....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.
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.