I think I understand where Mike Lombardi is coming from in terms of NYG

[Philosophers]

All I heard from HKs was Barkley's financial cost to the team.  No mention of what he brings as a leader to the team.  Xavier was only about himself but Saquon was not.  On an O desperate for leadership, that was worth an extra million or two plus it sends a message to the team about value of leaders.

An O with both Saquon and Malik is better than an O with Singletary and Malik.

[T200]

Tim,

I am always mindful of the differences between results and process. Football has a considerable amount of luck.  You have injuries, the bounce of the ball, the strength of schedule, weather, freak occurrences, and so on that all impact a team's fortunes.  What can be controlled is the process.  A good process doesn't ensure good results (and to a degree, the reverse is also true), but it increases your odds of good results.  Teams with good processes may not win the Super Bowl, but they tend to be the teams that are regularly in contention.

And that's why I took issue with your statement:

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

[MightyGiants]

And that's why I took issue with your statement:

In fairness, the analogy of the sausage being made wasn't mine, and it does have its limitations.  There is a lot less luck in sausage-making than there is in the NFL.   

[T200]

In fairness, the analogy of the sausage being made wasn't mine, and it does have its limitations.  There is a lot less luck in sausage-making than there is in the NFL.   

It wasn't about the sausage... it was about *knowing* the philosophy of how the team is constructed as being a reason for the failure/success. My point stands that we don't need to know the hows and whys in order to determine failure or success.

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.

Schoen has a vision. Because HK didn't air it doesn't mean there isn't one. Lombardi should know better than to assume that there isn't one.

Casual football fans know the Giants are 4x SB champs. They don't know how those teams were built.

[Doc16LT56]

Schoen has a vision. Because HK didn't air it doesn't mean there isn't one. Lombardi should know better than to assume that there isn't one.

A GM having a vision isn't any more valuable than a HC having a creative playbook. What matters is what you're able to do with it. Does Schoen  articulate his vision in a way that creates buy-in? Does he reinforce the vision when he sees others veering off course? Is he able to leverage the buy-in he's earned from the rest of the leadership team, including ownership, to execute moves that will further his vision?

None of this is clear at the moment. I certainly didn't see much of it on their TV show.

[MightyGiants]

It wasn't about the sausage... it was about *knowing* the philosophy of how the team is constructed as being a reason for the failure/success. My point stands that we don't need to know the hows and whys in order to determine failure or success.

Schoen has a vision. Because HK didn't air it doesn't mean there isn't one. Lombardi should know better than to assume that there isn't one.

Casual football fans know the Giants are 4x SB champs. They don't know how those teams were built.

Two points:

1) Mike knows more about what is going on with the Giants than we do.

2) If there were a consistent team vision, Tim McDonnell, Director of Player Personnel, wouldn't have asked what was the team identity if Barkley left.  Tim would have known the identity the team either had or was trying to have.

[Doc16LT56]

2) If there were a consistent team vision, Tim McDonnell, Director of Player Personnel, wouldn't have asked what was the team identity if Barkley left.  Tim would have known the identity the team either had or was trying to have.

This is an important point. Remember when Rex Ryan was on Hard Knocks and he wouldn't stop repeating the ground and pound mantra? He was making sure everyone understood what the team's identity was supposed to be. I didn't see any evidence that this organization is on the same page. In fact, to your point, there were people trying to figure out what the team's identity is supposed to be. That's a problem.

[T200]

Two points:

1) Mike knows more about what is going on with the Giants than we do.

2) If there were a consistent team vision, Tim McDonnell, Director of Player Personnel, wouldn't have asked what was the team identity if Barkley left.  Tim would have known the identity the team either had or was trying to have.

Yes, I'm sure Lombardi knows more about what is going on with the Giants than we do. But he sure doesn't know more about what's going on with the Giants than the Giants do.

Not having an identity is not the same as having a team/org vision.

It's a logical question, IMHO. Barkley has been the face of the franchise since he was drafted. Now he's gone. I don't see that question as having a direct correlation to the team/Schoen not having a vision for the franchise.

[MightyGiants]

Yes, I'm sure Lombardi knows more about what is going on with the Giants than we do. But he sure doesn't know more about what's going on with the Giants than the Giants do.

Not having an identity is not the same as having a team/org vision.

It's a logical question, IMHO. Barkley has been the face of the franchise since he was drafted. Now he's gone. I don't see that question as having a direct correlation to the team/Schoen not having a vision for the franchise.

Tim's full question was, "If Barkley leaves what is our identity on offense?"  Tim further clarifies by mentioning Barkley's offensive production.  So this wasn't a "who will be the face of the franchise question".

I went back and rewatched that section with this discussion in mind. Schoen sort of answers Tim's question by saying they are going to bolster the O-line and they have a $40 million dollar QB (this is where the comment about a $40 million dollar QB handing off to a $12 million dollar RB is made).

Schoen should have been able to express a clear vision of what they are trying to achieve on offense.  Schoen's answer should have been something like, we are going to build in the trenches, and we are going to be a more pass-heavy team that isn't so reliant on the run..."  A good leader has a clear vision for his organization and is able to express that vision clearly and in a manner that makes others want to work toward it.

[AZGiantFan]

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. 

Frankly I think the hemming and hawing is completely attributable to Mara.  We already saw him in part 1 and in the coming attractions to part 3 they show him as saying he's going to be sick if Barkley leaves.  And we saw the nepotic McDonnell reinforcing that.  And it shows that the Giants aren't a well run organization, because of Mara and the family.  I got a distinct impression that the Barkley dance was Schoen showing Mara he tried to keep Barkley without really trying to keep Barkley.  I don't think Schoen/Daboll WANT a RB to be either the face of the organization OR the focus of the offense.

[T200]

Tim's full question was, "If Barkley leaves what is our identity on offense?"  Tim further clarifies by mentioning Barkley's offensive production.  So this wasn't a "who will be the face of the franchise question".

I went back and rewatched that section with this discussion in mind. Schoen sort of answers Tim's question by saying they are going to bolster the O-line and they have a $40 million dollar QB (this is where the comment about a $40 million dollar QB handing off to a $12 million dollar RB is made).

Schoen should have been able to express a clear vision of what they are trying to achieve on offense.  Schoen's answer should have been something like, we are going to build in the trenches, and we are going to be a more pass-heavy team that isn't so reliant on the run..." A good leader has a clear vision for his organization and is able to express that vision clearly and in a manner that makes others want to work toward it.

First, at that moment in time, we don't know if "Barkley to the Eagles" was officially announced when McDonnell asked the question.

Second, isn't McDonnell part of the Mara family? How do we know that question wasn't asked to propel some second-guessing on Schoen's part to try and keep Barkley, since that's what Uncle John wants?

[T200]

I got a distinct impression that the Barkley dance was Schoen showing Mara he tried to keep Barkley without really trying to keep Barkley. 

That's my take on it as well... similar to Daboll's handling of Wink. Make the other person make the move.

[MightyGiants]

First, at that moment in time, we don't know if "Barkley to the Eagles" was officially announced when McDonnell asked the question.

Second, isn't McDonnell part of the Mara family? How do we know that question wasn't asked to propel some second-guessing on Schoen's part to try and keep Barkley, since that's what Uncle John wants?

This is why owners hiring family for key positions is less than ideal.