If Webb outplays Eli

As teams are usually very Vanilla in preseason and Webb likely won’t have many reps against starters or with our first team O. That being said, I would increase his practice reps with the first team O with the goal that if Eli is struggling you bring in Webb

Him, but outplay him to the point where it almost seems negligent to leave him on the bench. Like say we’re 3-2 and the offense is in the middle of the pack. Is there any scenario where Eli is average and doesn’t get hurt (which he never does) and the coaches make a change. Or is it just too politically toxic to do that to Eli.

To be badly outplayed.

Would only be preseason, which we all should be able to agree isn't near the same as the regular season. In your scenario the coaches would probably stick with Manning. Manning would have to be the clear culprit for the offense's problems before the coaches even think about a switch.

1. Eli is the starter. I don't think anything outside of injury will change that this season, at least in the first half of the season.

2. If the Giants are 3-2 heading into the Eagles game, there's zero chance they'd bench Eli for Webb. Zero.

3. What a nice problem to have. If Webb looks THAT good in the preseason, that'll certainly be a positive.

and you want to bench Eli??

Unless the defense scored all of those points, I think Shurmur would give him a bit more rope to hang himself...

better than Eli, then he should bench Eli and play Webb.. You can't let Eli's past get in the way. Put the best players out there and Pat gets to choose.. No need to put Eli out there to appease the crowd..

or a complete collapse, Eli will be the starter as long as the team is still in the running.

She'd be my uncle. What a dumb thread.

In comment 13970889 Tim in VA said:

Quote:

She'd be my uncle. What a dumb thread.

Lol, best post in this thread.

After committing themselves to Eli, which is what the general consensus was after the draft, the Giants would bench him at 3-2 because Webb had a good preseason.

This isEli s team. Even guys like me who wanted Darnold have to admit that.

I m fine with it. But have to admit if they would replace Eli with Webb, and he flopped, that would be hard to take, especially if Darnold was playing well.

will be lucky to outperform vs. Lauletta.

and have you seen some of Eli’s preseasons? Some of his best years were preceded by terrible preseasons.

But if you're going to bench Eli, you'd better damn sure you're right or it will cost you your job. You're done, you're finished, you're out the door without as much as a goodbye. See: Ben McAdoo.

Eli is the starter.

DG and PS are professionals with main goals to put the Giants in the best position to win. Right now, as some posters have pointed out, Eli is the starter unless he plays pitifully poor or gets injured. Let Eli get use to his now Oline, running game and offensive system. Even if the Giants go 0-2, your can't pull Eli. The early portion of the the Giants schedule is rough. This team needs to gel, but not at he expense of both Eli and Davis. Do you really want to go with Webb early into the season where everyone is still learning and the Oline is gelling still gelling? That could be a disaster for the psyche of Webb, if he gets kills. You have to take into consideration that the line is not going to be productive optimally early in the season. Eli can handle that situation better. Let the season play out but don't force it early.

At this age, it's important for guys like Brady, Lebron, Eli, Brees, etc to use their time and bodies wisely.

You will probably see Eli slowly work into game shape, arm shape as the summer progresses. It's May, my guess is Eli was throwing at 75% yesterday, whereas Webb is all in, every day. He is fighting for his life.

In comment 13970906 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

and have you seen some of Eli’s preseasons? Some of his best years were preceded by terrible preseasons.

^^^ Very true

...that how could they resist starting Webb, right?

In comment 13970936 jcn56 said:

Quote:

...that how could they resist starting Webb, right?

The fan outrage about it was a lot worse than any on-field result related to it.

will not take much for Webb or Lauletta to outplay him. No, Eli will be the starter for game 1.

same as yesterday's Soup of the Day.

In comment 13970941 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 13970936 jcn56 said: Quote: ...that how could they resist starting Webb, right? The fan outrage about it was a lot worse than any on-field result related to it.

That's the problem, though. I highly doubt we'd have this problem, but even if it did present itself, benching Eli again would go down like a lead balloon. He's here for this year at least, if not more.

.

is no chance Shrumur will start Webb or Lauletta unless Eli is injured. there will be no "open competition" for the starting QB position.

In comment 13970887 Beer Man said:

Quote:

or a complete collapse, Eli will be the starter as long as the team is still in the running.

what about if we are 2-6 at the bye and the div leader is 6-2

You think they would make a switch in that scenario?

In comment 13970887 Beer Man said:

Quote:

or a complete collapse, Eli will be the starter as long as the team is still in the running.

Agree with this thought. But you never know.

did you think of this dumb post you actually started it.

In comment 13970969 Capt. Don said:

Quote:

.

Pffft it’s not like he’s Darkwa

In comment 13970980 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13970887 Beer Man said: Quote: or a complete collapse, Eli will be the starter as long as the team is still in the running. what about if we are 2-6 at the bye and the div leader is 6-2 You think they would make a switch in that scenario?

I think as long as the Giants are in mathematical contention for a playoff spot, there is no chance anyone other than Eli will start barring injury.

In comment 13970980 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13970887 Beer Man said: Quote: or a complete collapse, Eli will be the starter as long as the team is still in the running. what about if we are 2-6 at the bye and the div leader is 6-2 You think they would make a switch in that scenario?

Yeah, I doubt there's any scenario where Eli hits the bench, barring injury. If it's another down year, unless it's very clearly Eli that's shitting the bed, it's going to be Eli for '18 and then a change at the helm in 19.

Does he become HC then. What if the team is 2-3, then does he?

I guess you can never say never, as most of us never expected a 3-win season last year, and Eli's arm could always fall off, but barring something very unexpected, I think it's safe to assume Eli will be the starter for the season, barring injury.

out-play him. The idea that Webb will somehow be better than the current version of Eli Manning is just silly.

Eli will be replaced when Eli's performance comes DOWN to Webb's level because Webb won't be coming UP to Eli's current performance level in the near future, if ever.

Reading the stories from yesterday's first OTA practice helps fuel the controversy. Reading that Webb looked sharp, accurate, decisive, and showed a strong arm while Eli struggled a bit is exactly how these controversies are born.

Obviously we are a long ways away from that. There are very few fans who already are calling for Webb to start over Eli.

That could definitely change, and I think the OP has the right idea in terms of the time frames.

By the Philly game we will have seen enough to start to expect good performances from Eli. Forget the W-L record, we could be 5-0 but if Eli seems to be holding the offense back with inaccuracy and poor overall performance there will be some calling for Webb.

Given that scenario I do think the outcome of that Philly game will go a long way in determining Eli's fate with the Giants. If Eli struggles against Philly the QB controversy could be in full bloom.

Of course there are two ways for us to avoid a serious QB controversy:

1. Webb and Lauletta look horrible in preseason, camp, and via practice reports.

2. Eli looks great - leads an efficient offense that scores points and rests the defense.

In other words, it's all up to Eli to keep the controversy away.

Quote:

By the Philly game we will have seen enough to start to expect good performances from Eli. Forget the W-L record, we could be 5-0 but if Eli seems to be holding the offense back with inaccuracy and poor overall performance there will be some calling for Webb.

If we are 5-0, nobody will be calling for Webb.

Again - Webb might not even outplay Lauletta.

Lauletta has looked terrible so far.

Webb will always look like the shiny piece in practice. It’s always been the games where he has struggled.

He wasn't....he benched himself....

he couldn't outplay Geno or Johnson.....what has happened since then?

because that is how you describe when a player is taken out of the lineup.

Have you ever said another player "benched himself"? No. But it is hard to throw an insult Eli's way when the coach does the benching. When he benches himself, it becomes much easier, no?

😜

Some on BBI were squawking about starting him over Eli when Crapadoo showed up.

How did that work out?

lots of respect for you, but how often does a coach tell a guy he's going to start and then have that guy say, "no thanks - if I can't finish it isn't fair to me or the other guy, so I'd rather not".

I can't remember another player doing this in any sport.

That's why you don't hear about other players "benching themselves".

When other players are benched by the coach, those conversations don't start with "We're going to have you play the first half".

WRT the W/L record, it won't be the record that's most important, but the play of the QB. It's all in Eli's hands. He just needs to play well to shut everyone up.

I'm rooting for that to happen.

In comment 13970924 DonnieD89 said:

Quote:

DG and PS are professionals with main goals to put the Giants in the best position to win. Right now, as some posters have pointed out, Eli is the starter unless he plays pitifully poor or gets injured. Let Eli get use to his now Oline, running game and offensive system. Even if the Giants go 0-2, your can't pull Eli. The early portion of the the Giants schedule is rough. This team needs to gel, but not at he expense of both Eli and Davis. Do you really want to go with Webb early into the season where everyone is still learning and the Oline is gelling still gelling? That could be a disaster for the psyche of Webb, if he gets kills. You have to take into consideration that the line is not going to be productive optimally early in the season. Eli can handle that situation better. Let the season play out but don't force it early.

Ok what if Eli goes 0-3 what is the cut off ?

..

In comment 13971100 NikkiMac said:

Quote:

In comment 13970924 DonnieD89 said: Quote: DG and PS are professionals with main goals to put the Giants in the best position to win. Right now, as some posters have pointed out, Eli is the starter unless he plays pitifully poor or gets injured. Let Eli get use to his now Oline, running game and offensive system. Even if the Giants go 0-2, your can't pull Eli. The early portion of the the Giants schedule is rough. This team needs to gel, but not at he expense of both Eli and Davis. Do you really want to go with Webb early into the season where everyone is still learning and the Oline is gelling still gelling? That could be a disaster for the psyche of Webb, if he gets kills. You have to take into consideration that the line is not going to be productive optimally early in the season. Eli can handle that situation better. Let the season play out but don't force it early. Ok what if Eli goes 0-3 what is the cut off ?

After mid season. If you think Webb or Lauletta is going to take the Giants to the promise land this year by starting the season early, you might as well join Jimmy Jones in drinking the cool aid. Yeah...let's get these guy's shell shocked with an online in progress of gelling.

That Webb won't even outplay Lauletta , isn't telling the truth.

Right now Lauletta is struggling in ota's , and Davis Webb is excelling.

In fact Webb is outperforming Eli Manning in ota's , and hes doing it with backups.

In comment 13971166 sxdxca said:

Quote:

In fact Webb is outperforming Eli Manning in ota's , and hes doing it with backups.

against backups.

It was disgracefully handled and soon after the HC and GM were fired. This new group has stated from the beginning that Eli has not lost anything, has years left of good play, and is the starter. They passed on an opportunity to select Eli's successor from their pick of candidates in this year's draft class, instead opting for a developmental guy in round 4. TRANSLATION: they are putting their money where their mouth is.

Webb is not going to play this year, barring injury.

In comment 13970874 CMicks3110 said:

Quote:

Him, but outplay him to the point where it almost seems negligent to leave him on the bench. Like say we’re 3-2 and the offense is in the middle of the pack. Is there any scenario where Eli is average and doesn’t get hurt (which he never does) and the coaches make a change. Or is it just too politically toxic to do that to Eli.

So, according to your bias, if the Giants start 3-2, the only reason the Giants wouldn't bench Manning in favor of an untested Webb is because of appearances?


Holy shit. How can you possibly enjoy football with that mindset?

In comment 13971166 sxdxca said:

Quote:

That Webb won't even outplay Lauletta , isn't telling the truth. Right now Lauletta is struggling in ota's , and Davis Webb is excelling. In fact Webb is outperforming Eli Manning in ota's , and hes doing it with backups.

I assume its also against backups

But yeah, claiming that Lauletta will outperform Webb at this point seems a little premature.

Webb will outperform Eli is REALLY premature.

My point is that Webb is more likely to get beaten out by Lauletta than he is to beat out Eli.

In comment 13971244 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

Webb will outperform Eli is REALLY premature. My point is that Webb is more likely to get beaten out by Lauletta than he is to beat out Eli.

I don't see anyone stating it as a fact, people are putting out a hypothetical.

But yeah, Webb wont/cant win the job in practice or preseason, Eli will have to lose it in games that count.

I was playing along with the OP, discussing the hypothetical put forth. I think there could be a QB controversy if all we hear/see of the backups is positive and Eli struggles.

I don't think the record will be as important as Eli's play. If Eli is playing very well but we lose games because of the defense, most sane Giants fans are not going to want him benched, even if we have lost five games. After elimination from playoff contention that changes, of course.

If Eli is NOT playing well, I also don't think it will matter much if we are winning based on the defense. I especially think that the Philly game could really test Giants fans' trust in Eli. IF (big if) Eli plays poorly and the offense is struggling under him, even though we could be winning games, we could easily start to hear the rumblings to replace Eli after that Philly game. It will be the sixth game of the year done already - the season will be half over.

We get too caught up on W/L record sometimes when evaluating a QB. I don't believe it's a very important factor, certainly not as important as other factors like points scored, yards gained, turnovers, and other metrics of offensive efficiency.

In other words, Eli's performance in 2016 was very similar imo to his performance in 2017. The difference in W/L goes primarily to defensive performance and game-changing plays made by OBJ. For an example, look at the second Dallas game in 2016.

after six games it will nearly be half over. Obviously 6 is not half of 16.

We say it..
FatMan in Charlotte : 10:21 am : link : reply
because that is how you describe when a player is taken out of the lineup.


Mac approached Eli and told him, he would start him, keeping his record alive, but if the offense did not move in the first half, that he would insert Geno in the second half.....It was my recollection that Eli stated he can't play under those conditions, and wouldn't....so that's when Mac decided to insert Geno. with Eli essentially benching himself because he wouldn't play under those conditions....

In comment 13971306 Doomster said:

Quote:

We say it.. FatMan in Charlotte : 10:21 am : link : reply because that is how you describe when a player is taken out of the lineup. Mac approached Eli and told him, he would start him, keeping his record alive, but if the offense did not move in the first half, that he would insert Geno in the second half.....It was my recollection that Eli stated he can't play under those conditions, and wouldn't....so that's when Mac decided to insert Geno. with Eli essentially benching himself because he wouldn't play under those conditions....

I don't remember it being a decision at the half based on how the offense was doing. I remember it being a sure thing, that Eli would sit in the 2nd half and Geno would play. Under the certainty of a halftime benching, Eli basically said then why don't you just start Geno. The only reason you're starting me is to keep my record in tact, and that isn't the right thing to do. If you don't think I'm your best chance at winning then play Geno.

because I asked earlier and got mixed stories, references to sources, conjecture, etc.

If no one knows fine, but then shut hell up...

In comment 13971333 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

because I asked earlier and got mixed stories, references to sources, conjecture, etc. If no one knows fine, but then shut hell up...

You have been told what happened, but refused to believe it.

Hmph...

and from what I can tell you both didn't come to definitive view what happened.

hmph,,,

In comment 13971341 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

and from what I can tell you both didn't come to definitive view what happened. hmph,,,

You asked yesterday and I replied immediately with what happened.

Ill try to make it clearer next time for you buddy!

leave out the guessing. I can always read the NYDN...

In comment 13971346 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

leave out the guessing. I can always read the NYDN...

Mara was told younger guys would be getting looks based on score of game including at QB. Mara agreed.
Eli was told he would be sitting no matter what in the 2nd half
Mara was caught surprised by this
Both GM and HC fired soon after the game.

Those are the cliffnotes. Hope you got it buddy!

In comment 13970887 Beer Man said:

Quote:

or a complete collapse, Eli will be the starter as long as the team is still in the running.

EXACTLY any other thought is mental masturbation. ELi is the starter period. Unless we tank again.

In comment 13971311 PatersonPlank said:

Quote:

In comment 13971306 Doomster said: Quote: We say it.. FatMan in Charlotte : 10:21 am : link : reply because that is how you describe when a player is taken out of the lineup. Mac approached Eli and told him, he would start him, keeping his record alive, but if the offense did not move in the first half, that he would insert Geno in the second half.....It was my recollection that Eli stated he can't play under those conditions, and wouldn't....so that's when Mac decided to insert Geno. with Eli essentially benching himself because he wouldn't play under those conditions.... I don't remember it being a decision at the half based on how the offense was doing. I remember it being a sure thing, that Eli would sit in the 2nd half and Geno would play. Under the certainty of a halftime benching, Eli basically said then why don't you just start Geno. The only reason you're starting me is to keep my record in tact, and that isn't the right thing to do. If you don't think I'm your best chance at winning then play Geno.

yes, that is exactly what happened.

In comment 13971351 dep026 said:

Quote:

In comment 13971346 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: leave out the guessing. I can always read the NYDN... Mara was told younger guys would be getting looks based on score of game including at QB. Mara agreed. Eli was told he would be sitting no matter what in the 2nd half Mara was caught surprised by this Both GM and HC fired soon after the game. Those are the cliffnotes. Hope you got it buddy!

Wasn't Eli told a few days earlier though so if Mara was caught by surprise...he didn't react or rectify it before the game started? Or did he react before the Oakland game?

In comment 13971357 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

In comment 13971351 dep026 said: Quote: In comment 13971346 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: leave out the guessing. I can always read the NYDN... Mara was told younger guys would be getting looks based on score of game including at QB. Mara agreed. Eli was told he would be sitting no matter what in the 2nd half Mara was caught surprised by this Both GM and HC fired soon after the game. Those are the cliffnotes. Hope you got it buddy! Wasn't Eli told a few days earlier though so if Mara was caught by surprise...he didn't react or rectify it before the game started? Or did he react before the Oakland game?

IIRC,

When word spread Eli wasnt starting, the media blew it up and Mara was not in the building to respond.

The thing I dont understand is if Mara was on board with Eli sitting the 2nd half, why did he fire them so soon? Dont understand the backlash sentiment, because he could have easily just told them to re-insert Eli as the starter.

Mara.

He seems to actually be the inconsistent one in the whole story which leads you to believe he went along with whatever the plan was from McAdoo, but then used it as the "last straw" to get rid of the two morons when popular opinion turned.

In comment 13971301 Dan in the Springs said:

Quote:

After elimination from playoff contention that changes, of course.

Just remember, even with last years shit show, we weren't eliminated until after week 12 (2-9 record)

In comment 13970889 Tim in VA said:

Quote:

She'd be my uncle. What a dumb thread.

You think this is a dumb thread, you should see the ones on the Shadow BBI ;)

In comment 13971375 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

Mara. He seems to actually be the inconsistent one in the whole story which leads you to believe he went along with whatever the plan was from McAdoo, but then used it as the "last straw" to get rid of the two morons when popular opinion turned.

Well DEP you said you explained it a 1000 times, so what say you here?

Depends on who you believe. Lots of people took the news from the media and bought it 100%. Then, when Mara and others spoke they determined them to be lying. It's up to you to decide. I'll try to help by posting what people actually said.

Personally, I think Eli was the one trying to spin it. Here's what he said at first during his press conference (bold added).

Eli Manning on 11/28 when benching was announced:

Quote:

Coach Mac (McAdoo) called me in, told me that we were going to start splitting some time and thought it was best to give Geno the start and I’ll back him up. I’ll be a good teammate. I don’t like it, but it’s part of football, you handle it. I didn’t do my job. I just didn’t think that you start knowing that you’re going to come out of a game to keep a streak alive maybe. That’s not what it’s about. It’s not a preseason game where you’re going to play the start to the half, what’s the next week? A quarter, a series, that’s not fair. That’s not fair to me, that’s not fair to Geno, that’s not how you play. You play to win. You’re named the starting quarterback, you think it’s your job to go win the football game. When you know you’re just going to play a little bit, I didn’t feel like that was the right way to play.

Going off just this quote, it would be easy to report that Eli was benched. He was told that Geno was going to start. But is that what really happened? Look at what Eli said in the same press conference just moments later.(bold added)

Quote:

Q: Can you explain why you didn’t like the plan? A: I think I just did in the fact that to go out there knowing that you’re coming out. I just didn’t think that’s how you prepare. In the start of this week, I was going to play the first half and Geno was going to start the second half. Eventually they were going to start working in Davis and I thought I was just starting and playing to keep a streak alive and I didn’t think that was the right thing.

What Eli appears to be saying is that he was told he was going to play a half and then the other QB's were going to play the second half, and he took it as just starting to keep the streak alive. He says he didn't want to do it that way, that he would prefer to just sit.


Coach McAdoo on 11/28:

Quote:

The game plan going in was to play (Eli) for a half and play Geno for the second half and we decided after our conversation this morning that we’ll give Geno the ball starting at the beginning of the game. I think a lot of Hall of Fame quarterbacks who have done a lot for a lot of teams haven’t been able to choose the way that they get to move on and I’m not saying that we’re moving on, but at some point in time, you have to make hard, tough decisions for the best of the franchise. And, that’s what I have to do here.

McAdoo is confirming the plan was to play Eli the first half, then play the backups the second half. The plan was scrapped after talking to Eli in the morning because he wanted it changed.

John Mara on 11/29 when addressing the media for the first time:

Quote:

I had had a conversation with Jerry (Reese) a week or two ago about – and I normally don’t speak to the coach directly about which players are playing and which players are not playing. I’ll have the conversation with Jerry. I mentioned to him a week or two ago – ‘don’t you think it’s time that we start to get a look at these other quarterbacks at some point during the games’ and he agreed. Said he had already had a conversation with Ben (McAdoo) about that. Jerry called me on Monday afternoon, I was at a family function in Virginia, to tell me that Ben was going to be speaking to Eli to let him know that he was going to continue to start the game. He’s going to start the game on Sunday, but that at some point Geno (Smith) would come into the game. Tuesday morning, Jerry called me and said that Eli had informed Ben that ‘if you’re going to play Geno in the second half, you may as well just start him. It’s not fair to him. It’s not fair to me and I think that would be the best decision going forward.’ And, he also wanted us to put out a statement announcing that. So, that’s what we did.

Here Mara reports on his conversation with Jerry, which as it were matches almost identically what both Eli and McAdoo have said - that Eli said he would rather not start than start and be replaced at half.

Everything else is spin or rumors, which you can choose to believe or not. As for me, I think it went down exactly how all three said it went down.

1. Eli was told that the backups were going to be given a look during the games. He was told that the plan was to play Eli in the first half, then go to Geno in the second, and that ultimately (in future games) they would be doing the same thing with Davis.
2. Eli didn't like that plan and decided that if they were no longer playing to win the games, but playing to evaluate the players he didn't want to start.
3. Eli wanted to control how it was presented to the media and the Giants allowed him that courtesy - to announce that it was his (Manning's) choice not to play.
4. Media/fans/former players reacted in uproar to the news, calling it a benching.
5. History is rewritten - it is now known as Eli was benched.

But we've had this argument many, many times. There really is no convincing anyone else. All you can do is look at the statements made and decide who and what you want to believe.

gets beat to death on the matter of semantics.

Eli was planned to be benched at halftime of games. Instead, the plan ended up morphing to him not starting or playing at all.

Not sure why so many people hinge on the concept that "he benched himself". Well, I know why they do and it is disingenuous.

The bottom line is that Eli was replaced by Geno Smith. Mainly because the HC didn't properly prepare Webb to play, even though he had several weeks to plan for it.

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs and to an extent bw. Eli's stance is consistent, Mac's stance is consistent, what isn't is Mara's and we may never know what he knew and when. Like others have said, if they went against his direct wishes why not override them before the Oakland game? What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them?

In comment 13971493 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

gets beat to death on the matter of semantics. Eli was planned to be benched at halftime of games. Instead, the plan ended up morphing to him not starting or playing at all. Not sure why so many people hinge on the concept that "he benched himself". Well, I know why they do and it is disingenuous. The bottom line is that Eli was replaced by Geno Smith. Mainly because the HC didn't properly prepare Webb to play, even though he had several weeks to plan for it.

I take offense to that FMiC. I'm one of those who gets bothered by the way people refer to the plan and stick to my opinion that Eli benched himself. I don't believe I'm being disingenuous. Since you know why I insist on saying that Eli benched himself, why don't you tell me and why it's disingenuous of me?

In comment 13971529 JOrthman said:

Quote:

What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them?

My guess is the intense backlash from the media and the fans.

You're assuming that would be due to QB play.


In comment 13970980 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13970887 Beer Man said: Quote: or a complete collapse, Eli will be the starter as long as the team is still in the running. what about if we are 2-6 at the bye and the div leader is 6-2 You think they would make a switch in that scenario?

In comment 13971537 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 13971529 JOrthman said: Quote: What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them? My guess is the intense backlash from the media and the fans.

I would hope that isn't the case because that would be completely spineless.

If they were all on the same page?

Fans have overreacted for many things in a teams history. Firing them for lying seems a lot more realistic than for fans backlash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeloDrSKZm8

In comment 13971529 JOrthman said:

Quote:

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs and to an extent bw. Eli's stance is consistent, Mac's stance is consistent, what isn't is Mara's and we may never know what he knew and when. Like others have said, if they went against his direct wishes why not override them before the Oakland game? What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them?

They definitely didn't go against his direct wishes. But Mac completely botched the execution. It was definitely the fan and media reaction and the fear of what the stadium would be like for the next home game that made them fire them then and not wait for the end of the season.

I don't think in your case it is a way to bash Eli like other posters use it as.

Quote:

I take offense to that FMiC. I'm one of those who gets bothered by the way people refer to the plan and stick to my opinion that Eli benched himself. I don't believe I'm being disingenuous. Since you know why I insist on saying that Eli benched himself, why don't you tell me and why it's disingenuous of me?

When a player is pulled from the starting lineup or doesn't play, it is almost always referred to as a benching. And that was the exact plan that the team outlined. To sit Eli. So, why is it considered Eli benched himself, yet for nearly any other benching in sports history, it is just considered a benching?

Benching himself would be if he went to the coach without prodding and said "I'm not playing". Eli wasn't the impetus to him not starting, Mac approaching him with the plan was.

In comment 13971553 dep026 said:

Quote:

If they were all on the same page? Fans have overreacted for many things in a teams history. Firing them for lying seems a lot more realistic than for fans backlash.

That is my point, it isn't clear they lied. If you believe they did in fact, lie, then they should of fired them immediately. This whole, "I wasn't in the building," nonsense is crap. You have millions of dollars invested into this team, that's a lame excuse if true. It shouldn't matter what building he is in or not.

In comment 13971573 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13971529 JOrthman said: Quote: I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs and to an extent bw. Eli's stance is consistent, Mac's stance is consistent, what isn't is Mara's and we may never know what he knew and when. Like others have said, if they went against his direct wishes why not override them before the Oakland game? What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them? They definitely didn't go against his direct wishes. But Mac completely botched the execution. It was definitely the fan and media reaction and the fear of what the stadium would be like for the next home game that made them fire them then and not wait for the end of the season.

See, but Mara more or less denies that. And if he did what he said he had permission to do, did he really botch it?

In comment 13971529 JOrthman said:

Quote:

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs and to an extent bw. Eli's stance is consistent, Mac's stance is consistent, what isn't is Mara's and we may never know what he knew and when. Like others have said, if they went against his direct wishes why not override them before the Oakland game? What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them?

"I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs..." ???

what's up with that :-)

In comment 13971493 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

gets beat to death on the matter of semantics. Eli was planned to be benched at halftime of games. Instead, the plan ended up morphing to him not starting or playing at all. Not sure why so many people hinge on the concept that "he benched himself". Well, I know why they do and it is disingenuous. The bottom line is that Eli was replaced by Geno Smith. Mainly because the HC didn't properly prepare Webb to play, even though he had several weeks to plan for it.

cannot disagree more with this post, other that not preparing Webb to play...

there is disagreement, it should be fairly easy to name a bunch of players known to have benched themselves, right?

Oddly, it is almost as if people came up with that term to fit the narrative that Eli was selfish and refused to play.

on this topic.

I am not trying to beat a dead horse on something you all may have talked about alot last fall. I was just very busy when this all "went down" and didn't follow the logic.

Appreciate the intell folks here added as well.

The crap about whether Eli was benched versus he chose not to play is stupid and not meaningful one way or another. So that can be argued by the rest of the "talking heads" on BBI for all I care.

The more meaningful issue is Mara's actions, which seem to be at the crux of the issue. It just seems he is playing both sides of the fence here...on one hand is informed as to what the plan is and presumably agrees. But then discharges his two top guys for numerous reasons but this event being the final straw. Yet it was an event that he seemingly signed off on.

And not to play conspiracy theorist here, but maybe bw has it right when he started to connect a bunch of other dots as to decisions made in the front office later. I caveat that he goes a bit far and embellishes but the underlying theme may not be far from the truth...

In comment 13971639 JOrthman said:

Quote:

In comment 13971573 ron mexico said: Quote: In comment 13971529 JOrthman said: Quote: I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs and to an extent bw. Eli's stance is consistent, Mac's stance is consistent, what isn't is Mara's and we may never know what he knew and when. Like others have said, if they went against his direct wishes why not override them before the Oakland game? What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them? They definitely didn't go against his direct wishes. But Mac completely botched the execution. It was definitely the fan and media reaction and the fear of what the stadium would be like for the next home game that made them fire them then and not wait for the end of the season. See, but Mara more or less denies that. And if he did what he said he had permission to do, did he really botch it?

What does Mara deny?

In comment 13971675 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

there is disagreement, it should be fairly easy to name a bunch of players known to have benched themselves, right? Oddly, it is almost as if people came up with that term to fit the narrative that Eli was selfish and refused to play.

I don't have a list and thats not what i disagree with. I am talking about how I wouldn't portray it as semantics and Eli's actions were extremely aggressive. I will stop short of selfish...

In comment 13971679 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

on this topic. I am not trying to beat a dead horse on something you all may have talked about alot last fall. I was just very busy when this all "went down" and didn't follow the logic. Appreciate the intell folks here added as well. The crap about whether Eli was benched versus he chose not to play is stupid and not meaningful one way or another. So that can be argued by the rest of the "talking heads" on BBI for all I care. The more meaningful issue is Mara's actions, which seem to be at the crux of the issue. It just seems he is playing both sides of the fence here...on one hand is informed as to what the plan is and presumably agrees. But then discharges his two top guys for numerous reasons but this event being the final straw. Yet it was an event that he seemingly signed off on. And not to play conspiracy theorist here, but maybe bw has it right when he started to connect a bunch of other dots as to decisions made in the front office later. I caveat that he goes a bit far and embellishes but the underlying theme may not be far from the truth...

I'm not seeing whats so puzzling.

Mara agreed it was a good idea to get the other QBs, mostly Webb, some playing time. Nothing outlandish here, but he didn't anticipate Eli's reaction.

Mac fucks this up with the way he executes it, halftime switch instead of when the game is out of hand, announcing it in the QB meeting room in front of everyone instead of (one on one with Eli or just dont tell him at all would have been better)

Eli takes control of the narrative and the world loses their mind.

Mara can't fire himself so he fires the other two guys.

In comment 13971573 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13971529 JOrthman said: Quote: I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs and to an extent bw. Eli's stance is consistent, Mac's stance is consistent, what isn't is Mara's and we may never know what he knew and when. Like others have said, if they went against his direct wishes why not override them before the Oakland game? What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them? They definitely didn't go against his direct wishes. But Mac completely botched the execution. It was definitely the fan and media reaction and the fear of what the stadium would be like for the next home game that made them fire them then and not wait for the end of the season.

Indeed. There was no refusal of a direct order from Mara to do something different than what was attempted.

I know Jints Central and the last thing - the very last thing - John wanted was a fan revolt that would conjure images of 1978 and a plane dragging a sign over Giants stadium saying enough of this lousy football.

That is one lesson Welli passed down to John - you can never afford to lose the crowd. Once you do, it's DEFCON 1. The family business couldn't take another image hit like that. So Mara decided he had to feed a few heads to the crowd, and right away - so Reese and McAdoo were sacrificed for the greater good.

were extremely aggressive??

The coach told him he was going to be sat at halftime no matter what the game scenario was. He said that if he's going to be taken out no matter what, then why even play at all, and to give the other guys the playing time.

Part of the problem here is that people, for whatever reason, are trying to characterize Eli as not just refusing to play, but act as if he made a demonstrative stand. He basically said that if he was going to come out of the game for no reason based on his play, then he would rather the other guys start the game. No need to play him just to keep the streak alive.

thats kinda aggressive

I am not playing for you unless its done the way I prefer. Happens all the time...

Maybe Eli could have put up 30 points in the first half and allowed for the other guys to play the second half because they had a big lead??

“What if i threw 3 tds in the first half and it’s a close game?”

When he was told he’d still be benched that lead to him making his decision. I don’t see that as aggressive. I see that as a guy trying to salvage his dignity as a last resort after being put in a position he never should have been put in (due to a total failure and display of incompetence by leadership).

He seemed insulted that leadership/management would think he cares more about his starting steak than winning games (even in a hopeless season). Mac talked about making tough decisions but this half measure was a weak decision. He should have benched him outright or not benched him at all.

Please explain how this is agressive or selfish on the part of Eli? I would argue going to ownership to have the decision of the head coach overturned would have been selfish and aggressive. That’s not Eli.

In comment 13971690 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13971679 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: on this topic. I am not trying to beat a dead horse on something you all may have talked about alot last fall. I was just very busy when this all "went down" and didn't follow the logic. Appreciate the intell folks here added as well. The crap about whether Eli was benched versus he chose not to play is stupid and not meaningful one way or another. So that can be argued by the rest of the "talking heads" on BBI for all I care. The more meaningful issue is Mara's actions, which seem to be at the crux of the issue. It just seems he is playing both sides of the fence here...on one hand is informed as to what the plan is and presumably agrees. But then discharges his two top guys for numerous reasons but this event being the final straw. Yet it was an event that he seemingly signed off on. And not to play conspiracy theorist here, but maybe bw has it right when he started to connect a bunch of other dots as to decisions made in the front office later. I caveat that he goes a bit far and embellishes but the underlying theme may not be far from the truth... I'm not seeing whats so puzzling. Mara agreed it was a good idea to get the other QBs, mostly Webb, some playing time. Nothing outlandish here, but he didn't anticipate Eli's reaction. IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. MOST FANS THOUGHT THE SAME. WHAT'S OUTLANDISH IS TAKING WHAT ELI CARES ABOUT MORE VERSUS THE FUTURE OF THE TEAM. Mac fucks this up with the way he executes it, halftime switch instead of when the game is out of hand, announcing it in the QB meeting room in front of everyone instead of (one on one with Eli or just dont tell him at all would have been better). I WAS NOT AWARE OF THESE. HOWEVER, I AM NOT SURE THEY DESERVE THAT MUCH CONCERN EITHER VERSUS ALTERNATIVE WAYS. BUT AGREE MAC SHOULD HAVE FIGURED OUT MOST PROFESSIONAL WAY TO TREAT ELI. Eli takes control of the narrative and the world loses their mind. ELI IS A SMART COOKIE FOR SURE. Mara can't fire himself so he fires the other two guys.

SO YOUR STATING HE FIRED THEM ON MAC'S EXECUTION OF THE PLAN? I AM SKEPTICAL...

In comment 13971698 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

I am not playing for you unless its done the way I prefer. Happens all the time... Maybe Eli could have put up 30 points in the first half and allowed for the other guys to play the second half because they had a big lead??

Eli basically said I’m not playing if I will no longer be given an opportunity to win games. Some might say semantics but I think it’s very different to what you are saying.

The team was two and nine
Players were revolting on defense
Numerous cringe inducing moments with the press
Zero preparation of webb
And
Fan revolt as a result of him watching the plan to get other Kewpies playing time

In comment 13971553 dep026 said:

Quote:

If they were all on the same page? Fans have overreacted for many things in a teams history. Firing them for lying seems a lot more realistic than for fans backlash.

Does it really though? I think we're forgetting how bad it was. You had national media carrying this story. Fans had a billboard put up shaming the team. For the only time I can remember, Eli Manning on a national level ceased to be a punchline and became a consensus sympathetic figure.

NFL teams are painfully aware of bad press and negative fan sentiment.

may have been more aware of how Mac planned to execute the plan and then used Mac as a scapegoat if that would be the end of Eli. Then in true John Mara fashion he was overly reactive to the backlash and went to plan E.

If there’s one thing John Mara (and Reese for the most part by extension) have done the last 7-10 years its that the team has been overly reactive to the issues that plagued them the year before and then they take weak half measures to address them.

In comment 13971704 Giants Fan in Steelers Land said:

Quote:

“What if i threw 3 tds in the first half and it’s a close game?” When he was told he’d still be benched that lead to him making his decision. I don’t see that as aggressive. I see that as a guy trying to salvage his dignity as a last resort after being put in a position he never should have been put in (due to a total failure and display of incompetence by leadership). He seemed insulted that leadership/management would think he cares more about his starting steak than winning games (even in a hopeless season). Mac talked about making tough decisions but this half measure was a weak decision. He should have benched him outright or not benched him at all. Please explain how this is agressive or selfish on the part of Eli? I would argue going to ownership to have the decision of the head coach overturned would have been selfish and aggressive. That’s not Eli.

Thanks, hadn't heard this one either. I tend to agree Mac giving out the halftime ultimatum seems idiotic.

It should never have been this specific...just we will see how each game progresses that way Mac stays in control of situation. Or like you say, bench him altogether, although he would have to go back to Mara/Reese I guess as that wasn't the plan.

But i don't agree that Eli wasn't acting aggressively in response to this event. It may have been for his dignity or whatever, but he was.

In comment 13971708 Giants Fan in Steelers Land said:

Quote:

In comment 13971698 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: I am not playing for you unless its done the way I prefer. Happens all the time... Maybe Eli could have put up 30 points in the first half and allowed for the other guys to play the second half because they had a big lead?? Eli basically said I’m not playing if I will no longer be given an opportunity to win games. Some might say semantics but I think it’s very different to what you are saying.

Disagree, its not different. Look at your own sentence...

"I'm not playing if..." is the key part. This is what makes his stance very aggressive. He is dictating to the coach here man.

In comment 13971704 Giants Fan in Steelers Land said:

Quote:

“What if i threw 3 tds in the first half and it’s a close game?” When he was told he’d still be benched that lead to him making his decision. I don’t see that as aggressive. I see that as a guy trying to salvage his dignity as a last resort after being put in a position he never should have been put in (due to a total failure and display of incompetence by leadership). He seemed insulted that leadership/management would think he cares more about his starting steak than winning games (even in a hopeless season). Mac talked about making tough decisions but this half measure was a weak decision. He should have benched him outright or not benched him at all. Please explain how this is agressive or selfish on the part of Eli? I would argue going to ownership to have the decision of the head coach overturned would have been selfish and aggressive. That’s not Eli.

He bypassed ownership and went to the people and got those guys fired.

Power move on his part. To quote anchor man: I'm not mad, actually I'm impressed!

In comment 13971698 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

I am not playing for you unless its done the way I prefer. Happens all the time...

McAdoo was playing Manning for a non-football reason... a reason that would make Manning look like a jerk... Manning had a record breaking game streak and McAdoo's decision to start Manning and then take him out after one half regardless of the state of the game - was solely related to Manning's game streak.


And if they "went with that", it would make Manning look so phony - as though he felt his streak was more important than the team - and Manning had every right to refuse such a circumstance (as would I and everyone else in their right mind)

A non football reason?

In comment 13971751 ron mexico said:

Quote:

A non football reason?

Never mind my last post. I see what you are saying now.

In comment 13971751 ron mexico said:

Quote:

A non football reason?

Playing Manning in the first half is the "non-football reason".

Googs: Fair enough agree to disagree there about Eli dictating to the coach the terms he will play under. When you take away a QBs chance to win a game you really aren’t giving them an opportunity to play. At least that is how I believe Eli views it from listening to his interviews. He just couldn’t play if he couldn’t win.

Ron: Good point (and quote). I just view it a little differently. Those guys screwed up so bad Eli didn’t have to do anything (if he wanted to get them fired). He didn’t go to anybody, being interviewed is part of his job. I don’t think in those interviews he went out of his way to throw anyone under the bus. I don’t think he wanted to get anyone fired. He just wanted play qb and try to win games and he couldn’t play under those circumstances...but I am admititly a big time Eli supporter who may be blind to a swift and masterful PR revenge move by the Mannings to stick it to the coach and potentially get people fired.

we're cool...

and defeat complicated and disguised NFL defenses in addition to displaying a powerful and accurate arm. I'm not sure that a poor performance by Eli one or two games into the season will necessarily support the notion that Webb is ready to replace him. Yeah, I know Wentz was successful early and Big Ben went 13-0 in his rookie year, but if Webb throws INTs or shows indecision because he can't read disguised defenses, we're back to Manning and that could kill the season. If Eli fails this year, I wouldn't make the change until game 9 or later, and I don't think Eli will fail to that extent.

In comment 13971683 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13971639 JOrthman said: Quote: In comment 13971573 ron mexico said: Quote: In comment 13971529 JOrthman said: Quote: I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs and to an extent bw. Eli's stance is consistent, Mac's stance is consistent, what isn't is Mara's and we may never know what he knew and when. Like others have said, if they went against his direct wishes why not override them before the Oakland game? What happened after the Oakland game that made him think he had enough with them? They definitely didn't go against his direct wishes. But Mac completely botched the execution. It was definitely the fan and media reaction and the fear of what the stadium would be like for the next home game that made them fire them then and not wait for the end of the season. See, but Mara more or less denies that. And if he did what he said he had permission to do, did he really botch it? What does Mara deny?

Mara said the firing had nothing to do with what happened to Eli.

That is exactly right. He made it a point to underscore that at the press conference after the firings.

In comment 13972012 bw in dc said:

Quote:

That is exactly right. He made it a point to underscore that at the press conference after the firings.

If I recall, he brought it up and doubled down when asked about it during the questions.

In comment 13972020 JOrthman said:

Quote:

In comment 13972012 bw in dc said: Quote: That is exactly right. He made it a point to underscore that at the press conference after the firings. If I recall, he brought it up and doubled down when asked about it during the questions.

Doesnt mean it is necessarily true.

In comment 13972090 dep026 said:

Quote:

In comment 13972020 JOrthman said: Quote: In comment 13972012 bw in dc said: Quote: That is exactly right. He made it a point to underscore that at the press conference after the firings. If I recall, he brought it up and doubled down when asked about it during the questions. Doesnt mean it is necessarily true.

I don't disagree, but that would be speculation, which is why this is still debated.

But it is the reason it happened mid season.

In comment 13972102 ron mexico said:

Quote:

But it is the reason it happened mid season.

This is what I believe to be true as well. McAdoo nd Reese were gone. The Eli situation made it happen quicker.

Will start unless injured I’m not sure for how long but he will be the starting QB when the season starts. If the team is 1-5 or so as most expect then for sure many will be asking when do we get to see the future QB’s on this team.

where Mara announced the firing.

After Mara said the Eli situation was not a reason for the firing, this sequence:

Mara was asked if he and McAdoo had been on the same page about the handling of Manning, Mara said: “We were and we weren’t. Ben came up with the plan. I initially signed off on the plan. My hope had been to talk to him to try to have a little more flexibility with it.”

And there you have it - the Mara lie, revealing his agenda to shift the Manning fiasco all on McAdoo and Reese.

Uh, John...was your cell phone broke? Was your cellular service discontinued for lack of payment? Were you on a mission to the Congo so you had no service? Did you get a bad case of laryngitis? Perhaps you were on a sequestered jury panel?

If you had some reservations about the plan going into the Oakland game - you know, the plan that was announced to the civilized world - then why didn’t you circle back with his HC and GM to incorporate this “flexibility”?

Because the last I checked, you are the owner of this team thanks to your membership in the lucky sperm club. The HC and GM knew they couldn’t move forward on this delicate matter unless they ran this up the flag pole to get your executive sign off. They knew, rightfully and professionally, that everyone had to be on board, specifically and most crucially ownership.

These guys followed protocol and did their job. And you signed off on THAT plan, not some “initial plan”, you two-faced jerk off.

So don’t create some illusion that you were caught off guard by the execution of the plan. You were right in the middle of it. But your guilt kicked in, especially with the massive criticism that set in, and you felt horrible by the way you participated in this plan to begin the Eli phase out.

What a coward - Mara trying to make himself look like a victim too because his HC and GM suddenly didn’t execute the plan Mara helped draw up.

Jints Central. There is no substitute.

WTF is 'Jints Central'?

in pressers, its time to take a step back. A lot of time they are either saving face or protecting someone.

In comment 13972335 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

WTF is 'Jints Central'?

A shitty ass term used by a poster who is trolling at this point.

will slyly claim that Jints Central is just a term he heard about from the Daily News.

Ask him to produce a post where Jints Central is used in a positive manner though.

"Jints Central", the org that does everything fucked up and still manages to have 4 Lombardi's in the trophy case.

He's never quite been able to explain that.

In comment 13972338 dep026 said:

Quote:

in pressers, its time to take a step back. A lot of time they are either saving face or protecting someone.

I’m not believing the presser at all. Actually I’m interpreting the words used to find the clues to the truth. And I’m pretty sure I have.

There is no trolling going on here. It’s an honest attempt to get to the bottom of another f-cked up situation at Jints Central.

who have contacts within the Giants organization. I am not sure why people keep dismissing them. Ben told Mara one thing and Eli another. It caught Mara off guard.

It shouldnt shock someone that two people went rogue when they knew they were done as Giants.

but that doesn't fit the narrative.

The ever-changing narrative that Mara is equal parts manipulator and incompetent boob.

In comment 13972368 dep026 said:

Quote:

who have contacts within the Giants organization. I am not sure why people keep dismissing them. Ben told Mara one thing and Eli another. It caught Mara off guard. It shouldnt shock someone that two people went rogue when they knew they were done as Giants.

Did it ever occur to you that these contacts are getting information that Jints Central wants disseminated to fashion a narrative in their favor?

Because let me tell you something, Jints Central is very, very sensitive to their image as a "flagship franchise" and a "class franchise". So they are not immune to using tools to protect that - outwardly and behind the scenes. Remember, the season started with the Josh Brown fiasco. This Eli situation was a terrible bookend to a terrible season off the field as well...

I don't know what you mean by he told Mara one thing and Eli another? I haven't seen the two statements or maybe i missed them. The bw post above doesn't say two different statements.

In comment 13972531 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

I don't know what you mean by he told Mara one thing and Eli another? I haven't seen the two statements or maybe i missed them. The bw post above doesn't say two different statements.

Because Mara has not publicly stated what happened nor will he ever. However, here is this...

Quote:

John Mara's explanation for the Great Eli Benching Debacle speaks to an even greater level of dysfunction within this franchise, and given the evidence this season, that's downright scary. To recap: The Giants co-owner said he initiated the discussion of playing the younger quarterbacks this season. Head coach Ben McAdoo came up with a "plan," and Mara signed off on it, but the "plan" that was presented to Eli Manning was different from the "plan" that Mara thought was going into action. Mara thought that Manning would start the game with the assumption that, if he was playing well and the Giants had a chance to win, that he'd stay out there -- something that sounds perfectly reasonable. McAdoo told Manning that he would play the first half and backup Geno Smith would play the second half no matter what, and rightly so, the man with 210 consecutive starts said "uh, yeah, no thanks."

no performance, no brainer: if Eli retains his happy feet and Webb is ready, we've seen this before, time to move on.

Again, it still seems this is on Mara from my view as he had time to rectify it if their indeed were "two different plans".

And he didn't...

.

the wagon is hitched to Eli

In comment 13972547 dep026 said:

Quote:

Quote: John Mara's explanation for the Great Eli Benching Debacle speaks to an even greater level of dysfunction within this franchise, and given the evidence this season, that's downright scary. To recap: The Giants co-owner said he initiated the discussion of playing the younger quarterbacks this season. Head coach Ben McAdoo came up with a "plan," and Mara signed off on it, but the "plan" that was presented to Eli Manning was different from the "plan" that Mara thought was going into action. Mara thought that Manning would start the game with the assumption that, if he was playing well and the Giants had a chance to win, that he'd stay out there -- something that sounds perfectly reasonable. McAdoo told Manning that he would play the first half and backup Geno Smith would play the second half no matter what, and rightly so, the man with 210 consecutive starts said "uh, yeah, no thanks."

Two simple questions.

1) Why didn't Mara circle back to add the caveat of flexibility to the plan as he stated in AN ACTUAL quote I used above?

2) I'll take any reason - make on up - but tell me why an employee for 23 at Jints Central (Reese) and a first time coach in the biggest sport in our country (McAdoo) commit an act of defiance so egregious that it could be construed as career suicide?

was in the Congo?

In comment 13972612 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 13972547 dep026 said: Quote: Quote: John Mara's explanation for the Great Eli Benching Debacle speaks to an even greater level of dysfunction within this franchise, and given the evidence this season, that's downright scary. To recap: The Giants co-owner said he initiated the discussion of playing the younger quarterbacks this season. Head coach Ben McAdoo came up with a "plan," and Mara signed off on it, but the "plan" that was presented to Eli Manning was different from the "plan" that Mara thought was going into action. Mara thought that Manning would start the game with the assumption that, if he was playing well and the Giants had a chance to win, that he'd stay out there -- something that sounds perfectly reasonable. McAdoo told Manning that he would play the first half and backup Geno Smith would play the second half no matter what, and rightly so, the man with 210 consecutive starts said "uh, yeah, no thanks." Two simple questions. 1) Why didn't Mara circle back to add the caveat of flexibility to the plan as he stated in AN ACTUAL quote I used above? 2) I'll take any reason - make on up - but tell me why an employee for 23 at Jints Central (Reese) and a first time coach in the biggest sport in our country (McAdoo) commit an act of defiance so egregious that it could be construed as career suicide?

1. Mara could not keep up with circus. He wasnt even in the building when Eli had his presser. He probably wanted to take the high road to make the decision as less competent as it is.

2. Ego/stubborness. Reese has stated he is probably done. Why not go out with a bang. Start the first black QB in Giants history! McAdoo just isnt as smart as people may want to think. He hated Eli, and he never wanted him to play to begin with. The only way to get other QBs involved was to mislead the owner. He probably wasnt expecting the Eli interview and backlash.

In comment 13972612 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 13972547 dep026 said: Quote: Quote: John Mara's explanation for the Great Eli Benching Debacle speaks to an even greater level of dysfunction within this franchise, and given the evidence this season, that's downright scary. To recap: The Giants co-owner said he initiated the discussion of playing the younger quarterbacks this season. Head coach Ben McAdoo came up with a "plan," and Mara signed off on it, but the "plan" that was presented to Eli Manning was different from the "plan" that Mara thought was going into action. Mara thought that Manning would start the game with the assumption that, if he was playing well and the Giants had a chance to win, that he'd stay out there -- something that sounds perfectly reasonable. McAdoo told Manning that he would play the first half and backup Geno Smith would play the second half no matter what, and rightly so, the man with 210 consecutive starts said "uh, yeah, no thanks." Two simple questions. 1) Why didn't Mara circle back to add the caveat of flexibility to the plan as he stated in AN ACTUAL quote I used above? 2) I'll take any reason - make on up - but tell me why an employee for 23 at Jints Central (Reese) and a first time coach in the biggest sport in our country (McAdoo) commit an act of defiance so egregious that it could be construed as career suicide?

1) Mara was out of town at ownership meetings and things transpired fast. Once the press release went out the next morning there was no going back.

2) There was no act of defiance. All three wanted to get a look at the other QBs. At most there was miscommunication or a lack of communication to the particulars. Their big mistake was not anticipating 1) Eli's response and 2) how the NFL community (Fans / players / commentators) would react.

In comment 13972632 dep026 said:

Quote:

2. Ego/stubborness. Reese has stated he is probably done. Why not go out with a bang. Start the first black QB in Giants history! McAdoo just isnt as smart as people may want to think. He hated Eli, and he never wanted him to play to begin with. The only way to get other QBs involved was to mislead the owner. He probably wasnt expecting the Eli interview and backlash.

This is approaching BW in DC territory from the other side with the conspiracy theories. The old quote applies here: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

above...

In comment 13972677 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

above...

me or dep?

In comment 13972632 dep026 said:

Quote:

1. Mara could not keep up with circus. He wasnt even in the building when Eli had his presser. He probably wanted to take the high road to make the decision as less competent as it is. 2. Ego/stubborness. Reese has stated he is probably done. Why not go out with a bang. Start the first black QB in Giants history! McAdoo just isnt as smart as people may want to think. He hated Eli, and he never wanted him to play to begin with. The only way to get other QBs involved was to mislead the owner. He probably wasnt expecting the Eli interview and backlash.

Re: 1 - You're kidding, right? You're comfortable with that answer? He's the owner of the team. And the team just made one of the most important decisions in its history - bench their 2X SB QB. Mara just went completely dark? Is Mara such a dove that he's afraid to manage his own employees?

Sorry, this is a cop out answer. And giving way too much cover and benefit of the doubt to Mara.

Re: 2 - I really can't believe what you just wrote. Reese wanted to go out with a bang and humiliate the owner who employed him for 23 years. And McAdoo suddenly has this animosity towards Eli - I'd love to know where that comes from - that he was willing to be a martyr and kill his career.

You seem to be a smart poster. I really suggest you pick up your game on this...

of starting a black QB was pure hypothetical.

you dont think McAdoo had disdain for Eli the 2 years as HC?

He called him out at will whenever he made a mistake. This was no secret. I wasnt serious about the black QB thing. Ill try to be more serious next time.

In comment 13972686 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13972677 Jimmy Googs said: Quote: above... me or dep?

both

Mara was not aware of the Eli thing until it became public. From what he understood, McAdoo was gonna tell him that he was playing until the game was out of hand.

he was out at a meeting when the shitstorm blew. How could he have prevented it?

In comment 13972670 ron mexico said:

Quote:

This is approaching BW in DC territory from the other side with the conspiracy theories.

How dare you knock my quasi-investigative journalist efforts... ;)

In comment 13972693 dep026 said:

Quote:

of starting a black QB was pure hypothetical.

not a good comment...

In comment 13972700 dep026 said:

Quote:

Mara was not aware of the Eli thing until it became public. From what he understood, McAdoo was gonna tell him that he was playing until the game was out of hand. he was out at a meeting when the shitstorm blew. How could he have prevented it?

he could have rectified it afterwards as we have discussed...

In comment 13972704 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

In comment 13972693 dep026 said: Quote: of starting a black QB was pure hypothetical. not a good comment...

it has been well documented in the past the Giants were the only franchise not to start a black QB. There is no hidden meaning by it whatsoever.

not a good commment...

In comment 13972709 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

In comment 13972700 dep026 said: Quote: Mara was not aware of the Eli thing until it became public. From what he understood, McAdoo was gonna tell him that he was playing until the game was out of hand. he was out at a meeting when the shitstorm blew. How could he have prevented it? he could have rectified it afterwards as we have discussed...

You cant rectify something once its said when it comes to who plays and who doesnt. You dont tell Geno he is starting and then tell him he is benched because the coach fucked up. And I doubt Eli would have started under those conditions anyways.

If it was important to Mara he could/should have fixed it.

What, he wanted to show the coach he had his back or something??

In comment 13972697 dep026 said:

Quote:

you dont think McAdoo had disdain for Eli the 2 years as HC?

I submit this was just another example of McAdoo being clueless how to manage a post-game presser.

In comment 13972728 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 13972697 dep026 said: Quote: you dont think McAdoo had disdain for Eli the 2 years as HC? I submit this was just another example of McAdoo being clueless how to manage a post-game presser.

That I'll disagree with. He would frequently throw shade his way while covering for other players. Even when it became obvious the line had issues he would never call any of them out.

In comment 13972762 JOrthman said:

Quote:

That I'll disagree with. He would frequently throw shade his way while covering for other players. Even when it became obvious the line had issues he would never call any of them out.

Maybe, so fair enough. The guy was all over the place that he needed some serious training wheels how to deal with the media.

psycho-babble with media.

He knew the o-line was getting tons of pressure/bad press and I think by using some suggestive remarks towards Eli and the RBs in his pressers he was trying to spread out that blame...

In comment 13972829 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

psycho-babble with media. He knew the o-line was getting tons of pressure/bad press and I think by using some suggestive remarks towards Eli and the RBs in his pressers he was trying to spread out that blame...

The blame never started with him though.

would make comments even when not directly asked about Eli.

I one particular exchange, he was asked about the struggles of Flowers and Hart and he actually said the OL was doing fine and then in the next sentence said they expect better play at QB.

That's not really shifting blame, it is deflecting it from the OL directly onto the QB.

so maybe he wasn't good at that either.

In comment 13972829 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

psycho-babble with media. He knew the o-line was getting tons of pressure/bad press and I think by using some suggestive remarks towards Eli and the RBs in his pressers he was trying to spread out that blame...

I agree with this. And Ben has said as much saying that he know Eli could handle it.

I have a hard time believing he had disdain for Eli. That just doesn't seem possible given Eli's character and work ethic.

The point I'm making is this was not some big conspiracy to bench Eli for the whole game to hand over the reins to Geno. I just don't believe that.

And I also dont think it was Mac's call, that either Reese or Mara dictated this but thats just like my opinion man

In comment 13972905 ron mexico said:

Quote:

The point I'm making is this was not some big conspiracy to bench Eli for the whole game to hand over the reins to Geno. I just don't believe that. And I also dont think it was Mac's call, that either Reese or Mara dictated this but thats just like my opinion man

Speaking from my corner, I've never broached that idea about a need to see Geno. I found that idea reprehensible - like nearly everyone. I wanted Davis thrown out there into the fire. It was the perfect time, as discussed ad nauseum, to get him live reps.

I think the QB switch started with Mara when it was clear the season was sunk. So, and some of this was reported, Mara started asking the personnel team to ratchet-up the college evaluations, and his interest in seeing what else they had in Webb/Geno (but mostly Webb). I think he tasked McAdoo and Reese to devise a plan to sit Eli, and try to do it in the most respectful way under the circumstances. I believe that's exactly what the did - with Oakland has the transition game - and Mara completely signed off.

But then all hell broke lose because NO ONE anticipated the intensity of the blow back. That completely startled Mara and he went into crisis management mode.

The problem - my problem - is that Mara mismanaged the crisis; and laid way too much blame on the HC and GM so he would have the least amount of stench.

And he can't fire him self, so I'm not sure what you want him to do

In comment 13972937 ron mexico said:

Quote:

And he can't fire him self, so I'm not sure what you want him to do

That he said, yes. But that's really not the issue.

The issue/curiosity is about Mara's veracity on what he said happened in the planning process. And he has quite a few contradictions in his explanations that don't shine a very good light on him.

I didn't follow the details of the Eli-benching story because of work at that the time so this is all pretty interesting.

Still cannot fathom the team didn't get Webb in there at all last season. I know I was on a bunch of threads even before this disaster saying the same, with many others.

Always thought it was comical how many posters were so adamant to toe-the-party-line back then with all the excuses...he's not ready, it will be a traumatic experience when he fails, he will be scarred for life, blah/blah.

When the most important thing was for him to get live snaps and for FO/mngt to see some basic tools/fundamental learnings.

way too many agendas though...

Do you have some examples?

Webb only plays if Eli is hurt or the team has another miserable season. I think they take a look at him this time if this occurs.

He will go quitely if he sees that Webb or Lauretta is clearly a better option for the Giants. Do not know if he wants to stay in FB but would be a great coach or front office candidate. We will see. Hoping he gets another SB, but that is wishful thinking. Not Brady or his brother in talent but right up there, IMO.

In comment 13970885 chuckydee9 said:

Quote:

better than Eli, then he should bench Eli and play Webb.. You can't let Eli's past get in the way. Put the best players out there and Pat gets to choose.. No need to put Eli out there to appease the crowd..

I totally agree.

and what we think happened, I'll add my two cents.

First, it's important to remember the context. We'd been losing and the offense had been struggling. When Webb was drafted with a day-two pick the media was already describing him as Eli's eventual successor.

As the season wore on and it was clear that we were a bad team, but before we were eliminated, there was the realization that we would have one of the top picks in the draft. Knowing that there was a group of highly-rated QB's, there was naturally discussion about whether we should be picking a QB, and if so, which one. Given that we already selected "Eli's eventual successor" in Webb, there were a number of voices who argued then even that we should find out what Webb brought to the table to give us additional data on who should be picked at the top of the draft.

In that light, it makes sense that some of those same discussions were already taking place within the braintrust of the Giants, including McAdoo, Reese, and Mara. Sensing the season slipping away the decision was made by this group to give some playing time to Webb once we were eliminated from the playoffs. Knowing the historical nature of Eli's streak, the team decided to keep Eli's starting streak alive by allowing him to start and removing him later. The actual logistics of how that would happen (at half, playing Geno) may or may have been discussed. I think the approval was given with the idea that McAdoo/Reese would handle the logistics in a way consistent with the Giants organization's appreciation of Eli's contributions.

I think that Eli had become distrustful of McAdoo at this point. I also think McAdoo was one who, despite his abhorrent second season, still had a ton of confidence in his own abilities as a coach. It's also clear that McAdoo was not a great communicator and didn't use a lot of tact when dealing with the media, so it follows that the way he delivered the message to Eli was the same. Eli clearly took offense and decided he wasn't going to be a part of the mess McAdoo was creating.

Mara was caught by surprise when the team announced that Eli wouldn't be starting. He truly didn't expect Eli to respond as he did. Later discussions with Eli and others revealed to him the level of distrust and incompetency his players felt about their coach. This sealed McAdoo's fate.

Reese had been told following Coughlin's departure that he would be next if the team continued to struggle. Mara blamed Reese for allowing the Geno start to happen. He felt that Reese should have been aware enough of the relationship between Eli and McAdoo and not allowed McAdoo to deliver the plan to Eli personally. That was the final straw for McAdoo.

After their terminations Coach Spags took on the unenviable task of finishing out the season. At that point, Mara felt it only fair to allow him every opportunity to win games by throwing out the original plan to evaluate the other QB's. Spags wanted no part of the circus and stuck to the plan for Eli to play every snap barring injury.

Anyway - this is just my opinion for how I think things went down, from a guy with no insider knowledge but who followed every bit of news as it happened.

think ELI is good to go this year and beyond,. so we will wait and see, There is a group here that wanted a QB at #2. We will see who was right.

ELI has to prove it on the field or he will be replaced. No one knows that better than him. Let the best man win.

when he threw 4 ints in a lost to the Vikings and losing twice to the Redskins in the 2011 season perhaps his best season...throwing 50 times into wind at home.

In comment 13970969 Capt. Don said:

Quote:

.

then Barkley will be benched and eventually cut

In comment 13972762 JOrthman said:

Quote:

In comment 13972728 bw in dc said: Quote: In comment 13972697 dep026 said: Quote: you dont think McAdoo had disdain for Eli the 2 years as HC? I submit this was just another example of McAdoo being clueless how to manage a post-game presser. That I'll disagree with. He would frequently throw shade his way while covering for other players. Even when it became obvious the line had issues he would never call any of them out.

This is absolutely not true. He called the OL out plenty. He just never called out any of them individually - he would just say "the line." And for the most part, he would say "the quarterback" in the same way. The difference is, there's only one QB, so it came across as a more direct criticism, but this idea that McAdoo never criticized the OL is pure crap.