The tenure system needs to stop

[Toadofsteel]

This is my main beef with Coughlin. Veterans who have been here for a long while always know that they get to play. TC will always go to the one that's been here longer and let superior talent rot on the bench. Furthermore, he's a lot more forgiving of his veterans making mistakes, while one rookie infraction will land you in the doghouse for several games (at least). I think this is contributing to our second-half collapses a lot more than you may think. Veteran starters know that their jobs are secure, so they have no real desire to play. Rookies and backups know that they are being unfairly judged against in favor of said starters, so they begin tuning out the coaching staff.

Rookies and FA pickups need to have legitimate shots to surpass the established starters during the season. Benching Locklear for Diehl when both were healthy was unacceptable. Giving Wilson 5 snaps maximum in games where he's the offense's best weapon, while subsequently running Bradshaw into the ground is beyond the definition of insanity, especially when Wilson gets pulled after getting trucked on a block, while Bradshaw gets to whiff blocks entirely.
Otherwise, I really like TC, and wish that he could do better, but if firing him is the only way to get rid of this tenure system, we unfortunately have to make the change...

[nygpolishpunk]

you read my mind

[Toadofsteel]

That IS my main gripe on TC, to be honest.

[nygpolishpunk]

Its a part of being an old school coach

[CDN_G-FAN]

i can't agree with this, and it flies in the face of alot of what's been written about this coaching staff.

Coughlin's teams are consistently referenced as the most likely to have UFA and other cast aways make the roster because the coaching staff just wants the best available players, period.

the entire focus of this loyalty arguement is Wilson, and this coaching staff has established protecting Eli as one of the most important jobs our RBs have. They've done this every year with every young RB we get, and other than the last two years (which i would pin on the line more than the RBs) we've had a great crop of players from deep who contribute way above their position on draft day, and a QB who holds the consecutive start record for his position in the NFL today.

Coughlin doesn't have some misplaced loyalty to bradshaw or any vet. No one has ever successfully questioned TC's desire to win, and the idea that he leaves an obviously better choice on the bench in favour of some older guy out of loyalty just doesn't make any sense.


Eli is worth alot more to this offense than wilson ever will, and its clear from every knowledgable commentator inside the game (collinsworth, aikman, billick, etc) that has spoken to the coaching staff off the record about Wilson that the issue has nothing to do with loyalty to bradshaw, and everything to do with their priority being keeping Eli healthy.

[Flip Empty]

the entire focus of this loyalty arguement is Wilson,
.

Nope, it's also about Diehl, Tuck, Osi, Webster etc

[CDN_G-FAN]

Nope, it's also about Diehl, Tuck, Osi, Webster etc

who are the clearly better alternatives for those players that we let rot on the bench out of loyalty.

again, this idea that every problem we have is a coaching problem just exposes the nasty bias of so many fans.

Who were the obvious alternatives for Tuck, Osi, and Webster?

Diehl was benched, they just saved him the embarrassment and frankly media distraction of saying they were benching him.

Locklear breaks his leg after a couple starts where Diehl was 'injured', and then magically the next week diehl says he's 100% health was and ready to go? Really? he wasn't 100% the week before? Whatevs. He was benched.

[Flip Empty]

Who knows? I'm not the one making those calls. I just know where the OP is coming from. It seems like vets can only lose their job once their contract expires.

[Kruunch]

This is my main beef with Coughlin. Veterans who have been here for a long while always know that they get to play. TC will always go to the one that's been here longer and let superior talent rot on the bench. Furthermore, he's a lot more forgiving of his veterans making mistakes, while one rookie infraction will land you in the doghouse for several games (at least). I think this is contributing to our second-half collapses a lot more than you may think. Veteran starters know that their jobs are secure, so they have no real desire to play. Rookies and backups know that they are being unfairly judged against in favor of said starters, so they begin tuning out the coaching staff.

Rookies and FA pickups need to have legitimate shots to surpass the established starters during the season. Benching Locklear for Diehl when both were healthy was unacceptable. Giving Wilson 5 snaps maximum in games where he's the offense's best weapon, while subsequently running Bradshaw into the ground is beyond the definition of insanity, especially when Wilson gets pulled after getting trucked on a block, while Bradshaw gets to whiff blocks entirely.
Otherwise, I really like TC, and wish that he could do better, but if firing him is the only way to get rid of this tenure system, we unfortunately have to make the change...

You're confusing consistency for "tenure".

The Giants utilize their talent better than most teams in the league. Why do you think they have such a great reputation for getting super stars out of nowhere? TC's had no problem benching marquis players like Bradshaw and Osi in the past.

And I do agree with you about Wilson ... the only thing I can think of is that he really rubs TC (or KG) the wrong way.

[Toadofsteel]

who are the clearly better alternatives for those players that we let rot on the bench out of loyalty.

again, this idea that every problem we have is a coaching problem just exposes the nasty bias of so many fans.

Who were the obvious alternatives for Tuck, Osi, and Webster?

Diehl was benched, they just saved him the embarrassment and frankly media distraction of saying they were benching him.

Locklear breaks his leg after a couple starts where Diehl was 'injured', and then magically the next week diehl says he's 100% health was and ready to go? Really? he wasn't 100% the week before? Whatevs. He was benched.

You're telling me that between healthy Diehl and healthy Locklear, you'd take Diehl? Obviously Locklear going down forced the hand, but there were 3 games (including Pitt and Cincy) where a healthy Locklear was riding the pine.

The fact that we didn't even so much as give any rotational snaps to Ojomo or Tracy (and didn't even activate Ojomo for most of the season) means either both are really THAT bad (in which case why did we go 5 DE on our final 53-man instead of picking up another linebacker), or they were just never given a chance to show that they were better...

As for Webby, the fact that Flacco was targeting him over Hosley speaks volumes. If Hosley had been given more experience early on... yeah it would have been a rocky start, but other teams throw their rookies into the fire early on and by the end of the season the good ones have fully adjusted. If we had Prince and Hosley, our secondary would improve dramatically. Alas, Prince was injured, again. Only way Hosley got a start at all was due to injury. Again, no chances even late in the game rotationally, even when we clearly saw that Webster is not what he used to be..

I'm not asking to immediately bench a player merely for having a bad day. I'm asking that we rotate in some of these rookies and FA, get their feet wet at the very least, and if they show they can handle the position, they can win a start. That should motivate the established veterans to continue producing (do your job or get "fired", or more accurately, benched), as well as motivating the younger players more by rewarding good play.