A Smart Choice

The reports are that Ben McAdoo will be the next Head Coach of the Giants. This is smartest choice for the current organization.

That’s because McAdoo has already been the Offensive Coordinator for two years and he has installed an offense that has been very good. Furthermore, Eli is 35. Starting over with a new offense would cost probably half of the productive years he has left.

But the thing is, this move is probably meaningless without a major talent upgrade on both sides of the ball. They need a bunch of linebackers, more defensive line depth, at least one more wide receiver, and more help on the offensive line. They also need to find some depth all over the place.

All of that falls on Jerry Reese. And while the Giants have only had three GM’s in the last 36 years, I don’t think Reese can survive another bad season.

 

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • blmeanie  On January 15, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    McAdoo? He’s got to be 70 years old or so. He was a great player, great all around player…oh wait, not Bob McAdoo???

  • blmeanie  On January 22, 2016 at 7:42 am

    In the recent news that the Knicks are the most valued franchise in the NBA I wonder at what point does futility cause the value to drop? I find it hard to believe that the Knicks have world wide value like the Lakers or Celtics do. And for that matter, how do the Clippers beat the Celtics in the current value of franchises? Loud obnoxious owners count?

    • nysportsfanatic  On January 24, 2016 at 9:11 pm

      Clearly that point is impossible to reach because the Knicks have done a great job of testing that limit.

      You won’t like this, so stop reading now, but Boston as a city isn’t in the same “weight’ class as New York or LA. I like Boston. I lived in Boston, but it is a “middleweight” compared to those “heavyweights” in terms of worldwide interest and financial muscle. The Celtics and Lakers are the premiere franchises in terms of championships, but NY and LA will always rule the value rankings.

  • blmeanie  On January 26, 2016 at 8:05 am

    so population is the driving force in the rankings? Hard to believe when you then compare to NFL (maybe not today but for most of our lives) and the Dallas Cowboys?

    I have no issue with Boston being 1B behind NY and LA. I prefer it in fact. Value of the franchise should be = all franchises put on the selling block right now in auction, what do they get? Maybe the Knicks have more adjacency value products like TV/Cable stations attached too that put them over the top.

    I wonder if you agree with this – when the Knicks had their chance at a title while Michael was on vacation, the World wasn’t necessarily rooting for them. That to me is telling as to a worldwide interest in a franchise. They have never interested the public outside of the greater NY area for any length of time since the early 70’s.

    • nysportsfanatic  On January 26, 2016 at 9:05 am

      It’s all about cash flow that the investment generates for investors and the brand value. Cowboys do well on both of those metrics because they have that enormous stadium in Arlington and they are a worldwide brand. Also DFW is the 4th largest market in the U.S.. Knicks do well from a cash flow perspective, and population is part of that, lots of people in their home market.

      I would argue that almost all teams draw very little interest outside of their home markets unless they have either an iconic brand and are winning, or they have a true iconic superstar. Who paid any attention to Golden State until Curry became Curry and they started winning? Cavaliers are another great example with and without LeBron.

  • blmeanie  On January 26, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    I was thinking of Dallas before that monstrosity was built, I think their “brand” was greater then. Point taken.

    I get the Curry argument but I don’t. If Golden State remains near the top for 3-4 years, then I get it. Otherwise it is a fad and the valuation should not move significantly IMO otherwise wouldn’t the downside of a fad negatively affect valuations?

    Interesting discussion.

    • nysportsfanatic  On January 26, 2016 at 1:10 pm

      I would agree on Dallas, but that was also when they were winning. That’s a big part of it too.

      I’m not saying the Golden State valuation has moved, just the interest in their basketball outside of the bay area. I don’t know of anyone not from that area who cared about them at all before last year. And I know people who are interested in them now and were very happy about last night’s win over the Spurs. Totally agree that they need to win more to move the valuation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: