....start Daniel Jones but is being thwarted by John Mara.
This morning he referenced a recent Shurmur quote when asked by the media for his evaluation of the current QB competition. It was something along the lines of "You heard what our owner recently said." Gio thinks that this implies Shurmur would really like to start Jones now, but he can't do so because his hands are tied.
Mara gave the okay to start Geno or Webb over Eli ending Eli's streak but he's not okay with starting the 6th overall pick who has exceeded expectations thus far over Eli.
Apparently Mara is so beholden to Eli that he makes personnel decisions on whether or not he has placated the Manning family.
The worst part of that take is there are BBI'ers who recite that as gospel truth
The question I keep asking myself is, are the Giants better off 5 years from now if Jones is the starter this season. I feel confident the answer is yes. Then I ask myself, are the Giants better off this year if Eli is the starting QB. My answer is also yes, but I have far less confidence in that take than I do the first one. So with that, I want to start Jones on day one.
Obviously, this is very unlikely to happen, which ultimately I guess is fine. For better or worse, Eli has earned the opportunity to be the opening day starter one last time.
The plan was to start Eli as long as the team was competitive and let whatever QB they drafted sit and learn under him. That's a reasonable plan, but what happens if the QB you drafted is ready to play and gives you the best chance to win?
Not saying Shurmer want to start Jones....but how the hell can anyone deny that Mara will be involved in the decision to switch QB's at some point????
Really? He wouldn't need Mara's consent to bench Eli?
you think mara said no he wants eli to start that shrmur could over rule him?
Mara will have a say in any decisio regarding the qb
Shurmur says John mara only reiterated what he and gettleman have been saying since they drafted Daniel Jones. Of course right on cue the usual media airheads only hear and see what they want to fit their agenda.
There is a reason I never listen to boomers show or really most shows on wfan. Hot garbage with no knowledge of anything.
SiriusXM is so much better
Mara once wanted Eli benched, but since that was botched, he now wants him to start to preserve his legacy and appease the Mannings.
Is that what we are all going with???
I agree. I believe this was what he's trying to say. As far as Mara having to know first before the switch is made that's probably true except in a blowout Jones will then enter the game. PS has put DJ in position to succeed so far. I doubt he wants to start him on the road in Dallas.
Quote:
If Shurmur wants to start Jones, he will.
you think mara said no he wants eli to start that shrmur could over rule him?
Mara will have a say in any decisio regarding the qb
Of course he'll have a say...but if Shurmur is adamant about it, Mara is going to tell him no?
Shurmur is coaching for his future. He may prefer to start Jones but realize if he does (knowing Mara would prefer to play Eli) then his rope gets shorter with another bad season. That has to factor into his decision making.
Not all pressure to do what the owner prefers has to be a stated demand. If Shurmur said he was going to start Jones I think Mara would stand behind it even if he disagreed. But I think he would be on much weaker ground to keep his job if Jones does not play lights out. Shurmur has failed in his first stop as a head coach. If he is fired from here after two seasons he is likely done as a head coach in the NFL.
And I am not saying this because I truly believe he wants to start Jones. Like everyone else on this thread, I have no idea what he really wants so I need to take him at his word. I don't believe if Mara was forcing him to start Eli that he would hint at it in the media.
Quote:
In comment 14535680 Jints in Carolina said:
Quote:
If Shurmur wants to start Jones, he will.
you think mara said no he wants eli to start that shrmur could over rule him?
Mara will have a say in any decisio regarding the qb
Of course he'll have a say...but if Shurmur is adamant about it, Mara is going to tell him no?
If Shurmur approached him today? My take -- Mara would absolutely tell him no. He MAY have been open to the idea of moving on if someone made a compelling case in the offseason (I suspect Mara was a major advocate of bringing Eli back regardless), but once they brought him back in the offseason they absolutely were not taking the starting job away from him before even Week 1.
When the decision was made to keep Eli for the year and let him play out his contract, I believe it was a decision that Pat, Dave and John all made together, as you would expect on a decision of that magnitude. Whether or not that decision is in the best long term interest of the franchise is a debate for another thread.
I do not buy that Mara had no say in the matter though.
Me too. Daniel Jones is Shurmur's QB. That is the QB he and Gettleman drafted, that is who will or will not define and decide their futures with this organization. Everyone knows NFL stands for Not For Long, and this is especially true when it comes to tenure as a head coach in the league. Will Shurmur survive a disaster season with Eli under center? Do you think that crosses his mind? Of course it does. Here's the thing, young QBs with no starting experience in the NFL do not win many games. If you're Shurmur, do you want to start that clock sooner or later? If I'm him, I want Jones to start getting experience with live bullets flying and ramp up that development clock. That is Shurmur's best chance for long-term stability with the organization. If Eli plays this season and the team doesn't win, and then Jones starts next year and he team doesn't win, Shurmur's job will be in jeopardy.
Mara once wanted Eli benched, but since that was botched, he now wants him to start to preserve his legacy and appease the Mannings.
Is that what we are all going with???
Eli looked very good last game as well. In the end, I assume Shurmur is going to want to start a guy that knows his system down pat and will make all the right calls.
If/when Eli shows he's not capable of being an average to above-average NFL quarterback behind a better OL, Shurmur will make the change. I understand why the media wants to fuel these fires, but it's really based on a shitload of speculation.
Quote:
In comment 14535680 Jints in Carolina said:
Quote:
If Shurmur wants to start Jones, he will.
you think mara said no he wants eli to start that shrmur could over rule him?
Mara will have a say in any decisio regarding the qb
Of course he'll have a say...but if Shurmur is adamant about it, Mara is going to tell him no?
if shurmur went into maras office today and said he thinks jones gives him the best chance to win and it is better for the future of the franchise that jones starts, you think mara says ok?
Quote:
If Shurmur wants to start Jones, he will.
Really? He wouldn't need Mara's consent to bench Eli?
Mara has already stated that.
Anything else is the spin in your own head.
This is from MMQB:
At this point, any controversy seems manufactured; the product of the first real whiff of a quarterback controversy this part of New Jersey has seen in more than a decade.”
That said, I don't think that was the Gettlemen plan and the plan isn't changing because the kid completed a few passes in preseason games against scrubs. For the business minded, Mara isn't writing multi-million dollar checks to Manning to sit on the bench in the final year of his contract. Manning is playing this year.
For anyone to think that Mara is not involved here is simply choosing to ignore the obvious. Sure, Mara approved the decision to bench Eli. Mara then quickly changed his story and, within a week of the benching, fired McAdoo and Reese. Mara then opened his mouth within the past week or so and stated that he hopes DJ doesn't play a down this season.
I have no idea if Mara is "thwarting" the attempts to start DJ. But, it's not as simple as Shurmur going, "I'm starting DJ, deal with it".
Quote:
In comment 14535687 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
In comment 14535680 Jints in Carolina said:
Quote:
If Shurmur wants to start Jones, he will.
you think mara said no he wants eli to start that shrmur could over rule him?
Mara will have a say in any decisio regarding the qb
Of course he'll have a say...but if Shurmur is adamant about it, Mara is going to tell him no?
if shurmur went into maras office today and said he thinks jones gives him the best chance to win and it is better for the future of the franchise that jones starts, you think mara says ok?
1) I don't think Mara okays it at this juncture.
2) I think putting Eli's legacy or anyone's opportunities over the team vision is the worst way to manage an organization.
if shurmur went into maras office today and said he thinks jones gives him the best chance to win and it is better for the future of the franchise that jones starts, you think mara says ok?
Shurmur wouldn't walk into Mara's office, he'd walk into Gettleman's. As I said earlier, the starting QB is an organizational decision, and that is not unique to the Giants.
1) I don't think Mara okays it at this juncture.
2) I think putting Eli's legacy or anyone's opportunities over the team vision is the worst way to manage an organization.
Absent any evidence whatsoever, conjecture is just fantasy.
Quote:
Jones would start. The rest is nonsense.
Shurmur doesn't have that kind of juice. He's lucky to even be a head coach and he won't be one for much longer unless he cracks the magical 6 win barrier that has so far eluded him as a HC. He will do what he is told and like it or he'll be replaced.
That said, I don't think that was the Gettlemen plan and the plan isn't changing because the kid completed a few passes in preseason games against scrubs. For the business minded, Mara isn't writing multi-million dollar checks to Manning to sit on the bench in the final year of his contract. Manning is playing this year.
I also completely agree with this statement. Executives and coaches take the safe approach: namely, what will keep them employed. If Shurmur starts Eli and the team loses, and then he moves on to Jones, he's safe. It's what the owner wants and then no one will blame him.
Alternatively, if Shurmur starts DJ, and the team is horrendous (with DJ flopping, even if only for his rookie season), he will have ticked off the owner, and everyone will second guess his decision to sit Eli for this season.
Here's my take:
1) Shurmur and DG will be talking with each other and Mara for many weeks before any switch. It won't be one week Shurmur walks in and says now's the time.
2) The fans will be calling for the switch long before it happens. This will soften Mara's sensitivities.
3) The debate will be how they define 'out of playoff contention'. Mathematically? Realistically? And it will be an intense debate. The media will be a divisive click bait hurricane and the fans will be restless.
PREDICTION: PAIN
Showing what a moron he is.
Nothing to see here -- and in my opinion Jones will benefit from not being rushed onto the regular season field
However, one thing I do believe right now is that Jones should be the clear backup if Eli goes down. Tanney on the field is lose, lose as is Lauletta
Quote:
Jones would start. The rest is nonsense.
Shurmur doesn't have that kind of juice. He's lucky to even be a head coach and he won't be one for much longer unless he cracks the magical 6 win barrier that has so far eluded him as a HC. He will do what he is told and like it or he'll be replaced.
That said, I don't think that was the Gettlemen plan and the plan isn't changing because the kid completed a few passes in preseason games against scrubs. For the business minded, Mara isn't writing multi-million dollar checks to Manning to sit on the bench in the final year of his contract. Manning is playing this year.
As an investor, the worst thing to do is look back on $$ spent to influence future decisions. Paying Eli elite $$ and playing him have to be viewed as two different things. Whether the compensation is a mistake or not is one thing. Don't double down on the mistake by starting him if he will continue to play poorly as I would expect.
Quote:
In comment 14535651 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
Jones would start. The rest is nonsense.
Shurmur doesn't have that kind of juice. He's lucky to even be a head coach and he won't be one for much longer unless he cracks the magical 6 win barrier that has so far eluded him as a HC. He will do what he is told and like it or he'll be replaced.
That said, I don't think that was the Gettlemen plan and the plan isn't changing because the kid completed a few passes in preseason games against scrubs. For the business minded, Mara isn't writing multi-million dollar checks to Manning to sit on the bench in the final year of his contract. Manning is playing this year.
As an investor, the worst thing to do is look back on $$ spent to influence future decisions. Paying Eli elite $$ and playing him have to be viewed as two different things. Whether the compensation is a mistake or not is one thing. Don't double down on the mistake by starting him if he will continue to play poorly as I would expect.
Expectations borne of hope and fantasy. By all accounts, Eli has been the best Qb in camp this summer and, even when comparing him to himself of last year, looks significantly better. As an investor, I would want my sunk money to be best used to produce the best product. Seems like that aligns pretty well with fantastical theories of Mara's directives.
Pats comment taken in context included the fact that he had been saying the same thing from the beginning, with the insinuation that the media had either ignored or misconstrued his comments.
Sadly this BS is the norm these days and not only for 'sports journalists' but nearly everyone in the media in any capacity.
What, the quality of posts improves during the regular season??
people who hate superhero movies think it's total BS.
I am so right about this
people who hate superhero movies think it's total BS.
I am so right about this
I may be an outlier to your thesis. I don't like superhero movies, and I think Mara certainly weighs on the QB decision-making of the last couple seasons through the present.
If the Giants are 3-5 halfway through, there has to be a realistic discussion of moving toward DJ, let him have his growing pains and work through his struggles. Ultimately, if the Giants end up 6-10 and we leave 2019 with an of 2004 feeling (i.e., Eli leads the game winning drive against Dallas), I think the season will have been at least a moderate success and the arrow is pointing up.
Must be ripping off bbi for talking points. I expect a convoluted rambling on Redskins name and gun control next.
Gettleman was fired from Carolina because h3 discussed moving on from a couple of Richardson's two favorite players. They fought and it ultimately lead to Gettleman's dismissal.
Gettleman was fired from Carolina because h3 discussed moving on from a couple of Richardson's two favorite players. They fought and it ultimately lead to Gettleman's dismissal.
One way or another, the three of them (at a minimum) came to the decision in the offseason that Eli was the starting quarterback to begin 2019 (we may all debate who wanted what within that process, and realistically will probably never know). But, in making the decision, they likely established that regardless of the outcome of the draft, there wouldn't be any change to that decision until the season was a few games underway, at least.
It would be surprising if the offseason decisions were made in such a fashion (in terms of the communication between owner/GM/coach) that Shurmur felt like it was even an option at this stage to propose that Eli not be the starter Week 1.
So the whole hypothetical of "Shurmur walks into DG's office today..." seems far-fetched.
I say this as someone who felt the best course of action was to move on from Eli in the offseason (or sooner...) -- if they chose to start Jones week 1 right now, it would really call into question what they hell they are doing in terms of the way they make decisions as an organization.
As for Mara, well, I have absolutely no doubt the delegations of authority at Jints Central precludes Shurmur from making ANY final decisions on Eli without Mara's signature.
He would and it'd eventually go through once he convinced Mara. If one doesn't think Mara has ties to the Mannings, then one is blindly fooled. But, if schurmur wanted to really start Jones, he would..but unlike other situations, he'd really have to sell Mara
As for Mara, well, I have absolutely no doubt the delegations of authority at Jints Central precludes Shurmur from making ANY final decisions on Eli without Mara's signature.
If only PS could get them to allow DJ to run his offense against something other than a defense.
Personally, I think Eli will perform well with this line and the team as a whole is going to challenge for the East. If they fall out of contention, then Jones will be inserted imo.
Having seen Wellington allow his beloved Phill Simms released and son John allowing Eli to be benched for Geno Smith, should be enough evidence to make one at least consider that their “Mara calls the shots” narrative might not be true; but it won’t, nothing will.
As for Mara, well, I have absolutely no doubt the delegations of authority at Jints Central precludes Shurmur from making ANY final decisions on Eli without Mara's signature.
Wait a second... Having a 15 year NFL veteran QB who has already had a year in the system is going to limit the playbook vs. a rookie QB who has only had the playbook in his hands for a couple of months, not to mention never taking a snap vs. an NFL caliber defense?
Thank you. If the cannot report a story, they make on up...
Like FMiC said... Mara wanted Eli benched and now he insists that he start? Really?
If Mara told Shurmur that he wanted Eli to start, that would be the best scenario for Shurmur. He gets an out of jail free card because the owner made that decision. It also takes the tough decision away from Shurmur.
Did any of you think that "IF" Mara said something like that it would be to help suppress the QB controversy and make it easier for Shurmur?
The idea that the head coach wants to start a rookie QB in week 1 even though the kid has played only about one half of pre season football and has not seen a #1 defense yet is just ridiculous.
People here are getting played every day... and have no idea that it is happening.
Wait a second... Having a 15 year NFL veteran QB who has already had a year in the system is going to limit the playbook vs. a rookie QB who has only had the playbook in his hands for a couple of months, not to mention never taking a snap vs. an NFL caliber defense?
Correct. Being a year in the system doesn’t change the fact that Eli can’t perform the parts that require mobility. Shurmur prefers the dual threat QB, especially the QB with the ability to make impromptu plays.
Eli needs many elements in the offense to be clicking to be successful. On paper, Jones looks to not require all of those prerequisites.
Imagine you're Pat and you guess wrong on the "What dopey plan does John Mara have this time for Manning" quiz.
Quote:
Wait a second... Having a 15 year NFL veteran QB who has already had a year in the system is going to limit the playbook vs. a rookie QB who has only had the playbook in his hands for a couple of months, not to mention never taking a snap vs. an NFL caliber defense?
Correct. Being a year in the system doesn’t change the fact that Eli can’t perform the parts that require mobility. Shurmur prefers the dual threat QB, especially the QB with the ability to make impromptu plays.
Eli needs many elements in the offense to be clicking to be successful. On paper, Jones looks to not require all of those prerequisites.
Quote:
Wait a second... Having a 15 year NFL veteran QB who has already had a year in the system is going to limit the playbook vs. a rookie QB who has only had the playbook in his hands for a couple of months, not to mention never taking a snap vs. an NFL caliber defense?
Correct. Being a year in the system doesn’t change the fact that Eli can’t perform the parts that require mobility. Shurmur prefers the dual threat QB, especially the QB with the ability to make impromptu plays.
Eli needs many elements in the offense to be clicking to be successful. On paper, Jones looks to not require all of those prerequisites.
Are we talking designed run/option type plays here? Because if not, the ability to run or not doesn't "open up or limit the playbook". Seems to me you're mistaking the ability to extend plays with the ability/knowledge to diagnose the defense and execute plays.
-he declared Eli the starter last week
-he said it's Shurmur's decision but those are hollow words when the last hc was fired midseason after benching Eli
-after he said it was Shurmur's decision he said that he wants to be notified beforehand(why?)
-during spring camp Shurmur insinuated best man plays and since then has done everything he can to backtrack and declare Eli the starter
-has never once said Eli gives the team the best chance to win, which is a boilerplate soundbyte when you want the media to drop a qb controversy
-DJ hasn't had a single snap with the 1's in camp, Eli hasn't even taken a play off for a veteran break or even a water break. Really unusual for a 38 year old guy. Really unusual to not get the backup familiar with the starters. It all reeks of avoiding a "qb controversay" at all costs
Jones has the tools run Shurmur's offense better than Eli does and is not just looking competent, but exceptional. This is not a normal situation. Mara invites the Manning family into the owner's booth every week and said the decision to move on from Eli will be 'tough and emotional'. We all love Eli but deciding who to start should be cold and calculated, just like the other 89 players on the roster. I am sure there's plenty of guys that are going to get cut in 2 weeks that gave their all, are good people and have inspiring back stories but just aren't good enough to make the 53.
It's debatable at this point whether we win more games with Eli than Jones this year but DJ is the future of this team. He is going to make rookie mistakes in his first few games whether they come in 2019 or in 2020. There' s not a reasonable expectation of our squad winning a SB this year but next year we have 70 million dollars to spend after 2 or 3 really solid drafts. There is a legit chance at a deep run next year but instead you are taking a 3 year rebuild and making it a 4 year rebuild. There is no upside. I don't want to go into that season with a qb that's learning the ropes. I can't imagine that Shurmur wants to either when his job is almost certainly on the line. Mara should, and probably will, give Eli a job inside the organization when he hangs it up but he needs to let the coach make the decisions regarding who starts and who plays. The NYG has had success because ownership has traditionally taken a hands-off approach to these situations. Really don't want to see this team run like the Knicks and the Redskins or the Cowboys because those teams don't win
Gio is clearly trying to stir the pot.
I think it is a decent plan.
Barring a miraculous run by Eli, Jones likely starts mid-season against the Cardinals. He needs to play.
But, if Eli makes a playoff run, which is unlikely, it would be a great thing to see. How could they bench him if the team is winning and he's playing well? Wouldn't make any sense.
Its a win-win for the Giants.
--- Either Eli takes them on a magical run...
--- Or, DJ gets playing time and the team gets ready for 2020, a big year given the amount of cap they have.
Both will keep the fans engaged with the team.
-DJ hasn't had a single snap with the 1's in camp, Eli hasn't even taken a play off for a veteran break or even a water break. Really unusual for a 38 year old guy. Really unusual to not get the backup familiar with the starters. It all reeks of avoiding a "qb controversay" at all costs
Gio is clearly trying to stir the pot.
I think it is a decent plan.
Barring a miraculous run by Eli, Jones likely starts mid-season against the Cardinals. He needs to play.
But, if Eli makes a playoff run, which is unlikely, it would be a great thing to see. How could they bench him if the team is winning and he's playing well? Wouldn't make any sense.
Its a win-win for the Giants.
--- Either Eli takes them on a magical run...
--- Or, DJ gets playing time and the team gets ready for 2020, a big year given the amount of cap they have.
Both will keep the fans engaged with the team.
Or you just evaluate both quarterbacks equally and the best man plays. What could go wrong there from a team perspective?
-DJ hasn't had a single snap with the 1's in camp, Eli hasn't even taken a play off for a veteran break or even a water break. Really unusual for a 38 year old guy. Really unusual to not get the backup familiar with the starters. It all reeks of avoiding a "qb controversay" at all costs
It's absolutely odd. You have seen 4th,5th,6th,7th rounders and UDFAs getting limited snaps with the 1s but your #6 overall pick has never spelled a 38 year old qb? Something stinks there, and when the owner says "i hope Daniel Jones doesn't play all season" I definitely believe him.
-DJ hasn't had a single snap with the 1's in camp, Eli hasn't even taken a play off for a veteran break or even a water break. Really unusual for a 38 year old guy. Really unusual to not get the backup familiar with the starters. It all reeks of avoiding a "qb controversay" at all costs
I guess it is only odd if you don't understand the way camp works. Most team practices are just like this. The #1 QB gets his reps with the starters. They don't give the #2 guy reps sprinkled in. They don't take individual water breaks.
It really is like people actively look for ways to feed a conspiracy and they apparently don't mind looking ignorant when it comes to practice protocol while espousing such thoughts.
Quote:
Who finds this even the teeny bit odd.
-DJ hasn't had a single snap with the 1's in camp, Eli hasn't even taken a play off for a veteran break or even a water break. Really unusual for a 38 year old guy. Really unusual to not get the backup familiar with the starters. It all reeks of avoiding a "qb controversay" at all costs
I guess it is only odd if you don't understand the way camp works. Most team practices are just like this. The #1 QB gets his reps with the starters. They don't give the #2 guy reps sprinkled in. They don't take individual water breaks.
It really is like people actively look for ways to feed a conspiracy and they apparently don't mind looking ignorant when it comes to practice protocol while espousing such thoughts.
Except there have been 2nd and 3rd teamers that have taken reps with the 1s at every position group besides qb. Mostly for older guys that wanted and/or needed a break. And none of them are as old as Eli and none of the fill ins were drafted as high as Jones. So despite your haughty tone you are absolutely full of shit.
You show me the camps around the league where the #1 QB is splitting reps with the #2 QB. If there is a clear starter, they don't. Again - if you've followed the sport, this is common protocol. Hell, even in Carolina, Cam Newton is coming off of a shoulder injury and he's taking the practice reps and not the backup.
Like I said above, it seems you really don't give a fuck if you sound like you have no clue what goes on in practices, but are damn sure going to rail against it anyways!
Quote:
Who finds this even the teeny bit odd.
-DJ hasn't had a single snap with the 1's in camp, Eli hasn't even taken a play off for a veteran break or even a water break. Really unusual for a 38 year old guy. Really unusual to not get the backup familiar with the starters. It all reeks of avoiding a "qb controversay" at all costs
I guess it is only odd if you don't understand the way camp works. Most team practices are just like this. The #1 QB gets his reps with the starters. They don't give the #2 guy reps sprinkled in. They don't take individual water breaks.
It really is like people actively look for ways to feed a conspiracy and they apparently don't mind looking ignorant when it comes to practice protocol while espousing such thoughts.
Both Lauletta and Webb got reps with the 1s last year.
Are you saying its normal for a vet of Eli's stature to take 100.000% of the reps?
Brees Took a day off
https://wwl.radio.com/blogs/steve-geller/emmanuel-butler-back-saints-practice-drew-brees-gets-day
Brady took a day off
https://www.wcvb.com/article/tom-brady-gets-day-off-at-patriots-training-camp-practice/28519089
Big Ben took a day off
https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2019/7/28/8934068/ben-roethlisberger-maurkice-pouncey-get-day-off-the-first-practice-in-pads-training-camp-mike-tomlin
You still want to talk about not understanding practice protocol?
And I even think you guys are wrong. I think in some of the early practices, Tanney had a few reps.
It is common to see the #1 QB get the reps when he's on the field. It isn't common to have the #1 guy go off for a water break and usher the #2 guy in. You are more apt to see an entire practice with him off.
But what you guys are insinuating is that because Eli isn't leaving the field that Jones is being stifled by Mara.
You don't find that to be a pretty stupid conclusion?
dupe accusations coming in 3....2.....1....
Jones is likely going to get the start in the final preseason game when Eli sits. That will be time with the ones. And that is pretty standard.
Don't cherry pick, what Fatman is saying is pretty common. Whomever is deemed the starting QB for week 1 is going to get the majority of training camp.
Patrick Mahomes sat on the bench for an entire year behind Alex Smith.
Quote:
That's gonna sting
dupe accusations coming in 3....2.....1....
LOL. Well, it is clear you are thinking it, but if guessing you're going to throw shade on the poster who actually calls him out.
You literally take the least popular side even when you know it is wrong.
And I even think you guys are wrong. I think in some of the early practices, Tanney had a few reps.
It is common to see the #1 QB get the reps when he's on the field. It isn't common to have the #1 guy go off for a water break and usher the #2 guy in. You are more apt to see an entire practice with him off.
But what you guys are insinuating is that because Eli isn't leaving the field that Jones is being stifled by Mara.
You don't find that to be a pretty stupid conclusion?
No.
But to suggest that Mara is intervening to limit Jones' reps in practice or the day-to-day on-goings of the team is a bridge too far. Way too far. But that's just me.
Do you believe Mara has issued a directive that Jones is not to get snaps with the 1's.
Put the cards on the table, Chief.
But to suggest that Mara is intervening to limit Jones' reps in practice or the day-to-day on-goings of the team is a bridge too far. Way too far. But that's just me.
No offense, but personally, I believe the whole Mara/Eli starting thing is the main reason that Reynolds and Alcoa's stock prices are up.
*Who the QB of the Giants is is a Mara decision, and he made that clear during the McAdoo fiasco. He actually used those exact words. Both John and Chris are heavily involved and have final say. It is really no different than many other corporations - it's Gettleman and Shurmur's job to carry out the wishes of the CEO, and take the brunt of all decisions. In this way, no different than what's happening at Alex & Ani, BlackRock or any other large corporation. The owner is shielded and stays above the fray even though they are completely in charge.
They will just never say it. Only in regards to the QB - Mara did.
And I even think you guys are wrong. I think in some of the early practices, Tanney had a few reps.
It is common to see the #1 QB get the reps when he's on the field. It isn't common to have the #1 guy go off for a water break and usher the #2 guy in. You are more apt to see an entire practice with him off.
But what you guys are insinuating is that because Eli isn't leaving the field that Jones is being stifled by Mara.
You don't find that to be a pretty stupid conclusion?
Its been reported that Eli has taken 100% of the reps.
Stop latching on to one phrase like water break and jumping to extreme conclusions on my behalf.
My stance is nothing more than what I wrote. I find it odd that our vet QB hasn't taken 1 rep off and that your #6 pick, who is showing he belongs, hasn't gotten 1 session in.
I'm not insinuating some Mara led conspiracy
Don't cherry pick, what Fatman is saying is pretty common. Whomever is deemed the starting QB for week 1 is going to get the majority of training camp.
There's a vast difference between 'majority' and 100%. I fully expected Eli to get the majority of reps and didn't envision a 50/50 qb competition. But i also didn't imagine DJ getting exactly zero snaps and the owner saying that he hopes out top draft pick doesn't see the field. He didn't have to say that, it is as simple as saying "having 2 top caliber quarterbacks is a good problem to have". He should've been rehearsing that answer for months. And everything the QB controversy co. Es up Shurmur looks like someone put a gun to his head.
If you think Eli is the best QB you should welcome a challenge instead of being put in a corner where you have to defend a guy who hasn't had to prove anything. You can say it's only preseason but DJ looks better than Eli has in 5 years, or maybe ever, there is not reason to get defensive if you want whats best for the team.
Yet, somehow gettleman is going to allow John mara dictate who plays, when they play and so on and so forth and gettleman is just going to bow.
I heard time and time again how it would be the same as it was and nothing was going to change with the hiring gettleman. Well, we have all seen that wasn't the case as gettleman has got rid of big name players like Beckham, snacks, Collins and Vernon, so now we get this.
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, we still have people that will pound their fists that this is all John mara
Quote:
that Mara is a big part of the reason why Eli is the starting QB this season..
But to suggest that Mara is intervening to limit Jones' reps in practice or the day-to-day on-goings of the team is a bridge too far. Way too far. But that's just me.
No offense, but personally, I believe the whole Mara/Eli starting thing is the main reason that Reynolds and Alcoa's stock prices are up.
Everyone knows where you stand on it, boss. Eli deserves everything and anyone who says otherwise is crazy. Don't waste the keystrokes.
Quote:
I'm saying it isn't odd for the #1 QB to get the reps. There's a leap being made that Eli taking all the reps is something the owner is forcing as if it is being done for appearances only.
And I even think you guys are wrong. I think in some of the early practices, Tanney had a few reps.
It is common to see the #1 QB get the reps when he's on the field. It isn't common to have the #1 guy go off for a water break and usher the #2 guy in. You are more apt to see an entire practice with him off.
But what you guys are insinuating is that because Eli isn't leaving the field that Jones is being stifled by Mara.
You don't find that to be a pretty stupid conclusion?
Its been reported that Eli has taken 100% of the reps.
Stop latching on to one phrase like water break and jumping to extreme conclusions on my behalf.
My stance is nothing more than what I wrote. I find it odd that our vet QB hasn't taken 1 rep off and that your #6 pick, who is showing he belongs, hasn't gotten 1 session in.
I'm not insinuating some Mara led conspiracy
Eli is the 2019 #1 QB. Period. It's no more for Jones to take snaps with the first team offense than it is Tanney or Lauletta. And, generally you're not seeing the #1 or #2 QB take snaps with the #2 and #1 offenses, respectively. WHat you usually see id bob-QB #2 gys rotating in and out of the #1 offense, giving the impression that it's the QB's who are switching. Besides, Jones has clearly gotten snaps with the #1 offense in games, which one would assume both counts and is relevant.
Fantasizing something out of nothing seems to be the BBI M.O. this year. Hopefully, it won't carry forward into September but I am skeptical about that.
It is a fairly simple question to answer.
Quote:
In comment 14537838 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
that Mara is a big part of the reason why Eli is the starting QB this season..
But to suggest that Mara is intervening to limit Jones' reps in practice or the day-to-day on-goings of the team is a bridge too far. Way too far. But that's just me.
No offense, but personally, I believe the whole Mara/Eli starting thing is the main reason that Reynolds and Alcoa's stock prices are up.
Everyone knows where you stand on it, boss. Eli deserves everything and anyone who says otherwise is crazy. Don't waste the keystrokes.
I don't know what he deserves. I do know that every report has him playing as well or better than he ever has and every report has him as the clear best QB in camp. But this really has nothing to do with Eli doing anything; it has to do with Mara. It's completely a conspiratorial fantasy to say he's dictating anything. In fact, last week, he explicitly said that it was SHurmer's call and only SHurmer's call. All he asked for was to be told about it instead of having to read it in the papers. As an owner, I think that should be his prerogative.
It is a fairly simple question to answer.
I'll answer. No Mara didn't order a directive that Jones shouldn't get any snaps
Now your turn.
Is it odd that Jones hasn't gotten 1 snap at this point in camp?
Simple yes or no will suffice
I'll also add that Jones has had snaps with the 1's in both preseason games.
And that isn't odd either.
Lauletta got first team practice reps last year
The real truth is - My comment was made as a disclaimer to further emphasize how crazy it is to suggest that Mara is intervening on Jones' participation level in practice. And yet it somehow still itched your Eli-related sensitivities to the point where you needed to take the conversation on a tangent.
Quote:
Neither has Lauletta, btw
Lauletta got first team practice reps last year
I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. That it was common for Eli to be spelled but this year he's stubbornly taking all the reps. That something nefarious is underfoot keeping Jones from playing with the ones? Two years ago, Webb got hardly any reps with the 1's or 2's which is why he wasn't available to start when eli was benched, but I don't think any other QB was getting reps in that camp either.
In a year when Mara supposedly wanted Eli benched.....
Yet, somehow gettleman is going to allow John mara dictate who plays, when they play and so on and so forth and gettleman is just going to bow.
I heard time and time again how it would be the same as it was and nothing was going to change with the hiring gettleman. Well, we have all seen that wasn't the case as gettleman has got rid of big name players like Beckham, snacks, Collins and Vernon, so now we get this.
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, we still have people that will pound their fists that this is all John mara
He was asked about the QB situation and he said 'the owner' twice. He didn't speak to eith player's strengths or weaknesses, he said 'he' s the owner.... We are on the same page...you heard if from the owner'
It's super super easy to say that Eli is playing lights-out football. It's super super easy to say Jones is coming along nicely but you can't expect him to beat out a 15 year vet and 2x superbowl MVP. It's super easy to say that he is going to play the best man that gives him the best chance to win.
He goes out of his way to make sure he doesn't say any of tjose things. He only says 'Eli is the starter, you heard it from the owner'.
It's not a conspiracy theory is just obvious to anyone that has ever had to defer to a boss and say 'it is what it is, if that' s what they want I have to do it'.
Doesn't sound like a day off situation either.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14537875 Bill L said:
Quote:
Neither has Lauletta, btw
Lauletta got first team practice reps last year
I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. That it was common for Eli to be spelled but this year he's stubbornly taking all the reps. That something nefarious is underfoot keeping Jones from playing with the ones? Two years ago, Webb got hardly any reps with the 1's or 2's which is why he wasn't available to start when eli was benched, but I don't think any other QB was getting reps in that camp either.
In a year when Mara supposedly wanted Eli benched.....
who thinks mara wanted eli benched?
we could actually have a decent conversation if you would just stop with accusing the other side of hot takes all the time
That he told McAdoo to bench him? That isn't what was said here?
And isn't the whole narrative that Eli is to remain the starter purported on the premise that Mara had the benching blow up in his face and now is indebted to the Mannings for life?
Quote:
Was the owner when reese / mcadoo was here and still the owner with gettleman and shurmur and yet we see two totally different ways the team is run especially with personnel. Dave gettleman was fired from the Panthers because he wouldn't bow to an owner who wanted to dictate personnel decisions to him and not allow gettleman to do his job.
Yet, somehow gettleman is going to allow John mara dictate who plays, when they play and so on and so forth and gettleman is just going to bow.
I heard time and time again how it would be the same as it was and nothing was going to change with the hiring gettleman. Well, we have all seen that wasn't the case as gettleman has got rid of big name players like Beckham, snacks, Collins and Vernon, so now we get this.
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, we still have people that will pound their fists that this is all John mara
He was asked about the QB situation and he said 'the owner' twice. He didn't speak to eith player's strengths or weaknesses, he said 'he' s the owner.... We are on the same page...you heard if from the owner'
It's super super easy to say that Eli is playing lights-out football. It's super super easy to say Jones is coming along nicely but you can't expect him to beat out a 15 year vet and 2x superbowl MVP. It's super easy to say that he is going to play the best man that gives him the best chance to win.
He goes out of his way to make sure he doesn't say any of tjose things. He only says 'Eli is the starter, you heard it from the owner'.
It's not a conspiracy theory is just obvious to anyone that has ever had to defer to a boss and say 'it is what it is, if that' s what they want I have to do it'.
Way to distort the context of SHurmer's response to a reporter's question. Kudos.
The latest hot take is actually that Mara is intentionally keeping Jones from getting reps. You know "Prude" is actually holding this as a position.
Or is that completely unimportant to you?
Except there have been 2nd and 3rd teamers that have taken reps with the 1s at every position group besides qb. Mostly for older guys that wanted and/or needed a break. And none of them are as old as Eli and none of the fill ins were drafted as high as Jones. So despite your haughty tone you are absolutely full of shit.
None of them are QB's. Every team operates this way. You can say they shouldn't, that's fine, but using this as proof of some hidden conspiracy is lunacy.
Quote:
Was the owner when reese / mcadoo was here and still the owner with gettleman and shurmur and yet we see two totally different ways the team is run especially with personnel. Dave gettleman was fired from the Panthers because he wouldn't bow to an owner who wanted to dictate personnel decisions to him and not allow gettleman to do his job.
Yet, somehow gettleman is going to allow John mara dictate who plays, when they play and so on and so forth and gettleman is just going to bow.
I heard time and time again how it would be the same as it was and nothing was going to change with the hiring gettleman. Well, we have all seen that wasn't the case as gettleman has got rid of big name players like Beckham, snacks, Collins and Vernon, so now we get this.
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, we still have people that will pound their fists that this is all John mara
He was asked about the QB situation and he said 'the owner' twice. He didn't speak to eith player's strengths or weaknesses, he said 'he' s the owner.... We are on the same page...you heard if from the owner'
It's super super easy to say that Eli is playing lights-out football. It's super super easy to say Jones is coming along nicely but you can't expect him to beat out a 15 year vet and 2x superbowl MVP. It's super easy to say that he is going to play the best man that gives him the best chance to win.
He goes out of his way to make sure he doesn't say any of tjose things. He only says 'Eli is the starter, you heard it from the owner'.
It's not a conspiracy theory is just obvious to anyone that has ever had to defer to a boss and say 'it is what it is, if that' s what they want I have to do it'.
Talk about cherry picking. If you are going to Quote shurmur then quote exactly what he said instead of taking a sentence or two to fit your agenda...
I think I’ve been saying it all along. I just get a sense once in a while that when I answer those questions nobody believes me.
I believe he thinks a qb controversy will be detrimental to the team in a ny media market. I disagree personally but I think that's his primary concern. I think he took people aside(not just Shurmur but lots of people) and said "I don't want this summer to turn into a QB controversy"
I think he believes a rookie can not possibly be as good as Eli. I think he believes that time on the bench will benefit Jones. I think he is trying to do the best thing for the team but it is just outdated thinking and marred by emotional ties to the Manning family.
It's not "nefarious" it's just not rational amd not supported by recent history. It has hamstrung the coaching staff and it has influenced the beat reporters whose career is predicated on access to the team and the facilities.
It's not evil, it's just not prudent.
Or is that completely unimportant to you?
I'm ambivalent to it. Like I said - Jones has gotten reps with the 1's in preseason games and in the individual passing drills in practice, he's throwing to all the receivers, so I'm not sure there is an issue. My hope is that he's ready to step in and play, and if the season goes South, he becomes the starter.
Should it be important for him to get reps? Does it delay his development by not getting those reps?
I believe he thinks a qb controversy will be detrimental to the team in a ny media market. I disagree personally but I think that's his primary concern. I think he took people aside(not just Shurmur but lots of people) and said "I don't want this summer to turn into a QB controversy"
I think he believes a rookie can not possibly be as good as Eli. I think he believes that time on the bench will benefit Jones. I think he is trying to do the best thing for the team but it is just outdated thinking and marred by emotional ties to the Manning family.
It's not "nefarious" it's just not rational amd not supported by recent history. It has hamstrung the coaching staff and it has influenced the beat reporters whose career is predicated on access to the team and the facilities.
It's not evil, it's just not prudent.
So do you believe Mara is forcing the coaches to give Eli all the snaps. And if so, why wouldn't that be "nefarious"?
The mopey feeling that 'nobody believes me' usually comes about when you are being deceitful. It's a natural emotional reponse.
When you are being clear and honest and people question your word you tend to get angry or indifferent. You will see a lot of both in this thread
Its also my theory that approach is not in the best long term interest of the franchise.
At the same time, I don't think that decision is going to set the franchise back decades or any other hyperbolic argument you will make on my behalf.
No. I believe Mara said "We can't let this turn into a qb controversy, we have to avoid that at all costs"
And the coaching staff and the PR department and the beat writers mostly did what they could to follow that directive to the best of their ability. I don't think Mara was dictating snap counts, I think a coach with a losing record was making sure he didn't piss off the owner. Understandable for sure.
I also think Shurmur gave a clue to future employers that he was taking orders re: DJ and Eli.
'I was just following orders from my employers' isn't the worst defense in a job intervier with future employers
I think way too much is being read into things here, including Shurmur's press conference statement. He was joking about Mara.
I'm pretty sure this is a fluid situation where if eli struggles or the team gets off to a slow start that Jones will play. If the team is eliminated from contention that Jones will play.
Unless you disagree with that, I'm not sure what the practice reps pertain to.
It's not his job to develop Jones or even look in the long-term interest of the team. That managements job.
I don't believe they'll make a switch at the first signs of struggle and it's my opinion that if they wait for mathematical of elimination excited and 17 , they will have waited too long.
We will all just have to wait and see how this all plays out. I'm willing to do that anyway
Talk to text on an old iPhone with the cracked screen isn't doing me any favors today
Talk to text on an old iPhone with the cracked screen isn't doing me any favors today
Lol my chinese phone with the extremely iffy spellcheck after 8 beers isn't doing much better
Opposing that, you have statements by Mara, Gettleman, and Shurmer on the record saying it's the coach's decision.
Seems like a reasonable thing to choose up sides upon.
If you think we shouldn't question anything the team does or says, I don't think message boards are for you.
If you think we shouldn't question anything the team does or says, I don't think message boards are for you.
I don't think it's inappropriate to question things. But baseless speculation on Mara saying or doing or instructing anything is not questioning things. It's manufacturing them.
Do you think that call was entirely made by Shurmur?
Do you think the owner wont have a say on the fate of the franchises most iconic players?
Its not like I'm saying the moon landing was faked here.
Do you think that call was entirely made by Shurmur?
Do you think the owner wont have a say on the fate of the franchises most iconic players?
Its not like I'm saying the moon landing was faked here.
I do believe you are.
Do you think that call was entirely made by Shurmur?
Do you think the owner wont have a say on the fate of the franchises most iconic players?
Its not like I'm saying the moon landing was faked here.
Every incumbent is the de facto starter until proven otherwise. Why would you think that is unusual.
You also have, and I keep coming back to this, because it completely is in contrast to your Mara statements, which are all conjecture, actual quotes from Mara, Shurmer, and Gettleman that dispute your speculation.
Even look at last year. Even Mayfield was sitting behind Taylor until an injury while Darnold started Day 1 because of a lack of an incumbent. That's not unusual in the least. The Chiefs traded up for Mahomes and he sat behind Smith.
What actually would be unusual is to have a proven starter and give the rookie a lot of time with the 1's just because of his draft status.
But acknowledging that takes a critical piece away from the contrarian view...
The real question is do you move on from Eli if you can still make a run for the playoffs or do you go to the rookie. I think they should definitely go to Jones in this situation as nothing about this team says it is Superbowl bound
That Mara is exerting special influence to have eli take as many snaps as possible. Hell, it is even intimated that Mara is putting pressure on Shurmur to make sure that happens, including a bizarre interpretation on what it means that Eli hasn't been given a day off.
KC had a ton of talent/depth - it was a playoff caliber roster. Having a winning campaign with Alex Smith while also grooming what they believed to be a future stud QB in Mahomes was objectively a real possibility. What's been dubbed as the "KC Model" was motivated by a realistic belief that the other goods necessary to win right now were in place. They were coming off of a 12-4 season.
The talented roster made it an acceptable (if not recommended) approach to pay an experienced-but-middling QB a bunch of money while the phenom sat and prepared. "Draft QB and make him sit" wasn't the fundamental tenet. It was circumstance.
A: Well, I’d like to be informed of it before I read it from you guys. But, at the end of the day, just like it was in ’04, it was Tom’s (Coughlin) decision back then, and it will be Pat’s (Shurmur) decision this time. Again, hopefully, it’s a decision he doesn’t have to make until way in the future.
I believe Pat when he said
ron mexico : 8/19/2019 11:02 am : link : reply
The they are all on the same page with regards to Eli starting (side note, that is the exact same phrase Mac used when discussing the benching in 2017)
When the decision was made to keep Eli for the year and let him play out his contract, I believe it was a decision that Pat, Dave and John all made together, as you would expect on a decision of that magnitude. Whether or not that decision is in the best long term interest of the franchise is a debate for another thread.
I do not buy that Mara had no say in the matter though.
Quote:
Q: Do you imagine that if and when a decision comes on the quarterback situation this season that you’ll have to approve it?
A: Well, I’d like to be informed of it before I read it from you guys. But, at the end of the day, just like it was in ’04, it was Tom’s (Coughlin) decision back then, and it will be Pat’s (Shurmur) decision this time. Again, hopefully, it’s a decision he doesn’t have to make until way in the future.
Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Thats what we have been debating for the past 4 pages. He was in on the decision to have Eli be the day 1 starter and will be in on the decision if and when a change is made.
You take him at his word. I think he is at best being disingenuous.
But if the do end up making a switch when the team is 5-4 or thereabouts, I'll admit that I read the situation all wrong.
I think he believes a rookie can not possibly be as good as Eli. I think he believes that time on the bench will benefit Jones. I think he is trying to do the best thing for the team but it is just outdated thinking and marred by emotional ties to the Manning family.
It's not "nefarious" it's just not rational amd not supported by recent history. It has hamstrung the coaching staff and it has influenced the beat reporters whose career is predicated on access to the team and the facilities.
It's not evil, it's just not prudent.
Pretty clearly outlines that Mara is making decisions due to ties to the Manning family and is hamstringing the coaches.
And of course, this was the snippet that kicked off the debate:
Prude : 5:54 am : link : reply
But this situation has been driving me crazy. You have to do a bit of reading between the lines but to me it's obvious Mara has dictated that Eli is the starter.
ron, I know you crave taking the contrarian side, but not all rebuttals are directed at you.
Quote:
Quote:
Q: Do you imagine that if and when a decision comes on the quarterback situation this season that you’ll have to approve it?
A: Well, I’d like to be informed of it before I read it from you guys. But, at the end of the day, just like it was in ’04, it was Tom’s (Coughlin) decision back then, and it will be Pat’s (Shurmur) decision this time. Again, hopefully, it’s a decision he doesn’t have to make until way in the future.
Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Thats what we have been debating for the past 4 pages. He was in on the decision to have Eli be the day 1 starter and will be in on the decision if and when a change is made.
You take him at his word. I think he is at best being disingenuous.
All because "you believe..."
Cue Book of Mormon.
Maybe I should be less contrarian but you could benefit from not seeing some anti giant boogie man in every post that is shy of glowing about the org.
By the way, I prefer to be call a biased devils advocate
I just see an intentional siding with the minority opinion on almost every subject. Someone can't rally be that consistently contrarian unless they do it on purpose.
Quote:
In comment 14538283 Bill L said:
Quote:
Quote:
Q: Do you imagine that if and when a decision comes on the quarterback situation this season that you’ll have to approve it?
A: Well, I’d like to be informed of it before I read it from you guys. But, at the end of the day, just like it was in ’04, it was Tom’s (Coughlin) decision back then, and it will be Pat’s (Shurmur) decision this time. Again, hopefully, it’s a decision he doesn’t have to make until way in the future.
Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. Thats what we have been debating for the past 4 pages. He was in on the decision to have Eli be the day 1 starter and will be in on the decision if and when a change is made.
You take him at his word. I think he is at best being disingenuous.
All because "you believe..."
Cue Book of Mormon.
Dude, this is what we do here.
We post our takes, our opinions, our predictions.
I write "I believe" to make it clear I'm stating my opinion or interpretation, not some fact I know to be 100% true.
Quote:
Maybe I should be less contrarian but you could benefit from not seeing some anti giant boogie man in every post that is shy of glowing about the org.
I just see an intentional siding with the minority opinion on almost every subject. Someone can't rally be that consistently contrarian unless they do it on purpose.
well I don't bother stating the same thing everyone else is stating even if believe or side with it.
If a position is well represented and there is not much for me to add, I usually leave it alone.
Dude, this is what we do here.
We post our takes, our opinions, our predictions.
I write "I believe" to make it clear I'm stating my opinion or interpretation, not some fact I know to be 100% true.
Yes, but opposing that is an exact quote.
Quote:
...
Dude, this is what we do here.
We post our takes, our opinions, our predictions.
I write "I believe" to make it clear I'm stating my opinion or interpretation, not some fact I know to be 100% true.
Yes, but opposing that is an exact quote.
quotes aren't facts other than the fact that someone said those words
I'm not sure if you have gotten to this chapter in life yet, but there are the things called lies, half truths and spin.
Quote:
In comment 14538363 ron mexico said:
Quote:
...
Dude, this is what we do here.
We post our takes, our opinions, our predictions.
I write "I believe" to make it clear I'm stating my opinion or interpretation, not some fact I know to be 100% true.
Yes, but opposing that is an exact quote.
quotes aren't facts other than the fact that someone said those words
I'm not sure if you have gotten to this chapter in life yet, but there are the things called lies, half truths and spin.
Sure. But it's more substantive than anything that you've put forward. And, you cal;l it a lie, *only* because it conflicts with your belief. The Book of Mormon thing is not all that far-fetched here.
But wouldn't the side reciting The Book Of John, chapter 3 verse 5 be the zealot in this analogy?
But wouldn't the side reciting The Book Of John, chapter 3 verse 5 be the zealot in this analogy?
In the Book of Mormon there is a song, entitled "I believe" and the lyrics are apropos to this topic.
That's the way it's supposed to be but when you don't allow the kid a single snap with the 1s in camp you are saying "I want to make sure it is impossible to win the starting job"
It just becomes a circular argument "i know he's not ready because he hasn't played against starters"
"He hasn't played against starters because he's not ready"
I've seen him throw 19 passes and he damn sure looks like he deserves a shot to win the job
Quote:
You're killing me. I want to put some of you in a blender feet first. Everyone is saying there is no QB competition and Eli Manning is the starter because that is what you are fucking supposed to say in the situation the Giants are in. I know all of you lunatics watch sports so what is your excuse for not understanding this? It is what every player on the team expects. The keyword was "say". Jones could start day 1. The only way that happens is if Jones place lights out and Eli proves he can't do it anymore. You don't need to announce that to the world. That is the way it is supposed to be. There is no conspiracy that the Giants just saying the correct damn thing under the circumstances. F U C K
That's the way it's supposed to be but when you don't allow the kid a single snap with the 1s in camp you are saying "I want to make sure it is impossible to win the starting job"
It just becomes a circular argument "i know he's not ready because he hasn't played against starters"
"He hasn't played against starters because he's not ready"
I've seen him throw 19 passes and he damn sure looks like he deserves a shot to win the job
Shurmur has said time and time again that Eli is getting ready to start the season and Daniel Jones is getting ready to play. The time they have on the practice field is limited enough. Also, Daniel Jones has played with the 1's in preseason. Daniel Jones still has a lot to learn as a rookie, where Eli has the knowledge of an experienced veteran.
You want to make this a competition and the giants want to win games.
Eli starting is inevitable, there is no competition
Eli starting is inevitable, there is no competition
Agreed. But I don't have to like it.
I can say for sure. Eli starts
But he damn sure uses the media to imply and insinuate what he wants to happen, on critical points clumsily, and only a fool working for him wouldn't pick up on it.
For all the excitement the quote about it being Shurmur's decision, the next thought is probably more front of mind for the coach.
You keep presenting this as an active situation where Jones is barred from playing with the 1's (ignoring the fact that he did in preseason games).
You are most definitely insinuating that the Coach (influenced by the owner) is keeping Eli in on every snap purposely with the intent of delaying Jones' development.
It is a take without evidence or warrant.
Good.
Is he injured?
The Giants saying there is an open competition between Jones and a QB of Eli's acumen and tenure would be dumb. There is no benefit to announcing that. Let it play out organically.
Eli gets the amount of snaps he needs to get ready. End of story.
I smell fear.
Some of you know deep in your heart Eli is going to do well. For some bizarre reason that seems to fill you with dread. FWIW I think Jones would do well too. There is a ray of sunshine for you, don't jump off the bridge yet, if Eli sputters at all Jones will play.
Again - another take without evidence or merit.
Quote:
That's the way it's supposed to be but when you don't allow the kid a single snap with the 1s in camp you are saying "I want to make sure it is impossible to win the starting job"
You keep presenting this as an active situation where Jones is barred from playing with the 1's (ignoring the fact that he did in preseason games).
You are most definitely insinuating that the Coach (influenced by the owner) is keeping Eli in on every snap purposely with the intent of delaying Jones' development.
It is a take without evidence or warrant.
Again - another take without evidence or merit.
I've most definitely have said this. And stand by it.
It's a simple premise. This team, with or without Eli starting, isn't contending for a SB. We're several drafts and free agency windows away - maybe. So what's the point of running the 38 year old QB out there?
There is only one answer. And it's a short term one - to help Shurmur get some wins to get another year as the HC.
But even that is the wrong play. The best chance for Shurmur to solidify his future is to demonstrate he can take a young QB and mold him to be a productive, winning player. The long term dividends there would be huge. That should be the plan.
Get Jones into NFL action as soon as possible, craft him while he takes his lumps, let the team build camaraderie around Jones, and take advantage of the luxury of Barkley. A dynamic player who could be a young rookie's best friend.
This IS the ideal situation to start Jones right away. He's showing interesting flashes in preseason. So let's roll the dice and start getting to the benefits of that rookie contract now...
Well, if you are focused on if there is an open competition or not, I'm not surprised you can't follow.
Is anyone even alluding to it being an open competition? Is there a reason it should be?
Quote:
this year should benefit us all, yet I've read several comments that say any game eli plays, even if he plays well, delays Jones' growth.
Again - another take without evidence or merit.
I've most definitely have said this. And stand by it.
It's a simple premise. This team, with or without Eli starting, isn't contending for a SB. We're several drafts and free agency windows away - maybe. So what's the point of running the 38 year old QB out there?
There is only one answer. And it's a short term one - to help Shurmur get some wins to get another year as the HC.
But even that is the wrong play. The best chance for Shurmur to solidify his future is to demonstrate he can take a young QB and mold him to be a productive, winning player. The long term dividends there would be huge. That should be the plan.
Get Jones into NFL action as soon as possible, craft him while he takes his lumps, let the team build camaraderie around Jones, and take advantage of the luxury of Barkley. A dynamic player who could be a young rookie's best friend.
This IS the ideal situation to start Jones right away. He's showing interesting flashes in preseason. So let's roll the dice and start getting to the benefits of that rookie contract now...
bw - there are countless examples of QB's sitting a year and then excelling when they take the field. The idea that sitting delays their growth isn't provable. The opposite may in fact be true. If you go back to 1990, the % of QB's drafted in the first round who were starters for 3 years or more is larger for those who sat a year vs. those who started right away.
I'd like to see Jones play if the season is over with or if Eli struggles, but to say that HAS to happen for success next season is just an observance, not really backed up by evidence.
Again - another take without evidence or merit.
The logic is extremely straight forward.
All young players, particularly QBs need game experience to improve. The sooner Jones can get that experience the better.
I'm sure you will find some obscure unattributed quote as a rebuttal, but this is pretty simple.
And no, I'm not suggesting putting Jones out there week 1
Quote:
Are you saying that there is an open QB competition or there isn't one?
Well, if you are focused on if there is an open competition or not, I'm not surprised you can't follow.
Is anyone even alluding to it being an open competition? Is there a reason it should be?
the greatfull head in his first post made it sound like there was one but they are just not calling it that.
He said that Jones could start week 1
Quote:
In comment 14539100 ron mexico said:
Quote:
Are you saying that there is an open QB competition or there isn't one?
Well, if you are focused on if there is an open competition or not, I'm not surprised you can't follow.
Is anyone even alluding to it being an open competition? Is there a reason it should be?
the greatfull head in his first post made it sound like there was one but they are just not calling it that.
He said that Jones could start week 1
Quote:
In comment 14539107 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
In comment 14539100 ron mexico said:
Quote:
Are you saying that there is an open QB competition or there isn't one?
Well, if you are focused on if there is an open competition or not, I'm not surprised you can't follow.
Is anyone even alluding to it being an open competition? Is there a reason it should be?
the greatfull head in his first post made it sound like there was one but they are just not calling it that.
He said that Jones could start week 1
Ron this is pro sports if they drafted someone to play your position there is always a competition. When that person was drafted at 6 you bet your ass there is. but you have to completely win it like a boxer going for the title you not going to win the decision you got to knock him out. Jones is not knocking Eli out in camp or games. Eli starts.
I respectfully disagree. There is no scenario other than injury where Jones starts week 1.
Quote:
this year should benefit us all, yet I've read several comments that say any game eli plays, even if he plays well, delays Jones' growth.
Again - another take without evidence or merit.
The logic is extremely straight forward.
All young players, particularly QBs need game experience to improve. The sooner Jones can get that experience the better.
I'm sure you will find some obscure unattributed quote as a rebuttal, but this is pretty simple.
And no, I'm not suggesting putting Jones out there week 1
There is no special sauce to perfectly plan out starting level QB development as there are far too many variables at play. As mentioned on here numerous times, QB development is also typically not linear.
But plain common sense should lead most to support the view that not getting in-game experience as the starter will delay growth of the QB. While some may be able to overcome that delay and fast-forward their growth with less games when they ultimately get in, that would seem to be more the exception albeit fortunate.
Quote:
this year should benefit us all, yet I've read several comments that say any game eli plays, even if he plays well, delays Jones' growth.
Again - another take without evidence or merit.
I've most definitely have said this. And stand by it.
It's a simple premise. This team, with or without Eli starting, isn't contending for a SB. We're several drafts and free agency windows away - maybe. So what's the point of running the 38 year old QB out there?
There is only one answer. And it's a short term one - to help Shurmur get some wins to get another year as the HC.
But even that is the wrong play. The best chance for Shurmur to solidify his future is to demonstrate he can take a young QB and mold him to be a productive, winning player. The long term dividends there would be huge. That should be the plan.
Get Jones into NFL action as soon as possible, craft him while he takes his lumps, let the team build camaraderie around Jones, and take advantage of the luxury of Barkley. A dynamic player who could be a young rookie's best friend.
This IS the ideal situation to start Jones right away. He's showing interesting flashes in preseason. So let's roll the dice and start getting to the benefits of that rookie contract now...
bw - there are countless examples of QB's sitting a year and then excelling when they take the field. The idea that sitting delays their growth isn't provable. The opposite may in fact be true. If you go back to 1990, the % of QB's drafted in the first round who were starters for 3 years or more is larger for those who sat a year vs. those who started right away.
I'd like to see Jones play if the season is over with or if Eli struggles, but to say that HAS to happen for success next season is just an observance, not really backed up by evidence.
But it can work. PManning, Ryan, Dak, Luck, Newton - off the top of my head - started right away and have certainly lived to tell about it.
I feel Jones is worth the stretch in this case because he appears athletic to take hits and avoid hits, is smart, has Barkley, will be in an offense that will be mostly horizontal, and the league is more QB friendly than ever.
I'm actually surprised more posters don't see it this way. I get why the EFC doesn't want Jones to start - they are romantics - but it's not as risky as it seems. With a stud like Barkley, shift the load to him and let him be the bulwark for Jones.
Eli plays until the team stops winning. If the team isn't winning out of the gates, Jones should be playing well before Halloween.
Is anyone going to be upset if NYG are sitting 5-3 at the halfway point and are firmly in the mix in the NFC?
It will depend how we get there - but that's really not that far-fetched. And if we're winning more than we're losing and Eli is playing well, it doesn't bother me to have him under center.
It's just got to be a quick hook if not.
There's one singular scenario that will bother me - and that's the Giants starting poorly, but management not being willing to pull the plug on Eli until we're "mathematically out" and the games don't matter. If Eli starts poorly or the offense is having a tough time, Daniel needs to play then and there while the season hasn't yet been entirely lost.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Eli is going to be quite a bit better than people think....
I largely agree with this but am concerned that Eli will have a longer leash than what is best for the team due to all he has done for the franchise. Some will say he has earned that right and I'm not going to fight anyone on that point.
What I think would have been best for the franchise, and freely admit this is coming from my cushy office chair and not the people in charge of a billion dollar franchise, is to go with a stop gap vet to start the season. There would be less hand wringing over the switch and the team could focus more resources in Jones development.
On a somewhat related note (hot take warning) I think the best thing for Elis legacy both with the Giants fan base and around the league would have been to cut him after 17 and allow him to finish up his career someplace else.
There are also a lot of examples of guys playing starting midway through their rookie year that works. But there isn't a statistical advantage between those who start early and those who sit - and that's what is assumed when people say logic dictates that getting experience in year one is a good thing.
Tell that to EJ Manuel, Joey Harrington, Patrick Ramsey, JP Losman, Vince Young, Christian Ponder, Jake Locker, Brandon Weeden, Johnny Manziel or Josh Freeman.
That doesn't even include RGIII who played his rookie season and then his career was basically done. It also doesn't include Jamarcus Russell who had a couple of starts at the end of his rookie season.
My take is that a lot of those QB's on that list shouldn't have been taken in the first round and certainly weren't ready to start - but playing them definitely didn't help their career progression.
Is anyone going to be upset if NYG are sitting 5-3 at the halfway point and are firmly in the mix in the NFC?
The usual suspects
This one? I actually recall reading this.
I have a subscription to the WSJ, so you may need one to access...
Rookie QBs - ( New Window )
But it can work. PManning, Ryan, Dak, Luck, Newton - off the top of my head - started right away and have certainly lived to tell about it.
Who did they replace? Whether you agree or not, the Giants (formerly known as Jints Central) believe Eli is still a viable starter, so they will go with him until, if and when he is not.
Who on your list uprooted a viable starter?
Starting QB's in year 1 didn't statistically improve their development in year 2 or beyond. Isn't that what some of you are saying?
What is being said is that QB's need the experience early to succeed. The statistics indicate that development isn't dependent on starting year 1 vs. starting year 2.
Um, Peyton was recovering from 4 neck surgeries. Iirc, he wasn’t deemed medically ready by the Colts and they parted ways not long after
Quote:
There was a good Wall Street journal article last year with all the first round QBs selected that demonstrated sitting a year did absolutely nothing statistically to improve development vs starting right away.
Starting QB's in year 1 didn't statistically improve their development in year 2 or beyond. Isn't that what some of you are saying?
What is being said is that QB's need the experience early to succeed. The statistics indicate that development isn't dependent on starting year 1 vs. starting year 2.
No, what we are saying is they need experience and it doesn't really matter if that experience comes sooner or later so might as well begin sooner.
- Fitzpatrick - 7M guaranteed
- Taylor - 6M guaranteed
- Bridgewater - 7.2M guaranteed
- RG3 - 2M guaranteed
- Mcarron - 2.5M guaranteed
- Mccown - 2M guaranteed
My opinion never changed -- I wanted the Giants to cut Manning, sign a backstop, and pick a QB at 6. That would have saved to Giants at least 10M, maybe alot more.
Personally, I'll be disappointed if the Giants don't either get to the playoffs or Jones gets 8-10 games of experience this year.
The statistics don't show that starting earlier leads to future success, nor does it show that starting in year 2 has a distinct advantage.
So why is the claim that QB's need experience being used? I'm guessing it is only because of the desire for certain posters to see anyone other than Eli play.
You can keep saying that the QB's need experience, but you have no data to support it. There's actually stronger data to support that starting in year 2 for first round QB's has a higher rate of success for the number of years they will remain the starter, but it isn't substantially better - just slightly.
No, what we are saying is they need experience and it doesn't really matter if that experience comes sooner or later so might as well begin sooner.
Exactly. And if there is no material statistical difference waiting vs starting right away, then it makes sense to start right away to (1) determine more quickly if the pick is a boom or a bust and (2) getting into the early returns of that rookie contract.
I'm really into #1. The sooner you can decide the quality of the pick, the better a team can strategize.
Like for real, you call me contrarian but are arguing against the point that QBs need experience to develop?
Ponderous...
Yes I am arguing against it. I can see bw's take on using Year 1 to determine the future viability of the player, but to make it seem like the QB needs game experience in Year 1 to develop is not proven.
For the dimwitted, EJ Manuel, Joey Harrington, Patrick Ramsey, JP Losman, Vince Young, Christian Ponder, Jake Locker, Brandon Weeden, Johnny Manziel and Josh Freeman all had significant time playing Year 1. All first round QB's.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of QB's who took over starting Year 2 who have had success.
Show me how playing year 1 leads to development. You c an't. The best you can show is that starting year 2 vs. year 1 from a development standpoint is a near wash.
Are you purposely not grasping this?
QBs need experience to develop.
We all seem to agree that it doesn't matter if that experience come year 1 or year 2.
Given the above, there are significant benefits to starting sooner.
You can take more advantage of the rookie contract
You will find out sooner if you made a mistake
You will better align with Barkley's window
No one, let me repeat this, no one is saying that the benefit to starting year one is anything other than getting the process started sooner.
Quote:
No, what we are saying is they need experience and it doesn't really matter if that experience comes sooner or later so might as well begin sooner.
Exactly. And if there is no material statistical difference waiting vs starting right away, then it makes sense to start right away to (1) determine more quickly if the pick is a boom or a bust and (2) getting into the early returns of that rookie contract.
I'm really into #1. The sooner you can decide the quality of the pick, the better a team can strategize.
There is no material statistical difference between starting right away vs year 2. You know what is proven statistically outside of Baker Mayfield and Deshaun Watson? Rookies QBs struggle irregardless. And the years that Baker and Deshaun gave you as rookies were statically pretty average for the league. You play the QB in year 1 who gives you the best chance of winning. At this point it is still Eli Manning.
Or do you think that doesn't matter,
You can take more advantage of the rookie contract
You will find out sooner if you made a mistake
You will better align with Barkley's window
No one, let me repeat this, no one is saying that the benefit to starting year one is anything other than getting the process started sooner.
Right.
Here is the benefit - experience and exposure to real game NFL speed. You hear that all of the time, right? "The game has slowed down for me compared to last year. So now I'm able to do do X,Y and Z better..."
Really? Seems to me that several posts talk about Jones giving the team the best shot to win. That's seems to certainly be implied as a "benefit" to starting year 1:
Pep22 : 8/19/2019 10:34 am : link : reply
anyone would think Eli gives them the best shot to win.
arniefez : 8/19/2019 10:42 am : link : reply
Shurmur has to try and keep his job. Playing Jones right away is probably the best way to do that.
bw in dc : 8/19/2019 2:35 pm : link : reply
want to start Jones? Jones is clearly the better prototype to run PS's offense. Having Eli limits the playbook because Eli is 38 and a mediocre athlete on a good day. Jones, who I'm not sold on yet, is younger, clearly a better athlete, and has the capacity to make off-schedule plays.
Those are quotes in this thread. There clearly are posters saying more than "let's start the clock". They are saying Jones gives us a better chance to win.
You can "repeat" that no one is saying that the benefit to starting day one is to just get the process started, and once again - you'd be wrong.
ron mexico : 12:15 pm : link : reply
who thinks QBs don't need playing time to develop and if Manziel got a season or two on the bench he would be an all pro right now
If you can't than please stop repeating this as fact. There is no evidence to support it.
We should bench Jones tonight since the playing experience he is getting doesn't matter anyway per all this relevant data.
When we need a QB other than Eli to take a snap, then just tell Jones to put on his jersey...
Well done!
Ok, lets all bank on Jones being the next Mahomes instead of being like the 1000 other QBs who needed some time to develop.
That sample size of 1 is pretty powerful
Or do you think that doesn't matter,
And this is exactly what we are disagreeing on. The evidence doesn't support that playing first rounders in year 1 gives them an advantage. I'm ambivalent on whether it matters or not. What I'm saying is it isn't necessary.
Quote:
I doubt that will get through to a guy
ron mexico : 12:15 pm : link : reply
who thinks QBs don't need playing time to develop and if Manziel got a season or two on the bench he would be an all pro right now
If you can't than please stop repeating this as fact. There is no evidence to support it.
Mahomes and his coach talk about playing at the end of year 1 as being kind of helpful...
https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/vahe-gregorian/article216749115.html
Quote:
That Jones will be more primed for success next year if he gets significant playing time this year?
Or do you think that doesn't matter,
And this is exactly what we are disagreeing on. The evidence doesn't support that playing first rounders in year 1 gives them an advantage. I'm ambivalent on whether it matters or not. What I'm saying is it isn't necessary.
so you think Jones ability to play well week 1 next year, and have a successful overall season, will be exactly the same if he gets zero snaps this year as opposed to getting significant time.
Just want to make sure I have that correct.
I'm not claiming that sitting a year leads to better development - the data is neutral - what I'm saying is there is no correlation to Year 1 QB's starting that led to having greater success in Year 2 than those who sat.
The data is neutral. This seems like a particularly tough thing for you to grasp, which goes back to my comment about dimness yesterday.....
Quote:
saying it is important to play in year 1.
Ok, lets all bank on Jones being the next Mahomes instead of being like the 1000 other QBs who needed some time to develop.
That sample size of 1 is pretty powerful
See that is the point. The QB is going to show you what he is in year 2 what he is irregardless of whether he plays or not. After that it is a slow progression that comes with experience. There is only a sample size of one because most teams aren't in the position the Giants are with an incumbent starter that can still play at an average level.
That is the real crux of people'e arguments here is that they don't think that Eli can play average with an improved line. I think Eli's game has aged pretty poorly with the way the league is moving and his weaknesses are really highlighted in the modern NFL, but to think a rookie QB is going to give you better play than Eli will is asinine. Baker's and Deshaun's are about on par with what Eli gives you and they had the best two rookie seasons ever.
Quote:
In comment 14539299 ron mexico said:
Quote:
That Jones will be more primed for success next year if he gets significant playing time this year?
Or do you think that doesn't matter,
And this is exactly what we are disagreeing on. The evidence doesn't support that playing first rounders in year 1 gives them an advantage. I'm ambivalent on whether it matters or not. What I'm saying is it isn't necessary.
so you think Jones ability to play well week 1 next year, and have a successful overall season, will be exactly the same if he gets zero snaps this year as opposed to getting significant time.
Just want to make sure I have that correct.
Personally I'd like him to get experience. More so for the reasons bw mentioned. But why would I expect Year 2 to be different if he gets playing time this year? Do you expect Josh Rosen to be significantly better this year? Do you expect Lamar Jackson to be? I expect to see the same from Rosen and regression from Jackson, and if that happens - what benefit was gained playing Year 1? Hell, you can make a damn good case that playing year 1 was very detrimental to Rosen.
Well done!
don't be jealous because I can say more in a few words while your multiple posts only wind up calling everybody dim...
See that is the point. The QB is going to show you what he is in year 2 what he is irregardless of whether he plays or not.
read the Mahomes article Zeke
Why wouldn't Shurmur...
bw in dc : 8/19/2019 2:35 pm : link : reply
want to start Jones? Jones is clearly the better prototype to run PS's offense. Having Eli limits the playbook because Eli is 38 and a mediocre athlete on a good day. Jones, who I'm not sold on yet, is younger, clearly a better athlete, and has the capacity to make off-schedule plays.
Well, I didn't say anything about winning. I guess it seems implied. I said Jones is better suited to run Shurmur's offense.
And for the record - you aren't dim. You know exactly what you are doing which makes it that much worse.
don't be jealous because I can say more in a few words while your multiple posts only wind up calling everybody dim...
I'll say it - I admire your pithy style... ;)
(Too many words?)
To be honest, I face off against you because I think you usually bring good arguments to the table but you are just devolving into a troll.
Quote:
See that is the point. The QB is going to show you what he is in year 2 what he is irregardless of whether he plays or not.
read the Mahomes article Zeke
Yes one game just to give you a taste. I think it is important to get Jones some snaps. I don't want him on the bench completely. Blowouts either way he should definitely play and of course as soon as the playoffs are looking unlikely or if Eli is struggling. Daniel Jones is playing this year at some point.
And Ron isn't being dim just because you are talking past each other.
There is no material statistical difference between starting right away vs year 2. You know what is proven statistically outside of Baker Mayfield and Deshaun Watson? Rookies QBs struggle irregardless. And the years that Baker and Deshaun gave you as rookies were statically pretty average for the league. You play the QB in year 1 who gives you the best chance of winning. At this point it is still Eli Manning.
Winning what?
Quote:
There is no material statistical difference between starting right away vs year 2. You know what is proven statistically outside of Baker Mayfield and Deshaun Watson? Rookies QBs struggle irregardless. And the years that Baker and Deshaun gave you as rookies were statically pretty average for the league. You play the QB in year 1 who gives you the best chance of winning. At this point it is still Eli Manning.
Winning what?
Let me clean this up - winning big? Like a SB or NFC Championship game? If not, and that's where I am, I see no reason to start Eli other than for the romantics wanting to see Eli go out in some style...
To be honest, I face off against you because I think you usually bring good arguments to the table but you are just devolving into a troll.
Are you really calling me a contrarian?? What is the majority opinion I'm fighting? You can't even get your fucking terminology correct.
I will say it again - there has been no correlation to starting first round QB's Year 1 vs. sitting them to how quickly they develop. It is a neutral argument. And hell, some of it is skewed by players like Mark Sanchez who started immediately, had early success and saw a precipitous decline.
I'm saying that the data doesn't show that Year 1 experience leads to greater development. Full stop. I've already said that if eli struggles or the team is out of contention that I want to see Jones, but it isn't so that he gets essential experience to develop with - it is to move along from Eli and look at what we have for the future.
You can't prove that Year 1 experience is essential, so why do you keep acting as if it is?
Quote:
In comment 14539326 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
See that is the point. The QB is going to show you what he is in year 2 what he is irregardless of whether he plays or not.
read the Mahomes article Zeke
Yes one game just to give you a taste. I think it is important to get Jones some snaps. I don't want him on the bench completely. Blowouts either way he should definitely play and of course as soon as the playoffs are looking unlikely or if Eli is struggling. Daniel Jones is playing this year at some point.
Agree Zeke. Just saying that the debate going on above is arguing that game experience in year 1 doesn't matter based on all the relevant data. Just don't tell that to Mahomes & KC because they don't seem to see it that way...
Quote:
There is no material statistical difference between starting right away vs year 2. You know what is proven statistically outside of Baker Mayfield and Deshaun Watson? Rookies QBs struggle irregardless. And the years that Baker and Deshaun gave you as rookies were statically pretty average for the league. You play the QB in year 1 who gives you the best chance of winning. At this point it is still Eli Manning.
Winning what?
Winning football games. This team is a couple years from competing for a superbowl. And I already know what you are going to say, well don't you think that getting significant snaps as a rookie is important to his development. But we have gone over that, it doesn't really seem to be that important to play as a rookie, especially when the jump is so significant these guys are more than likely going to struggle. Darnold got benched with an "injury" so they didn't completely shatter his confidence.
To me, the willingness to intentionally lose, besides being unprincipled onits face, does a real disservice to everyone involved, players and fans alike. And to do it just because it fits the argument from your ego??? At least a disreputable boxer gets paid when he takes a dive.
I still say some of you are scared and it has to do with your pride about being right about the demise of Eli. I get it, it sucks to be publicly wrong. My position on Eli has evolved because I don't like to be wrong either. I had convinced myself Eli was toast. I was exhausted by the shitty football and every time there was a spot in the season where I hoped Eli would make a perfect throw and be the reason they won, he disappointed me. What I have seen at the end of last year and this preseason changed my mind. I adapt to new information and make changes on my positions.
Based on what Foles and Keenum have done in this system, with this OL and Barkley, with Eli in year 2 in the system and not having to force the ball in a certain direction I expect significant improvement in Eli's numbers from last year. If he goes 1 to 2% comp in comp and throws a few more TDs for a few more yards, that looks pretty good no? It isn't unreasonable. OBJ was not OBJ last year. Quite frankly the O looked better after he quit.
I think people are afraid of this because of the absolute positions some of them have taken on this board regarding Eli and would be unhappy with the fallout on BBI. That sucks.
Whoa, back up..read it again. This time without the denial mindset that QBing only has to do with what your own stats.
I still say some of you are scared and it has to do with your pride about being right about the demise of Eli. I get it, it sucks to be publicly wrong. My position on Eli has evolved because I don't like to be wrong either. I had convinced myself Eli was toast. I was exhausted by the shitty football and every time there was a spot in the season where I hoped Eli would make a perfect throw and be the reason they won, he disappointed me. What I have seen at the end of last year and this preseason changed my mind. I adapt to new information and make changes on my positions.
Based on what Foles and Keenum have done in this system, with this OL and Barkley, with Eli in year 2 in the system and not having to force the ball in a certain direction I expect significant improvement in Eli's numbers from last year. If he goes 1 to 2% comp in comp and throws a few more TDs for a few more yards, that looks pretty good no? It isn't unreasonable. OBJ was not OBJ last year. Quite frankly the O looked better after he quit.
I think people are afraid of this because of the absolute positions some of them have taken on this board regarding Eli and would be unhappy with the fallout on BBI. That sucks.
+1000 and it spreads to every topic.
To me, the willingness to intentionally lose, besides being unprincipled onits face, does a real disservice to everyone involved, players and fans alike. And to do it just because it fits the argument from your ego??? At least a disreputable boxer gets paid when he takes a dive.
Oh, please. This is a very common strategy - short term pain for long term gain. And it's playing the odds - Eli is an old 38 because he really doesn't have any plus-physical skills. As usual, alas, the EFC has to wrap this into either "people want to be right" or "people want Eli to fail" talking points. The real deal is my position is just less emotional and more about studying the %s under the conditions.
I'm sure you'll counter with his supposed plus-brain, but that plus-brain sure has produced a lot of bad decisions of the years and at this age many times the physical can't fire as quickly as the brain wants...
And as I mentioned earlier, there is an actual benefit to playing sooner rather than later - getting experience and exposure to real NFL game speed. You can't replicate that in practice or preseason.
Imagine if Denver had something to play for in that game and he fucking stunk. Would he be saying man that game really killed my confidence and I knew I didn't belong in this league? No of course not. The article would be about him talking about how useful the experience was, etc etc. It is all just inane talking points that all these guys make during press conferences.
The article suggested that his play in that game may have kept the Chiefs from resigning Smith! That is absolutely unfounded garbage. You don't make a move like that in the first round for a QB and resign Alex fucking Smith. Most these articles are written just so these guys have something to write and people to read. Make the fanbase feel good.
where is that grassy knoll...
I think people are afraid of this because of the absolute positions some of them have taken on this board regarding Eli and would be unhappy with the fallout on BBI. That sucks.
This is absurd. But I'm okay with absurd.
I think people who want to move on from Eli now are simply doing some math and noticing that the %s suggest we won't do well with Eli. So playing Eli is most likely just a hedge to allow Jones to get into his learning curve. And I say f-ck that, let's find out sooner rather than later with Jones...
Whether you learn on the field or learn on the sideline doesn't have a tangible benefit. You can point to First Round Year 1 QB's flopping from the get-go and ones that succeed from the start. You have guys who will start from Game 3 on and do well and others who start mid-year who flop. You have guys who sit for a year who start and don't have growing pains and you have ones that struggle and flop. But the data doesn't correlate in any one direction significantly.
For every anecdote about getting experience is one about shattering experience. For every anecdote about taking lumps to get stronger is one about taking lumps to get gun shy.
Most rookie QB's who start struggle. Some of them then make leaps in Year 2. Some of them don't. Many year 2 QB's come in and look very good. Some look terrible. That's why this debate is interesting - I'm ambivalent about when Jones gets playing time - but some of you are adamant he needs it.
But what is that based on??
Quote:
just arguing to argue and using quotes unrelated to the discussion at hand made by others, which has become your go to tactic
To be honest, I face off against you because I think you usually bring good arguments to the table but you are just devolving into a troll.
Are you really calling me a contrarian?? What is the majority opinion I'm fighting? You can't even get your fucking terminology correct.
I will say it again - there has been no correlation to starting first round QB's Year 1 vs. sitting them to how quickly they develop. It is a neutral argument. And hell, some of it is skewed by players like Mark Sanchez who started immediately, had early success and saw a precipitous decline.
I'm saying that the data doesn't show that Year 1 experience leads to greater development. Full stop. I've already said that if eli struggles or the team is out of contention that I want to see Jones, but it isn't so that he gets essential experience to develop with - it is to move along from Eli and look at what we have for the future.
You can't prove that Year 1 experience is essential, so why do you keep acting as if it is?
Ok, I will try to make this my last post on this subject because I'm at my wits end.
Nothing can be proven because the NFL is not a science lab and every case is different but there is a fairly accepted truth that QBs need game experience to develop, even in the face of outliers like Mahomes.
Its not about year 1 vs year 2. Its about getting game experience. period. full stop.
That is a general point I am making that holds true for all teams and nearly all QBs.
Your contrarian take is that game experience isn't important to QBs development as you note here
"I want to see Jones, but it isn't so that he gets essential experience to develop with it is to move along from Eli and look at what we have for the future."
You (incorrectly) label me as a Eli hater and think I have an agenda against him but your reasoning for Jones playing is not his development but solely to move on from Eli?
Ponderous.
The importance imv for Jones to see some quality playing time in 2019 is it would allow for a higher level of confidence on what the team might be able to achieve with him at the helm in 2020.
Its not about year 1 vs year 2. Its about getting game experience. period. full stop.
That is a general point I am making that holds true for all teams and nearly all QBs.
Mahomes is not an outlier, nor is game experience an indicator of development.
Mahomes is the latest, but certainly not the first QB to excel in Year 2. And there are several examples of first-round QB's who play immediately and fail - and never develop. What needs to be understood is development isn't linear - nor dependent on experience.
It is not a point that holds true for all teams and nearly all QB's. That's exactly what I'm refuting. And the data doesn't bear it out.
Exactly! If you look at the starting QB's over the past 20 years, they come from a variety of different scenarios. Some start right away and flame out(Sanchez) or get injured (RGIII). Some struggle and then make strides. some sit and play well the following year and some sit and struggle.
What is confusing to me is that some of the posters arguing about Jones playing aren't doing it about experience - they are doing it from the aspect that he is better right now. So much for the needing experience argument!
If I'm going to state things as fact - I'd like to have data actually support it.
Quote:
of playing Jones this for the sake of next year (even though, as repeatedly noted, there is no evidence to support any benefit), is that people are so willing to punt away this year without even seeing if we have a chance. I'll bet my last dollar that the root of it is an anti-Eli thing, but whatever.
To me, the willingness to intentionally lose, besides being unprincipled onits face, does a real disservice to everyone involved, players and fans alike. And to do it just because it fits the argument from your ego??? At least a disreputable boxer gets paid when he takes a dive.
Oh, please. This is a very common strategy - short term pain for long term gain. And it's playing the odds - Eli is an old 38 because he really doesn't have any plus-physical skills. As usual, alas, the EFC has to wrap this into either "people want to be right" or "people want Eli to fail" talking points. The real deal is my position is just less emotional and more about studying the %s under the conditions.
I'm sure you'll counter with his supposed plus-brain, but that plus-brain sure has produced a lot of bad decisions of the years and at this age many times the physical can't fire as quickly as the brain wants...
And as I mentioned earlier, there is an actual benefit to playing sooner rather than later - getting experience and exposure to real NFL game speed. You can't replicate that in practice or preseason.
Quote:
In comment 14539089 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
this year should benefit us all, yet I've read several comments that say any game eli plays, even if he plays well, delays Jones' growth.
Again - another take without evidence or merit.
The logic is extremely straight forward.
All young players, particularly QBs need game experience to improve. The sooner Jones can get that experience the better.
I'm sure you will find some obscure unattributed quote as a rebuttal, but this is pretty simple.
And no, I'm not suggesting putting Jones out there week 1
There is no special sauce to perfectly plan out starting level QB development as there are far too many variables at play. As mentioned on here numerous times, QB development is also typically not linear.
But plain common sense should lead most to support the view that not getting in-game experience as the starter will delay growth of the QB. While some may be able to overcome that delay and fast-forward their growth with less games when they ultimately get in, that would seem to be more the exception albeit fortunate.
Already noted the "linear" thing in the more verbose pithy post earlier.
The only way it would make sense to me is if the oline was in shambles. It isn't anymore.
For me, it boils down to the game being more QB friendly than ever and I think Jones adds more dimensions to Shurmur's playbook. So let's accelerate the process.
Remember, Jints Central has told us all along that one of Jones's best attributes is his mental toughness. Supposedly he has the right stuff. Well, let's put that to the test. Perhaps he truly has the make-up to deal with volatility of being a rookie QB.
Maybe we go with QBBC. Give them both reps in a game. ;)
And that's another factor. If experience were so valuable in development, any experience would be good experience, and that just isn't the case. You really have a lengthy list of 1st round QB's getting a lot of 1st season playing time who never developed or are considered busts:
- Locker
- Manuel
- Losman
- Ponder
- Boller
- Lynch
- Harrington
- David Carr
- Grossman
- Manziel
- Young
- Freeman
- Bradford
If experience were key to development, that list would be shorter. You can make as good of an argument that those QB's played far too soon.
Quote:
Nothing can be proven because the NFL is not a science lab and every case is different but there is a fairly accepted truth that QBs need game experience to develop, even in the face of outliers like Mahomes.
Its not about year 1 vs year 2. Its about getting game experience. period. full stop.
That is a general point I am making that holds true for all teams and nearly all QBs.
Mahomes is not an outlier, nor is game experience an indicator of development.
Mahomes is the latest, but certainly not the first QB to excel in Year 2. And there are several examples of first-round QB's who play immediately and fail - and never develop. What needs to be understood is development isn't linear - nor dependent on experience.
It is not a point that holds true for all teams and nearly all QB's. That's exactly what I'm refuting. And the data doesn't bear it out.
And that's another factor. If experience were so valuable in development, any experience would be good experience, and that just isn't the case. You really have a lengthy list of 1st round QB's getting a lot of 1st season playing time who never developed or are considered busts:
- Locker
- Manuel
- Losman
- Ponder
- Boller
- Lynch
- Harrington
- David Carr
- Grossman
- Manziel
- Young
- Freeman
- Bradford
If experience were key to development, that list would be shorter. You can make as good of an argument that those QB's played far too soon.
Or those QBs just got found out to be bad investments. Or bad investments plus bad situations (teams, coaches, etc). Proving that the QB selection process is what it's always been for his selections - an absolute coin toss.
So it's not going to be a guarantee one way or the other.
Which brings me back to the point - why wait?
Why give up on a season before it starts? And Zeke mentions how Jones would need to have a historically good rookie season to match what Eli will likely do.
I also agree that the list of QB's above could indicate poor selections, but we'll never know about some if they were in different situations. Would Carr have been better? What about Bradford?
I'd flip it around and say why rush Jones? I'm not tied to either approach. I think you play Eli until we are out of contention, but I'm not adamant about it. Seems to me there are some that are adamant to get Jones experience no matter what though. And that's hard to support.
Quote:
Nothing can be proven because the NFL is not a science lab and every case is different but there is a fairly accepted truth that QBs need game experience to develop, even in the face of outliers like Mahomes.
Its not about year 1 vs year 2. Its about getting game experience. period. full stop.
That is a general point I am making that holds true for all teams and nearly all QBs.
nor is game experience an indicator of development.
thats an clever way to to twist what I wrote.
You are probably right that I wont be able to plots games started vs QB rating and get a high R2 score, and if I did you would probably come back with some pedantic argument about QB rating. (I'm sure Gatorate Dunk will be happy to explain R2 to you if needed)
But I seriously don't know how you can refute this.
QBs need game experience to develop
If your already looking past 2019 and just want to use it as a 20 game preseason, you don't wait.
QBs need game experience to develop
I've literally spent the past several posts showing that game experience is not essential for development. And Mahomes isn't a unicorn.
Are you fucking kidding me?
If your already looking past 2019 and just want to use it as a 20 game preseason, you don't wait.
That’s one helluva leap you’re attributing to the Giants. No way, shape, manner, or form are they treating this season as a warmup for 2020.
You never hear of QBs making a leap from year to year? what is that based on if not game experience?
You never hear of QBs making a leap from year to year? what is that based on if not game experience?
Eli is starting because he gives them the best chance to win, RIGHT NOW.
Eli started on the bench because they thought Warner gave them that chance. They also wanted Kerry Collins to do it but he refused. Eli was inserted when Warner was no longer helping them win games.
Jones, Eli, the team and coaches all seem cool with the plan. It is a good plan. Eli will not start all year if he sucks, Jones is no Webb. Chill man, take it easy.
Don't worry about a ting'
Every little ting' gonna be alright.
You wouldn't have numerous examples of a guy with very little game experience coming in year 2 or 3 and being excellent, whether it is Rivers, Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady.
If game experience was absolutely essential, low draft picks like Kirk Cousins wouldn't step onto the field when injury to a starter happens and play well.
And it isn't an absolute here. Only a fool would say that experience never helps guys - but to call it essential or that players NEED experience, there are so many examples in both directions that refute it.
You've apparently ignored all of them,so I wonder why that may be.....
You've apparently ignored all of them,so I wonder why that may be.....
Quote:
If your already looking past 2019 and just want to use it as a 20 game preseason, you don't wait.
That’s one helluva leap you’re attributing to the Giants. No way, shape, manner, or form are they treating this season as a warmup for 2020.
No, you misinterpreted it. I know the Giants are not.
Even in you examples, Brady wasn't the player in 2002 he was in 2007
You are being overly pedantic using absolutes like need or essential.
But if you want to hold on to the theory that experience isn't very important to the vast majority of players that's fine. I'll just make sure to remind you when you are calling posters fucksticks for complaing about Jones growing pains when he eventually gets his shot.
In high school football, you have the established player at the position while you groom his successor. Same in college. Same in the NFL.
This practice is as old as the game itself.
Even in you examples, Brady wasn't the player in 2002 he was in 2007
You are being overly pedantic using absolutes like need or essential.
But if you want to hold on to the theory that experience isn't very important to the vast majority of players that's fine. I'll just make sure to remind you when you are calling posters fucksticks for complaing about Jones growing pains when he eventually gets his shot.
When I call you dim, trace it back to posts like this.
My entire argument has been to refute that there are absolutes. Starting with the premise that it is essential for Jones to play this year to develop.
You seemingly haven't grasped the points I've made that development, especially early in a career isn't tied specifically to one method or another, and the data bears that out.
So you are either not grasping them because you are dim or because you're being willfully ignorant. You can choose whichever option makes you look the best.....
In high school football, you have the established player at the position while you groom his successor. Same in college. Same in the NFL.
This practice is as old as the game itself.
This is old and stale thinking.
We are in a cap era where hitting on a rookie QB's contract is gold. The trickle down impact is huge. It opens up considerably more investment options. So you can't look at this through a traditional lens.
The league is built now for instant QB success. It's never been easier - ever - to jump from college to the pros, especially with the pro game adopting more elements of the college game. Hell, the high school has adopted pro elements. So much so that I think Trevor Lawrence could have been ready to play in a pro game right out of high school.
It's a great, great time to be bold...
I never said it was essential that jones plays year one. I said it would be better to start the process sooner. Maybe I used the word preferred
Even when I say players need experience, it's pretty clear to a rational person I wasn't talking about 100% of the population.
Is there really more than that?
The importance imv for Jones to see some quality playing time in 2019 is it would allow for a higher level of confidence on what the team might be able to achieve with him at the helm in 2020.
And I didn't say just Jones' confidence...
I disagree. There's no reason to believe that Jones' confidence will be higher in 2020 due to playing some in 2019.
No reason? Sure there is.
If you stick with conventional wisdom that the game is going to slow down going into year two, which you essentially here all the time from QBs after playing their first year, then it's more than reasonable extrapolate out that confidence will improve.
he is definitely practicing, but probably not getting any significant reps unless running the scout team.
Film work will help his learning but there is no replacement for live game reps. I know that is a controversial take.
I never said it was essential that jones plays year one. I said it would be better to start the process sooner. Maybe I used the word preferred
Even when I say players need experience, it's pretty clear to a rational person I wasn't talking about 100% of the population.
What argument am I twisting?? I can show examples of good experience being gained vs. bad experience being gained, so it is not essential to play a rookie to get him game experience and it can absolutely be detrimental to development.
Hell, even the term experience is being blurred here - because earlier in the thread it most definitely was meant the experience gained in year 1 vs. sitting him. Now it is turning into the experience over an entire body of work. So who is twisting what now?
There's even a counter to the point that experience develops players in the long-term. Tell me how much experience helped Mark Sanchez. How is it helping Jameis Winston? What about Case Keenum? Did getting experience help Colin Kaep develop?
The argument started out that if Jones doesn't play this year, his development will be delayed. And that point has still yet to be proven. That isn't twisting any words - it still isn't proven.
Quote:
that if Jones isn't playing, then he must be vacationing. That there's no practice or film work or anything like that. Or maybe none of that matters?
he is definitely practicing, but probably not getting any significant reps unless running the scout team.
Film work will help his learning but there is no replacement for live game reps. I know that is a controversial take.
But it's not nothing either. And, given the unreliability of whether throwing someone into the fire works or not, it would seem valuable to mention *all* forms of development available to him. And I'm not at all sure that throwing 2019 games for the sake of speculative 2020 improvement does all that much. I think a win is still one game in either season.
I'm willing to wager that he will fall someone in between there.
Since Pedant in Carolina thew out a list of players for his side of the argument, allow me to put out a list of players with bad to mediocre starts who developed into pretty damn good players
Let me start of the list with Eli Manning - no back up necessary
Drew Brees - 8-8 starting year 2 with 205 yards per game and 76 rating
Tony Romo in his third year went 6-4 with 19 tds and 13 ints, 180 yards per game
Big Ben - we all argue how pedestrian he was his first year despite the team record
Alex Smith had a rough start but wound up having a 15 year career with a 66% winning percentage
Kirk Cousins who fatman has on his side of the ledger had a very good first game against what I'm guessing was a terrible browns team but actually went 2-7 over the first three years with a QB rating if 41 and 52 in year 2 and three
Joe Montana went 2-5 in his first real action year 2 throwing for 120 yards a game
Peyton Manning threw 28 ints his first year
I could go on and on and on , but I guess these guys are just outliers
The premise is that if Jones doesn't play this year, his development will be delayed. It is as basic as that.
And it is an unprovable point.
The premise is that if Jones doesn't play this year, his development will be delayed. It is as basic as that.
And it is an unprovable point.
of course its unprovable you pedant.
How could I possibly prove it?
But history shows that most QBs have growing pains when they start playing and improve with experience.
Of course some, maybe even most, never make it to what we like to call franchise QB. But even that is useful information to the franchise playing them.
The premise is that if Jones doesn't play this year, his development will be delayed. It is as basic as that.
And it is an unprovable point.
Let's try it this way - it be not be delayed, but is could be accelerated, true?
Quote:
you really don't even seem to grasp what the discussion was.
The premise is that if Jones doesn't play this year, his development will be delayed. It is as basic as that.
And it is an unprovable point.
Let's try it this way - it be not be delayed, but is could be accelerated, true?
Geesh - should read: it may not be delayed, but it could be accelerated, true?
In addition, there are just as many instances of young QBs not playing early in their careers that have helped them versus hindered them.
It 6 to 5 and pick em' so flip the coin and tell Jones whether he should suit up tonight or not.
Why don't you go back to ganging up on the autistic kid in the OBJ thread. That's more your speed.
Quote:
From the 3 stooges.
Why don't you go back to ganging up on the autistic kid in the OBJ thread.
Not sure I could tell the difference actually...
Absolutely super!
Quote:
In comment 14539671 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
you really don't even seem to grasp what the discussion was.
The premise is that if Jones doesn't play this year, his development will be delayed. It is as basic as that.
And it is an unprovable point.
Let's try it this way - it be not be delayed, but is could be accelerated, true?
Geesh - should read: it may not be delayed, but it could be accelerated, true?
At the unnecessary expense of a season with no tangible benefit.
Quote:
From the 3 stooges.
Why don't you go back to ganging up on the autistic kid in the OBJ thread. That's more your speed.
You’re making fun of a disability? Christ that’s more of a Les in TO thing.... but reaching scumbag levels entices all I suppose. That’s more on your “radar” I suppose.
Absolutely super!
You 3 dimwits have been here all day. Just need Santa to finish off the crew.
At the unnecessary expense of a season with no tangible benefit.
That's the pessimistic view.
As the optimist among us, I think it could be pay dirt with Jones. ;)
Quote:
In comment 14539720 dep026 said:
Quote:
From the 3 stooges.
Why don't you go back to ganging up on the autistic kid in the OBJ thread. That's more your speed.
You’re making fun of a disability? Christ that’s more of a Les in TO thing.... but reaching scumbag levels entices all I suppose. That’s more on your “radar” I suppose.
I'm not making fun of shit, rover admitted he's on the spectrum and you fucking shit stains still pick on him
Absolutely super!
LOL, nah - I already voiced my opinion on this topic. None of you guys are changing each other's minds here - it looks like hours were spent debating this and it went nowhere. I didn't even read the posts, really. A little skim and that was all. I just see this thread near the top of the forum any time I refresh the page and there's 300+ posts on it now. So, obviously everyone's still going.
I just don't think it's a one-size-fits-all thing when it comes to when to start a rookie QB. I think it just depends on the player. It depends on the type of offense he's coming from, the school, the coaching he's had, what he still needs to work on, etc.
I think allowing Eli to start the season with the understanding that if he isn't winning games, he's getting a quick hook is a pretty fair way to approach this. I wouldn't sit him if we start 0-1... but I also wouldn't wait until something like 2-6.
Eli is starting with the expectation that he needs to win. We all know that. If Jones sits for the first 4-5 weeks of his rookie career, it's not going to do anything to hinder his development.
And if Jones is sitting longer than that, it should mean the Giants are above .500 and firmly in the mix in the NFC. I don't expect this scenario, but I would not be upset with Eli continuing to play should that turn out to be the case.
I don't think anyone should really be angry if the Giants are sitting 2-3 games over .500 come the halfway point of the season and Eli is having a bit of a resurgence.
When the time comes, Daniel will be ready.
I'm not making fun of shit, rover admitted he's on the spectrum and you fucking shit stains still pick on him
Lol, sure. Just make it known about his disability. Classy. And I don’t discriminate on who I pick on. It could be rover, a bad fan, or the three stooges. I treat all of them the same.
Now go get ready for the Tae-Tae concert with your bosom buddies. You guys did great work today.
Quote:
In comment 14539707 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14539671 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
you really don't even seem to grasp what the discussion was.
The premise is that if Jones doesn't play this year, his development will be delayed. It is as basic as that.
And it is an unprovable point.
Let's try it this way - it be not be delayed, but is could be accelerated, true?
Geesh - should read: it may not be delayed, but it could be accelerated, true?
At the unnecessary expense of a season with no tangible benefit.
I know you know that we will win more with the incumbent. And, if, or when, we can’t we can see how Jones can spark us. It only is that what the plan actually is, it’s the most sensible one.
The Giants have a good opportunity to upgrade the roster in the 2020 offseason via UFA, and they absolutely should be building that team around Jones.
I'd suspect Accorsi approached the UFA period in 2005 with a grocery list of what would compliment Manning. He got a big, wingspan receiver and a right, not left tackle.
The Giants aren't fielding a train wreck of a team where Jones is going to get destroyed. Gettleman is fielding a component line, a fabulous half back, and a professional (if uninspiring) WR core.
Quote:
I'm not making fun of shit, rover admitted he's on the spectrum and you fucking shit stains still pick on him
Lol, sure. Just make it known about his disability. Classy. And I don’t discriminate on who I pick on. It could be rover, a bad fan, or the three stooges. I treat all of them the same.
Now go get ready for the Tae-Tae concert with your bosom buddies. You guys did great work today.
Yeah, you sound like a super guy...
I think allowing Eli to start the season with the understanding that if he isn't winning games, he's getting a quick hook is a pretty fair way to approach this. I wouldn't sit him if we start 0-1... but I also wouldn't wait until something like 2-6.
Do you think that's been declared internally with Eli? Or are they going to sort of make it up as they go?
Quote:
I think allowing Eli to start the season with the understanding that if he isn't winning games, he's getting a quick hook is a pretty fair way to approach this. I wouldn't sit him if we start 0-1... but I also wouldn't wait until something like 2-6.
Do you think that's been declared internally with Eli? Or are they going to sort of make it up as they go?
I think that public opinion among the fans is going to be a much bigger factor than anyone is talking about. They really shit the bed last time and I don't think they make a move without MOST fans on board. You are going to see a lot of leaks and rumors that Shurmur wants to start Jones coming out to try and gauge what fans think.
Just saw this. That is very funny.
You’ve got to hand it to Fat-Mara. He’s building for the future. Taking his disciples - arc, dep, Bill, Brit et al - under his wing and teaching them his methods. Each of them with their assigned roles in the meantime...
I think that public opinion among the fans is going to be a much bigger factor than anyone is talking about. They really shit the bed last time and I don't think they make a move without MOST fans on board. You are going to see a lot of leaks and rumors that Shurmur wants to start Jones coming out to try and gauge what fans think.
I said earlier that if you gave Shurmur a shot of Sodium Pentothal right now he would confess that Jones is indeed his choice.
But he’s got no leverage on this. Mara wrote and owns the delegations of authority. And they’ve been tightened up since the catastrophe Mara created with the drama with Eli in Geno Gate. Despite what Mara said last week with his goofy, phony presser, Shurmur calls no final shots on Eli. He can only recommend.