I was listening to The Athletic's Giants podcast & thought Duggan had a good point re. Abrams being the next GM: let's say the Giants have a rough 2020 season & go something like 4-12 again. There's going to be a ton of pressure to get rid of Gettleman. So DG is shown the door...how does Mara sell to the fan base replacing him with Abrahams? 'Hey, yeah Dave's gone, but we're replacing him with our assistant GM.' That's like the house being on fire & asking one of the arsonists to help put out the flames.
I know they've been grooming him to be the next Giants GM for awhile, but if that happens,come on...that'd be weak AF.
Yes the Giants have sucked but they just made some big changes, ones that aren't being harped on because they happened already and don't fit the narrative (unless it doesn't work out, you'll be chomping at the bit for that). Hiring Judge and basically letting him change the entire structure of the coaching staff and team philosophy is what you've wanted and now have, so now you are moving on to the next story, one that's completely fabricated I might add.
What do you want on Tuesday, May 26th? A briefing on the actual plan to replace Gettelman?
Also strikes me in an ideal place to see all the mistakes and not repeat them.
Why wouldn't a guy want some respect, some money and avoid dealing with Pat Leonard and Jordan Ranaan and snipers on BBI?
Patterns are Patterns. Guys stays non controversial and behind the scenes and very silent with the press...sure seem s an odd way to campaign for a front piece in the worlds media market.
Feels like a lot of unknowable made up speculation
In this thread alone we already have 3 potential named suitors - Abrams, Abrahams and Abrahms.
You got a chuckle out of me.
I think all the positives not yet played out or proven out are most attributable to one man- John Mara.
In this distant hypothetical; I'm the CEO and directly make the decision on hiring the division Sr. VP.
The last 3 hires had spent time as the direct subordinate to the position. Two of the last three have been fired for cause.
The division of the company has failed to meet it's number in 7 of the 8 last years. An approach that used to work well, is not working now.
Maybe practical assessments I might make:
- there are deeper issues than who fills this SVP seat
- how/who I fill this role is not producing the results I desire
- I might want to rethink following my old playbook with the help of someone independent
Quote:
I think all the mistakes of the past decade are most attributable to one person - John Mara.
I think all the positives not yet played out or proven out are most attributable to one man- John Mara.
In this distant hypothetical; I'm the CEO and directly make the decision on hiring the division Sr. VP.
The last 3 hires had spent time as the direct subordinate to the position. Two of the last three have been fired for cause.
The division of the company has failed to meet it's number in 7 of the 8 last years. An approach that used to work well, is not working now.
Maybe practical assessments I might make:
- there are deeper issues than who fills this SVP seat
- how/who I fill this role is not producing the results I desire
- I might want to rethink following my old playbook with the help of someone independent
Accorsi was fired for cause? Neither Accorsi or Reese had any success?
The Judge hire was a step in the right direction, I've said that. That being said, understanding how the outputs can be useful which i'm sure he does, doesn't mean he knows how to build the technologies or have good input in the right people to hire for those positions.
I'm not twisting any narratives, this article is a well sourced scathing article of our front office.
The Giants follow this pattern of scapegoating be it Reese or Shurmur or TC before that where larger problems are made out to be smaller ones that can be excised. Abrams would be the biggest example of that yet a "numbers geek" who hasn't familiarized himself enough with new tech and methods or fostered innovation well enough to keep up with the trends in his industry. We do not know well what Abrams can do but we know him like the rest of the organization has admitted they didn't do this well and made mistakes. Firing a few scouts doesn't mean you are serious about fixing the problem or have any idea to. It does mean the well deserved heat is on you and you've never had any problems offering up some sacrificial lambs. Your bias or willful ignorance is showing if you don't see how deeply disconcerting it should be to watch other organizations advance their systems while you plummet into the cellar and talk up your assistant GM as the next guy for the job. Is that the behavior of an organization that is really ready for change?
From that article:
This is one of my big worries. Without a tech leader to own the project this could very easily be an initiative that the head coach is excited about but there aren't operators to get it done well. Shurmur was willing to integrate analytics into the game planning but he very clearly was doing it in oversimplified ways without the right people or systems behind him. Now with Judge I don't worry about him being able to sniff out if the systems are sophisticated enough, the problem is, the most challenging part of data science isn't building something that tests well, it's building something that you know will generalize to the problem. And that takes a lot of subject matter expertise and tech savvy.
“My perception of Gettleman is that he really understands certain things from the old-school, ‘real football’ truisms, that he’s pretty good at," Manocherian said. "And there are some things that he seems to want to do his own way. It’s hard to follow.”
I do think there will be internal philosophical differences which is why you want to have a tech leader outside of that process with their own mandate. It's easy for "computer guys" to be torn in a million directions and these are people that mind you are already behind. And if you are a talented engineer would you want to work for a team that has fully bought in for years or a team who has this kind of articles written about them?
Another maybe even more important scenario here is confirmation bias, these systems take time and patience to build. Sometimes a leader needs to be able to say "this isn't ready yet" as opposed to lower level people who are just trying to get something out. Who decides when to try a different method? What's this process like when everyone levels upon levels above you was so skeptical of it in the first place that they fell behind?
Joe Judge has a lot to do on the field, he can't be the person in the building that leads a modernization effort forward day to day. I'm not making this into a bigger deal, it is a big deal already when your organization has fallen so far behind you have articles like this written about you. Look at what the Ravens are doing and how tech has played a role in that. If anyone thinks firing a few scouts and hiring some "computer guys" can catch you up to people with complete commitment and buy in from the top to that I would say the odds are not in your favor.
Kudos.
Christ - you are even going on about not having a "tech leader" on a thread about Abrams future. Meanwhile, your assumptions on the "tech leader" still lie with your opinion that Tyseer Siam is unfit.
How many fucking threads are you going to infiltrate with the same tired message?
Quote:
In comment 14910680 Bill2 said:
Quote:
I think all the mistakes of the past decade are most attributable to one person - John Mara.
I think all the positives not yet played out or proven out are most attributable to one man- John Mara.
In this distant hypothetical; I'm the CEO and directly make the decision on hiring the division Sr. VP.
The last 3 hires had spent time as the direct subordinate to the position. Two of the last three have been fired for cause.
The division of the company has failed to meet it's number in 7 of the 8 last years. An approach that used to work well, is not working now.
Maybe practical assessments I might make:
- there are deeper issues than who fills this SVP seat
- how/who I fill this role is not producing the results I desire
- I might want to rethink following my old playbook with the help of someone independent
Accorsi was fired for cause? Neither Accorsi or Reese had any success?
I think you missed and added a few things.
- The hypothetical is if Gettleman is fired -- he and Reese would be the two fired for cause.
- Who said anything about Reese and Accorsi not having success?
- My observation was "An approach that used to work well, is not working now."
There have been articles posted that you've summarily dismissed because they've been positive about the Giants use of analytics. One was from their focus on DB's:
https://247sports.com/nfl/new-york-giants/Article/New-York-Giants-analytics-2019-roster-133144558/
One was from refuting the idea the Giants have been behind the times (linked below)
“We’re gonna look to [Siam] to lead us into a world where we have a robust analytics/technology program.”
In addition to Siam, the Giants will lean heavily on assistant general manager Kevin Abrams, who has quietly led this pro-analytics charge alongside Siam.
If you are telling us that a focus on analytics pays immediate dividends and we should be seeing the impact or the lack of analytics has caused us to be terrible the past few years, you are even more of an idiot on the subject than I or a few others already think.
But you drone on and on about it. On nearly every thread you participate on. Why is that? Did the Giants reject a hare-brained idea from you to improve their analytics or something - because that's what it seemingly looks like with each passing comment you make.
Contrary to popular belief.... - ( New Window )
You may not want to hear this next part, but he is respected among his peers in the NFL.
Just make an analytics thread so the rest of us can talk about different topics.
Just make an analytics thread so the rest of us can talk about different topics.
Well, the article posted above indicates that along with Siam, Abrams will be leading the pro-analytics charge for NYG. And the thread is about Abrams, so.
These articles about how the Giants are using analytics are before the GM admitting that they made mistakes and hired people to essentially change the process in a big way.
People that have not done well admittedly in this category seem who lack the skills and experienced leaders with a larger tech or analysis pipeline background have.
It does take patience to build these systems but also skills.
Uconn this is where your question comes in, Abrams is supposedly a big leader of these efforts but he's also been a leader as they were falling behind. That's an important part of this. Other teams have people leading these efforts that demonstrate a new and/or different level of commitment to these causes.
What about Matt Manocherian ?
Or Aaron Schatz, founder of football outsiders? You think they have some personal axe to grind with the Giants here? Why would they? Aren't the Giants embracing analytics? What would analytics professionals have against them?
A quote from Schatz
From a game theory perspective the LW trade was illogical it goes against what DG even said about the importance of building through the draft. Either the Giants didn't use math at all to support this trade or what they were using is seemingly different from all the other math oriented analysis of team building.
For the quote source - ( New Window )
NoGainDayne : 1:29 pm : link : reply
when it comes to advanced analytics or technology. I doubt your sources do either. You suggested that a guy in Buffalo with an IT background was a good person to lead an analysis effort as well
I said that Gettleman implemented the analytics department in Carolina and that his protege, Brandon Beane did the same in Buffalo. Full stop.
I think you then dug in to say what Buffalo was doing was poor.
And that's the rub here and the continual theme. You keep trying to say what other teams are doing and how well they are doing it, but you don't seemingly have a clue what the teams are doing or what the skills are of people leading the efforts.
I'll say it again - and it will be ignored again. Tyseer Siam has a very good reputation among his peers and is looked at as an example of a guy putting in place an excellent system.
Quote:
which is what this thread used to be about. Why the need to derail every single Giants thread into complaining about their analytics?
Just make an analytics thread so the rest of us can talk about different topics.
Well, the article posted above indicates that along with Siam, Abrams will be leading the pro-analytics charge for NYG. And the thread is about Abrams, so.
Ohh well in that case we might as well just brace for ever single thing being about analytics then, all other topics be damned.
I'm fine discussing it but being lectured about it incessantly isn't enlightening or entertaining. I'll bow out of this one.
You just keep making my point. Mara, DG, their evaluation on if the Giants are doing an effective job in this category are not the same as people who have made a career doing this like the founder of football outsiders, my source. That's here and clear as day.
You love to trump up your information and keep it in the shadows and I've seen you called out for it before. But that doesn't matter. Why should your hearsay matter more than word of experts in the field of football analytics being confused by what the Giants are doing?
You just keep making my point. Mara, DG, their evaluation on if the Giants are doing an effective job in this category are not the same as people who have made a career doing this like the founder of football outsiders, my source. That's here and clear as day.
You love to trump up your information and keep it in the shadows and I've seen you called out for it before. But that doesn't matter. Why should your hearsay matter more than word of experts in the field of football analytics being confused by what the Giants are doing?
Wait - did you just say I "trump" up information? I entered this shitstorm about analytics to clear up one comment you made - that Gettleman didn't implement analytics in Carolina. I proved that wrong so you pivoted to say he was doing a terrible job at it in New York!
There are several people on this board who know where I'm getting information from and the way I'm still able to have communication with those sources is because I don't share it here sourced. I share it where I know it won't be compromised. My "hearsay" is coming from a guy you've referenced many times prior. Which makes these discussions even that more ironic.
Quote:
In comment 14910818 christian said:
Quote:
In comment 14910680 Bill2 said:
Quote:
I think all the mistakes of the past decade are most attributable to one person - John Mara.
I think all the positives not yet played out or proven out are most attributable to one man- John Mara.
In this distant hypothetical; I'm the CEO and directly make the decision on hiring the division Sr. VP.
The last 3 hires had spent time as the direct subordinate to the position. Two of the last three have been fired for cause.
The division of the company has failed to meet it's number in 7 of the 8 last years. An approach that used to work well, is not working now.
Maybe practical assessments I might make:
- there are deeper issues than who fills this SVP seat
- how/who I fill this role is not producing the results I desire
- I might want to rethink following my old playbook with the help of someone independent
Accorsi was fired for cause? Neither Accorsi or Reese had any success?
I think you missed and added a few things.
- The hypothetical is if Gettleman is fired -- he and Reese would be the two fired for cause.
- Who said anything about Reese and Accorsi not having success?
- My observation was "An approach that used to work well, is not working now."
Yes, missed the part on it being DG getting fired.
If the first 2 hires had success, doesn't that mean the approach worked? Sticking with Reese too long was the problem, not hiring him in the first place.
Yup, i sure am complaining...
An analytics thread would work great for most of BBI (most of us would ignore it) but it would be terrible for those that need their ego stroked. If you find these dissertations thought provoking then by all means, enjoy yourself. But most of us find that its repetitive and meant to demean anyone else's opinion which is why it becomes tiresome.
I need to remind you that your whole point was that I didn't know enough to know that the Giants didn't have the right people to modernize and I gave you everything I had because you demanded that and more.
I turned out to be right when the team admitted they made mistakes in this area and have started to try to change their processes in a bigger way. How can you act like I was off base or jumping to conclusions?
It's you that's been in denial, then and now. Again, i'm doing what I can to get the team to take modernization more seriously. You? You are just on an ongoing basis trying to make a team of people who have done a horrible job look better and more competent. To what end?
You clearly have close connections with the team, congratulations. It shows. Maybe you could take a look at what an objective view of this looks like? And maybe the fact that they "do analytics" but can't demonstrate they understand many of the concepts other teams do that it means they aren't "doing analytics" well and maybe just maybe don't even understand what that means or what it takes.
I'm also on this ABRAMS thread saying that Abrams, you know the guy that you show is one of the leaders of this technology effort that saw us falling behind so much we had to make a public apology for it. Maybe we shouldn't be talking about this guy as the next guy in charge? As opposed to everything I hear which is that they want him to be that guy and what a good job he was doing.
After more than a year of watching, I think:
1) You are way to free with inference and speculation and unknowable conjecture fitting into an analysis to be an analyst or analytical or use analytical techniques. Period. Full Stop.
2) You are too argumentative and aggressive to be an effective thought partner for anyone
3) Too certain and not humble enough leaves me wary of any of your conclusions
4) I Know for sure that you don't know a fucking thing besides third hand incorrect inference of how the Giants, data analysis, analytics or model building vision, projects or plans or assignments work.
5)I Know for sure you don't know who is doing what and why inside the Giants front office but still post with certitude
6) I Know for sure you missed the core skill set and perspective of Siam and continue to be blind to it
7) I Know for sure you have no idea how many scheduled ( plus unscheduled) hours Judge, Graham, Garret and Pettit spend in meetings per day on analytical goals, designs and progress
8) From experience, a high percentage of people who speak of their analytical prowess ( which is easily found in the world, not a hard thing to acquire or a sign of any specialized intelligence) do so because they cant think or are unsure of themselves and because its an easy topic to baffle em with bullshit until you have to produce.
9) From my experience, no one who talks about their skills or accomplishments really has them or is really confident they have them. Its what insecure teenagers do.
None of this is a call out or an attack. I think you should engage in a deep check out. I think these obsessive outbursts ( which start, continue and end the exact same way on the same topic) may well be signs of very repetitive and very patterned inner needs.
For the same reason, I think BBU posters of compassion should treat these ( not NGD the person...just these obsessive millering spirals) not as a subject or a discussion, but as something he is working on or fallen into.
Remember, until someone tells you the children and Paul Bettany have always been the same age for many years...you don't know. And you only do your best work after the breakthrough of gratefulness to others
If I had close connections to the Giants, I would have been about as clear as Bill2 just was in reference to your ignorance.
My point on a lot of the analytics discussions is if I'm pretty close to certain teams and don't have a clear view of what they are doing, how can you be so assertive on what the Giants are doing. And contrary to your beliefs, the rest of the league does not look at the Giants as being doormats in this area.
I know that's a tough sell based on the recent performance of the team, but that's how it is.
Quote:
multiple threads going on at a time. You can move on and determine if you want to complain about the posters there too.
Yup, i sure am complaining...
An analytics thread would work great for most of BBI (most of us would ignore it) but it would be terrible for those that need their ego stroked. If you find these dissertations thought provoking then by all means, enjoy yourself. But most of us find that its repetitive and meant to demean anyone else's opinion which is why it becomes tiresome.
Yeah, i don't tend to read too many dissertations anywhere on the site either. I may miss some good thoughts here or there, but I'll risk it. :-)
Most threads can survive it I find though.
I used to think you were young and a missionary who might combine passion and a subject and do some good in the world. This has always been a big part of the way I live my life and my purpose, it's proven to be filled with many more difficulties than I anticipated but I personally am as hopeful as ever that I will do a great deal of good. Would you say you've done good for the world? At what age do you think you were really able to start moving the needle if so?
1) You are way to free with inference and speculation and unknowable conjecture fitting into an analysis to be an analyst or analytical or use analytical techniques. Period. Full Stop. You are 100% correct in this statement, I lead teams that build analytical structures and put forth new ideas for how systems should work. That requires a passion that can derail or lead me down paths I wouldn't prefer but there are always lessons and it's an area of personal growth I've worked on. I have built out systems with just my two hands before and that helps me really empathize with the needs of those who work with me but I also need to champion and fund our causes which clouds objectivity no doubt sometimes. My opinions are always malleable and people change my mind all the time but they do so with an ability to show me why I should have confidence in their approach not by poking holes in my thinking
2) You are too argumentative and aggressive to be an effective thought partner for anyone anyone that knows the in person me knows that what I care most about is space for all ideas to be evaluated and examined, it has felt that both on this board and perhaps a microcosm for the Giants people are prioritized over ideas. When they should both feel like extremely high priorities. I want the Giants to do well, and win, I care about the team a lot obviously. The idea was tossed out that I would relish if they continued to fall flat and that couldn't be further from the truth. It's frustrating though, I've heard you tell me the thing about not seeing the inflection point early in DGs tenure. I do think fan sentiment matters and you are a respected voice here, do you see how maybe the assurances by you that we had the right people in place to do this already contributed to the larger story of keeping us in less effective systems than other teams for longer? I'm not saying me or you or anyone was a big part of it but i'm looking for an honest assessment of what is helping or hurting here
3) Too certain and not humble enough leaves me wary of any of your conclusions I'll give you this completely. It may not be my strongest suit but it is something I view as important and the way I've communicated in this forum isn't the way anyone with an earnest desire to change the way things work should conduct themselves. Nothing I've done or really anyone has done should allow them to impugn work they haven't seen. Even if I was looking at the work my goal would be to be more understanding and curious about what can be learned than disrespectful of peoples best attempts to do well at their professions. Perhaps my most difficult work to do in this area still lies in the fact that it felt like people on this board and the Giants were being pompous about how on top of this they were and I felt as though I had license to behave in the same way but that isn't right and I can admit that.
4) I Know for sure that you don't know a fucking thing besides third hand incorrect inference of how the Giants, data analysis, analytics or model building vision, projects or plans or assignments work. I'd like to hopefully move back in a direction where we don't communicate in this way but I can empathize. I've always been fairly clear that what i'm commenting on are tangible things on the field or in team construction that look like they could be addressed with fairly easy to construct systems. Ones that you have to have the right kind of eyes to see and I by no means am the only one to look at the world like this but it isn't necessarily a common thing. Would they be that easy to build? I'll be the first to tell you some yes some hell no but I am confident that I know what kind of org structures work better for these things and the skills needed. The signs are that the Giants do not have that and it is frustrating to bear witness to this as the team is doing so bad. As an aside, just for the honest communication we are having, you say people that speak with such certainty shouldn't be taken seriously yet you speak with such certainty about what I know or don't, what gives with that?
5)I Know for sure you don't know who is doing what and why inside the Giants front office but still post with certitude I'm not sure who does what, not sure where that is coming from that I do know but I can clear that up for you, I make no claim to know what specifically goes on. I have picked up some things here and there with people absolutely in the know where it does seem like the tools that they were building did not incorporate concepts such as the capabilities of autoencoders of video and purely non linear equation based solutions where you could get around the lack of "explainability" by maximizing interactions with subject matter experts.
6) I Know for sure you missed the core skill set and perspective of Siam and continue to be blind to it I read what you said about the healthcare space, I took it in, I get it. It's not the thought structuring of the systems that I'm failing to fathom. Ernie Adams built his own investment firm prior to taking his position with the Pats he had started his own investment firm. I never intended to talk about Siam when this started, had I looked at him yes, absolutely. Is it possible anyone can build advanced analytical systems? Yeah, I wouldn't rule out anyone's background categorically, however, even with the right knowledge base it's hard to lead teams to succeed, it's even harder when it looks like the people above you don't take innovation seriously and sometimes you need someone that is less green professionally to see that through. He has held the position too and it didn't feel like we were really excelling in that area and to me the first thing i'd look at if that was the case would be is the mathematical sophistication there? Is the system architecture complex enough to do the job yet simple enough to interact with? Of course Siam could be doing a great job, there just wasn't much evidence of that and there still isn't and some glaring holes in the organization and it's structure on paper and while not always true that would seem like a fairly simple candidate for occam's razor
7) I Know for sure you have no idea how many scheduled ( plus unscheduled) hours Judge, Graham, Garret and Pettit spend in meetings per day on analytical goals, designs and progress It's fine that you'd like to point this out to me but I think many of us would have liked to see this commitment years ago and like you have your patterns of skepticism I have mine too. My degree of comfort is much higher when someone appears to embrace something before they have to acknowledge they missed the boat and made mistakes on it not just when performance has been so bad they are forced to change. Lynch came in a man on a mission to modernize the 49ers and DG is still doubling down on old ways of thinking calling Saquon an outlier, doubling down on that pick being right. Do you think the way things have played out it shows growth in admitting that you understand new ways of thinking like positional value to reinforce that choice even with the benefit of hindsight?
8) From experience, a high percentage of people who speak of their analytical prowess ( which is easily found in the world, not a hard thing to acquire or a sign of any specialized intelligence) do so because they cant think or are unsure of themselves and because its an easy topic to baffle em with bullshit until you have to produce.I'll be the first to tell you that nobody knows anything really and that computers are even dumber than people. One thing that I've looked at a lot, in myself, in organizations is how much they foster innovation. Frequently success in analysis is about the flexibility, scope and malleability of a system. You learn with the machines, you encode your intelligence with theirs, you build, you improve, you communicate with the people leveraging the information. It's hard to believe a corporate culture so focused on being insular and confident in their way of thinking that their GM could declare themselves an arbiter of what humans are good and bad could also foster innovation. There is no right way to analyze information but there are definitely best practices to foster innovation and there is plenty of smoke that the Giants have not moved in the same way that many organizations inside and outside of football have in these areas
9) From my experience, no one who talks about their skills or accomplishments really has them or is really confident they have them. Its what insecure teenagers do. We had an interaction when I was younger where I asked you how you managed to stay calm in the face of charged emotional conversations and you essentially said I do my best but not always. I don't think anyone has been their best in these debates it's a hard time, it's hard to watch things you care about not doing their best. The only thing I've ever claimed to have is experience in this field. I said I built systems, I've never said they are better or worse than other peoples systems or I have answers that others don't. I think the idea that you think I am in analysis still lends to that, I haven't really talked about my skills just contextualized the perspectives I shared as well as possible under heavy fire. My goal was to shine a light on this and when you shine that light and there seems to be an overemphasis on everything being done the right way even facing personal attacks what it tends to mean that the problem is larger not smaller.
None of this is a call out or an attack. I think you should engage in a deep check out. I think these obsessive outbursts ( which start, continue and end the exact same way on the same topic) may well be signs of very repetitive and very patterned inner needs.Well this Abrams thing, the Baker thing, I can tell you is very rooted in the fact that I see people trying to act like preventable problems can't be prevented and there seems to be a constant effort to distance decision makers especially certain ones for the problems of this team. For the life of me I can't understand the process by which Shurmur with the most dead money in the league and in addition to that assets like RB having considerably as well as two highly invested in QBs could be the one blamed for this and fired with DG keeping his job as one glaring example of this ongoing targeted scapegoating we've seen. I'd love to feel like I had a way to simply connect the dots in the way I see them without being attacked. I think I made a fairly logical case for the way psychological profiling could be organized, computerized and built into a draft value board yet some still spoke to me as if I was spouting off random conspiracy jargon
For the same reason, I think BBU posters of compassion should treat these ( not NGD the person...just these obsessive millering spirals) not as a subject or a discussion, but as something he is working on or fallen into. I'll own that it is hard to look around the world today, to feel like our systems and structures leave people behind and no one is doing enough about it, nobody seems to care. This is a little slice of something that I feel I can do something about, that I do have an outlet for that could perhaps make a difference. If we could find a way to have more respect for each others perspectives i'd like that. Part of what I react to is the fact that I think many voices that could add value to a substantive debate on this have been driven off. But to that end, McL is a smart guy that I have communicated with that doesn't have patience for this stuff anymore, GoTerps is another. Maybe the level of venom by one person in particular but others as well towards those not supporting the team has just as much to do with it as the personalities of those reacting? McL is absolutely another guy that like me doesn't walk into a room bragging about themselves but many details about his career were also put out there. It felt a bit like my competence and professional experience were on trial the second I spoke out about potential problems with internal modernization efforts for the Giants. I hope to this affect you can see that I would like the tone to change and hope this can be a step in the right direction there
I said the new people asking for more and better analysis were demanding and persistent in the right way. Imho, line execs asking for the right information make much faster progress than technicals advocating
.
Judge does scheduled meetings with Siam six days a week on improvement management of initiatives alone and seven days a week in season. Then there is scheduled output per day to coaches and coordinator and scouts.
All thats new....as one example.
Until the objectives are screwed in then personnel evaluation don't have a basis for good actions.
The NFL office has a senior person ( old friend) who compares these initiatives cross league. He is not a Giants fan. He puts them above average on many things in this arena and moving fast.
I did a lot of work with the Packers and 49s a few years ago and continued contact tells me they are a ahead in a few areas but not overall
S IN NE, its the HC usage and interest that is a suction for progress and utility.
I really don't want to talk about what the Giants do...thats their business.
But I do think if people knew they would be pleased at the rapid progress and attention being paid by the revived coaching scouting and Fo combination. Perfect? Not at all. Finished? Not at all.
But far far from the deserved critique of two years ago. That should be recognized. We should talk reality here. Too many unknowns to add speculation when we don't need to.
Massive response, demand and interest by the new guys is driving significant projects, improvement, work intensity. That's the point.
Lets debate something else
But it's not....so it's all " Four Legs Good and Two Legs Bad"
I have nothing but good wishes for you.
I would never have started talking to you if I didn't see a diamond in their somewhere.
I dont argue with people who aren't worth it
Eight years of bad results are enough to prove the latter true IMV.
New, young coach, from a winning shop and winning culture, where the owner has a stake in an analytics shop. Shouldn't be a surprise where the appetite and momentum for changes is coming from. Judge looks like a promising hire.
1) I don't think Mara learned ( and it is a slowly learned CEO feel) when to intervene and what indicators to look for or the opposite...when to leave things alone. But finally he did act effectively ( regardless of how it turns out)
2) The pickers didn't know how to pick or how to work with others ( coaches in a modern, informed, constant cross checking talent acquisition process. I am speaking of the scouts, Ross and Reese. Nor did the previous coached s know how to dig in and do their homework.
3) Eli transition was always going to be fraught with risk/overpays and underpays. Most franchise QB transitions are. ( do we know how long NE will take to get back to franchise QB play and how many mistakes they will make a long the way???). Usually, a high tight cap situation is part of this transition process/timeline. US fans who watch the nfl should have known to expect that in 2005.
4) In transitions, risk in hope of reward calculations go up in response to get out of unfamiliar losing and inability to correctly detect the uneven erosion of aging QB's ( true since Sammy Baugh and Otto Graham). Some expensive gambles are the consequence. True since Tuffy Lemmons. Sorry, every NFl fan should realize this has been a trend for almost all franchises.
Entertainment industries are very conservative nostalgia based decision makers ( within new wrappings). Evidence is everywhere. Disney kids trying to age past their expiration date. Singers and bands as well. The percentage of re-makes and comic based remakes ( "hey the bozo's know the characters from their grandparents...we are halfway home")
Lets get one more year out of Manning, Brady, Farve, Montana, etc, etc, etc, etc,
Its baked into the entertainment we choose. Conservative decision making with the familiar. Get used to it.
But for me, there is too much data in the last 4 months that says we should ramp back on old true truisms and have doubt we really know how things will turn out ( unfortunately this year will be a aberrant thing to observe and get good conclusions from).
Right now is the hardest part...not knowing. Its harder for most than analyzing why the losing and has no easy targets to lash out at. Very unsatisfying.
You like the girl, but you want more. But don't want to lose her if even a little changes. This is exactly when people make really bad choices and ruin good things.
imo
Inflection points in that kind of investing are qualitative changes that could and should lead to changes in the results 2 years down the road and last 5 to 7 years.
Often they are changes to how decisions are made.
Let us see. Can't be worst than trawling the bottom
Manning should have been a tick easier to cut. That might be your all time Mt. Rushmore of QBs and your next runner up.
The primary difference IMV is Mara's sentimentality. I get it. The Pack, Pats, 9ers, Colts owners weren't shedding tears about their dad's relationship with the QB. It was different for Mara and Eli Manning. But better QBs with equal or more pelts got nipped at the end.
Like in the article I shared I wonder how his presence will mesh with all these new ideas and structures in a larger way. Even if Mara is gung ho on Judge politically they could very well be setting up for an old school vs. new school internal battle. Especially in light of how much these systems need to fail before they can succeed you aren’t doing your first year, first time, head coach any favors by including a presence that has been combative, volatile and resistant to adapt this in the first place. I think that’s really where despite this optimism with lots of smoke towards change it is hard to see the logic in this in some ways given the failure rate of BBs disciples to me that very much points to the fact that the Pats systems support could be as much reason for their success as BB himself. (This being said, given the learning systems and people they have in place BBs huge football brain and what their systems can do to encode and leverage that are no doubt interchangeable)
And that combined with what feels like a slimming number of voices who want to balance out what can feel like too much optimism is what perhaps has left me more in the skeptic’s camp. The Giants can feel a lot like they talk out of both sides of the mouth. Like we want to end this losing and take it seriously but the scope at which we look at and apply accountability can be limited. I would say those two things in tandem are not the best recipe for success. The way the media was used to pin everything on Shurmur towards the end of the year does seem like a bit of a hit job to me given the lack of system support he had vs. other teams, the huge amount of dead money as well as what look to be misallocated resources to boot. I get moving on and don’t think it was wrong to fire Shurmur but the pattern of scapegoating and things like DG implying he’s joking or messing with fans, it feels very off kilter to me. I think that’s where it felt disconcerting to me and others to hear all the Abrams chatter, it’s hard to not look at the Giants accountability systems over the last 10 years and not come to the conclusion that there are serious flaws. And a sense of humor is great in times of success, but I don’t understand why you’d poke fun and your fans and the media in a very difficult time for the fanbase. I a time when a lot of people like my family with tickets say it is not worth it to show up for a team that does not show up for us.
Joe Judge and his take no prisoners attitude I am very excited for, there is definitely evidence that if Judge doesn’t like the way things are working top to bottom action will be taken. The other place I’ve stepped in this offseason was when it seemed like Judge was being treated as some kind of savior, which he absolutely could be, I don’t think we should be anything but optimistic about that. However, even the most intelligent and capable people can be asked to do too much, and they are putting a gargantuan amount of responsibility on Judge.
Just as a thought exercise right now would you be long the Giants? Straddle? Or long just a long hedged position? I would guess the 3rd but thought it would be interesting to stick with your investment analogy
Let me answer that after I sell some put spreads on the NY Football Giants
Next I never knew an entertainment executive that was not an absolute chameleon externally and internally ( and often an internal komodo dragon depending on "what have you done lately "). Nature of what motivates people in transient career arcs and amidst tons of media and agent static).
Idont think thats a top five factor to look at and more than Analytics is a top five driver of better if you suck).
Lastly, I think the search for negatives is a self reinforcing feedback loop thats speculation and obsession and not really analysis or opinion.
If your cousin was your mother would life be different? ( not a fruitful topic to circle on and certainly not one we would call analysis or thinking....more like ambient ànxiety alighting like a hummingbird on one brànch or another.
I dont know about you but I don't engage with ex sailors who insist if the USS New Jersey ever snuck up close enough to the UJN Yamato it would sink her. Never did happen and I try to use brain cells for the real world in front of me so I don't get uselessly distracted.
Helpful discipline when others depend on real world analysis not ambient noise.
None of us have to be right. That would be an accident and correlation for we do nothing for the team.
They just have to get better. And that would be their causality not ours
Next I never knew an entertainment executive that was not an absolute chameleon externally and internally ( and often an internal komodo dragon depending on "what have you done lately "). Nature of what motivates people in transient career arcs and amidst tons of media and agent static).
I dont think thats a top five factor to look at and more than Analytics is a top five driver of better if you suck).
Lastly, I think the search for negatives is a self reinforcing feedback loop thats speculation and obsession and not really analysis or opinion.
If your cousin was your mother would life be different? ( not a fruitful topic to circle on and certainly not one we would call analysis or thinking....more like ambient ànxiety alighting like a hummingbird on one brànch or another.
I dont know about you but I don't engage with ex sailors who insist if the USS New Jersey ever snuck up close enough to the UJN Yamato it would sink her. Never did happen and I try to use brain cells for the real world in front of me so I don't get uselessly distracted.
Helpful discipline when others depend on real world analysis not ambient noise.
None of us have to be right. That would be an accident and correlation for we do nothing for the team.
They just have to get better. And that would be their causality not ours
Very common MO in that industry. I dont pay much attention to that frick and frack
I think about the New York Yankees and what they have done with the same market the Giants inhabit. I think you saw the pitfalls of a quick trigger finger with George Steinbrenner so I certainly wouldn't say that's the best way to be but generally I don't think an attitude of saying this is the standard is a very good way to stack wins or a competitive advantage.
No doubt the Yanks leverage the New York talent pool to be the analytical behemoths that are and the Pats with MIT, Sloan are certainly using the mathmatical advantages of their geography in every way possible. Sean Harrington was a Sloan presenter.
Now I can't say I watch press conferences for other teams very much but DG stands out in a negative way in the media in a way i'm not sure any other GMs do. Even if his attitude is a common one which I think is a fair point, he seems to stand out as the most liberal applier of that attitude which i'm not sure you want unless it is also accompanied by success.
What's the common thread in that? Id start with the idea that your head goes to a swirl of high nervous critique.
I know the content says different words but the pattern is pure Holly GO Lightly.
"The only thing that annoys me is negative poopy people and they come from all kinds of places."
"Mean reds are just horrible. You're afraid and you sweat like hell, but you don't know what you're afraid of. Except something bad is going to happen, only you don't know what it is.
"You mustn’t give your heart to a wild thing. what if the more you do, the stronger they get, until they’re strong enough to run into the woods or fly into a tree. And then to a higher tree and then to the sky. What then"?
"Of course, personally, I think it'd be tacky to wear diamonds before I'm forty."
And of course:
" the blues are because you're getting fat or because it's been raining too long. You're just sad, that's all. And the mean reds might be coming. Suddenly you're afraid and you don't know what you're afraid of. Do you ever get that feeling?
Well, when I get it the only thing that does any good is to jump in a cab and go to Tiffany's. Calms me down right away"
you are not enjoying yourself. and you are spinning worry and anxiety and negativity. Watch out for that. At least wait for the season to give observations not just speculation to start the spirals off.
All the best
1) I don't think Mara learned ( and it is a slowly learned CEO feel) when to intervene and what indicators to look for or the opposite...when to leave things alone. But finally he did act effectively ( regardless of how it turns out)
2) The pickers didn't know how to pick or how to work with others ( coaches in a modern, informed, constant cross checking talent acquisition process. I am speaking of the scouts, Ross and Reese. Nor did the previous coached s know how to dig in and do their homework.
3) Eli transition was always going to be fraught with risk/overpays and underpays. Most franchise QB transitions are. ( do we know how long NE will take to get back to franchise QB play and how many mistakes they will make a long the way???). Usually, a high tight cap situation is part of this transition process/timeline. US fans who watch the nfl should have known to expect that in 2005.
4) In transitions, risk in hope of reward calculations go up in response to get out of unfamiliar losing and inability to correctly detect the uneven erosion of aging QB's ( true since Sammy Baugh and Otto Graham). Some expensive gambles are the consequence. True since Tuffy Lemmons. Sorry, every NFl fan should realize this has been a trend for almost all franchises.
Entertainment industries are very conservative nostalgia based decision makers ( within new wrappings). Evidence is everywhere. Disney kids trying to age past their expiration date. Singers and bands as well. The percentage of re-makes and comic based remakes ( "hey the bozo's know the characters from their grandparents...we are halfway home")
Lets get one more year out of Manning, Brady, Farve, Montana, etc, etc, etc, etc,
Its baked into the entertainment we choose. Conservative decision making with the familiar. Get used to it.
But for me, there is too much data in the last 4 months that says we should ramp back on old true truisms and have doubt we really know how things will turn out ( unfortunately this year will be a aberrant thing to observe and get good conclusions from).
Right now is the hardest part...not knowing. Its harder for most than analyzing why the losing and has no easy targets to lash out at. Very unsatisfying.
You like the girl, but you want more. But don't want to lose her if even a little changes. This is exactly when people make really bad choices and ruin good things.
imo
late to the party but excellent post. The buck stops with Mara as the ultimate decision maker and he made a lot of mistakes, but I'd also add 1 other factor into this - they got some good old fashioned bad luck which in part made his decisions trickier. Steve Smith was drafted in the famed 07 draft class and 2010 was his last productive year in the NFL. Kenny Phillips/Terrell Thomas (08), Hakeem Nicks/Beatty (09), JPP (10) were all top draft picks who each played roles in a SB team and whose careers were derailed by injuries (Cruz was a UDFA but another). In the context of judging a GM's performance it's hard to evaluate those as anything other than excellent additions even though the production on the field regressed quickly.
Certainly doesn't at all absolve the other mistakes you referenced but didn't help either. I thought Reese/Ross should have been fired years before they were but even I can admit they had good picks that hit bad luck which made evaluating them harder.
I don't think the positive case is that complex or hard to make.
- Judge has the right demeanor for the position and knowledge of best practices
- Judge seems to have buy in from the top to suggest and implement changes within the organization to get there
- Mara turned up the heat in the press, in addition to the existing firings it is sending the right message about needing to be part of progress and the future
- Chances look good that we have a difference maker at QB and a perennial winner if he can clean up those mistakes
I say this to make no bones about the fact that I have no problem to look at the positives of the team. But there hasn't been any shortage of those points on BBI.
I would say that there is far less screen time for the potential mistakes of even the reformed org structure for the team. Especially given the admission of mistakes in this area it would seem like this is a good forum to discuss all sides. I would think it fair for people on both the "positive" or "negative" end of these debates to want to balance out a debate without being one way or another. And much to your point on the wait and see a lot of people acting like we've already accomplished a lot before we've stepped onto the field.
I've been called too optimistic on many occasions, I wouldn't even sit here and tell you that the potential problems I laid our are any more likely than the opposite occurring. I'd have no problem being on the other side of this debate if the positive case were not laid out. I wouldn't say this makes me anxious, I would say I have a passion for a balanced and complete examination of the available information.
On some additional reflection on this I do feel as though it's easier behind internet anonymity to let go of the vigilance I've created towards the style and form of my communication in other mediums. But if respect is paid to parties on both sides of an issue it's hard to see what's wrong with a desire to explore a circumstance in totality