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.
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?