Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac has to go....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mac has to go....

    I am always on the conservative side of things when it comes to firing people. Whether it is Eli or Reese or Mac or anyone else that people scream to get fired I generally think that firing people won't always fix the issues. The Steelers kept Cowler for 14 years before he won the big one, that is unheard of in todays NFL. Most NFL coaches win their first SB in the first 3-5 years or never, so I always think the HC deserves at least 3 seasons to do his job.

    With that said I believe Mac has to get fired. Not for bad game planning, or play calling or playbook design; but because he has clearly lost this team. That is the one thing as a HC you absolutely can't do. Tom Coughlin is a HOF coach and he was nearly fired for the same thing. I don't think the Giants will give Mac the same leeway.
    LT (132.5) -> Strahan (141.5) -> Osi (65) -> Tuck (60.5) -> JPP (50) -> ???
    "Next man up"

    "I am a nasty football player, I get after people. That is something that I am very proud of. I am out there and I am physical every play, making sure that the guy across from me wants to quit." - Adam Bisnowaty

  • #2
    I can't stand the HC. I don't see him or Reese getting fired now or at the end of the season . That Giants rarely fire a HC after 2 seasons, History has already proven the franchise will put up with losing seasons. Bad ones and multiples in a row I think the reason Handly was fired the team took a big dive after winning a SB under his guidance.

    The Giants have never fired a GM . Not once

    History is on the side of the two of them.
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TEM View Post
      I can't stand the HC. I don't see him or Reese getting fired now or at the end of the season . That Giants rarely fire a HC after 2 seasons, History has already proven the franchise will put up with losing seasons. Bad ones and multiples in a row I think the reason Handly was fired the team took a big dive after winning a SB under his guidance.

      The Giants have never fired a GM . Not once

      History is on the side of the two of them.
      If Reese doesn't become the first in history - he is absolutely laughing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by UK-BigBlue View Post

        If Reese doesn't become the first in history - he is absolutely laughing.
        He wont get fired. If you look at the Giants history GMs stay until they retire.
        The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TEM View Post

          He wont get fired. If you look at the Giants history GMs stay until they retire.
          Reese needs to buck that trend... ASAP!

          Comment


          • #6
            He will go ... just not yet

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by UK-BigBlue View Post

              Reese needs to buck that trend... ASAP!
              I don't see that . The giants live with strings of bad seasons. They rarely build a regular season juggernaut but still put trophies in the case . The teams they build are to win in the post season. Ownership will allow strings of failing seasons to put a trophy in the case every once in a while. That is what the do. Now if you don't agree with this philosophical approach to winning . You are rooting for the wrong team.
              The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TEM View Post

                I don't see that . The giants live with strings of bad seasons. They rarely build a regular season juggernaut but still put trophies in the case . The teams they build are to win in the post season. Ownership will allow strings of failing seasons to put a trophy in the case every once in a while. That is what the do. Now if you don't agree with this philosophical approach to winning . You are rooting for the wrong team.
                You my friend, like assumptions.

                Much like the other post you have quoted me in, after misreading my original post - not once have I said I disagree with the philosophy, I have stated that I feel Reese needs to be the buck in the trend of the NYGs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by UK-BigBlue View Post

                  You my friend, like assumptions.

                  Much like the other post you have quoted me in, after misreading my original post - not once have I said I disagree with the philosophy, I have stated that I feel Reese needs to be the buck in the trend of the NYGs.
                  Why doe the trend need to be changed? They have been in 5 and won 4. I don't see your logic in changing a model that has produced. Changing the GM may not change the way the Ownership does business. That is the point you miss.
                  The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TEM View Post

                    Why doe the trend need to be changed? They have been in 5 and won 4. I don't see your logic in changing a model that has produced. Changing the GM may not change the way the Ownership does business. That is the point you miss.
                    From your question - I don't think you're aware of what bucking the trend is. To give a visual representation:

                    ------------------------------------|-----------------------------------

                    The straight horizontal line is the way NYG run and will continue to run, the straight vertical line is the sacking of Reese (can also throw in McAdoo there). As you can see, the way the Giants usually run (in their general history) continues. It's a buck in the Giants trend.

                    The issue I have - it is in my personal opinion, that by sticking by Reese (and his bad decision making) we won't continue to produce.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by UK-BigBlue View Post

                      From your question - I don't think you're aware of what bucking the trend is. To give a visual representation:

                      ------------------------------------|-----------------------------------

                      The straight horizontal line is the way NYG run and will continue to run, the straight vertical line is the sacking of Reese (can also throw in McAdoo there). As you can see, the way the Giants usually run (in their general history) continues. It's a buck in the Giants trend.

                      The issue I have - it is in my personal opinion, that by sticking by Reese (and his bad decision making) we won't continue to produce.
                      Why does it need to be visual? What purpose does that serve in the big picture? You are entitled on you opinion of JR but there are other cooks adding ingredients to the soup. What we see is Jerry Reese. We never see Chris Mars in front of the podium . Reese get paid to answer questions when need . Chris Mara is ownership and can chose not to do so if he wants.
                      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TEM View Post

                        Why does it need to be visual? What purpose does that serve in the big picture? You are entitled on you opinion of JR but there are other cooks adding ingredients to the soup. What we see is Jerry Reese. We never see Chris Mars in front of the podium . Reese get paid to answer questions when need . Chris Mara is ownership and can chose not to do so if he wants.
                        Now I can't see what your argument is altogether?

                        One moment, you're saying that if I don't agree with the philosophical approach of the owners - I'm supporting the wrong team AND you're also saying you don't see the logic in changing the model - yet you're saying there are many more cooks than just Reese and mention the ownership as a problem. Contradicting your original point?

                        Could I ask - what do you see as the solution here?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by UK-BigBlue View Post

                          Now I can't see what your argument is altogether?

                          One moment, you're saying that if I don't agree with the philosophical approach of the owners - I'm supporting the wrong team AND you're also saying you don't see the logic in changing the model - yet you're saying there are many more cooks than just Reese and mention the ownership as a problem. Contradicting your original point?

                          Could I ask - what do you see as the solution here?
                          The model is Ownership is involved and the GM does not have full control . That is what the Giants have always done. If you do not see that . I don't know what to tell you.
                          The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TEM View Post

                            The model is Ownership is involved and the GM does not have full control . That is what the Giants have always done. If you do not see that . I don't know what to tell you.
                            No no - I see that, I just can't see what side of the argument you fall on here? At one moment you're saying it shouldn't be changed - but in the next, you openly highlight problems in that process? I feel as though you are absolving Reese of any blame here.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by UK-BigBlue View Post

                              No no - I see that, I just can't see what side of the argument you fall on here? At one moment you're saying it shouldn't be changed - but in the next, you openly highlight problems in that process? I feel as though you are absolving Reese of any blame here.
                              I look at both sides. It is the only way to be objective. I am conveying it is not the model, It has produced Championships. it is the process within the model needs to be tweaked. Some where along the line it want awry . It is the same in business . You don't change a good business model , You find a way to make it work or find out why it stopped working.

                              The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X