Big Blue Huddle

I don't think Mike has expressed himself that well, and he does seem to take a harder take on NYG than needed, but I think he has a point.  I think the hemming and hawing on Barkley doesn't happen in a well-run organization.   A well-run organization has already established a philosophy for the RB position.  Either a team pays or doesn't pay for veteran RB contracts.   They have a vision for the team and for the role the RB plays. 

Not once in the conversations about what to do with Barkley was there a mention of the overarching team-building principles.  When a team develops good team-building principles, these sorts of decisions are easy to make because you compare the decisions to how they meet your overarching team-building goals.

What Mike is seeing is a team that lacks that vision.  They seem to be making their decisions on a micro rather than a macro view.  We should have been seeing, and Schoen should be able to express what sort of football team he is looking to build and how he intends to build it.  With those pieces in place, the smaller issues they seem to spend so much time debating, become less of an issue.  Either a player helps achieve the GM's vision or he doesn't.   Even how much to pay is built into such an overarching point of view.

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 11, 2024, 08:49:54 AMI don't think Mike has expressed himself that well, and he does seem to take a harder take on NYG than needed, but I think he has a point.  I think the hemming and hawing on Barkley doesn't happen in a well-run organization.   A well-run organization has already established a philosophy for the RB position.  Either a team pays or doesn't pay for veteran RB contracts.   They have a vision for the team and for the role the RB plays. 

Not once in the conversations about what to do with Barkley was there a mention of the overarching team-building principles.  When a team develops good team-building principles, these sorts of decisions are easy to make because you compare the decisions to how they meet your overarching team-building goals.

What Mike is seeing is a team that lacks that vision.  They seem to be making their decisions on a micro rather than a macro view.  We should have been seeing, and Schoen should be able to express what sort of football team he is looking to build and how he intends to build it. With those pieces in place, the smaller issues they seem to spend so much time debating, become less of an issue.  Either a player helps achieve the GM's vision or he doesn't.   Even how much to pay is built into such an overarching point of view.

Couple of things that jumped out at me immediately:

1 - We cannot discount the direct/indirect influence that Mara imparts. Schoen is gradually standing up to him. Last year, I'm sure Mara let Schoen know that he wanted both Jones and Barkley. He got it. This year he wanted it as well but Schoen wasn't having it. I think JS was glad Barkley didn't give the Giants a chance to match the offer from Philthy.

2 - If we, as fans, cannot/should not read too much into the snippets of information gleaned from HK, then neither should Lombardi. Because we didn't see a conversation doesn't mean it didn't happen. And we don't have the luxury of determining what should or should not be seen. That privilege belongs solely to the NYG.

Quote from: T200 on July 11, 2024, 09:08:06 AMCouple of things that jumped out at me immediately:

1 - We cannot discount the direct/indirect influence that Mara imparts. Schoen is gradually standing up to him. Last year, I'm sure Mara let Schoen know that he wanted both Jones and Barkley. He got it. This year he wanted it as well but Schoen wasn't having it. I think JS was glad Barkley didn't give the Giants a chance to match the offer from Philthy.

2 - If we, as fans, cannot/should not read too much into the snippets of information gleaned from HK, then neither should Lombardi. Because we didn't see a conversation doesn't mean it didn't happen. And we don't have the luxury of determining what should or should not be seen. That privilege belongs solely to the NYG.

1) To point one, if you sold yourself as GM based on a particular vision for the team, it's easier to "stand up to Mara."  All Schoen would have to do is remind Mara of the vision for the team and how signing or not signing Barkley helps achieve that vision.   

2)  As I mentioned before, Lombardi was close with Daboll and with Wink.  So he had those sources in the building.  Plus, even before that, it was pretty clear that Lombardi had at least one other quality source in the Giants building.  The Giants would react too strongly to some of Mike's comments pre-Schoen for those comments not to have some grains of truth in them.

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 11, 2024, 09:12:11 AM1) To point one, if you sold yourself as GM based on a particular vision for the team, it's easier to "stand up to Mara."  All Schoen would have to do is remind Mara of the vision for the team and how signing or not signing Barkley helps achieve that vision.   

2)  As I mentioned before, Lombardi was close with Daboll and with Wink.  So he had those sources in the building.  Plus, even before that, it was pretty clear that Lombardi had at least one other quality source in the Giants building.  The Giants would react too strongly to some of Mike's comments pre-Schoen for those comments not to have some grains of truth in them.

1 - managing personalities takes finesse and tact, especially when it comes to the person that signs your paycheck. I have no doubt that Schoen is slowly, but surely, pushing back on Mara's wants, especially when it comes to the roster.

2 - There probably are some grains of truth as you say. However, someone else mentioned that perhaps Lombardi either has sour grapes or may be eyeing the Giants GM position. Undermining the current GM by saying the team lacks vision is not a good look, IMHO.

Quote from: T200 on July 11, 2024, 09:08:06 AM1 - We cannot discount the direct/indirect influence that Mara imparts. Schoen is gradually standing up to him. Last year, I'm sure Mara let Schoen know that he wanted both Jones and Barkley. He got it. This year he wanted it as well but Schoen wasn't having it. I think JS was glad Barkley didn't give the Giants a chance to match the offer from Philthy.

I think you're right about Mara's influence. I hope you're right that Schoen is learning to stand up to him. So far I think Schoen is closer to Jerry Reese than George Young in terms of catering to ownership and articulating an organizational philosophy.

Quote from: T200 on July 11, 2024, 09:20:21 AM1 - managing personalities takes finesse and tact, especially when it comes to the person that signs your paycheck. I have no doubt that Schoen is slowly, but surely, pushing back on Mara's wants, especially when it comes to the roster.

2 - There probably are some grains of truth as you say. However, someone else mentioned that perhaps Lombardi either has sour grapes or may be eyeing the Giants GM position. Undermining the current GM by saying the team lacks vision is not a good look, IMHO.

I don't think Mike is eyeing the GM job, or he wouldn't be talking about the team like he does.  Mike is 65 and since he last worked in the league (with the Patriots) in 2016 he has done podcast work, written two books (both are outstanding), has had done various podcasts and gets work as a speaker and consultant.  His two sons work in the league (or at least had worked in the league).  I don't think Mike is looking to get back into the league at this point in his life.

As for having interest, maybe.  Although I think Mike's resume was pretty solid.  Looking at the Giants timeline, I would think that if he had an interest in 2007 when they hired Reese, or 2018 when they hired Gettlemen, the team would have at least brought Mike in for an interview.  In 2018, the GM search seemed short and rushed, adding Mike as another candidate would have helped make the process look a little better, in my opinion.

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 11, 2024, 08:49:54 AMI don't think Mike has expressed himself that well, and he does seem to take a harder take on NYG than needed, but I think he has a point.  I think the hemming and hawing on Barkley doesn't happen in a well-run organization.   A well-run organization has already established a philosophy for the RB position.  Either a team pays or doesn't pay for veteran RB contracts.   They have a vision for the team and for the role the RB plays. 

Not once in the conversations about what to do with Barkley was there a mention of the overarching team-building principles.  When a team develops good team-building principles, these sorts of decisions are easy to make because you compare the decisions to how they meet your overarching team-building goals.

What Mike is seeing is a team that lacks that vision.  They seem to be making their decisions on a micro rather than a macro view.  We should have been seeing, and Schoen should be able to express what sort of football team he is looking to build and how he intends to build it.  With those pieces in place, the smaller issues they seem to spend so much time debating, become less of an issue.  Either a player helps achieve the GM's vision or he doesn't.   Even how much to pay is built into such an overarching point of view.

Rich: IMO, the bottom line on ALL issues raised by your post above is: Schoen/Daboll's idea of what a good and modern NFL team should look like is vastly different than the vision of the previous management team. As a result, numerous changes were needed when the current group took over. The sheer number of necessary changes required a significant amount of time to accomplish. Although the time has not yet expired, there is less than a year remaining as of today. Bob

Speaking of Mike, here is his take on the latest episode.

Lombardi sucks. Giving him credence for anything is just stupid at this point.

He is a jilted lover at this point.

Quote from: JT39 on July 11, 2024, 10:02:01 AMLombardi sucks. Giving him credence for anything is just stupid at this point.

He is a jilted lover at this point.

    

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 11, 2024, 08:49:54 AMI don't think Mike has expressed himself that well, and he does seem to take a harder take on NYG than needed, but I think he has a point.  I think the hemming and hawing on Barkley doesn't happen in a well-run organization.   A well-run organization has already established a philosophy for the RB position.  Either a team pays or doesn't pay for veteran RB contracts.   They have a vision for the team and for the role the RB plays. 

Not once in the conversations about what to do with Barkley was there a mention of the overarching team-building principles.  When a team develops good team-building principles, these sorts of decisions are easy to make because you compare the decisions to how they meet your overarching team-building goals.

What Mike is seeing is a team that lacks that vision.  They seem to be making their decisions on a micro rather than a macro view.  We should have been seeing, and Schoen should be able to express what sort of football team he is looking to build and how he intends to build it.  With those pieces in place, the smaller issues they seem to spend so much time debating, become less of an issue.  Either a player helps achieve the GM's vision or he doesn't.   Even how much to pay is built into such an overarching point of view.

Can we not deduce that JS wants to throw the ball?

He said you're not paying Daniel that money to hand it to a QB.

He drafted a WR high in the first round.

He opted to sign Slayton over Love last year.

I think the identity is set. The players now have to perform.

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on July 11, 2024, 10:13:31 AMCan we not deduce that JS wants to throw the ball?

He said you're not paying Daniel that money to hand it to a QB.

He drafted a WR high in the first round.

He opted to sign Slayton over Love last year.

I think the identity is set. The players now have to perform.

Here's the thing: we shouldn't have to deduce.  For all that was wrong with Gettleman, he at least had a vision (albeit dated) for how he wanted the team built.  He frequently talked about his team needing to "run the ball, stop the run, and rush the opposing QB".   From that vision, all decisions could be made with that idea in mind.  A team vision should be something that is clearly laid out and talked about regularly.

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 11, 2024, 10:04:31 AM   

Riddle me this - how many other teams of the last decade has he ridden like this?

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 11, 2024, 10:17:17 AMHere's the thing: we shouldn't have to deduce.  For all that was wrong with Gettleman, he at least had a vision (albeit dated) for how he wanted the team built.  He frequently talked about his team needing to "run the ball, stop the run, and rush the opposing QB".   From that vision, all decisions could be made with that idea in mind.  A team vision should be something that is clearly laid out and talked about regularly.

And Gettleman's explicitly laying out a vision got us where?

Personally, I'm not fussed about what I hear, I'm not greatly concerned with how the sausage is made. I just want to eat a sausage sandwich.

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on July 11, 2024, 10:25:43 AMAnd Gettleman's explicitly laying out a vision got us where?

Personally, I'm not fussed about what I hear, I'm not greatly concerned with how the sausage is made. I just want to eat a sausage sandwich.

Ed,

I thought I made it clear, I didn't agree with Gettleman's vision.  So let us not conflate the good process of having a vision, versus the results when you have an incorrect vision (and also Gettleman's player acquisition failed to fulfill his vision).

How the sausage is made is what results in a good or bad sandwich.