|
Post by TEM on Jun 24, 2018 13:35:28 GMT -5
Well, like most things nothing is ever black or white. It is often complicated. Between the two choices of "the Super Bowls are his and we wouldn't have won either without him" and "he had nothing to do with the wins" I would come down a little less than halfway in the middle. Would we have won the two SB with another GM here? I would say yes at a 60/40 level of certainty. Stated differently, among all the factors that brought us the two rings, he was about the 3rd or 4th most important factor. Would you use that narrative with all GMs on the scale of importance?
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on Jun 24, 2018 13:36:43 GMT -5
2 SB's trump all.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Jun 24, 2018 13:43:17 GMT -5
For all of JR's mistakes, and there were plenty, I voted yes because you can't ignore 2 SBs. Some of the players JR drafted in 2007 played key roles in the 2007 SB run like Kevin Boss, Steve Smith, Ahmad Bradshaw, Zak DeOssie and Jay Alford, and the majority of the players on the team in the 2011 SB run were players he either drafted or signed. I'm glad JR is gone, but I'll always be grateful for those 2 SBs and the same applies to TC and Gilbride. +100
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Jun 24, 2018 14:01:23 GMT -5
Yeah...having a hard time working that through. How do you put aside 2 SB's for a chance to win SB's? Here's a fair question, put a percentage on how much of the credit for the 2007 and 2011 SB's Reese should receive. Let's say you believe about 10%. Fine. Another GM is probably at worst 80% of Reese if he wasn't good and possibly 200% of Reese if he was very good. If you're a Math guy(which I am a bit), that means another GM probably is negligible in results on the negative side with a higher return possibility on the positive side. That's why I wouldn't rehire Reese given the chance. Would you conclude the 2 sacks Kawika Mitchell had in the 2007 playoffs were not worthy of JR singing him? One against Dallas in the Divisional Series and one against NE in the Super bowl. He put that player on the roster. Knowing that would you say his % is still 10% I can add more examples of players he added or re-singed if you want me to.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Jun 24, 2018 14:05:16 GMT -5
I get what you are saying . It is still purly specutlive . It is a known Reese won 2 . Another argument to suggest another would have accomplished what he did is just another form of discrediting his accomplishments. Ponder this. If as you say the better moves argument besides BB and Colbert. Name another in the this millennium that has accomplished what JR did. If as your point that equivalent or better move could have been made. Why are there so few that have accomplished winning at least 2 let alone 1? If it were as easy as the better future moves point. Wouldn't it be the case that more then 3 would have accomplished that feat? It is not as easy as you perceive it to be.I would sit through it again for the experience and fulfilment of watching the Giant hoist those Lombardi's . It was well worth it. You really can't blame a guy for being speculative in a purely speculative thread though. I believe I made the poll question very binary. But is great to see we( as a group) finally have all learned we can conduct discourse without insults.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 15:12:31 GMT -5
Tell that to those who love to say this ignorant quote. "Ernie Accorsi was responsible for both of those Super Bowls" Also, Accorsi had some bad years under his belt as well, yet no one called for his ouster. Remember the Giants O line during Fassel's last two seasons? It was a nightmare. However, it was time for Reese to move on. He'll resurface soon enough and I wish him all the best.
Reese made changes to Accorsi's team just like Gettleman made changes to Reese's team.
If someone wants to argue that Accorsi was responsible for our 2007 season Super Bowl, wouldn't that mean Reese will be responsible for the success of this year's team?
Only if one applies a little bit of common sense. I totally agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Jun 24, 2018 17:10:08 GMT -5
So you give all the credit to Reese and none to who were with the Giants that brought in Eli and the others ,I give more of the credit to the coachs and other scouts.You do know Reese didn't bring in Bradshaw ,it was Kate Mara that found him while doing the "We are Marshall" film.Did Reese hit on a few ,yes but he harmed this team by not watching out for the O line and defensive Lbers and by not leaving when Coughlin left. Sorry no , would not hire him. That is a new one. Players being chosen by film a actress. Probably one of the best Reese did not do it comments yet. Straight from her mouth. nypost.com/2008/02/01/we-are-giants-is-great-theater/ "Eli and Michael Strahan, and then we’ve got guys like Ahmad Bradshaw coming out of nowhere. It’s so exciting for me because I was a part of “We Are Marshall.” The fact that Bradshaw played for Marshall makes it special. I became friends with coach Mark Snyder of Marshall because of the shoot, and then my dad was interested in Bradshaw and talked to coach Snyder at the premier in LA and everything about what he thought of him as a player"
|
|
|
Post by BronxBomberBlue on Jun 24, 2018 17:20:44 GMT -5
I would....
It would be a bigger gamble in trying to win three SB's without him, and a safer bet that without him we might have less than two SB's over the past decade.
With that said, I'm glad he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on Jun 24, 2018 18:00:35 GMT -5
So you give all the credit to Reese and none to who were with the Giants that brought in Eli and the others ,I give more of the credit to the coachs and other scouts.You do know Reese didn't bring in Bradshaw ,it was Kate Mara that found him while doing the "We are Marshall" film.Did Reese hit on a few ,yes but he harmed this team by not watching out for the O line and defensive Lbers and by not leaving when Coughlin left. Sorry no , would not hire him. I don't give all the credit to anyone. I do recognize his role in those championships. We don't win those championships without Eli or Tom Coughlin....That is certainly true. We also don't win them without the crapload of JR's guys either. And are you really suggesting that Kate Mara was making personnel decisions for the New York Giants?.......Really? You will lose a lot of credibility on these boards by sticking to that story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 18:16:35 GMT -5
You really can't blame a guy for being speculative in a purely speculative thread though. I believe I made the poll question very binary. But is great to see we( as a group) finally have all learned we can conduct discourse without insults. Oh yeah? You’re stupid and your breath stinks!
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Jun 24, 2018 18:21:33 GMT -5
Well, like most things nothing is ever black or white. It is often complicated. Between the two choices of "the Super Bowls are his and we wouldn't have won either without him" and "he had nothing to do with the wins" I would come down a little less than halfway in the middle. Would we have won the two SB with another GM here? I would say yes at a 60/40 level of certainty. Stated differently, among all the factors that brought us the two rings, he was about the 3rd or 4th most important factor. Would you use that narrative with all GMs on the scale of importance? Good question, no not all. QB and HC are most often going to be #1 and #2. Some GMs are responsible for delivering that so they can take credit (but they are still not the actual HC or QB. The strength of the roster comes in a close 3rd and the GM has almost total responsibility for that. So it is a little bit of a complicated matrix.
|
|
giantsalmon
Starter
Came over from a defunct board. Formerly LakeO Giant fan
Posts: 3,902
|
Post by giantsalmon on Jun 24, 2018 18:38:47 GMT -5
Here's a fair question, put a percentage on how much of the credit for the 2007 and 2011 SB's Reese should receive. Let's say you believe about 10%. Fine. Another GM is probably at worst 80% of Reese if he wasn't good and possibly 200% of Reese if he was very good. If you're a Math guy(which I am a bit), that means another GM probably is negligible in results on the negative side with a higher return possibility on the positive side. That's why I wouldn't rehire Reese given the chance. Would you conclude the 2 sacks Kawika Mitchell had in the 2007 playoffs were not worthy of JR singing him? One against Dallas in the Divisional Series and one against NE in the Super bowl. He put that player on the roster. Knowing that would you say his % is still 10% I can add more examples of players he added or re-singed if you want me to. Mitchell was a great signing. To add to your point, I'm pretty sure he made the key goal line stop vs the Skins to end the losing streak at the beginning of the 2007 season. I also think he played a solid game in the must win tilt vs Buffalo that started the run. It was past time to jettison Reese, as Parcells used to say, "it is hard to stay hungry once you've feasted". Perhaps complacency set in after the second SB win, and it rippled down through the scouting dept. That being said, Mitchell wasn't the only key FA signing that helped win the Championship in '07-- Madison and McQuarters were cagey vets that made timely plays all season. As to the parameters given, yes I would have hired him.
|
|
gmen46
Special Teams
Posts: 101
|
Post by gmen46 on Jun 24, 2018 18:50:19 GMT -5
Hire him in 2007 and fired him after the 2011 SB. So you would fire a GM after winning the Super bowl ? The question was and I do not know why it was hard to grasp . Would you take Reese's entire tenure with the Giants ? Not what one thinks should have taken place. You really have been very clear about your question. There are those who are incapable of letting go of their opinions of Reese developed over the last 6 years or so, apparently. My answer to your question is unequivocally YES, I would take his tenure as is.
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Jun 24, 2018 21:32:21 GMT -5
Every GM has a few really good top draft picks. JR was typical in that regard. Everything else was sub par when it came to harvesting talents EXCEPT for that 2007 draft which was his and he nailed it. You made me think (a tenuous thing) about that 2007 draft.. So, now, think about this..... Ernie did not retire until early 2007. The 2006 college season was over, and Ernie, JR, and the rest of the scouting staff, under the direction of EA, had surely started their evaluations of the 2006 class for the 2007 draft. So, how much credit should JR get for that draft? Just like the 2007 SB... it was 95% Ernie's guys, and the continuity with TC and Eli, Stray, Burress, etc.... with some significant help from the 2007 draftees. I will give JR credit for some good FA pickups... If my memory is right (I didn't fact check) Kawika Mitchell and Antonio Pierce were FA pickups and critical to the great play of the defense in the second half surge and throughout the playoffs. That team not only got hot once the defense clicked (the goal line stand against the Skins was the moment they all knew it was coming together) , they proved themselves with their play through 2008, until the house of cards fell down when Burress shot himself. All good points Zim!
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Jun 24, 2018 22:21:46 GMT -5
Reese made changes to Accorsi's team just like Gettleman made changes to Reese's team. If someone wants to argue that Accorsi was responsible for our 2007 season Super Bowl, wouldn't that mean Reese will be responsible for the success of this year's team?
Valid argument. But if we’re 8-8 that still wouldn’t be much of a ringing endorsement. And if we do more than double our previous win total what will be the largest contributing difference between the years? The OL more than likely IMO...which of course Reese’s fingerprints are no longer on. (Other than Flowers hopefully being a serviceable #9 overall pick playing RT) Ringing endorsement or not the fact is none of us entered into 2007 with high expectations.
We all felt there were questions that needed answering.
None of us could have predicted the results any better than we can this season.
|
|
|
Post by Speedman on Jun 24, 2018 23:31:29 GMT -5
I guess your idea of a roster is only the QB position. "Where it matters most..." Upgrading the roster matters all over the field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 23:46:19 GMT -5
Valid argument. But if we’re 8-8 that still wouldn’t be much of a ringing endorsement. And if we do more than double our previous win total what will be the largest contributing difference between the years? The OL more than likely IMO...which of course Reese’s fingerprints are no longer on. (Other than Flowers hopefully being a serviceable #9 overall pick playing RT) Ringing endorsement or not the fact is none of us entered into 2007 with high expectations. We all felt there were questions that needed answering. None of us could have predicted the results any better than we can this season. True. Say we become competitive. By putting on your Carnac hat, what do you think would be the biggest contributing factor to the turnaround?
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Jun 25, 2018 5:20:53 GMT -5
So you would fire a GM after winning the Super bowl ? The question was and I do not know why it was hard to grasp . Would you take Reese's entire tenure with the Giants ? Not what one thinks should have taken place. You really have been very clear about your question. There are those who are incapable of letting go of their opinions of Reese developed over the last 6 years or so, apparently. My answer to your question is unequivocally YES, I would take his tenure as is. I tried to make it as easy a possible answer. Thanks for the response .
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Jun 25, 2018 5:23:30 GMT -5
Would you use that narrative with all GMs on the scale of importance? Good question, no not all. QB and HC are most often going to be #1 and #2. Some GMs are responsible for delivering that so they can take credit (but they are still not the actual HC or QB. The strength of the roster comes in a close 3rd and the GM has almost total responsibility for that. So it is a little bit of a complicated matrix. Thanks for the clarification. Would you say the same if Dave's team won one with Eli and Pat?
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Jun 25, 2018 5:25:50 GMT -5
Would you conclude the 2 sacks Kawika Mitchell had in the 2007 playoffs were not worthy of JR singing him? One against Dallas in the Divisional Series and one against NE in the Super bowl. He put that player on the roster. Knowing that would you say his % is still 10% I can add more examples of players he added or re-singed if you want me to. Mitchell was a great signing. To add to your point, I'm pretty sure he made the key goal line stop vs the Skins to end the losing streak at the beginning of the 2007 season. I also think he played a solid game in the must win tilt vs Buffalo that started the run. It was past time to jettison Reese, as Parcells used to say, "it is hard to stay hungry once you've feasted". Perhaps complacency set in after the second SB win, and it rippled down through the scouting dept. That being said, Mitchell wasn't the only key FA signing that helped win the Championship in '07-- Madison and McQuarters were cagey vets that made timely plays all season. As to the parameters given, yes I would have hired him. I agree but some dismiss those facts.
|
|
|
Post by TEM on Jun 25, 2018 6:11:35 GMT -5
It's a baiting question. Of course we would want to see the Giants win two SBs. Yes, it is a debating technique known as the false choice. One result or data point does not necessarily lead to the conclusion presented. How is it a false choice? One we get two rings, or two New Gm no guaranteed rings ( accept forfeit of the trophies) the 2 were very clear if you understood the premise of the question.
|
|
|
Post by JoeBigBlue on Jun 25, 2018 6:21:13 GMT -5
TEM- You wouldn't happen to know how long until the first preseason game in Austrailian time off the top of your head would you?
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Jun 25, 2018 6:23:18 GMT -5
Ringing endorsement or not the fact is none of us entered into 2007 with high expectations. We all felt there were questions that needed answering. None of us could have predicted the results any better than we can this season. True. Say we become competitive. By putting on your Carnac hat, what do you think would be the biggest contributing factor to the turnaround? I think the prior coaching staff was so incompetent that the change the PS and crew will be the single biggest factor.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Jun 25, 2018 10:40:09 GMT -5
TEM- You wouldn't happen to know how long until the first preseason game in Austrailian time off the top of your head would you? I was kinda hoping he’d reset to it to the first real game. I used to be indifferent about preseason. I have grown to absolutely hate it.
|
|
|
Post by JoeBigBlue on Jun 25, 2018 10:49:22 GMT -5
TEM- You wouldn't happen to know how long until the first preseason game in Austrailian time off the top of your head would you? I was kinda hoping he’d reset to it to the first real game. I used to be indifferent about preseason. I have grown to absolutely hate it. I mean, I look forward to it because at least it feels like the season is on it's way, but yeah, is it really worth the possibility of injuries? On the other hand, when you've got a whole new scheme like we do this year, I guess it's gotta be test driven first. Plus they've gotta decide who's getting cut. So.....yeah. I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Roosevelt on Jun 25, 2018 11:03:27 GMT -5
Ringing endorsement or not the fact is none of us entered into 2007 with high expectations. We all felt there were questions that needed answering. None of us could have predicted the results any better than we can this season. True. Say we become competitive. By putting on your Carnac hat, what do you think would be the biggest contributing factor to the turnaround?
Gettleman no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Jun 25, 2018 11:13:32 GMT -5
I was kinda hoping he’d reset to it to the first real game. I used to be indifferent about preseason. I have grown to absolutely hate it. I mean, I look forward to it because at least it feels like the season is on it's way, but yeah, is it really worth the possibility of injuries? On the other hand, when you've got a whole new scheme like we do this year, I guess it's gotta be test driven first. Plus they've gotta decide who's getting cut. So.....yeah. I guess. I’ve started hating it more in recent years as every brainless twit desperately tries to contrive meaning from completely meaningless scrimmages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 11:54:54 GMT -5
We're probably going to see a lot of Webb and Lauletta this pre-season so that's one thing to look forward to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 12:21:53 GMT -5
True. Say we become competitive. By putting on your Carnac hat, what do you think would be the biggest contributing factor to the turnaround? Gettleman no doubt. Eli returning to pre-decline form.
|
|
|
Post by GameTime on Jun 25, 2018 12:22:50 GMT -5
Two SBs... No brainer with a yes. Saying anything else is just makes for good conversation.
|
|