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?
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.
RE: RE: Yeah, its not aggressive for a football player to tell his coach Â
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.
RE: Googs: I remember in an interview Eli mentioned he specifically asked Â
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!
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...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Dep - now that I have gotten caught up with the events Â
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.
RE: Dep - now that I have gotten caught up with the events Â
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."
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?
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.
RE: RE: RE: Dep - now that I have gotten caught up with the events Â
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.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Dep - now that I have gotten caught up with the events Â
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"
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...
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.
RE: RE: Sorry, not buying proposed answers to #1 and #2 Â
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?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Dep - now that I have gotten caught up with the events Â
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...
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.
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.
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!
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)
Never mind my last post. I see what you are saying now.
Playing Manning in the first half is the "non-football reason".
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.
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.
If I recall, he brought it up and doubled down when asked about it during the questions.
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.
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.
This is what I believe to be true as well. McAdoo nd Reese were gone. The Eli situation made it happen quicker.
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.
A shitty ass term used by a poster who is trolling at this point.
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.
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.
It shouldnt shock someone that two people went rogue when they knew they were done as Giants.
The ever-changing narrative that Mara is equal parts manipulator and incompetent boob.
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...
Because Mara has not publicly stated what happened nor will he ever. However, here is this...
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."
And he didn't...
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?
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.
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.
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"
me or dep?
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...
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.
Quote:
above...
me or dep?
both
he was out at a meeting when the shitstorm blew. How could he have prevented it?
This is approaching BW in DC territory from the other side with the conspiracy theories.
How dare you knock my quasi-investigative journalist efforts... ;)
not a good comment...
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...
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.