:
Quote:
In comment 14786007 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
In comment 14785998 RobCarpenter said:
Quote:
KC won the game by stopping the run & forcing Tannehill to beat them, while having a good balance of run & pass on offense.
KC didnt shut the run down. They torched the Tennessee defense.
KC didnt shut down the run? Henry had what, 70 yards? Did you even watch the game?
I addressed that in above post my Troll Dupe friend.
You should delete this dumb ass thread. Im embarrassed for you.
Are you watching the SF game?
There is the dupe behavior Im talking about. Havent acted like an asshole to enough posters tonight?
Your time will come Will.
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Quote:
Winning in the NFL is not about running the ball and stopping the run. Once you've controlled for injuries, it's about:
1. Making chunk plays on offense (for most teams this is throwing the ball; for Baltimore it's also running the ball with the quarterback)
2. Limiting chunk plays on defense (Belichick has understood this for years, focusing on limiting big plays and using red zone defense to turn TDs into FGs)
3. Turnovers
If I had to set a goal for the Giants in 2020 it's to get Jones's YPA up above 7.5. Along with turnovers that well correlate most to wins, IMO.
Fucking bullshit. It's the FOUNDATION of winning football, if you can't do those two things you have no prayer of winning consistently, absofuckinglutely none, no matter what you're tired Grumpy Smurf asshole takes are you whiny self absorbed cunt faced fuck. Because Gettleman said it you don't believe it. Watching the 49ers? They have thrown it SIX FUCKING TIMES because the Packers CANNOT STOP THE RUN. IT's not hard, but self proclaimed geniuses like you who in fact don't know fuck all about this game and how it's played like to spout ill advised fucking bullshit that mean nothing. Football is a really easy game once you do the simple things right. No one gives a flying rat fuck what you say anymore you fucking no good crying waste of a heartbeat. Fuck you.
Yea this pretty much covers that bullshit thesis.
I made a mistake coming back for this season. I won't make the same mistake twice. Have fun lying to yourselves.
I made a mistake coming back for this season. I won't make the same mistake twice. Have fun lying to yourselves.
Strange take here. There are plenty of posters here who have been pissed off. This place has mostly been negative with regards to the team. You make it sound like this place is littered with complete homers for the team.
It applies to both sides - some ppl defend everything they do, but others bash everything they do. I dont get the feeling this place is state run media with regards to the Giants.
I made a mistake coming back for this season. I won't make the same mistake twice. Have fun lying to yourselves.
You do what you have to do but don't blame this on others. I hope you don't leave but a word of advice if you will. You aren't going to change most people's minds. You aren't going to change the structure of this franchise. You have an opinion and that is all it is. It is tiresome for most on here to read the same negative stuff over and over and over and over and over. We get it. But if you are so miserable with how this team/organization are run then why are you still a fan? We all enjoy sports because it is entertainment and we have a connection to it that cannot always be described with words. Most of us have hope that this will turn it around. Now, this has ZERO to do with being right or wrong. Even when you are right you beat a dead horse and most don't want to hear it. You are on a one man crusade. I respect your passion and opposing stance to what is popular. I think you are a good poster but there is also a reason that people respond to you the way they do. Hell, I have said things too that bring out those responses too. All I ask is that you understand where others coke from because at times it seems to be that only your way will work and anything else is frowned upon. It just wears thin.
So, to reiterate, I hope you don't stop posting because of Joey getting excited. I hope you still post but ultimately that is up to you.
It just seems an aberration that could easily occur even if Gettleman pulls off building a defense that's really good at stopping at the run. Or if not, if the Giants were in the Packers' place and were stopping these run plays, the 9ers would simply put up 200 yards by passing to Kittle alone.
It just seems an aberration that could easily occur even if Gettleman pulls off building a defense that's really good at stopping at the run. Or if not, if the Giants were in the Packers' place and were stopping these run plays, the 9ers would simply put up 200 yards by passing to Kittle alone.
Thats the funny part about this whole thing. People who hate Gettelman actually think that he thinks that running the ball and stopping the run is the ONLY way to win. Thats why this hole thing is hilarious.
Its as if people just forgot he loaded up on CBs and drafted a QB at 6. Youd swearing reading the opinions of some that Gettleman drafted 5 running backs and 5 DTs both years here.
Its nothing more than taking a sound byte and running with it - its now infected this site with ridiculous arguments on both ends.
Periodically taking a break after years of unwatchable football is a good idea.
Even under optimistic (but reasonable) future scenarios, the need for patience and tolerance for a wide range of takes is in the NYG future for awhile
.
Tanehill is pretty much Trent Dilfer and May not be even that good. Never mind Titans dont have that half of thst Ravens type of defense to stop Mahomes who is most likely the next great NFL And he may tear up the Niners but do us all a favor and go back to playing Madden
The aggressive broad claims don't do much to advance the conversation or contribute to a better understanding of anything.
Best guess, it's a point/counter point league and there are several ways to win, several outliers, and stopping what your opponent is the best at is probably the best indicator of winning.
But if you're going to fucking scream in someone's face, bring the facts. If they are right, you'll get an acknowledgement from many (including me). Otherwise you're just screaming in someone's face, which makes for what now?
But what stats say when like for like sample sizes are hard to get and what successful coaches who win a lot say are different...who you gonna listen to?
And if you could win by pounding the run instead of the riskier pass against a well coached pass defense...whats the risk adjusted plan?
To me, the runs the NYG have are far far from a dependable running game. The best illustration I saw of this was a Pittsburg late season had to win game in the snow. Pittsburg is down by 4 in the 4th and there is no Ben. So the only way to win is give the ball to the Bus behind Hutchison and Faneca from their own 15 yard line. Everyone in the stadium and watching knew what was coming and they still got it done. That's a running game. Rock solid dependable when you have to or should run.
The NYG are no where close to that. I half expect a downfield bowling ball in the late rounds.
just imo
I think the coaches who win big all strive for balance and variety so to me its an argument for arguments sake
Harass the QB (which means suffocate the passing game).
If the opponent can't run & can't pass, because it's QB is running for his life all day. I'd say that a gigantic step in the right direction.
If your running back is rushing for 200 yards, and their defense shows not sign of stopping him, why risk putting the ball in the air ?
The Chiefs didn't completely shut down the run. In fact, early on, that was a good ballgame precisely because Henry was running well. The difference, is they can score in bunches and accumulate chunk plays. The Titans had a nice run, but the reality is Tannehill is not a guy who is going to win many games on his own, and this would have been one of those games once the Chiefs got rolling. If the Titans D was able to stop Maholmes or Hill, this is a different game. Thie Chiefs, however, are a better all around team with more weapons and speed. Once they got going, the outcome was as expecte.d
It's been pointed out innumerable times that no Reid team has yet won a SB.
Now if he wins this one - with a true outlier individual player at QB - is it wise to use the Reid model of relying almost exclusively on the passing game to carry one's offense?
You wanna hitch yourself to that wagon? Good luck finding and drafting the next Patrick Mahomes!
Or when we hire a position coach that he thinks has the stamp of DG and Mara all over it.
Can't miss an opportunity to tell us all just how terrible the people running the team are...
Having said that, it's clear that football has been consuming him just based on the amount of time he's spent on here. Very few meaningful threads I've read where he doesn't pop in for a bit to engage. Hoping for his own well-being he gets a nice break by stepping away from BBI for a while. He can still read without having to comment all the time.
I've been through this from time to time myself, although I never stop reading BBI I definitely step away from posting and engaging in discussion. The way the threads have been going lately discussion hasn't been much fun for me, so I'm back to mostly lurking.
You're right to leave GoTerps. This place has become absolutely toxic. Zero chance of debating anything with even a remote degree of civility.
It's also rich for anyone to criticize a pattern in someone's posting. Any of us who post a lot can close our eyes and name who said it with high accuracy.
Manny brings up a good point about Gettleman's mantra: run, stop the run, rush the passer.
I always found it quite funny actually. Putting a QB under pressure is in fact the best way to lower quarterback rating. Proven every year as long as both stats have been measured.
This means stopping the pass is important, therefore passing the ball is important.
So Gettleman is basically saying:
- Run the ball
- Stop the run
- Pass the ball
- Stop the pass
Sounds a lot like football.
But the way Joey spoke to him was completely uncalled for and out of line. I can't imagine becoming so unglued and unhinged over a football opinion I disagree with.
But the way Joey spoke to him was completely uncalled for and out of line. I can't imagine becoming so unglued and unhinged over a football opinion I disagree with.
(I love how this website still can't handle quotations in the comment subjects.)
But the way Joey spoke to him was completely uncalled for and out of line. I can't imagine becoming so unglued and unhinged over a football opinion I disagree with.
(I love how this website still can't handle quotations in the comment subjects.)
Exactly. Its not the first time either and he basically threatened to kill someone about a week ago. Its not a good look for anyone.
MODS?
Good assessment by Robbie above too, and of course Bill2.
It's only football folks, as passionate as we are about it, it's a game.
So give me a pass rush, dependable OL, and something we desperately need to finally flip - creating turnovers to be on the right side of the plus-minus differential. We are just dreadful at taking the ball away...
MODS?
Good assessment by Robbie above too, and of course Bill2.
It's only football folks, as passionate as we are about it, it's a game.
If you think thats bad check the ones out on this thread:
Joey in VA : 1/11/2020 9:49 pm : link : reply
You are the stupidest poster this site has ever seen. That's a badge of honor my friend, embrace your lack of brains, enjoy being the singular example of why abortion should be legal, why lobotomies are still a good idea and why ritual suicide or lynching has a place in our society. You give us all a reason to hope, that you get hit by a train.
And
Yikes - ( New Window )
But he should never be banned. Hes got equity here. And when he settles down and gets his bearings, hes been good about apologizing...
So I hope these requests to be banned die down. If you dont like anyones thoughts, simply ignore them.
It's also rich for anyone to criticize a pattern in someone's posting. Any of us who post a lot can close our eyes and name who said it with high accuracy.
Manny brings up a good point about Gettleman's mantra: run, stop the run, rush the passer.
I always found it quite funny actually. Putting a QB under pressure is in fact the best way to lower quarterback rating. Proven every year as long as both stats have been measured.
This means stopping the pass is important, therefore passing the ball is important.
So Gettleman is basically saying:
- Run the ball
- Stop the run
- Pass the ball
- Stop the pass
Sounds a lot like football.
Now it sounds like football? Because for the past two years it has been considered archaic and out of touch.
This is what happens when you take throwaway quips and soundbites from the GM and run with them, creating entire conspiracy theories around them, and now that the entire playoffs have dictated that running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer STILL wins in this league well now it's just oversimplification....
"Sounds a lot like football, duh..." lol.
@RVacchianoSNY
1h
Updated through 10 playoff games:
Teams are averaging 130.7 rushing yards per game and 236.8 passing yards per game.
Winning teams are averaging 154.5 rushing, 211.4 passing.
Losing teams are averaging 106.8 rushing, 262.2 passing.
Quote:
Ralph Vacchiano
@RVacchianoSNY
1h
Updated through 10 playoff games:
Teams are averaging 130.7 rushing yards per game and 236.8 passing yards per game.
Winning teams are averaging 154.5 rushing, 211.4 passing.
Losing teams are averaging 106.8 rushing, 262.2 passing.
Bah! That's just citing yards. You need to compare to some next-gen stat metric that twists it to show that advanced passing yards are the true driver of winning!
That should be obvious.
This is what happens when you take throwaway quips and soundbites from the GM and run with them, creating entire conspiracy theories around them, and now that the entire playoffs have dictated that running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer STILL wins in this league well now it's just oversimplification....
"Sounds a lot like football, duh..." lol.
First, the entire playoffs aren't over. But that doesn't matter -- if the Chiefs fucking blow the doors off the 9ers with 500 yards passing -- it's still one game and a small sample size.
The bigger point is why does Gettleman make three points 1) run 2) stop the run 3) rush the passer.
Why doesn't he include 4) protect the passer.
The reason it's important to rush the passer is because it's the most efficient way to stop a pass game. If you can protect the passer it's the best way to have an effective pass game.
Over any significant period of time plenty of teams will win by being good running, stopping the run, passing and stopping the pass.
Quote:
Ralph Vacchiano
@RVacchianoSNY
1h
Updated through 10 playoff games:
Teams are averaging 130.7 rushing yards per game and 236.8 passing yards per game.
Winning teams are averaging 154.5 rushing, 211.4 passing.
Losing teams are averaging 106.8 rushing, 262.2 passing.
You do realize how skewed those numbers are by San Fran and Tennessee? Where in three of those 10 games their QBs combined passing attempts totaled 39. Those numbers reflect football in the 1970s.
I love it, but I think those results are more outliers than trends.
Ive been around for a long time and it always sticks out and I would think its a liability. Writing for the site shouldnt give him a life time pass for extremely poor behavior that Im sure in the right hands could shut this whole place down.
Quote:
Now it sounds like football? Because for the past two years it has been considered archaic and out of touch.
This is what happens when you take throwaway quips and soundbites from the GM and run with them, creating entire conspiracy theories around them, and now that the entire playoffs have dictated that running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer STILL wins in this league well now it's just oversimplification....
"Sounds a lot like football, duh..." lol.
First, the entire playoffs aren't over. But that doesn't matter -- if the Chiefs fucking blow the doors off the 9ers with 500 yards passing -- it's still one game and a small sample size.
The bigger point is why does Gettleman make three points 1) run 2) stop the run 3) rush the passer.
Why doesn't he include 4) protect the passer.
The reason it's important to rush the passer is because it's the most efficient way to stop a pass game. If you can protect the passer it's the best way to have an effective pass game.
Over any significant period of time plenty of teams will win by being good running, stopping the run, passing and stopping the pass.
Protecting the passer is obvious. It's foundational, just like the rest of what Gettleman said.
The fact that what Gettleman said was in any way controversial to begin with is head scratching. But yet, it's been used to beat us over the head going on two years that the team is run by incompetent, out of touch dinosaurs that don't know how to win.
Running the ball, stopping the run, rushing the passer is the foundation for which winning teams are built. Even if KC passes for over 500 yards and wins the Superbowl. Not every can draft a Patrick Mahomes, but every team can attempt to win football games using the aforementioned philosophy.
Quote:
No one gives a flying rat fuck what you say anymore you fucking no good crying waste of a heartbeat. Fuck you.
You're right to leave GoTerps. This place has become absolutely toxic. Zero chance of debating anything with even a remote degree of civility.
Yup, I'd like to see this addressed by those in charge here. I enjoy Joey's actual football analysis but this is pretty disgraceful stuff that shouldn't go unaddressed just the guy used to write game reviews. Come on now.
I understand how Terps' style can grate on people, but the quality of this board only takes a hit if we continue to lose good posters that are willing to think differently and bring critical analysis to the discussion. Terps may find a bit too much enjoyment in telling people when he's right, but the record would show he's been right more often than not. This is all a shame.
The fact that what Gettleman said was in any way controversial to begin with is head scratching. But yet, it's been used to beat us over the head going on two years that the team is run by incompetent, out of touch dinosaurs that don't know how to win.
What many fans want is a GM who puts protecting the passer at the very top of the list. I want a GM who prioritizes it above running the ball.
The Giants have sucked at protecting their QB and it's a big part of why they have been the worst team in the NFL for the last 3 years.
Manning got beat like a bag in 18, Jones got beat like a bag in 19.
I don't think what Gettleman said is controversial, I just think it's incomplete.
If you say the O-line needs to be fixed, then you're doing that in order to run AND protect your passes. Again, this is obvious.
He shouldn't have to spell it out.
If you say the O-line needs to be fixed, then you're doing that in order to run AND protect your passes. Again, this is obvious.
He shouldn't have to spell it out.
And would you agree the General Manager has not done a good job of fixing the line to both run and protect the passer?
Quote:
why is shit like this allowed?
Quote:
No one gives a flying rat fuck what you say anymore you fucking no good crying waste of a heartbeat. Fuck you.
You're right to leave GoTerps. This place has become absolutely toxic. Zero chance of debating anything with even a remote degree of civility.
Yup, I'd like to see this addressed by those in charge here. I enjoy Joey's actual football analysis but this is pretty disgraceful stuff that shouldn't go unaddressed just the guy used to write game reviews. Come on now.
I understand how Terps' style can grate on people, but the quality of this board only takes a hit if we continue to lose good posters that are willing to think differently and bring critical analysis to the discussion. Terps may find a bit too much enjoyment in telling people when he's right, but the record would show he's been right more often than not. This is all a shame.
+1
Have thicker skin.
Have thicker skin.
There is a big difference between having thicker skin and literally being excessively threatened by someone with arrests on their background.
Have thicker skin.
And that is the solution. I agree.
Unfortunately this place has always proved that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Fair enough. I think having a balanced team that can play the run and pass well when the situation calls for it is the best bet. Based on everything the new head coach has said he categorically agrees.
I don't a few stats from a small sample size indicates anything. And certainly doesn't justify a dopey quote the GM made -- especially when after 2 years the team isn't high in the league at any of the three pillars be described.
If Gettleman wants to be the Niners, he's got a transformation to make.
Have thicker skin.
Nonsense, I'm not asking for a safe space, but maybe some decency in conversing with people you disagree with? If BBI has always tolerated people interacting in that manner then I must have missed it in my 13 years here.
Quote:
We don't need it to be a safe space.
Have thicker skin.
Nonsense, I'm not asking for a safe space, but maybe some decency in conversing with people you disagree with? If BBI has always tolerated people interacting in that manner then I must have missed it in my 13 years here.
Decency in conversation includes listening and considering what others have to say, especially ones with alternative view points. I don't see a lot of that around here. In terps situation, either you saw it his way or you were wrong like Robbie said above.
This seems important to you. In the interest of full disclosure of what seems like noble intent- did you ever get called out by Joey before? Are your posts on the thread those of a standup guy or someone who is a little verklempt and sees their chance ? That would help understand the dogged pursuit of an outcome in defense of someone elses pain. Thanks BBDBS.
2) Imo, when someone goes off on someone who has gotten a lot of feedback from other posters that their thinking is too biased and it's annoying or they are flat out annoying yet they cant stop themselves uncaring that they are annoying ...I have a lot less sympathy for both players. The guy who cant stop and the guy who cant say it without going overboard share one characteristic: self indulgence and personal self assigned exceptionalism.
Dont distort my post. I'm not blaming the internet victim for someone elses over reaction. I'm pointing out they share common characteristics in regard to the rest of us. They dont respect anyone elses right to effective exchanges on an internet site except when it goes too far for too long.
Go Terps has had the need for time to regain perspective before. Ditto Joey. Usually in the emotional time of offseason when no one yet has much evidence behind any of the usual offseason opinions
Could see both trains going too fast to hold the rails for a week or so. Which poster was in front of the derailments was somewhat happenstance. Imo.
Are we allowed to read accurately?
How about the seventh grade level game of exaggerating to the extreme and putting that out there as if its an accurate take?
This seems important to you. In the interest of full disclosure of what seems like noble intent- did you ever get called out by Joey before? Are your posts on the thread those of a standup guy or someone who is a little verklempt and sees their chance ? That would help understand the dogged pursuit of an outcome in defense of someone elses pain. Thanks BBDBS.
2) Imo, when someone goes off on someone who has gotten a lot of feedback from other posters that their thinking is too biased and it's annoying or they are flat out annoying yet they cant stop themselves uncaring that they are annoying ...I have a lot less sympathy for both players. The guy who cant stop and the guy who cant say it without going overboard share one characteristic: self indulgence and personal self assigned exceptionalism.
Dont distort my post. I'm not blaming the internet victim for someone elses over reaction. I'm pointing out they share common characteristics in regard to the rest of us. They dont respect anyone elses right to effective exchanges on an internet site except when it goes too far for too long.
Go Terps has had the need for time to regain perspective before. Ditto Joey. Usually in the emotional time of offseason when no one yet has much evidence behind any of the usual offseason opinions
Could see both trains going too fast to hold the rails for a week or so. Which poster was in front of the derailments was somewhat happenstance. Imo.
There is big difference between typical BBI banter back and forth and the way he acts. If he was anyone else this would be different.
I like BBI I wouldnt visit for 20 years if I didnt, I will always draw a hard line when it comes to telling someone to go commit suicide. That is not acceptable, no matter who they are.
Are we allowed to read accurately?
How about the seventh grade level game of exaggerating to the extreme and putting that out there as if its an accurate take?
And
Quote:
I hope you step on a razor blade, then on a pool of Tabasco laced with Hepatitis and you feed it to your family.
Yeah, it's other people who are the 7th graders. Uh-huh. Good stuff.
Quote:
In comment 14787124 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
We don't need it to be a safe space.
Have thicker skin.
Nonsense, I'm not asking for a safe space, but maybe some decency in conversing with people you disagree with? If BBI has always tolerated people interacting in that manner then I must have missed it in my 13 years here.
Decency in conversation includes listening and considering what others have to say, especially ones with alternative view points. I don't see a lot of that around here. In terps situation, either you saw it his way or you were wrong like Robbie said above.
For sure, Ive disagreed with him plenty of times. It can be frustrating. But I still am consistently interested to see his opinion. I dont think were better off losing his perspective.
But he doesnt need me to defend him, hes an adult who can make his own decisions. Also not calling for Joey to be banned either. Just thought he took it too far this time. Moving on
time to move on from this
time to move on from this
Not really. I have friends, too. Doesn't mean I defend every single thing they say and/or do, especially when it comes to saying stuff as he's said in the past. You're better than that. But to each his own.
I did not anticipate a long time fellow poster on 200 Yankee threads to be the one who fell in the soup. Sorry about that
And for the record, I actually like and interact with both Go Terps and Joey and read their points of view whenever I read them. Have learned from and exchanged well with both of them. Have for many years.
Think its good to move on. See you when our other rooting interest threads start to pick up
I did not anticipate a long time fellow poster on 200 Yankee threads to be the one who fell in the soup. Sorry about that
And for the record, I actually like and interact with both Go Terps and Joey and read their points of view whenever I read them. Have learned from and exchanged well with both of them. Have for many years.
Think its good to move on. See you when our other rooting interest threads start to pick up
I get it. But I don't see how saying posts like that I quoted of his are...out there and really not necessary. There are ways to even insult someone (if that's really what you want to do) without going where he goes sometimes. Have a good one.
My point was that the annoyance cycle from years of the team getting stuck has our posters stuck in misery as well
In regard to the particulars, yes, especially after prior year over reactions, it was over the line. Sorry. I assumed that was common ground we all shared
Quote:
Now it sounds like football? Because for the past two years it has been considered archaic and out of touch.
This is what happens when you take throwaway quips and soundbites from the GM and run with them, creating entire conspiracy theories around them, and now that the entire playoffs have dictated that running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer STILL wins in this league well now it's just oversimplification....
"Sounds a lot like football, duh..." lol.
First, the entire playoffs aren't over. But that doesn't matter -- if the Chiefs fucking blow the doors off the 9ers with 500 yards passing -- it's still one game and a small sample size.
The bigger point is why does Gettleman make three points 1) run 2) stop the run 3) rush the passer.
Why doesn't he include 4) protect the passer.
The reason it's important to rush the passer is because it's the most efficient way to stop a pass game. If you can protect the passer it's the best way to have an effective pass game.
Over any significant period of time plenty of teams will win by being good running, stopping the run, passing and stopping the pass.
Youre either missing the point or trying to jump through hoops to diminish Gettlemans point.
Running the ball, stopping the run, and rushing the passer is a philosophy that has stood the test of time in the NFL regardless of the rule changes or various innovations of the last 30 or 40 years. This is why the Patriots consistently beat the Peyton led Colts. This is why the vast majority of the high powered offenses of the last 30 years couldnt win it all.
The philosophy speaks to the brand of football the team plays. Think 07 Giants. Think Steelers football around the same time. The niners now. Its about dominating the line of scrimmage.
Most importantly, its about the decisions you make to build your roster with a finite amount of resources. Its about spending money and picks to have a talent edge in the trenches instead of burning the same resources on wide receivers and cornerbacks. Its about finding players who can stuff the run blitz instead of finesse coverage linebackers. Its about valuing guys who can block as much as a matchup nightmare for safeties and linebackers.
Trying to spin this as something obvious that every team tries to do is just doubling down on stubbornness. Its plain to see the teams built this way or trying to be built this way and the teams taking an alternate approach.
Why does the team completely lack talent despite turning over the entire roster with his signings/draft picks/players he traded for?
Just didn't realize until now that concept was borne on BBI...
Just didn't realize until now that concept was borne on BBI...
Your being very obtuse
Quote:
To the point where putting someone in "timeout" makes sense.
Just didn't realize until now that concept was borne on BBI...
Your being very obtuse
I would have said moreso acute...
Why does the team completely lack talent despite turning over the entire roster with his signings/draft picks/players he traded for?
Because hes missed on some players/decisions and had to turn over the entire roster. When the core players are Engram, Sheppard, and Tomlinson, that isnt much to build around.
Not Running the ball
Not Rushing the passer
is any sort of path to winning. Though to be honest, I'm not sure that the Giants are far off from meeting those 3 criteria (in the negative as stated).
Its hard to close out a win if you can't run the ball effectively.
Its hard prevent the opposing team from scoring and getting the ball back to your offense if you can't stop the run.
Its hard to stop the opposing team from running up the score if you can't get to the passer.
In all cases its hard to win if you can't do those things.
THe problem with what Gettleman said was that he left out Protect the passer. Some may think its implied, but the everything about the mantra is so motherhood and apple pie that it should all be implied. So leaving out the protect the passer part is both glaring and jarring. THat said, I don't think Gettleman is stupid enough to think that he doesn't need to build an offensive line capable of protecting the passer.
In the end this all comes down to subtle priorities. By stating it the way he does, Gettleman implies that he gives a a greater priority to running and stopping the run. And his roster construction seems to support the notion that he puts the most priority on stopping the run. When I think just about everybody who watches modern football realizes that teams need to balance their capabilities to some extent.
At the end of the day, Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line, when the point at which the took over the team he had 0 starting offensive lineman. He went to FA where you generally don't find talent and wasted time and a bucket load on Solder, and some more on Omameh. He allowed Jamon Brown to walk for a contract slightly more than what he blew on Omameh. And while Brown will never be mistaken for an All-Pro, his price/performance ratio isn't bad, he is an ok starter. Keeping Brown would have allowed the trade of Vernon for a plus level C or RT. That would mean 1 less position to fill right now. What's more, is that there is no real pipeline of potential future players (maybe we get lucky with Gates, but I think that is still a longshot). So you can say Gettleman is trying with the OL... But his philosophy is broken in major ways. The team should have been grabbing OL early middle and late to replenish a position group that was horribly depleted.
When he fails to effectively address the position, and he leave the position out of his mantra, it gives people pause. It's glaring and jarring. I think its very hard to say that DG has used the resources available to him over the past 2 years effectively. IMO his drafting has be average to marginally above average (but the jury is still out), and part of my biggest problem with him has been his drafting philosophy. It's philosophy where he has almost entirely ignore OL. Which nowadays the only place to find decent OL is in the draft. I would be think quite differently had he picked a couple of OLs out of his 3rd rounders instead of 2 out of 3 of Carter, Hill and Ximines. Or had he traded down from #2 in in 2018 and target OL in that draft... People say that he had no choices... I disagree, he had lots of choices. He just failed to make them.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
Good post FMiC.
And I'd like to add, in the light of the recent discussion about screaming vitriol at one another because of differing opinions, wry humor and/or sarcasm suits your posting style quite well.
+1000.
I was certain that Gettleman would go hot and heavy for O-Linemen in last year's draft. Not just with high picks, but with the next Trai Turner or Daryl Williams. I was looking forward to it. Naturally, I was shocked and disappointed when it didn't happen.
One year later, the only thing I'm certain of is that I would have fired him along with Pat Shurmur.
Quote:
4% of "draft equity"?? Sounds like another fancy way to complain.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
Good post FMiC.
And I'd like to add, in the light of the recent discussion about screaming vitriol at one another because of differing opinions, wry humor and/or sarcasm suits your posting style quite well.
Do you have any idea HOW OLD he is?
The creative data factoids could also include that of the available likely to be NFL players and the positions available we selected 26.7% of all likely candidates. ( obviously I'm making up the numbers but the point is that the method used to support and opinion weakens the argument?
What's more real insight might be gained by looking at how much longer a rookie needed to get the ball out as compared to a veteran strained the ol holding time to 35% more.
Or absent good performance at center alone caused 56.2% of all pressures. That kind of analysis might help
To me, the players coaches and front office did better than what was left but far short of what we want.
I dunno, I like it when we analyze the play on the field. I think we are on shakey ground and as likely to be wrong as right when we try to pin the tail of product dissapointment on one donkey when we have no idea of the causality and factors ( injuries, bad line calls, etc, etc)
The creative data factoids could also include that of the available likely to be NFL players and the positions available we selected 26.7% of all likely candidates. ( obviously I'm making up the numbers but the point is that the method used to support and opinion weakens the argument?
What's more real insight might be gained by looking at how much longer a rookie needed to get the ball out as compared to a veteran strained the ol holding time to 35% more.
Or absent good performance at center alone caused 56.2% of all pressures. That kind of analysis might help
To me, the players coaches and front office did better than what was left but far short of what we want.
I dunno, I like it when we analyze the play on the field. I think we are on shakey ground and as likely to be wrong as right when we try to pin the tail of product dissapointment on one donkey when we have no idea of the causality and factors ( injuries, bad line calls, etc, etc)
Basically, hindsight is 20/20.
DG made choices. Some so far good and somee bad and a bunch very much yet inconclusive.
Hopefully he now has stronger voices at the table so the final percent that work out is higher. Couldnt care less who gets credit. I think we are all trying too hard to show we can analyze past the unknowable factors..
I root for the overall product. I dont root for NFGML. Not a sport I understand how to score.
Quote:
People say that he had no choices... I disagree, he had lots of choices. He just failed to make them.
+1000.
I was certain that Gettleman would go hot and heavy for O-Linemen in last year's draft. Not just with high picks, but with the next Trai Turner or Daryl Williams. I was looking forward to it. Naturally, I was shocked and disappointed when it didn't happen.
One year later, the only thing I'm certain of is that I would have fired him along with Pat Shurmur.
Instead, we drafted a hundred DBs; and now that, unfortunately, may still be a position on need. And that was after DG acquired Peppers.
Its just remarkable that he was able to keep his job.
Was it a reality that the secondary was a problem the ENTIRE year? Did you see any trends in the group's play to suggest it was going to be better going forward?
I'm all ears if you did.
Granted, a piece could have been coaching. And that may play out this year. But I wouldn't take too much comfort in that right now. It's not like we hired an upper echelon DC.
49ers threw a total of 8 passes and had 42 rushing attempts.
They ran first and only passed if they felt they had to. Green Bay couldn't stop the run FIRST so there was no need for SF to stop running the ball.
Anyone wanna try the "They were only running because they had the lead" argument?
Quote:
View you tend to take possible problems and paint them as reality. I understand pointing out possible shortcomings, but to me it seems you make up your mind even though the reality of the situation is unknown (the db's, peppers). I also am aware the flip side of that by viewing a situation as a success before it is warranted.
Was it a reality that the secondary was a problem the ENTIRE year? Did you see any trends in the group's play to suggest it was going to be better going forward?
I'm all ears if you did.
Granted, a piece could have been coaching. And that may play out this year. But I wouldn't take too much comfort in that right now. It's not like we hired an upper echelon DC.
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
Quote:
In comment 14787934 crick n NC said:
Quote:
View you tend to take possible problems and paint them as reality. I understand pointing out possible shortcomings, but to me it seems you make up your mind even though the reality of the situation is unknown (the db's, peppers). I also am aware the flip side of that by viewing a situation as a success before it is warranted.
Was it a reality that the secondary was a problem the ENTIRE year? Did you see any trends in the group's play to suggest it was going to be better going forward?
I'm all ears if you did.
Granted, a piece could have been coaching. And that may play out this year. But I wouldn't take too much comfort in that right now. It's not like we hired an upper echelon DC.
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
I also remember some young secondary people hurt or recovering from surgery and thus, having difficulty catching up. Too, the coaching was far from first-rate. Theres talent there. How it plays out, Im hoping is positive with health and better coaching.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
What are you talking about? What have I missed about Terps?
What I remember most about the secondary was 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 7.
I also remember Peppers having a very nice season before getting hurt.
Okay, so you are leaning on the coaching being more of a problem than the talent. Fine.
Of all the coaches we had, I think Bettcher got the rawest deal with a dearth of talent and inexperience. I don't think he forgot on the plane ride from Arizona when he took the job.
Gettleman has drafted 2 OL out of 16 picks. One in the 2nd round. He's also signed Solder, Omameh, Remmers and traded for Zeitler.
He's basically spread out how he's acquired the OL and he's had all of 2 years to do that.
I guess saying he used 12.5% of his picks on OL didn't sound dubious enough.
I said draft capital...
Of course you are too stupid to figure out how to figure that out...
Try figuring it out using the draft value chart.
Also consider he has 3 firsts. I also didn't even use the fact that he traded a pick for Ogletree.
And even using your way overly simplistic formula of 2 picks out of 16, the OL represents 23% of the starting lineup, 5 out of 22.
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
Using your own words above, Ace:
Like I said - it was just going through gymnastics to try and say he has ignored the OL in the draft, which he hasn't. By the way - were you too stupid to realize that I was using the 2 picks out of 16 as a jab at your advanced stat that really didn't mean much?
Here is what we know. Gettleman has brought in two tackles and two guards currently in the starting lineup through a variety of means. I'm not sure what the point was about draft equity - or as you are trying to revise - draft capital. Argue he didn't bring in the right players possibly. Don't argue there was a clear better method to choose. Top drafted OL actually have a fairly high rate of not succeeding in the league.
No answer expected. The point is that the metric does not stand without context and neither does the choices.
If one choice...Solder was NFL average and did not have or need foot surgery and the QB had better pocket awareness one could claim the GMs choice now looks closer to good after the choice.
Sort of like the Pettigout and Elliott and Robert's choices worked out in some years and looked bad in others. And in reverse, the lack of investment and gamble on Seubert did happen to work out.
Does the choice to invest in lower lower draft picks for the vital left guard make Reese and Accorsi good or lucky it was Richie and he had good coaching???
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
He's got to be able to take it on the chin. I wish he didn't leave as I do value most of what he brings to the table, but when he gets into the holier than thou mantra that he's been aggressively pushing the last few months, he's going to face some backlash.
I don't condone at all what Joey said to him, that was ridiculous. But Terps posted what he did knowing it would cause backlash. He purposely left out that "chunk plays" can and do come from being able to run well as it opens up play action (a basic concept of football 101) and that his favorite player (Lamar Jackson) throws well because he/the team run really well.
When you leave out simple stuff like that on purpose then you are just trolling. He got called out on it and didn't like it (though Joey's was extreme and uncalled for).
No answer expected. The point is that the metric does not stand without context and neither does the choices.
If one choice...Solder was NFL average and did not have or need foot surgery and the QB had better pocket awareness one could claim the GMs choice now looks closer to good after the choice.
Sort of like the Pettigout and Elliott and Robert's choices worked out in some years and looked bad in others. And in reverse, the lack of investment and gamble on Seubert did happen to work out.
Does the choice to invest in lower lower draft picks for the vital left guard make Reese and Accorsi good or lucky it was Richie and he had good coaching???
Bill I think you missed the point I was making.
When I said that GD had choices, that is a rebuttal to people who say that he signed Solder because "He had no choice".
He had plenty of other paths/choices he could have made. He has to own the choice of signing Solder. There was no gun to head.
The Patriots traded for Trent Brown, they alse drafted Fields.
The Giants had a ton of draft capital available in that draft due to picking 2nd. That draft capital could have been parleyed into multiple first and second round picks, in a draft that was unusually heavy in good OL talent. Which I for one advocated BEFORE the draft.
If another GM found choices at left tackle, and fan at home can identify multiple choices other than Solder, then it is fair to say that Gettleman had more choices that just signing Solder. Gettleman did not *HAVE* to sign Solder he had other choices. Full stop. That is where that analysis ends.
Knowing how much was invested, you are arguing he still should have used "draft capital" to invest in the LT position?
Can you imagine the backlash he would have not only on this site, but in the media for investing even more "draft capital" into a position he just invested so heavily in free agency on?
Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make sense.
Using your own words above, Ace:
Quote:
Gettleman has only spent 4% of his draft equity on the offensive line
Like I said - it was just going through gymnastics to try and say he has ignored the OL in the draft, which he hasn't. By the way - were you too stupid to realize that I was using the 2 picks out of 16 as a jab at your advanced stat that really didn't mean much?
Here is what we know. Gettleman has brought in two tackles and two guards currently in the starting lineup through a variety of means. I'm not sure what the point was about draft equity - or as you are trying to revise - draft capital. Argue he didn't bring in the right players possibly. Don't argue there was a clear better method to choose. Top drafted OL actually have a fairly high rate of not succeeding in the league.
Why does my advanced stat, meaningless? Just for arguments sake, would you say that he invested the same amount of draft capital in the OL if he instead drafted Nelson with the 2018 #2 pick (not that I am advocating this), and say Dillard or Howard (again not necessarily advocating)? I mean that would be 12.5% of his picks right?
What's meaningless is everything that you put in this forum.
Also, apparently you missed the fact that I acknowledged his moves in FA and trades in my original post. I also acknowledge that he was lucky enough to have Jamon Brown fall in his lap and he let him walk when he could have been kept fairly cheaply. So since you didn't get it from what I wrote, taken as a whole, his moves outside the draft to bolster the OL, IMO, were piss poor. Also, you have it wrong about the number of starting tackles he brought in. Remmers is not under contract at this moment. Another way of looking at his moves is that in 2 years he has brought in 2 effective OL players that are currently on the roster. At that rate, we have 3 more years to wait before we have a decent OL.
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts. I don't see anything in regards to analysis or critical thinking (and that doesn't mean being critical of others just so you know). You never add anything of value from which others can learn something. Everything you do is a sick attempt to tear down others for your own self aggrandizement. You mock my post, because, I supposedly went through "gymnastics" to come up with 4%. For me it took almost no effort at all, it wasn't gymnastics.... I'm good at math. And it does more accurately represent the draft capital (I am using draft equity and draft capital synonymously here, is that really a quibble?) invested in the position.
I would be really interested to see you bring something of real value to the discussion for a change!
If that was the purpose then I understand better. Thanks
If that was the purpose then I understand better. Thanks
Knowing how much was invested, you are arguing he still should have used "draft capital" to invest in the LT position?
Can you imagine the backlash he would have not only on this site, but in the media for investing even more "draft capital" into a position he just invested so heavily in free agency on?
Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but that doesn't make sense.
Signing Solder was a bad idea from the get go... Many believed that to be so and questioned it at the time of the signing. Hindsight has proven them right.
Did DG explore trading for Trent Brown?
How about trading for other players buried on other teams depth charts?
How about going into the draft *NOT* locked in on a RB, and trading down and picking up one of the many now starting LTs from that draft? There were other options in FA as stop gaps if he felt he need to hedge this bet, Solder wasn't a hedge.
The point is, there were other options. Probably many more options of which I have no knowledge. The whole point is that people say that DG had no choice but to sign Solder. That is revisionist history. There were other options. And that is all that I am saying.
If that was the purpose then I understand better. Thanks
Yeah looking back on what I said, I didn't make it clear that my comment about choices was referring to Solder.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
It's not all black and white.
One can think that the Giants need to make some changes and also not believe that the entire organization is hopelessly flawed from top to bottom and that the "Giant way" is fundamentally bad. The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
Terps problem is two fold. First, he is so entrenched in his position that everything the Giants do is bad that he is blinded by it. It becomes frustrating to interact with him because he is so dug in.
The second problem is that he arrogantly believes that he is the only one smart enough to see some great truth about the organization. People react to that.
Just in this thread alone, I provided the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL. You may not like my tone, but don't say I'm not making points simply because I'm challenging your position.
In the past couple of weeks, I've broken to the board developments regarding the Panthers. I announced they were hiring Phil Snow last week.
But then again - you probably look at this as providing "facts" to the board:
DG filled the OL with a combination of methods. Like I said above - argue with teh guys he took, not the method in which they were selected. Wow. Did I foist an opinion there, Bub?
Fucking ponderous.
Quote:
You live simply to make ad-hominem attacks on other posters. You add absolutely nothing of value to any conversation. I don't see you state opinions. I don't see you providing facts.
Just in this thread alone, I provided the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL. You may not like my tone, but don't say I'm not making points simply because I'm challenging your position.
In the past couple of weeks, I've broken to the board developments regarding the Panthers. I announced they were hiring Phil Snow last week.
But then again - you probably look at this as providing "facts" to the board:
Quote:
And when the position is completed depleted, spending only 12.5% of draft equity is, IMO, entirely inadequate, and constitutes malfeasance, let alone 4% when properly weighted.
DG filled the OL with a combination of methods. Like I said above - argue with teh guys he took, not the method in which they were selected. Wow. Did I foist an opinion there, Bub?
Fucking ponderous.
First, I don't give a crap about the Panthers, I would not even open a thread about them. Let me know when you "break" something with regards to the Giants.
As far as providing "the facts of how the OL were acquired. I even posted that 12.5% of the draft picks have been OL.". Bravo, you told everybody something everybody already knew. Well done, you've caught up with the rest of us!
As far as DG's combination of methods... Again, facts we all already know, and I acknowledged in my original post. And the whole point of my post which you are too busy self fellating to realize or notice is that, I take issue with not only the players he has picked, but his philosophy regarding filling out the position in general. That was the whole point of my post. And if I disagree with his whole philosophy, it is my prerogative to hold that opinion. Don't presume to tell me what opinions that I can and cannot hold! I.E. that I can ONLY have an issue with the players, and not have an issue with his approach/philosophy. And you dare to call others smug and arrogant!
I don't agree with signing aging and average talent to record breaking contracts, I don't agree with signing marginal talent to multi-year deal that anticipates them as a starter (Omameh), I don't agree with allowing average talent to walk when you can pay them slightly below average starter money (Brown). If you don't let Brown walk, the you can trade Vernon for an OC or a ORT. Once he blundered into the situation he was in, I guess trading for Zietler was good, but he should have been in a very different situation by then. I'm fine with the 1 year Remmers signing. I don't agree with not focusing on the draft to replenish the line and acquire some backups that may develop into starters later.
The philosophy I would like to see, is using FA to pick up 1 year (maybe 2 year) stopgap types, while long term filling out the position group through a draft heavy approach. Young and decent OL are almost never available in FA. I'm good with an appropriate trade as well.
Given the starting point he had, spending only 4% of draft capital, (and just to make you happy) based on the draft value chart, does not meet the philosophy I would like to see. Is that clear enough sink into that cement block you have sitting on your shoulders?
This move only makes sense in Gettleman's bizarro world in which he felt he could compete and rebuild at the same time. At least he admitted he was wrong about that.... Once you admit that mistake, signing Solder was a part of that mistake, and a mistake in its own right.
What is Gettleman's long term plan at the tackle spots. 2 years in and we've seen absolutely nothing in that regards. That is a catastrophically bad approach IMO.
I still put the odds that Mara/Tisch and/or any coaching they interviewed said fix the LT until you get a new QB at 30%.
Yeah yeah he said it was him. No GM blames their owner until they write a book after retiring. And good soldier GMS definitely aren't going to imply anything like that.
imo, that's what they all hoped or they started with the idea they had more talent from 2016/2017 knowing they could reverse into Plan B. Who Knows...we don't know with enough certainty to dig in on the conclusion that DG will always do the wrong thing which is what I hear when I hear this stuff.
We also need to remember that there wasn't the counter opinions on talent the new staff is likely to jawbone back.
At the time Solder was a 3-5 year "solution" that was an available average to slightly better LT (and the market for those is not cheap for any GM).
Going into condemnation mode when we don't know leaves me convinced a lot of all out scorched earth all wrong all the time Dg folks never ran a business with the velocity of decisions and the claustrophobic rule sent of constraints the NFL has.
Whats more Im tired of NFGML. I watch the team on the field. By definition all GMS are going to be 50% wrong. ( and that 50% is composed of stretches of outstanding outcomes and stretches of 25% outcomes. 50% is the average ten year team track record in the NFL. Averages are composed of 35% period s and 65% periods). Even the NE Patriots are more than 50% wrong in their unimpressive drafting record (but an impressive front line coaching machine).
To me, this "game" implies we think we would make a better GM. Its likely not true and likely never will be. Its not fun to me to be a critic. To me, close connections between thinking and actions we actually can take is a healthier life.
But that's just me. Its all ok if others get something from it. Lifes too short and this is just about how we spend our time.
Take care McL
No chance you (or I) can get through the offseason on BBI with onlt 1 case of wine!
I think SB was a far riskier choice to payback when other options were on the board.
TO me, the fairer critique is the likely payback vs alternatives on the SB decision. That was far riskier than the Solder decision....at the time it was made
I dont know why people think its feasible to rebuild yet never spend until the rebuild is done. That just isnt realistic. I dont suggest spending like we did in 2016 again but we have to increase our talent and it isnt just going to come from the draft.
Quote:
just send me a case of wine to get me through the offseason!!
No chance you (or I) can get through the offseason on BBI with onlt 1 case of wine!
If I continue reading BBI as often as I have been lately - a LOT more. And not just wine...
Quote:
In comment 14787794 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
just send me a case of wine to get me through the offseason!!
No chance you (or I) can get through the offseason on BBI with onlt 1 case of wine!
If I continue reading BBI as often as I have been lately - a LOT more. And not just wine...
Now you're talkin!
I think SB was a far riskier choice to payback when other options were on the board.
TO me, the fairer critique is the likely payback vs alternatives on the SB decision. That was far riskier than the Solder decision....at the time it was made
Oh, I fully agree that SB was riskier...
By now everybody should know my feelings on drafting SB.
My comments here are specifically in the context of the fact that we are discussing DG's mantra and leaving out "protecting the passer". So my comments are restricted only to the the fact that he seems to have a flawed philosophy toward building the OL. That flaw is that, he appears to have prioritized other positions in the draft over OL. And that de-prioritization seems to be in line with his mantra, leaving out the protect the passer part. Could it just be coincidence. Of course. I tend not to believe in coincidence, but even still, I am not drawing a final conclusion. Just pointing out the fact that his actions coincide with a literal interpretation of his mantra. And we all know that Gettleman is in fact very literal.
With regards to his decisions vs. ownership. First, the reality is that the GMship of the Giants is a combination of the the Maras and Gettleman. The GMship failure to date falls on that whole group. As a group, I have no confidence in their competency. Yes its not clear who wanted what. But either DG truly believed he could rebuild and compete, he convinced himself he could do it, or he was incapable of winning enough trust and confidence from ownership to get them to follow an alternative plan, his plan. Any way you cut it, its some form of incompetency. In fact the latter is perhaps the most damning for the long term because it means that the Mara's will continue to drive the ship.
So really not qualified to comment further.
Just about every human I ever met is smart enough to be situational when they think a situation calls for it or its convenient to do so.
As for the Mara's, I dunno, the last three weeks actions sure were completely consistent with the prior years mantras assigned to them weren't they?
Perhaps flaws in the prior construct? Maybe time to re consider the certainty built into the model?
Good night
I'm not saying any of those factors were disqualifying, but add that to a pretty high penalty rate, and never having played at a premium level, and I just didn't see a guy who would be a great investment at record pay.
Lineman age a little better than most positions, but it's not a shock he was at the back half of his curve when he got here.
Just about every human I ever met is smart enough to be situational when they think a situation calls for it or its convenient to do so.
As for the Mara's, I dunno, the last three weeks actions sure were completely consistent with the prior years mantras assigned to them weren't they?
Perhaps flaws in the prior construct? Maybe time to re consider the certainty built into the model?
Good night
Now you are being too literal...
Gettleman has been more literal than not. We have been surprised by something things he has said, and people have defending him saying well he didn't mean it literally that way, its just something to say. Then later we find out, he did, in fact, mean it exactly that way. He has even joked aobut it, saying, "I told you <thus and such>, and you didn't believe me". So at this point, I think it is safer to take what he says at face value, rather than to try and find some hidden meaning. He is, generally speaking, not deceptive. That is what I meant by being literal.
I have no certainty in much regarding the Giants. About the only thing I am certain about is that what they have been doing for the past 9 years has been, to date, a failure. The failures seem to be top to bottom, ownership, front office, coaching and players. Beyond that it's all opinion. And you will notice that everything I said where I speculated about reasons, or better paths, etc., I made caveats with things like "seems", "appears", and "IMO".
Nowhere did I intentionally express certainty in anything except the basic state of failure. Maybe I missed a caveat, but if you reread what I wrote, I made liberal use of those caveats. I find it disingenuous, and frankly unlike you, to make such accusations about certainty. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.
The very in there leaves room for him to occasionally not be 100% literal. I think, by now, our experience with him, that we should all be able to accept that is a fair statement. He generally means what he says, and he is not deceptive. When he doesn't want important information to leak out, he simply doesn't talk or refuses to answer. But I cannot think of an instance where he said something as intentionally deceptive GM speak. I'm sure he has done it, but the instances are rare.
I am not suggesting that I would make a better GM... I am also not paid millions of dollars to be the GM!!!
However, I am capable of taking a critical look at a GM and realizing that the GM is flawed, and what those flaws are. And perhaps the the flaws are too consequential or there are too many of them.
And, IMO, (there is that caveat again), Gettlemen is so far under water against that 50% threshold you posit, that if he were ever to reach that level in the future, he would have to make so many right decisions in a row that the Giants should become a very good football team. But if past is any indication here, that seems highly unlikely.
I'm not saying any of those factors were disqualifying, but add that to a pretty high penalty rate, and never having played at a premium level, and I just didn't see a guy who would be a great investment at record pay.
Lineman age a little better than most positions, but it's not a shock he was at the back half of his curve when he got here.
The problem with Solder was straightforward - the Patriots had Dante Scarnecchia and we didnt. And like anything with the Pats, you have to be skeptical with any of their available players because Belichick is so good.
So unless Dante was part of the Solder acquisition, there was a big flashing sign reading Buyer Beware.
Lets face it. Gettleman is straight forward with his thinking and lacks imagination. So he saw Solder as a safe pick and banked on Solders skills conveying. He misjudged badly and now we have an OL crisis...
I dont know why people think its feasible to rebuild yet never spend until the rebuild is done. That just isnt realistic. I dont suggest spending like we did in 2016 again but we have to increase our talent and it isnt just going to come from the draft.
Draft LT with pick 4
Get a starting OC and a top backup.
Solder slides to RT.
Instant improvement.
The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
I think that's the crux of the argument. It hasn't. The Parcells way produced two. The Coughlin way produced two. Between the two period and now almost a decade since 2011, it's been a lot a mediocrity or worse.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
One hope I have from the last month is the John Mara has looked in the mirror and decided that he needed to bring in that sort of leadership and saw it in Judge. Given the buzz around Rhule, I think the owners went into the search looking for this quality and were surprised to find it in one of their second tier candidates (Judge). But thats supposition.
When his look in the mirror moment and wanting to make people feel uncomfortable applies to the FO, I'll start to believe. Until then, all these moves are not exactly rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, but nor far off
Quote:
We had two and a half great pockets of football over that last 40 years.
People love to say we have won a Super Bowl every decade like we are a bastion of sustained success when the truth is anything but.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
Quote:
The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
I think that's the crux of the argument. It hasn't. The Parcells way produced two. The Coughlin way produced two. Between the two period and now almost a decade since 2011, it's been a lot a mediocrity or worse.
And to this point... The Giants were mired in 17 years of lousy football when they were forced to take on Young. Wellington and Tim were forced to take a backseat and let Young run the football operations. He was followed by Accorsi who Wellington allowed to run football operations without meddling.
After Wellington died and Accorsi retired, John and Chris have returned to the 17 years of lousy football period where we had two meddling brothers trying to interject their will into football operations.
The Giants were successful when they had 3 things lining up.
1. The ownership wasn't meddling
2. They had a good coach
3. They had a good QB
The Giants haven't met of those criteria for quite a while now.
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I was young and just hitting my teenage years in the late '80s, but that era of football is the gold standard for Giants football. Great product, great rivalries, great expectations.
Quote:
In comment 14789166 bw in dc said:
Weve had one great pocket: 84 to 90. A record of 74-37, .667 winning %. And that period would have looked better record wise if not for the 87 strike. We were an NFL power in the ultra powerful NFC with the 9ers and Washington. And the mood was we expected to compete and win SBs.
If you take Coughlins best years, 2005-2012, the record was 67-51, .567 winning %. Solid, but not great. The NFC was pretty wide open every year and, lets be honest, those two SBs came out of nowhere. So we werent football royalty like the Parcells Era.
I was not a conscious fan for the first two Super Bowl's. So, 07 and 11 are my two favorites.
I was young and just hitting my teenage years in the late '80s, but that era of football is the gold standard for Giants football. Great product, great rivalries, great expectations.
👍
Interestingly I really started getting into the NFL in between the off-season of 89-90. I discovered Lawrence taylor. So my first season as a Giants "fan" is the 1990 season ( I was 12). I came right at the very tail end of that era unfortunately. I don't count XXV unfortunately because I had zero perspective of the task that winning a super how was. I certainly don't begrudge any fans who don't feel that way in regards to experiencing a championship season.
Quote:
If Terps is gone then BBI is the lesser for it.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but there was a pattern of thinking he had that quite honestly the Giants management needed and that most fans don't ever delve into.
I also saw him as reactive to insults, his ideas were out of the norm and caused people to attack, but you rarely saw him shoot the first shot. The only people Terps aggressively attacked were the Giants management and rightfully so, they are the worst team in the league.
Guess the mouthbreathers won this round.
It's not all black and white.
One can think that the Giants need to make some changes and also not believe that the entire organization is hopelessly flawed from top to bottom and that the "Giant way" is fundamentally bad. The Giant way after all has produced 4 titles.
Terps problem is two fold. First, he is so entrenched in his position that everything the Giants do is bad that he is blinded by it. It becomes frustrating to interact with him because he is so dug in.
The second problem is that he arrogantly believes that he is the only one smart enough to see some great truth about the organization. People react to that.
George, great post. Terps has one mantra and repeats it time after time. And if others dont take it as gospel he talks down to them in an arrogant and condescending fashion.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that his posts garner the angriest rebuttals of perhaps anyones on BBI. Thats no accident, and Terps could do some self-examination when faced with that reality. Instead he shows no self-awareness or desire to recognize his part of the responsibility for threads going off the track.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that his posts garner the angriest rebuttals of perhaps anyones on BBI. Thats no accident, and Terps could do some self-examination when faced with that reality. Instead he shows no self-awareness or desire to recognize his part of the responsibility for threads going off the track.
The NFL is now a passing league, yes, but just watch say SF run at will and just take your heart & soul.
Having said that, I still think KC beats them in the SB.
He is right way more often than he is wrong.
Some at the time turn out right
Some later on turn out wrong.
Like all people and all opinions
Other than that, I'm not remembering anything all that distinct other than falling into the Gettleman sucks group from Day 1 which I don't think has played out yet one way or the other?
He is right way more often than he is wrong.
Being right is irrelevant. It doesnt take much to go against the grain on a lot of topics regarding football - theres a high failure rate in this league and lobbying for the opposite isnt some difficult task.
Ive given him a ton of credit on things in the past and instead of being gracious hes turned into some caped crusader that wont stop until every Giants fan sees things his way.
So, if hes reading this I hope he does come back and post, but if the rhetoric is going to continue hes going to get people pushing back on him.
It's very frustrating to advocate in a setting where your passions and insights will not translate into actions.
So a substitute is insistence. Soon the stew includes intractable bias and magical thinking and more and more time searching for explanations for all the unknowable in football analysis.
Then trying to analyze the rationale and motives of owners and decision makers we will never know with quarter of the context and tons of confounding and exogenous scraps ..
It just gets hard and frustrating.
Rooting for a perpetual losing team really twists fandom. And frankly it hurts to identify with and root for a perpetual loser.
We all love flawed people,institutions and ideals but no progress is stressful. Ditto the NYG
Or when you think Duke prospect Daniel Jones is the best option to succeed Eli, but then after the pick is made, you're not happy, because Eli was kept. And then after Eli leaves and it's Jones' job, you suggest that if the new coach wants to move on from Jones at #4, he should. If Jones works out, you were right. If Jones doesn't work out, you were also right.
Or you can insist for years that winning a league MVP doesn't matter to you, because you don't frame and hang on the wall the newspapers when a guy wins an MVP, like you do for championships. But then when it looks like Lamar Jackson is going to win the MVP (after flopping in the playoffs for the second time), you can mention that every time you want to remind people how right you were about him.
Or you can insist that Beckham should be traded, but then when he actually is traded, you can criticize how it was done...
We can go on and on...
Other than that, I'm not remembering anything all that distinct other than falling into the Gettleman sucks group from Day 1 which I don't think has played out yet one way or the other?
Predicted Lamar Jackson success
Was one of the Eli fan boys who saw that his time was over
Im sure he opposed the solder and other DG signings but dont have direct memory of that
Going way back, he predicted the saints to win the SB the year that they did.
Like advocating that TJ Hockenson should have been the first round pick for us.
Like saying Garrett was going to be the HC and when we lost out on Rhule, spending the next hour having several posts pointing out how correct that Garrett prediction was.
When a team is doing poorly, it isn't really insightful to say that the team sucks. Nor does saying the if the team had done things differently that the results would be demonstrably different.
The last year has been post upon post saying how terrible the team is, how every move has sucked and how bleak the next several years will be.
That isn't a matter of right vs. wrong, it is just overt pessimism that assumes the people running the team are incompetent and that no decision has been a good one simply because the W/L record has been terrible.
I won't even mention how Indy and Oakland were pointed out as two teams we should emulate. Conveniently pointed out midway through the season when they were in a playoff position.
If you don't like it, don't be wrong.
Or you could be like FMIC and not really state an opinion on the football team at all and only exist to bash other posters on this site.
Or you could be like FMIC and not really state an opinion on the football team at all and only exist to bash other posters on this site.
Well if the optimist crowd wins, everybody wins, right?
and you have the guys who have been dead wrong on the giants of late discussing it. only here... only now... would that happen.
Britt you don't recall Terps being right often because you wont acknowledge being wrong often. its that simple
Well if the optimist crowd wins, everybody wins, right?
And when that time finally comes, I don't for one second doubt that some in that crowd will remind everyone how right they were too...
Take your own advice?
and you have the guys who have been dead wrong on the giants of late discussing it. only here... only now... would that happen.
Britt you don't recall Terps being right often because you wont acknowledge being wrong often. its that simple
Pretty amazing isn't it. Well with him gone, I'm sure we'll get many more threads that put that glue in lieu of mayonnaise.
and you have the guys who have been dead wrong on the giants of late discussing it. only here... only now... would that happen.
Britt you don't recall Terps being right often because you wont acknowledge being wrong often. its that simple
Right, wrong, who gives a shit? What am I wrong about? My opinion? It's a f-cking opinion. That's it. Do I present it as fact? No.
People got sick of it.
That's pretty much the whole story, here. Terps isn't some martyr.
We get it. The Giants are sh-t. The point has been made, and made, and made, and made, and made over again...
Then you have the professional sh-t stirrers that like to go in there and troll for their own amusement, and rile everybody up and then you have what you have here.... a mess.
Quote:
don't be wrong.
Take your own advice?
I'm not sure I follow. Never viewed myself as much of a scorekeeper.
No do I have any problem - ever - taking heat for my opinions. And I never complain about how my viewpoints are attacked, or I'm attacked. To me, it's all part of the participating in the BBI jungle.
Still waiting for that "Eli's revenge tour."
Quote:
Well if the optimist crowd wins, everybody wins, right?
And when that time finally comes, I don't for one second doubt that some in that crowd will remind everyone how right they were too...
you mean the shove a shit sandwich down all the haters throat crowd?.....never, haha
People got sick of it.
That's pretty much the whole story, here. Terps isn't some martyr.
Terps is fine. Hes not an asshole. Its internet tough guys that make this place terrible.
Why is it ok for someone to threaten someone here and then I check their Twitter page and there is not one hint of being that abusive. Its because he doesnt get a free pass to write whatever he wants there.
I put up a perfectly reasonable thread last night that I took down because the first thing he did was threaten me on it.
Oddly, they really are some of my favorites to read. ;)
If I don't really state an opinion on the team, why am I classified as a pollyanna or by some fucking lunatics either a paid shill by the team or Dave Gettleman himself?
Still waiting for that "Eli's revenge tour."
Optimism is based on me finding no point to be down on the teams I root for. Being a pessimist doesnt actually make the team wake up and do things differently, but you guys sure post like it does.
The Giants can go 0-16 next year and Ill still be optimistic for the 2021 season.
Quote:
Or you could be like FMIC and not really state an opinion on the football team at all and only exist to bash other posters on this site.
If I don't really state an opinion on the team, why am I classified as a pollyanna or by some fucking lunatics either a paid shill by the team or Dave Gettleman himself?
You would have to ask the people who made those comments but Im sure it has to do with attacking posters with a certain view point.
What those guys miss is that you rarely make a counter argument, or discuss the team at all. Just like in this response you only discuss BBI posters.
FatMan in Charlotte : 10:09 am : link : reply
if I put Wentz on Washington or Dak on Washington, would they look good. I think Wentz would. Alex Smith looked good there. I don't think Dak would. He doesn't carry his team.
Wentz has the edge and it isn't slight. He also can't stay healthy though.
I think in 3 years if this question is asked, Jones will be #1.
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/21/2020 5:27 pm : link : reply
he was at a cookout one of my friends hosted a few years back. Really nice guy. He loved playing for Parcells.
FatMan in Charlotte : 8:29 am : link : reply
enough, Quinn's name keeps getting brought up even after the ST units have improved.
That should really be the bizarre part.
FatMan in Charlotte : 9:57 am : link : reply
league is littered with failed HC's who returned to being successful coordinators and position coaches.
A lot of guys aren't cut out to be the head guy.
It isn't like Kitchens has been a failure at his stops.
FatMan in Charlotte : 9:41 am : link : reply
but I'm not sure how it will pan out. JonC is right about the ramifications for Patricia.
The Lions aren't happy with the way Stafford handled his injury this season and some comments he made. Also, the injury is a pretty severe one that is likely to give problems going forward. A lot of back injuries are like that.
I can see a play for another QB, but there will be a short-term hit and I'm not sure Patricia wants to sign up for that.
Could it be that perhaps you just focus on the negative posts, in part because I've called you out before. If you don't like my style, fine. But at least know what the fuck you're talking about.
Quote:
do realize that both parts can be true, right??
Quote:
Or you could be like FMIC and not really state an opinion on the football team at all and only exist to bash other posters on this site.
If I don't really state an opinion on the team, why am I classified as a pollyanna or by some fucking lunatics either a paid shill by the team or Dave Gettleman himself?
You would have to ask the people who made those comments but Im sure it has to do with attacking posters with a certain view point.
What those guys miss is that you rarely make a counter argument, or discuss the team at all. Just like in this response you only discuss BBI posters.
I've been making this point about FMiC forever. He attacks posters when they have a certain PoV... Particularly anything negative about the team in general. Then, when the poster's PoV turns out to be correct, his claim is that he never stated the opposing opinion, but just that the poster in question sucked.
Talk about a shit stirrer... And whenever you call him out on it, he complains that you are following him around and trolling him. When of course that is exactly what he does. And there is no need to follow him around to troll him since he leave his turds everywhere on the board.
I'd ask myself..
FatMan in Charlotte : 10:09 am : link : reply
if I put Wentz on Washington or Dak on Washington, would they look good. I think Wentz would. Alex Smith looked good there. I don't think Dak would. He doesn't carry his team.
Wentz has the edge and it isn't slight. He also can't stay healthy though.
I think in 3 years if this question is asked, Jones will be #1.
Great you have an opinion about Eagle players and Cowboy players getting transplanted somehow to the Redskins. Does anybody really care?
That's awesome..
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/21/2020 5:27 pm : link : reply
he was at a cookout one of my friends hosted a few years back. Really nice guy. He loved playing for Parcells.
Good to know you have friends, with your personality I figured that was a longshot.
Interestingly..
FatMan in Charlotte : 8:29 am : link : reply
enough, Quinn's name keeps getting brought up even after the ST units have improved.
That should really be the bizarre part.
No opinion really stated, and really not very interesting at all.
The..
FatMan in Charlotte : 9:57 am : link : reply
league is littered with failed HC's who returned to being successful coordinators and position coaches.
A lot of guys aren't cut out to be the head guy.
It isn't like Kitchens has been a failure at his stops.
Clear a sideways knock against somebody who expressed concerns about Kitchens... and again, no real opinion stated.
There's smoke here..
FatMan in Charlotte : 9:41 am : link : reply
but I'm not sure how it will pan out. JonC is right about the ramifications for Patricia.
The Lions aren't happy with the way Stafford handled his injury this season and some comments he made. Also, the injury is a pretty severe one that is likely to give problems going forward. A lot of back injuries are like that.
I can see a play for another QB, but there will be a short-term hit and I'm not sure Patricia wants to sign up for that.
Something about the Lions, again who really cares. You seam to like to post stuff about other teams... And is there an opinion there. If there is one, its so hedged it's impossible to make out.
Could it be that perhaps you just focus on the negative posts, in part because I've called you out before. If you don't like my style, fine. But at least know what the fuck you're talking about.
Let's face it, for every post like the ones above (which were mostly meaningless), you have 10 posts attacking somebody.
That's a quality exchange, and presumably one of the better reasons to participate in conversation about the team with strangers.
There's nothing more inherently beneficial in being positive or optimistic when discussing the team.
When I read that intimated on threads I think about that guy on here who posts a lot about the Mets and truly believes every offseason was dynamite and it's unequivocally their year. It's definitely a positive outlook, but if for some reason I wanted to learn about the Mets, I wouldn't seek him out.
I *think* most of us want intellectually honest, interesting conversation about the team. When the team keeps losing 10 games a year, is it a surprise a lot of dialogue is negative?
That's a quality exchange, and presumably one of the better reasons to participate in conversation about the team with strangers.
There's nothing more inherently beneficial in being positive or optimistic when discussing the team.
When I read that intimated on threads I think about that guy on here who posts a lot about the Mets and truly believes every offseason was dynamite and it's unequivocally their year. It's definitely a positive outlook, but if for some reason I wanted to learn about the Mets, I wouldn't seek him out.
I *think* most of us want intellectually honest, interesting conversation about the team. When the team keeps losing 10 games a year, is it a surprise a lot of dialogue is negative?
I have been on BBI since year 1. The negativity has increased over time and I don't think it is just due to losing. I think "social media" in general is BIGGER and there are more bully mentalities out there now than in years past. Just my opinion....
I *think* most of us want intellectually honest, interesting conversation about the team. When the team keeps losing 10 games a year, is it a surprise a lot of dialogue is negative?
Well said my friend.
I would like to add that I feel communication is a major ingredient in expressing our views. If I express my view(s) in a manner that presents my view as fact then I have made it difficult for honest conversation, if I express my view with arrogance then I have made it difficult for honest conversation. I think these are factors that we all struggle with at times. I am leaning more so towards a philosophy of taking my time to think through before acting.
I appease personal pride (arrogance) at times which derails conversation. My personal pride is a hindrance to common ground with opposing views. We learn a lot from opposing views (if represented honestly) so I certainly should take an appropriate amount of time to measure what someone is expressing.
To me it seems conversation is treated as a competition frequently which causes an issue with trusting and measuring what the "opponent" is expressing.
Quote:
I *think* most of us want intellectually honest, interesting conversation about the team. When the team keeps losing 10 games a year, is it a surprise a lot of dialogue is negative?
Well said my friend.
I would like to add that I feel communication is a major ingredient in expressing our views. If I express my view(s) in a manner that presents my view as fact then I have made it difficult for honest conversation, if I express my view with arrogance then I have made it difficult for honest conversation. I think these are factors that we all struggle with at times. I am leaning more so towards a philosophy of taking my time to think through before acting.
I appease personal pride (arrogance) at times which derails conversation. My personal pride is a hindrance to common ground with opposing views. We learn a lot from opposing views (if represented honestly) so I certainly should take an appropriate amount of time to measure what someone is expressing.
To me it seems conversation is treated as a competition frequently which causes an issue with trusting and measuring what the "opponent" is expressing.
THIS. This is the heart of the matter. Whatever it is you support, if you speak in absolutes and are condescending to the poster you are having the conversation with, is that productive? No.
The poster above who mentioned social media is right. That's the difference. We have a group of people that were raised to communicate on social media, and we have a group of people that were raised on face to face conversation. They are largely clashing here.
That had not occurred to me as ridiculous as that may sound that I was unaware of the significance of growing up where in an age where face to face conversation is on it's way of being viewed as inconvenience
I think Joey probably wouldn't shy from saying that to someone. He's never appeared to be shy or disingenuous. I don't think FMiC would shy from calling someone something condescending if the opportunity presented itself.
I think Terps has a pretty fixed sense of the world. But Britt, read back what you just typed. Can you see how someome could interpret you as staying your opinion as facts?
Is that not a fact? Because I'm 44, and didn't have an email address until I was in college.
I think Joey probably wouldn't shy from saying that to someone. He's never appeared to be shy or disingenuous. I don't think FMiC would shy from calling someone something condescending if the opportunity presented itself.
I think Terps has a pretty fixed sense of the world. But Britt, read back what you just typed. Can you see how someome could interpret you as staying your opinion as facts?
Here's the other thing... Have you met anybody from BBI? Because, while I have not met Joey or Fatman in person, I have met countless others WAY back in the day when we all used to go to training camp in Albany. And there was WAY more vitriol spewed on BBI back in those days. It was like the Wild West compared to now. And some of the most vitriolic posters back then were some of the nicest guys you could meet in person and have a beer with.
But beyond that, you had to walk into a group of 30-40 complete strangers from all walks of life, introduce yourself face to face, and join the conversation. In person.
So you suspect wrong. Because it wasn't like that at all. And that was when it was ME who was in his mid-twenties, interacting with the older posters.
What I didn't do was go in there with some smarmy ass attitude that I was the smartest person in the room, and condemn all others who didn't think like me. THAT's what wouldn't have gone over well in person. And it wouldn't be a big deal, just nobody would want to hang out with you.
imo, the flash point is not use of social media
imo,the flash point is not pessimists vs optimists
imo, the flash point is certainty and arrogance. Not a generational thing at all. Lets use a parallel to this observation from 2400 years ago
The truth is that what goes on in our heads ( the Forms) as humans is not reality. Reality is out there outside our experience. And the only way to get closer to a real picture is to listen to others in the Cave.
Keeping that in mind every day...helps a lot
imo, the flash point is not use of social media
imo,the flash point is not pessimists vs optimists
imo, the flash point is certainty and arrogance. Not a generational thing at all. Lets use a parallel to this observation from 2400 years ago
The truth is that what goes on in our heads ( the Forms) as humans is not reality. Reality is out there outside our experience. And the only way to get closer to a real picture is to listen to others in the Cave.
Keeping that in mind every day...helps a lot
I agree that certainty and arrogance are at the heart of the matter, Bill.
But we have to acknowledge that the way we communicate has evolved, and I think we all understand that words on a screen don't always jive with words spoken directly, lack inflection and emotion, and can sometimes be interpreted not as intended.
But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...
T-Bone in person was the biggest asshole in the world!!!
I kid I kid.
Just a word of advice, if you ever meet up with CiP, bring a set of snips so you can cut the lock off of his wallet.....
But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...
Are you not a fan of common courtesy towards others? Serious question.
We are in a population where a portion of posters are here to incite or create multiple handles to steer the dialogue or promote certain narratives. It isn't like in person where the guy you see is the same guy you'll see the next time
The key to "common courtesy" is the common part. Oftentimes, two posters don't have that commonality. You can even see in this thread from responses from ron and McL, that they don't believe I am ever courteous. That is their perception because I've not been courteous TO THEM. You may have a different take. A lot of posters on this site have a different take.
Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.
We are in a population where a portion of posters are here to incite or create multiple handles to steer the dialogue or promote certain narratives. It isn't like in person where the guy you see is the same guy you'll see the next time
The key to "common courtesy" is the common part. Oftentimes, two posters don't have that commonality. You can even see in this thread from responses from ron and McL, that they don't believe I am ever courteous. That is their perception because I've not been courteous TO THEM. You may have a different take. A lot of posters on this site have a different take.
Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.
Thanks, that gives me something to chew on for a bit.
When I lived in San Francisco I met a ton of BBIers from 2000-2014 at a number of Raider, 9ers games, and bars for games. Probably 50-75. Most of them were everything I'd expected from interacting here. Lots of really great guys and a few who were a little much with their opinions.
No one surprised me, and no one was dramatically different.
Is there nuance and subtlety lost when typing versus in-person? Sure. But I don't buy there is some generational divide that makes those who came of age before social media better communicators on or offline.
But whatever man, I'm not a mod. Post how you want.
Quote:
BBI in the 90s was raw and unplugged. Very Darwinistic. It was so much better than todays PC version of BBI.
But it is what it is, so you just adjust. But there is a softness now that is palpable, especially as the BBI mainstream has grown bigger and bigger...
Are you not a fan of common courtesy towards others? Serious question.
In general? Sure.
Do I expect it around here? I don't. But I accept those terms and manage around it.
Generally courtesy is given until it is shown that it shouldn't be.
Too bad you don't live by this quote.
You're criteria for being courteous is based on whether or not in your view the opinion is critical of the team, or oddly enough, if somebody expresses an opinion and tries to back that opinion with with something more than just blurting it out.
You will notice that there really isn't anybody on this board that I am generally discourteous towards other than you. But, to illustrate the kind of cancer you promote, I have been sharp with crick in the past. In my head, I felt that he had been discourteous towards me in the past. When I looked back I realized why. He has never been directly discourteous, but he has supported you on a few occasions where you were being particularly vile. Googs pointed out to me that he found crick to generally be a thoughtful/introspective poster, and watching him more carefully I agree with Googs. I still don't have a warm fuzzy about him, because he supported some of your vitriol, but, he doesn't deserve being lumped in with you. The way you behave impacts the way others behave, and the way others are perceived. It generally lowers the civility of the discourse, it inhibits honest debate and divides people.
When I express opinions, especially ones that I expect will be somewhat controversial or debatable, I try to provide information that supports my opinion. For example, in this thread, I did the math on how much draft capital based on the draft value chart has actually been spent on the oline. It is things like that which inform my opinion, so I provide it.
When you provide an opinion with supporting information, it makes it much harder to argue an alternative opinion. Not impossible but harder. I think that offends some people and they feel their opinion is being shut out. They feel that I am posting with "certainty" or being "arrogant". But when you read what I write, my opinions are either clearly stated as such, or stated with some caveat. It happened on this thread with a poster whom I generally like and respect. What it means is that it raises the bar for the debate, and if you disagree, it likely means you have to be able to show that the support or evidence isn't valid, and that is a much tougher thing to do, especially if you haven't researched the the evidence being used. Its easier to just attack the poster and claim that they are posting with certainty or arrogance. I am saying this from my personal experience, but, I see others on this site that also use evidence to support their opinions, and I see them being treated the same way in response. It is what it is, but I thought I would throw that out there.
I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.
Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.
So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
Honorable way to discuss in most fields.
Imo
Honorable way to discuss in most fields.
Imo
I honor the effort but submit that your conclusion above that they are conclusive support eludes just about everyone in football.
Moby Dick would be a prize but Captain Ahab lost a lot pursuing the elusive.
So did the Old Man going out too far to get the Great Fish
Bill, I agree with you that much of the analytics and analyses are debatable, and I have always been willing to engage in that debate. You of all people should know that about me by now. In many of our debates, you have forced me to think harder about certain things.
Was I piecing together various bits of information and speculating a conclusion. Absolutely, but it is clearly marked so. I have an opinion about the GMship of the Giants, but I didn't come to that opinion in a vacuum. We can disagree about some of the specifics that led me that opinion, and we can debate those. But I am allowed my opinion. What cannot be debated is that the product they have put on the field has been crappy for a long time. What cannot be debated is that they have failed. Whether it's because they are at 45% good decision making, or 25%, and how much under the 50% threshold does it have to be to result in lousy football, is debatable, but frankly I am not sure it's a debate worth having. There are clearly individuals who are capable of sustaining something over the threshold, and other who are not. What the threshold is and how much above defines success, is immaterial to me.
You're point is that all debate, all opinions are moot because it's all just noise in the machine, random luck, everything reverts to the mean. And in the macro sense over a very long period of time, that is true, I get it, I agree.
But we are not talking about macro trends and such long periods. As I am sure you are aware, there are organizations that know how to make money in a long term flat market. Why, because they know how to trade on the micro trends. As fans our view is generally in the micro... Mostly within a 5 year period. The fact that we have seen guys sustain success for 10, 15, 20 year periods, and others that no matter what can never achieve it, suggests that there is a human element to be considered as part of the micro trend analysis. I want the Giants to be the ones cutting through the noise and riding the crest of those micro trends, as clearly guys like Belichick, Walsh and even Parcels were able to do.
The Giants GMship has ridden under that threshold for a very long time, that is not debatable, and I don't believe that it is just bad luck. It's bad management, and bad decisions.
And while I can't realistically hold out hope for a change in ownership (neither the people, nor their approach), I can hold out hope of a GM that is strong enough to be able take that bull by the horns and manage it, and also be a good enough GM to carry the team to one of those crests. I don't think that description can be applied the Gettleman at this point. As a result, he is useless to me.
Hyperbole used when presenting opinions is generally what causes backlash. IMO one should be careful with the presentation of their opinions. If one fails to see that their opinion is informed by analysis of data (therefore suggestive) and truly believes that it is conclusive, they will likely believe that it to be superior to others. This then leads to arrogance and certainty that Bill2 is referring to.
Not a great way to win friends and influence people.
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Kind of an impasse for the foreseeable future.
Although you are correct in pointing out that all said here is noise in the end. Useful for a of us to keep in mind.
Take care
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Christian, I would say it's popular for us humans to fall into the trap of thinking too highly of ourselves therefore stating our view as if it cannot be challenged. I think it's important to communicate as clearly as possible and not leave things to assumptions. As humans I think we love to show how smart we are which to me leads to an interruption in communicating our message. Why choose to communicate an opinion as fact if that isn't what we intend?
I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.
The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
I guess all I am saying is I can get over someone coming off as arrogant, and less inclined to get over someone completely losing their shit and saying nasty things to someone.
The latter seems more likely to degrade the quality of exchange.
Understood 👍
Thanks for the reply
I think crick is correct, we should take care when stating opinions that they are stated as such.
On the other hand, as listeners/readers, we should keep in mind that no matter how something is stated, there is plenty that is unknowable by us, so just about everything is opinion.
Bill2, what magical thinking are you referring to? Deriving an opinion/drawing a conclusion from incomplete data? Isn't that what makes us human? The ability to synthesize incomplete data, form a model in our minds (whether correct or incorrect) and base future actions and decisions on that model. Isn't that how science works and advances. We form the model, test it, and while it works we use it until proven otherwise. Newton's laws of gravity are widely considered a brilliant achievement that advanced science considerably. However, in the end the model was wrong. Not that I am comparing what we do on this board to Newton in any way shape or form. Just the fact that as far as we know, the ability to create a abstract model (and thus an opinion) is uniquely human and isn't something to be scoffed at. THe fact that we realize that the model informs our opinion, but that it is still just an opinion is the recognition of of the fact that the data is incomplete. That doesn't change the opinion.
I find it a touch strange that's such a touchy subject for some.
One of the nice things about this community is how often strong opinions can collide and evolve into changed minds and better understanding.
Not sure this exchange is still about Terps vs. some of the other things posted on here, but him having a strong, repeated opinion vs. some of the nasty things directed him seems unbalanced.
Often times posters state things as facts, and often provide "evidence" of those facts, when in fact they are opinions. The evidence is carefully curated to support those opinions and any evidence to the contrary is discounted or even disregarded in its entirety.
It is not always enough to be clear about what is your opinion and what isn't. We see today what happens to civilized discussion when opinion is represented as fact and repeated loudly and often enough to where it is nearly universally accepted as fact.
Should this bother anyone? I don't know, clearly the world is too big to worry about all misrepresentations and falsehoods. However, those things you hold dearest (like family) you are more likely to defend from inaccurate statements.
I've spent too much time on BBI since the Dave Gettleman hire trying to fight falsehoods from being unchallenged. A couple of months ago I gave up - I don't have the energy anymore that it takes to come on this site and point out to people where their logic is flawed or where they have overstated their opinions. The NYG are my team that I've been loyal to for decades and I've been bothered by so many falsehoods being spread, but I cannot let it become such a big part of my life. I've got other more important fish to fry.
And in the end, I'm still going to (hopefully) enjoy the games on Sundays regardless of what is believed generally about the team.
Could you be the one claiming your opinion is fact?
To me it's important to understand if someone is providing evidence to support their opinion or trying to push off untrue statements as fact.
I don't encounter a lot of people making things up or linking to inaccurate sources, more just interpretations that are different than mine.
Anyway, it's certainly a valuable thing to look out for, and I'll take notice.
As I noted, I more annoyed by the posters who just burst out with rude posts. I've never once seen that tactic lead to an interesting conversation.
So lets use my 4% figure that I calculated before on how much DG has spent on the OLine... Is that a "carefully curated" piece of evidence? FMiC seems to think so, he offered 12.5%.
Lets take a look and see which number is more deceptive... Let use a stock portfolio as an example. Lets say you own 2 shares of stock, 1 share in each of two companies. You can say that your portfolio is "balanced" right... 50% of your share are in each company. But is that the right way to look at it. Lets say that 1 company is trading at $1 and the other $99. Isn't it more accurate to say that 99% of your capital is concentrated in 1 company and only 1% in the other?
Back to 4% vs 12.5%. The 4% represents the actual capitalized value based on the a widely accepted metric, the draft value chart. Out of all the 16 picks, there was the 34th pick and one in the 7th (maybe 6th I forget, its not impactful)... But there has been choices that were the 2nd pick, 6th pick, 17th pick, and 30th pick (also numerous in the 3rd 4th and 5th rounds that do affect the weighting significantly). I don't think anybody here is dumb enough to think that a 7th round pick is an equivalent investment to a 1st round pick. Nor is the 34th pick equivalent to the 2nd, 6th, 17th or 30th pick. So which number is the "better" fact? Which one is really the more "curated" one? You can dispute it as FMiC did, you can call it a falsehood, but is it really? But really, which is a more valid representation of the total DRAFT CAPITAL spent by DG?
You can argue that 4% is an incomplete picture, there is FA, waivers, and trades. This is true... But you are right, I discount that, because there are others "facts" out there that show that it has become increasingly rare that good OL become available in FA. Trades are wildcards and difficult to factor in. I appreciate that DG traded for Zietler. But I also put a discount on it because, he had Brown in the spot, Brown stated he wanted to stay, and he wasn't expensive. That means that had he been resigned, and the TRADE CAPITAL could have been better spent on another position... So I don't give a positive grade on the trade when taken as a whole, but that is my opinion. Again, its opinion, but it does have a factual basis underlying it. So, one person might find DGs moves in FA and trades as a compelling evidence that DG is "building" the oline. I look at it as a flawed approach not likely to succeed. My opinion is that the draft is the best way to "build" the OL for the long term. Thus my focus on 4%.
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )
Mirror
I have to ask myself this. If its so simple to allocate resources appropriately why isnt it done across the board? Whats your secret sauce that very few people in the NFL know about?
We already know how high the bust rate is for for Olineman, we experienced plenty of it. So what now?
The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.
Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.
Like Uconn just said - there is not special formula yet you want to foist numbers on the board that assumptively say the Giants are building the line incorrectly.
You used numbers and in your mind, that's presenting evidence and stating to the board the right way to do things. And you still fail to see why people take issue with it. Could be a self importance, or it could be because you are concentrating on crafting a 6 string post to address me, an exercise which in itself contradicts a lot of what you've said in the past.
But what you advocated as the right approach has concerns as well. Namely time and risk up against all the needs of the team
Neither is "right or wrong". they are tradeoffs. Hence an analyst exposes both to the light and also remains humble and open to the downsides of choice.
When you start with the GM sucks then the data just shows up to support the pre set conclusion.
That's not a supported opinion. That's a supported take closer to propaganda in its incompleteness.
The point is that no one here has time to complete all the second and third derivatives of any choice in football. So even common sense protection from POV containing the many ways to second guess in a sport with so many variables should leave one with very few declarative positions.
That's feels logical to me.
McL, its not meant as an attack. None of my posts are. Im hoping they help form your own style of getting even better as an analyst of a very tough game to analyze
The bottom line is the OL still stinks and DGs moves to correct it have borne little fruit.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but you have said words to that effect in the past.
Could you be the one claiming your opinion is fact?
As much time as I've spent on here in the past 20 years or so I'm sure I've had my opinion taken as a presentation of fact once or twice, but I don't think you'll find many who feel that way about me. Certainly not where I dig in my heels and argue repeatedly with conviction. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting causes for outcomes - I just don't believe I know as much about the game of football as most posters here, so I tend to try and learn what I can. That attitude guides pretty much all my football posts, even ones where I posit an opinion.
I don't deny I could be blind to my own behavior, but I'd welcome evidence that shows me to be wrong in this way.
There are very few absolute facts that get distorted on here, but sometimes they are repeated over and over again and I have tried to set the record straight unsuccessfully about it.
For example, the facts presented around Eli's "benching" regularly get stated wrong, both here and in the general media. There are some absolute facts, but mostly what gets repeated are people's opinions, interpretations, feelings, etc.
I don't want to get into that discussion again right now, but rarely do you get an actual historically accurate description of those events.
Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.
I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.
The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.
Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.
Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.
I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.
In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
Won’t press you on it but would like to hear what you think is misrepresented. I think the same thing but am guessing we don’t see things the same way.
Maybe sometime at training camp or something? I'm open to visiting on the subject in person - I think it would be better that way.
Cheers!
The point of challenging the 4% is that it is indeed a curated piece of evidence, presented without context.
Why is using 4% of draft equity (or capital) bad? Why is using 12.5% of the picks bad? Why is using the draft to fill two spots, FA to fill two spots and a trade to fill a spot doing things incorrectly.
Do I need to explain that the OL represents 5 of 22 stating players or about 23%? When I have posted that 4% in the past, I pointed that out... Do I need to rehash it every time I quote the stat?
Do I need to rehash that we have seen a steady decline in available OL in FA? And a decline in the quality? It has been discussed ad-nauseum.
I also did state that when he took over, the team had 0 starting offensive lineman (I'm not counting Flowers, he lasted only a few games, and everybody knew he has a problem).
By the way, I made mention of all of that context on this thread...
from my original post
I went into far more context about the specific FA moves, and trades as well... Saying I stated it completely out of context, disingenuous to say the least, and clearly false. I used the word CAPITAL, and not PICKS... At least to me, CAPITAL implies the weighting, sorry if that wasn't clear.
He laid out some facts and came to his own conclusion which is opinion
Quote:
Its ok to have a different opinion. But you cannot expect to change mine without some other evidence that I would find compelling. And that is true of every debate.
I don't generally try to assert an opinion, and I'm not going to try to argue against the 4% number. I get it, it's a fine number to use if you want to, but it's not an argument that interests me.
I'll give you a better one that you've been indirectly related to in the past. This is an argument that I've spent too much time on already so don't really want to engage far down this road - what's been said on here is enough already - but I will remind you of the debate to illustrate the overall point.
The debate I'm referring to is the Dave Gettleman/Use of analytics debate.
Definitive assertions have been made about the attitude DG has about using analytics. These assertions have been presented as evidence-based facts. Part of what has been presented as evidence has been "an absence of evidence" - as in "we can't find any evidence from our internet browsers (Reddit, Github, LinkedIn, Giants.com)". A certain poster (not you) has insisted that they've provided evidence that proves DG is anti-analytics. They haven't positioned that as what all the evidence suggests - but as what absolutely is and must be.
Then they've repeated it over and over again until many have simply accepted the opinion as a fact.
I've spent a lot of hours trying to get a few different posters to admit that there MIGHT be more than what we have seen going on. It was painful and I'm not doing it anymore, because these posters were convinced of what reality was and insisted that their position was reality.
In contrast, I was only trying to argue that perhaps there was more than what they could see.
That is fair... And I have always been willing to engage, and engage courteously in debates like that.
For the record, we have no proof of anything with regards to DG and analytics (except that they recently hired 4 people). However there is bits of various evidence that taken as a whole suggest (notice the caveat, people tend to disregard these) that DG is at best far behind in his approach to analytics. And, based on that, I have an opinion about DG and analytics. But it is an opinion.
On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
Quote:
2) You think all debate is moot ( a made up accusation spoken as fact and asserted as something I think )
Perhaps I misunderstood, but you have said words to that effect in the past.
Better said like this. You have said things in the past, that I interpreted that way. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I.E. back to my stock analogy, the person with 2 shares has 99% of their equity in one stock and 1% in the other. In this context the words are interchangeable.
On the other hand, there are some posters that try to claim that he is as progressive as any body else in football with regards to analytics (which was a mind blowing discussion since there is pretty much no evidence to back that up, and plenty to counter it), or more often, that analytics really don't matter much, so who cares.
Those debates were long enough and wasteful enough already, right? Although it may have seemed that we were on opposite sides, I think you are more likely right than the other side. My argument was that the lack of evidence isn't evidence, and the constant posting as "facts" what we really didn't know needed to stop.
Hope you have a pleasant evening - going to go enjoy what's left of mine now.
Cheers!
We're not making life and death decisions here. The conversation has gotten too serious (for the past two years).
We could smack in the middle of our next 15 years of lousy football.
I dont think the conversations are any more serious or vitriolic now than any other time Ive been in the board. And that includes when we were winning Super Bowl. Plus, when the team stinks, battles in BBI are a good fall back option for entertainment.