Raanan reports other coaches unhappy with Daboll

[Ed Vette]

https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2024/01/12/new-york-giants-brian-daboll-makes-brutal-outbursts-personal/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3tSBUmLbpLRleY9QtKKOfL4DZln-h2ykeQ7ulDKo_tkZ36oBRd4QE3n-A_aem_ATEtSBf20qWMgVzW6wSqUPPCEHf-PReUqexlUqZFiW3za2l_tCJ3aRzmVQMbS5NoU1M#lrat2vjum90wz6wn72

No doubt Daboll should adjust his outbursts and save them for important moments. Otherwise he gets tuned out. I wonder how much of it was pushback from Wink's needling and being antagonistic.

I agree with Rich on one point. Schoen knew Daboll's personality and he had to know Wink's. He put two explosive Alpha Dogs together because he and I suspect Mara didn't want a new HC to have his attention fragmented, when the goal was to mentor DJ and fix the Offense. That failed on both fronts.

If Kafka stays, it provides continuity on that side. He however needs mentoring too and if he's too mindset on the KC ways and "we did it this way" attitude then he needs to move on too.

Schoen needs to support the hires that will work well with Daboll. I'm sure they do personality profiles as I did with my Managers and it's clear that there are certain teams that will work and those that will not.

[MightyGiants]

McKinney made it clear he was not even considering re-signing with the Giants if Wink was still around.  Now it's at least a possibility that he comes back.  To take that kind of stance would likely indicate he wasn't alone with that distaste of his DC.

I heard a report that there were stories that McKinney wasn't coming back if Wink was still here, but I don't think McKinney made a public statement or publicly indicated that was the case.  Still, it was clear there was no love loss between Wink and McKinney.  Between McKinney's public call out of the defensive coaching staff and Wink's 8-minute counterpoint, this was another dispute the Giants failed to keep in-house and minimized.  I will also add that from what I have heard Wink's departure does not mean McKinney will be coming back.  He was likely gone regardless (which makes me wonder why Schoen didn't trade him when the season was effectively over)

[Ed Vette]

McKinney made it clear he was not even considering re-signing with the Giants if Wink was still around.  Now it's at least a possibility that he comes back.  To take that kind of stance would likely indicate he wasn't alone with that distaste of his DC.

Thibs made a remark that he wants a podcast opportunity to speak because he knows the real deal. Although I suspect he's not on Wink's side, for sure he's on his own side. He should STFU.

[Ed Vette]

Spot on, Bob. None of this is based on fact. It's all opinion and supposition based on an extremely limited view of things.

Which is why absolutely none of this manufactured drama means squat to me. As others have said, this is equal parts losing franchise + manufactured drama + off-season boredom.

One fact we know is that none of this faux drama kept the team from landing their #1 choice for OL coach. I'd think if things in the building were as bad as some are trying to portray, thus would have not been the case.

Good point on the Oline Coach hire. He probably sees this as a slam dunk opportunity to be a hero.

[Ed Vette]

McKinney = Show me the money

[MightyGiants]

Thibs made a remark that he wants a podcast opportunity to speak because he knows the real deal. Although I suspect he's not on Wink's side, for sure he's on his own side. He should STFU.

https://x.com/kayvont/status/1745174401736114505?s=20

[T200]

Tim,

You are being very intellectually dishonest.  It's clear you seek out what you WANT to hear rather than seek out the truth regardless of whether you want to hear it or not (as I am).

You don't think I wanted to find out our head coach is doing a great job and by parting ways with Wink all the problems are solved and I can look forward to great trouble free seasons ahead????

As much as I want to have optimism moving forward that we have the right GM and right head coach, I am not going to pick and choose what and who I believe to support that desire, as you are clearly doing.

I want to be optimistic, but I have invested too much time and energy trying to get to the truth, along with the skills and techniques I have developed.

One thing that ruins your narrative is I posted the like for the Giants Insiders podcast roasting Wink.

If I was this sinister, intellectually dishonest person you are disappointingly trying to portray me as (because I see things differently than you do), I wouldn't have posted it.  I only would have posted things that fit my views (although that is very difficult as my views are always subject to change based on new information).


Tim, you are an admin; you should be setting an example to follow.  That example should be discussing topics, not attacking people that you don't agree with, and FALSELY accusing them of intellectual dishonesty.  People posting here should have to be having to defend their character.  That includes your slander about me trying to pass off opinion as fact.

Rich,

You're right... just like Wink.

You can say whatever you want without reprisal, whether it's true or not.

Everyone is supposed to take what you say as fact, no questions asked.

You can say someone is being intellectually dishonest, is slandering you, and you're correct. But if you are being intellectually dishonest and it's pointed out, you go on the offensive and talk about how I should be setting a better example because I'm an admin.

Here's the deal: you don't get to tell me why I liked another member's post. You don't get to change words around and say I think your "views" are comical when I didn't say your views are comical. You don't get to say I am keen to attack you when I haven't and then proceed to tell me why I would do so.

Typically I let stuff like this go but for some reason, and it isn't the first time, but it's these little nuggets of dishonesty that you slip into your responses really irk me.

I'll leave it at that.

[Ed Vette]

[MightyGiants]

Rich,

You're right... just like Wink.

You can say whatever you want without reprisal, whether it's true or not.

Everyone is supposed to take what you say as fact, no questions asked.

You can say someone is being intellectually dishonest, is slandering you, and you're correct. But if you are being intellectually dishonest and it's pointed out, you go on the offensive and talk about how I should be setting a better example because I'm an admin.

Here's the deal: you don't get to tell me why I liked another member's post. You don't get to change words around and say I think your "views" are comical when I didn't say your views are comical. You don't get to say I am keen to attack you when I haven't and then proceed to tell me why I would do so.

Typically I let stuff like this go but for some reason, and it isn't the first time, but it's these little nuggets of dishonesty that you slip into your responses really irk me.

I'll leave it at that.

Tim,

Treat others as you wish to be treated, and stick to the topic at hand rather than false personal attacks because you disagree with someone.

[T200]

Tim,

Treat others as you wish to be treated

Ditto. 

[AZGiantFan]

That is one positive takeaway.  As bad as the drama got among the head coaches, at least it didn't spill into the locker room and impact the players.  Hell, with all the chaos one could argue their last game of the season was one of the player's best efforts for the season

Seems like that is a very strong argument in Daboll's favor.  I think your management analogies are way off base because a high pressure, out in the public, professional sports team is a different animal.  Personally I think a military analogy fits better.  And a leader who protects his troops from machinations of lesser officers is doing a good job.  If there are other disaffected coaches they should be gotten rid of. 

[MightyGiants]

Seems like that is a very strong argument in Daboll's favor.  I think your management analogies are way off base because a high pressure, out in the public, professional sports team is a different animal.  Personally I think a military analogy fits better.  And a leader who protects his troops from machinations of lesser officers is doing a good job.  If there are other disaffected coaches they should be gotten rid of. 

The defense played extremely well in that last game, so I have a hard time not giving credit to both men for this.

[AZGiantFan]

In the immortal words of Paul Simon:

All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

This is a pretty good summary of this discussion.

[Ed Vette]

Seems like that is a very strong argument in Daboll's favor.  I think your management analogies are way off base because a high pressure, out in the public, professional sports team is a different animal.  Personally I think a military analogy fits better.  And a leader who protects his troops from machinations of lesser officers is doing a good job.  If there are other disaffected coaches they should be gotten rid of. 

Exactly. More in line with Sun Tsu in the 21st Century.

[Bill Brown]

Exactly. More in line with Sun Tsu in the 21st Century.

Or Nick.