If Davis Webb were to have a killer training camp and pre-season, and is clearly ahead a better player than Eli in the eyes of the coaches. How will that play out?
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.
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....
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.
It would be nice if anyone had the facts on how this went down Â
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.
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.
RE: RE: I'm ready. But only the facts that you know please Â
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?
RE: RE: RE: I'm ready. But only the facts that you know please Â
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.
This is what I am trying to get a handle on...the facts around Â
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.
RE: I'm definitely not claiming that Webb will beat out Eli... Â
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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..." ???
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...
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 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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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...
RE: Yeah, its not aggressive for a football player to tell his coach Â
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
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.
I tend to agree with the “conspiracy theorists” that think Mara Â
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.
My point is that Webb is more likely to get beaten out by Lauletta than he is to beat out Eli.
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 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.
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....
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.
If no one knows fine, but then shut hell up...
If no one knows fine, but then shut hell up...
You have been told what happened, but refused to believe it.
Hmph...
hmph,,,
hmph,,,
You asked yesterday and I replied immediately with what happened.
Ill try to make it clearer next time for you buddy!
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!
EXACTLY any other thought is mental masturbation. ELi is the starter period. Unless we tank again.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Just remember, even with last years shit show, we weren't eliminated until after week 12 (2-9 record)
You think this is a dumb thread, you should see the ones on the Shadow BBI ;)
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?
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:
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)
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:
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:
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.
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.
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?
My guess is the intense backlash from the media and the fans.
In comment 13970980 ron mexico 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?
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.
Fans have overreacted for many things in a teams history. Firing them for lying seems a lot more realistic than for fans backlash.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Googs..." ???
what's up with that :-)
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...
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 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...
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.