....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.
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?