Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,450

    MacAdoo and Reese

    What record this year saves their jobs? I don't think that you can fire one without firing the other .

    What record would cause their firing?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    119
    Hopefully one they don't reach

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,328
    Here's my completely arbitrary answer based on absolutely nothing....

    5 wins or less gets McAdoo fired, possibly Reese too
    6-8 wins, McAdoo fired, Reese stays

    Better than 8 wins, McAdoo and Reese stay and if its 9-10 wins (laugh), we get the Mara "everyone is on notice) schpeel.



    But realistically, it's not about the record. It's about the team chemistry, and communication and leadership from McAdoo. If this drama continues and the inconsistency in game management, then he's done no matter the record. Maybe Sullivan taking over the offense saves his job, but then he's just managing the game as a HC and that could prove worse for his stability.

    I doubt Reese is going anywhere any time soon. His neglect for the oline is under fire, but other than that he's been a solid GM. That said, if he did leave they have a GM waiting in the wings with Marc Ross. Every time he gets a GM interview with another team, I wonder if the GIants would promote him and send Reese off.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,542
    I just don't see Mara firing Reese, even if we go 1-15. Unless Reese starts doing the urinating TD dance around the office.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Here's my completely arbitrary answer based on absolutely nothing....

    5 wins or less gets McAdoo fired, possibly Reese too
    6-8 wins, McAdoo fired, Reese stays

    Better than 8 wins, McAdoo and Reese stay and if its 9-10 wins (laugh), we get the Mara "everyone is on notice) schpeel.



    But realistically, it's not about the record. It's about the team chemistry, and communication and leadership from McAdoo. If this drama continues and the inconsistency in game management, then he's done no matter the record. Maybe Sullivan taking over the offense saves his job, but then he's just managing the game as a HC and that could prove worse for his stability.

    I doubt Reese is going anywhere any time soon. His neglect for the oline is under fire, but other than that he's been a solid GM. That said, if he did leave they have a GM waiting in the wings with Marc Ross. Every time he gets a GM interview with another team, I wonder if the GIants would promote him and send Reese off.
    That's what we need, to promote the head of the scouting department of the current regime.

    Two things:
    1) how many failed projects will make the owners say enough is enough with these scouts?

    2) why haven't other teams hired him already? Maybe other teams weren't impressed with him.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,328
    Quote Originally Posted by eeek78 View Post
    That's what we need, to promote the head of the scouting department of the current regime.

    Two things:
    1) how many failed projects will make the owners say enough is enough with these scouts?

    2) why haven't other teams hired him already? Maybe other teams weren't impressed with him.
    Our draft record really hasn't been all that bad, especially when you look at other teams around the league.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Our draft record really hasn't been all that bad, especially when you look at other teams around the league.
    Our draft record is not good, especially if you take into account how many players we have left from past drafts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,328
    Quote Originally Posted by eeek78 View Post
    Our draft record is not good, especially if you take into account how many players we have left from past drafts.
    Everyone from the 2016 draft is a starter except Adams who still gets a healthy number of snaps. Even got a starting MIKE in the 4th round. Apple is not likely to pan out but we'll see. Still a good draft.

    2015 got Collins and Flowers. Hart is a 7th rounder who has competed well and still on the roster. Other guys had injury issues.

    2014 every pick was solid except maybe taking Bromley over Trai Turner, but they still got a solid DT.

    There was a stretch before that with some hits in rounds 1 and 2 (not hard these days) and some clear misses after that. Then a whole bunch of injury and situational issues. But they've had a good 3 year run in the draft and we'll see how 2017 pans out in a year or two.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Everyone from the 2016 draft is a starter except Adams who still gets a healthy number of snaps. Even got a starting MIKE in the 4th round. Apple is not likely to pan out but we'll see. Still a good draft.

    2015 got Collins and Flowers. Hart is a 7th rounder who has competed well and still on the roster. Other guys had injury issues.

    2014 every pick was solid except maybe taking Bromley over Trai Turner, but they still got a solid DT.

    There was a stretch before that with some hits in rounds 1 and 2 (not hard these days) and some clear misses after that. Then a whole bunch of injury and situational issues. But they've had a good 3 year run in the draft and we'll see how 2017 pans out in a year or two.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think the counter argument to that is that when you pick back-to-back in the top 10, you should be expected to come down with at least one very solid starter, and at this point neither Flowers nor Apple is that. We lack depth at some pretty key positions and some of the picks that have panned out as "starters" don't necessarily play at that level (Hart, for example, Perkins shouldn't be considered at this point and frankly never should've, Kennard is merely okay, never took that step we expected him to ever since his rookie year, etc). Our core is that big-money FA class and Odell. Not sure how much longer that's going to last or what's going to happen afterwards. Odell's contract situation will need to be resolved soon, and it's questionable how much high-level football those guys have left in them, especially at the rate some of them have been used due to the lack of depth I was talking about earlier.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Va...heart between Giants Stadium and MSG
    Posts
    10,915
    Reese has been excellent IMO. We had some picks that really hurt us....two picks that stand out the most to me is 2013 David Wilson and 2016 Eli Apple. I wanted Tunsil in 2016. He did address the Oline in the draft and FA.

    If the culture of the team goes south, its not so much talent but leadership and character issues and that is on Reese and McAdoo.

    If we can get the Oline playing better and see major improvement in the team's performance......I think 8-8 saves both jobs.

    Continued poor play and player distractions....McAdoo goes. I think if we hire a HC from within the organization, Reese stays.

    So yeah, I think you can fire one of the two.....it would have to completely go south to fire both. 2-14 total collapse, inconsistent play, and lack of effort.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Everyone from the 2016 draft is a starter except Adams who still gets a healthy number of snaps. Even got a starting MIKE in the 4th round. Apple is not likely to pan out but we'll see. Still a good draft.

    2015 got Collins and Flowers. Hart is a 7th rounder who has competed well and still on the roster. Other guys had injury issues.

    2014 every pick was solid except maybe taking Bromley over Trai Turner, but they still got a solid DT.

    There was a stretch before that with some hits in rounds 1 and 2 (not hard these days) and some clear misses after that. Then a whole bunch of injury and situational issues. But they've had a good 3 year run in the draft and we'll see how 2017 pans out in a year or two.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I agree 100% with Andrei. I had posted this link in another thread, but obviously you didn't read it. The article addresses the drafting issue.

    The magic number is 4. That is the number of players drafted between 2009 and 2013 that played at least one snap for the team last season. The players drafted in that time period are the veterans that should be leading the team. The Packers on the other hand had 13.

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page...hy-trouble-nfl

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei00 View Post
    I think the counter argument to that is that when you pick back-to-back in the top 10, you should be expected to come down with at least one very solid starter, and at this point neither Flowers nor Apple is that. We lack depth at some pretty key positions and some of the picks that have panned out as "starters" don't necessarily play at that level (Hart, for example, Perkins shouldn't be considered at this point and frankly never should've, Kennard is merely okay, never took that step we expected him to ever since his rookie year, etc). Our core is that big-money FA class and Odell. Not sure how much longer that's going to last or what's going to happen afterwards. Odell's contract situation will need to be resolved soon, and it's questionable how much high-level football those guys have left in them, especially at the rate some of them have been used due to the lack of depth I was talking about earlier.
    I'm not making the argument that we have the best drafts in the league. Simply that we have some of the better drafts. Just look through the draft histories of each team. We fair far better than some people make it seem.

    Quote Originally Posted by eeek78 View Post
    I agree 100% with Andrei. I had posted this link in another thread, but obviously you didn't read it. The article addresses the drafting issue.

    The magic number is 4. That is the number of players drafted between 2009 and 2013 that played at least one snap for the team last season. The players drafted in that time period are the veterans that should be leading the team. The Packers on the other hand had 13.

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/page...hy-trouble-nfl
    Selective data and overly generalized for my taste. Do you find it convenient that the 2014 draft class was left out? Because then the number is 7 for last season, not 4. Or maybe add in 2016 and the number is 9 and only because DT was injured, but still Adams, Perkins and Goodson got snaps and made plays.


    And what if we stick to that very specific and selective 2009-2013 range? Are you going to fault the front office for picking guys that were so good they contributed to the team and became unaffordable (Hankins, Prince, Linval Joseph)? Those guys are still starters, just not here. Are you really going to label Beatty and Nicks as bad picks, despite helping us win a Super Bowl, just because they weren't on the team last season? Chad Jones was selected in that range, but doesn't appear on the roster last season, surely that's a failure of the front office.

    You can't reduce the ability of a front office to an overly generalized ESPN stat, tailored to suit their argument.

    Again, I don't think we have the best FO in the league or draft history, but it's still pretty damn good if you take a 10 year history around the league.

    Keep in mind, during that 09-13 span we even won a super bowl with a team whose offense was almost entirely homegrown. Even the defense's key players were key draft selections of our FO (JPP, Kiwi, Tuck, Ross, Webster, Joseph, Osi, Prince) or FA acquisitions by the FO.


    The supreme failure of this FO begins and ends with neglecting the offensive line ever since Snee retired. The D is loaded and we've had fantastic skills weapons on offense and it's all been worthless because we can't find consistent results on the oline.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,542
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    I'm not making the argument that we have the best drafts in the league. Simply that we have some of the better drafts. Just look through the draft histories of each team. We fair far better than some people make it seem.



    Selective data and overly generalized for my taste. Do you find it convenient that the 2014 draft class was left out? Because then the number is 7 for last season, not 4. Or maybe add in 2016 and the number is 9 and only because DT was injured, but still Adams, Perkins and Goodson got snaps and made plays.


    And what if we stick to that very specific and selective 2009-2013 range? Are you going to fault the front office for picking guys that were so good they contributed to the team and became unaffordable (Hankins, Prince, Linval Joseph)? Those guys are still starters, just not here. Are you really going to label Beatty and Nicks as bad picks, despite helping us win a Super Bowl, just because they weren't on the team last season? Chad Jones was selected in that range, but doesn't appear on the roster last season, surely that's a failure of the front office.

    You can't reduce the ability of a front office to an overly generalized ESPN stat, tailored to suit their argument.

    Again, I don't think we have the best FO in the league or draft history, but it's still pretty damn good if you take a 10 year history around the league.

    Keep in mind, during that 09-13 span we even won a super bowl with a team whose offense was almost entirely homegrown. Even the defense's key players were key draft selections of our FO (JPP, Kiwi, Tuck, Ross, Webster, Joseph, Osi, Prince) or FA acquisitions by the FO.


    The supreme failure of this FO begins and ends with neglecting the offensive line ever since Snee retired. The D is loaded and we've had fantastic skills weapons on offense and it's all been worthless because we can't find consistent results on the oline.
    14, 15 and 16 were left out because those guys are still under their rookie contracts. That was the point of going 09 to 13. Also, we won in 07 and 11 because of the core we had. Even those players that contributed to those runs were gone by the time they ended their rookie deals. Some because they priced themselves out the door and some because they simply weren't that good but overachieved during the runs.

    At some point someone needs to acknowledge that there is a reason why our success has not been sustained. We have been blaming injuries all these years, but these drafts have a lot to do with our lack of success between the super bowl runs.

    The teams philosophy has been to let talent walk out the door and build through the draft. This means that the team needs to nail each draft and we simply have not. The FO has put the team in that situation.
    Last edited by eeek78; 10-19-2017 at 08:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    I'm not making the argument that we have the best drafts in the league. Simply that we have some of the better drafts. Just look through the draft histories of each team. We fair far better than some people make it seem.
    It's debatable whether we have some of the better drafts in the league, and still, I don't think that's the full story. Because the perceived image of how we handled the recent Drafts is vastly influenced by the Odell and Landon Collins picks. And I have no problem saying those are two superstars already, well done on the scouting and evaluation part that lead to those two picks. Collins is a trade up too IIRC, even more impressive. Look past those two picks, and we really haven't done that well. I don't know what criteria to choose to compare with the rest of the league, but objectively I would say we wouldn't be near the top. Especially considering we had two high picks in the Draft after that 2014 class. So far, it wouldn't be unfair to say we missed on both.

    The problem I wanted to highlight is that even though you may look at some of the recent classes (mainly 2014) as being successful, the bigger story is how they failed to build a deep, competitive roster. We have a core of a couple of veterans (Eli, JPP), a handful of big-money FA signings (Snacks, Vernon, Jenkins) and two superstar still on rookie contracts (Odell, Landon). All things considered, that's pretty far from bad, especially because most big-money acquisitions don't pan out that well (and I was very skeptical of it at that time). But again, look past that, and we have some pretty major areas of need and a pretty serious lack of depth, as a result of the way they drafted. Not only OL, which I know we can all agree it's been an issue not properly handled for a while, but secondary and DL depth are seriously overlooked, most of the times, areas of concern. LB, RB too are positions that we've had quite a hard time finding starting caliber players. Looks like we might have the real deal in Goodson, and that would be a lucky break after we struggled for so long to find players that can play the position.
    Last edited by Andrei00; 10-20-2017 at 01:41 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    43,328
    All I can say is that if the FO made any attempt to fix the oline last offseason, we wouldn't even be questioning this right now. We'd be winning.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •