the Daboll/Schoen regime - on the brink, it seems

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, notpolian said:

ESPN article.  Glad I'm not a Giants fan.  Woof.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/43297567/new-york-giants-how-all-went-wrong-2024

 

Wow.  Hope the way they treated McCloud is not something Schoen learned from Beane.  Yuck - O.

1) don't ask a player who is starting to take a pay cut, while they're still slated to start

2) don't ask a player you just signed in the off-season as a FA to take a pay cut - if they aren't worth that, why did you recently offer it to them?

3) in general, don't ask players to take pay cuts during the season

 

It's one thing if a team negotiates in the off season with a player on a long-term contract who is under-performing his contract (Knox, Von Miller), when the team is cap-crunched and trying to make moves.  Everybody knows what's going on.

 

Quote

Before the start of a Week 4 game against the Cowboys, the Giants wanted McCloud to take a pay cut from the one-year, $2.98 million deal he signed as a restricted free agent in the offseason, according to a player source. McCloud wanted to remain with the Giants, but on his current deal. Asking him to take a pay cut during the season, before a game he was set to start, was bold and unusual, according to multiple executives around the league.

According to multiple Giants players, Schoen told McCloud's representatives, "Don't pay October's rent, all right? As soon as I can replace him, I'm going to replace him. I'm not f****** around."

The Giants general manager hung up the phone.

McCloud started four more games for the Giants before being released Nov. 5. He signed to the San Francisco 49ers' practice squad the following week and quickly worked his way onto their active roster.

The situation affected the vibe in the Giants' locker room. McCloud was a well-liked player, his locker was between offseason acquisition Brian Burns and Slayton. He was close with both respected veterans.

 

It's another to do what Schoen is reported to have done above.  Woof.

Nick McCloud was a guy who was signed as an UFA originally by the Bills.

 

"Bold" and "unusual" try "ridiculous" and "disrespectful"

 

 

[BuffaloBillyG]

1 hour ago, notpolian said:

ESPN article.  Glad I'm not a Giants fan.  Woof.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/43297567/new-york-giants-how-all-went-wrong-2024

Brian Daboll is basically Freddie Kitchens plus one lucky unsustainable season of luck.

[SoonerBillsFan]

10 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Brian Daboll is basically Freddie Kitchens plus one lucky unsustainable season of luck.

Im sick of hearing how he helped Josh so much. Daboll is gone and Josh has thrived while he sucks as a HC.

[GerstAusGosheim]

2 hours ago, Chaos said:

It works the other way too.

Does it?

 

Bill Belichick’s Winning Percentage:

With Tom Brady: 76%

Without Tom Brady: 46%

 

Chuck Noll’s Winning Percentage:

With Terry Bradshaw: 68.9%

Without Terry Bradshaw: 46.8%

 

Tom Landry’s Winning Percentage:

With Roger Staubach: 74%

Without Roger Staubach: 55%

 

Bill Walsh’s Winning Percentage:

With Joe Montana: 69%

Without Joe Montana: 34%

 

Paul Brown’s Winning Percentage:

With Otto Graham: 83%

Without Otto Graham: 53%

 

Marv Levy’s Winning Percentage:

With Jim Kelly: 63%

Without Jim Kelly: 40%

 

[Chaos]

2 minutes ago, GerstAusGosheim said:

Does it?

 

Bill Belichick’s Winning Percentage:

With Tom Brady: 76%

Without Tom Brady: 46%

 

Chuck Noll’s Winning Percentage:

With Terry Bradshaw: 68.9%

Without Terry Bradshaw: 46.8%

 

Tom Landry’s Winning Percentage:

With Roger Staubach: 74%

Without Roger Staubach: 55%

 

Bill Walsh’s Winning Percentage:

With Joe Montana: 69%

Without Joe Montana: 34%

 

Paul Brown’s Winning Percentage:

With Otto Graham: 83%

Without Otto Graham: 53%

 

Marv Levy’s Winning Percentage:

With Jim Kelly: 63%

Without Jim Kelly: 40%

 

Yes, your post correlated Hall of Fame coaches to Quarterbacks.  It had nothing to do with win percentage.  Factually speaking only four QBs ever made the hall of fame without playing for a hall of fame coach. I don't know if you ever play sports, but coaching can stick with players for their whole career, long after the coach has moved on. 

[BuffaloBillyG]

3 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

Im sick of hearing how he helped Josh so much. Daboll is gone and Josh has thrived while he sucks as a HC.

To me it's like hiring a cleaning crew and then when the work looks good only one person gets credited.

 

I'm sure Daboll did help. How much or in what ways we really don't know. But it took a lot of people. Dorsey. Palmer. Joe Brady. Dave Culley, McDermott, and probably 20 other guys that we don't know. Guys like Matt Barkley giving him tips (sometimes those who can't make the best teachers). Even with the way he cut down the turnovers this year a guy like Ronald Curry could have helped some 

 

The one person I see credited the least is Josh Allen. Sorry, but he's the one that had to devote the time and effort and have the drive to get better and remain coachable. 

 

Not to mention Daboll did bubkis for Daniel Jones or young QBs he had before his Bills stint like Brady Quinn or Jake Fromm...who he also had in Jersey for a bit. Daboll is fools gold that got his job because the GM knew him and he worked with Allen.

[GerstAusGosheim]

On 1/10/2025 at 12:32 PM, Chaos said:

Yes, your post correlated Hall of Fame coaches to Quarterbacks.  It had nothing to do with win percentage.  Factually speaking only four QBs ever made the hall of fame without playing for a hall of fame coach. I don't know if you ever play sports, but coaching can stick with players for their whole career, long after the coach has moved on. 

I’m not denying that great coaching can elevate players. But the crux of my argument is about causation versus correlation. Sure, most Hall of Fame quarterbacks played for Hall of Fame coaches—because it’s nearly impossible for a coach to become Hall of Fame-worthy without a Hall of Fame-caliber QB. The win percentages are relevant because they show how much those “legendary” coaches relied on their QBs for success. Without their star quarterbacks, many of these coaches struggled to rise above mediocrity. The numbers don't lie.

[Chaos]

49 minutes ago, GerstAusGosheim said:

I’m not denying that great coaching can elevate players. But the crux of my argument is about causation versus correlation. Sure, most Hall of Fame quarterbacks played for Hall of Fame coaches—because it’s nearly impossible for a coach to become Hall of Fame-worthy without a Hall of Fame-caliber QB. The win percentages are relevant because they show how much those “legendary” coaches relied on their QBs for success. Without their star quarterbacks, many of these coaches struggled to rise above mediocrity. The numbers don't lie.

You posted a post that suggests causation for QBs making head coaches.  Then reject the exact same process applied to the same data, for coaches making QBs. your process is a good process or it is flawed.  But you can't have it both ways. 

You don't really seem to grasp the impact of coaching.  The Jets were 5-12.  If a different coach had led them to a 9-8 record, that would be far better coaching. But it would be a mediocre record. And by your logic, a mediocre coaching job.  Coaches can only optimize what they have.