Contact Info
Administration
Coaching Staff
Coaching History
Annual Records
Hall Of Fame
Retired Jerseys
Ring Of Honor
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| The NFL trade deadline on Tuesday taught Commanders fans a great deal about the new Josh Harris ownership group. Harris didn’t pay $6.05 billion for the franchise to chase Wild Card playoff spots. Harris wants to compete for championships, even if that title chase may take time. Trading Montez Sweat to Chicago in exchange for a 2024 second round pick doesn’t make Washington better for a Week 9 matchup in New England. Trading Chase Young to San Francisco for a 2024 compensatory third round pick certainly doesn’t make Washington better for a Week 13 matchup against Miami. Sweat is a really good player. Young might be a great player if he ever stays healthy. Both help the Commanders now. Trading them away is about building for the future. This has been the Harris plan in previous stops in other sports, most famously in Philadelphia, where his 76ers enacted "the process," a series of moves to break down the basketball roster and then acquire high draft picks to build back a true title contender. |
If that is in response to my post, you misunderstood what I posted.
I didn't say Giants ownership doesn't want to win. I have never seen anyone on this site post that. What I said is that the way they do things "The Giants Way" is the north star that guides decision making.
They desperately want to win, The Giants Way.
that's your success story role model?
Well, you have to actually be in the playoffs to win it, and Harris built a sustained 50-win team. If the equivalent happens with the Commanders, it means the Giants will have a another playoff contender on their schedule twice a year, every year.
Quote:
that the Giants issues are not due to Ownership's lack of having a desire to win. That is an absurd notion.
If that is in response to my post, you misunderstood what I posted.
I didn't say Giants ownership doesn't want to win. I have never seen anyone on this site post that. What I said is that the way they do things "The Giants Way" is the north star that guides decision making.
They desperately want to win, The Giants Way.
You actually have to get the playoffs to win a championship.
We can laugh at the Sixers, but this just reminds me of when we laughed at the Eagles despite them beating us throughout the early 10s becuase they hadn't won a superbowl.
I don't know, I think deep down some are happy to sell concessions and then flip their team for 10 times what they paid a few years before.
They did let Barkley walk...after he took 10 years off the GMs life by negotiating too hard.
Quote:
that the Giants issues are not due to Ownership's lack of having a desire to win. That is an absurd notion.
Where does not wanting to trade Barkley because he's the "face of the franchise" fall into the hierarchy of wanting to win at all costs?
Quote:
hahahahah. They have not gotten past the second round of the playoffs during this guy's run with the best player in the game. Talk to me about Jayden Danies at end of the year (and while I think he can be good) who knows what he will be when teams start getting a better feel for him.
You actually have to get the playoffs to win a championship.
We can laugh at the Sixers, but this just reminds me of when we laughed at the Eagles despite them beating us throughout the early 10s becuase they hadn't won a superbowl.
agreed, but when you have arguably the best player in the NBA and you have had virtually no success in the playoffs, you are not the expert on building a championship. And, more importantly, the NBA is the best correlation probably in sports between regular season success and post-season success. So, if you don't do well in the playoffs consistently, you probably have not built a championship quality team.
Quote:
has the same amount of success the 76ers have had (or less). they haven't won more than one playoff series in a post-season since he's owned the team.
that's your success story role model?
Well, you have to actually be in the playoffs to win it, and Harris built a sustained 50-win team. If the equivalent happens with the Commanders, it means the Giants will have a another playoff contender on their schedule twice a year, every year.
Like the Cowboys? lol.
Tell that to their fan base.
WAS got lucky to have a top 2 pick in a draft when a top 2 pick mattered.
You cannot plan to "tank" it's a myth. You can help get there by offloading players whose timelines do not match with yours - and the Giants have done that - see Leonard Williams (who probably fits both sides of that coin - acquired at the wrong time, traded at the right one) but that still doesn't ensure you will lose enough to be in a position to rebuild the team with the most important player on the field when opportunity presents itself.
the rest is fluff.
Quote:
LOL. Come on dude, this is fluff. Every owner wants that.
I don't know, I think deep down some are happy to sell concessions and then flip their team for 10 times what they paid a few years before.
There are owners that want to make money first and foremost and hopefully contend for a championship while they make money. You think the approach for Hal is the same as Cohen or Wilpon? Royals or As owners? They all want to make money, some prioritize that over winning.
They do it half-assedly though.
Quote:
LOL. Come on dude, this is fluff. Every owner wants that.
There are owners that want to make money first and foremost and hopefully contend for a championship while they make money. You think the approach for Hal is the same as Cohen or Wilpon? Royals or As owners? They all want to make money, some prioritize that over winning.
This^
Job security creeps in. I've always held a strong belief it was Daboll who wanted to keep Barkley. The team had zero juice on offense. He didn't even trust DeVito to make a forward pass against NYJ.
These HC's have resumes, Daboll wanted to make sure he's around in 2024 and didn't want to go 2-15. Because 2-15 in year 1 is a lot different than 2-15 in year 2 coming off high expectations.
This is about Jayden Daniels. WSH was in position to draft him, NYG wasn't. And I think Daboll wanted to keep Barkley.
NYG won't be good until they get a QB. They're 3-1 with a better QB. I think we over complicate this stuff.
Quote:
the Giants have been parting ways with players both via trade and free agency.
They do it half-assedly though.
Not sure I agree with that.
Getting rid of Leonard Williams, Xavier McKinney, Saquon Barkley, etc. is pretty dramatic.
Other than Daniel Jones, who would you get rid of?
Bingo. I think a difference between Harris and Mara is that while Mara might've traded Sweat and Young, he probably would have loved Howell and pointed to all the yards he threw in the service of putting his hat in the ring for adding OL and skills players around him
They haven't made it to the third round and this will be irrelevant if Maxey-George-Embiid pull it off this year.
I actually think Harris has made some poor decisions to build around Embiid that has hurt their ceiling, but the point is he put the initial pieces together for them being a 50-win team, and that means the equivalent would be bad for the Giants since they play the COmmanders twice a year.
Quote:
In comment 16631204 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
the Giants have been parting ways with players both via trade and free agency.
They do it half-assedly though.
Not sure I agree with that.
Getting rid of Leonard Williams, Xavier McKinney, Saquon Barkley, etc. is pretty dramatic.
Other than Daniel Jones, who would you get rid of?
Obviously, we don't know what happened fully behind the scenes, but I think trading one of Barkley or Mckinney midseason last year should've been on the table and a lot of people were calling for it.
We did hear the Barkley "face of the franchise" thing however which gets at some of the PR-over-winning priority this team appears to have since the late-Eli era.
It seems Ben Johnson was put off by Harris, so who knows.
It seems Ben Johnson was put off by Harris, so who knows.
His record with Devils admittedly does not look at good, and he's basically been throwing spaghetti at the wall trying to build a championship around Embiid.
But I like that he's willing to make bold, unpopular moves. The entire NBA despised the Sixers during the tanking years of 2014-2017.
I believe is Schoen brought it to him he would. I don't know how much is Harris vs GM - but I do think if Schoen made a case for it he would have.
And the Giants would absolutely move off Howell, they wanted to move off Jones - just not for the QB's available to them.
it's all about having timing line up with opportunity IMO.
The most aggressive anyone usually acts is before they have any personal relationship with the players.
Most owners aren't unapologetically ruthless. It rubbed Kraft the wrong way with Belichick.
It's not really an apples to apples comparison.
Quote:
Does Mara trade both Sweat and Young? And does he move off of Sam Howell?
I believe is Schoen brought it to him he would. I don't know how much is Harris vs GM - but I do think if Schoen made a case for it he would have.
And the Giants would absolutely move off Howell, they wanted to move off Jones - just not for the QB's available to them.
it's all about having timing line up with opportunity IMO.
I think this actually gets to my issue: I actually wish Mara would be a little more hands-on contrary to expectations. I think popping in and out of the office and issuing preferences (like he did as depicted in Hard Knocks) is in some ways worse than laying out what he wants. Sometimes I think the Schoen/Daboll seem unsure of what the directive is.
The most aggressive anyone usually acts is before they have any personal relationship with the players.
Most owners aren't unapologetically ruthless. It rubbed Kraft the wrong way with Belichick.
It's not really an apples to apples comparison.
Agree with all of this. That is the exact opposite of a family run business where the owner grew up a fan of the team long before he learned the business side.
The Giants under Wellington Mara were run as a family. Players were cared for as people rather than players. And to be clear, I am not criticizing that. That is very admirable.
But the league is a business. Players are employees. You should treat everyone with respect, even marginal players. But you can't make decisions about keeping guys because they are good with the media or 'face of the franchise' if they are not directly helping you win football games on the field.
Quote:
In comment 16631263 Lambuth_Special said:
Quote:
Does Mara trade both Sweat and Young? And does he move off of Sam Howell?
I believe is Schoen brought it to him he would. I don't know how much is Harris vs GM - but I do think if Schoen made a case for it he would have.
And the Giants would absolutely move off Howell, they wanted to move off Jones - just not for the QB's available to them.
it's all about having timing line up with opportunity IMO.
I think this actually gets to my issue: I actually wish Mara would be a little more hands-on contrary to expectations. I think popping in and out of the office and issuing preferences (like he did as depicted in Hard Knocks) is in some ways worse than laying out what he wants. Sometimes I think the Schoen/Daboll seem unsure of what the directive is.
Then you want Jerry Jones. Some people feel like Mara's involvement neuters the GM and now you think you want Mara more involved. I do think most owners have guidelines when they need/want to be consulted, but most (like probably Mara) are not personnel experts and prefer to defer to the experts.
People hate hearing it, but this is not an organization that ruthlessly pursues winning. It is an organization that wants to be fair and kind to people, and would like to win that way.
Great point, a good encapsulation of the "Giants Way".
Of course every owner wants that, but that isn't the point. Actions speak louder than words, and trading away some of your better players in order to recoup picks for a rebuild is a smart way to do business. Contrast that with Mara not wanting to trade Saquon because he is the Giants' most popular player.
I have no doubt that Mara wants to win another SB, but he thinks he needs to do it in a way that doesn't piss off some fans, not realizing that nothing pisses off fans more than a decade plus of losing.
Who on the Giants current roster has trade value? Thomas, Lawrence, Nabers who else? I wouldn't trade any of those 3 but everyone else should be available to the highest bidder. Anyone want Slayton? Thibodeaux, Okereke and Singletary might not be tradable due to their cap hits? So basically the Giants are stuck with all of their highly paid players. Including Burns whose contract looks to be on the verge of a disaster.
Mara's = Giants Way. Giant's Way = dumb, loser organization.
But Harris has the correct strategic perspective. Mara does not. It does not guarantee anything but it does provide a massive advantage.
When Mara is making decisions at the end of the year, he's going to consider 5 wins and 7 wins a big difference. It might even go as far as Daboll keeping his job at 7 and getting fired at 5. Which means that major forward looking decisions will be based on outcomes of games against teams like the Saints, Panthers, and Colts. Harris is not doing that. He's evaluationing a much bigger picture. And his perspective is correct. The Mara "win 9 games or else i fire you (regardless of how bad the team is)" method of leadership is not a good one.
I'm guessing they would've drafted McCarthy.
They are looking to get a team that’s like 6-7 wins and “progressing” and then spend a ton to hope it can win.
They aren’t building a top to bottom championship contender for years on end
They have followed this formula with McAdoo and his “reload not a rebuild” and signing Snacks, Jackrabbit, Vernon, etc
They passed on a rebuild by drafting Saquon and signing Solder and others to for “another run” with Eli and Odell and hoping Shurmur fresh off a big OC run with Vikes would use the three-headed monster.
They did with Judge after “almost” playoffs at 6-10 and signing Golladay, Rudolph, Adoree, etc
They did it with Daboll after 9-7-1 and needing to sign Jones long term to create the cap space to get Waller, Okereke, Campbell, etc to “close the gap”
Quote:
LOL. Come on dude, this is fluff. Every owner wants that.
Of course every owner wants that, but that isn't the point. Actions speak louder than words, and trading away some of your better players in order to recoup picks for a rebuild is a smart way to do business. Contrast that with Mara not wanting to trade Saquon because he is the Giants' most popular player.
I have no doubt that Mara wants to win another SB, but he thinks he needs to do it in a way that doesn't piss off some fans, not realizing that nothing pisses off fans more than a decade plus of losing.
They are looking to get a team that’s like 6-7 wins and “progressing” and then spend a ton to hope it can win.
They aren’t building a top to bottom championship contender for years on end
They have followed this formula with McAdoo and his “reload not a rebuild” and signing Snacks, Jackrabbit, Vernon, etc
They passed on a rebuild by drafting Saquon and signing Solder and others to for “another run” with Eli and Odell and hoping Shurmur fresh off a big OC run with Vikes would use the three-headed monster.
They did with Judge after “almost” playoffs at 6-10 and signing Golladay, Rudolph, Adoree, etc
They did it with Daboll after 9-7-1 and needing to sign Jones long term to create the cap space to get Waller, Okereke, Campbell, etc to “close the gap”
Exactly, since the 2011 championship season, this franchise seems intent on trying to replicate it. They really got the wrong impression from those magical wild card runs (and the 2007 team was very good overall and just needed Eli to put it together). They need to stop building for 9-8.
but many people do believe to get from 5-12 or 6-11 to 13-4 or 14-3 you probably need to visit 9-8.
And that seems like a reasonable assumption. If possible, of course, we'd all prefer to go right from the current bottom 5 of the league to the top 5, but it doesn't often happen in one step.
Its pretty rare for teams to go from 3-14 to 14-3 so I don't think building up to it is unreasonable.
But Harris has the correct strategic perspective. Mara does not. It does not guarantee anything but it does provide a massive advantage.
When Mara is making decisions at the end of the year, he's going to consider 5 wins and 7 wins a big difference. It might even go as far as Daboll keeping his job at 7 and getting fired at 5. Which means that major forward looking decisions will be based on outcomes of games against teams like the Saints, Panthers, and Colts. Harris is not doing that. He's evaluationing a much bigger picture. And his perspective is correct. The Mara "win 9 games or else i fire you (regardless of how bad the team is)" method of leadership is not a good one.
And I'm not confident that Schoen and Mara are even on the same page with this. Schoen asked for patience this offseason, while Mara is on record as expecting significant improvement. A strategic thinking team would look to start trading Slayton and Azeez, and bench Jones due to injury guarantee, the moment this team hits 2-5 regardless of where Jones ranks in EPA or QBR. Probably not happening.
but many people do believe to get from 5-12 or 6-11 to 13-4 or 14-3 you probably need to visit 9-8.
And that seems like a reasonable assumption. If possible, of course, we'd all prefer to go right from the current bottom 5 of the league to the top 5, but it doesn't often happen in one step.
Its pretty rare for teams to go from 3-14 to 14-3 so I don't think building up to it is unreasonable.
And yet 9-8 is exactly where they land on the pre-season best-case scenarios time after time under different regimes, while being over-leveraged on the cap. 2021 - 4th year of Gettleman and 3rd year of Jones, 2024 - 3rd year of Schoen/Daboll and 2nd year of Jones's contract, and 2018 with the 'last run with Eli' rationale. All these teams had 9-8/9-7 as their best case scenario; Even Dottino, despite predicting a top-ten defense and a great year for Jones, couldn't even predict this team to do better than 9-8 on the BBI podcast.
This is what happens when you emphasize "win while rebuilding," first stated by Gettleman in 2018 and now repeated by Schoen in 2022. You have two competing timelines so of course 9-8 is probably going to end up being your continuous ceiling.
I have no problem with 9-8 teams and agree that there'is value in getting there on the way to building a contender. In fact, I thought the Fassel era of hovering between 8-8 and 10-6 was invaluable in teaching Accorsi what it meant to go from good to great in transitioning from Fassel/Collins to Coughlin/Eli. But the Giants seems perpetually in a 3-year cycle to get to 9-8, which probably indicates that the process is wrong.
who is the team owner who was cool with spending a multiple year rebuild as a bottom dweller without seeing incremental improvements?
Texans? Got their rookie QB and went from 3-13-1 to 10-7 to now they have higher aspirations.
who is your example?
Everyone wants improvement and like I said it's rare to go from 3-14 to 14-3 without stopping at 9-8.
The Giants went from 4-13 stopped at 9-7-1 (which was kind of a mirage) and it went poorly from there so they need to regroup and make the proper adjustments so when they improve from bottom dwellers they continue on the upward trend.
Quote:
The ball bounced NYG's way in the two games against WSH last season. If it didn't, NYG would have Jayden Daniels and WSH is probably 1-3 or 0-4.
This^
but many people do believe to get from 5-12 or 6-11 to 13-4 or 14-3 you probably need to visit 9-8.
And that seems like a reasonable assumption. If possible, of course, we'd all prefer to go right from the current bottom 5 of the league to the top 5, but it doesn't often happen in one step.
Its pretty rare for teams to go from 3-14 to 14-3 so I don't think building up to it is unreasonable.
So building for 9-8 is not a ridiculous comment at all, when it comes to the Giants.
Quote:
9-8, that is a ridiculous comment.
but many people do believe to get from 5-12 or 6-11 to 13-4 or 14-3 you probably need to visit 9-8.
And that seems like a reasonable assumption. If possible, of course, we'd all prefer to go right from the current bottom 5 of the league to the top 5, but it doesn't often happen in one step.
Its pretty rare for teams to go from 3-14 to 14-3 so I don't think building up to it is unreasonable.
Since the Giants are often going 5-12 or 6-11, they probably need to often visit 9-8 first.
So building for 9-8 is not a ridiculous comment at all, when it comes to the Giants.
It was insinuated that 9-8 is the goal and ownership was content with the "illusion of winning", not considering 9-8 a step stone on the way to contending.
So, yes, it was a ridiculous comment.
Never, ever was a fan of how the Sixers basically, on purpose, tanked.
Talk about a horrid look.