Spags wants his old job back as Giants DC and gets it

[-X-]

Not publicly because there is no reason to. I know for sure that many of those who survived the purge felt the mistrust in the building and were pleased when Spags was gone. It just was not covered in the media because it was no longer story. You don't have to believe me, but what I am saying on this accurate on this particular story.

You left off my other (and more relative) statement, but I believe you that people were disgruntled about being fired and that those who remained probably felt insecure in their jobs. Makes all the sense in the world. But, so? How does that equate to him poisoning the building by shaking it up? That's pretty normal in the business world. Hell, I've been part of it three times when the company I worked for was sold (twice). How do we know they weren't all complacent? Or entitled? Or maybe they were all swell people who did their jobs at a really high level and Spags just hated winners. Doesn't matter to me, really. The building wasn't my concern. The product on the field was.

People are just making a lot of ill-informed statements about how that era came about and ended, and I'm just kind of interjecting some *documented* facts into that.

 

[Boffo97]

What crap? I've said you're views are telling. Whet they tell me is you're still kind of a Spags backer. And I compare it to those who are still Martz-backers or even the Martz-haters. That is not personal against you. Everyone can like who they want, for any reason they want.

Perhaps you are being a little too sensitive for this kind of exchange of viewpoints? You seem like a good guy and you and I often agree, but this Spags things seems to put you on edge. Nothing I am doing is causing that?

Dude, you were making it more about me than that...

I get it, you like Spags so these people are all pieced of crap.

Very telling. These "minor decisions" disrupt an organization. But you throw out some theory with no proof about Hewitt. Also very telling

But you defending Spags at all costs shows that you care more about one guy than the organization as a whole.

Yeah, that's not just "Oh, you're a Spags backer" (especially not that last one, which is total BS, and the kind of stuff the Bradford trolls do). I made it clear that I was a Spags backer because I believe he did more good for the team than not and I believe pinning either 2009 or 2011 primarily on him is silly. I ask myself the question "How would the best coach in the world do in this same situation?" In either of those years, my personal answer is "Not very much, if at all, better." That's not to say he's perfect or that I agreed with everything he did, but that I think he did about as good as can be expected while here.

Some people disagree and that's fine. I'm not making it about them either. I don't say they care more about their hatred than keeping the best coach and the team winning.

But since you keep trying to make it about me, then it doesn't seem like this is an issue you can discuss nicely. So I wish you well as a Rams brother and I'll let you have the last word.

It's not sensitivity. It's just wanting my time posting here to be about the issue, not about the poster.

 

[Selassie I]

You guys need to let this Spags BULLSHIT go.

These OLD arguments are fucking tired.

Enough.

 

[Blue and Gold]

You left off my other (and more relative) statement, but I believe you that people were disgruntled about being fired and that those who remained probably felt insecure in their jobs. Makes all the sense in the world. But, so? How does that equate to him poisoning the building by shaking it up? That's pretty normal in the business world. Hell, I've been part of it three times when the company I worked for was sold (twice). How do we know they weren't all complacent? Or entitled? Or maybe they were all swell people who did their jobs at a really high level and Spags just hated winners. Doesn't matter to me, really. The building wasn't my concern. The product on the field was.

People are just making a lot of ill-informed statements about how that era came about and ended, and I'm just kind of interjecting some *documented* facts into that.

Football is not a normal business world. I think people error when they try to make an apples to apples comparison. As far as complacency? Entitled? Well, those people were good enough for Vermeil, he didn't fire any of them, nor did Linny, nor did Martz, nor Chuck Knox or Rich Brooks, or even John Robinson. And it's your right to not think it matters, but in tight knit organizations those things do matter.

And also as to the incompetent-complacent-entitled arguement, how come in the last 30 years there is only record of one other equipment manager being fired. One.

The likely scenario is that those who thought Sapgs over reached in his first position of power are right. Speculating that people were possibly leakers, complacent, entitled or anything is is good fodder for discussion, I suppose, but I would love to see some evidence or testimony that was the case. There IS testimony that Spags was involved in the minutia of equiment issues, training issues, etc and if we are going to specuate how about this: A head coach who is going into minor matter is spedning time on stupid stuff and NOT concentrating on the product on the field. That's always been my point. A head coach replacing pictures and getting involed on how socks were given out (which happend) and getting involved with how a lamp was to be installed in the Earth City lockerroom (also happened) is not using his time well.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Dude, you were making it more about me than that...




Yeah, that's not just "Oh, you're a Spags backer" (especially not that last one, which is total BS, and the kind of stuff the Bradford trolls do). I made it clear that I was a Spags backer because I believe he did more good for the team than not and I believe pinning either 2009 or 2011 primarily on him is silly. I ask myself the question "How would the best coach in the world do in this same situation?" In either of those years, my personal answer is "Not very much, if at all, better." That's not to say he's perfect or that I agreed with everything he did, but that I think he did about as good as can be expected while here.

Some people disagree and that's fine. I'm not making it about them either. I don't say they care more about their hatred than keeping the best coach and the team winning.

But since you keep trying to make it about me, then it doesn't seem like this is an issue you can discuss nicely. So I wish you well as a Rams brother and I'll let you have the last word.

It's not sensitivity. It's just wanting my time posting here to be about the issue, not about the poster.

No one is making it about you. I am not. I've said, I think you are aheck of a guy and a good poster. But I also said you seem to be sensitve on this issue. It seems pretty plain and obvious. I've also said I was a Spags-backer. I was also a Martz-backer, until 2005 when I said he needed to go. I've been as nice as can be with you. I've got no ill will towads you in the least. You seem to be upset andf I don't think there is any reason to go the "I'll let you have the last word" route or the "troll" route. What I am saying is my views based on the knowledge and experiences I have. Yet, you choose to call it "B.S.". I don't call your opinions "B.S.". The worst thing I have said is you may have a bias since you're a Spags-backer. And you admit you are, so why the tone?

So, if you're not going to respond anymore, fine. That's your choice. But remember if you desire to discuss an issue "nicely" try not to say someone acting like a troll and that their comments are "B.S.". What is saure for the goose is sauce for the gander.

All I ask is that people treal me civily and fairly, I have certainly done that with you and with X who disagrees with me on one portion on my views and agrees with another portion. I am simply discussing a former Rams coach (who by the way I exchange emails with on occasion about his defensive scheme) who got a job in NY and that I wished him well, but I wished he'd bnot have behaved the way he did.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Since we are on Spags here is one exchange about his scheme that some may be interested in

My question
"In your scheme do you have a defense called "Buffalo" and if so, was it the Dime defense that had Dahl as one of the LBers?"

Answer
"You are partly right. It was a nickle group. 5 Db's ....2 Lbs ....4 DLM. Our 3rd down Nickle was 5 DBS ....2 lbs(sometimes 1 was a safety) and the 4 Best pass rushers ( in NYG it was 4 DEs) we called this "Nickle". Buffalo was 5 DBS ...2 lbs and 4 lm but the inside 2 were big DTs and 2 DEs outside. Buffalo was a "Big Nickle" we used on 1st and. 2nd down vs 3 WR ... Hope this helps!"

 

[Boffo97]

Yet, you choose to call it "B.S.". I don't call your opinions "B.S.".

Just as one last clarification, what I was referring to as BS was the notion that just because I was a Spags backer, I "cared about one guy more than the organization as a whole". That IS BS. And used by trolls elsewhere. And it's a direct quote. And has nothing to do with the topic and everything about me, whether you want to admit that or not. If I was making false assertions about what you thought about Spags and why, I'm sure you'd rightfully call that BS too.

I've got a bias in this matter. So, obviously, do you. We all do. It's why this matter gets so vitriolic. We shouldn't let us turn us against each other though.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Just as one last clarification, what I was referring to as BS was the notion that just because I was a Spags backer, I "cared about one guy more than the organization as a whole". That IS BS. And used by trolls elsewhere. And it's a direct quote. And has nothing to do with the topic and everything about me, whether you want to admit that or not. If I was making false assertions about what you thought about Spags and why, I'm sure you'd rightfully call that BS too.

I've got a bias in this matter. So, obviously, do you. We all do. It's why this matter gets so vitriolic. We shouldn't let us turn us against each other though.

I honestly don't think I've turned on you. At all. And I don't think saying you're a Spags-backer in any kind of insult. I think it's shorthand for saying you like the guy. I happen to think that's your heartfelt position. And that's your right. I compared it to those who are on either side of the Martz debate. I think that is THEIR hearfelt position.

My heartfelt position is what I posted. It's nothing personal against Spags, who I like as a person. But I said he overdid his power. The only thing remotely I said about your view is that you threw those fired under the bus in defense of Spags. I think that is true.

If I have a bias it's that I am too far in the middle, I was for Spags getting hired and he needed to be fired. And he hurt some very good people when he was there.

I simply do not get why you think this went personal. From my end, I think you may be as bit too sensitive on this. I was simply discusing an issue. Not trying to pick any kind of fight in any way.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Interesting thread....hmmmm....not sure where I fall in this...Spags caught a bad break with the injuries to the DB's....I think McDaniel's was here when Spags was coach, no? And I thought that team showed some promise...I liked the hurry up offense...So, I liked McDaniels....I kinda liked Spags....I'm pretty sure the GM may have been decent too ( Long, Quinn, & Bradford where drafted then...I think they also drafted Saffold) so bad luck can make coaches & GMs look worse than they really are...Just like a bomb QB can mask a bunch of mistakes too...
Spags wasn't the main problem, but obviously wasn't the solution either...Will see with the results in 2015 & 2016 at NY....I have a feeling he'll do well.....

 

[Boffo97]

I honestly don't think I've turned on you. At all. And I don't think saying you're a Spags-backer in any kind of insult. I think it's shorthand for saying you like the guy. I happen to think that's your heartfelt position. And that's your right. I compared it to those who are on either side of the Martz debate. I think that is THEIR hearfelt position.

My heartfelt position is what I posted. It's nothing personal against Spags, who I like as a person. But I said he overdid his power. The only thing remotely I said about your view is that you threw those fired under the bus in defense of Spags. I think that is true.

If I have a bias it's that I am too far in the middle, I was for Spags getting hired and he needed to be fired. And he hurt some very good people when he was there.

I simply do not get why you think this went personal. From my end, I think you may be as bit too sensitive on this. I was simply discusing an issue. Not trying to pick any kind of fight in any way.

If you truly cannot see why I would take arguments such as "you like Spags so these people are all pieced of crap." (not even close to anything I said or think) or "you care more about one guy than the organization as a whole." as statements against me personally rather than Spags, then I'm honestly not sure what I can say to demonstrate the obvious.

Have a nice day.

 

[-X-]

Football is not a normal business world. I think people error when they try to make an apples to apples comparison. As far as complacency? Entitled? Well, those people were good enough for Vermeil, he didn't fire any of them, nor did Linny, nor did Martz, nor Chuck Knox or Rich Brooks, or even John Robinson. And it's your right to not think it matters, but in tight knit organizations those things do matter.

And also as to the incompetent-complacent-entitled arguement, how come in the last 30 years there is only record of one other equipment manager being fired. One.

The likely scenario is that those who thought Sapgs over reached in his first position of power are right. Speculating that people were possibly leakers, complacent, entitled or anything is is good fodder for discussion, I suppose, but I would love to see some evidence or testimony that was the case. There IS testimony that Spags was involved in the minutia of equiment issues, training issues, etc and if we are going to specuate how about this: A head coach who is going into minor matter is spedning time on stupid stuff and NOT concentrating on the product on the field. That's always been my point. A head coach replacing pictures and getting involed on how socks were given out (which happend) and getting involved with how a lamp was to be installed in the Earth City lockerroom (also happened) is not using his time well.

Meh. Could be. I think you're overthinking the whole micromanagement thing and how it affected his time on the players, but that's okay. I don't know of any evidence that he was ever unprepared for practices or camp or games. If anything, it was reported by the players to be quite intense and extremely detail oriented. It's only your *opinion* that his involvement in other areas didn't allow time enough for more important matters.

For the sake of argument, I'll concede that he was horribly destructive and turned the building upside down. I still don't really care too much about that. And despite Football not being a normal business world, it's still not uncommon to see subservient turnover from a new hire given complete autonomy. I was part of a billion dollar global business that was Unionized. All things considered, Football isn't all that complicated by comparison (IMO).

 

[Blue and Gold]

If you truly cannot see why I would take arguments such as "you like Spags so these people are all pieced of crap." (not even close to anything I said or think) or "you care more about one guy than the organization as a whole." as statements against me personally rather than Spags, then I'm honestly not sure what I can say to demonstrate the obvious.

Have a nice day.

Geez. Using an extension of an argument you, yourself, offered is "personal against you"?

 

[Blue and Gold]

Meh. Could be. I think you're overthinking the whole micromanagement thing and how it affected his time on the players, but that's okay. I don't know of any evidence that he was ever unprepared for practices or camp or games. If anything, it was reported by the players to be quite intense and extremely detail oriented. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that he was horribly destructive and turned the building upside down. I still don't really care too much about that. And despite Football not being a normal business world, it's still not uncommon to see subservient turnover from a new hire given complete autonomy. I was part of a billion dollar global business that was Unionized. All things considered, Football isn't all that complicated by comparison (IMO).

Well, I hesitate to even address because somehow I've taken us to defcon 1 over this. But, not sure I said football was more complicated than other business. I think I was trying to say it was different and that comparison to downsizing or changes in "subservients" is a not a very good comparison. I don't think it is. And I've been in a position to understand some of the nuances that are involved in this kind of things and from conversations with people who have been in NFL a long time and what I have gleaned from those contacts in contained in my posts.

You don't have to believe, I am not here to convince you, only to offer my perspective and I've shared a little of why I have come to those perspectives. And when I see arguments (which I see as good fun) getting to ugly levels, they are no longer fun. So, I will let this rest, people can put what I said in their pipe and smoke it, if they don't like it . .. no problem.

 

[Boffo97]

For the sake of argument, I'll concede that he was horribly destructive and turned the building upside down. I still don't really care too much about that.

I actually wouldn't be too surprised if it turned out this was pretty common among new coaching regimes.

 

[-X-]

Well, I hesitate to even address because somehow I've taken us to defcon 1 over this. But, not sure I said football was more complicated than other business. I think I was trying to say it was different and that comparison to downsizing or changes in "subservients" is a not a very good comparison. I don't think it is. And I've been in a position to understand some of the nuances that are involved in this kind of things and from conversations with people who have been in NFL a long time and what I have gleaned from those contacts in contained in my posts.

You don't have to believe, I am not here to convince you, only to offer my perspective and I've shared a little of why I have come to those perspectives. And when I see arguments (which I see as good fun) getting to ugly levels, they are no longer fun. So, I will let this rest, people can put what I said in their pipe and smoke it, if they don't like it . .. no problem.

Like I said, since it doesn't really interest me or sway my opinion of him as a coach, I don't really care what he did in the building. I'll even concede he was a dictator and pissed everyone off. That whole side-debate was just an unnecessary distraction that took away from what I perceived as the merits of his coaching abilities and the completely unprecedented misfortunes that surrounded his tenure here. That's really all I'm interested in discussing. Not Hewitt or the travel secretary.

 

[Mojo Ram]

You are what your record says you are...most of the time. I proved this already. You can all quit debating each other now. This is no place for opinions.

 

[-X-]

You are what your record says you are...most of the time. I proved this already. You can all quit debating each other now. This is no place for opinions.

 

[Boffo97]

You are what your record says you are...most of the time. I proved this already. You can all quit debating each other now. This is no place for opinions.

But I'm always right! I called dibs!

 

[MrMotes]

Also, another item to look at to disprove this inane theory: Dick Vermeil in 1998.

The "You are what your record says you are" theory is that he's a .281 coach, and thus the only explanation for the following year is that he magically got better.

Common sense tells us instead that the answer is that there were other problems on the team and that he WASN'T the problem (although he did make some minor changes) and thus he WASN'T what his record said he was. He was better.

I think you misunderstand the theory. It doesn't say "you are what your record says you are for the two seasons I've cherry picked to discredit something I disagree with."

It says you are what your record says you are. And for Dick Vermeil that includes his time at UCLA, the Eagles, Rams and Chiefs. Dick Vermeil is what his record says he is.

This is no different than you trying to claim 2011 didn't really count and Jeff Fisher essentially took over a 7 win team. It's also no different than claiming the stories about taking the pictures down were false as a way to somehow discredit Spags' critics.

We're all entitled to our opinions but I'd like to think we could at least agree on what the fact are...

 

[Boffo97]

I think you misunderstand the theory. It doesn't say "you are what your record says you are for the two seasons I've cherry picked to discredit something I disagree with."

So, if Vermeil were a first time coach, THEN he would magically jump from .281 coach to Super Bowl coach just because the team around him was better. So, no, it still makes no sense and there's still no way that's all NFL officials do. Sorry.

And why would college count, but not NFL coordinating? Talk about cherry picking.

As said before... if you were making hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS of dollars to make football decisions, wouldn't you look at more than just one number? Of course you would. This is too silly to continue arguing.