Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: Bob In PA on March 25, 2024, 11:15:54 AMking: Me too. Bring in the "right" WR in the first round (not if the one or two you really wanted are already gone, in which case you bring in "best player available" at any position, although OL is certainly an area of need, so you look there first), then consider paying the price to move up to either the high 2nd-round or low 1st-round, depending on which (if any) QB's you really like is still available.

Bob

PS. If you really love a QB in the high first round who has inexplicably fallen to Pick Six, my plan (above) does not rule out serious consideration of a QB, especially if (for example) the guy who fell is your top-ranked QB in the entire draft vs. your second- or third-ranked WR.

PPS. My favorite drafts in the past have been when the Giants get the very best player they see from a position that has yet been drawn from by the other teams.  In other words, the best TE or best whatever, preferably at a position of need.  The Giants have numerous positions of need.

Bob, I completely agree with your caveats; sounds like we're very much aligned on this matter...

Quote from: katkavage on March 25, 2024, 10:53:36 AMIf they think Nix or anyone else day 2 has potential to be elite, yes. If they think they have potential just to start some day, it's a waste.

I'm gonna make a bold prediction: There will be at least one wide receiver picked day 2 or 3 in this draft who becomes a number one, elite receiver in the NFL. Not so sure I make that prediction about a QB.

"If they think Nix or anyone else day 2 has potential to be elite"

The "if they think" portion has little value to me.  It reminds me of a line from Money Ball: "You don't have a crystal ball, you can't look at a kid and predict his future any more than I can." "When it comes to your son, I know...but you don't...you don't."

What I care about is the ROI and probability, which is the impetus of me concurring with the 33rd team. 

Considering the amount of WRs available and will be drafted, I'd say your prediction has a more than a moderate chance of coming to fruition.

Quote from: katkavage on March 25, 2024, 10:34:29 AMWho is the Giants QB of the future who will connect with this receiver?

I believe I addressed your question in the in second part of the my statement. When it comes to the draft, I prefer a return-on-investment philosophy.  This season, I believe it's best to select the first or second best WR or best T, than pick the forth or fifth best QB.  IMO, I'd gamble with the aforementioned QB (or similar) with potential upside in the late 1st or 2d; obviously, the former will require the Giants to spend assets to move up the draft; still, I believe this scenario represents the best ROI.  If the Giants can come away with a blue chip WR and potential QB, I'd be elated.

I actually agree with their position.  As I just explained to Bob, I'd prefer the Giants draft a 'second-tier' QB like Nix in the late 1st or early 2d, preserving their 1st pick to select the best WR available.

Quote from: Bob In PA on March 25, 2024, 07:23:32 AMking: Nice post. I hope you're wrong, but I know better.

Obviously, there's something about the kid they really like (probably effort and dedication) so they're going to stick with him until they're out of excuses. 

I've been a consistent defender of Jones throughout the years because the team failed to assemble a supporting cast immediately after drafting him (IMO, it should have been done before drafting a QB). That matter cannot be denied, notwithstanding all of your excellent points.

We have to assume the team was aware of most of all of those points, so the fact that they drafted him anyway is almost inexplicable... or they believed the problem(s) was(were) fixable.  It sure looks like they were wrong, but he'll probably have this year as a last gasp.

To date, IMO it's unclear whether they'll draft a high 1st-round QB, but the waters are murky. What they actually do in that regard will tell the tale... so we'll have our answer in just a few weeks.

Bob

PS. I just don't like this group of QB's but if I had to pick one with the first pick it would be McCarthy. At least he knows what it's like to win games against college's best teams.

I concur with you regarding this group of QBs, Bob.  I just don't know about the top 4 guys; I'd prefer we gamble with someone like Nix in the late 1st/early 2d and use our #1 on the Wr you covet.  Fix the line with 3/4; who knows, maybe we'll find our next David D....

Quote from: Bob In PA on March 25, 2024, 07:35:27 AMking: I understand why you say that, but IMO they don't have to say anything, so why would they go out of their way to make any statements at all?  No matter what question might be asked by reporters, the answer "We'll have to wait and see because there are so many variables" should always suffice, even for Jones' own ears, because no one knows better than he that his health issue is up-in-the-air (one day at a time). If pressed by the media, the follow-up answer is "I can't predict the future... buy a crystal ball."  Bob

It's a fair point, Bob.  However, not saying anything would cause rampart speculation and create unnecessary drama.  Daboll's answer completely defused the question.

Gentlemen,

In regards to the rationale for DJ's poor performance as a passer, please consider he was criticized for lack of processing speed in college, well before he was saddled with the Giants' terrible OLs, or suffered any injuries.  In fact, his lack of processing speed  is what led Todd McShay to conclude DJ was a 'bad pick, who's skillsets were more suited to a backup vice NFL starter.  If you go back and listen to McShay, his assessment was eerily accurate.  All the signs were and continue to be present.  Again, DJ was never an above-average passer, at any level.  He wasn't a highly, or even moderately recruited HS player; also, he only amassed a few 300+ yard passing games in college, despite playing in a high-scoring conference. The reasons are obvious; despite being a good athlete, his mental/cogitative shortcomings limit his ceiling as a passer.  If you consider the latter, how many times do we see DJ make an anticipatory throw through tight windows?  More often than not, he's throwing simple crossing, post or nine routes.  There's also virtually no improv ability; if a play breaks down, so does DJ, with the exception of the occasional long run. As a passer, he simply never had 'it.'

I'm also mystified why some fans are signing up for 17 more games to see if he can become something he never was; it's more perplexing when you compare DJ's trajectory to every QB who's played over the past 30 years.  In short, no QB made the transition from average to SB winning QB after 60+ games played.  At this point, DJ is who he is, and I think the Giants understand their current paradigm... 

Quote from: Philosophers on March 24, 2024, 04:16:50 PMHe's the guy til he's not the guy.  Imagine Drew Lock starting 2-0 and looking really good.  Sorry but DJ is not coming in.  Dabs is playing for his job in 2024. 

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 24, 2024, 04:25:20 PMFeel like this is stating the obvious. The guy is coming off a mid-season ACL tear. Recoveries vary. There was never a "guarantee" he'd be ready.

Spot on, Jeff/Joe.  What are fans expecting the HC/GM to say?  Broadcasting their draft strategy by announcing they're going to draft a QB at 6, or state they're going to ride with DJ one more year, until they can replace him with someone better? There's literally no good alternative to the question posed...both answers were GM/HC speak 101 and both passed...

Quote from: MightyGiants on March 23, 2024, 01:28:12 PMFair point

Although, there are really two aspects.  There is having a large ego, and then there is one who uses one's position to feed that ego.  It's the latter that usually causes the behavior detrimental to leadership.

Quote from: MightyGiants on March 23, 2024, 01:36:33 PMHave you had a boss or teacher that inspired you to work harder?


There is a reason that both leadership and management are taught.  People in charge very much can influence the people under them and they get people to do what they need them to do (at least the good ones or competent ones can).

Here is another comment that one should consider the facts as we know them.  Wink has a long and successful football career, starting in the college ranks.  His players consistently played hard for him, developed well, and, with the exception of McKinney, have sung his praises.  If one considers what Wink's job is, it is mind-boggling to believe someone would claim he was a poor leader.  Plus the college champion Michigan team hired him as their DC.  I seriously doubt a proven winner would hire a man with no leadership skills.

To point 1: Like everyone here, I've worked for some terrible leaders; however, we have zero control over others' actions. What we control is how we react to the environment they created. To the best of our abilities, we should strive to comport ourselves as professionals. Interesting enough, I believe we can learn more from bad leaders, than really good ones. I suspect leaders recognize and reward those who carry themselves as professionals, regardless of the circumstances.

Wink failed to do so, and as a result, was 'fired' for the second time in 3 years.  Further, no NFL team expressed a desire to add his 'leadership' to their team. 

Point 2: Yes, Wink had a long and successful career.  However, despite the latter, and despite getting NUMEROUS HC interviews, he was never hired to the role.  Clearly, there's something lacking as his contemporaries, with less success, were hired as HCs.

Being exceptional at your job, does not make you a good leader.  Clearly, no NFL team thought Wink had the qualities to lead their team, and now, he's completely out of the NFL. Moreover, he was only effective when paired with HoF talent, without multiple AP/HoF, he's been fired 2x in 3 years and led two bottom 5 defenses for two consecutive seasons. The same thing happened to Sean Payton and Bill B.  They were exceptional at their jobs, as long as they had superior talent.  Without it, they led dumpster fires.  Odd how that works..,

Quote from: Philosophers on March 23, 2024, 12:59:22 PMRich - i agree with all of what you just wrote but with one caveat.  Some of the greatest leaders had large egos.  George Patton, Douglas MacArthur, Steve Jobs, etc.  A leader can have an ego though less ideal.  What he cant have is self-preservation over team.

Spot on, Joe! There is no 'right' way to lead.  It's an art, not a science.  As you stated, Patton was a completely different type of leader than Omar Bradley, both highly effective.

Quote from: MightyGiants on March 23, 2024, 12:42:48 PMAs I said, you can't be a good leader and feed your ego.

Clearly, you missed his point.

Quote from: Philosophers on March 23, 2024, 11:14:56 AMI think your debate on leadership is at different levels.

Rich sounds like he managed smaller teams.  King managed if I had to guess maybe large military groups.

I've also managed teams as well.

Where I think your debate goes awry is that once you set the top level parameters a larger group means less ability to be mindful of individual behavior which mY threaten the team.

If you are managing a 20 person team, I see faces, talk to each all the time and can observe them and get in front of problems.

If You are managing 10,000 people, once you set the top parameters and create a layered structure with good people you are very unlikely able to get ahead of poor behavior of individuals unless they are direct reports.

Joe,

I was going to type something very similar; however, it failed to be as precise as your post.  I would like to add one caveat: IMO, it doesn't matter if you lead/manage 10,000 or 10 people, the actions of others are sometimes decoupled from leaders' actions.   I also think it's incredibly naive to believe a leader can control the actions of thier subordinates.  Four-star generals and CEOs of fortune 250 companies don't have this power. Perhaps they failed to enjoy the appropriate mentorship, or individuals sometimes act on thier own self-interest/morals.  20 years of experience has led me to believe the latter is true.

I am also incredibly skeptical of any leader who believe they can control every person and/or situation...that leader does not exist.

Fundamentally, I doubt Wink will ever be an effective leader as poor followers rarely become good leaders; I suspect his limited emotional intelligence and poor followership is why he was fired from Balt, NY and has yet to achieve his goal of becoming an NFL coach.

Regardless, exceptionally good post.   

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on March 22, 2024, 05:38:44 PMMatt,

Fair enough - "quick" is probably not the best word.

Although given Mara gave Gettleman four seasons, all of which were abject failures, and he only gave Coughlin three bad seasons (if we're calling 7-9 "bad") after two Super Bowl wins, one could argue it wasn't exactly loyal.

Moreover, he seemed to go out of his way to dress up Gettleman's firing as a "retirement", waiting until the end of a truly wretched season when he have seen him fire both GMs and coaches in-season multiple times. Coughlin on the other hand was more or less pushed out and was clearly upset by the whole thing.

"Quick" is the wrong word, I agree. But I don't like the way the Coughlin firing was handled, and meanwhile I don't understand why Gettleman was afforded any more grace than people like McAdoo, Schurmur, and Joe Judge got. Hell, Jerry Reese, a two time Super Bowl winning GM, was fired in-season.

Fair counterpoints, Jeff.  Well stated...

Quote from: T200 on March 22, 2024, 04:57:26 PMYes, Daboll was wrong. He wasn't alone. And as I already mentioned several times, the NFL teams who had available positions and did not hire, let alone interview Wink, did not like how he handled himself.  Now he's out of the league.

Actions taken and consequences suffered.

Very well stated, Tim; you did far better job at capturing my sentiments than my crude posts.

Quote from: MightyGiants on March 22, 2024, 04:32:18 PMUnfortunately this is the response I expected and it's my cue to bow out of this discussion.

You made assumptions and started lecturing without asking about my leadership experiences. If you bothered to inquire, you may appreciate I have a lot of experience in this field. I appreciate you simply don't like being challenged; however, I don't understand what prompted your sarcastic response.