+1. And add to that:
Although it’s remarkable with all the ineptitude, that in my lifetime, somehow the Giants have won four Super Bowls.
and im sure you would trade the way its panned out. its all about the championships.
No. No one but you has shown themselves to be an utter fool. Actually, you have at least one compatriot who wants to hire a recently retired Hall of Famer.
I agree with everything you posted accept you use the future tense for #3.
From Parcells to Coughlin, which is a long timeframe, the Giants were considered one of the model franchises, in large part because of those Super Bowls. Not many others can claim to have made 5 and won 4 over a 25-30 year period. Of course there were some down years during that period, the beginning of Parcells and part of the post-Parcells, pre-Fassell era. But it was never "down" for long, and when we made conference title games, we usually prevailed, which cannot be overstated.
Most every coach does. As difficult as the NIL era makes it for college coaches, it is also the ultimate crutch. It can be used consistently as an excuse and you will have people buy it hook-line-and-sinker. Of course it is a relevant factoid, but in most situations we don't know why a player came or left, and whether it is solely about NIL or various other reasons.
Agree Bud Boomer-- the big difference is that Lyons gave Willard a chance and talking to--Willard listened. Unfortunately , Sha has no one that he may listen to--certainly not the AD that in large part is owing to Sha. Hall created problem that it is the "Sha Program" and not the "SETON HALL PROGRAM. "
Yes, agree. (I am a Giants fan BTW). I almost feel Parcells and Coughlin were successful in spite of the ownership. Two guys that could probably stand up and call BS.
Interesting with Coughlin, its been well documented that he needed to change his ways and lighten up his approach, created a leadership council, etc., to find the ultimate success. Might be a lesson well learned.
