Mike Lombardi on when your team is bad

[MightyGiants]

"You've got to figure out what's wrong with your football team – is it players, is it coaches, is it scheme?"

I would suggest that "players" could also be construed as talent level.  I would also argue that talent can be diminished by injury. 

So, with those qualifiers, what is the cause of the Giants being among the worst, if not the worst, in the league? 

[andrew_nyGiants]

Remember our conversations on the board in the spring?

Many of us commented on how many players we signed / re-signed who had a history of injuries.

I can't help but to consider a correlation between the injuries endured and the history of those on the roster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AZGiantFan]

"You've got to figure out what's wrong with your football team – is it players, is it coaches, is it scheme?"

I would suggest that "players" could also be construed as talent level.  I would also argue that talent can be diminished by injury. 

So, with those qualifiers, what is the cause of the Giants being among the worst, if not the worst, in the league? 

Seems like a very limited view, as it could also be football operations or ownership.

[MightyGiants]

Seems like a very limited view, as it could also be football operations or ownership.

Rich,

I kind of see your point, but I could also see the point that these are more causes for one of the other three being the problem (with those three being the only ones with a direct impact on the outcome of a game)

[AZGiantFan]

Rich,

I kind of see your point, but I could also see the point that these are more causes for one of the other three being the problem (with those three being the only ones with a direct impact on the outcome of a game)

But that is searching for the effect while ignoring the cause.  Another possibility, is it a ten or more year history of disproportionate injuries?  I also think it is a little self-serving, even passive aggressive for Lombardi to limit the scrutiny to things that he, as an executive, wasn't included.  Those players didn't just materialize, someone picked them.  Same for the coaches.  And really, scheme is just a corolary to coaching.

It's like asking, why is a widget company having problems, is it the employees, is it the assembly line, is it the employee benefits package.

[Jclayton92]

It's the Qb play hands down. It has a ripple effect on the whole team, the coaching, the offense knows they aren't going to progress, the defense knows the offense won't do anything and give up, and injured guys are in no rush to get back for absolutely no reason.

[MightyGiants]

But that is searching for the effect while ignoring the cause.  Another possibility, is it a ten or more year history of disproportionate injuries?  I also think it is a little self-serving, even passive aggressive for Lombardi to limit the scrutiny to things that he, as an executive, wasn't included.  Those players didn't just materialize, someone picked them.  Same for the coaches.  And really, scheme is just a corolary to coaching.

It's like asking, why is a widget company having problems, is it the employees, is it the assembly line, is it the employee benefits package.

Rich,

If we accept that players, coaches, and schemes are the three direct factors that determine wins or losses, it seems like it's a good place to start. 

I figure you can decide one or more of these factors are the issue.  Each factor would then lend itself to some root cause analysis. 

I appreciate your point about Mike, a former GM and NFL front office guy, not being listed, but if you think about it, the GM plays a major role in players.  If players are found to be an issue, it's hard not to see the GM having serious responsibility. 

Even in coaching, if the GM hired the HC and/or had input on the assistants that were hired, the GM still would have responsibility.

In my mind, the only factor that GM would be more or less blameless would be the scheme (although since coaches determine the scheme, there would still be an argument for blame).

I see the question Mike asked as a way to address the issues in a systematic way and also as a way to sort of simplify the problem analysis as my breakdowns show there can be a myriad of causes with many of them being inter-related.

[JT39]

If anyone knows how to run a bad football team, it would be Mike Lombardi. Look at his son - he gets axed, and they win 2 consecutive games

[kingm56]

It's the Qb play hands down. It has a ripple effect on the whole team, the coaching, the offense knows they aren't going to progress, the defense knows the offense won't do anything and give up, and injured guys are in no rush to get back for absolutely no reason.

Former coaches and GMs need to validate their professional careers/adulthood; thus, they always list their former professions as a potential cause to promote their own sense of importance. However, no team in the last 2 decades has made a scheme and/or coaching change to significantly, and persistently, turn a perennial looser into a perennial winner.  The latter is only achieved through the selection of an All-Pro type QB.  Nothing else matters until you get that right.  Even the best coaches like Bill B, Sean Payton, Sean McVay, etc can do little without a quality QB. Welcome to the modern NFL. 

[Dgoodmantrublu]

At least 90 percent of the issues are on the QB. A functional offense makes the defense better as they won't have to be on the field all the time. The current situation is demoralizing for the defense. And this was the case with Daniel Jones at QB aside from one half of football. They will continue to be a laughing stock until they address the QB position and get a real franchise QB. That's it. Adding MHJ won't fix this. Only a QB.

[nb587]

I don't remember where I heard this.  There are 3 components to a good team- QB, HC and owner.  GM was not included.  The one constant on the Giants, in my opinion, is a bad owner.  We've won a few SBs with a bad owner but we had (young) Eli and Coughlin.  I still like Daboll but we need a QB preferably on a rookie contract

[kingm56]

I don't remember where I heard this.  There are 3 components to a good team- QB, HC and owner.  GM was not included.  The one constant on the Giants, in my opinion, is a bad owner.  We've won a few SBs with a bad owner but we had (young) Eli and Coughlin.  I still like Daboll but we need a QB preferably on a rookie contract

Mike Brown was consider a laughingstock, excessively cheap, and worst owner in the NFL.  Then he drafted Joe Burrow and poof, he's no longer considered a terrible owner. 

[MightyGiants]

Mike Brown was consider a laughingstock, excessively cheap, and worst owner in the NFL.  Then he drafted Joe Burrow and poof, he's no longer considered a terrible owner. 

I am actually curious how this plays out over the years.

Burrow's rookie season- 4-11 4th place in the division
Burrow's second year-   10-7 the team adds Ja'Marr Chase 1st in their division, and they end up the AFC champs
Burrow's third year- 12-4 1st in their division, lose the AFC conference championship
Burrow's fourth year- currently 5-5 and 4th in their division

I am curious how the team will fare moving forward.  Will the lack of protection cause too many injuries to Burrow and keep the team from being consistent challengers (suggesting the two winning seasons were a bit of a flash in the pan), or is this season an aberration?   I am curious to find out the answer.

Edit to add- I suspect the fortunes of the Bengals will not improve this season, as it's just been reported Burrow is out for the season.


https://x.com/CarlBanksGIII/status/1725611979006521834?s=20
 

[nb587]

Mike Brown was consider a laughingstock, excessively cheap, and worst owner in the NFL.  Then he drafted Joe Burrow and poof, he's no longer considered a terrible owner. 

I dont know that Mike Brown is considered the worst owner notwithstanding his cheapness. Up until pretty recently, there was this guy in Washington who was pretty bad.  The Bengals have drafted well lately which would suggest somebody knows what they're doing.  You can look around the league and find teams that clearly dont know what they're doing witj owners content to cash their checks.  Not sure where Mara fits in given his propensity to spend but where has that gotten us.  I just might prefer Mike Brown to John Mara, not saying much

[kingm56]

I dont know that Mike Brown is considered the worst owner notwithstanding his cheapness. Up until pretty recently, there was this guy in Washington who was pretty bad.  The Bengals have drafted well lately which would suggest somebody knows what they're doing.  You can look around the league and find teams that clearly dont know what they're doing witj owners content to cash their checks.  Not sure where Mara fits in given his propensity to spend but where has that gotten us.  I just might prefer Mike Brown to John Mara, not saying much

Are you a younger fan, nb?  I don't mean that to sound insulting, but if followed football in the 90s/2000s, you're well aware that Mike Brown was routinely listed as one of the worst owners in football; his reputation has greatly improved over the last few years, which is the point...