Eli Manning IS the Problem. He is the cloud. He is the rot.
In the aftermath of the Odell Beckham trade, BBI seemed to expel a collective sign of relief that the “cloud” hanging over the Giants has passed and that there had been a “rot” that set in for a culture of accepting losing.
It is my contention that the “cloud” hanging over this organization is Eli and the “rot” that set in began when the New York Giants began worrying about things other than winning and putting Eli Mannings concerns and needs above everyone else’s.
It is not my contention to argue about the Beckham trade as it’s possible to make the right move for the wrong reasons. The Beckham trade is irrelevant to this argument and I am not arguing for or against that trade.
One of the things that struck me during the BBI aftermath was a poster who told the story of the Bill Parcells and Phil Simms sideline fight. The new detail was that this was over a single play call In a game that they were winning big. I have also heard Phil Simms tell a similar story about Parcells and there was a constant theme of Parcells placing winning above all else and you create that environment by holding everyone accountable and placing no one player beyond that and never resting on accolades.
The New York Giants have placed Eli Manning above everyone else and he is treated differently and the Giants feel Eli is maybe owed something for winning the two Super Bowls.
A few examples stand out -
The Giants hired Ben McAdoo largely on “continuity” with the “quarterback” as said by John Mara at the opening press conference. The Giants at that point had 3 non-playoff years, had already suffered through the 2013 debacle that saw Mara call for an entire new offense and system and the promotion of a young OC with very limited success was all about Eli’s familiarity with the system and the progression of the offense numbers in the 2 years from bottoming out in 2013. Ignored was the fact that it was due to the arrival of Odell and that it never reached the heights of the Gilbride offense.
Despite the fact that the Giants were losing, the comfortableness of their 35 year old QB was what made the Head Coaching decision.
This was the time to overhaul the culture of a losing team that had grown comfortable. Instead the message was clear- Eli was above the rest of the Giants and not part of the losing.
Tom Coughlin final press conference kinda summed up this by attitude saying “Eli, it’s not you. it’s us”. This attitude has infected the organization and its fan base. Eli was absolved from any connection to the results of the team he leads
Contract wise the Giants continued to give Eli a free pass despite the losing and treat him as the one of the elite in the game. The Giants never even had a contentious negotiation with him as they gave a 4-year extension in the offseason of 2015 that made him the #3 paid in the NFL just behind Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson by under a million per season. As a bonus, the Giants gave Eli a “no trade” clause just to ensure his status.
The point of no return was reached when Eli was benched for Geno Smith. In the heat of the insulting benching for Geno Smith (and it was insulting and I’m not defending that decision) what was lost on everyone was how far the Giants had gone in putting Eli above the team and how far Eli had gone as well.
Looking at the situation objectively, right or wrong the Head Coach informed the Player of a new plan for his playing time. The Player rejected this plan and instead was benched by his Head Coach. The Player holds a media session answering all manners of questions about how things occurred and why
Removing the names from the situation allows us to see more clearly. Only once you assign pre-earned status to the situation does it become acceptable for the Player to even reject this plan because it is beneath him.
Then the Player issues a statement and holds a media session and answers media questions with uncharacteristic emotion and honesty about the details of its handling.
There are a lot of players names I can insert in those spots above that would have everyone screaming for their heads.
Then what occurs is the Head Coach and General Manager are fired one game after this decision and the Player is reinstated to his starting position.
What is the message to the team? Don’t mess with Eli Manning. He is above you. Even the the GM and the HC.
It strikes me that the only time I’ve ever seen Eli Manning get emotional after any of the multitudes of losing seasons or games is after his benching. I’ve never seen him express any but the most basic vague sense of frustration. Type in Google “Eli Manning emotional” and you will only get his benching.
It also strikes me that Eli gave details about his benching. How he was told, who told him, what he was told and even talked about the streak and the thinking behind the McAdoo plan. He gave His feelings and his thoughts as he cried in front of the media and his teammates in the locker room. This was the only time I can recall him doing this. This certainly wasn’t his response to support his teammates who might have done the similar. Then Eli would talk about the need to keep things “in-house” so they don’t cause “distractions”.
Why do we know more details about this decision than virtually any other Giants decision? Eli made it so and created a massive media controversy out of it. What Manning could have done was say nothing about any of that. He was benched. Accept that your head coach chose to bench you. Manning did not. He was saying he was accepting but his actions betrayed that. There’s a scenario that could have existed where all these details were never made public and all we ever knew that was McAdoo benched Eli for Geno and eventually Webb as they stated back then was the plan when the gIants were 2-7.
I would have to say in almost all situations from any other player, the above scenario would be viewed as unacceptable.
Lets be honest, Eli threw McAdoo under an uncessary bus. It was Eli he brought up the Streak and that he thought it was morally or ethically unacceptable to play football that way. That’s a judgement on your Head Coach, The reason Eli brought it up was to explain why he didn’t accept his benching,
We have our GM who cited one game from 2018 as evidence that Eli still has “it” and this year has cited only the second half of the season as evidence. Interesting, I wonder what the other players on the roster think of this evaluation and if they are held to the same lax standards and not all 16 games.
The cloud over this organization is Eli Manning. The rot is an underperforming and overpaid player who has consistently been treated above everyone else. He has been paid more than any player in NFL history and never had even an ounce of issues getting all of that money from ownership. He has barely missed a snap of playing time in his career (and I don’t mean that in an Iron Man positive streak way but in a how has he never been pulled from a game for poor play until this season) or had a viable backup drafted that could challenge him for reps and playing time. Both McAdoos hiring and firing as Head Coach were tied to his relationship to Eli.
Now we see Odell Beckham traded and as he is going out the door we are getting the leaks. The perception of Odell being traded is that he ran afoul of Eli by getting upset at his play and through to the Lil Wayne interview where his primary offense was that he didn’t support or defend Eli. It even seems a lot of people have accepted that others like Sterling Shepherd, who were “corrupted” by Odell will soon follow.
The cloud remains.
Do we really believe that the players don’t see the above. They don’t know we have an overpaid, underperforming player at the most important position? That he has no problem getting, that he has no challenges to his job or playing time? The GMs, HCs are fired and star players will get traded. That’s the cloud. That’s the rot. This is no longer a merit based team where every player is treated the same. Type in Eli Manning Frustrated into Google and you do not quotes from him being frustrated with losing but instead players being frustrated with his play.
And if you can’t see what is plainly obvious, then let’s look at big picture
Twitter › PaulHembo
Eli Manning since 2012
64 QB losses (most in NFL)
134 turnovers (most in NFL)
$131M cap hit (most in NFL)
Despite a questionable center and RT?
Despite a questionable center and RT?
At a second rounder I wouldn't think twice. Rosen is highly accurate in the short to intermediate passes this offense features. His background as a tennis player has given him the footwork to excel in the screen and quick pass game in ways that Eli never did even at his very best.
If expect increases in YAC for Engram and Barkley right off the bat.
And again, that would have been a found $15M on the salary cap had we done this last week.
Until we have one...is it your recommendation to drop the Qb we have first?
Is Jints Central suddenly smart if they drop all QBs and hope for a better one that's younger?
Or are they stupid to drop the one we do have ( no matter what his name) and go into the draft with no one?
I appreciate the Gettleman no one is sacred, churn approach.
I'd like to see competition; both to avail the best player and shed some light on the quality of the rest of the team.
I believe Tanney and Lualetta are non-competition by design. I know the only alternative data point is a start 16 months ago by one Geno Smith who didn't fair much worse as a variable in the equation.
I'd like to see a camp with AJ McCarron, Josh Rosen (substitute 1st round pick), and Eli Manning. I'd like to see under fair evaluation, who is better right now and the medium-term.
I want the staff to come out of the process and say; we are putting our eggs in the basket of a guy we think we will win a future championship for this team.
If the team isn't quite there, I'd rather a character like McCarron take the lumps while the rookie/Rosen gears up, and hand the baton mid-season.
And lost in my rambling, hello Bill, hope life is treating you well.
I've posted the rhetorical "can Manning be champion again" a number of times without answering; the roster needs another 2 drafts and a dynamite UFA next year -- if Manning is the same guy he was weeks 9-17 with no degradation over the next 2 years, then yes.
And again, whatever you may think of Rosen there is one thing that is inarguable - he is a supremely talented thrower of the football. The reward with him is potentially extremely high.
And again, whatever you may think of Rosen there is one thing that is inarguable - he is a supremely talented thrower of the football. The reward with him is potentially extremely high.
The more time that goes by, I think Rosen just makes sense. I'd give AZ our 2nd rounder for him and hope it works out. Wonder what Shurmur thinks of him?
Obviously if that's a route available to us, it's what I'd prefer to do. It makes sense for several reasons.
The only obvious questions are: how willing is Arizona to actually deal him; and how interested are NYG?
Unfortunately, if jt is correct - it seems the latter would render the former question worthless to even answer since he maintains they're a "no" on Rosen.
I don't know if that means the Giants just aren't interested, or if it means that they are - but not at the purported ask.
The only thing I am hanging onto here is that Gettleman definitely seems to be sending out more smoke this year than he did last year and I think NYG's draft approach seems more fluid/flexible - which naturally comes with the additional capital - but it doesn't feel like we're really married to a specific player like we were with Barkley. At least not at this juncture.
Eli being here and being the one to pass the baton really doesn't bug me that much. The pause when asked if Eli was "promised" the starting gig did, though. I don't understand why it needs to be approached that way.
Just say we know who Eli is, we know what he's capable of and that he'll be given every opportunity to retain his job... but is a promise really necessary at this juncture? If we draft someone or bring someone else in and they outperform him in camp, it should be their job. There's no reason why anyone should just be promised the job given the current landscape of the team.
Until we have one...is it your recommendation to drop the Qb we have first?
Is Jints Central suddenly smart if they drop all QBs and hope for a better one that's younger?
Or are they stupid to drop the one we do have ( no matter what his name) and go into the draft with no one?
Yes. I would have cut Eli for for his cap money. And reinvested that elsewhere. I'm just deferring to the football actuarial tables that Eli is very close to "the cliff". So time to get into the QB audition phase of the transition.
Like Terps, I would be very aggressive to secure Rosen. Economically, it's a win-win. Low risk all the way around. Unfortunately, whatever negative view the Giants had of him last year pre-draft appears, by some accounts, to have extended to this year as well.
Otherwise, there are multiple ways I would play this. Draft a QB in the second or third round this year - I am partial to Finley, Grier, and even Thorson. Or I could consider a trade for Lock at #17, but that's a tougher sell - or trade for a Driskel-type or go with Lauletta. And let the audition begin.
If we fail with any of those, including Rosen, we are likely in the driver's seat for a top QB in the 2020 draft.
As I mentioned earlier, what I like is that we have now have the beginning of a nice offensive infrastructure with a better OL, a terrific RB, a solid slot WR, and a good TE. A solid surrounding for a new QB.
And, the likeliest outcome still remains that we begin the build around and forgo QB picks next year...which is actually what we would almost certainly do even if he sucks. Nobody throws away that pick without giving him more than a year to show for himself...and he retires due to the cerebral hematoma and we are stuck for half a decade in “QB hell”
Quote:
playoffs. Heck, suppose they win it all. And if they did, as you fear reward him and sign Eli for another year and put off the future. Would that be so bad? What if he cold do it again? What if the drop-off really was the OL and D or whatever. Would it be wrong to run for however long the string went?
Of course I would take the silverware, but I think all of that would require overcoming long, long odds.
We have a GM that walked into a mess, a recycled head coach, a team with material gaps on both sides of the ball, and the aging QB.
Does that feel stable to you to produce such an outcome?
Well, this was your scenario in the first place....”My fear is....” so you fear it in one post and argue against the possibility of it happening in another. That makes no sense.
Because of the commitment to Eli, the Giants passed on Darnold in the 2018 draft and do not appear to be interested in Rosen in the 2019 offseason.
Rosen's situation still has yet to play out, and if Arizona opts to keep him I'll admit to being wrong and withdraw any criticism of the Giants for not pursuing him. But if Rosen ends up being traded to the Dolphins or Patriots for a 3rd round pick, I think many of us are going to be within our rights to be aggravated at the Giants' approach.
Both Darnold and Rosen are high level QB prospects. To pass on an opportunity to add either over the course of a year because we thought Eli "could still play"...that would be tough to accept.
And, the likeliest outcome still remains that we begin the build around and forgo QB picks next year...which is actually what we would almost certainly do even if he sucks. Nobody throws away that pick without giving him more than a year to show for himself...and he retires due to the cerebral hematoma and we are stuck for half a decade in “QB hell”
Why would we lose the chance to improve the offensive line by way of surrendering a 2nd round pick for Rosen?
We could go BPA defense @ 6, we could look for ORT @ 17. We can also look OL in round 3 or 4.
Giving up pick 37 and maybe a future 3rd or something of that ilk precludes us from being able to improve the offensive line?
I don't really understand that logic.
Because of the commitment to Eli, the Giants passed on Darnold in the 2018 draft and do not appear to be interested in Rosen in the 2019 offseason.
Rosen's situation still has yet to play out, and if Arizona opts to keep him I'll admit to being wrong and withdraw any criticism of the Giants for not pursuing him. But if Rosen ends up being traded to the Dolphins or Patriots for a 3rd round pick, I think many of us are going to be within our rights to be aggravated at the Giants' approach.
Both Darnold and Rosen are high level QB prospects. To pass on an opportunity to add either over the course of a year because we thought Eli "could still play"...that would be tough to accept.
Do you think that Eli Manning gets a contract from another NFL team right away?
If so - what kind of deal do you think he'd get?
There was no way in hell they were going to draft Darnold to push Eli out the door.
Quote:
We lose the chance to improve the OL that you say youwant to improve (or the DL f we take OL at #17). That pick is a useful asset. So, if he sucks, we lose the chance to better ourselves and go back in the mix with the same quandary about moving up in 2020 but more holes to fill.
And, the likeliest outcome still remains that we begin the build around and forgo QB picks next year...which is actually what we would almost certainly do even if he sucks. Nobody throws away that pick without giving him more than a year to show for himself...and he retires due to the cerebral hematoma and we are stuck for half a decade in “QB hell”
Why would we lose the chance to improve the offensive line by way of surrendering a 2nd round pick for Rosen?
We could go BPA defense @ 6, we could look for ORT @ 17. We can also look OL in round 3 or 4.
Giving up pick 37 and maybe a future 3rd or something of that ilk precludes us from being able to improve the offensive line?
I don't really understand that logic.
That #2 gets us a top tier OL or, as I said, Defensive player (where we need many top players) if they go OL at 17. If they go DL, DL, then they lose the opportunity...minimal chance a starting is in round 3 or later...to fix the line which we say is needed for a young qb to succeed.
Better use of resources is fix the holes this year and plug in the QB afterward.
There was no way in hell they were going to draft Darnold to push Eli out the door.
But It’s easy to bet a paycheck on something that is not testable. At least you can agree that we will never know.
Nope
Quote:
In comment 14348472 Bill L said:
Quote:
We lose the chance to improve the OL that you say youwant to improve (or the DL f we take OL at #17). That pick is a useful asset. So, if he sucks, we lose the chance to better ourselves and go back in the mix with the same quandary about moving up in 2020 but more holes to fill.
And, the likeliest outcome still remains that we begin the build around and forgo QB picks next year...which is actually what we would almost certainly do even if he sucks. Nobody throws away that pick without giving him more than a year to show for himself...and he retires due to the cerebral hematoma and we are stuck for half a decade in “QB hell”
Why would we lose the chance to improve the offensive line by way of surrendering a 2nd round pick for Rosen?
We could go BPA defense @ 6, we could look for ORT @ 17. We can also look OL in round 3 or 4.
Giving up pick 37 and maybe a future 3rd or something of that ilk precludes us from being able to improve the offensive line?
I don't really understand that logic.
That #2 gets us a top tier OL or, as I said, Defensive player (where we need many top players) if they go OL at 17. If they go DL, DL, then they lose the opportunity...minimal chance a starting is in round 3 or later...to fix the line which we say is needed for a young qb to succeed.
Better use of resources is fix the holes this year and plug in the QB afterward.
I don't think the 2nd round pick we'd spend on an offensive lineman has significantly better odds (if better odds at all) of being a "hit" pick than Rosen succeeding or being a starting-caliber QB.
We'd have an extra dart... maybe two. But that doesn't mean we're going to throw bullseyes with them - we may even miss the board entirely.
What if Rosen does pan out? Now we have two top 10 picks from the 2018 draft, a QB/RB duo on rookie deals, and a 3-4 year window to maximize the team around them with the advantages that type of cap structure affords you.
- firing McAdoo and Reese for the benching
- using Accorsi to hire Gettleman
- extending Beckham
- drafting Barkley
- drafting a project QB with Lauletta
- cutting Davis Webb
- signing Tanney
- throwing Lauletta under the bus after his one appearance
- paying Eli his $5M bonus
That all points to "starting QB is not a priority...I think we're good with Eli".
I think Eli is here in 2019, and if he wants to be, 2020 at least.
An insufferable fuck of a troll.
Obviously if that's a route available to us, it's what I'd prefer to do. It makes sense for several reasons.
The only obvious questions are: how willing is Arizona to actually deal him; and how interested are NYG?
Unfortunately, if jt is correct - it seems the latter would render the former question worthless to even answer since he maintains they're a "no" on Rosen.
I don't know if that means the Giants just aren't interested, or if it means that they are - but not at the purported ask.
The only thing I am hanging onto here is that Gettleman definitely seems to be sending out more smoke this year than he did last year and I think NYG's draft approach seems more fluid/flexible - which naturally comes with the additional capital - but it doesn't feel like we're really married to a specific player like we were with Barkley. At least not at this juncture.
Eli being here and being the one to pass the baton really doesn't bug me that much. The pause when asked if Eli was "promised" the starting gig did, though. I don't understand why it needs to be approached that way.
Just say we know who Eli is, we know what he's capable of and that he'll be given every opportunity to retain his job... but is a promise really necessary at this juncture? If we draft someone or bring someone else in and they outperform him in camp, it should be their job. There's no reason why anyone should just be promised the job given the current landscape of the team.
Quote:
Eli Dilfered his two Super Bowls
An insufferable fuck of a troll.
Gettleman has seemingly made it very clear he wants to find the franchises next QB sooner rather than later. I think it's fair to evaluate who we end up with whenever it happens and keep Eli around in the interim. QB's have the highest bust rate of any position - rushing into the first available option seems like an invitation for trouble, especially since we now have the draft capital to be strategic (either this year or next).
If the Giants have a chance to markedly improve the quality of QB play in the medium-term, would that not be an extraordinary good use of resources?
Would you disagree QB has an outsized impact on a team, and the jump from average to good at that position is more impactful than a bad to good jump at say right tackle?
If this is about holes, aren't all holes not created equal, and might there be plenty of "hole" at the QB position that could cover for other less important holes?
Quote:
Better use of resources is fix the holes this year and plug in the QB afterward.
If the Giants have a chance to markedly improve the quality of QB play in the medium-term, would that not be an extraordinary good use of resources?
Would you disagree QB has an outsized impact on a team, and the jump from average to good at that position is more impactful than a bad to good jump at say right tackle?
If this is about holes, aren't all holes not created equal, and might there be plenty of "hole" at the QB position that could cover for other less important holes?
Well, plugging the other holes eases the transition of the QB. But also, I don’t want to just plug with paper mache. The #2 pick gets an OL better than can be gotten otherwise. The qb that we would get next year would be better than we can get therwise. And, I simply don’t think Rosen has any sort of shelf life other than one long enough for us to rely and plan around him.
Gettleman has seemingly made it very clear he wants to find the franchises next QB sooner rather than later. I think it's fair to evaluate who we end up with whenever it happens and keep Eli around in the interim. QB's have the highest bust rate of any position - rushing into the first available option seems like an invitation for trouble, especially since we now have the draft capital to be strategic (either this year or next).
Gettleman made it clear it needs to be addressed. There was urgency. But with Francessa he was cagey about using THIS draft to address it. And I forgot the phrase he used, but it gave the impression that a trade was a possibility. Which got me thinking Rosen was back in the picture. But jt indicated - rather strongly - that there is little to no interest in Rosen. So I'm not sure where we are...
I've been reading and hearing more of a steady beat the Giants were not smitten with Haskins at the Combine. Not sure whether it was the interview and/or his work on the field. So I think it's really a mystery right now where or how Gettleman is looking to solve this problem.
And it seems crystal clear that Lauletta is persona non grata these days.
So until more information is available, I think the formula right now is Eli as the starter and Taney as the back-up.
Are we long-term or not?
Fair enough -- if Rosen just isn't good enough to build around -- then case closed.
I wouldn't worry about easing, or the alternative player. If there is a QB who has the skills to be a good starter and he's available for a 2nd round pick, I make the trade ASAP.
I think he's plenty good to invest a pick and can be a good starter, which I think is a marked improvement over the QB play today. I'd peg the current play as average, with plenty of room of to improve.
I think better QB play can cover for a lot, and dial down the pressure on the management and coaching.
Playing in NYC requires a specific mindset that he does not have.
That's why it would be a mistake to bring him here.
The rest I agree with.
Bw, your nightmare scenario would be more realistic if you had simply stopped at them making the playoffs. That I could see happening and fooling them as it did last time.
Just to be clear, my comment above wasn’t about his mental acuity or personality, neither of which concerns me too much. My comment was about the cranial injury risk and subsequent precipitous retirement.
Are we long-term or not?
I don't know about next year's crop either being some bumper crop. Tua is a great college QB but I think his medical is a real concern. Herbert looks to be a great athlete playing QB. But he really regressed last year, so who knows where he lands. Fromm looks the steadiest, but I don't see anything really on the plus or plus-plus side.
As I've mentioned before, this draft should have better value in the later rounds. I think Finley would be a very worthwhile selection in round two or three. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually slips into the late first.
Quote:
Long-term the draft is rich next year.
Are we long-term or not?
I don't know about next year's crop either being some bumper crop. Tua is a great college QB but I think his medical is a real concern. Herbert looks to be a great athlete playing QB. But he really regressed last year, so who knows where he lands. Fromm looks the steadiest, but I don't see anything really on the plus or plus-plus side.
As I've mentioned before, this draft should have better value in the later rounds. I think Finley would be a very worthwhile selection in round two or three. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually slips into the late first.
I’ve no issue with that. I had Stidham late in my mental mock.
And I’ve said here many times, that I would actually pick a QB in the mid to late rounds every single draft. Thats regardless of the age or tenure of my starter. That’s my lottery ticket and one day it would pay off. Nassib. Webb, Lauletta...I’m okay with them all. Just so long as you cut bait as soon as you know their ceiling.
Quote:
Always enjoy when people are somehow convinced they've captured the mindset and thought process of a kid they've spent no actual time around and don't even know personally....
Just to be clear, my comment above wasn’t about his mental acuity or personality, neither of which concerns me too much. My comment was about the cranial injury risk and subsequent precipitous retirement.
I know - wasn't a response to your posts, Bill - it was the one above mine.
One thing to call it a concern, another to be sure he can't play in New York. Not sure how someone here could possibly have enough information to know that and express it as a certainty, but.. we know how it goes here.
Josh McCown signed a one year contract at 39 years old for 10 million dollars with the Jets.
Alex Smith signed a 5 year, 85 million dollar deal last year.
And you're telling me that Eli would not get another contract from another team if he were cut tomorrow? Okay, yeah, that's totally rational.
Josh McCown signed a one year contract at 39 years old for 10 million dollars with the Jets.
Alex Smith signed a 5 year, 85 million dollar deal last year.
And you're telling me that Eli would not get another contract from another team if he were cut tomorrow? Okay, yeah, that's totally rational.
What team and terms do you think Manning gets if cut today?
I’ve no issue with that. I had Stidham late in my mental mock.
And I’ve said here many times, that I would actually pick a QB in the mid to late rounds every single draft. Thats regardless of the age or tenure of my starter. That’s my lottery ticket and one day it would pay off. Nassib. Webb, Lauletta...I’m okay with them all. Just so long as you cut bait as soon as you know their ceiling.
Speaking my language now. I would draft a QB every year, too - somewhere. It's a very wise strategy because it will pay a dividend sooner or later. And you can never have enough quality at that position.
Quote:
which could go as high as 17-20 million
Josh McCown signed a one year contract at 39 years old for 10 million dollars with the Jets.
Alex Smith signed a 5 year, 85 million dollar deal last year.
And you're telling me that Eli would not get another contract from another team if he were cut tomorrow? Okay, yeah, that's totally rational.
What team and terms do you think Manning gets if cut today?
There is not ONE TEAM that would sign him as a starter.
There is not ONE TEAM that would sign him with a $23 million dollar cap hit.
There are a handful of teams that may toss $5-7 mil with incentives to be a backup.
You ignore probably the single clear problem that probably would have made life hell for any coach they brought it. THEIR DRAFTS HAVE SUCKED. Look at the draft history. Search it now. It is depressing as f****. It is not rocket science why the team is feeling. They have not had great players consistently on the field.
Nice try with the misleading stats at the bottom. 1) What is more relevant is the last few years. 2) Why go back 9 years...how many QB's have started all games except one game in that time period you dumb f****