Didn't expect that. This doesn't take them out of the hunt for Lock though. I think they will take Lock but groom him behind Flacco for a season or two.
You gotta think that they probably traded something like 5/6 round pick and they only have to pay him 10 million. That is probably a true value on Joe Flacco.
Salary dump, price should be cheaper even for a QB
last year - with the roster the way it is, who wins more games as the starting QB for the Giants...Eli or Flacco.
Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that both guys stay healthy (a given for Eli) for the entire season.
Keenum is a better QB than Flacco is right now. I actually believe that. Flacco has literally not had a good year for a starting QB in 5 years now. That's an eternity in this league.
last year - with the roster the way it is, who wins more games as the starting QB for the Giants...Eli or Flacco.
Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that both guys stay healthy (a given for Eli) for the entire season.
If the Giants moved on from Eli and drafted Haskins, Murray, Lock, or Jackson I would target Keenum as the stopgap. He knows his role and he thrived under Shurmur two seasons ago.
But probably decreases the chances of them trading up. More than Denver, I think it'll be interesting to see how the dominoes fall from this. I can see the skins pushing for Keenum, fits Gruden's offense. And yes, Keenum provides a semi realistic vet alternative to Eli (though unlikely).
Keenum is a better QB than Flacco is right now. I actually believe that. Flacco has literally not had a good year for a starting QB in 5 years now. That's an eternity in this league.
He sucks.
I'm not sure about that. Keenum was atrocious last year, he may just be a product of Shurmur. I think Elway is just bringing in competition at the position. It also says he isn't taking a QB this year.
If the Giants moved on from Eli and drafted Haskins, Murray, Lock, or Jackson I would target Keenum as the stopgap. He knows his role and he thrived under Shurmur two seasons ago.
If the Giants moved on from Eli and drafted Haskins, Murray, Lock, or Jackson I would target Keenum as the stopgap. He knows his role and he thrived under Shurmur two seasons ago.
And Flacco is 26 million.
Which I believe gets cut down due to the trade to 16 million. Plus he has 3 years left on his deal.
A lot of dead money out there.
Elway need to hand the QB scouting to an expert
Keenum is really getting a lot of ride out of one good season
And Flacco is 26 million.
Which I believe gets cut down due to the trade to 16 million. Plus he has 3 years left on his deal.
A lot of dead money out there.
Elway need to hand the QB scouting to an expert
retires, and I don't think he will, Keenum + a QB at 6 would be my guess for how it played out.
I dont want him -- but I also think Keenum would win as many games for the Giants as Eli in 2019, for a fraction of the price. Not saying he's a better qb, but he's proven to be an efficient game manager in Shurmur's offense.
If I'm a Denver fan, I have lost any confidence I had
Keenum is a better QB than Flacco is right now. I actually believe that. Flacco has literally not had a good year for a starting QB in 5 years now. That's an eternity in this league.
He sucks.
I'm not sure about that. Keenum was atrocious last year, he may just be a product of Shurmur. I think Elway is just bringing in competition at the position. It also says he isn't taking a QB this year.
At least Keenum can point to a recent good year.
Flacco has done basically nothing since 2014. He wasn't terrible last year before he lost his job, but he wasn't helping them win either.
Keenum was no great shakes, but who was he throwing to? They dealt Thomas, Sanders got hurt. He was throwing to Tim Patrick and Courtland Sutton by season's end. He's also 3 years younger.
I have zero faith in Joe Flacco to be anything more than a backup at this point. If that's what Denver has in mind, or they want to use him to transition over to Lock, that's one thing - but if they have any plans for Flacco beyond that, it's awful.
Keenum is a better QB than Flacco is right now. I actually believe that. Flacco has literally not had a good year for a starting QB in 5 years now. That's an eternity in this league.
He sucks.
Nothing more to add than this. Flacco is one of the biggest fraud "franchise QBs" I've ever seen...
- It was only a 4th rounder (they have 2)
- Keenum sucks, you weren't going anywhere with him anyway
- Flacco has no guaranteed money left
- You can still draft someone, sit him for a year behind Flacco and then cut Flacco... They still could jump us.
We've already got Keenum on our roster...his name is Kyle Lauletta.
What Elway (and so many other GMs) doesn't seem to understand is that you want to be in one of three places with your QB:
1. Paying an elite guy elite money - that's what KC will soon be doing with Mahomes;
2. Paying a kid in his rookie salary; or
3. Paying a journeyman journeyman money until you can get your team into situations 1. or 2.
I saw an interesting thought from Evan Silva of Rotoworld yesterday..."Maybe not in our lifetime but someday it'll be accepted that one aspect of Belichick's greatness was his competitors' lack of greatness."
I think Silva makes a good point...the quality of management and coaching in the NFL is incredibly poor. They don't seem to have a handle on how to manage their rosters and their money.
I can see taking a chance on Keenum last year (even though I wouldn't have done it), but I have no idea what he hopes to gain by bringing Flacco in there.
That 'good' season is massively overstated too. Great job minimizing TOs, but his yards/game and TDs would be among the worst season's of Eli's career (for comparison).
Case Keenum is absolutely nothing special, and again, I want nothing to do with him here - but how is Kyle Lauletta his equal?
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
I think Keenum sucks. Yeah he had the year in Minnesota, but things really lined up that year: great offensive line, great backfield, and possibly the best set of WRs in the league. And once he faced a stiff defense in Philly he absolutely wilted. He's a backup in the NFL that got himself a nice payday.
may still take a QB at #10, but at the very least, this pretty much assures that they will NOT be trading up for one. We can cross them off the list of potential teams that would jump in front of us. It's really the Jags and Bengals at this point I think.
Keenum is a better QB than Flacco is right now. I actually believe that. Flacco has literally not had a good year for a starting QB in 5 years now. That's an eternity in this league.
He sucks.
Nothing more to add than this. Flacco is one of the biggest fraud "franchise QBs" I've ever seen...
Biggest fraud "franchise QBs"...REALLY???
Flacco took over the starting QB job as a rookie in 2008. Since then, he has been the starting QB for 10 years.
The only year ( the only year before this year, which he got hurt) he did lead the Ravens to a winning record was 2015.
Flacco lead the Ravens to the playoffs in 08/09/10/11/12/14. Won the Super Bowl in 2012 with a run that was historic and has never been one and done in the playoffs in any of those years.
He may not be a HOFer...but fraud seems a bit rough.
Case Keenum is absolutely nothing special, and again, I want nothing to do with him here - but how is Kyle Lauletta his equal?
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
I think Keenum sucks. Yeah he had the year in Minnesota, but things really lined up that year: great offensive line, great backfield, and possibly the best set of WRs in the league. And once he faced a stiff defense in Philly he absolutely wilted. He's a backup in the NFL that got himself a nice payday.
That was not a great offensive line. Basically the same personnel this year was the worst unit in the league. They exceeded their abysmal expectations that year and performed at a passable level.
Case Keenum is absolutely nothing special, and again, I want nothing to do with him here - but how is Kyle Lauletta his equal?
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
I think Keenum sucks. Yeah he had the year in Minnesota, but things really lined up that year: great offensive line, great backfield, and possibly the best set of WRs in the league. And once he faced a stiff defense in Philly he absolutely wilted. He's a backup in the NFL that got himself a nice payday.
Great backfield? Maybe for the 4 games Cook played, but after that they were mediocre at best. Their 3.9 ypa were 22nd best (tied with the great Giants rushing attack...). They racked up the 2nd most rushing attempts allowing them to finish #7 in total rushing yards, but that had as much to do with their strong D and playing a ball control style offense.
Case Keenum is absolutely nothing special, and again, I want nothing to do with him here - but how is Kyle Lauletta his equal?
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
I think Keenum sucks. Yeah he had the year in Minnesota, but things really lined up that year: great offensive line, great backfield, and possibly the best set of WRs in the league. And once he faced a stiff defense in Philly he absolutely wilted. He's a backup in the NFL that got himself a nice payday.
So if you think Keenum sucks, and think Lauletta is Keenum 2.0 - why would you push for Lauletta to be given the starting job?
I don't really understand that.
I don't think Keenum is good, either. But I don't think Flacco represents any sort of upgrade for Denver at this point. I think he's basically cooked and giving up anything of value for him is questionable at best.
Rather they stick with Eli if they are gonna start a vet under center week 1.
Its probably too optimistic, but imagine getting as high as a # 2 for Eli as Baltimore did with Flacco, signing Keenum for a Josh McCown role (so in other words, we'd remove ourselves from paying $22mm for a bottom tier QB), draft Haskins, a high end OL i.e. OC Garrett Bradbury or OG Chris Lindstrom with our second rounder along with an edge guy like Chase Winovich with the acquired second rounder.
When did I push for Lauletta to get the starting job?
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
RE: When did I push for Lauletta to get the starting job?
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
We've already got Keenum on our roster...his name is Kyle Lauletta.
What Elway (and so many other GMs) doesn't seem to understand is that you want to be in one of three places with your QB:
1. Paying an elite guy elite money - that's what KC will soon be doing with Mahomes;
2. Paying a kid in his rookie salary; or
3. Paying a journeyman journeyman money until you can get your team into situations 1. or 2.
I saw an interesting thought from Evan Silva of Rotoworld yesterday..."Maybe not in our lifetime but someday it'll be accepted that one aspect of Belichick's greatness was his competitors' lack of greatness."
I think Silva makes a good point...the quality of management and coaching in the NFL is incredibly poor. They don't seem to have a handle on how to manage their rosters and their money.
Today, the sexy word is "hater". If you downplay what Belichick and Brady have done, you're a hater.
Not at all saying they aren't all time greats, but i'm starting to get behind that thought more and more. Take the AFC championship game. Chiefs literally played the same cover 2 shell on every third down in overtime. Didn't hide a coverage once, didn't try to show a blitz, didn't move the safeties at all.
You wanna counter that and say the Pats would have scored anyway? Hard to say they wouldn't.
But that was absolutely pathetic. My HS defensive coordinator had more complex schemes.
The Fact that teams still don't seem to know Brady is throwing the ball to Edelman on 3rd down baffles me.
As soon as the Rams won i knew the super bowl would be a stinker. McVay has his simplistic offense and believes in it. Great. But the fact he literally had no plan B for the obvious scenario of Belichick taking away their first sheet was pathetic.
The comments about their division being sewer water are valid. Look up Tom's splits between home and away playoff games.
With that said, i absolutely love Bill B. Willing to try any scheme or player if he thinks it will help them win. He seems to have no comfort zone, because coaching isn't about comfort. Its about finding what works.
RE: Since people seem confused about Keenum's 2017
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
RE: RE: When did I push for Lauletta to get the starting job?
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
They were 7th in the league in rushing with Dalvin Cook missing the year. They were bad in 2018, but 2017 was a very good unit.
RE: RE: RE: When did I push for Lauletta to get the starting job?
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
I really don't think this can be simplified quite as much as you're trying to with the last line. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
And yes, it makes sense to come up with several plans and have alternative options when unanticipated obstacles arise - but it doesn't mean they're all good ones.
What will we be doing with the cap savings? Since the plan is to just punt the season by going with Lauletta, wouldn't it be pointless to even hand out money to other free agents?
Coming up with alternatives is great, but I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile strategy at all or really serves any sort of purpose. Even if it's lower on the totem than the other suggestions.
RE: RE: RE: Since people seem confused about Keenum's 2017
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
They played at the level that our OL did in the second half of the year, inconsistent but passable. And like you said, alot of it was aided by play design from Shurmur. That same Minnesota line, basically the same personnel, was the worst OL in the league last year. The "Minnesota had an outstanding OL" thinking is a myth. They benefitted from outpeforming incredibly low expectations.
The #Broncos will now shop QB Case Keenum, who is guaranteed $7M in 2019, Im told. If they cant, its either a massive paycut or a straight up release. Hed be a top backup.
They were 7th in the league in rushing with Dalvin Cook missing the year. They were bad in 2018, but 2017 was a very good unit.
As I mentioned earlier, they were 7th in total rushing yards, but 22nd (tied with the Giants) in yards/rush. They weren't a "good" rushing team, they just ran it a lot (2nd most in the league).
We've already got Keenum on our roster...his name is Kyle Lauletta.
What Elway (and so many other GMs) doesn't seem to understand is that you want to be in one of three places with your QB:
1. Paying an elite guy elite money - that's what KC will soon be doing with Mahomes;
2. Paying a kid in his rookie salary; or
3. Paying a journeyman journeyman money until you can get your team into situations 1. or 2.
I saw an interesting thought from Evan Silva of Rotoworld yesterday..."Maybe not in our lifetime but someday it'll be accepted that one aspect of Belichick's greatness was his competitors' lack of greatness."
I think Silva makes a good point...the quality of management and coaching in the NFL is incredibly poor. They don't seem to have a handle on how to manage their rosters and their money.
The mistake that owners/GMs make is trying to get in on the shiny new object, instead of focusing on tried and true techniques that work. Everyone wants the next McVay now. The Cards are exhibit A here with Kingsbury.
But I disagree with Silva's assertion here on Belicheck. He built the Browns into the team that became the Ravens, and had great success as the Ravens. And he's done that with the Patriots. He's an anomaly, and the GOAT when it comes to coaches.
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
I really don't think this can be simplified quite as much as you're trying to with the last line. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
And yes, it makes sense to come up with several plans and have alternative options when unanticipated obstacles arise - but it doesn't mean they're all good ones.
What will we be doing with the cap savings? Since the plan is to just punt the season by going with Lauletta, wouldn't it be pointless to even hand out money to other free agents?
Coming up with alternatives is great, but I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile strategy at all or really serves any sort of purpose. Even if it's lower on the totem than the other suggestions.
I clash with Go Terps plenty, but his take on the quarterback position is completely reasonable. Right now, one of the best arguments for keeping Eli, who everyone admits is a middling quarterback, is to keep him because he is a known commodity. i don't see how that is a strong argument.
What is the alternative? Lets be honest. They can cut him and find someone to put up similar stats. I won't go as far as saying just hand the job to Lauletta, but the notion here that there really is no other viable option than sticking with Eli is silly. Especially if they take a quarterback. At this point, he's a stop gap. A stop gap who is so precious to the organization (deservedly so) emotion will undoubtedly cloud their minds with his play this year.
Scenario - the team exceeds expectations and has a chance at making the playoffs. The one position lacking is qb. All reports are the rookie quarterback looks phenomenal in practice, and he is ready to go.
Would it be easier to bench Eli or Case Keenum?
No, i do not hate Eli. And tbh, i don't see this team competing next year anyway so i do not hate the idea of Eli coming back for one last hurrah. But, it does make sense to just move on now.
When people post and say "don't just move on from Eli for the sake of doing it" i have to be honest, it makes more sense to just get it over with now, and have another average stop gap at qb until a young guy can take over. I don't think this organization will sit eli again, even if they should.
This is a sensitive topic here and i understand why. If you disagree with me, by all means. After reading both sides of this argument for so long, i'm at a point where i see both sides. There are many plausible ways to go about this. I don't think there is one clear cut answer, which is why we always bicker about it.
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
I really don't think this can be simplified quite as much as you're trying to with the last line. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
And yes, it makes sense to come up with several plans and have alternative options when unanticipated obstacles arise - but it doesn't mean they're all good ones.
What will we be doing with the cap savings? Since the plan is to just punt the season by going with Lauletta, wouldn't it be pointless to even hand out money to other free agents?
Coming up with alternatives is great, but I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile strategy at all or really serves any sort of purpose. Even if it's lower on the totem than the other suggestions.
I clash with Go Terps plenty, but his take on the quarterback position is completely reasonable. Right now, one of the best arguments for keeping Eli, who everyone admits is a middling quarterback, is to keep him because he is a known commodity. i don't see how that is a strong argument.
What is the alternative? Lets be honest. They can cut him and find someone to put up similar stats. I won't go as far as saying just hand the job to Lauletta, but the notion here that there really is no other viable option than sticking with Eli is silly. Especially if they take a quarterback. At this point, he's a stop gap. A stop gap who is so precious to the organization (deservedly so) emotion will undoubtedly cloud their minds with his play this year.
Scenario - the team exceeds expectations and has a chance at making the playoffs. The one position lacking is qb. All reports are the rookie quarterback looks phenomenal in practice, and he is ready to go.
Would it be easier to bench Eli or Case Keenum?
No, i do not hate Eli. And tbh, i don't see this team competing next year anyway so i do not hate the idea of Eli coming back for one last hurrah. But, it does make sense to just move on now.
When people post and say "don't just move on from Eli for the sake of doing it" i have to be honest, it makes more sense to just get it over with now, and have another average stop gap at qb until a young guy can take over. I don't think this organization will sit eli again, even if they should.
This is a sensitive topic here and i understand why. If you disagree with me, by all means. After reading both sides of this argument for so long, i'm at a point where i see both sides. There are many plausible ways to go about this. I don't think there is one clear cut answer, which is why we always bicker about it.
If the team is in a position to make the playoffs, why would they bench the QB who has them in that position?
I guess if it's a 2016-type season where the defense is carrying the team and we're looking for a spark offensively - a-la Baltimore this year. But Flacco had a losing record when he was benched.
Case Keenum really shouldn't even be brought up - any plan that involves him being the starter here should just get thrown out immediately.
For me, it's simple. Draft Haskins or Murray if the conviction is there. I'm not clamoring for Eli to be the QB for 5 more years, and if we can replace him now, I'm fine with that.
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
I'd rather just go with Eli for one more season than sign some FA veteran to save cap dollars. It's a wheel spinning move and doesn't get us any closer to winning.
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
Cap space does carry over, so even if they didn't use it this offseason, it could help in future years.
And I think the Giants are well above the minimum spending levels, so it's not like they'd have to spend it.
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
Cap space does carry over, so even if they didn't use it this offseason, it could help in future years.
And I think the Giants are well above the minimum spending levels, so it's not like they'd have to spend it.
The point is that Eli will be off the books after this coming season anyway - so whether the space gets freed up for 2019 or 2020+, it's going to be there. We're not going to extend Eli or pay him beyond 2019 - or at least I'd be very surprised if we did.
So, it's really only a question of whether we need the additional space for this upcoming season or not. We'll have it either way once Eli's contract expires.
We're punting the season if we go with Eli. How is that not abundantly clear at this point?
As for what I'd do with the money, it's tough to name names at this early stage when we don't have a true sense of the FA market. But I can tell you some goals I'd have for FA. I'd focus on signing 2nd and 3rd tier free agents along both lines. I'd take a "quantity over quality" approach in signing pass rushers with the goal of maintaining depth and freshness for the fourth quarter pass rush. On the offensive line I'd focus on getting a center (I think it's the most important position on the OL)...though this is supposedly a strong center draft so the answer may be had there.
I'd consider making Engram a full time receiver, and target bigger, stronger TEs that can be of better use in 12 personnel packages (which were more efficient than 11 personnel leaguewide for passing plays in 2018).
OL, DL/Edge, TE...that's where I'd spend FA money.
I don't necessarily agree that going with Eli in 2019 is an auto punt of the season. We weren't punting with him in 2016. It has only been 2 seasons since then. Is the 2019 version really any different than the 2016 version? Shurmur is also a better offensive coach than McAdoo.
Lauletta is punting... Bortles/Taylor is punting.
I don't think Eli necessarily is.
Besides, if you want to do all of that with the cap dollars, it means you're trying to win football games in 2019. Putting a crappy vet or Kyle Lauletta in the QB spot basically nullifies that entire plan.
I want nothing to do with any of those options.
Either draft someone now, or let Eli play out the final year of his deal and draft someone next year.
We'll just suck if Eli is the QB, right? So, we'll be right at the top of the 2020 draft and can take Tagovailoa. Easy peasy!
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
Cap space does carry over, so even if they didn't use it this offseason, it could help in future years.
And I think the Giants are well above the minimum spending levels, so it's not like they'd have to spend it.
The point is that Eli will be off the books after this coming season anyway - so whether the space gets freed up for 2019 or 2020+, it's going to be there. We're not going to extend Eli or pay him beyond 2019 - or at least I'd be very surprised if we did.
So, it's really only a question of whether we need the additional space for this upcoming season or not. We'll have it either way once Eli's contract expires.
Meh, it does matter. Money saved either rolls over or gives you the flexibility to front load other deals (ie. first year guarantees vs signing bonus in a new contract) that gives you more room down the road. The cap can be manipulated both ways - to borrow or create room from future years.
Personally, I think Keenum and Eli are a wash in this offense. Their numbers under Shurmur are eerily similar. Eli may be better, although you're kidding yourself if you don't think you're shopping for them in the same aisle. Keenum on the other hand is probably a much better fit for this offense.
The question is, can he be signed for a savings significant enough to deal with all the other bullshit that comes with it? That's a tougher question if I'm the front office.
Benjamin Allbright
Verified account @AllbrightNFL
Keep an eye on Arizona for a potential Case Keenum trade...The idea would be to bring Keenum in and extend him with a lower salary cap number as a long term backup. Kingsbury was Keenum's QB coach and co-OC at university of Houston.
Didn't expect that. This doesn't take them out of the hunt for Lock though. I think they will take Lock but groom him behind Flacco for a season or two.
Agreed. I live near Baltimore. Everyone knew he wasn't coming back next year, so getting something for him is undoubtedly seen as a huge positive.
RE: RE: I'll give Elway credit for being decisive in delivering action
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
They actually called a lot of rollouts with Eli this year and it was quite effective but I guess you weren't watching the games...
RE: RE: RE: RE: Since people seem confused about Keenum's 2017
They actually called a lot of rollouts with Eli this year and it was quite effective but I guess you weren't watching the games...
They called more rollouts than we've typically seen with Eli, but if you think they moved him around as much as Keenum in 2017, then I'm not sure what you're watching.
Consistently among the worst OL in the league prior
Similar situation and contracts to what we did with Solder and Omameh last year. I think it's a fair comparison because that line was about as good as our unit was last year. That group was awful for so long that analysts using the term "resurgent Vikings OL" created the misconception that they were good when they were just decent. We saw it with our eyes in the playoffs, where they weren't decent, they were flat out bad in both games. PFF, which shouldn't be seen as gospel but shouldn't be ignored, had them at 22nd. Their regression this year is more evidence of that.
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
Cap space does carry over, so even if they didn't use it this offseason, it could help in future years.
And I think the Giants are well above the minimum spending levels, so it's not like they'd have to spend it.
The point is that Eli will be off the books after this coming season anyway - so whether the space gets freed up for 2019 or 2020+, it's going to be there. We're not going to extend Eli or pay him beyond 2019 - or at least I'd be very surprised if we did.
So, it's really only a question of whether we need the additional space for this upcoming season or not. We'll have it either way once Eli's contract expires.
Meh, it does matter. Money saved either rolls over or gives you the flexibility to front load other deals (ie. first year guarantees vs signing bonus in a new contract) that gives you more room down the road. The cap can be manipulated both ways - to borrow or create room from future years.
Personally, I think Keenum and Eli are a wash in this offense. Their numbers under Shurmur are eerily similar. Eli may be better, although you're kidding yourself if you don't think you're shopping for them in the same aisle. Keenum on the other hand is probably a much better fit for this offense.
The question is, can he be signed for a savings significant enough to deal with all the other bullshit that comes with it? That's a tougher question if I'm the front office.
A lot folks on BBI talk about "If Eli had a team good enough around him he could win games still and you can't blame the Giants' lack of success on him because it's the rest of the team that sucks so bad."
Well, the Broncos are that team. They have a win now defense, a potential game breaking RB, decent skill position guys and an offensive line that's one or two pieces away from being good with a draft that is supposedly great for OL help.
Why are people killing this move? Flacco has proven that he can win, win in the playoffs, win a Super Bowl, etc?
How can these Eli people not be applauding Elway's efforts here?
How do we expect to sign any FA's if we send the message we are punting the season away, which seems to be the suggestion? You always have to at least appear like your trying to win more games. If you don't at least give the appearance of trying to win, you lose fans and make it that much harder to sign any FA's.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Since people seem confused about Keenum's 2017
They actually called a lot of rollouts with Eli this year and it was quite effective but I guess you weren't watching the games...
They called more rollouts than we've typically seen with Eli, but if you think they moved him around as much as Keenum in 2017, then I'm not sure what you're watching.
They called rollouts for Eli, which were effective, then the next game, they would completely forget to use them. So frustrating.
How do we expect to sign any FA's if we send the message we are punting the season away, which seems to be the suggestion? You always have to at least appear like your trying to win more games. If you don't at least give the appearance of trying to win, you lose fans and make it that much harder to sign any FA's.
FAs will go where they can get paid. And again, no one is looking at the Giants and saying, "I won't sign there if Eli isn't the QB."
The level of respect for Eli outside Giants circles was relatively low even when he was playing well...how often did he show up on the "most overrated" polls that SI used to run? That was when he was good. Now, I'd bet what most players see is a guy making more money than his play merits.
Eli's record as a starter the last 6 years is 38-57. No one on the outside is looking in and saying he has to be part of the solution.
That the internal view is so different is indicative of how stale and myopic the organization has become.
RE: You can certainly make that Belichick argument for the AFC East
There's been no legit competition of any note for 20 years.
I think Brady's wife's $ is a huge factor. He's been playing at 50% his market value for a decade or so. Add in the shadiness of his TB12 venture that the Pats make payments to.
How do we expect to sign any FA's if we send the message we are punting the season away, which seems to be the suggestion? You always have to at least appear like your trying to win more games. If you don't at least give the appearance of trying to win, you lose fans and make it that much harder to sign any FA's.
FAs will go where they can get paid. And again, no one is looking at the Giants and saying, "I won't sign there if Eli isn't the QB."
The level of respect for Eli outside Giants circles was relatively low even when he was playing well...how often did he show up on the "most overrated" polls that SI used to run? That was when he was good. Now, I'd bet what most players see is a guy making more money than his play merits.
Eli's record as a starter the last 6 years is 38-57. No one on the outside is looking in and saying he has to be part of the solution.
That the internal view is so different is indicative of how stale and myopic the organization has become.
I would disagree, I think that is only going to draw the type of FA's you don't want. The only thing that is going to get you is older vets who just want to stick around or get one more pay day. I think it is going to be problematic trying to sign any player who hasn't won or is on the upside of their career. Why would they want to uproot their family, move to NY for a franchise who doesn't appear to want to wing?
My point has nothing to do with Eli one way or the other. I agree with arc's POV.
If I were an FA I wouldn't go to the Giants right now because they look like they put too high a priority on nostalgia despite the pathetic quality of the football they play. They used Accorsi to hire Gettleman, and they don't seem to want to move on from a 38 year old QB that is overpaid and pretty clearly done.
If I'm an FA weighing my options, why would the Giants as they stand be a good option?
If I were an FA I wouldn't go to the Giants right now because they look like they put too high a priority on nostalgia despite the pathetic quality of the football they play. They used Accorsi to hire Gettleman, and they don't seem to want to move on from a 38 year old QB that is overpaid and pretty clearly done.
If I'm an FA weighing my options, why would the Giants as they stand be a good option?
If winning isnt important you can start coasting in October.
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
They were 7th in the league in rushing with Dalvin Cook missing the year. They were bad in 2018, but 2017 was a very good unit.
Yes, use a singular stat to describe how the OL was doing.. Its a standard process here at BBI that all offensive line are good except Giants.. but Vikings weren't good.. average at best.. Football Outsiders rated them as 19th best and PFF as 26th best.. Please find me some source that has them as a top 10 offensive line or even top 12..
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
Unless during the off season you bring in the necessary people to help Eli win. Your a broken record, and obviously the only plan you have for the Giants is a new QB maybe you should take your city planner advice and look for multiple solutions. Fix the OL and then if ELI fails so be it. Watching ELI play last year you can see he is not the issue the OL is I want to pay ELI so we have a chance to win next year because as of now he gives us the best chance to still win.
We're punting the season if we go with Eli. How is that not abundantly clear at this point?
As for what I'd do with the money, it's tough to name names at this early stage when we don't have a true sense of the FA market. But I can tell you some goals I'd have for FA. I'd focus on signing 2nd and 3rd tier free agents along both lines. I'd take a "quantity over quality" approach in signing pass rushers with the goal of maintaining depth and freshness for the fourth quarter pass rush. On the offensive line I'd focus on getting a center (I think it's the most important position on the OL)...though this is supposedly a strong center draft so the answer may be had there.
I'd consider making Engram a full time receiver, and target bigger, stronger TEs that can be of better use in 12 personnel packages (which were more efficient than 11 personnel leaguewide for passing plays in 2018).
OL, DL/Edge, TE...that's where I'd spend FA money.
You are the biggest ELI hater on this board I so much want to see you eat your freakin words. Eli is the farthest thing from punting on the season. Getting rid of your veterans by cutting them to create cap room and then putting in a rookie QB like the Jets did last year is mailing it in. The fact you do not understand this makes any other statement you make on this topic useless. Broken Record!
It's early but I don't think I want any part of Tua in New York. Strange kid.
His dad is an asshole.
He's a good kid, though - I'm an Alabama fan and follow the team pretty closely. Nothing he's done has seemed worrisome at all. He handled usurping Hurts as well as he could have been asked to and by all accounts he works his butt off.
I wouldn't be terribly concerned. Saban does a great job with these kids as far as instilling the necessary professionalism and preparing them for the pros.
Of course, there are exceptions to everything... Reuben Foster has had tons of bad off field press over the last 2 years, for example. But most of the kids who come out of this program are very well-prepared for the next level. I wouldn't worry about anything other than Tua staying healthy.
How do we expect to sign any FA's if we send the message we are punting the season away, which seems to be the suggestion? You always have to at least appear like your trying to win more games. If you don't at least give the appearance of trying to win, you lose fans and make it that much harder to sign any FA's.
Yep, or openly send the message to players that they are abusing their bodies for absolutely nothing. Too many here confuse the NFL with the shitshow that is the NBA.
The Broncos are a cautionary tale on trying to find a qb. Too many here act like you just go to the qb store and pick one up.
Eli's record as a starter the last 6 years is 38-57. No one on the outside is looking in and saying he has to be part of the solution.
That the internal view is so different is indicative of how stale and myopic the organization has become.
I agree with this, and a big part of why BBI remains so resistant to moving on is reflected by the fact that, arguably, it was an epicenter of the outcry about benching Eli in 2017 that persuaded the Maras to backtrack and cave. That cohort is alive and well!
arc makes the most intelligent and insightful arguments for staying the Eli course. But to me, so what if Eli might be capable of winning a few more games than a Lauletta, a Keenum (love Aces Up's 'shopping the same aisle") or other stopgap. 2019 remains very, very early in a massive makeover from the Reese disaster, so a few more wins (that may burnish Eli's record) is cosmetic and irrelevant, it's airbrush. He's not part of the future, and better to get on with using the cap dollars saved to improve the overall talent, starting now.
The next Giants' Title contender will bear only a pale resemblance to the 2018 roster.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Since people seem confused about Keenum's 2017
They called rollouts for Eli, which were effective, then the next game, they would completely forget to use them. So frustrating.
The naked rollouts/bootlegs are effective against teams that don't scout or adjust. The Colts' defense in particular seemed asleep for most of the game and it contributed to a decent outing for Eli and the offense.
But when teams are prepared for that play it's an invite to disaster. Eli turns around to face the field and there's an edge rusher in his face to bury him or cause a chuck-and-duck.
And rolling out blockers doesn't work so well because the defense sees what's coming and what you mostly accomplish is eliminating half the field to throw to.
If you look at the Colts' game and think "hey this is great; should do it all the time", no, it's not that easy, particularly against NFCE teams NYG sees twice a year.
We've already got Keenum on our roster...his name is Kyle Lauletta.
What Elway (and so many other GMs) doesn't seem to understand is that you want to be in one of three places with your QB:
1. Paying an elite guy elite money - that's what KC will soon be doing with Mahomes;
2. Paying a kid in his rookie salary; or
3. Paying a journeyman journeyman money until you can get your team into situations 1. or 2.
I saw an interesting thought from Evan Silva of Rotoworld yesterday..."Maybe not in our lifetime but someday it'll be accepted that one aspect of Belichick's greatness was his competitors' lack of greatness."
I think Silva makes a good point...the quality of management and coaching in the NFL is incredibly poor. They don't seem to have a handle on how to manage their rosters and their money.
Perhaps this is true, but ironically Belichick can't claim the Ravens were anything but great. From 2009-2012 they had only one win (should have been zero), then needed a trick play to come from behind in the 2014 playoffs.
Makes you wonder how the Ravens were able to game plan so well with Flacco to play the Patriots tough so many times.
RE: When did I push for Lauletta to get the starting job?
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Starting lauletta isnt preferable at all. It honestly sounds gross. Id rather pay Eli a billion dollars than blindly just go with lauletta.
You're losing either way. One way just makes it easier to get back on the right track faster.
No, with Lauletta you're 100% losing, possibly every game. The only upside to that is we will undoubtedly have a shot at one of the highly-touted 2020 QBs.
I'm all for moving on from Eli, but he undoubtedly gives this team it's best shot at winning in 2019. Odds are we don't win the super bowl in 2019, but I'm not about to just throw an entire season out and say it's unfathomable for us to make the playoffs. The 2018 Giants would have been right in the playoff mix at the end of the season if not for Gano hitting that 63 yarder and the Eagles making an inexplicable comeback in Philly.
This is the NFL and anything can happen from year to year. Saying Eli = Lauletta because we're going to lose regardless is pussy defeatist attitude.
Also, cutting Eli now as opposed to 1 year from now doesn't necessarily mean we would "get back on the right track faster". If your plan is to just lose in 2019 no matter what then what we do with Eli doesn't matter. He's contributing the same cap hit in 2020 and beyond regardless: $0
Eli's record as a starter the last 6 years is 38-57. No one on the outside is looking in and saying he has to be part of the solution.
That the internal view is so different is indicative of how stale and myopic the organization has become.
I agree with this, and a big part of why BBI remains so resistant to moving on is reflected by the fact that, arguably, it was an epicenter of the outcry about benching Eli in 2017 that persuaded the Maras to backtrack and cave. That cohort is alive and well!
arc makes the most intelligent and insightful arguments for staying the Eli course. But to me, so what if Eli might be capable of winning a few more games than a Lauletta, a Keenum (love Aces Up's 'shopping the same aisle") or other stopgap. 2019 remains very, very early in a massive makeover from the Reese disaster, so a few more wins (that may burnish Eli's record) is cosmetic and irrelevant, it's airbrush. He's not part of the future, and better to get on with using the cap dollars saved to improve the overall talent, starting now.
The next Giants' Title contender will bear only a pale resemblance to the 2018 roster.
I agree with this. I'm in favor of moving on, even if the options aren't clearly better. 1. Eli is not the answer, not at this point. We know that. 2. Eli complicates things. The team must be clear minded in their decision making, and they are too sentimental when it comes to #10.
Lately we have seen Eli's career record nose dive below .500, his best receiver not favorable to him, every bad game becoming a headline with a faction of fans calling for backups who have no business playing in the league. We're creating a generation of fans who this is the Eli they know. Is this really what we want? It's time to move on. Past time, actually.
this really resonates with me: "We're creating a generation of fans who this is the Eli they know. Is this really what we want?"
My son - who is 10 - hates Eli b/c he's never witnessed firsthand how good he was - I made him watch his two SB runs...but that just doesn't connect at the same level as being good/winning here and now.
But it kills me to hear "Why is Eli still the QB - he stinks" after every game.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: When did I push for Lauletta to get the starting job?
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
I really don't think this can be simplified quite as much as you're trying to with the last line. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
And yes, it makes sense to come up with several plans and have alternative options when unanticipated obstacles arise - but it doesn't mean they're all good ones.
What will we be doing with the cap savings? Since the plan is to just punt the season by going with Lauletta, wouldn't it be pointless to even hand out money to other free agents?
Coming up with alternatives is great, but I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile strategy at all or really serves any sort of purpose. Even if it's lower on the totem than the other suggestions.
I clash with Go Terps plenty, but his take on the quarterback position is completely reasonable. Right now, one of the best arguments for keeping Eli, who everyone admits is a middling quarterback, is to keep him because he is a known commodity. i don't see how that is a strong argument.
What is the alternative? Lets be honest. They can cut him and find someone to put up similar stats. I won't go as far as saying just hand the job to Lauletta, but the notion here that there really is no other viable option than sticking with Eli is silly. Especially if they take a quarterback. At this point, he's a stop gap. A stop gap who is so precious to the organization (deservedly so) emotion will undoubtedly cloud their minds with his play this year.
Scenario - the team exceeds expectations and has a chance at making the playoffs. The one position lacking is qb. All reports are the rookie quarterback looks phenomenal in practice, and he is ready to go.
Would it be easier to bench Eli or Case Keenum?
No, i do not hate Eli. And tbh, i don't see this team competing next year anyway so i do not hate the idea of Eli coming back for one last hurrah. But, it does make sense to just move on now.
When people post and say "don't just move on from Eli for the sake of doing it" i have to be honest, it makes more sense to just get it over with now, and have another average stop gap at qb until a young guy can take over. I don't think this organization will sit eli again, even if they should.
This is a sensitive topic here and i understand why. If you disagree with me, by all means. After reading both sides of this argument for so long, i'm at a point where i see both sides. There are many plausible ways to go about this. I don't think there is one clear cut answer, which is why we always bicker about it.
Excellent contribution. I am definitely on one side but I do agree there is merit in both positions.
I don't necessarily agree that going with Eli in 2019 is an auto punt of the season. We weren't punting with him in 2016. It has only been 2 seasons since then. Is the 2019 version really any different than the 2016 version? Shurmur is also a better offensive coach than McAdoo.
Lauletta is punting... Bortles/Taylor is punting.
I don't think Eli necessarily is.
Besides, if you want to do all of that with the cap dollars, it means you're trying to win football games in 2019. Putting a crappy vet or Kyle Lauletta in the QB spot basically nullifies that entire plan.
I want nothing to do with any of those options.
Either draft someone now, or let Eli play out the final year of his deal and draft someone next year.
We'll just suck if Eli is the QB, right? So, we'll be right at the top of the 2020 draft and can take Tagovailoa. Easy peasy!
This is it, it the center of the argument and it can't be proven. We all just have opinions. I think going with Eli is punting, he has been declining and will decline more. I would rather have someone with some upside behind center. Just the information of seeing some else under center for a substantial amount of games would be beneficial to the organization. How do the players respond? Does some mobility make the OL look better? The streak is over. I see no downside other than sentimentality...3-13 then 5-11
this really resonates with me: "We're creating a generation of fans who this is the Eli they know. Is this really what we want?"
My son - who is 10 - hates Eli b/c he's never witnessed firsthand how good he was - I made him watch his two SB runs...but that just doesn't connect at the same level as being good/winning here and now.
But it kills me to hear "Why is Eli still the QB - he stinks" after every game.
The ownership, front offices, and coaching staffs from 2013 to today have contributed mightily to destroying Eli's career.
I don't think it was on purpose...I really think the front office thought they were "one or two pieces away" from being a SB contenting team (especially since they had Eli and they thought that he could just "turn it on" when playoff time rolled around), when in reality, there were some real strong signs that, as a whole, the organization was leaking.
I believe that even up until last year, the organization thought, we are so close...when it was clear to everyone else that they were not.
Its hard to fault the organization for trying to keep the window open
What's done is done. The blame game doesn't turn back the clock. At the end of the day Eli had a spectacular and successful NFL career. Some players never accomplish what he did even one time, let alone twice. I don't believe he should be seen as a sympathetic figure. Hes had a long, healthy, successful run.
The Giants have a lot of shit to figure out now, as far as where they're going and how.
I agree with this. I'm in favor of moving on, even if the options aren't clearly better.
Lately we have seen Eli's career record nose dive below .500, his best receiver not favorable to him, every bad game becoming a headline with a faction of fans calling for backups who have no business playing in the league. We're creating a generation of fans who this is the Eli they know. Is this really what we want? It's time to move on. Past time, actually.
This is exactly why I think he shouldn't be on the team next year. If he finds another team to play for, have at it.
Having to watch the constant disrespect thrown his way is beyond irritating at this point. It's at an irrational point now. It's parroting and piling on. Monkey see, monkey do.
He would be better than any option on the roster now, better than anyone than draft now, but that's not the point. It's just time. I don't think this organization as it's currently constructed deserves him to be honest.
I think if he were true to himself, he would either retire, or play for another team that doesn't have the distractions. I think he needs to stop being sentimental about the Giants at this point.
The owner is an idiot who tanked the team when he let Coughlin go and not Reese at the same time; who gave a diva WR a dumb contract, and botched a message at wanting to see other QB's last year and making McAdoo the fall guy (regardless of how much he was out of his element as a HC).
At the very top, there's no leadership.
Eli is bigger than this team, and this is why he needs to not be here. This team is in the wilderness, while Eli continues to walk a straight path.
Agreed.
Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that both guys stay healthy (a given for Eli) for the entire season.
Haah, I was literally just going to post this.
How is Paxton Lynch enjoying the AAF or the XFL or wherever the hell he is? I think he may have signed a futures deal with Seattle.
That's being modest. It's been a total shitshow since Peyton retired.
He sucks.
Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that both guys stay healthy (a given for Eli) for the entire season.
Eli, but it is probably only like one more win.
If the Giants moved on from Eli and drafted Haskins, Murray, Lock, or Jackson I would target Keenum as the stopgap. He knows his role and he thrived under Shurmur two seasons ago.
He sucks.
I'm not sure about that. Keenum was atrocious last year, he may just be a product of Shurmur. I think Elway is just bringing in competition at the position. It also says he isn't taking a QB this year.
Quote:
is a longterm solution.
If the Giants moved on from Eli and drafted Haskins, Murray, Lock, or Jackson I would target Keenum as the stopgap. He knows his role and he thrived under Shurmur two seasons ago.
Do you mean Jones?
Quote:
is a longterm solution.
If the Giants moved on from Eli and drafted Haskins, Murray, Lock, or Jackson I would target Keenum as the stopgap. He knows his role and he thrived under Shurmur two seasons ago.
Keenum's arm (lack of) is the main problem.
Which I believe gets cut down due to the trade to 16 million. Plus he has 3 years left on his deal.
A lot of dead money out there.
Elway need to hand the QB scouting to an expert
Which I believe gets cut down due to the trade to 16 million. Plus he has 3 years left on his deal.
A lot of dead money out there.
Elway need to hand the QB scouting to an expert
The Broncos will pay him 10 million this year.
I dont want him -- but I also think Keenum would win as many games for the Giants as Eli in 2019, for a fraction of the price. Not saying he's a better qb, but he's proven to be an efficient game manager in Shurmur's offense.
LOL with this move.
Quote:
Keenum is a better QB than Flacco is right now. I actually believe that. Flacco has literally not had a good year for a starting QB in 5 years now. That's an eternity in this league.
He sucks.
I'm not sure about that. Keenum was atrocious last year, he may just be a product of Shurmur. I think Elway is just bringing in competition at the position. It also says he isn't taking a QB this year.
At least Keenum can point to a recent good year.
Flacco has done basically nothing since 2014. He wasn't terrible last year before he lost his job, but he wasn't helping them win either.
Keenum was no great shakes, but who was he throwing to? They dealt Thomas, Sanders got hurt. He was throwing to Tim Patrick and Courtland Sutton by season's end. He's also 3 years younger.
I have zero faith in Joe Flacco to be anything more than a backup at this point. If that's what Denver has in mind, or they want to use him to transition over to Lock, that's one thing - but if they have any plans for Flacco beyond that, it's awful.
He sucks.
Nothing more to add than this. Flacco is one of the biggest fraud "franchise QBs" I've ever seen...
- Keenum sucks, you weren't going anywhere with him anyway
- Flacco has no guaranteed money left
- You can still draft someone, sit him for a year behind Flacco and then cut Flacco... They still could jump us.
Agree
What Elway (and so many other GMs) doesn't seem to understand is that you want to be in one of three places with your QB:
1. Paying an elite guy elite money - that's what KC will soon be doing with Mahomes;
2. Paying a kid in his rookie salary; or
3. Paying a journeyman journeyman money until you can get your team into situations 1. or 2.
I saw an interesting thought from Evan Silva of Rotoworld yesterday..."Maybe not in our lifetime but someday it'll be accepted that one aspect of Belichick's greatness was his competitors' lack of greatness."
I think Silva makes a good point...the quality of management and coaching in the NFL is incredibly poor. They don't seem to have a handle on how to manage their rosters and their money.
Yeah sorry for the typo.
That 'good' season is massively overstated too. Great job minimizing TOs, but his yards/game and TDs would be among the worst season's of Eli's career (for comparison).
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
$16M in dead money for the Ravens with cap savings of ~$10M.
One was an offensive juggernaut and then rebuilt it into a defensive one.
And beat Brady/Belichick with both.
Losing a Super Bowl and returning to win it - at all let alone in 2 years- is exceedingly difficult and very rare
Don't quite see that, they have been to two SBs since 2013,winning one and the Giants have been to the playoffs once...
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
I think Keenum sucks. Yeah he had the year in Minnesota, but things really lined up that year: great offensive line, great backfield, and possibly the best set of WRs in the league. And once he faced a stiff defense in Philly he absolutely wilted. He's a backup in the NFL that got himself a nice payday.
Quote:
Keenum is a better QB than Flacco is right now. I actually believe that. Flacco has literally not had a good year for a starting QB in 5 years now. That's an eternity in this league.
He sucks.
Nothing more to add than this. Flacco is one of the biggest fraud "franchise QBs" I've ever seen...
Biggest fraud "franchise QBs"...REALLY???
Flacco took over the starting QB job as a rookie in 2008. Since then, he has been the starting QB for 10 years.
The only year ( the only year before this year, which he got hurt) he did lead the Ravens to a winning record was 2015.
Flacco lead the Ravens to the playoffs in 08/09/10/11/12/14. Won the Super Bowl in 2012 with a run that was historic and has never been one and done in the playoffs in any of those years.
He may not be a HOFer...but fraud seems a bit rough.
Quote:
Case Keenum is absolutely nothing special, and again, I want nothing to do with him here - but how is Kyle Lauletta his equal?
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
I think Keenum sucks. Yeah he had the year in Minnesota, but things really lined up that year: great offensive line, great backfield, and possibly the best set of WRs in the league. And once he faced a stiff defense in Philly he absolutely wilted. He's a backup in the NFL that got himself a nice payday.
That was not a great offensive line. Basically the same personnel this year was the worst unit in the league. They exceeded their abysmal expectations that year and performed at a passable level.
Quote:
Case Keenum is absolutely nothing special, and again, I want nothing to do with him here - but how is Kyle Lauletta his equal?
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
I think Keenum sucks. Yeah he had the year in Minnesota, but things really lined up that year: great offensive line, great backfield, and possibly the best set of WRs in the league. And once he faced a stiff defense in Philly he absolutely wilted. He's a backup in the NFL that got himself a nice payday.
Great backfield? Maybe for the 4 games Cook played, but after that they were mediocre at best. Their 3.9 ypa were 22nd best (tied with the great Giants rushing attack...). They racked up the 2nd most rushing attempts allowing them to finish #7 in total rushing yards, but that had as much to do with their strong D and playing a ball control style offense.
Quote:
Case Keenum is absolutely nothing special, and again, I want nothing to do with him here - but how is Kyle Lauletta his equal?
Lauletta has literally done nothing in this league.
Keenum just won a playoff game as a starter last year and was on a team that won 13 games and their division.
Kyle Lauletta is a complete zero until proven otherwise.
I think Keenum sucks. Yeah he had the year in Minnesota, but things really lined up that year: great offensive line, great backfield, and possibly the best set of WRs in the league. And once he faced a stiff defense in Philly he absolutely wilted. He's a backup in the NFL that got himself a nice payday.
So if you think Keenum sucks, and think Lauletta is Keenum 2.0 - why would you push for Lauletta to be given the starting job?
I don't really understand that.
I don't think Keenum is good, either. But I don't think Flacco represents any sort of upgrade for Denver at this point. I think he's basically cooked and giving up anything of value for him is questionable at best.
Its probably too optimistic, but imagine getting as high as a # 2 for Eli as Baltimore did with Flacco, signing Keenum for a Josh McCown role (so in other words, we'd remove ourselves from paying $22mm for a bottom tier QB), draft Haskins, a high end OL i.e. OC Garrett Bradbury or OG Chris Lindstrom with our second rounder along with an edge guy like Chase Winovich with the acquired second rounder.
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
What Elway (and so many other GMs) doesn't seem to understand is that you want to be in one of three places with your QB:
1. Paying an elite guy elite money - that's what KC will soon be doing with Mahomes;
2. Paying a kid in his rookie salary; or
3. Paying a journeyman journeyman money until you can get your team into situations 1. or 2.
I saw an interesting thought from Evan Silva of Rotoworld yesterday..."Maybe not in our lifetime but someday it'll be accepted that one aspect of Belichick's greatness was his competitors' lack of greatness."
I think Silva makes a good point...the quality of management and coaching in the NFL is incredibly poor. They don't seem to have a handle on how to manage their rosters and their money.
Today, the sexy word is "hater". If you downplay what Belichick and Brady have done, you're a hater.
Not at all saying they aren't all time greats, but i'm starting to get behind that thought more and more. Take the AFC championship game. Chiefs literally played the same cover 2 shell on every third down in overtime. Didn't hide a coverage once, didn't try to show a blitz, didn't move the safeties at all.
You wanna counter that and say the Pats would have scored anyway? Hard to say they wouldn't.
But that was absolutely pathetic. My HS defensive coordinator had more complex schemes.
The Fact that teams still don't seem to know Brady is throwing the ball to Edelman on 3rd down baffles me.
As soon as the Rams won i knew the super bowl would be a stinker. McVay has his simplistic offense and believes in it. Great. But the fact he literally had no plan B for the obvious scenario of Belichick taking away their first sheet was pathetic.
The comments about their division being sewer water are valid. Look up Tom's splits between home and away playoff games.
With that said, i absolutely love Bill B. Willing to try any scheme or player if he thinks it will help them win. He seems to have no comfort zone, because coaching isn't about comfort. Its about finding what works.
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Quote:
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
Quote:
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
Quote:
In comment 14295475 giants#1 said:
Quote:
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
They were 7th in the league in rushing with Dalvin Cook missing the year. They were bad in 2018, but 2017 was a very good unit.
Quote:
In comment 14295472 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
I really don't think this can be simplified quite as much as you're trying to with the last line. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
And yes, it makes sense to come up with several plans and have alternative options when unanticipated obstacles arise - but it doesn't mean they're all good ones.
What will we be doing with the cap savings? Since the plan is to just punt the season by going with Lauletta, wouldn't it be pointless to even hand out money to other free agents?
Coming up with alternatives is great, but I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile strategy at all or really serves any sort of purpose. Even if it's lower on the totem than the other suggestions.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
They played at the level that our OL did in the second half of the year, inconsistent but passable. And like you said, alot of it was aided by play design from Shurmur. That same Minnesota line, basically the same personnel, was the worst OL in the league last year. The "Minnesota had an outstanding OL" thinking is a myth. They benefitted from outpeforming incredibly low expectations.
Doubt it. Why didn't we pursue him last year? He was available then.
They were 7th in the league in rushing with Dalvin Cook missing the year. They were bad in 2018, but 2017 was a very good unit.
As I mentioned earlier, they were 7th in total rushing yards, but 22nd (tied with the Giants) in yards/rush. They weren't a "good" rushing team, they just ran it a lot (2nd most in the league).
His QB drafting track record is poor.
Broncos pick 10th. Even if they liked a QB in this draft, there's no guarantee they get him.
What Elway (and so many other GMs) doesn't seem to understand is that you want to be in one of three places with your QB:
1. Paying an elite guy elite money - that's what KC will soon be doing with Mahomes;
2. Paying a kid in his rookie salary; or
3. Paying a journeyman journeyman money until you can get your team into situations 1. or 2.
I saw an interesting thought from Evan Silva of Rotoworld yesterday..."Maybe not in our lifetime but someday it'll be accepted that one aspect of Belichick's greatness was his competitors' lack of greatness."
I think Silva makes a good point...the quality of management and coaching in the NFL is incredibly poor. They don't seem to have a handle on how to manage their rosters and their money.
The mistake that owners/GMs make is trying to get in on the shiny new object, instead of focusing on tried and true techniques that work. Everyone wants the next McVay now. The Cards are exhibit A here with Kingsbury.
But I disagree with Silva's assertion here on Belicheck. He built the Browns into the team that became the Ravens, and had great success as the Ravens. And he's done that with the Patriots. He's an anomaly, and the GOAT when it comes to coaches.
Elway-big arm.
Flacco-big arm.
Um, no. No chance
Quote:
In comment 14295477 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14295472 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
I really don't think this can be simplified quite as much as you're trying to with the last line. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
And yes, it makes sense to come up with several plans and have alternative options when unanticipated obstacles arise - but it doesn't mean they're all good ones.
What will we be doing with the cap savings? Since the plan is to just punt the season by going with Lauletta, wouldn't it be pointless to even hand out money to other free agents?
Coming up with alternatives is great, but I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile strategy at all or really serves any sort of purpose. Even if it's lower on the totem than the other suggestions.
I clash with Go Terps plenty, but his take on the quarterback position is completely reasonable. Right now, one of the best arguments for keeping Eli, who everyone admits is a middling quarterback, is to keep him because he is a known commodity. i don't see how that is a strong argument.
What is the alternative? Lets be honest. They can cut him and find someone to put up similar stats. I won't go as far as saying just hand the job to Lauletta, but the notion here that there really is no other viable option than sticking with Eli is silly. Especially if they take a quarterback. At this point, he's a stop gap. A stop gap who is so precious to the organization (deservedly so) emotion will undoubtedly cloud their minds with his play this year.
Scenario - the team exceeds expectations and has a chance at making the playoffs. The one position lacking is qb. All reports are the rookie quarterback looks phenomenal in practice, and he is ready to go.
Would it be easier to bench Eli or Case Keenum?
No, i do not hate Eli. And tbh, i don't see this team competing next year anyway so i do not hate the idea of Eli coming back for one last hurrah. But, it does make sense to just move on now.
When people post and say "don't just move on from Eli for the sake of doing it" i have to be honest, it makes more sense to just get it over with now, and have another average stop gap at qb until a young guy can take over. I don't think this organization will sit eli again, even if they should.
This is a sensitive topic here and i understand why. If you disagree with me, by all means. After reading both sides of this argument for so long, i'm at a point where i see both sides. There are many plausible ways to go about this. I don't think there is one clear cut answer, which is why we always bicker about it.
Quote:
In comment 14295494 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 14295477 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14295472 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
I really don't think this can be simplified quite as much as you're trying to with the last line. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
And yes, it makes sense to come up with several plans and have alternative options when unanticipated obstacles arise - but it doesn't mean they're all good ones.
What will we be doing with the cap savings? Since the plan is to just punt the season by going with Lauletta, wouldn't it be pointless to even hand out money to other free agents?
Coming up with alternatives is great, but I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile strategy at all or really serves any sort of purpose. Even if it's lower on the totem than the other suggestions.
I clash with Go Terps plenty, but his take on the quarterback position is completely reasonable. Right now, one of the best arguments for keeping Eli, who everyone admits is a middling quarterback, is to keep him because he is a known commodity. i don't see how that is a strong argument.
What is the alternative? Lets be honest. They can cut him and find someone to put up similar stats. I won't go as far as saying just hand the job to Lauletta, but the notion here that there really is no other viable option than sticking with Eli is silly. Especially if they take a quarterback. At this point, he's a stop gap. A stop gap who is so precious to the organization (deservedly so) emotion will undoubtedly cloud their minds with his play this year.
Scenario - the team exceeds expectations and has a chance at making the playoffs. The one position lacking is qb. All reports are the rookie quarterback looks phenomenal in practice, and he is ready to go.
Would it be easier to bench Eli or Case Keenum?
No, i do not hate Eli. And tbh, i don't see this team competing next year anyway so i do not hate the idea of Eli coming back for one last hurrah. But, it does make sense to just move on now.
When people post and say "don't just move on from Eli for the sake of doing it" i have to be honest, it makes more sense to just get it over with now, and have another average stop gap at qb until a young guy can take over. I don't think this organization will sit eli again, even if they should.
This is a sensitive topic here and i understand why. If you disagree with me, by all means. After reading both sides of this argument for so long, i'm at a point where i see both sides. There are many plausible ways to go about this. I don't think there is one clear cut answer, which is why we always bicker about it.
If the team is in a position to make the playoffs, why would they bench the QB who has them in that position?
I guess if it's a 2016-type season where the defense is carrying the team and we're looking for a spark offensively - a-la Baltimore this year. But Flacco had a losing record when he was benched.
Case Keenum really shouldn't even be brought up - any plan that involves him being the starter here should just get thrown out immediately.
For me, it's simple. Draft Haskins or Murray if the conviction is there. I'm not clamoring for Eli to be the QB for 5 more years, and if we can replace him now, I'm fine with that.
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
I'd rather just go with Eli for one more season than sign some FA veteran to save cap dollars. It's a wheel spinning move and doesn't get us any closer to winning.
Cap space does carry over, so even if they didn't use it this offseason, it could help in future years.
And I think the Giants are well above the minimum spending levels, so it's not like they'd have to spend it.
Quote:
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
Cap space does carry over, so even if they didn't use it this offseason, it could help in future years.
And I think the Giants are well above the minimum spending levels, so it's not like they'd have to spend it.
The point is that Eli will be off the books after this coming season anyway - so whether the space gets freed up for 2019 or 2020+, it's going to be there. We're not going to extend Eli or pay him beyond 2019 - or at least I'd be very surprised if we did.
So, it's really only a question of whether we need the additional space for this upcoming season or not. We'll have it either way once Eli's contract expires.
As for what I'd do with the money, it's tough to name names at this early stage when we don't have a true sense of the FA market. But I can tell you some goals I'd have for FA. I'd focus on signing 2nd and 3rd tier free agents along both lines. I'd take a "quantity over quality" approach in signing pass rushers with the goal of maintaining depth and freshness for the fourth quarter pass rush. On the offensive line I'd focus on getting a center (I think it's the most important position on the OL)...though this is supposedly a strong center draft so the answer may be had there.
I'd consider making Engram a full time receiver, and target bigger, stronger TEs that can be of better use in 12 personnel packages (which were more efficient than 11 personnel leaguewide for passing plays in 2018).
OL, DL/Edge, TE...that's where I'd spend FA money.
Lauletta is punting... Bortles/Taylor is punting.
I don't think Eli necessarily is.
Besides, if you want to do all of that with the cap dollars, it means you're trying to win football games in 2019. Putting a crappy vet or Kyle Lauletta in the QB spot basically nullifies that entire plan.
I want nothing to do with any of those options.
Either draft someone now, or let Eli play out the final year of his deal and draft someone next year.
We'll just suck if Eli is the QB, right? So, we'll be right at the top of the 2020 draft and can take Tagovailoa. Easy peasy!
Quote:
Quote:
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
Cap space does carry over, so even if they didn't use it this offseason, it could help in future years.
And I think the Giants are well above the minimum spending levels, so it's not like they'd have to spend it.
The point is that Eli will be off the books after this coming season anyway - so whether the space gets freed up for 2019 or 2020+, it's going to be there. We're not going to extend Eli or pay him beyond 2019 - or at least I'd be very surprised if we did.
So, it's really only a question of whether we need the additional space for this upcoming season or not. We'll have it either way once Eli's contract expires.
Meh, it does matter. Money saved either rolls over or gives you the flexibility to front load other deals (ie. first year guarantees vs signing bonus in a new contract) that gives you more room down the road. The cap can be manipulated both ways - to borrow or create room from future years.
Personally, I think Keenum and Eli are a wash in this offense. Their numbers under Shurmur are eerily similar. Eli may be better, although you're kidding yourself if you don't think you're shopping for them in the same aisle. Keenum on the other hand is probably a much better fit for this offense.
The question is, can he be signed for a savings significant enough to deal with all the other bullshit that comes with it? That's a tougher question if I'm the front office.
Verified account @AllbrightNFL
Keep an eye on Arizona for a potential Case Keenum trade...The idea would be to bring Keenum in and extend him with a lower salary cap number as a long term backup. Kingsbury was Keenum's QB coach and co-OC at university of Houston.
go west - ( New Window )
Agreed. I live near Baltimore. Everyone knew he wasn't coming back next year, so getting something for him is undoubtedly seen as a huge positive.
Quote:
but his choices have been ordinary.
That's being modest. It's been a total shitshow since Peyton retired.
Also agree.
The vikings handed out 5 years 30 million to Remmers and 5 years 58 million to Rieff that year. I don't think low expectations were part of the plan.
Quote:
In comment 14295475 giants#1 said:
Quote:
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
They actually called a lot of rollouts with Eli this year and it was quite effective but I guess you weren't watching the games...
They actually called a lot of rollouts with Eli this year and it was quite effective but I guess you weren't watching the games...
They called more rollouts than we've typically seen with Eli, but if you think they moved him around as much as Keenum in 2017, then I'm not sure what you're watching.
Quote:
In comment 14295543 giants#1 said:
Quote:
Quote:
But it has to be a rookie QB. Replacing Eli with a crappy vet like Taylor or Bortles or going with someone who is entirely unknown like Lauletta serves no purpose. If we go with any of those guys, we're obviously not trying to even win - so why place the emphasis on the cap space in the first place?
Cap space does carry over, so even if they didn't use it this offseason, it could help in future years.
And I think the Giants are well above the minimum spending levels, so it's not like they'd have to spend it.
The point is that Eli will be off the books after this coming season anyway - so whether the space gets freed up for 2019 or 2020+, it's going to be there. We're not going to extend Eli or pay him beyond 2019 - or at least I'd be very surprised if we did.
So, it's really only a question of whether we need the additional space for this upcoming season or not. We'll have it either way once Eli's contract expires.
Meh, it does matter. Money saved either rolls over or gives you the flexibility to front load other deals (ie. first year guarantees vs signing bonus in a new contract) that gives you more room down the road. The cap can be manipulated both ways - to borrow or create room from future years.
Personally, I think Keenum and Eli are a wash in this offense. Their numbers under Shurmur are eerily similar. Eli may be better, although you're kidding yourself if you don't think you're shopping for them in the same aisle. Keenum on the other hand is probably a much better fit for this offense.
The question is, can he be signed for a savings significant enough to deal with all the other bullshit that comes with it? That's a tougher question if I'm the front office.
Outstanding post.
Well, the Broncos are that team. They have a win now defense, a potential game breaking RB, decent skill position guys and an offensive line that's one or two pieces away from being good with a draft that is supposedly great for OL help.
Why are people killing this move? Flacco has proven that he can win, win in the playoffs, win a Super Bowl, etc?
How can these Eli people not be applauding Elway's efforts here?
Quote:
They actually called a lot of rollouts with Eli this year and it was quite effective but I guess you weren't watching the games...
They called more rollouts than we've typically seen with Eli, but if you think they moved him around as much as Keenum in 2017, then I'm not sure what you're watching.
They called rollouts for Eli, which were effective, then the next game, they would completely forget to use them. So frustrating.
FAs will go where they can get paid. And again, no one is looking at the Giants and saying, "I won't sign there if Eli isn't the QB."
The level of respect for Eli outside Giants circles was relatively low even when he was playing well...how often did he show up on the "most overrated" polls that SI used to run? That was when he was good. Now, I'd bet what most players see is a guy making more money than his play merits.
Eli's record as a starter the last 6 years is 38-57. No one on the outside is looking in and saying he has to be part of the solution.
That the internal view is so different is indicative of how stale and myopic the organization has become.
I think Brady's wife's $ is a huge factor. He's been playing at 50% his market value for a decade or so. Add in the shadiness of his TB12 venture that the Pats make payments to.
Quote:
How do we expect to sign any FA's if we send the message we are punting the season away, which seems to be the suggestion? You always have to at least appear like your trying to win more games. If you don't at least give the appearance of trying to win, you lose fans and make it that much harder to sign any FA's.
FAs will go where they can get paid. And again, no one is looking at the Giants and saying, "I won't sign there if Eli isn't the QB."
The level of respect for Eli outside Giants circles was relatively low even when he was playing well...how often did he show up on the "most overrated" polls that SI used to run? That was when he was good. Now, I'd bet what most players see is a guy making more money than his play merits.
Eli's record as a starter the last 6 years is 38-57. No one on the outside is looking in and saying he has to be part of the solution.
That the internal view is so different is indicative of how stale and myopic the organization has become.
I would disagree, I think that is only going to draw the type of FA's you don't want. The only thing that is going to get you is older vets who just want to stick around or get one more pay day. I think it is going to be problematic trying to sign any player who hasn't won or is on the upside of their career. Why would they want to uproot their family, move to NY for a franchise who doesn't appear to want to wing?
My point has nothing to do with Eli one way or the other. I agree with arc's POV.
If I'm an FA weighing my options, why would the Giants as they stand be a good option?
If I'm an FA weighing my options, why would the Giants as they stand be a good option?
If winning isnt important you can start coasting in October.
Hahaha
Quote:
In comment 14295482 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 14295475 giants#1 said:
Quote:
Here's his "great" season (14 starts, played in 15 games): 67.6% 3547 yds 22 TDs 7 INT
He was efficient (good comp% and limited the TOs), but the yards/TDs aren't even average marks. Since 2009, Eli has had one season with <3800 yards (3468 yds last year) and just three seasons with <26 TDs (18 in 2013, 19 in 2017, 21 in 2018).
Who here thinks Eli was "great" last year? He completed 66% of his passes for 4299 yds, 21 TDs and only 11 INTs
For further context, that's also with the benefit of outstanding OL play and two monster WRs on the outside, along with what was an outstanding defense giving him short fields and plenty of opportunities.
Maybe "better" OL play than the Giants had, but the Vikes OL wasn't close to outstanding. The one thing that Keenum could do that Eli couldn't/can't is move around and Shurmur did a good job shifting the pocket and calling a lot of rollouts to compensate for the Vikes OL.
They were 7th in the league in rushing with Dalvin Cook missing the year. They were bad in 2018, but 2017 was a very good unit.
Yes, use a singular stat to describe how the OL was doing.. Its a standard process here at BBI that all offensive line are good except Giants.. but Vikings weren't good.. average at best.. Football Outsiders rated them as 19th best and PFF as 26th best.. Please find me some source that has them as a top 10 offensive line or even top 12..
Hahaha
He has Elway confused with Bill Walsh and Mike Holmgren but hey.
Quote:
In comment 14295472 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
Unless during the off season you bring in the necessary people to help Eli win. Your a broken record, and obviously the only plan you have for the Giants is a new QB maybe you should take your city planner advice and look for multiple solutions. Fix the OL and then if ELI fails so be it. Watching ELI play last year you can see he is not the issue the OL is I want to pay ELI so we have a chance to win next year because as of now he gives us the best chance to still win.
As for what I'd do with the money, it's tough to name names at this early stage when we don't have a true sense of the FA market. But I can tell you some goals I'd have for FA. I'd focus on signing 2nd and 3rd tier free agents along both lines. I'd take a "quantity over quality" approach in signing pass rushers with the goal of maintaining depth and freshness for the fourth quarter pass rush. On the offensive line I'd focus on getting a center (I think it's the most important position on the OL)...though this is supposedly a strong center draft so the answer may be had there.
I'd consider making Engram a full time receiver, and target bigger, stronger TEs that can be of better use in 12 personnel packages (which were more efficient than 11 personnel leaguewide for passing plays in 2018).
OL, DL/Edge, TE...that's where I'd spend FA money.
You are the biggest ELI hater on this board I so much want to see you eat your freakin words. Eli is the farthest thing from punting on the season. Getting rid of your veterans by cutting them to create cap room and then putting in a rookie QB like the Jets did last year is mailing it in. The fact you do not understand this makes any other statement you make on this topic useless. Broken Record!
His dad is an asshole.
He's a good kid, though - I'm an Alabama fan and follow the team pretty closely. Nothing he's done has seemed worrisome at all. He handled usurping Hurts as well as he could have been asked to and by all accounts he works his butt off.
I wouldn't be terribly concerned. Saban does a great job with these kids as far as instilling the necessary professionalism and preparing them for the pros.
Of course, there are exceptions to everything... Reuben Foster has had tons of bad off field press over the last 2 years, for example. But most of the kids who come out of this program are very well-prepared for the next level. I wouldn't worry about anything other than Tua staying healthy.
The Broncos are a cautionary tale on trying to find a qb. Too many here act like you just go to the qb store and pick one up.
That the internal view is so different is indicative of how stale and myopic the organization has become.
arc makes the most intelligent and insightful arguments for staying the Eli course. But to me, so what if Eli might be capable of winning a few more games than a Lauletta, a Keenum (love Aces Up's 'shopping the same aisle") or other stopgap. 2019 remains very, very early in a massive makeover from the Reese disaster, so a few more wins (that may burnish Eli's record) is cosmetic and irrelevant, it's airbrush. He's not part of the future, and better to get on with using the cap dollars saved to improve the overall talent, starting now.
The next Giants' Title contender will bear only a pale resemblance to the 2018 roster.
They called rollouts for Eli, which were effective, then the next game, they would completely forget to use them. So frustrating.
The naked rollouts/bootlegs are effective against teams that don't scout or adjust. The Colts' defense in particular seemed asleep for most of the game and it contributed to a decent outing for Eli and the offense.
But when teams are prepared for that play it's an invite to disaster. Eli turns around to face the field and there's an edge rusher in his face to bury him or cause a chuck-and-duck.
And rolling out blockers doesn't work so well because the defense sees what's coming and what you mostly accomplish is eliminating half the field to throw to.
If you look at the Colts' game and think "hey this is great; should do it all the time", no, it's not that easy, particularly against NFCE teams NYG sees twice a year.
What Elway (and so many other GMs) doesn't seem to understand is that you want to be in one of three places with your QB:
1. Paying an elite guy elite money - that's what KC will soon be doing with Mahomes;
2. Paying a kid in his rookie salary; or
3. Paying a journeyman journeyman money until you can get your team into situations 1. or 2.
I saw an interesting thought from Evan Silva of Rotoworld yesterday..."Maybe not in our lifetime but someday it'll be accepted that one aspect of Belichick's greatness was his competitors' lack of greatness."
I think Silva makes a good point...the quality of management and coaching in the NFL is incredibly poor. They don't seem to have a handle on how to manage their rosters and their money.
Perhaps this is true, but ironically Belichick can't claim the Ravens were anything but great. From 2009-2012 they had only one win (should have been zero), then needed a trick play to come from behind in the 2014 playoffs.
Makes you wonder how the Ravens were able to game plan so well with Flacco to play the Patriots tough so many times.
Starting lauletta isnt preferable at all. It honestly sounds gross. Id rather pay Eli a billion dollars than blindly just go with lauletta.
Quote:
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Starting lauletta isnt preferable at all. It honestly sounds gross. Id rather pay Eli a billion dollars than blindly just go with lauletta.
You're losing either way. One way just makes it easier to get back on the right track faster.
Quote:
In comment 14295472 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Starting lauletta isnt preferable at all. It honestly sounds gross. Id rather pay Eli a billion dollars than blindly just go with lauletta.
You're losing either way. One way just makes it easier to get back on the right track faster.
No, with Lauletta you're 100% losing, possibly every game. The only upside to that is we will undoubtedly have a shot at one of the highly-touted 2020 QBs.
I'm all for moving on from Eli, but he undoubtedly gives this team it's best shot at winning in 2019. Odds are we don't win the super bowl in 2019, but I'm not about to just throw an entire season out and say it's unfathomable for us to make the playoffs. The 2018 Giants would have been right in the playoff mix at the end of the season if not for Gano hitting that 63 yarder and the Eagles making an inexplicable comeback in Philly.
This is the NFL and anything can happen from year to year. Saying Eli = Lauletta because we're going to lose regardless is pussy defeatist attitude.
Also, cutting Eli now as opposed to 1 year from now doesn't necessarily mean we would "get back on the right track faster". If your plan is to just lose in 2019 no matter what then what we do with Eli doesn't matter. He's contributing the same cap hit in 2020 and beyond regardless: $0
Quote:
Eli's record as a starter the last 6 years is 38-57. No one on the outside is looking in and saying he has to be part of the solution.
That the internal view is so different is indicative of how stale and myopic the organization has become.
I agree with this, and a big part of why BBI remains so resistant to moving on is reflected by the fact that, arguably, it was an epicenter of the outcry about benching Eli in 2017 that persuaded the Maras to backtrack and cave. That cohort is alive and well!
arc makes the most intelligent and insightful arguments for staying the Eli course. But to me, so what if Eli might be capable of winning a few more games than a Lauletta, a Keenum (love Aces Up's 'shopping the same aisle") or other stopgap. 2019 remains very, very early in a massive makeover from the Reese disaster, so a few more wins (that may burnish Eli's record) is cosmetic and irrelevant, it's airbrush. He's not part of the future, and better to get on with using the cap dollars saved to improve the overall talent, starting now.
The next Giants' Title contender will bear only a pale resemblance to the 2018 roster.
Lately we have seen Eli's career record nose dive below .500, his best receiver not favorable to him, every bad game becoming a headline with a faction of fans calling for backups who have no business playing in the league. We're creating a generation of fans who this is the Eli they know. Is this really what we want? It's time to move on. Past time, actually.
Hahaha
That had to be intentional on Mike's part.
My son - who is 10 - hates Eli b/c he's never witnessed firsthand how good he was - I made him watch his two SB runs...but that just doesn't connect at the same level as being good/winning here and now.
But it kills me to hear "Why is Eli still the QB - he stinks" after every game.
Quote:
In comment 14295494 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 14295477 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14295472 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I said it's one of three preferable alternatives to paying Eli in 2019. It isn't the best alternative.
Pushing for, citing it as a "preferable alternative" - what's the difference? You're okay with a guy we know virtually nothing about being handed the job on nonexistent merit. It's a "solution" you've offered up several times here as better simply because it's different than Eli.
It isn't an alternative at all because it won't be considered.
It won't be considered because the decision to go with Eli has already been made.
There's a big difference between citing something as a preferable alternative vs. THE preferred alternative. Sorry if I didn't make that clear...I'm a city planner and that's how we do things. You don't just look for one solution, you look for several and pick the best one.
Handing the starting job to Lauletta isn't the best solution, but paying him $750K to lose is better than paying Eli $23M to lose.
I really don't think this can be simplified quite as much as you're trying to with the last line. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
And yes, it makes sense to come up with several plans and have alternative options when unanticipated obstacles arise - but it doesn't mean they're all good ones.
What will we be doing with the cap savings? Since the plan is to just punt the season by going with Lauletta, wouldn't it be pointless to even hand out money to other free agents?
Coming up with alternatives is great, but I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile strategy at all or really serves any sort of purpose. Even if it's lower on the totem than the other suggestions.
I clash with Go Terps plenty, but his take on the quarterback position is completely reasonable. Right now, one of the best arguments for keeping Eli, who everyone admits is a middling quarterback, is to keep him because he is a known commodity. i don't see how that is a strong argument.
What is the alternative? Lets be honest. They can cut him and find someone to put up similar stats. I won't go as far as saying just hand the job to Lauletta, but the notion here that there really is no other viable option than sticking with Eli is silly. Especially if they take a quarterback. At this point, he's a stop gap. A stop gap who is so precious to the organization (deservedly so) emotion will undoubtedly cloud their minds with his play this year.
Scenario - the team exceeds expectations and has a chance at making the playoffs. The one position lacking is qb. All reports are the rookie quarterback looks phenomenal in practice, and he is ready to go.
Would it be easier to bench Eli or Case Keenum?
No, i do not hate Eli. And tbh, i don't see this team competing next year anyway so i do not hate the idea of Eli coming back for one last hurrah. But, it does make sense to just move on now.
When people post and say "don't just move on from Eli for the sake of doing it" i have to be honest, it makes more sense to just get it over with now, and have another average stop gap at qb until a young guy can take over. I don't think this organization will sit eli again, even if they should.
This is a sensitive topic here and i understand why. If you disagree with me, by all means. After reading both sides of this argument for so long, i'm at a point where i see both sides. There are many plausible ways to go about this. I don't think there is one clear cut answer, which is why we always bicker about it.
Lauletta is punting... Bortles/Taylor is punting.
I don't think Eli necessarily is.
Besides, if you want to do all of that with the cap dollars, it means you're trying to win football games in 2019. Putting a crappy vet or Kyle Lauletta in the QB spot basically nullifies that entire plan.
I want nothing to do with any of those options.
Either draft someone now, or let Eli play out the final year of his deal and draft someone next year.
We'll just suck if Eli is the QB, right? So, we'll be right at the top of the 2020 draft and can take Tagovailoa. Easy peasy!
My son - who is 10 - hates Eli b/c he's never witnessed firsthand how good he was - I made him watch his two SB runs...but that just doesn't connect at the same level as being good/winning here and now.
But it kills me to hear "Why is Eli still the QB - he stinks" after every game.
The ownership, front offices, and coaching staffs from 2013 to today have contributed mightily to destroying Eli's career.
I believe that even up until last year, the organization thought, we are so close...when it was clear to everyone else that they were not.
What's done is done. The blame game doesn't turn back the clock. At the end of the day Eli had a spectacular and successful NFL career. Some players never accomplish what he did even one time, let alone twice. I don't believe he should be seen as a sympathetic figure. Hes had a long, healthy, successful run.
The Giants have a lot of shit to figure out now, as far as where they're going and how.
Quote:
In comment 14295853 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I agree with this. I'm in favor of moving on, even if the options aren't clearly better.
Lately we have seen Eli's career record nose dive below .500, his best receiver not favorable to him, every bad game becoming a headline with a faction of fans calling for backups who have no business playing in the league. We're creating a generation of fans who this is the Eli they know. Is this really what we want? It's time to move on. Past time, actually.
This is exactly why I think he shouldn't be on the team next year. If he finds another team to play for, have at it.
Having to watch the constant disrespect thrown his way is beyond irritating at this point. It's at an irrational point now. It's parroting and piling on. Monkey see, monkey do.
He would be better than any option on the roster now, better than anyone than draft now, but that's not the point. It's just time. I don't think this organization as it's currently constructed deserves him to be honest.
I think if he were true to himself, he would either retire, or play for another team that doesn't have the distractions. I think he needs to stop being sentimental about the Giants at this point.
The owner is an idiot who tanked the team when he let Coughlin go and not Reese at the same time; who gave a diva WR a dumb contract, and botched a message at wanting to see other QB's last year and making McAdoo the fall guy (regardless of how much he was out of his element as a HC).
At the very top, there's no leadership.
Eli is bigger than this team, and this is why he needs to not be here. This team is in the wilderness, while Eli continues to walk a straight path.