....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.
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.