On the crazy Russell Wilson/Cowherd 3 way deal thread jtgiants (who's been a fantastic resource for all of us this and past offseasons) said the following about the Giants cutting Eli:
| The Giants cutting Eli now would be a dick move and sever his relationship with the Giants by forcing his retirement. They won't do that to him or his legacy. Like it or not it isn't happening. |
I'm not trying to put jtgiants on the spot...I think he's plugged in and giving us an accurate perspective into the Giants' thinking.
You can not operate a football team this way. It's very difficult to win in the NFL if you're making critical decisions based on post-football relationships and legacies. If ever there were a time to ask "What would Belichick do?", this is it.
I very rarely start threads, but I felt this deserved one because jtgiants captured perfectly why Eli is still the QB - and it's not just about winning in 2019.
They are losing behind a porous roster at the LOS and a swiss cheese defense.
Tougher to say, unless you feel Sam Darnold would have immediately come in and played better regardless of how poorly the offensive line played (47 sacks overall with 31 of those coming in the first 8 games, as well as Eli having one of the shortest times to throw in the league, under 2.5 seconds).
But it isn't independent of that.
Just like it isn't for Rosen or Darnold playing for bad teams.
Or even established guys like Dalton or Stafford.
But that's not even the point. The point is we have a descending player at QB who is already playing at a poor level. Darnold may have been worse than Eli in 2018, I don't know...but he'd be an ascending player who many feel has a shot to be very good. The same could be said for Rosen, who we're about to pass on for the second time in a calendar year so that we can continue forward with our descending, poor QB...who costs 4 or 5 times more than Darnold, by the way.
There's a fundamental truth here: Eli is either completely done or at the precipice of done. We had a golden opportunity to make as easy a transition at QB as can possibly happen in the NFL, and we threw it away.
And now instead we're "biding time".
Football is, was, and always will be a team sport. 11 moving parts on offense. Some more critical than others. A team is the sum of it's parts. If an engine has one belt or gear out of alignment or broken, it throws the whole thing off, no matter how well the steering wheel works.
Mayfield was gone.
Darnold flashed brilliance and ineptitude
Rosen is rumored to be traded
Allen had the same accuracy issues as in college, but ran well
If we abandoned a golden opportunity to learn that none of the QB's weren't golden - then it isn't even a mistake, let alone a lost opportunity.
And of course, that is unknown at this time, so it would be nice to not have to continually hear that it has been decided.
In the big picture, this is fairly inconsequential. The Giants will be good again. But it's going to take time. Ditching Eli and throwing in a rookie doesn't automatically turn it around. There are a lot of things that need to happen in order for it to turn around.
It's about managing priorities.
Back to my engine analogy. Let's say you have a bunch of things that are wrong with your engine, and it's going to cost a decent amount of money, which you don't have, to replace them.
You're going to replace them in the order of what will get the car up and running, first, and then address each thing as you can, in order of priority.
Right now, they don't feel Eli Manning is keeping their car from running. They see a bunch of other problems. So they're addressing those while saving up to replace Manning later.
But even if you put the blame entirely on the offensive line, your argument doesn't hold water. Darnold can better cope with a shitty line because he can move. Further, he's still going to be young and improving by the time we fix our offensive line. Eli is not improving, and his cost makes it harder to fix our offensive line than it would have been if we had Darnold (or Rosen).
We opted for an expensive (then) 37 year old over a less expensive 21 year old at the most important position on the field.
And now what? What's the plan at QB? Where are we?
Eventually, all of it needs to be replaced. That process has started. Patience is now needed as they prioritize the order and process to do that.
In the big picture, this is fairly inconsequential. The Giants will be good again. But it's going to take time. Ditching Eli and throwing in a rookie doesn't automatically turn it around. There are a lot of things that need to happen in order for it to turn around.
It's about managing priorities.
Back to my engine analogy. Let's say you have a bunch of things that are wrong with your engine, and it's going to cost a decent amount of money, which you don't have, to replace them.
You're going to replace them in the order of what will get the car up and running, first, and then address each thing as you can, in order of priority.
Right now, they don't feel Eli Manning is keeping their car from running. They see a bunch of other problems. So they're addressing those while saving up to replace Manning later.
What if you could replace one piece with a much cheaper aftermarket part and in doing so, be able to afford to repair the rest of the engine that much more quickly?
You do realize that your analogy is more of a justification than anything else, right?
Quote:
We had a golden opportunity to make as easy a transition at QB as can possibly happen in the NFL, and we threw it away.
Mayfield was gone.
Darnold flashed brilliance and ineptitude
Rosen is rumored to be traded
Allen had the same accuracy issues as in college, but ran well
If we abandoned a golden opportunity to learn that none of the QB's weren't golden - then it isn't even a mistake, let alone a lost opportunity.
And of course, that is unknown at this time, so it would be nice to not have to continually hear that it has been decided.
+1. So far the only QB who has shown the potential to be a top QB is Mayfield, who was gone. Allen, Rosen, and Darnold have not done much of anything, and the jury is still out. Investing in them, and passing on Barkley who is already an all-pro caliber after 1 season, so far looks like the wrong decision to me.
But even if you put the blame entirely on the offensive line, your argument doesn't hold water. Darnold can better cope with a shitty line because he can move. Further, he's still going to be young and improving by the time we fix our offensive line. Eli is not improving, and his cost makes it harder to fix our offensive line than it would have been if we had Darnold (or Rosen).
We opted for an expensive (then) 37 year old over a less expensive 21 year old at the most important position on the field.
And now what? What's the plan at QB? Where are we?
We're talking about money again. You have a finite number of years of cost controlled QB.
Why waste them on a rebuilding roster? Why not build the roster and maximize those years of cost control. Won't we all be better for extending the window of winning football by building an awesome roster and THEN inserting a young QB?
Eventually, all of it needs to be replaced. That process has started. Patience is now needed as they prioritize the order and process to do that.
Is the order in which a team is constructed or rebuilt truly just a formality though? That doesn't seem consistent with how DG described it a year and a half ago:
Isn't that precisely what happens when you build up the rest of the roster before you address your succession plan at QB? It's not what you want to see happen though, which is why I said that your engine analogy is really more of a justification than anything else, IMO.
Seems to me, if you value those five years that much, you'd want everything else in place first before pulling that trigger, no?
Seems to me, if you value those five years that much, you'd want everything else in place first before pulling that trigger, no?
Britt is making a great argument here. He's right
They will have an abundance of cap space next offseason.
Even if you like none of the QBs this year, the 2020 draft class is on track to be better than 2018 or 2019.
Where is this wilderness they are supposedly stuck in?
They referenced the Eagles as an example of drafting Wentz would the lines were mostly already in place.
They referenced the Bills an an example of nothing being set & trading away assets to get the QB.
Interesting listen.
And if we don't pick a QB this year, what then? We sit and hope the Fromm/Herbert/Tua class all stays healthy and somehow we have a shot at them. Maybe we have a decent year this year (I think Beckham will prove to be enormous addition by subtraction) and go 8-8...that's going to put those QBs out of reach. Then what? We trade huge assets to move up and get one? Do we wait ANOTHER year and trade 1% of the franchise for the right to move up to get Lawrence (who knows what he'll be by that point)?
By then, it's possible that Gettleman has retired and/or Shurmur has been fired. What then?
You can't build a team this way.
no it wouldn't. it would have been a valuable year of experience for the QB. The next QB for the Giants will likely have a similar up and down season just like Eli had to start his career.
Thats part of the reason to get the process started sooner rather than later.
There is also a decent probability that the next guy doesn't pan out, and we need to move on. The longer we wait to start the process the longer we wait to return to competitiveness.
How much would taking Darnold instead of Barkley change your view of Gettleman's first season?
It would have been better, but not great. Signing Solder, Omameh, Martin, Stewart, and extending Beckham would have been bad moves. In fact dumping resources into those veterans would have been even worse because the timelines change more with a rookie QB.
But the reality on the ground today is much different and I'd argue much better.
The roster is largely cleared of bad contracts, there are very few starters who will be UFA after this season, and if the Giants grab a young, talented QB in this draft, they'll be on a good path.
the Rams used that formula. You could argue the Bears did too - but I'm not a big Trubisky fan. You could even say the Texans did too.
Britt, what is your view on Haskins/Lock/Jones? Are you open to any being drafted?
Quote:
If we don't pick a QB this year, there's always next year. And we'll be one year better overall with the roster rebuild.
Britt, what is your view on Haskins/Lock/Jones? Are you open to any being drafted?
I'm open to drafting any and every QB that the Giants deem to be worthy of the pick. I do not think they are throwing darts, here. I don't pretend to know enough otherwise.
I believe the Giants have a plan/vision. I also believe they will strategically pull the trigger when the right guy aligns with all of the other moving parts, one of which is Eli's decline.
Seems to me, if you value those five years that much, you'd want everything else in place first before pulling that trigger, no?
I think it goes to the crux of the argument though, and specifically where you and I tend to disagree. If one believes that part of the reason why they're years away specifically is the QB position, then no, you wouldn't wait for that to be the cherry on top.
Chances are, the right answer is probably a little bit of your POV and a little bit of mine, and a whole lot of other stuff that's above our pay grade.
Quote:
then why bother drafting a QB now when you'd just be wasting years of cost control.
Seems to me, if you value those five years that much, you'd want everything else in place first before pulling that trigger, no?
I think it goes to the crux of the argument though, and specifically where you and I tend to disagree. If one believes that part of the reason why they're years away specifically is the QB position, then no, you wouldn't wait for that to be the cherry on top.
Chances are, the right answer is probably a little bit of your POV and a little bit of mine, and a whole lot of other stuff that's above our pay grade.
Now this is something I may be wrong about.... but when DG referred to the "KC plan" everyone assumed it was about the rookie QB sitting and then playing his 2nd year like Mahomes did.
But maybe the KC plan was to get the OL, surround the QB with talent (Hill, Hunt, kelce, Watkins...) and then plug the QB in when everything else was in place.
I dont think Mahomes sitting was the "KC plan" but getting the team around him first.
They referenced the Eagles as an example of drafting Wentz would the lines were mostly already in place.
They referenced the Bills an an example of nothing being set & trading away assets to get the QB.
Interesting listen.
Have not heard it but this sort of echoes my sentiment.
Quote:
then why bother drafting a QB now when you'd just be wasting years of cost control.
Seems to me, if you value those five years that much, you'd want everything else in place first before pulling that trigger, no?
I think it goes to the crux of the argument though, and specifically where you and I tend to disagree. If one believes that part of the reason why they're years away specifically is the QB position, then no, you wouldn't wait for that to be the cherry on top.
Chances are, the right answer is probably a little bit of your POV and a little bit of mine, and a whole lot of other stuff that's above our pay grade.
I don't think Eli is the problem. He clearly isn't what he was, but he's fine for where we are. The OL, and defense sucked, they need to be fixed. A rookie QB is going to get killed, and the team will do even worse. Now if your argument is the team will suck so save money at QB, I think Britt perfectly killed that argument.
Quote:
In comment 14382526 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
then why bother drafting a QB now when you'd just be wasting years of cost control.
Seems to me, if you value those five years that much, you'd want everything else in place first before pulling that trigger, no?
I think it goes to the crux of the argument though, and specifically where you and I tend to disagree. If one believes that part of the reason why they're years away specifically is the QB position, then no, you wouldn't wait for that to be the cherry on top.
Chances are, the right answer is probably a little bit of your POV and a little bit of mine, and a whole lot of other stuff that's above our pay grade.
Now this is something I may be wrong about.... but when DG referred to the "KC plan" everyone assumed it was about the rookie QB sitting and then playing his 2nd year like Mahomes did.
But maybe the KC plan was to get the OL, surround the QB with talent (Hill, Hunt, kelce, Watkins...) and then plug the QB in when everything else was in place.
I dont think Mahomes sitting was the "KC plan" but getting the team around him first.
Interesting perspective, and definitely more consistent with DG's actions than his silly "QB hell" soundbite that I've referenced. I don't know that I agree, but it's not my call to make. I'm satisfied with anything that resembles a real plan (rather than DG just saying "there's a plan, you just don't see it"), even if it isn't the one I've been arguing in favor of.
Related, I think we should probably retire his 2017-18 soundbites from early on (QB hell, hand of God, and the worst of them, IMO, hog mollies) because I think he was playing to the media at first and liked giving those little nuggets much in the same way Accorsi used to.
Here's what makes sense.
1. McAdoo never like Eli - we can agree with that.
2. Reese wanted to move on from Eli, cause he never had his own QB - makes sense, right?
3. Mara, Reese, McAdoo all wanted to see other QBs - we can agree, right?
Now this is where it gets tricky. But it makes perfect sense to me. They all knew the streak was involved. ending it the right way would be complicated. Reese and McAdoo came up with the idea of playing him for a half to appease him. That way they could see the other QBs for at least a half. The pitch to Mara would be something liek that without details. They told Mara that they wanted to see the other QBs.... basically explaining to Mara that they would see mop up time. Mara sees it this way and agrees to it.
Is that so unplausible?
You honestly think that Reese and McAdoo went to Mara and told him despite how Eli was playing that he would only play half? even if he was playing great - they would take him out? And that makes sense?
And like i said earlier.... if Geno Smith played really well against Raiders - he would be then be benched for Webb - because webb did say McAdoo promised him he would start the last 3-4 games?
it makes absolutely zero sense.
I mostly agree with 1,2 and 3 - yes.
You have the details wrong. These three spoke about getting Webb and/or Geno playing time with the season being lost after week 11. Mara agreed that is was time to see the bench strength. So HE asked Reese and McAdoo to draw-up a plan. They did, presented it, and Mara agreed to it. There weren't a bunch of "If-Then" assumptions - e.g. "If Eli is playing great...he can then play the entire game..."
As the week wore on, Mara, who was out of town, wanted to call Reese and McAdoo to say HE wanted more flexibility in the plan. In other words, Mara wanted the caveat that if Eli was playing great they would agree to keep Eli in the game. But Mara NEVER CALLED THEM BACK! And he's admitted as much.
So McAdoo and Reese were ready to execute the plan as designed. Eli plays a half, then the second half would be at McAdoo's discretion. But in the days leading up to the game in Oakland, Eli had his crying-fit, suited up as the martyr, throws down the gauntlet, and the firestorm ensured...
And when Mara saw that firestorm, he was completely cornered and caught off guard. Visions of Phil Simms danced in his head. So he went into survival mode and distanced himself from the f-ckin plan he approved! He saw which way the wind was blowing in the city and decided to make McAdoo and Reese pay for this problem Mara actually created. It was a professional football homicide. And, IMV, showed that Mr. Class wasn't so classy afterall...
Eli is the martyr and McAdoo and Reese are just the sacrificial lambs......
Wrong:
Mara said "Isn't it time we saw some of these other guys"?
Jerry said "I already talked to Ben about it last week".
The end.
Quote:
But in the days leading up to the game in Oakland, Eli had his crying-fit, suited up as the martyr, throws down the gauntlet, and the firestorm ensured...
Eli is the martyr and McAdoo and Reese are just the sacrificial lambs......
Eli says publicly it wouldnt be fair for a QB to come in mid game and play at his highest level. So he tells McAdoo that if he is going to play Smith, let him start so he can have his best chance to succeed.
Youre right.... what a fucking baby.
Remember this as well.... Once Eli told McAdoo this.... ben could have easily just kept on with eli. He still makes the call. When Eli said this to him, it was Christmas to him a month early cause he finally got what he wanted. With this action, the fans ultimately got what they wanted.... McAdoo fired.
Eli (or his management team, most likely) knew exactly what they were doing when they requested that press release. That was a masterstroke in controlling the public sentiment.
Eli (or his management team, most likely) knew exactly what they were doing when they requested that press release. That was a masterstroke in controlling the public sentiment.
I get what you're saying - but lets not act like it wouldnt be a massive story either way.
Translation: please ignore a dark episode in our franchise's recent history in which our beloved savior did indeed have some blood on his own hands.
Irrelevant to our current situation, anything prior.
Magical thinking, as Bill put it.
Quote:
I think people forget that Eli insisted on having the team put out a press release about him being benched. That was the shot across the bow, IMO. He knew he was at odds with McAdoo (and by extension, Reese), and he lit the match for the firestorm that ensued.
Eli (or his management team, most likely) knew exactly what they were doing when they requested that press release. That was a masterstroke in controlling the public sentiment.
I get what you're saying - but lets not act like it wouldnt be a massive story either way.
Oh, it absolutely would have been. But Eli's people controlled the timing, the message, the positioning, all of it. They had him out in front of the media as a sympathetic figure before Mara was even on a plane back to NJ. He correctly identified that McAdoo was operating from a position of weakness and desperation, and he struck first. All of it was perfectly orchestrated, from the refusal to go along with McAdoo's plan (which in a vacuum was insubordination on a very basic level), to the press release, to the follow-up conversation with Mara himself once JM got back.
I happen to think most fans were so quick to react to Eli being benched that they failed to see the puppet strings being pulled by Team Manning (or maybe they just didn't care because they were squarely in Eli's corner either way). It was a truly impressive display of understanding how to manipulate the media. Nobody in the NFL is better at that than the Mannings no matter how many times people insist on some anti-Eli media narrative.
Magical thinking, as Bill put it.
Whatever you say, Britt. You're definitely the balanced voice of reason on this topic.
Let's go back to every time you assumed that any time someone mentioned giving a big contract to an aging veteran that they must be criticizing your beloved rather than realizing that there are other aging veterans that are overpaid.