News Archives

New York Giants Well-Represented on List of “50 Most Powerful People in New York Sports”

July 27th, 2014 at 1:00 PM
By Dan Benton

The New York Daily News released their annual "50 Most Powerful People in New York Sports" list earlier this week and the New York Giants were well-represented. In total, six current or former members of the organization were listed, ranging from players to Public Relations staff to the owners.

Here's all the Giants who were named (in order):

The Public Relations guru:

No. 48 – Pat Hanlon, VP of Communications, New York Giants

The model football franchise has one of the most vocal PR people in the business, and its most ardent cheerleader. Pat Hanlon (No. 48), VP of Communications for the New York Giants, has never backed down from a Twitter challenge, and he is a regular on the New York sports talk circuit.

The Hall of Famer:

No. 44 – Michael Strahan: TV Host, NFL Analyst

Where isn't the former Giants defensive end on TV these days? Since completing a Giants career that spanned 14 years and included a Super Bowl victory, Michael Strahan (No. 44) has transitioned into work that includes everything from "Good Morning America" to Nickelodeon. He is part of the hugely popular "Fox NFL Today" cast and replaced the beloved Regis Philbin on daytime TV, where he has boosted the ratings of the renamed "Live! With Kelly and Michael" (with help from his co-host, Kelly Ripa). Not a bad follow-up chapter for the single-season sack king.

The old guard:

No. 42 – Phil Simms: NFL Analyst, CBS Sports

Since joining CBS in 1998, Super Bowl-winning Giants quarterback Phil Simms (No. 42) has become one of the country's top football broadcasting talents and a respected voice throughout the league. Paired with Jim Nantz, Simms has called several Super Bowls during his broadcast career, most recently the Ravens' victory over San Francisco at the Superdome in 2013.

The young man at heart:

No. 31 – Tom Coughlin: Head Coach, New York Giants

The 67-year-old New York native led Big Blue to two Super Bowl titles since becoming head coach in 2004, and he has a third ring from his days as an assistant under Bill Parcells. Universally revered by players and the front office, Tom Coughlin (No. 31) is Giants royalty and is a strong voice in the organization.

The gunslinger:

No. 13 – Eli Manning: Quarterback, New York Giants

As the old saying goes, Eli Manning (No. 13) will never have to worry about buying a drink in New York. A two-time Super Bowl champion, and Super Bowl MVP, Manning took down the mighty Patriots and Tom Brady twice on the game's biggest stage. Giants fans can point toward that lucky day in 2004, when the team maneuvered on draft day to land Eli out of Ole Miss. Like Jeter, Eli lets his athletic skills speak for themselves.

The man in charge:

No. 4 – John Mara: President, CEO, Co-Owner, New York Giants

Following in the footsteps of his revered father, Wellington, John Mara (No. 4) has run a model franchise since taking over as president in 2005. During his tenure, Big Blue won two Super Bowls, and John Mara, who sits on several influential committees within the league, was one of the principals behind bringing Super Bowl XLVIII to the Meadowlands this past February.

We'd tell you who was listed No. 1 overall, but we'd rather not upset the New York Knicks fans who also read Giants 101.


Seeing your team play in the SuperBowl is priceless. Watching the SuperBowl live in the stands for $1 per week is beyond priceless. Find out how at, the future of Championship Tickets. Tags: Eli Manning, Football, John Mara, Michael Strahan, New York, New York Giants, NFL, Pat Hanlon, Phil Simms, Tom Coughlin

10 Responses to “New York Giants Well-Represented on List of “50 Most Powerful People in New York Sports””

  1.  fanfor55years says:

    I guess that means that idiot Dolan is considered the most powerful. If that’s so, I can certainly agree he has the power to ruin a franchise and see to it that they haven’t got a championship since Red Holtzman left the building.

    Unfortunately, as the owner of two franchises and the Garden and MSG Network, I can’t really disagree with the ranking. I just wish he would disappear. Instead, he’ll probably buy the Yankees when the Steinbrenners decide to sell (unless Rupert Murdoch is still alive, in which case we’d be caught between Scylla and Charybdis).

  2.  fanfor55years says:

    I’m probably more on Since 1963′s side regarding the consideration regarding a fullback. Unless one of these tight ends is really a devastating blocker, and is adept at picking out the RIGHT guy to block (which is a BIG part of a fullback’s game when there are 2-3 choices of which defender needs to be moved away from the play), you lose a lot in the run game by dispensing with both Conner and Hynoski.

    Given the quality of our running backs, why would we even consider weakening our running game? I know McAdoo wants the flexibility of moving players around who could block but also represent a threat to catch the ball so the defense has to make a more complicated decision as to what to focus upon. That makes sense. But so does having a running game that not only gains yards, maintains possession and batters the defense physically, but also sets up Eli and the offensive line for an easier path to success.

    If they go the route of no fullback they’d better know what they’re doing. I’d be uneasy about it.

  3.  Krow says:

    One of the most important talents a FB must possess in a 21st century offense is the ability to catch passes and then get YAC. This wasn’t a problem when we ran that leather helmet mess of Gilbride’s. But those days are gone.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      Agreed, but are you so confident that the #3 and #4 tight end on the roster would be capable of that any more so than Hynoski? I’m not. At least not yet. And it’s hard to believe those two would be very close to him as a blocker.

  4.  Since 1963 says:

    Yes, but Giants football has always been about the ground game. Was that wrong? Is it a cold-weather division? (As if GB doesn’t play in one!) Our OL may not be world-beaters this year, but I think the foundation is there, and in the next year or so will be very strong. Do we want to change the system so radically this year so that we CAN’T go back to a power running game, committing ourselves now and in the future to the WCO? Again, does McAdoo know exactly what he’s doing, or is he merely cloning what he had in Green Bay? Because if it’s the latter, we might just have the makings of a better ground attack here than he did there.

    Unless, of course, they’re thinking of making Peyton Hillis their FB. But I’m from Missouri on that one. Both Conner and Hynoski have shown me that they can clean out a linebacker on an inside run and make a lane for the RB. That’s the test. Can our TEs do it? Can Hillis do it? And can they do it consistently?

  5.  GOAT56 says:

    I think what some are missing about not carrying a FB is that most of our sets are going to have no FB. This is not the Gillbride offense and our base set is 3 WRs, 1 RB and 1 TE. The I formation will not be used nearly as much in this new offense. Even some of the FB type responsibilities seem to be more HB like because of the motion and movement. We would really be keeping a true FB for a handful of plays per game. We will be running the ball mainly from 1 RB sets this year.

    Some have complained about us being outdated in some aspects in how we operate. Many teams do not use a true FB. Dallas went last year without one and it wasn’t apparent watching them from afar.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      I fully get that. But what I also get is that we just might have the best ground game in the NFL this season if we get adequate blocking in front of the runners. I don’t necessarily want to be counting on the West Coast Offense to close out games in the fourth quarter when we’ve built a lead. I want an offense that can pound the defense into submission and break their will. I also like the idea of opening games beating defenses on the ground, forcing them to bring a safety into the box, and killing them with play action after they have to start guessing what we’re doing.

      In those cases we need blockers. Could it be that our “standard set” will change depending upon circumstances? Why not switch to a two-back set when that makes sense? If the offense is to be flexible it seems to me that we should go with the ability to make use of our running talent to ground-and-pound, and occasionally break one, when appropriate. Is it really worth keeping an extra tight end who is relatively mediocre as a tight end when the price is dropping a very talented fullback? Maybe, but the thought makes me quesy.

      •  wduda83 says:

        It really depends on the blocking scheme. Take Green Bay for example. Eddie Lacy, who is a similar talent and runner to Andre Williams, did great without a traditional fullback last year (Kuhn is more of an H-back). I recently read an article in Forbes that revealed that at the start of last season there were a total of 22 fullbacks in the entire NFL (compared to 254 offensive lineman). My point is that you don’t need a fullback in today’s NFL to have a dominant run game. You see great ground games in Philly (hate to say it) and Houston without a fullback. No reason our new up-tempo offense can’t create some mismatches in the running game

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: