Mike Lombardi is at it again...after viewing Hard Knocks, he tries to compare the Giants to Firestone Tires and the merger with Bridgestone Tires in 1988 with a source from MIT.
To make sweeping judgments from limited scenes and potentially scripted television programming seems a bit foolish.
He also gives no examples to support the claims he makes in this article. Just a very strange piece overall.
This article, and many of his "hot takes" on social media all seem like an attempt to peddle this new website/platform called The Daily Coach.
He does seem to have a fascination/vendetta against the Giants...
Link below.
Link - (
New Window )
Quote:
he’s not wrong. I’m not sure how he would come to that conclusion based on this week’s HK, but he’s not wrong until he’s proven wrong.
Not to belabor the point but the Giants ARE a business and a very successful business at that. They are one of the top 10 most valuable sports franchises in the world worth over $5billion. In fact the value has appreciated by something in the order of $1.5B over the past five years. We should all be so incompetent!
+1
Quote:
he’s not wrong. I’m not sure how he would come to that conclusion based on this week’s HK, but he’s not wrong until he’s proven wrong.
Not to belabor the point but the Giants ARE a business and a very successful business at that. They are one of the top 10 most valuable sports franchises in the world worth over $5billion. In fact the value has appreciated by something in the order of $1.5B over the past five years. We should all be so incompetent!
John Mara is successful because the NFL is successful and prints money.
If John was the owner of your local Italian restaurant he'd be getting his ass chewed out by Gordon Ramsey on an episode of Kitchen Nightmares, with the restaurant in danger of closing the doors in 4 weeks.
"I'd lose sleep if I had to take my Bolognese off the menu"
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Yeah, it is nice that there really hasn't been a competing franchise in New York for most of the time, isn't it... But maybe that isn't what you meant to say? Where's my glasses...
Quote:
In comment 16551610 Section331 said:
Quote:
he’s not wrong. I’m not sure how he would come to that conclusion based on this week’s HK, but he’s not wrong until he’s proven wrong.
Not to belabor the point but the Giants ARE a business and a very successful business at that. They are one of the top 10 most valuable sports franchises in the world worth over $5billion. In fact the value has appreciated by something in the order of $1.5B over the past five years. We should all be so incompetent!
John Mara is successful because the NFL is successful and prints money.
If John was the owner of your local Italian restaurant he'd be getting his ass chewed out by Gordon Ramsey on an episode of Kitchen Nightmares, with the restaurant in danger of closing the doors in 4 weeks.
"I'd lose sleep if I had to take my Bolognese off the menu"
Exactly THIS!!
Quote:
he’s not wrong. I’m not sure how he would come to that conclusion based on this week’s HK, but he’s not wrong until he’s proven wrong.
Not to belabor the point but the Giants ARE a business and a very successful business at that. They are one of the top 10 most valuable sports franchises in the world worth over $5billion. In fact the value has appreciated by something in the order of $1.5B over the past five years. We should all be so incompetent!
True, the Giants (and the Yankees) are very successful companies, in the case of the Giants, despite the product they put out. Neither team has to do anything they don't want to do.
Bingo. Best course is to ignore him (and stop starting threads about whatever new drivel he comes out with)
Quote:
but a failed business wouldn't have 4 Super Bowl rings.
First part 100% easy to kick someone when they're down, second part, WTF? Blockbuster (for example) was once a $6B per year revenue company part of the S&P 500. What have they done lately? Businesses can fail after success and the historical success doesn't preclude the business from failing nor is it particularly relevant.
that said, this Lombardi shit is stupid, and I wish people would stop sharing it.
Pjacs, of course, you can't be comparing the Giants to Blockbuster? I mean, I know 2 playoff seasons in 12 years(one of them being less than 2 years ago), but there are franchises much worse than us.
And I think given the Giants history, ruts are common, but so is turning things around.
Quote:
In comment 16551620 barens said:
Quote:
but a failed business wouldn't have 4 Super Bowl rings.
First part 100% easy to kick someone when they're down, second part, WTF? Blockbuster (for example) was once a $6B per year revenue company part of the S&P 500. What have they done lately? Businesses can fail after success and the historical success doesn't preclude the business from failing nor is it particularly relevant.
that said, this Lombardi shit is stupid, and I wish people would stop sharing it.
Pjacs, of course, you can't be comparing the Giants to Blockbuster? I mean, I know 2 playoff seasons in 12 years(one of them being less than 2 years ago), but there are franchises much worse than us.
And I think given the Giants history, ruts are common, but so is turning things around.
Blockbuster failed to adapt (the could have bought Netflix) and were left behind.
Sounds about right
So if you wanted to pin point a reason... I would say it was poor hiring practices. It also appears that they have made changes to those practices with Shoen and Daboll so hopefully we are trending upwards and will see better results moving forward.
However... to compare the Giants to a failed business is beyond insane. By any and all measure "as a business" the Giants are incredibly successful.
The only outlier in my opinion was Barkley.
So if you wanted to pin point a reason... I would say it was poor hiring practices. It also appears that they have made changes to those practices with Shoen and Daboll so hopefully we are trending upwards and will see better results moving forward.
However... to compare the Giants to a failed business is beyond insane. By any and all measure "as a business" the Giants are incredibly successful.
Super Bowl XXI and XXV were 37 and 33 years ago, respectively, so I don't know about "recent memory" on that one. And if we're being honest, those only happened because they Giants were a complete calamity and were bailed out by Pete Rozelle and subsequently George Young.
For the record, the Young line-of-succession also built the 2007 and 2011 champs, so perhaps the Mara family business isn't as strong as four Super Bowls would suggest.
I can't read.
The only outlier in my opinion was Barkley.
I don't have an issue with Lombardi consistently targeting NYG, but NYG did finally pivot by hiring a GM not baptized in the Giants Way. So, we are now testing whether that hire/change was the right one.
He seems to be suggesting that Schoen does not have autonomy. I beg to differ...
Now if you want to say the on field product sucks and that the Maras can't get out of their own way then that's more than fair.
Lombardi hasn't done shit and he's got a huge issue with the Giants
Now if you want to say the on field product sucks and that the Maras can't get out of their own way then that's more than fair.
Lombardi is obviously talking about their football operations and the inability to put together a winning team. And why.
What can we do to change this? Don’t click on his shit
Quote:
.
Bingo. Best course is to ignore him (and stop starting threads about whatever new drivel he comes out with)
Second, let's talk about what is the goal of an NFL franchise. Listen to people here the only goal is to win championships and the Giants have won more than all but 4 other teams; in fact, 11 of the 32 teams have never won any. And can we talk about all those other well run franchises. Lets start with the Jets across the hall; haven't won a SB in over 50 years and haven't even been in the playoffs at all for something like 13 years. And how about them Dolphins; haven't won a SB in over 45 years and haven't won a playoff game in 23 years; the Raiders - no SB in over 40 years and no playoff wins in 18 years. Even those Dallas Cowboys, the richest team in the NFL haven't won a SB in almost 30 years, a period in which they haven't won a playoff game other than a wild card game. I could go or ask how many of those teams would be willing to trade their rousing successes of the past decade for four Super Bowl wins.
No question the Giants have been thru a miserable stretch, but every team has them in a cyclical league where there is no competitive edge for anybody. So can we just focus on getting better rather than making stupid specious comparisons.
it's that simple. The Jets being a failed franchise too, does nothing to change the Giants have a decade plus of failure.
Pointing out the Jets (or any other team failure) to indicate the Giants haven't failed lately is like one of my friend used to do when we'd bust his balls, he'd point at our fat friend and say "look how fat Doug is"
The Pittsburgh Pirates make a profit, are they a successful MLB franchise? They have more world series wins than 20-something other franchises. I hope you can see the lack of relevance anything historic has to the current. Sports is the epitome of a "what have you done for me lately" business. Nothing exemplifies that more than living in Boston.
The other day when he seemed to seriously wonder aloud why the Giants didn't just cut Jones's salary and offer to pay it back to him on a per-active game basis basically proves this. No former GM seriously asks that question. Only a talking head who knows how ridiculous the question is, but needs the attention for however he can monetize it.
The NFL's business model is paying QBs top $$$. (They want their QBs to be highly paid celebrities.) It adds popularity to the league, which adds $$$ in everyone's pocket. Fans and other players bitch and moan and cry overpay.
At the owner level, it's bigger than individual teams winning and losing. It is what it is.
Quote:
The Giants are valued between $6 & $7 billion and are one of the highest valued NFL franchises. I'm spite of the Mara family, the Giants are a money making machine.
Now if you want to say the on field product sucks and that the Maras can't get out of their own way then that's more than fair.
Lombardi is obviously talking about their football operations and the inability to put together a winning team. And why.
bw I know exactly what he means. I can always count on you with the condescending take. They're printing money hand over fist. Mara can't get out of the way and let those running the football operation do their jobs.
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Just because YOU judge a team's record as its ultimate determination of success does not mean everyone does. That's why you're a fan, not a business owner. If you were, you'd know that a 13% increase in your bottom line from last year is a huge success. KC is at 16%, while the Raiders were at 22%. If you stopped giving a shit about the record year after year and stopped watching football, then maybe there'd be more of an incentive to make the product better. Therefore, maybe YOU'RE part of the problem. Ever think of that?
Yeah, a team worth 6 fucking billion dollars is a failure.....
Quote:
he’s not wrong. I’m not sure how he would come to that conclusion based on this week’s HK, but he’s not wrong until he’s proven wrong.
Yeah, a team worth 6 fucking billion dollars is a failure.....
It would be practically impossible at this stage for the Giants to be a financial failure, so I don't know why people insist on using that as a measure of the franchise's success.
For 12 years they have been an on-field failure, much like they were for nearly two decades before Pete Rozelle rescued the Mara family from their own pig-headed stupidity.
I think everyone knows that's what's being discussed here, except for the willfully obtuse.
Quote:
he’s not wrong. I’m not sure how he would come to that conclusion based on this week’s HK, but he’s not wrong until he’s proven wrong.
Yeah, a team worth 6 fucking billion dollars is a failure.....
The real question here is whether section125 could throw a snowball and hit Section331?
Quote:
at the franchise level is determined financially?
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Just because YOU judge a team's record as its ultimate determination of success does not mean everyone does. That's why you're a fan, not a business owner. If you were, you'd know that a 13% increase in your bottom line from last year is a huge success. KC is at 16%, while the Raiders were at 22%. If you stopped giving a shit about the record year after year and stopped watching football, then maybe there'd be more of an incentive to make the product better. Therefore, maybe YOU'RE part of the problem. Ever think of that?
Fair enough and I don't own a team so it's my opinion, but I doubt owners view their franchises successful based on finances. The whole league is profitable, every single team.
Do you think they are all successful because of that? And you think 32 owners are satisfied?
Perhaps it is you who has the warped view of how owners view success. Most (or many) of these guys were/are billionaires before becoming sports franchise owners. I bet they put titles ahead of $$$. I know for example Steve Cohen (Mets owner) doesn't view the Mets as successful and he's making money.
The Maras and Rooneys are becoming anachronisms and soon the whole league will just be a billionaires club.
I think everyone knows that's what's being discussed here, except for the willfully obtuse. [/quote]
It’s not being obtuse when pointing out when perspectives make no sense. Are the Giants losing games? Yes. And for a long time. But this does not mean the franchise is a failure, or is poorly led. Want to complain about players performances? Sure. Bad coaching decisions? Absolutely. Questionable contracts? Fine. But none of these mean the franchise is a failure.
Quote:
In comment 16551684 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
at the franchise level is determined financially?
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Just because YOU judge a team's record as its ultimate determination of success does not mean everyone does. That's why you're a fan, not a business owner. If you were, you'd know that a 13% increase in your bottom line from last year is a huge success. KC is at 16%, while the Raiders were at 22%. If you stopped giving a shit about the record year after year and stopped watching football, then maybe there'd be more of an incentive to make the product better. Therefore, maybe YOU'RE part of the problem. Ever think of that?
Fair enough and I don't own a team so it's my opinion, but I doubt owners view their franchises successful based on finances. The whole league is profitable, every single team.
Do you think they are all successful because of that? And you think 32 owners are satisfied?
Perhaps it is you who has the warped view of how owners view success. Most (or many) of these guys were/are billionaires before becoming sports franchise owners. I bet they put titles ahead of $$$. I know for example Steve Cohen (Mets owner) doesn't view the Mets as successful and he's making money.
The Maras and Rooneys are becoming anachronisms and soon the whole league will just be a billionaires club.
Great question. But I honestly believe that winning super bowls in not an owner's priority. I just don't. There's overwhelming proof of that. There are stil1 12 teams that have not won a SB. Cleveland still hasn't been in one! And to further back that point, the NFL owners have been a billionaires club for decades now.
Now, if an ownership group had performance based standards on whether they'd have a franchise that was dependent on winning %, or primetime games or playoff appearances, I think you'd see a drastically different approach of on field success.
Umm .. they do run a successful business. They make a lot of money and a lot of profit. You might not like the product, but to say it is unsuccessful as a business is wrong.
Quote:
In comment 16552539 MNP70 said:
Quote:
In comment 16551684 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
at the franchise level is determined financially?
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Just because YOU judge a team's record as its ultimate determination of success does not mean everyone does. That's why you're a fan, not a business owner. If you were, you'd know that a 13% increase in your bottom line from last year is a huge success. KC is at 16%, while the Raiders were at 22%. If you stopped giving a shit about the record year after year and stopped watching football, then maybe there'd be more of an incentive to make the product better. Therefore, maybe YOU'RE part of the problem. Ever think of that?
Fair enough and I don't own a team so it's my opinion, but I doubt owners view their franchises successful based on finances. The whole league is profitable, every single team.
Do you think they are all successful because of that? And you think 32 owners are satisfied?
Perhaps it is you who has the warped view of how owners view success. Most (or many) of these guys were/are billionaires before becoming sports franchise owners. I bet they put titles ahead of $$$. I know for example Steve Cohen (Mets owner) doesn't view the Mets as successful and he's making money.
The Maras and Rooneys are becoming anachronisms and soon the whole league will just be a billionaires club.
Great question. But I honestly believe that winning super bowls in not an owner's priority. I just don't. There's overwhelming proof of that. There are stil1 12 teams that have not won a SB. Cleveland still hasn't been in one! And to further back that point, the NFL owners have been a billionaires club for decades now.
Now, if an ownership group had performance based standards on whether they'd have a franchise that was dependent on winning %, or primetime games or playoff appearances, I think you'd see a drastically different approach of on field success.
Ok, if the owners priority is not a title, but profits, why do so many GMs and coaches get fired for consistently losing? Even the Browns, who ranked lowest in the NFL made $105M in operating income last reported year (2022).
The NFL teams are still all going to be profitable even if in-game attendance falls to all time lows (my guess), but you still see turnover, at sometimes very fast rates, for losing front offices and coaching staffs?
There is more antipathy about the Giants now than any moment in my entire lifetime.
But "successful business!"
GTFO
So now the incremental profit is driven by day-of revenue and non-football revenue.
The Giants and Jets enjoy the fact that they play in the biggest vacation destination by volume and dollars spent in the US. They have no problem selling tickets, even if they go unused. The "loser" in that equation is the aftermarket. But obviously the economics are working out for them.
And then of course MetLife hosts 15-20 premium concerts, and another dozen smaller events.
That's why the Giants and Jets are 2 of the three worst teams over the last decade, and enjoying record value.