In the past few years I have noticed how incredibly sensitive the team, particularly on social media, is of any fan criticism
We've seen the head of PR get into arguments with fans. I remember in 2021 Hanlon got into it with someone about either Gettleman or Kevin Abrams if my memory serves me
The worse offender is Bob Papa, who clearly reads BBI, which he condescendingly refers to as a "chat room." They do not like it when people don't bend the knee to the "Giants way" and don't go in line with whatever narrative they are trying to push. They are either too stubborn to see how bad the product is or are delusional as to the current state of affairs. If you look at Papas twitter replies it's filled with condescending spats with fans who are critical of the product
Are other professional sports teams like this? For as much as they want to talk about how classy the franchise is, patronizing the paying customers seems like an odd strategy
Quote:
...has given a big voice to small minds.
To be fair, Papa's small mind had a voice before Social Media.
Not sure that I agree with that point. This crap is a two way street. And the traffic flow is a lot more from ourside.
Papa would have been better served ignoring the chatter, true. Hanlon would have been better served a few years back, also. A lot of the good things he did were wiped away in that fit of rage. Both came off as pompous boors. There was nothing to be gained throwing down on the "chat room" crowd.(makes me crack up) The guy that somehow escaped the backlash was Eli. God love him, but his refusal to play in that game was bush league and a tantrum. I agree with you that John went overboard canning McAdoo and Reese, but I always regarded Eli's action as the one that caused the problem and fan revulsion.
However sitting here day to day reading some of the crap that is posted(and you have had tiffs with numbskulls yourself) causes some of the good posters to leave, some for the season and a few for good. In farness it isn't just here. This place is pretty sedate compared to a few I look at from time to time - freakin X(Twitter) is just vicious.
I don't mind a good back and forth. But some of the pure trash and vitriol(more than infrequently) is enough to make me wonder why I open some threads or engage (guess I'm not too smart). There is a point were both sides a wrong and need to walk away before the bridges are burned.
Didn't mean to bore you. Anywho, not looking to pick a fight with anyone. Just an observation and an opinion.
None-of them try to defend the product on the field
When the radio guy is scolding fans and claiming insider knowledge, he's no better than the speculating fans. When he uses lies and omissions (like not mentioning a GM and HC getting fired for the way they handled a QB situation that the owner had approved - or that the owner had approval authority for a lineup change in the first place), he's worse than the speculating fans, because at least the fans are trying to be honest even if they're wrong.
As for Bob's credibility or knowledge on the topic itself, no serious professional organization is sharing their personnel strategy or even the meeting calendar itself with the fucking radio guy. So again, no better than a speculating fan. Just a different biased viewpoint, defending the guy who signs his checks (shocker!).
But some fans lap it up as though it's genuine insider info, so it continues.
Because the Giants are one of the things that my father imprinted upon me from birth. Just because he's gone, doesn't mean the imprint is.
I have just as much birthright to the Giants as any Mara. Just less ownership.
Quote:
...has given a big voice to small minds.
this totally sums up the problem and why there is so much scorn for such
Do you not think BBI is a micro-version of any other social media site?
Not sure that I agree with that point. This crap is a two way street. And the traffic flow is a lot more from ourside.
1) I only trimmed down your response for the sake of keeping the thread tidy 2) A lot of great notes in there that I will think more about.
I've had a number of professional experiences where the ignorant, naive, brilliant, and brutal public have weighed in on the job my coworkers and I did. It's not easy to read or keep quiet. But it's your job as a pro to do so.
The old workshop approach of WAIT (Why am I talking) is a good tool to pull out before posting on social media on behalf of your employer.
Quote:
To be fair, Papa's small mind had a voice before Social Media.
Not sure that I agree with that point. This crap is a two way street. And the traffic flow is a lot more from ourside.
1) I only trimmed down your response for the sake of keeping the thread tidy 2) A lot of great notes in there that I will think more about.
I've had a number of professional experiences where the ignorant, naive, brilliant, and brutal public have weighed in on the job my coworkers and I did. It's not easy to read or keep quiet. But it's your job as a pro to do so.
The old workshop approach of WAIT (Why am I talking) is a good tool to pull out before posting on social media on behalf of your employer.
I always trim down to try an keep it tidy - I applaud that simple technique and wish others would do the same.
Totally agree with paragraphs 2 & 3. Whenever I had to reply to a stupid request/email from my boss, I would write it, keep it in drafts and re-read both(his and mine) in the morning. Amazing what waiting for unemotional response can do and how stupid I "sounded" the night before.
Even here, I try to re-read to see if I come off as a boob. Sometimes I still do.
Quote:
Understands what is valid criticism and what is nonsense, and there is plenty of that here. Fans stating speculation as fact and creating conclusions based on false hood.
None-of them try to defend the product on the field
When the radio guy is scolding fans and claiming insider knowledge, he's no better than the speculating fans. When he uses lies and omissions (like not mentioning a GM and HC getting fired for the way they handled a QB situation that the owner had approved - or that the owner had approval authority for a lineup change in the first place), he's worse than the speculating fans, because at least the fans are trying to be honest even if they're wrong.
As for Bob's credibility or knowledge on the topic itself, no serious professional organization is sharing their personnel strategy or even the meeting calendar itself with the fucking radio guy. So again, no better than a speculating fan. Just a different biased viewpoint, defending the guy who signs his checks (shocker!).
But some fans lap it up as though it's genuine insider info, so it continues.
I disagree that someone in Papa s position doesn t have credible information we fans are not privy to. I m surprised that s your take
Quote:
In comment 16297957 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Understands what is valid criticism and what is nonsense, and there is plenty of that here. Fans stating speculation as fact and creating conclusions based on false hood.
None-of them try to defend the product on the field
When the radio guy is scolding fans and claiming insider knowledge, he's no better than the speculating fans. When he uses lies and omissions (like not mentioning a GM and HC getting fired for the way they handled a QB situation that the owner had approved - or that the owner had approval authority for a lineup change in the first place), he's worse than the speculating fans, because at least the fans are trying to be honest even if they're wrong.
As for Bob's credibility or knowledge on the topic itself, no serious professional organization is sharing their personnel strategy or even the meeting calendar itself with the fucking radio guy. So again, no better than a speculating fan. Just a different biased viewpoint, defending the guy who signs his checks (shocker!).
But some fans lap it up as though it's genuine insider info, so it continues.
I disagree that someone in Papa s position doesn t have credible information we fans are not privy to. I m surprised that s your take
We can agree to disagree on that, but how do you reconcile Papa explicitly claiming that Mara doesn't meddle with player personnel when we know (and Mara himself has confirmed) that Mara was directly involved in the Eli fiasco in 2017, both before and after it occurred?
Papa is either mistaken or he's actively gaslighting fans.
Quote:
In comment 16298530 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16297957 joeinpa said:
Quote:
Understands what is valid criticism and what is nonsense, and there is plenty of that here. Fans stating speculation as fact and creating conclusions based on false hood.
None-of them try to defend the product on the field
When the radio guy is scolding fans and claiming insider knowledge, he's no better than the speculating fans. When he uses lies and omissions (like not mentioning a GM and HC getting fired for the way they handled a QB situation that the owner had approved - or that the owner had approval authority for a lineup change in the first place), he's worse than the speculating fans, because at least the fans are trying to be honest even if they're wrong.
As for Bob's credibility or knowledge on the topic itself, no serious professional organization is sharing their personnel strategy or even the meeting calendar itself with the fucking radio guy. So again, no better than a speculating fan. Just a different biased viewpoint, defending the guy who signs his checks (shocker!).
But some fans lap it up as though it's genuine insider info, so it continues.
I disagree that someone in Papa s position doesn t have credible information we fans are not privy to. I m surprised that s your take
We can agree to disagree on that, but how do you reconcile Papa explicitly claiming that Mara doesn't meddle with player personnel when we know (and Mara himself has confirmed) that Mara was directly involved in the Eli fiasco in 2017, both before and after it occurred?
Papa is either mistaken or he's actively gaslighting fans.
I think the Eli situation was not indicative of normal operations and I never heard Papa deny anything regarding that particular scenario.
I think Papa s recent stance is specific to what he has been reading about the team drafting a quarterback and Mara s possible interference in that process
That is the impression I took from his podcast
I think Papa s recent stance is specific to what he has been reading about the team drafting a quarterback and Mara s possible interference in that process
That is the impression I took from his podcast
I think people are inclined to believe what they want to believe, and that applies to both of us as well.
But I'm not buying that he just skipped the Eli situation because it was an anomaly, when he went back as far as Wellington not blocking Young from releasing Simms and Bavaro. He was spanning 30 years and somehow skipped right over a blatant example of ownership involvement (leaving aside the semantics of defining when "involvement" becomes "meddling") and a very clear directive by Mara's own actions of what he was expecting his next GM and HC to do at the QB position.
And I'm not talking about the podcast. I'm talking about the Twitter rant. That's where Papa was trying to make himself out to be more informed than a fan about a topic that he would have absolutely no more insight on than a fan would. And if he does have more inside info, then skipping over the 2017 Eli fiasco was intentional.
Papa appears to be following the Michael Kay playbook of state-sponsored media. Not a good look. Maybe he should jump into the "chat rooms" and learn us all a thing or two.
When your team was 2-9 with a HC who had lost the team I don't think he is entitled to make a decision like that with Eli. Mara certainly seems to have been involved and he danced around the issue a bit.
It would have been very awkward to keep Reese around and let's not act like he had not already been throwing plenty of people under the bus including imv our future HOF HC and very accomplished OC. Certainly not something that people should be crying over.
When your team was 2-9 with a HC who had lost the team I don't think he is entitled to make a decision like that with Eli. Mara certainly seems to have been involved and he danced around the issue a bit.
It would have been very awkward to keep Reese around and let's not act like he had not already been throwing plenty of people under the bus including imv our future HOF HC and very accomplished OC. Certainly not something that people should be crying over.
To be clear, I'm not trying to defend McAdoo or Reese. Just pointing out that Papa's suggestion that John Mara doesn't involve himself in player personnel is untrue. Not only was Mara involved before McAdoo ever went to Eli with the silly plan that McAdoo/Reese/Mara collaboratively hatched (and admitted as much), but then his punitive firing of Reese and McAdoo as a pound of flesh offering to an angry mob of fans also made clear the expectations that Mara had for whomever he hired to replace Reese and McAdoo (which of course wound up being Gettleman and Shurmur).
I agree that Reese deserved to be fired, right alongside Coughlin. And I have no problem with McAdoo being shown the door as well. But the timing of it suggested that they were fired entirely for their roles in the Eli fiasco, which also meant that Gettleman and Shurmur had to have understood when they walked in the door that even the consideration of benching Eli was a fireable offense. That seems pretty clearly to be an example of the owner dictating the most important cog of the starting lineup. Why should anyone believe that Mara wouldn't repeat that same behavior? Just because the radio guy says so?
Hard to see how Bob Papa can suggest that Mara is as hands off as he wanted to portray in his Twitter rant, IMO.
Spot on GD. This isn't an ambiguous situation where we have to guess what happened. Here are the selects from Mara:
On his involvement in instigating benching Manning:
On whether he knew the plan before it was communicated to Manning:
On what he hoped would happen:
On how Manning's crying changed his position:
On why Eli was his favorite:
This 100%. It was A LOT rougher back then. I did not participate; but the newbs around here would be shocked at some of the back and forth that took place back then. (And I miss that!)
On one hand, good on me for being able to tune out your specific brand of stupid for the last 14 years, because who are you again?
On the other, maybe I'm losing my fastball. Because this is some goodness I should have been tearing down for years.
The proof is that Mara came into the room fumbling his own balls and didn't have a clear sense of what he wanted from Reese, was too busy at the family croquet match to listen to Reese's plan, then got taken behind the shed by Manning in a fit of tears.
I can picture it so clearly. Manning with snot dripping out of his nose, and the shame of what Mara had done transforming him into a man of action.
What? Maybe write coherent English?
Quote:
And I am sure I come off as a boob plenty myself. One thing I've recently come to terms with is not everyone was around here 20 years ago. We all really ripped each other to shreds, and came back the next day with no hard feelings. I probably haven't evolved much from that time.
This 100%. It was A LOT rougher back then. I did not participate; but the newbs around here would be shocked at some of the back and forth that took place back then. (And I miss that!)
Yeah, bet you saw some real good arguments over 23 years of lurking and not participating.
It's mind blowing.
Mara intervenes, but has no real plan, and then fires a guy for executing a plan he had run by Mara.
And again for the avoidance of doubt, I wanted Reese fired after 2015, and certainly after 2017.
But not mid season, and not for the hurting Manning's feelings.
Even though facetious, I have no idea what you are saying here. Try again?
But there is obviously a line. I expect the owners to have conversations--at minimum--about franchise legends such as Eli. But I don't want them to reject drafting a replacement when the football people want to move on.
Absolutely. The owner should step in on big football issues. Hell, the owner has to fire the GM if he's underperforming.
But he has to step in with clear direction, and it'd be a bonus if he stepped in and made good decisions.
Although after getting booed at Eli's ceremony,who knows if he'll do that again.
Quote:
is that the thing Mara didn't want to happen, actually happened. Good shit! The plan that Reese and Macadoo "hatched" was implemented, in spite of it not being the owners preference. And not even Eli crying was enough to interject and demand that the plan be abandoned and Eli start. Cool story, brah. Maranoia indeed. opininion + supposition + theory = fact. good math.
On one hand, good on me for being able to tune out your specific brand of stupid for the last 14 years, because who are you again?
On the other, maybe I'm losing my fastball. Because this is some goodness I should have been tearing down for years.
The proof is that Mara came into the room fumbling his own balls and didn't have a clear sense of what he wanted from Reese, was too busy at the family croquet match to listen to Reese's plan, then got taken behind the shed by Manning in a fit of tears.
I can picture it so clearly. Manning with snot dripping out of his nose, and the shame of what Mara had done transforming him into a man of action.
Truth be told, it is I who have avoided you. There is little point in engaging with delusional know-it-alls.
again your fantasy entails Mara, not having a clear directive for the GM on handling a personel issue, leaving it to his discretion with perhaps (i am guessing, not declaring- note the difference... an overarching mandate to treat an icon with respect and don't embarass the franchise) and then being too involved in activities outside the building while leaving the GM to do his job. got it. It sounds like the opposite of meddling. You can create fiction, and i do believe that you believe the horseshit you conjure. that's what is sad.
Quote:
My issue with the claim that the owner doesn't interfere is that owners 100% should interfere. For example, I was very happy when Mara came out and said we were not trading for Deshaun Watson. I want owners to intervene in situations such as that. Frankly, Mara was to slow to react to Josh Brown's issues.
Absolutely. The owner should step in on big football issues. Hell, the owner has to fire the GM if he's underperforming.
But he has to step in with clear direction, and it'd be a bonus if he stepped in and made good decisions.
Right. The Papa post about no interference is just obviously false. Does Mara have clear lines of when he will speak up and when he will shut up?
My concern is that Mara makes a lot of suggestions behind closed doors about certain players.
I think the Gettleman hire was partially predicated on Mara's hope that Eli could be the starting QB.
again your fantasy entails Mara, not having a clear directive for the GM on handling a personel issue, leaving it to his discretion with perhaps (i am guessing, not declaring- note the difference... an overarching mandate to treat an icon with respect and don't embarass the franchise) and then being too involved in activities outside the building while leaving the GM to do his job. got it. It sounds like the opposite of meddling. You can create fiction, and i do believe that you believe the horseshit you conjure. that's what is sad.
I don't have to guess amigo.
I am basing my opinion on literally what John Mara said. He didn't have a clear sense of what he wanted. His plan for seeing what the other quarterbacks could do was hoping Manning played and stayed in the game.
I honestly don't care if the president of the team has an opinion on how to operate the team. I care that his opinions suck and don't make sense.
Quote:
Truth be told, it is I who have avoided you. There is little point in engaging with delusional know-it-alls.
again your fantasy entails Mara, not having a clear directive for the GM on handling a personel issue, leaving it to his discretion with perhaps (i am guessing, not declaring- note the difference... an overarching mandate to treat an icon with respect and don't embarass the franchise) and then being too involved in activities outside the building while leaving the GM to do his job. got it. It sounds like the opposite of meddling. You can create fiction, and i do believe that you believe the horseshit you conjure. that's what is sad.
I don't have to guess amigo.
I am basing my opinion on literally what John Mara said. He didn't have a clear sense of what he wanted. His plan for seeing what the other quarterbacks could do was hoping Manning played and stayed in the game.
Quote:
I was hoping he'd come in, he'd play, we'd be playing well, we'd have a chance to win the game and maybe he'd stay in there or something.
I honestly don't care if the president of the team has an opinion on how to operate the team. I care that his opinions suck and don't make sense.
So the thing he was hoping happened, did not happen. When it was certainly within his power to make it happen. quite the smoking gun.
again your fantasy entails Mara, not having a clear directive for the GM on handling a personel issue, leaving it to his discretion with perhaps (i am guessing, not declaring- note the difference... an overarching mandate to treat an icon with respect and don't embarass the franchise) and then being too involved in activities outside the building while leaving the GM to do his job. got it. It sounds like the opposite of meddling. You can create fiction, and i do believe that you believe the horseshit you conjure. that's what is sad.
I don't have to guess amigo.
I am basing my opinion on literally what John Mara said. He didn't have a clear sense of what he wanted. His plan for seeing what the other quarterbacks could do was hoping Manning played and stayed in the game.
I was hoping he'd come in, he'd play, we'd be playing well, we'd have a chance to win the game and maybe he'd stay in there or something.
I honestly don't care if the president of the team has an opinion on how to operate the team. I care that his opinions suck and don't make sense.
So the thing he was hoping happened, did not happen. When it was certainly within his power to make it happen. quite the smoking gun.
The plan he had to achieve the thing he was hoping to have happen was nonsensical.
Maybe you aren't actually reading.
Mara's plan to see how the other quarterbacks performed was hoping Manning played well and stayed in the game.
You don't seem capable of understanding my opinion on this. I don't care if Mara intercedes on football decisions. I care that his direction and opinions don't make any sense.
I fault him more for that than the Eli fiasco. The drafts were the root cause for most of the issues.
Next stop is the HOF for Eli and that unfortunate situation will be a distant memory soon enough.
Mara wanted it to happen. It was his fucking idea, dimwit. He even said that it was his idea in his explanation.
The problem that Mara had, however, was that he had just run out of people to fire by the time he got around to explaining the situation to an angry mob that was out for blood, and he couldn't fire the guy whose idea it was because that guy owns the team. So he repositioned his role as asking Reese to talk to McAdoo about seeing what they had in their other QBs (note that even Mara acknowledges that he wasn't even asking to see Webb in particular, just the other QBs), and then hoping that his own plan never came to fruition. And you bought that explanation as a reasonable one? If your kids tried to tell you that they wanted to see what was in the cookie jar but they were hoping it was empty, would you believe them?
Let me ask you something - does the bullshit taste a lot better when you convince yourself that they're feeding you the truth? Or are you just that naive that you actually believed it?
I fault him more for that than the Eli fiasco. The drafts were the root cause for most of the issues.
Next stop is the HOF for Eli and that unfortunate situation will be a distant memory soon enough.
I know this is something you clearly feel very strongly about, but do you honestly think that John Mara, the king of extended loyalty, would fire his GM 22 months after winning the second Super Bowl of his tenure?
With the benefit of hindsight you might feel like that was the inflection point (and we don't have to agree on that for me to accept that as your view), but if you're being reasonable, you'd admit that "after 2013" there was a 0% chance of Reese getting fired.
Your opinions is the Giants should have fired their GM after his first losing season -- two years removed from his second championship, and after having winning season in 5 of his first 6 years?
LOL of course it is.
Quote:
is that the thing Mara didn't want to happen, actually happened. Good shit! The plan that Reese and Macadoo "hatched" was implemented, in spite of it not being the owners preference. And not even Eli crying was enough to interject and demand that the plan be abandoned and Eli start. Cool story, brah. Maranoia indeed. opininion + supposition + theory = fact. good math.
Mara wanted it to happen. It was his fucking idea, dimwit. He even said that it was his idea in his explanation.
The problem that Mara had, however, was that he had just run out of people to fire by the time he got around to explaining the situation to an angry mob that was out for blood, and he couldn't fire the guy whose idea it was because that guy owns the team. So he repositioned his role as asking Reese to talk to McAdoo about seeing what they had in their other QBs (note that even Mara acknowledges that he wasn't even asking to see Webb in particular, just the other QBs), and then hoping that his own plan never came to fruition. And you bought that explanation as a reasonable one? If your kids tried to tell you that they wanted to see what was in the cookie jar but they were hoping it was empty, would you believe them?
Let me ask you something - does the bullshit taste a lot better when you convince yourself that they're feeding you the truth? Or are you just that naive that you actually believed it?
Dick rider to the rescue!
I'm skeptical about anything i see or read. The difference is I don't stuff the blank spaces full of my own half baked theories, rumors, conjecture, etc. I don't bend or create "facts" to support the conclusion I long for.
I accept there are things I don't know. So while some of the crackpot conspiricies I see are plausible, they don't fit the facts (this word is often misunderstood) that are currently availabe.
And if it were to be proven, I would accept that and go on with my life. That is the condition of the team. I can continue to be a fan/ customer or not. What I wouldn't do is cry like a bitch for years on end about things that are not in my control.
The fact that Jerry has not been hired again is pretty telling and this suggests that my opinion may have merit.
But it's an opinion.
I accept there are things I don't know.
These aren't blank spaces. It's Mara's own words. You are the one taking them to mean anything other than exactly what he said.
And acceptance is a good thing. Clearly you have plenty of practice on that front.
No one ever hired Coughlin or Gilbride to coach again either. Does that validate their terminations for you?
The bigger issue was forcing your offensive HC to change his system when the attention should have been to fixing the drafts.
All was good in the front office though with Ross being promoted a second time.
The bigger issue was forcing your offensive HC to change his system when the attention should have been to fixing the drafts.
All was good in the front office though with Ross being promoted a second time.
That's a fair point. Although I think there's also a possibility that Reese hasn't been throwing his hat in the ring for every open position, either. I do agree that it's odd that a former GM with two rings hasn't been a hot commodity. I also agree that he probably has more blemish than shine on his reputation at this point.
Your Ross observations may also be valid, but I think it's curious that you never seem to land on another significant front office promotion that happened in 2011, especially since it very closely aligns with the timing of the roster decline that you often point to.
The bigger issue was forcing your offensive HC to change his system when the attention should have been to fixing the drafts.
Forcing a change in the system improved the Giants from 28th league in 2013, to 13th and 6th in 14 and 15 respectively.
That was unequivocally the right move.
Reese stays out of the limelight and doesn't play the PR game which would no doubt help him get another job.
I think Reese is wildly disrespected and under appreciated on this board. Everyone loves to rip Marc Ross and lump him in with Reese, well why doesn't Reese get the credit for delivering excellent drafts when he had the role of Marc Ross with Accorsi? Seems to be some double standards there.
Good post
Sean, over the years you know I've been consistent about this opinion: general managing a team each year is a collosal task. Each year presents myriad decisions, and each year a GM has it within his power to swing the pendulum.
Reese as you mentioned was also the guy who scouted and was a party to acquiring most of the players he inherited.
I don't remember Gilbride complaining about the top tier pass weapons Reese gave him that enabled his vaunted option route offense. Or any of the defensive coordinators complaining about the movable feast of top tier defenders Reese acquired.
What's always conveniently left out of the story is the comical amount of injuries and the number of very good careers cut short. Thomas, Phillips, Beatty, Cruz, Nicks, Ballard. Even everyone's most hated pick David Wilson was an All Pro returner.
Reese's philosophy was build a track team that could beat teams over the top. And he succeeded. He has the ring to prove it. That the core of those players all had their careers cut short is the tragedy. If Nick's, Cruz, and Ballard are all healthy in 2012 the Giants compete for another ring.
And I guarantee you Manning would rather go to battle with the 2011 skills players over the 2008 offensive line.
Reese, like Coughlin, did a bad job in the aftermath of the championship years. They both deserved to be fired in 2015. Three losing seasons is cause to lose both of those jobs.
But it doesn't change what Reese accomplished.
Quote:
In comment 16298590 christian said:
Quote:
And I am sure I come off as a boob plenty myself. One thing I've recently come to terms with is not everyone was around here 20 years ago. We all really ripped each other to shreds, and came back the next day with no hard feelings. I probably haven't evolved much from that time.
This 100%. It was A LOT rougher back then. I did not participate; but the newbs around here would be shocked at some of the back and forth that took place back then. (And I miss that!)
Yeah, bet you saw some real good arguments over 23 years of lurking and not participating.
Yes I did.
https://www.espn.com/blog/new-york-giants/post/_/id/45849/a-stunning-stat-on-how-bad-the-giants-are-at-the-draft
https://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/127552/jerry-reese-shrewd-drafter-its-a-myth
Perhaps a few posters get a little too emotional over JR and don't accept it for what it was. Solid GM for 4-5 years and terrible after.
Mara unfortunately made a mistake. Hopefully he learned from it.