Michael Robinson lives here in Richmond, and goes in studio once a week with a local radio host. First question of the day: "What team, good or bad, has surprised you the most?" He said the Giants, and said the following things in order:
-worst offensive line in the NFL by far
-Erik Flowers worst offensive tackle in the NFL by far
-Brandon Marshall looks like he doesn't want to play
-DE's are holding meetings at Eli Manning because they're beating both tackles so badly, Eli won't make it through the season
-Paul Perkins should not be a starting RB
-says max protect won't do any good because the defense never has to bring more than 4 guys, 3 of them are getting to Eli Manning every time regardless of protection, and there's nowhere to throw the ball because all passing lanes are flooded with seven defenders constantly.
He sounded genuinely shocked that the situation could be this bad, and says he plans on showing video on NFL Network of just how bad our line is on NFL Network Sunday morning.
Quote:
But his salary is NOT equivalent to his cap hit. Some poster early in the thread that it was "administrative footnote". But the reality is he is not being paid $20 MM this year. Nor will he be paid $40 MM over the next 2 years.
If any schmuck at a job got a bonus 3 years ago, they don't consider that they are being paid currently a pro-rated amount of that bonus. They are being paid what they receive that given year. Eli is only being paid $13 MM this year.
The pro-rating of a signing bonus and the accounting towards the salary cap is more of an "administrative footnote".
The cap number is what matters. The cap number is what affects your ability to build your roster. The current salary is only a factor for the Giants' P&L, and THAT is the one element that is truly insignificant and irrelevant to us as fans. The true salary relative to cap number is much more of a footnote than looking at the cap number by itself.
This isn't about fans being upset that Eli is currently being paid more in his weekly paycheck than he's worth; it's about him representing a higher cap value than he's currently delivering upon, and further, whether that cap number actually impacts the Giants' ability to go get him the supporting cast (specifically the OL) that he seems to need. I'm not sure why I'd expect the person who only a few months ago repeatedly called for Eli to hold out for more money to actually understand this.
When other posters use the words being paid, then readers shouldn't be expected to interpret that they mean the cap hit and not actually the word. If people want to discuss the present terms of his salary, then they should be honest with themselves and state it as such. To insinuate that he is being paid $20 MM/yr, is factually wrong. It frames their argument that he most definitely is not worth such a high figure.
Now, if people don't like the contract, then they should be putting the blame on Reese and Abrams. When management constructs a contract, they anticipate an increase in the salary cap making the large contracts accounting feasible. Now, if people want to argue about the total salary cap and the large contracts that impact it, then again they should be finding fault with Reese. Instead of paying a premium for defensive players to bolster a failed unit, perhaps he should try drafting better and not taking chances on the likes of Clint Sintim and co.
And yes, I advocated Eli holding out as recently back in training camp less than a month ago. When I was reading up on Eli's contract, the roster bonuses due next year and the year after where red flags. I realized with the smear campaign that Ben and Reese have put forth that Eli's days are numbered and the likelihood of him seeing that money is small. This was the last year in which he had the leverage to force the Giants in paying the roster bonuses up front via a restructure.
Quote:
In comment 13610142 Diver_Down said:
Quote:
But his salary is NOT equivalent to his cap hit. Some poster early in the thread that it was "administrative footnote". But the reality is he is not being paid $20 MM this year. Nor will he be paid $40 MM over the next 2 years.
If any schmuck at a job got a bonus 3 years ago, they don't consider that they are being paid currently a pro-rated amount of that bonus. They are being paid what they receive that given year. Eli is only being paid $13 MM this year.
The pro-rating of a signing bonus and the accounting towards the salary cap is more of an "administrative footnote".
The cap number is what matters. The cap number is what affects your ability to build your roster. The current salary is only a factor for the Giants' P&L, and THAT is the one element that is truly insignificant and irrelevant to us as fans. The true salary relative to cap number is much more of a footnote than looking at the cap number by itself.
This isn't about fans being upset that Eli is currently being paid more in his weekly paycheck than he's worth; it's about him representing a higher cap value than he's currently delivering upon, and further, whether that cap number actually impacts the Giants' ability to go get him the supporting cast (specifically the OL) that he seems to need. I'm not sure why I'd expect the person who only a few months ago repeatedly called for Eli to hold out for more money to actually understand this.
When other posters use the words being paid, then readers shouldn't be expected to interpret that they mean the cap hit and not actually the word. If people want to discuss the present terms of his salary, then they should be honest with themselves and state it as such. To insinuate that he is being paid $20 MM/yr, is factually wrong. It frames their argument that he most definitely is not worth such a high figure.
Now, if people don't like the contract, then they should be putting the blame on Reese and Abrams. When management constructs a contract, they anticipate an increase in the salary cap making the large contracts accounting feasible. Now, if people want to argue about the total salary cap and the large contracts that impact it, then again they should be finding fault with Reese. Instead of paying a premium for defensive players to bolster a failed unit, perhaps he should try drafting better and not taking chances on the likes of Clint Sintim and co.
And yes, I advocated Eli holding out as recently back in training camp less than a month ago. When I was reading up on Eli's contract, the roster bonuses due next year and the year after where red flags. I realized with the smear campaign that Ben and Reese have put forth that Eli's days are numbered and the likelihood of him seeing that money is small. This was the last year in which he had the leverage to force the Giants in paying the roster bonuses up front via a restructure.
I think we may just be at an impasse as it relates to this topic.
It's not about what he's being paid, per se. And it's not about not liking the contract. There's nothing unique about his contract specifics - most players carry a certain amortized bonus on top of their annual salary within their cap nuumber. The factor that many here are discussing is whether Eli is earning his $20MM cap number. You're absolutely right that his signing bonus is effectively a sunk cost, but almost all player valuation discussions across the entire league center upon the player's performance relative to his cap number, not his actual salary.
As it relates to Eli, many posters, including yourself, have criticized the Giants for not providing Eli with adequate support on the roster to allow him to succeed. And while that may be true, there is a counter argument to that, which some here are trying to make, that Eli's contract actually makes it more difficult to provide that support on the roster because of his cap number (and not at all because of his actual salary). It's like our very own Gift of the Magi.
So for you to repeatedly point out the salary itself suggests that either you're completely missing the point or being intentionally obtuse. I think, given your adamant defense of Eli and his contract, it's more likely the latter, but I won't put words in your mouth.
As for paying a premium for poor drafting, you do realize that if the Giants had been outstanding college defensive talent evaluators and had drafted Vernon, Jenkins and Harrison, they probably still would have been on the hook for all three of those contracts if they wanted to keep them through their prime, right?
Quote:
In comment 13611097 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 13610142 Diver_Down said:
Quote:
But his salary is NOT equivalent to his cap hit. Some poster early in the thread that it was "administrative footnote". But the reality is he is not being paid $20 MM this year. Nor will he be paid $40 MM over the next 2 years.
If any schmuck at a job got a bonus 3 years ago, they don't consider that they are being paid currently a pro-rated amount of that bonus. They are being paid what they receive that given year. Eli is only being paid $13 MM this year.
The pro-rating of a signing bonus and the accounting towards the salary cap is more of an "administrative footnote".
The cap number is what matters. The cap number is what affects your ability to build your roster. The current salary is only a factor for the Giants' P&L, and THAT is the one element that is truly insignificant and irrelevant to us as fans. The true salary relative to cap number is much more of a footnote than looking at the cap number by itself.
This isn't about fans being upset that Eli is currently being paid more in his weekly paycheck than he's worth; it's about him representing a higher cap value than he's currently delivering upon, and further, whether that cap number actually impacts the Giants' ability to go get him the supporting cast (specifically the OL) that he seems to need. I'm not sure why I'd expect the person who only a few months ago repeatedly called for Eli to hold out for more money to actually understand this.
When other posters use the words being paid, then readers shouldn't be expected to interpret that they mean the cap hit and not actually the word. If people want to discuss the present terms of his salary, then they should be honest with themselves and state it as such. To insinuate that he is being paid $20 MM/yr, is factually wrong. It frames their argument that he most definitely is not worth such a high figure.
Now, if people don't like the contract, then they should be putting the blame on Reese and Abrams. When management constructs a contract, they anticipate an increase in the salary cap making the large contracts accounting feasible. Now, if people want to argue about the total salary cap and the large contracts that impact it, then again they should be finding fault with Reese. Instead of paying a premium for defensive players to bolster a failed unit, perhaps he should try drafting better and not taking chances on the likes of Clint Sintim and co.
And yes, I advocated Eli holding out as recently back in training camp less than a month ago. When I was reading up on Eli's contract, the roster bonuses due next year and the year after where red flags. I realized with the smear campaign that Ben and Reese have put forth that Eli's days are numbered and the likelihood of him seeing that money is small. This was the last year in which he had the leverage to force the Giants in paying the roster bonuses up front via a restructure.
I think we may just be at an impasse as it relates to this topic.
It's not about what he's being paid, per se. And it's not about not liking the contract. There's nothing unique about his contract specifics - most players carry a certain amortized bonus on top of their annual salary within their cap nuumber. The factor that many here are discussing is whether Eli is earning his $20MM cap number. You're absolutely right that his signing bonus is effectively a sunk cost, but almost all player valuation discussions across the entire league center upon the player's performance relative to his cap number, not his actual salary.
As it relates to Eli, many posters, including yourself, have criticized the Giants for not providing Eli with adequate support on the roster to allow him to succeed. And while that may be true, there is a counter argument to that, which some here are trying to make, that Eli's contract actually makes it more difficult to provide that support on the roster because of his cap number (and not at all because of his actual salary). It's like our very own Gift of the Magi.
So for you to repeatedly point out the salary itself suggests that either you're completely missing the point or being intentionally obtuse. I think, given your adamant defense of Eli and his contract, it's more likely the latter, but I won't put words in your mouth.
As for paying a premium for poor drafting, you do realize that if the Giants had been outstanding college defensive talent evaluators and had drafted Vernon, Jenkins and Harrison, they probably still would have been on the hook for all three of those contracts if they wanted to keep them through their prime, right?
You are right. I am being intentionally obtuse. With regards to the last hypothetical - if the Giants were outstanding college defensive talent evaluators, then they would never have the need to pay the second contracts. They could settle for the comp. pics and draft more outstanding college defensive talent.
Agree. We had a HoF HC and a HoF QB. The two hardest things to fill in the NFL. So, we pushed the HC out the door and our QB gets to work with a shitty OL 5 years and counting.
If his days are numbered, it isn't because of anything Reese or Mcadoo say I'm the press, it's because he's a highly compensated player on the downside of his career who's paycheck exceeds his value.
It's like you've taken up the king contrarian mantle after radar's exit. You can't cut me, because I quit.
He's a 37 year old QB who's made the playoffs once since 2011. Oh, right - the team is a combined 36-43 during that stretch.
So much for leverage.
Quote:
In comment 13609235 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13609224 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Maybe not, you can't tell on BBI these days.
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Eli can't possibly overcome, apparently he's playing the best ball he can behind this line. It's not possible for him to play any better.
It's actually impossible to play any sort of ball behind this line. If anything he's playing dodgeball.
I'm going to hope that the guy who won a SB behind a shitty line doesn't agree with you.
When he threw his INT this week, he wasn't playing dodgeball, he was missing a receiver. He can do better.
So I've watched this play a few times from the behind the QB cam, and I honestly think Eli threw it like the route is going up field, a slant rather than the cross Engram ran. Watch it in the link starting at 15 sec. On top of that Engram needs to find a way to get around and put 2 hands on it. If he can't then it falls incomplete.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13609240 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 13609235 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13609224 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Maybe not, you can't tell on BBI these days.
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Eli can't possibly overcome, apparently he's playing the best ball he can behind this line. It's not possible for him to play any better.
It's actually impossible to play any sort of ball behind this line. If anything he's playing dodgeball.
I'm going to hope that the guy who won a SB behind a shitty line doesn't agree with you.
When he threw his INT this week, he wasn't playing dodgeball, he was missing a receiver. He can do better.
So I've watched this play a few times from the behind the QB cam, and I honestly think Eli threw it like the route is going up field, a slant rather than the cross Engram ran. Watch it in the link starting at 15 sec. On top of that Engram needs to find a way to get around and put 2 hands on it. If he can't then it falls incomplete. Link - ( New Window )
Yes, our rookie TE should defy the laws of physics to turn around against his own momentum and get two hands on a ball thrown behind him. That's much more reasonable than asking our highest paid player, a veteran QB in his 14th year who has won two Super Bowl MVP awards, to put the ball on the receiver in stride. And let's please not consider that that same QB has thrown behind receivers with increasing frequency - that might amount to criticism.
The lengths to which people will go to avoid putting any responsibility on Eli is stunning.
Quote:
In comment 13609244 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13609240 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 13609235 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13609224 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Maybe not, you can't tell on BBI these days.
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Eli can't possibly overcome, apparently he's playing the best ball he can behind this line. It's not possible for him to play any better.
It's actually impossible to play any sort of ball behind this line. If anything he's playing dodgeball.
I'm going to hope that the guy who won a SB behind a shitty line doesn't agree with you.
When he threw his INT this week, he wasn't playing dodgeball, he was missing a receiver. He can do better.
So I've watched this play a few times from the behind the QB cam, and I honestly think Eli threw it like the route is going up field, a slant rather than the cross Engram ran. Watch it in the link starting at 15 sec. On top of that Engram needs to find a way to get around and put 2 hands on it. If he can't then it falls incomplete. Link - ( New Window )
Yes, our rookie TE should defy the laws of physics to turn around against his own momentum and get two hands on a ball thrown behind him. That's much more reasonable than asking our highest paid player, a veteran QB in his 14th year who has won two Super Bowl MVP awards, to put the ball on the receiver in stride. And let's please not consider that that same QB has thrown behind receivers with increasing frequency - that might amount to criticism.
The lengths to which people will go to avoid putting any responsibility on Eli is stunning.
Why would a QB, who is no doubt, on the back 9 of his career, all
Of the sudden get more accurate when he's playing behind the worst OL the league has seen in years? Sure, he's the highest paid player. So what? The opposition is getting pressure with four and sometime THREE man rush. If he's grown skittish and gotten longer in the tooth it's to be expected and warranted for that matter. The problem is the OL and running game. I suggest you read the article linked here. Watch the accompanying videos in the article as well.
Where is he supposed to throw? - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13609244 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13609240 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 13609235 jcn56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13609224 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Maybe not, you can't tell on BBI these days.
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Eli can't possibly overcome, apparently he's playing the best ball he can behind this line. It's not possible for him to play any better.
It's actually impossible to play any sort of ball behind this line. If anything he's playing dodgeball.
I'm going to hope that the guy who won a SB behind a shitty line doesn't agree with you.
When he threw his INT this week, he wasn't playing dodgeball, he was missing a receiver. He can do better.
So I've watched this play a few times from the behind the QB cam, and I honestly think Eli threw it like the route is going up field, a slant rather than the cross Engram ran. Watch it in the link starting at 15 sec. On top of that Engram needs to find a way to get around and put 2 hands on it. If he can't then it falls incomplete. Link - ( New Window )
Yes, our rookie TE should defy the laws of physics to turn around against his own momentum and get two hands on a ball thrown behind him. That's much more reasonable than asking our highest paid player, a veteran QB in his 14th year who has won two Super Bowl MVP awards, to put the ball on the receiver in stride. And let's please not consider that that same QB has thrown behind receivers with increasing frequency - that might amount to criticism.
The lengths to which people will go to avoid putting any responsibility on Eli is stunning.
A) This is the first comment I made on Eli. I place plenty of blame on him.
B) You conveniently didn't address the possibility that the route was supposed to be ran more upfield. After all you found it important to point out that Engram was a rookie TE
C) If the player would have had to, as you say, "defy physics" to catch the ball...then why does it matter he's a rookie? Are there veterans out there who can defy physics? In addition, as I mentioned, if you can't get 2 hands on the ball then it falls to the turf. There's plenty of blame to go around.
He's a 37 year old QB who's made the playoffs once since 2011. Oh, right - the team is a combined 36-43 during that stretch.
So much for leverage.
The leverage is that his dead cap hit this season is so large that the Giants could not cut him. If they did so, they would have to release/restructure a number of players to absorb the dead cap hit. The second part of the leverage is that they had no-one behind him that was capable of carrying the mantle. Geno, Josh, Spidey? that is leverage. Also, Eli is a fan favorite. He is the face of the franchise. A holdout by him would last all of a day as Mara would be flooded with negative PR telling him to pay the man. That is leverage.
And the smear campaign started well before Brylcream Ben took over. Reese lamented the "hang dog" look almost a decade ago. Reese has taken his shots over the years and Ben even concurred with the sloppy QB play, dirty pocket, etc. When you release the sound bites often enough from persons that hold a position of authority, then the sheep eventually believe what is being told to them. At which point when a decision is made to move on, the public outcry is dampened as they have been indoctrinated in what the F.O. has been saying. That is a smear campaign.
Quote:
Why on Earth would Eli holdout one season after signing a 4 yr extension?
He's a 37 year old QB who's made the playoffs once since 2011. Oh, right - the team is a combined 36-43 during that stretch.
So much for leverage.
The leverage is that his dead cap hit this season is so large that the Giants could not cut him. If they did so, they would have to release/restructure a number of players to absorb the dead cap hit. The second part of the leverage is that they had no-one behind him that was capable of carrying the mantle. Geno, Josh, Spidey? that is leverage. Also, Eli is a fan favorite. He is the face of the franchise. A holdout by him would last all of a day as Mara would be flooded with negative PR telling him to pay the man. That is leverage.
And the smear campaign started well before Brylcream Ben took over. Reese lamented the "hang dog" look almost a decade ago. Reese has taken his shots over the years and Ben even concurred with the sloppy QB play, dirty pocket, etc. When you release the sound bites often enough from persons that hold a position of authority, then the sheep eventually believe what is being told to them. At which point when a decision is made to move on, the public outcry is dampened as they have been indoctrinated in what the F.O. has been saying. That is a smear campaign.
Obviously it would have been very difficult to cut Eli this past offseason for a number of reasons, as you detailed, but as to the point I have emphasized in bold above, the dead money on Eli's contract was already self-liquidating as a post-6/1 cut this year. Again, I'm not disagreeing that it would have been nearly impossible to cut him this year, but it would not necessarily have affected any other roster decisions beyond what the financial cost of a replacement would have been. They also could have traded him and gained $13.5MM in cap space (since this year's salary is fully guaranteed).
Financially, he didn't have exactly as much leverage as you suggest. The leverage would have come from fan support and PR, which you do mention. There's absolutely no questioning that. But there also wasn't any inclination toward getting rid of Eli in this past offseason, so the only thing a holdout by him would have done would have been to risk reducing that fan support which provided his leverage in the first place.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Why on Earth would Eli holdout one season after signing a 4 yr extension?
He's a 37 year old QB who's made the playoffs once since 2011. Oh, right - the team is a combined 36-43 during that stretch.
So much for leverage.
The leverage is that his dead cap hit this season is so large that the Giants could not cut him. If they did so, they would have to release/restructure a number of players to absorb the dead cap hit. The second part of the leverage is that they had no-one behind him that was capable of carrying the mantle. Geno, Josh, Spidey? that is leverage. Also, Eli is a fan favorite. He is the face of the franchise. A holdout by him would last all of a day as Mara would be flooded with negative PR telling him to pay the man. That is leverage.
And the smear campaign started well before Brylcream Ben took over. Reese lamented the "hang dog" look almost a decade ago. Reese has taken his shots over the years and Ben even concurred with the sloppy QB play, dirty pocket, etc. When you release the sound bites often enough from persons that hold a position of authority, then the sheep eventually believe what is being told to them. At which point when a decision is made to move on, the public outcry is dampened as they have been indoctrinated in what the F.O. has been saying. That is a smear campaign.
Wait. Do you honestly believe Reese started this "smear campaign" a decade ago in perpetuation for the day that they'd habe to cut him in 2018?
Or is it more likely that he was holding Eli accountable for poor play?
Quote:
In comment 13611309 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Why on Earth would Eli holdout one season after signing a 4 yr extension?
He's a 37 year old QB who's made the playoffs once since 2011. Oh, right - the team is a combined 36-43 during that stretch.
So much for leverage.
The leverage is that his dead cap hit this season is so large that the Giants could not cut him. If they did so, they would have to release/restructure a number of players to absorb the dead cap hit. The second part of the leverage is that they had no-one behind him that was capable of carrying the mantle. Geno, Josh, Spidey? that is leverage. Also, Eli is a fan favorite. He is the face of the franchise. A holdout by him would last all of a day as Mara would be flooded with negative PR telling him to pay the man. That is leverage.
And the smear campaign started well before Brylcream Ben took over. Reese lamented the "hang dog" look almost a decade ago. Reese has taken his shots over the years and Ben even concurred with the sloppy QB play, dirty pocket, etc. When you release the sound bites often enough from persons that hold a position of authority, then the sheep eventually believe what is being told to them. At which point when a decision is made to move on, the public outcry is dampened as they have been indoctrinated in what the F.O. has been saying. That is a smear campaign.
Wait. Do you honestly believe Reese started this "smear campaign" a decade ago in perpetuation for the day that they'd habe to cut him in 2018?
Or is it more likely that he was holding Eli accountable for poor play?
I'm not going to give Jerry credit for concocting an elaborate conspiracy theory as one you describe. Frankly, he isn't that smart. But I do know that Eli was never his guy. Eli doesn't fit the bill for what Jerry describes as basketball on turf. If it wasn't for the first superbowl, Eli would have been ushered to the door and Jerry would have had his chance to pick his own guy. Every GM wants their own guy.
Are you saying that Jerry's "Hang Dog" comment a decade ago is holding Eli accountable for poor play? Odd for constructive criticism. I think a comment such as that doesn't describe any level play, but just points out that Eli is not a "fiery" kind of guy.
Quote:
In comment 13611385 Diver_Down said:
Quote:
In comment 13611309 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Why on Earth would Eli holdout one season after signing a 4 yr extension?
He's a 37 year old QB who's made the playoffs once since 2011. Oh, right - the team is a combined 36-43 during that stretch.
So much for leverage.
The leverage is that his dead cap hit this season is so large that the Giants could not cut him. If they did so, they would have to release/restructure a number of players to absorb the dead cap hit. The second part of the leverage is that they had no-one behind him that was capable of carrying the mantle. Geno, Josh, Spidey? that is leverage. Also, Eli is a fan favorite. He is the face of the franchise. A holdout by him would last all of a day as Mara would be flooded with negative PR telling him to pay the man. That is leverage.
And the smear campaign started well before Brylcream Ben took over. Reese lamented the "hang dog" look almost a decade ago. Reese has taken his shots over the years and Ben even concurred with the sloppy QB play, dirty pocket, etc. When you release the sound bites often enough from persons that hold a position of authority, then the sheep eventually believe what is being told to them. At which point when a decision is made to move on, the public outcry is dampened as they have been indoctrinated in what the F.O. has been saying. That is a smear campaign.
Wait. Do you honestly believe Reese started this "smear campaign" a decade ago in perpetuation for the day that they'd habe to cut him in 2018?
Or is it more likely that he was holding Eli accountable for poor play?
I'm not going to give Jerry credit for concocting an elaborate conspiracy theory as one you describe. Frankly, he isn't that smart. But I do know that Eli was never his guy. Eli doesn't fit the bill for what Jerry describes as basketball on turf. If it wasn't for the first superbowl, Eli would have been ushered to the door and Jerry would have had his chance to pick his own guy. Every GM wants their own guy.
Are you saying that Jerry's "Hang Dog" comment a decade ago is holding Eli accountable for poor play? Odd for constructive criticism. I think a comment such as that doesn't describe any level play, but just points out that Eli is not a "fiery" kind of guy.
If it wasn't for the first Super Bowl, Eli would have been ushered to the door? Ya think? Go look at his stats prior to that first Super Bowl - not only would Eli have been ushered to the door, but most of BBI would have held the door open for him.
You're really good at 20/20 hindsight. If only you understood the present as well as the past with the benefit of knowing how it played out. And the irony is rich that a guy who spelled Super Bowl as "superbowl" would say that our GM "isn't that smart."
Quote:
In comment 13611707 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
In comment 13611385 Diver_Down said:
Quote:
In comment 13611309 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Why on Earth would Eli holdout one season after signing a 4 yr extension?
He's a 37 year old QB who's made the playoffs once since 2011. Oh, right - the team is a combined 36-43 during that stretch.
So much for leverage.
The leverage is that his dead cap hit this season is so large that the Giants could not cut him. If they did so, they would have to release/restructure a number of players to absorb the dead cap hit. The second part of the leverage is that they had no-one behind him that was capable of carrying the mantle. Geno, Josh, Spidey? that is leverage. Also, Eli is a fan favorite. He is the face of the franchise. A holdout by him would last all of a day as Mara would be flooded with negative PR telling him to pay the man. That is leverage.
And the smear campaign started well before Brylcream Ben took over. Reese lamented the "hang dog" look almost a decade ago. Reese has taken his shots over the years and Ben even concurred with the sloppy QB play, dirty pocket, etc. When you release the sound bites often enough from persons that hold a position of authority, then the sheep eventually believe what is being told to them. At which point when a decision is made to move on, the public outcry is dampened as they have been indoctrinated in what the F.O. has been saying. That is a smear campaign.
Wait. Do you honestly believe Reese started this "smear campaign" a decade ago in perpetuation for the day that they'd habe to cut him in 2018?
Or is it more likely that he was holding Eli accountable for poor play?
I'm not going to give Jerry credit for concocting an elaborate conspiracy theory as one you describe. Frankly, he isn't that smart. But I do know that Eli was never his guy. Eli doesn't fit the bill for what Jerry describes as basketball on turf. If it wasn't for the first superbowl, Eli would have been ushered to the door and Jerry would have had his chance to pick his own guy. Every GM wants their own guy.
Are you saying that Jerry's "Hang Dog" comment a decade ago is holding Eli accountable for poor play? Odd for constructive criticism. I think a comment such as that doesn't describe any level play, but just points out that Eli is not a "fiery" kind of guy.
If it wasn't for the first Super Bowl, Eli would have been ushered to the door? Ya think? Go look at his stats prior to that first Super Bowl - not only would Eli have been ushered to the door, but most of BBI would have held the door open for him.
You're really good at 20/20 hindsight. If only you understood the present as well as the past with the benefit of knowing how it played out. And the irony is rich that a guy who spelled Super Bowl as "superbowl" would say that our GM "isn't that smart."
I spell it that way because I'm too lazy to capitalize and break the word apart. Could frankly care less about the audience if they can't get the point that I'm making. Yes, I know the origination of the Super Bowl and how it was named after the Super Ball that was popular as a kid's toy. Ironic isn't it?
Quote:
In comment 13611385 Diver_Down said:
Quote:
In comment 13611309 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Why on Earth would Eli holdout one season after signing a 4 yr extension?
He's a 37 year old QB who's made the playoffs once since 2011. Oh, right - the team is a combined 36-43 during that stretch.
So much for leverage.
The leverage is that his dead cap hit this season is so large that the Giants could not cut him. If they did so, they would have to release/restructure a number of players to absorb the dead cap hit. The second part of the leverage is that they had no-one behind him that was capable of carrying the mantle. Geno, Josh, Spidey? that is leverage. Also, Eli is a fan favorite. He is the face of the franchise. A holdout by him would last all of a day as Mara would be flooded with negative PR telling him to pay the man. That is leverage.
And the smear campaign started well before Brylcream Ben took over. Reese lamented the "hang dog" look almost a decade ago. Reese has taken his shots over the years and Ben even concurred with the sloppy QB play, dirty pocket, etc. When you release the sound bites often enough from persons that hold a position of authority, then the sheep eventually believe what is being told to them. At which point when a decision is made to move on, the public outcry is dampened as they have been indoctrinated in what the F.O. has been saying. That is a smear campaign.
Wait. Do you honestly believe Reese started this "smear campaign" a decade ago in perpetuation for the day that they'd habe to cut him in 2018?
Or is it more likely that he was holding Eli accountable for poor play?
I'm not going to give Jerry credit for concocting an elaborate conspiracy theory as one you describe. Frankly, he isn't that smart. But I do know that Eli was never his guy. Eli doesn't fit the bill for what Jerry describes as basketball on turf. If it wasn't for the first superbowl, Eli would have been ushered to the door and Jerry would have had his chance to pick his own guy. Every GM wants their own guy.
Are you saying that Jerry's "Hang Dog" comment a decade ago is holding Eli accountable for poor play? Odd for constructive criticism. I think a comment such as that doesn't describe any level play, but just points out that Eli is not a "fiery" kind of guy.
Wait, did you really accuse Reese of not being that smart? Haha, classic. I'm not sure that you're really the guy to be ridiculing other people's intelligence. Especially a man that has had far, far more success in life than than the man doing the ridiculing. Good times.