jtgiants referenced last night that there were some personality concerns with Haskins that also caused him to drop.
It's odd because in watching the draft last night, whenever they went to Haskins, I kept thinking to myself, "this guy's body language just seems poor." Then when he was drafted, there was no elation. Just kind of a ho hum attitude. Gave a very tepid high five to the little girl.
Then you find out about charging the $50 for the draft party and on the Sports Junkies this morning, one of the hosts said he was told that Haskins came to the interviews dressed more like he as going to a club than an interview.
Any one of those in isolation probably no big deal, but in combination point to some potential personality red flags.
PS: I'll admit that reading into his personality based on body language is not the most accurate gauge. Was more a gut reaction.
And he's going to a horrible organization.
Something to watch...
Plus, I don't get why people use his stats as some sort holy grail as to why he "should" have been drafted higher. One year wonder on a team full of NFL talent. Ohio St wins year and year out with a mix of QB's.. Urban Meyer QB's, like the Cal QB's put up stats based on the talent and the scheme they play in. In the NFL many of them have struggled.
Has nothing to do with football, I call myself the king all the time on social media
I honestly don't know. Any time you see a puzzling hire, where an organization picks the candidate who looks, dresses and talks in a way that fits management's comfort zone for the position, it's fair to wonder about implicit bias. Did Haskins's choice of attire for his interview affect the team's perception? Is that a valid criterion?
It's not necessarily a bad thing that Daniel Jones resembles Eli. But it's hard to miss the fact that the Giants have started a black quarterback exactly once - and the coach and GM got fired days later, largely because of that move. Coincidence? Probably. Good look? Not at all, thirty years after the Redskins won a Super Bowl with Doug Williams, or after the Eagles have reached the playoffs with four different black QBs, or with Haskins headed for Washington and Prescott starting in Dallas.
Reminds me of Tyrone Wheatley.
I honestly don't know. Any time you see a puzzling hire, where an organization picks the candidate who looks, dresses and talks in a way that fits management's comfort zone for the position, it's fair to wonder about implicit bias. Did Haskins's choice of attire for his interview affect the team's perception? Is that a valid criterion?
It's not necessarily a bad thing that Daniel Jones resembles Eli. But it's hard to miss the fact that the Giants have started a black quarterback exactly once - and the coach and GM got fired days later, largely because of that move. Coincidence? Probably. Good look? Not at all, thirty years after the Redskins won a Super Bowl with Doug Williams, or after the Eagles have reached the playoffs with four different black QBs, or with Haskins headed for Washington and Prescott starting in Dallas.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Mara didn’t want the face of the Giants to be black. He knows his fan base. All along people here went to lengths to find reasons not to take Haskins. Predictably now they seek character issues.
Quote:
Or maybe the Giant brain trust just thinks Jones is a better quarterback.
I honestly don't know. Any time you see a puzzling hire, where an organization picks the candidate who looks, dresses and talks in a way that fits management's comfort zone for the position, it's fair to wonder about implicit bias. Did Haskins's choice of attire for his interview affect the team's perception? Is that a valid criterion?
It's not necessarily a bad thing that Daniel Jones resembles Eli. But it's hard to miss the fact that the Giants have started a black quarterback exactly once - and the coach and GM got fired days later, largely because of that move. Coincidence? Probably. Good look? Not at all, thirty years after the Redskins won a Super Bowl with Doug Williams, or after the Eagles have reached the playoffs with four different black QBs, or with Haskins headed for Washington and Prescott starting in Dallas.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Mara didn’t want the face of the Giants to be black. He knows his fan base. All along people here went to lengths to find reasons not to take Haskins. Predictably now they seek character issues.
Wouldn't necessarily have kept me from drafting him - but I see it.
And I'm confident Washington will do a terrible job with him.
Quote:
Or maybe the Giant brain trust just thinks Jones is a better quarterback.
I honestly don't know. Any time you see a puzzling hire, where an organization picks the candidate who looks, dresses and talks in a way that fits management's comfort zone for the position, it's fair to wonder about implicit bias. Did Haskins's choice of attire for his interview affect the team's perception? Is that a valid criterion?
It's not necessarily a bad thing that Daniel Jones resembles Eli. But it's hard to miss the fact that the Giants have started a black quarterback exactly once - and the coach and GM got fired days later, largely because of that move. Coincidence? Probably. Good look? Not at all, thirty years after the Redskins won a Super Bowl with Doug Williams, or after the Eagles have reached the playoffs with four different black QBs, or with Haskins headed for Washington and Prescott starting in Dallas.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Mara didn’t want the face of the Giants to be black. He knows his fan base. All along people here went to lengths to find reasons not to take Haskins. Predictably now they seek character issues.
Sure.
That's how implicit bias works. If you asked John Mara or Dave Gettleman about this, you might get blank expressions or vehement, sincere denials. They might simply laugh it off as ridiculous. They are probably 100% certain that race and religion played no role whatsoever in their assessment, and that's probably true. But there are a lot of proxies for those attributes that we discuss openly without realizing what they can easily stand for.
OK, end of sanctimonious lecture.
I honestly don't know. Any time you see a puzzling hire, where an organization picks the candidate who looks, dresses and talks in a way that fits management's comfort zone for the position, it's fair to wonder about implicit bias. Did Haskins's choice of attire for his interview affect the team's perception? Is that a valid criterion?
It's not necessarily a bad thing that Daniel Jones resembles Eli. But it's hard to miss the fact that the Giants have started a black quarterback exactly once - and the coach and GM got fired days later, largely because of that move. Coincidence? Probably. Good look? Not at all, thirty years after the Redskins won a Super Bowl with Doug Williams, or after the Eagles have reached the playoffs with four different black QBs, or with Haskins headed for Washington and Prescott starting in Dallas.
The Maras want WASPs at QB. Preferably from the south. Look at the history.
I do want Daniel to change his name to Slapenshaft or Floozlenest to give him SOME sizzle.
The bigger issue is that he is big and will likely get bigger. That is the main concern that caused the Giants to remove him from their board. Haskins was never a consideration at #6 or #17. After what amounts to biggest interview of his young career, he demonstrates a lack of commitment to conditioning where in a glorified scripted pitch/catch session he looked like a race horse that was ridden hard and put away wet. The Giants concern after that was they would have to constantly manage his weight like Jamarcus Russell.
Wonder how that locker room will be with the likes of Haskins, Collins, and Norman.
In fairness, we already know from our resident insider supersleuth JT that the Giants do indeed keep tabs on birthday party attendance. JT said in no uncertain terms that was one of the reasons why they were out on Rosen*.
*Note: they were not actually out on Rosen until they chose Jones and multiple UCLA teammates were in fact at Rosen's 21st birthday dinner.
Why do you always have to go so hilariously over the top?
Quote:
.
Why do you always have to go so hilariously over the top?
Because I'm right?
Quote:
In comment 14411118 Go Terps said:
Quote:
.
Why do you always have to go so hilariously over the top?
Because I'm right?
Enlighten me please
Quote:
In comment 14411560 Kyle in NY said:
Quote:
In comment 14411118 Go Terps said:
Quote:
.
Why do you always have to go so hilariously over the top?
Because I'm right?
Enlighten me please
My view on Haskins is well documented. BBI has a search feature.
I asked you to tell me why you felt the way you do. You chose to respond with smugness and sanctimony. That's unfortunate as I typically enjoy our discussions, but it is what it is. I noticed the big news for your family in another thread. Congrats on that.
And we'll see on Haskins.
Certainly does not make him a racist, and his hirings of Reese and Ross attest to that.
We can't know whether subconscious bias plays a role in the Giants' scouting of quarterbacks. Eli has held the job for so long that there's very little fresh data. We did have a run of untalented white stiffs in the 90s, including two stints for Kent Graham, when other teams were achieving some success recycling the likes of Randall Cunningham and Rodney Peete. That doesn't look so great. And when the Giants tackled a reclamation project, he was another big, slow white guy. He was also a recovering alcoholic who had shown some shortcomings in the racial sensitivity department. Then came Eli, and now Jones. If the kid succeeds, the run of white QBs will stretch on toward 2030. Does it mean anything? Probably not, but it's the sort of history any organization should re-examine for clues about sub-optimal decision-making.
Cunningham was drafted in 1985, and Pete in 1989 during the height of Simms career with the Giants. Why would they have drafted either? Kent Graham was drafted in the 8th round in 1992
Rodney Peete was an interception machine - he threw more touchdowns than picks twice in his eight years as a starter. I'd take Kent Graham over him today...
On a more relevant note, however -
Uh... really? The coach and GM (who were going to lose their jobs anyway because of how badly the team was performing) lost their jobs when they did because the fans and media took the team to the woodshed over the benching of the incumbent (white) quarterback (you know, so Geno Smith could lead us to the promised land...).
I really think you should take your phony, made-up, badly-reasoned narrative someplace else...
FYI - you sound really dumb here. No quarterback was more criticized/not wanted than Daniel Jones leading up to the draft...
Note the reference to "recycling the likes of Randall Cunningham and Rodney Peete". Cunningham played some very good ball for Minnesota, while the Giants were still kidding themselves that Danny Kanell was an NFL quarterback. Peete had one brief, shining moment against his former team in the wild card round. I didn't mean to suggest that the Giants should have signed either; I'm just pointing out that the Giants are an outlier, and drafting Jones means they are likely to remain one for years to come. I don't know the reasons, and I also said it's probably a coincidence. But any organization with that kind of anomaly can benefit from examining the possible root causes. If they are benign, fine.
Oh yes, you answered it - "Good look? Not at all"
which is present-day speak for "I can't prove it, there's nothing to substantiate it, but I still want to say it, so..."
...and that's why you got the response you did.
To be candid, I do have a specific concern about the evaluation of Josh Rosen. In my view, he and Gettleman are such a glaring mismatch that DG would have to be superhuman to keep the decision exclusively focused on Rosen as a quarterback. The Giants were probably right to pass. I just think it's bizarre that Gettleman's first big decision at the QB position involved so much extra noise.