It's clear Manning will get the ball to start '18 and the new regime is willing to give him a clean slate - but I'm interested as to why.
Personally I hope the GM and staff either see a championship in his future or a short window as a bridge.
If I were the GM I'd be asking these questions:
1) What's the window in years Manning can reasonably be expected Manning to be a championship type QB?
2) Is it reasonable to expect with a new system on both sides of the ball, the staff will have the team ready to compete for a championship in that time?
3) With achievable and reasonable improvements to the roster, will the roster be at a place to compete for a championship in that time?
If it's not likely the stars will align to have a championship roster and program in this window, why else keep Manning around?
1) Is he a stop-gap until the future QB is acquired or ready?
2) Is he on a contract that can be absorbed as a back-up if that's the right call?
3) Is he the type of player who graciously move aside if the situation calls for it?
What other questions would you expect the staff to be asking?
you ride him until his arm falls off.
The better one year early than one year late doesn't apply here.
Teams are so starved for QB's that they overpay for them constantly, either through FA or the draft, and they often don't get a good return on the investment.
It's fine to prepare for life after Manning, but he can still play, so you play him.
1. Probably 2-3, reasonably.
2. Quick turnarounds happen every year.
3. Possibly, the Rams, Vikings, Eagles, and Jags all turned it around to get to their championship games in a season.
4. He's the starter, not a stop gap. A stop gap is a journeyman type, not a 15 year future HOF'er with Superbowl MVP's.
5. With the rookie QB making little money, it won't hurt to keep him as a back up if it came to that. It would even out.
6. He graciously turned down McAdoo's crappy proposal and sat down so Geno could start. He's always been open to mentoring Webb or any other QB on the roster.
Saying that, Age is reducing his skill set. But his current skill set is probably far greater than most teams have and maybe even greater than the top 2-3 QB's in this draft.
I'm ok w drafting a QB at 2. But I'm also ok drafting another stud instead.
If it's not likely the stars will align to have a championship roster and program in this window, why else keep Manning around?
1) Is he a stop-gap until the future QB is acquired or ready? We don't really have a choice.
2) Is he on a contract that can be absorbed as a back-up if that's the right call? Yes, for this year (though not ideal).
3) Is he the type of player who graciously move aside if the situation calls for it? Yes, he's a class act.
If they are failing, with no reasonable shot at the post-season, you need to play the kid.
As far as next year goes, I think Eli is gone. They will need $$ for Collins & Beckham. This is the last year for #10.
Which gives the new one or ones time to learn the O. And how to read NFL D in real time.
If Allen or Darnold, these guys are somewhat raw and won't be ready to take the baton right away (perhaps not in 2018).
you ride him until his arm falls off.
The better one year early than one year late doesn't apply here.
Teams are so starved for QB's that they overpay for them constantly, either through FA or the draft, and they often don't get a good return on the investment.
It's fine to prepare for life after Manning, but he can still play, so you play him.
1. Probably 2-3, reasonably.
2. Quick turnarounds happen every year.
3. Possibly, the Rams, Vikings, Eagles, and Jags all turned it around to get to their championship games in a season.
4. He's the starter, not a stop gap. A stop gap is a journeyman type, not a 15 year future HOF'er with Superbowl MVP's.
5. With the rookie QB making little money, it won't hurt to keep him as a back up if it came to that. It would even out.
6. He graciously turned down McAdoo's crappy proposal and sat down so Geno could start. He's always been open to mentoring Webb or any other QB on the roster.
Ohh Dear God...
33-46
0-1 playoffs
This is from ages 32-36
Do we really bank on whaf years 37-40 will bring?
The Giants priority has to be to upgrade the QB position. Anyone who can't see that is fooling themselves.
after the first quarter manning was not good,go watch the game again.they only scored 13pts.
This is why any plan to go "all in" with Eli is likely a faulty strategy, in my opinion.
you ride him until his arm falls off.
The better one year early than one year late doesn't apply here.
Teams are so starved for QB's that they overpay for them constantly, either through FA or the draft, and they often don't get a good return on the investment.
It's fine to prepare for life after Manning, but he can still play, so you play him.
1. Probably 2-3, reasonably.
2. Quick turnarounds happen every year.
3. Possibly, the Rams, Vikings, Eagles, and Jags all turned it around to get to their championship games in a season.
4. He's the starter, not a stop gap. A stop gap is a journeyman type, not a 15 year future HOF'er with Superbowl MVP's.
5. With the rookie QB making little money, it won't hurt to keep him as a back up if it came to that. It would even out.
6. He graciously turned down McAdoo's crappy proposal and sat down so Geno could start. He's always been open to mentoring Webb or any other QB on the roster.
2-3 years? You think he can be a franchise/championship QB for 2-3 more years when he hasn't been in the last few years?
This. It's been a problem for years with this organization.
I'll make sure this doesn't get passed along to Gettleman, promise.
However, if you give Eli time and weapons, he is plenty good enough to get it done for another 2-3 years. He can still make all of the throws that he needs to make, and when it comes to the mental side of playing QB and making adjustments, there is no QB in this draft who can match what Eli offers in that department.
However, if you give Eli time and weapons, he is plenty good enough to get it done for another 2-3 years. He can still make all of the throws that he needs to make, and when it comes to the mental side of playing QB and making adjustments, there is no QB in this draft who can match what Eli offers in that department.
2-3yrs,sheeez
However, if you give Eli time and weapons, he is plenty good enough to get it done for another 2-3 years. He can still make all of the throws that he needs to make, and when it comes to the mental side of playing QB and making adjustments, there is no QB in this draft who can match what Eli offers in that department.
If he doesn't elevate players around him anymore, how is he winning a Super Bowl?
The amount of improvement that can be made over the next couple of years will greatly contribute to the likelihood of a return to form.
Peyton Manning and John Elway won Super Bowls at older ages - but the surrounding casts in both those scenarios were very, very good.
Can the Giants improve the roster in the next 2-3 years to be that good?
The Rams, Jags, Eagles had young QBs and ascending rosters. I don't know if that the type of roster the Giants have.
you ride him until his arm falls off.
The better one year early than one year late doesn't apply here.
Teams are so starved for QB's that they overpay for them constantly, either through FA or the draft, and they often don't get a good return on the investment.
It's fine to prepare for life after Manning, but he can still play, so you play him.
1. Probably 2-3, reasonably.
2. Quick turnarounds happen every year.
3. Possibly, the Rams, Vikings, Eagles, and Jags all turned it around to get to their championship games in a season.
4. He's the starter, not a stop gap. A stop gap is a journeyman type, not a 15 year future HOF'er with Superbowl MVP's.
5. With the rookie QB making little money, it won't hurt to keep him as a back up if it came to that. It would even out.
6. He graciously turned down McAdoo's crappy proposal and sat down so Geno could start. He's always been open to mentoring Webb or any other QB on the roster.
Are there other factors you think the GM should be considering when future planning?
I don't know if I see enough improvement to the roster to offset the reasonable decline in play with an older quarterback.
Especially if the resources (potentially #2 overall and the 30M contract slotted) go to a back-up QB. If they believe Manning is a championship QB, how can you not put that capital toward a better roster?
So much needs to get better from the product that was put out there last year - top-to-bottom.
Quote:
2-3 years? You think he can be a franchise/championship QB for 2-3 more years when he hasn't been in the last few years?
The amount of improvement that can be made over the next couple of years will greatly contribute to the likelihood of a return to form.
Peyton Manning and John Elway won Super Bowls at older ages - but the surrounding casts in both those scenarios were very, very good.
Can the Giants improve the roster in the next 2-3 years to be that good?
The Rams, Jags, Eagles had young QBs and ascending rosters. I don't know if that the type of roster the Giants have.
You're ignoring the fact that Eli is going to continue to decline.
Peyton did very little to win that Super Bowl, he had one of the best defenses of all time. The Giants defense isn't close to that.
That Eli can't do it, and Webb could not beat out Geno.
If you have no faith in the previous coaching staff, then you really don't know that Eli cannot turn it around, or if Webb is actually decent.
Maybe Eli does have a monster fork in his back, maybe Webb will turn into a blubbering idiot when faced with NFL pass rush, and far more complex defenses to read. I don't know. Neither does anybody else until we try.
Over his career, Manning has earned the benefit of the doubt for at least 1 more year.
When seen in interviews, Webb's football IQ and work ethic seem to be off the charts. Based on preseason, he made made strides in his footwork. So writing him off is clearly premature.
None of this is to say we should or should not grab a QB this year.
But to claim with certainty that you know that Eli is done, or that Webb is a wasted pick is ridiculous. You can have an opinion but that's all. It can be fun to debate opinions but nothing here is certain. NOTHING.
Quote:
This team has tried to catch lightning in a bottle for so long now, playing wack-a-mole with the roster, always reacting to short comings. It is time for sustainable success. Eli should have zero bearing on who we select at 2, he is 37. The roster should be built in a way which can compete with Manning, or without. See the Eagles.
I completely agree with this post. And I still think we should draft Barkley at #2. And I think that completely aligns with this post too.
I agree. I’m in the Darnold/Barkley camp right now. I think Barkley can be a tremendous help to Eli or potentially Webb down the line. I also think, although not exciting, Quentin Nelson could be a huge asset in a winning culture.
So, playing Manning may not be a 'win now idea' but the opposite - a caretaker idea.
He gets to go through the growth warts so the young one or ones can drive a good working ride. When it's ready.
So, playing Manning may not be a 'win now idea' but the opposite - a caretaker idea.
He gets to go through the growth warts so the young one or ones can drive a good working ride. When it's ready.
I think there is a lot of truth to this.
So, playing Manning may not be a 'win now idea' but the opposite - a caretaker idea.
He gets to go through the growth warts so the young one or ones can drive a good working ride. When it's ready.
It can be both.
Agreed, and I've been saying that for months in regards to why we don't have to take a QB at 2, regardless of how you feel about Manning.
They are out there.
If they do draft a qb at 2 or where ever, doesn't mean or force them to throw kid right into starting. Eli gives them a little luxury to get feet under them before stepping in as a possible replacement. I would doubt, or highly hope not, that they are centering team for Eli to be playing past 40 at the very most.
Vet presence, give stability at position til time of changeover. That's why imo a qb like Darnold would be the ideal situation in that he'd need time beforehand before stepping in.
Eli should be the starting QB here until there's a better QB on the roster. Period. It's extremely doubtful any rookie QB will be a better option next year. There's also plenty of QB's who have benefitted from a red shirt year.
They are out there.
There aren't many.
Eli should be the starting QB here until there's a better QB on the roster. Period. It's extremely doubtful any rookie QB will be a better option next year. There's also plenty of QB's who have benefitted from a red shirt year.
Your ignoring that Peyton was benched for Osweiler in November.
Why is it extremely doubtful any rookie QB will be better than Eli?
Quote:
Presume. There is an argument that it takes time to get a team rebuilt. That you want it in a semblance of good before you throw the new QB out there.
So, playing Manning may not be a 'win now idea' but the opposite - a caretaker idea.
He gets to go through the growth warts so the young one or ones can drive a good working ride. When it's ready.
It can be both.
I'm not being rhetorical by asking this -- but is the team, without investing the #2 pick and the cap allocation that goes with it over year one and two, good enough to win with Manning at QB?
Is this 3-13 close to winning now?
Eli should be the starting QB here until there's a better QB on the roster. Period. It's extremely doubtful any rookie QB will be a better option next year. There's also plenty of QB's who have benefitted from a red shirt year.
This isn't entirely accurate in terms of the sequence of events. The Broncos signed Manning after his injury because they believed he had a Super Bowl-level talent left, and he turned around had arguable the best season in the history of football for them.
I am not sure I would expect Eli Manning to approach the season his brother had his first year in Denver.
Why is one better than the other?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Why is one better than the other?
I don't think anyone is arguing in the immediate term a rookie QB will play better than Manning.
What I'm personally interested in knowing is if anyone believes in the next 2 years, with achievable improvements to the roster, that Manning can bring a championship to the Giants.
That's what I would have to believe if I were the GM. Do you believe that?
The answer is no.
Your'e taking Eli's best plays from the past two years as a 14 year NFL vet and comparing them to a 21 year old? Lol, come on dude.
you ride him until his arm falls off
Agreed. So now what?
#6 on your list is a good example of how fans can see the same thing very differently - you say graciously, but I think you can make the case that it was anything but gracious, right down to insisting that the team put out a press release about it.
Quote:
not the crapshoot that is drafting a potential franchise QB and the risks that go with it, but the real deal already...
you ride him until his arm falls off
Agreed. So now what?
#6 on your list is a good example of how fans can see the same thing very differently - you say graciously, but I think you can make the case that it was anything but gracious, right down to insisting that the team put out a press release about it.
Nuance. I think Manning's calculated (agreed) move was directed at McAdoo, though.
I do believe he was gracious to Geno. I do believe he has been mentoring Webb to the best of his ability without complaint.
Manning's ire was directed at McAdoo, after a season of being thrown under the bus week after week and scapegoated.
I do believe Manning would graciously help any young QB on the roster.
By playing a Keenum type players, you will get results like the NFC Championship game more often than not. Denver will be calling for a new QB in the middle of the year.
Quote:
they won last year regardless of who the QB was. A well-coached, deep roster can withstand an average at best QB.
By playing a Keenum type players, you will get results like the NFC Championship game more often than not. Denver will be calling for a new QB in the middle of the year.
That's an interesting take -- Manning and Keenum's costs are in the same neighborhood over the next 2 years.
Snapshot right now, all things equal, is Manning or Keenum more likely to be a championship QB in the next 2 years?