Injury updates

[DaveBrown74]

Not only are the Giants incredibly opaque (if not outright dismissive) with the media about injuries, but their guidance on expected missed time is often way off the mark.

https://twitter.com/PLeonardNYDN/status/1714727610255598071

[uconnjack8]

Isn't IR designated to return a 4 week minimum?  So Thomas could have gone that way and possibly JMS?

[DaveBrown74]

Isn't IR designated to return a 4 week minimum?  So Thomas could have gone that way and possibly JMS?

Yes, minimum four weeks. Thomas clearly could have.

As others have indicated here, I suspect the motivation level for players to return when they're "on the bubble" health-wise has declined since the start of the year.

[MightyGiants]

Not only are the Giants incredibly opaque (if not outright dismissive) with the media about injuries, but their guidance on expected missed time is often way off the mark.

Daboll coached under Bill Belichick, the man who believes the less you give to the media, the better.  Daboll was able to "get away" with the non-information about injuries because he is likable and last year he was winning.

If things continue as they are in terms of losing and massive injury issues, I wonder if the media will start to call Daboll out.

[DaveBrown74]

Daboll coached under Bill Belichick, the man who believes the less you give to the media, the better.  Daboll was able to "get away" with the non-information about injuries because he is likable and last year he was winning.

If things continue as they are in terms of losing and massive injury issues, I wonder if the media will start to call Daboll out.

Good points.

If that happens, I hope the noise level will also increase significantly around questioning the job our training and medical staff is doing, or at least exploring that issue. I don't think the media has asked nearly enough questions about this. It almost seems like they're afraid to.

[MightyGiants]

Good points.

If that happens, I hope the noise level will also increase significantly around questioning the job our training and medical staff is doing, or at least exploring that issue. I don't think the media has asked nearly enough questions about this. It almost seems like they're afraid to.

I truly hope you're right.  I don't think the Giants will ever string together the needed/hoped success until they stop being handicapped by being among the most injured teams year after year.

[DaveBrown74]

I truly hope you're right.  I don't think the Giants will ever string together then needed/hoped success until they stop being handicapped by being among the most injured teams year after year.

Yup.

The Ronnie Barnes discussion has approached "dead horse" levels. We have been talking about it for two years or more. And I'm not pinning it on him exclusively. I suspect there are other reasons too. But it just doesn't seem like anyone is asking the tough questions (in the media at least). The more recent development I find troubling is the inaccuracy of initial stated prognoses. That is not a new phenomenon this year (happened with McKinney last year, eg), but it just seems to be a persistent theme. Suggests either the doctors don't know what they're talking about, or the team is deliberately lying. Neither is good.

[Ed Vette]

At this point it looks like the Giants will be without both their Starting Offensive Tackles and both their backups as well as their Starting Center. Quite devastating.

Pugh will no doubt be the starting LT, Glowinski the LG, Bredeson Center, McKethan RG and the question mark will be the starting RT and backup Swing. Which may be interchangeable. I would suspect it's Phillips who gets the nod.

[Ed Vette]

Yup.

The Ronnie Barnes discussion has approached "dead horse" levels. We have been talking about it for two years or more. And I'm not pinning it on him exclusively. I suspect there are other reasons too. But it just doesn't seem like anyone is asking the tough questions (in the media at least). The more recent development I find troubling is the inaccuracy of initial stated prognoses. That is not a new phenomenon this year (happened with McKinney last year, eg), but it just seems to be a persistent theme. Suggests either the doctors don't know what they're talking about, or the team is deliberately lying. Neither is good.

Or the fans don't know what their talking about. A multibillion dollar enterprise isn't about to sacrifice their expensive players and their season to an inept medical staff out of any perceived loyalty. 

[Bob In PA]

Or the fans don't know what their talking about. A multibillion dollar enterprise isn't about to sacrifice their expensive players and their season to an inept medical staff out of any perceived loyalty. 

Ed: Plenty of "incompetent" people head up competent staffs.

One means of surviving (notwithstanding incompetence) is to hire the very best people to do the actual work. LOL

Remember "The Peter Principle"?  Anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, look it up.

Bob

[Ed Vette]

Ed: Plenty of "incompetent" people head up competent staffs.

One means of surviving (notwithstanding incompetence) is to hire the very best people to do the actual work. LOL

Remember "The Peter Principle"?  Anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, look it up.

Bob

Yes in a  hierarchy people tend to rise to the level of their incompetence. Then the Peter Plan is not to listen to unqualified voices.

Remember Occam's razor?

[DaveBrown74]

Or the fans don't know what their talking about. A multibillion dollar enterprise isn't about to sacrifice their expensive players and their season to an inept medical staff out of any perceived loyalty. 

I don't think they consciously would either. I do think the top of our organization has a proclivity towards loyalty, inner circle mentality, sacred cow types, and (to some extent) nepotism though. And that has the potential to get in the way of making the 100% best decision 100% of the time.

All I'm suggesting is that I think it's fair to say that not enough questions have been asked about the topic of our training/medical staff by the media. They have asked probing questions about every other topic. But despite a good decade or more of consistently having worse than normal outcomes on the injury front, which is a more than ample sample size, this just never seems to be much of a topic in press conferences with the owner or the GM. I see no reason why that should not change.

[Ed Vette]

I don't think they consciously would either. I do think the top of our organization has a proclivity towards loyalty, inner circle mentality, sacred cow types, and (to some extent) nepotism though. And that has the potential to get in the way of making the 100% best decision 100% of the time.

All I'm suggesting is that I think it's fair to say that not enough questions have been asked about the topic of our training/medical staff by the media. They have asked probing questions about every other topic. But despite a good decade or more of consistently having worse than normal outcomes on the injury front, which is a more than ample sample size, this just never seems to be much of a topic in press conferences with the owner or the GM. I see npurviewo reason why that should not change.

Schoen has no loyalty to anyone. If he saw an issue he would have made a change at the end of last season. If he didn't have purview, he certainly had the power of influence. 

[MightyGiants]

Yup.

The Ronnie Barnes discussion has approached "dead horse" levels. We have been talking about it for two years or more. And I'm not pinning it on him exclusively. I suspect there are other reasons too. But it just doesn't seem like anyone is asking the tough questions (in the media at least). The more recent development I find troubling is the inaccuracy of initial stated prognoses. That is not a new phenomenon this year (happened with McKinney last year, eg), but it just seems to be a persistent theme. Suggests either the doctors don't know what they're talking about, or the team is deliberately lying. Neither is good.

It's frustrating that there is such a lack of accountability.  Even if the problem isn't exclusively with the Senior Vice President, Medical Services/Head Athletic Trainer at some point the head man has to be held accountable.

Or the fans don't know what their talking about. A multibillion dollar enterprise isn't about to sacrifice their expensive players and their season to an inept medical staff out of any perceived loyalty. 

There are two points there. 

1) Speciality units in companies like medical or IT (in not tech companies) often lack full oversight because the top people lack the needed expertise to properly evaluate that department's performance.  For example, a small company's IT head may blame Microsoft for a problem that was actually caused by a mistake they made.  The President of the company may not know enough about IT to see through the claims made by his IT person.  There is also a phenomenon in many organizations where being popular can buy more leeway than deserved.  By all accounts, Ronnie Barnes is very well-liked in the organization.

2)  Mike Lombardi has repeatedly talked about the Giants' Mara being loyal to a fault (based on his sources within the Giants organization).  So we can't assume the Giants wouldn't put loyalty above accountability.  We witnessed that with Reese, who was kept when Coughlin was fired.  We witnessed it with Gettleman being hired and staying longer than the results he produced warranted.  Mara likes to try and run the Giants like a mom-and-pop organization (according to Lombardi and others) in an era where most NFL teams are moving to more of a corporate model

[DaveBrown74]

Schoen has no loyalty to anyone. If he saw an issue he would have made a change at the end of last season. If he didn't have purview, he certainly had the power of influence. 

I just don't know if it's so easy to do that with literally every single employee in the building. He obviously didn't want Kevin Abrams to be the assistant GM anymore, but he wasn't fired. Whereas when Gettleman took over Marc Ross was fired on day one.

A better example might be Thomas McGaughey. He has been retained by multiple coaching staffs despite mediocre to poor results over a conclusive sample. Is the reason he is still here really because every incoming coach has not wanted to bring in his own special teams guy, despite making changes all over the rest of the coaching staff?