First, I don’t think there are many if any here who wanted a young quarterback the last two seasons more than me.
But what did people see yesterday to prompt the “Eli is done” narrative that I read in the game and post game threads yesterday.
Eli has limitations, we all know that. But so do other quarterbacks throughout the league who are still winning. Does anyone here believe Eli wouldn’t be a winner with a roster like Dallas’?
Seems like there is much resentment directed towards Eli here, which I find surprising on a Giants board.
He might not be the answer here anymore, but to state unequivocally that he s done, when his stats and even his play don’t support that theory is not accurate IMO.
For the record I m ready to move on from Eli, because this team is not ready to win, not because Eli is done.
But the game has clearly passed him by and its time to move on. Its been time to move on for a couple of years now. If you want to roll your QB out have someone in there that can move
But the game has clearly passed him by and its time to move on. Its been time to move on for a couple of years now. If you want to roll your QB out have someone in there that can move
How has the game clearly passed him by? WTF
But the game has clearly passed him by and its time to move on. Its been time to move on for a couple of years now. If you want to roll your QB out have someone in there that can move
Yes he has limitations mostly a lack of mobility, And as I stated, I want to see them move on.
But a quarterback who has been a winner is done when he can no longer make the throws, that is not the case with Eli
Quote:
And i appreciate everything he's done
But the game has clearly passed him by and its time to move on. Its been time to move on for a couple of years now. If you want to roll your QB out have someone in there that can move
How has the game clearly passed him by? WTF
Did you see him outside the pocket yesterday? He's so effing slow he cant even get rid of the ball, play the kid, move on. What benefit is it to this team having him back there? Let Jones take his rookie lumps and prepare for the future
That said, he looked ok yesterday with the better line, much more relaxed in the pocket.
He only threw for 300 and a TD with no picks with Shepherd as his #1 WR. Any other NFL QB would have doubled that, like Ben Roethlisberger. Didn't you watch the amazing Sam Darnold tearing through the Bills defense? Or Josh Rosen? Or Josh Allen? We should have dumped Eli for one of them. He's certainly no Ben Roethlisberger...that's a guy who can strap the team on his back and win vs a better opponent. Didn't you watch last night?
Yup, he's clearly done. This defense is a playoff contender...just need a better QB.
Eli’s mobility and his passing were not the problem yesterday. The offense wasn’t great once they went away from Barkley. That is what needs to change, regardless of who the QB is. You can’t use your best player as a decoy for most of the game.
Did you see him outside the pocket yesterday? He's so effing slow he cant even get rid of the ball, play the kid, move on. What benefit is it to this team having him back there? Let Jones take his rookie lumps and prepare for the future
When has Eli ever had any sort of speed outside the pocket? That's not who he is. This team lacks talent. Our defense completely no showed. You want to say Eli isn't leading this team to the playoffs? Fair enough. He's done being a Super Bowl QB on this team.
But to say the league has passed him by is a bit of an exaggeration, imo.
this team is going no where
Jones will prob give them a better chance to win at this point anyway
He only threw for 300 and a TD with no picks with Shepherd as his #1 WR. Any other NFL QB would have doubled that, like Ben Roethlisberger. Didn't you watch the amazing Sam Darnold tearing through the Bills defense? Or Josh Rosen? Or Josh Allen? We should have dumped Eli for one of them. He's certainly no Ben Roethlisberger...that's a guy who can strap the team on his back and win vs a better opponent. Didn't you watch last night?
Yup, he's clearly done. This defense is a playoff contender...just need a better QB.
Randy Marsh could not have said it better.
Sarcastaball - ( New Window )
Quote:
Did you see him outside the pocket yesterday? He's so effing slow he cant even get rid of the ball, play the kid, move on. What benefit is it to this team having him back there? Let Jones take his rookie lumps and prepare for the future
When has Eli ever had any sort of speed outside the pocket? That's not who he is. This team lacks talent. Our defense completely no showed. You want to say Eli isn't leading this team to the playoffs? Fair enough. He's done being a Super Bowl QB on this team.
But to say the league has passed him by is a bit of an exaggeration, imo.
Exaggeration, fine. I've been ready to move on for 2 years now.
Snacks was still getting it done but we decided it would be better to go younger and cheaper.
It should be the same thought process for QB as it is for all other positions.
There is no reason to have an Aging QB play any significant role in a team this bad.
We know Eli was close to perfect so can't be any of the qb. Has to be the other 10 guys on offense..or maybe even the coaches?
We know Eli was close to perfect so can't be any of the qb. Has to be the other 10 guys on offense..or maybe even the coaches?
Certainly everyone’s fault but Eli
Quote:
And i appreciate everything he's done
But the game has clearly passed him by and its time to move on. Its been time to move on for a couple of years now. If you want to roll your QB out have someone in there that can move
How has the game clearly passed him by? WTF
That's what espn told him.
We know Eli was close to perfect so can't be any of the qb. Has to be the other 10 guys on offense..or maybe even the coaches?
Forgot, Dallas defense being great?
Joey in VA : 2:48 am : link : reply
Because this offense isn't designed for a statue to play QB. Hell Case Keenum threw for 300 yards and 3 TDs against a very good Eagles defense and had a 17-0 lead. He moved, scrambled and made good throws but his team lost because the defense was roasted like ours was. The difference is, he's a WCO QB who has mobility and Eli has zero. The key, the absolute key to this is a QB who can move and we don't start one who can. Mahomes, Wentz, Keenum, Prescott, hell name anyone not named Tom Brady and you see QBs who can move and throw. Eli can't, and never could and now at age 38 he is worse at not doing what he never could. You bench him and you open the playbook and yes it's ugly for a while until Jones learns the offense but you grow with it. Eli is done, he has been done for 3 years but John Mara declares it a sin to bench him so it's a sin. Mara is a moron whose loyalty will get us killed.
Combine that with Eli's performance the last three years in which he has recorded QB Ratings that had him as the 26th ranked QB (twice) and 25th ranked QB (once).
Think QB rating is a bogus stat? Then how come Brady and Brees have finished out of the top 10 in QBR just once, COMBINED in the last 10 years?
QBs coming off three sub-par seasons don't suddenly get better in year 38.
And as others have stated, whether you think Eli is done or not, what is the point of starting him on a team that's going nowhere?
He only threw for 300 and a TD with no picks with Shepherd as his #1 WR. Any other NFL QB would have doubled that, like Ben Roethlisberger. Didn't you watch the amazing Sam Darnold tearing through the Bills defense? Or Josh Rosen? Or Josh Allen? We should have dumped Eli for one of them. He's certainly no Ben Roethlisberger...that's a guy who can strap the team on his back and win vs a better opponent. Didn't you watch last night?
Yup, he's clearly done. This defense is a playoff contender...just need a better QB.
Quote:
In comment 14567209 cjac said:
Quote:
And i appreciate everything he's done
But the game has clearly passed him by and its time to move on. Its been time to move on for a couple of years now. If you want to roll your QB out have someone in there that can move
How has the game clearly passed him by? WTF
Did you see him outside the pocket yesterday? He's so effing slow he cant even get rid of the ball, play the kid, move on. What benefit is it to this team having him back there? Let Jones take his rookie lumps and prepare for the future
I agree,Eli outside the pocket doesn't work. But,if they're going to play Eli,that's on Shurmur & his desire to run his offense rather than giving Eli the best chance to be successful. When you roll Eli out &take away his options,youlimit him to 1 receiver & you're not doing what's best for the team. I agree that if he's going to continue to run his offense through Eli w/o adjustments,it's best to cut the cord sooner than later,put DJ in there & let him get the experience. A coach that doesn't do what's best for his QB's strengths,isn't being a good coach & Shurmur has given no indication he's willing to adjust his playbook for Eli!
The only way we could possibly win yesterday was to match Dallas in a shootout. Was Eli the right person to solve that? His QBR was 22.4 and we were 2 for 11 on third down. He had the big fumble in a very bad spot, and his YPA was 6.5. And by and large, I think the pass protection was adequate. So not compelling numbers/results to support that thought.
On the other hand, our outside weapons are underwhelming. Barkley is clearly the best option, yet Shurmur underutilizes him for some inexplicable reason. And generally you have to wonder and question Shurmur’s play calling strategy.
So yesterday’s offensive deficiencies were probably a combination of Eli, Shurmur, and talent.
There were several plays where Eli was the reason the offense tanked. I love the guy but it’s time to change. If they’re not making the playoffs anyway I’d rather they go 2-14 w DJ than 5-11 or something w Eli. At least you’d get a better pick, in addition to seeing what DJ has.
I understand the talk of, if this is a rebuilding year so why not bench Eli, etc. But this was the first game with 7 new players on defense - you can't give up on the season after one game against a very good team. I'm not saying this team is going to the playoffs but they won't be as bad all year as this first game. This is Eli's last year. Jones is learning. To me, it makes no sense to throw Jones to the wolves at this point. Eli at least gives the Giants a chance to win games. Let's give it a few games at least!
By the way -- Darnel didn't look so hot either yesterday and the Giants are playing that same defense next week -- so I don't have much hope for our offense next week either
I understand the talk of, if this is a rebuilding year so why not bench Eli, etc. But this was the first game with 7 new players on defense - you can't give up on the season after one game against a very good team. I'm not saying this team is going to the playoffs but they won't be as bad all year as this first game. This is Eli's last year. Jones is learning. To me, it makes no sense to throw Jones to the wolves at this point. Eli at least gives the Giants a chance to win games. Let's give it a few games at least!
Maybe because they go the playoffs every year?
maybe because in the last 2 seasons their record is 22-9-1 and the Giants are 8-24
On the game thread, he was the target of at least half the discussion all while the D was letting 5 straight TD's up. His "look" is mocked. There's constant references to ownership playing him out of loyalty. It boils down to a lot of pent up frustration.
Hell, you even have a thread asking what "culpability" Eli had in the loss. What culpability did ANY offensive player have in the midst of that shitshow on D? Put Jones in there and you think the results are better?
There are a fair segment of fans here who have seen the trainwreck of a OL over the past decade. the lack of LB's. Defenses that literally have performed among the worst in NFL history and, gun to their head, they will say Eli has been the problem.
that's one of the reasons you can't have rational discussion about the guy. And when you try to, some cockmonkey from Canada will come up with a stupid moniker like the "Eli FanBoy Club".
As for him 'making all the throws' - he still can. And true, given a lot of time and good conditions, he can excel. Few QBs get that anymore.
It isn't just 'making the throws.' It's the lack of movement in the pocket, the reduced ability to sense and feel the rush, the inability to execute a play fake, adjustments the defense doesn't have to make because he will never string out a play, not forcing DEs to set the edge first before they tee off, the angles they can take, and the general pace and feel of the game when he is running it. It is now reached a point where all of these secondary things are too much. He may simply not be athletic enough to play the position anymore. It is too easy to play defense against this team. He gets far too much criticism and he was NOT the main issue yesterday. No D=No Team. But how many busted 3rd down plays do we have to see. I am a huge fan and have defended him over the years. But it is time to move on. It's not a knock against him. He should want to play and should want to continue. The best teams aren't sentimental.
He only threw for 300 and a TD with no picks with Shepherd as his #1 WR. Any other NFL QB would have doubled that, like Ben Roethlisberger. Didn't you watch the amazing Sam Darnold tearing through the Bills defense? Or Josh Rosen? Or Josh Allen? We should have dumped Eli for one of them. He's certainly no Ben Roethlisberger...that's a guy who can strap the team on his back and win vs a better opponent. Didn't you watch last night?
Yup, he's clearly done. This defense is a playoff contender...just need a better QB.
Box score scouting at its finest
I understand the talk of, if this is a rebuilding year so why not bench Eli, etc. But this was the first game with 7 new players on defense - you can't give up on the season after one game against a very good team. I'm not saying this team is going to the playoffs but they won't be as bad all year as this first game. This is Eli's last year. Jones is learning. To me, it makes no sense to throw Jones to the wolves at this point. Eli at least gives the Giants a chance to win games. Let's give it a few games at least!
Really the current champions and the team that has 6 sb this century are similar to the dallas cowboys team we faced yesterday? Get the fuck out of here.. Also Steelers have been good for a while the giants have been picking in single digits...
Eli was part of the problem yesterday.. when it counted our offense scored 10 points.. 7 of which came about because our RB got 60 yards on a rushing play.
By the way -- Darnel didn't look so hot either yesterday and the Giants are playing that same defense next week -- so I don't have much hope for our offense next week either
What exactly does “100% ready” mean?
We are not a good football team. We can argue all we want about how good or how bad but we are not good. It is embarrassing to see this be an NFL defense. It is also irresponsible of the general manager to put this team together on the defensive side of the ball. I heard a lot of people here saying we should get rid of snacks we should get rid of Collins we should get rid of Vernon. We sure could’ve used all of them yesterday never mind the two Detroit Lions. I honestly don’t think any of our defensive talent to replace those guys is anywhere near as good as they are . Hey but we saved a bunch of money? We could’ve paid all of them this year with a few adjustments and then started over next year but I don’t think that was the right thing to do either. It would’ve just been one more year away from
development. So here we are. Get ready for high scoring games and hopefully six wins.
On the game thread, he was the target of at least half the discussion all while the D was letting 5 straight TD's up. His "look" is mocked. There's constant references to ownership playing him out of loyalty. It boils down to a lot of pent up frustration.
Hell, you even have a thread asking what "culpability" Eli had in the loss. What culpability did ANY offensive player have in the midst of that shitshow on D? Put Jones in there and you think the results are better?
There are a fair segment of fans here who have seen the trainwreck of a OL over the past decade. the lack of LB's. Defenses that literally have performed among the worst in NFL history and, gun to their head, they will say Eli has been the problem.
that's one of the reasons you can't have rational discussion about the guy. And when you try to, some cockmonkey from Canada will come up with a stupid moniker like the "Eli FanBoy Club".
What do you mean what culpability does any offensive player have in the loss? They scored 10 points when it mattered.
He only threw for 300 and a TD with no picks with Shepherd as his #1 WR. Any other NFL QB would have doubled that, like Ben Roethlisberger. Didn't you watch the amazing Sam Darnold tearing through the Bills defense? Or Josh Rosen? Or Josh Allen? We should have dumped Eli for one of them. He's certainly no Ben Roethlisberger...that's a guy who can strap the team on his back and win vs a better opponent. Didn't you watch last night?
Yup, he's clearly done. This defense is a playoff contender...just need a better QB.
he was 2-11 on third down and 1-3 on fourth down
Wentz was 12-13 on 3rd down for 193 yards and 3 TD's
Yes the defense sucks, but this boxscore defense of Eli is just silly
"When it mattered", the HC kept going for 4th down conversions. Why? Because he knew the D wasn't going to make many stops.
"When it mattered" was the 1st quarter -and then the D proceeded to give up TD's on 5 consecutive drives. Something Dallas had never scored in their entire history!
This "when it mattered" bullshit is a way to try and say that Eli wasn't good and to deflect from the fact the D was historically poor.
In comment 14567357 cjac said:
Quote:
Funny - the Steelers look as bad as they did last night against a similar good team in the Patriots and we don't hear any talk about Ben "being done". For whatever reason, Eli gets a special class of criticism no matter what he does. I thought he had a very good game yesterday. Obviously the loss wasn't his fault.
I understand the talk of, if this is a rebuilding year so why not bench Eli, etc. But this was the first game with 7 new players on defense - you can't give up on the season after one game against a very good team. I'm not saying this team is going to the playoffs but they won't be as bad all year as this first game. This is Eli's last year. Jones is learning. To me, it makes no sense to throw Jones to the wolves at this point. Eli at least gives the Giants a chance to win games. Let's give it a few games at least!
Maybe because they go the playoffs every year?
maybe because in the last 2 seasons their record is 22-9-1 and the Giants are 8-24
As for him 'making all the throws' - he still can. And true, given a lot of time and good conditions, he can excel. Few QBs get that anymore.
It isn't just 'making the throws.' It's the lack of movement in the pocket, the reduced ability to sense and feel the rush, the inability to execute a play fake, adjustments the defense doesn't have to make because he will never string out a play, not forcing DEs to set the edge first before they tee off, the angles they can take, and the general pace and feel of the game when he is running it. It is now reached a point where all of these secondary things are too much. He may simply not be athletic enough to play the position anymore. It is too easy to play defense against this team. He gets far too much criticism and he was NOT the main issue yesterday. No D=No Team. But how many busted 3rd down plays do we have to see. I am a huge fan and have defended him over the years. But it is time to move on. It's not a knock against him. He should want to play and should want to continue. The best teams aren't sentimental.
Very well said. Whether or not Manning can play anymore is utterly irrelevant. Losses will pile up this season and you’d rather spend that time letting Jones learn the game live and taking his lumps, so you can actually gauge whether you have a legit franchise qb or just a mediocre or worse player.
Also, not sure whose fault it is but the Giants scored 10 points in meaningful time. I’ve been reading on BBI for multiple years how it was everyone’s else’s fault but Eli’s for the stagnant offense. Well, pretty much everyone around him has been swapped out, nearly the entire oline is new, top running back, the distraction Beckham gone, a competent tight end, and three different head coaches. So what’s the coming denominator? Yet we continue to see an offense that sputters when it matters.
It’s not as if the giants put up 30 points yesterday and the defense just didn’t show up.
Well said.
"When it mattered", the HC kept going for 4th down conversions. Why? Because he knew the D wasn't going to make many stops.
"When it mattered" was the 1st quarter -and then the D proceeded to give up TD's on 5 consecutive drives. Something Dallas had never scored in their entire history!
This "when it mattered" bullshit is a way to try and say that Eli wasn't good and to deflect from the fact the D was historically poor.
You’re dancing around the point.
He wasn’t good at best he was average. Nobody is trying to deflect from the defense being shit, but we knew the defense would be rough given the youth.
The offense was supposed to good with the new oline was supposed to be improved. They scored 10 points until two minutes left in the 4th. They were 2-11 on 3rd down. Averaged 6.5 yards a pass. Is the offense as culpable as the defense, no. But they’re culpable.
Joey in VA : 2:48 am : link : reply
Because this offense isn't designed for a statue to play QB. Hell Case Keenum threw for 300 yards and 3 TDs against a very good Eagles defense and had a 17-0 lead. He moved, scrambled and made good throws but his team lost because the defense was roasted like ours was. The difference is, he's a WCO QB who has mobility and Eli has zero. The key, the absolute key to this is a QB who can move and we don't start one who can. Mahomes, Wentz, Keenum, Prescott, hell name anyone not named Tom Brady and you see QBs who can move and throw. Eli can't, and never could and now at age 38 he is worse at not doing what he never could. You bench him and you open the playbook and yes it's ugly for a while until Jones learns the offense but you grow with it. Eli is done, he has been done for 3 years but John Mara declares it a sin to bench him so it's a sin. Mara is a moron whose loyalty will get us killed.
Combine that with Eli's performance the last three years in which he has recorded QB Ratings that had him as the 26th ranked QB (twice) and 25th ranked QB (once).
Think QB rating is a bogus stat? Then how come Brady and Brees have finished out of the top 10 in QBR just once, COMBINED in the last 10 years?
QBs coming off three sub-par seasons don't suddenly get better in year 38.
And as others have stated, whether you think Eli is done or not, what is the point of starting him on a team that's going nowhere?
Eli's lack of mobility is a big problem.
The Giants have made numerous mistakes that have exacerbated Eli's decline - poor OL, coaches whose systems are not a fit for Eli - but I do think he's in decline. I think he can win, but he needs an ideal scenario to do so. I have a hard time thinking Eli is anything more than average these days, and think he's definitely below average.
He only threw for 300 and a TD with no picks with Shepherd as his #1 WR. Any other NFL QB would have doubled that, like Ben Roethlisberger. Didn't you watch the amazing Sam Darnold tearing through the Bills defense? Or Josh Rosen? Or Josh Allen? We should have dumped Eli for one of them. He's certainly no Ben Roethlisberger...that's a guy who can strap the team on his back and win vs a better opponent. Didn't you watch last night?
Yup, he's clearly done. This defense is a playoff contender...just need a better QB.
Or... see if you can follow along here... the team - especially the defense - is so bad that Eli is an unnecessary luxury for them and almost any other use of the cap room that he's occupying this season (including simply rolling the cap space over to next season) would provide more value to a roster that is rebuilding and will be assembled around a QB who isn't Eli.
The only way it made sense to bring Eli back was to help move the franchise forward with some wins this year and maybe sneak into the playoffs ahead of schedule. It's only one game, but if that's really what this team is this year then it was a mistake to bring Eli back.
And that has nothing to do with blaming Eli. It's just acknowledging the reality that it might just be a waste of time at this point to postpone the transition to Jones if the team is going to be bad again this year.
They probably can comprehend it. They just don't want to close the book on the Eli Manning era. It's emotional, and rightfully so.
But it's tiresome to have to keep prefacing every statement with "this is because the team is bad and rebuilding, not because anyone is blaming Eli."
Quote:
Eli was bad
Joey in VA : 2:48 am : link : reply
Because this offense isn't designed for a statue to play QB. Hell Case Keenum threw for 300 yards and 3 TDs against a very good Eagles defense and had a 17-0 lead. He moved, scrambled and made good throws but his team lost because the defense was roasted like ours was. The difference is, he's a WCO QB who has mobility and Eli has zero. The key, the absolute key to this is a QB who can move and we don't start one who can. Mahomes, Wentz, Keenum, Prescott, hell name anyone not named Tom Brady and you see QBs who can move and throw. Eli can't, and never could and now at age 38 he is worse at not doing what he never could. You bench him and you open the playbook and yes it's ugly for a while until Jones learns the offense but you grow with it. Eli is done, he has been done for 3 years but John Mara declares it a sin to bench him so it's a sin. Mara is a moron whose loyalty will get us killed.
Combine that with Eli's performance the last three years in which he has recorded QB Ratings that had him as the 26th ranked QB (twice) and 25th ranked QB (once).
Think QB rating is a bogus stat? Then how come Brady and Brees have finished out of the top 10 in QBR just once, COMBINED in the last 10 years?
QBs coming off three sub-par seasons don't suddenly get better in year 38.
And as others have stated, whether you think Eli is done or not, what is the point of starting him on a team that's going nowhere?
Eli's lack of mobility is a big problem.
Analysis like this always ignores the surrounding team. Brady and Brees have great offenses. As for Big Ben, and the comments above, the team has put around the aging Ben a strong OL, Bell, and Brown (over the past 5 years). This certainly helps a lot, Eli never has had that. Last night without those guys look what happened. Rivers the same; Gordon, Allen, strong OL.
Quote:
We are rebuilding. Having Eli on the field is a waste of time and slows the rebuilding process. Whether Eli is finished or not is irrelevant. The fact that people cannot comprehend this is astonishing.
They probably can comprehend it. They just don't want to close the book on the Eli Manning era. It's emotional, and rightfully so.
But it's tiresome to have to keep prefacing every statement with "this is because the team is bad and rebuilding, not because anyone is blaming Eli."
I'm not entirely sure who "they" are. I am a huge Eli fan who is ready to move on whenever the switch happens. Jones will certainly add to the qb position. As much as I am just a fan, I don't see where the qb held the team back necessarily yesterday, and some read that as not wanting to blame the am no matter what. I think the blame is spread out like always. I certainly give more thought to the use of Barkley and the defense before putting blame on the wr, qb, and OL.
It isn't about turning the page - we don't make that call. It is about the fact he's playing.
I actually think that's the part people aren't comprehending. Eli is starting, and a fair segment of fans wanted him gone when we drafted Jones. Or they want him on the bench so Jones can play. So what happens? Everything is put on his plate as being his fault, even as eyeballs are almost coaxed into a trance-like state watching Dallas ping-pong down the field like it is Tecmo Bowl.
People are so frustrated he's on the team - the game thread even had complaints while the Giants scored on their opening drive and Eli was 4-4 with a TD.
Highlights
Now, the other argument occurring here is that if this team is going to stink this bad, what's the point of Manning being out there anyways, might as well Jones get his growing pains out of the way while the rest of the team does the same. That is a completely fair and logical argument and I think there is a case to be made for that depending on how the next 2-3 games go.
The only thing I can think of it being a rebuilding year and keeping Manning under center while doing so would be to help Jones and not put him out there because there is no rush. They can pick and choose when to get him acclimated.
I don't think he elevates an offense. Remember long ago when his leadership was called into question? That was set aside because his skill set and Gilbride's O made it a moot point. Now it's a young team, an O that his skill set is not a match for, and it has been a long time since Easy E posed for CiP's "relax, I got this" comic.
The only way we could possibly win yesterday was to match Dallas in a shootout. Was Eli the right person to solve that? His QBR was 22.4 and we were 2 for 11 on third down. He had the big fumble in a very bad spot, and his YPA was 6.5. And by and large, I think the pass protection was adequate. So not compelling numbers/results to support that thought.
On the other hand, our outside weapons are underwhelming. Barkley is clearly the best option, yet Shurmur underutilizes him for some inexplicable reason. And generally you have to wonder and question Shurmur’s play calling strategy.
So yesterday’s offensive deficiencies were probably a combination of Eli, Shurmur, and talent.
It s been obvious for years Eli cannot win with this team, that s why IMO it s time to move on.
My pt is simple the narrative that he can’t play is a false narrative. Again, put him on Dallas, they won’t be as good as they are with Dak, but bet they win handily yesterday
Highlights
Now, the other argument occurring here is that if this team is going to stink this bad, what's the point of Manning being out there anyways, might as well Jones get his growing pains out of the way while the rest of the team does the same. That is a completely fair and logical argument and I think there is a case to be made for that depending on how the next 2-3 games go.
that 4th and 1 play was terrible, why the hell didnt he throw that ball?
On the game thread, he was the target of at least half the discussion all while the D was letting 5 straight TD's up. His "look" is mocked. There's constant references to ownership playing him out of loyalty. It boils down to a lot of pent up frustration.
Hell, you even have a thread asking what "culpability" Eli had in the loss. What culpability did ANY offensive player have in the midst of that shitshow on D? Put Jones in there and you think the results are better?
There are a fair segment of fans here who have seen the trainwreck of a OL over the past decade. the lack of LB's. Defenses that literally have performed among the worst in NFL history and, gun to their head, they will say Eli has been the problem.
that's one of the reasons you can't have rational discussion about the guy. And when you try to, some cockmonkey from Canada will come up with a stupid moniker like the "Eli FanBoy Club".
Exactly
On the game thread, he was the target of at least half the discussion all while the D was letting 5 straight TD's up. His "look" is mocked. There's constant references to ownership playing him out of loyalty. It boils down to a lot of pent up frustration.
Hell, you even have a thread asking what "culpability" Eli had in the loss. What culpability did ANY offensive player have in the midst of that shitshow on D? Put Jones in there and you think the results are better?
There are a fair segment of fans here who have seen the trainwreck of a OL over the past decade. the lack of LB's. Defenses that literally have performed among the worst in NFL history and, gun to their head, they will say Eli has been the problem.
that's one of the reasons you can't have rational discussion about the guy. And when you try to, some cockmonkey from Canada will come up with a stupid moniker like the "Eli FanBoy Club".
The real argument against Eli yesterday was that there were a lot of third downs we needed to convert and he threw to a player that had no chance of making the first down, multiple times, in key spots.
I was just left with the feeling that it wasn't good enough. Just isn't a great fit for this type of offense at this point in his career. He can win some games but he isn't the answer anymore. I'm sorry.
I mean, that's the inference isn't it?
I have not gone through every 3rd down play but these has been a trend for years and needs to stop. Changes need to happen and has on every position but QB.
Didn't they score a TD on that drive?
Quote:
The defense is horrendous but the offense went flat after Barkley’s 60 yard run.
Didn't they score a TD on that drive?
Yes, on a perfect pass that hit Engram in stride out of a designed playaction rollout that Eli is terrible at.
Quote:
The real argument against Eli yesterday was that there were a lot of third downs we needed to convert and he threw to a player that had no chance of making the first down, multiple times, in key spots.
I mean, that's the inference isn't it?
The good new is I think we may have something in Jones. The team hasn't won with Eli for 6 out of the last 7 years, and it seems to be getting worse.
The coaching is still a problem, Gettleman needs to find the right guy after the season ends if this continues.
There was a time in his career when he played in an offense that was designed to make plays downfield.
It is the fundamental difference between the Gilbride system and the McAdoo/Shurmur systems.
He isn't willfully not making plays downfield.
Quote:
The real argument against Eli yesterday was that there were a lot of third downs we needed to convert and he threw to a player that had no chance of making the first down, multiple times, in key spots.
I mean, that's the inference isn't it?
Every pass that Jones threw yesterday, except the bad overthrow, was the exact same short out that Eli threw. It screams scheme.
Quote:
was the biggest problem yesterday.
The only way we could possibly win yesterday was to match Dallas in a shootout. Was Eli the right person to solve that? His QBR was 22.4 and we were 2 for 11 on third down. He had the big fumble in a very bad spot, and his YPA was 6.5. And by and large, I think the pass protection was adequate. So not compelling numbers/results to support that thought.
On the other hand, our outside weapons are underwhelming. Barkley is clearly the best option, yet Shurmur underutilizes him for some inexplicable reason. And generally you have to wonder and question Shurmur’s play calling strategy.
So yesterday’s offensive deficiencies were probably a combination of Eli, Shurmur, and talent.
It s been obvious for years Eli cannot win with this team, that s why IMO it s time to move on.
My pt is simple the narrative that he can’t play is a false narrative. Again, put him on Dallas, they won’t be as good as they are with Dak, but bet they win handily yesterday
Look, I’m in the “play Jones camp” because I simply don’t see a playoff team. So why waste time? Let’s get into the Jones Era and see if he is indeed the solution. If he is, great. Time to build around him long term. If not, then it’s back to the drawing board to find the QB piece.
I said on another thread this morning that going through the process of playing it out until we’re mathematically eliminated is just a way to say we checked the box to give Eli a chance. Another magnanimous gesture by the wonderful folks at Jints Central...
Personally, I don’t know what Eli is anymore in terms of his place in this league. Can he show up once in a while and create fireworks? Maybe. But is it still worth it to wait around for those moments? Moments that seem very likely to be fewer as he ages? That answer seems obvious to me...
Quote:
he's good for this team anymore -- but I'm also not sure I want Jones under center full time just yet. He doesn't look 100% ready yet.
By the way -- Darnel didn't look so hot either yesterday and the Giants are playing that same defense next week -- so I don't have much hope for our offense next week either
What exactly does “100% ready” mean?
Good point I guess, I have a feeling we will see Jones
sooner rather than later this season. If the vet QB,
can't continually get the team into the EZ, time for a change in the near future. I have been ready for about
two years myself, just saying.
i think the right tact is to get the ship "righted" so to speak, so the team is actually functioning. Then when we are eliminated put in Jones. Putting him in the crap fest we were yesterday doesn't achieve anything, in fact it could hurt his development. Its not a true narrative that any playing now is a good thing, many QB's have disproved this and had their careers altered by losing confidence early on
How long was that Hail Mary? It was actually pretty accurate.
Quote:
There was a time his career when he would not have thrown 2 yard passes when we needed a play.
There was a time in his career when he played in an offense that was designed to make plays downfield.
It is the fundamental difference between the Gilbride system and the McAdoo/Shurmur systems.
He isn't willfully not making plays downfield.
Highlights
Now, the other argument occurring here is that if this team is going to stink this bad, what's the point of Manning being out there anyways, might as well Jones get his growing pains out of the way while the rest of the team does the same. That is a completely fair and logical argument and I think there is a case to be made for that depending on how the next 2-3 games go.
I totally agree with you on this. Very fair post.
Quote:
Because what I saw yesterday, I have to question if he physically can still throw balls 15-20 yards downfield with juice and does he believe he can still do it? That “2 min drive” before the half was comically inept. In the 4th quarter on 3rd and 17 and he throws it 8 yards. There was a 3rd and 14 and (with some pressure), he throws it 2 yards.
How long was that Hail Mary? It was actually pretty accurate.
Or the rope for 40 yards to Latimer.
It's about the long term future of this franchise and having a 38 year old QB playing each week on a team that is not a playoff contender makes zero sense.
It is time to move on. We're wasting time at this point.
Why play a just OK QB when we have a young QB who could play just OK. The last several years Eli doesnt push the ball downfield enough, he has never been able to throw a screen pass. So why stick with him. Ownership is demanding we play Eli for some reason which is hampering the development of the team. Yesterdays loss would have been much more tolerable if Jones was the QB. If you think Eli's ceiling his still higher than average at this point there is no point in discussing. He may have moments but as a whole his play will be average at best.
Getting average play from a QB when you have a young 1st round pick is unacceptable. People point to the Chiefs as a model but the Chiefs were a winning team with Smith. Right now the way the D is playing as a continuation from preseason we are looking at another top 10 pick. Do we need Eli starting for that?
It's about the long term future of this franchise and having a 38 year old QB playing each week on a team that is not a playoff contender makes zero sense.
I think this is the narrative every Giants fan calling for Jones is talking about.
At best this is an 8-8 team with Manning (12-16 pick in the draft)
Maybe with Jones 4-12 to 8-8. But
He gains experience, Giants work through any issues, and start fresh next year with a top 10 pick
I love Manning and he is the best QB in Giants history but it's over
It is time to move on. We're wasting time at this point.
this is absolute non sense.
He will need playing time to develop into his final form, whatever that is.
Maybe 5 years down the road it wont matter, but it will absolutely matter in 2020 and 2021.
The offense is a short passing game for the most part. You can see it.......
Other than Barkely, the Giants don't have the type of players to run this type of offense IMO at its full potential.
Things will get better though IMO, this season.
Play. The. Kid.
The real argument against Eli yesterday was that there were a lot of third downs we needed to convert and he threw to a player that had no chance of making the first down, multiple times, in key spots.
I was just left with the feeling that it wasn't good enough. Just isn't a great fit for this type of offense at this point in his career. He can win some games but he isn't the answer anymore. I'm sorry.
Yes, there were some 3rd & 14/17s but for the most part they were 3rd and manageable and we were not getting it done.
He will need playing time to develop into his final form, whatever that is.
Maybe 5 years down the road it wont matter, but it will absolutely matter in 2020 and 2021.
The nonsense is stating that playing time is certain to lead to better play from Jones next season. This has been shown time and again to have a negligent impact on a QB's development.
Jones should play when the team is eliminated and they are ready to move away from Eli. Playing him just to gain "experience" has no factual evidence to support that it is any better than waiting to play him.
Quote:
The real argument against Eli yesterday was that there were a lot of third downs we needed to convert and he threw to a player that had no chance of making the first down, multiple times, in key spots.
I was just left with the feeling that it wasn't good enough. Just isn't a great fit for this type of offense at this point in his career. He can win some games but he isn't the answer anymore. I'm sorry.
This is the closest I've seen FMIC point to Eli as part of the problem with this offense.
Yes, there were some 3rd & 14/17s but for the most part they were 3rd and manageable and we were not getting it done.
He didn't post it.
except when DJ throws quickly and with ball placement there's YAC potential for 1st downs...
He didn't post it.
That explains it, ooops - thanks
Quote:
this is absolute non sense.
He will need playing time to develop into his final form, whatever that is.
Maybe 5 years down the road it wont matter, but it will absolutely matter in 2020 and 2021.
The nonsense is stating that playing time is certain to lead to better play from Jones next season. This has been shown time and again to have a negligent impact on a QB's development.
Jones should play when the team is eliminated and they are ready to move away from Eli. Playing him just to gain "experience" has no factual evidence to support that it is any better than waiting to play him.
hahaha
EVIDENCE!!!!
what a fucking joke
Quote:
this is absolute non sense.
He will need playing time to develop into his final form, whatever that is.
Maybe 5 years down the road it wont matter, but it will absolutely matter in 2020 and 2021.
The nonsense is stating that playing time is certain to lead to better play from Jones next season. This has been shown time and again to have a negligent impact on a QB's development.
Jones should play when the team is eliminated and they are ready to move away from Eli. Playing him just to gain "experience" has no factual evidence to support that it is any better than waiting to play him.
Doesn't it tend to be a negative to play early when the infrastructure around the young QB is poor? An OL that can't protect or a non-existent running game?
I actually liked a lot of what we saw from the offense yesterday. The improvement in the OL from week 1 last year is immense, and we know what we have at the RB position plus a great young TE. The potential positives of dropping Jones into this offense far outweigh the negatives. Everything we've seen from Jones so far suggests he's mature, well prepared, and ready for the opportunity. Let's see what we've got
I actually liked a lot of what we saw from the offense yesterday. The improvement in the OL from week 1 last year is immense, and we know what we have at the RB position plus a great young TE. The potential positives of dropping Jones into this offense far outweigh the negatives. Everything we've seen from Jones so far suggests he's mature, well prepared, and ready for the opportunity. Let's see what we've got
He got into the game yesterday which is something we hadn't seen in previous years.
And putting aside ron's asinine remark about evidence (and you see he clearly can't fucking disprove it so he mocks it), Jones will play once the season is out of reach or when eli can't cut it.
Quote:
Quote:
The real argument against Eli yesterday was that there were a lot of third downs we needed to convert and he threw to a player that had no chance of making the first down, multiple times, in key spots.
I was just left with the feeling that it wasn't good enough. Just isn't a great fit for this type of offense at this point in his career. He can win some games but he isn't the answer anymore. I'm sorry.
This is the closest I've seen FMIC point to Eli as part of the problem with this offense.
Yes, there were some 3rd & 14/17s but for the most part they were 3rd and manageable and we were not getting it done.
He didn't post it.
I would have been thrilled if Manning had a game that made everyone that has mocked him eat s***.
That did not happen.
What happened was, we looked like an overmatched team not ready to compete in the NFC East.
None of us should be terribly surprised.
If you watched that and thought that the QB play was good enough we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what good quarterback play is.
That could be the fundamental reason why we all argue so much. We have different expectations on what it means to play quarterback.
That wasn't nearly good enough for me, not close. If it is good enough for you, we probably won't get past that, and we shouldn't even discuss it. Kind of one of those we need to agree to disagree things.
It's not like we all didn't know this was going to happen. Everyone from Eli to gettleman To mara to Jones all should have expected this.
I know it's early in the season but if Eli and the Giants lose to Buffalo it's time to start Jones. If he wins I say that gets him 2 more games.
Would that signify courage and the board would be happy?
Would that signify courage and the board would be happy?
+1 We all loved Eli when he made plays, good and bad. now's he's missing 100% of the shots he doesn't take.
How many times did people say he cost us points by throwing a pick?
Quote:
Every pass that Jones threw yesterday, except the bad overthrow, was the exact same short out that Eli threw. It screams scheme.
except when DJ throws quickly and with ball placement there's YAC potential for 1st downs...
Really? How many first downs did Jones have yesterday?
Down 21-7, deep pass to Latimer on the money, down 28-10, breaking a sack and flinging it deep downfield for another completion. Then he was down 35-10.
Quote:
In comment 14567664 Bill L said:
Quote:
Every pass that Jones threw yesterday, except the bad overthrow, was the exact same short out that Eli threw. It screams scheme.
except when DJ throws quickly and with ball placement there's YAC potential for 1st downs...
Really? How many first downs did Jones have yesterday?
1
2 if you count the run before the fumble (which you shouldn't)
Really? How many first downs did Jones have yesterday?
He had two. The 2nd ending with a fumble.
How many times did people say he cost us points by throwing a pick?
We knew he was a gunslinger with a propensity for boneheaded plays but he was my QB that I wanted more than anyone in the fourth quarter. Now he's checkdown charlie that can't get first downs.
Quote:
Really? How many first downs did Jones have yesterday?
He had two. The 2nd ending with a fumble.
How do you know playing Jones will make us worse now? Because he's a rookie? I don't know how many times I have to write it but Jones seems to have dimensions in his game that are more suited to Shurmur's playbook. He most certainly has the ability to extend plays and convert first downs with his legs. Eli offers NONE of that. And if Jones does that, it's a force multiplier impact because it means more time on the sidelines for our swiss cheese defense.
Playing Jones now accelerates everything - his learning curve, options in Shurmur's playbook, and whether Jones is the solution.
Quote:
In comment 14567664 Bill L said:
Quote:
Every pass that Jones threw yesterday, except the bad overthrow, was the exact same short out that Eli threw. It screams scheme.
except when DJ throws quickly and with ball placement there's YAC potential for 1st downs...
Really? How many first downs did Jones have yesterday?
Out of curiosity, since it seems like you're in favor of Eli remaining the starter, what's your reasoning for doing so? Do you see this team having a realistic chance at the playoffs? Do you think Eli starting helps Jones' development (and by extension has some long-term benefit to the franchise)?
I'm just curious because it seems like you are very quick to point out potential negatives regarding Jones, but often take the opposite angle when discussing Eli, so it's pretty clear (or seems to be) that you favor Eli as the QB. What's the reason for that?
Quote:
in the future. And it certainly makes us worse in the present. He's will be what he is next year, regardless of whether or not he plays this year.
How do you know playing Jones will make us worse now? Because he's a rookie? I don't know how many times I have to write it but Jones seems to have dimensions in his game that are more suited to Shurmur's playbook. He most certainly has the ability to extend plays and convert first downs with his legs. Eli offers NONE of that. And if Jones does that, it's a force multiplier impact because it means more time on the sidelines for our swiss cheese defense.
Playing Jones now accelerates everything - his learning curve, options in Shurmur's playbook, and whether Jones is the solution.
But EVIDENCE shows that he will turn in to Christian Ponder if we play him!!!
Were enough wins left on the table to be competitive? No. If DJ played yesterday and was lights out would it have mattered? Not with how the secondary played. At some point this year DJ will be given the reins cause this team is not going to the playoffs. Unfortunately, the easy schedule early will prolong living in the past.
I think Jones is the type that could step in and be fine, but perhaps they are waiting until he is more comfortable with the offense
Down 21-7, deep pass to Latimer on the money, down 28-10, breaking a sack and flinging it deep downfield for another completion. Then he was down 35-10.
I'm not to the point of benching him. I think Manning deserves to start against Buffalo. If we see the same thing and we are 0 and 2 I'm done and I'll be hoping for a change every game after that. I think he's lost that thing that makes him special and he can summon it for a few passes but then it fades. For me it's very sad to watch. I'm not a person that hates Eli or the thinks he's been lucky. I think Eli is a Hall of Fame QB. This just isn't that guy anymore. I'm not a hater.
I think Jones is the type that could step in and be fine, but perhaps they are waiting until he is more comfortable with the offense
Gee, that's some offense. Let's take on of the most dynamic players in the game - SB - and only give him 13 touches. SB should be touching the ball 25-30X a game with that body. Jones could just as easily hand the ball off to SB, and check passes down to him, as Eli.
If we're going to lose, let's lose using our best player. Not trying to manage some horse manure pitch count because of longevity concerns. Shurmur's judgment really needs to be questioned at this point.
Quote:
Each other's hair over our opinions of whether it's better for a qb to start right away or sit. I don't think either is wrong, but dependent on who the qb is.
I think Jones is the type that could step in and be fine, but perhaps they are waiting until he is more comfortable with the offense
Gee, that's some offense. Let's take on of the most dynamic players in the game - SB - and only give him 13 touches. SB should be touching the ball 25-30X a game with that body. Jones could just as easily hand the ball off to SB, and check passes down to him, as Eli.
If we're going to lose, let's lose using our best player. Not trying to manage some horse manure pitch count because of longevity concerns. Shurmur's judgment really needs to be questioned at this point.
I'm not arguing the quality of Shurmur's offense, I am talking about a rookie qb being more comfortable in a different offense on a higher level of competition.
Quote:
In comment 14567839 V.I.G. said:
Quote:
In comment 14567664 Bill L said:
Quote:
Every pass that Jones threw yesterday, except the bad overthrow, was the exact same short out that Eli threw. It screams scheme.
except when DJ throws quickly and with ball placement there's YAC potential for 1st downs...
Really? How many first downs did Jones have yesterday?
Out of curiosity, since it seems like you're in favor of Eli remaining the starter, what's your reasoning for doing so? Do you see this team having a realistic chance at the playoffs? Do you think Eli starting helps Jones' development (and by extension has some long-term benefit to the franchise)?
I'm just curious because it seems like you are very quick to point out potential negatives regarding Jones, but often take the opposite angle when discussing Eli, so it's pretty clear (or seems to be) that you favor Eli as the QB. What's the reason for that?
I think Eli gives us the best chance to win each game this year.
I don't think it hurts (or helps) Jones to not play this year wrt future development (i.e., I don't believe our record will be better next year or any of the subsequent years if he plays now than it would ordinarily be). Even if so, if we lose 2 more games this year and win 2 more next year by playing them, next years wins don't count anymore than this year's.
I am strongly morally/ethically opposed to not trying to win games or not trying to do your best, under *any* circumstances. (If I even remotely as a fan of the '76ers' (or Miami Dolphins) I certainly would not be any longer.)
We have a generational talent in Saquon Barkely, much like Trout on the Angels... who may never get to that championship game. Not for lack of effort or talent but due to the mediocrity of the team that surrounds them.
In the Giants case, this lies at the feet of the GM and personnel decision makers. Maybe it's the HC, maybe its the playcallers. Maybe it's the players, but likely it's a combination thereof. But in this day and age, you dont get 10 years to recover and then start getting back in the mix. If you take a longterm approach, you're gonna get swallowed by the league and languish in mediocrity.
This is Gettleman's team now. He's gonna make decisions this season on Eli (more accurately, on when to move on from Eli) as well as the coordinators and head coach. This I believe is his defining year. What he does or doesn't due with this team while the season is playing out will decide next year. I dont hold him to success this year as the whole Eli thing still needs to run its course. But you decide by like week 6 and then you go with that.
If we win five or six this year and 7 or 8 next year, that two win sing you mention will be huge.
I don’t know if we will win 7-8 games next year but 5-6 this year is feeling about right.
Quote:
In comment 14567936 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 14567839 V.I.G. said:
Quote:
In comment 14567664 Bill L said:
Quote:
Every pass that Jones threw yesterday, except the bad overthrow, was the exact same short out that Eli threw. It screams scheme.
except when DJ throws quickly and with ball placement there's YAC potential for 1st downs...
Really? How many first downs did Jones have yesterday?
Out of curiosity, since it seems like you're in favor of Eli remaining the starter, what's your reasoning for doing so? Do you see this team having a realistic chance at the playoffs? Do you think Eli starting helps Jones' development (and by extension has some long-term benefit to the franchise)?
I'm just curious because it seems like you are very quick to point out potential negatives regarding Jones, but often take the opposite angle when discussing Eli, so it's pretty clear (or seems to be) that you favor Eli as the QB. What's the reason for that?
I think Eli gives us the best chance to win each game this year.
I don't think it hurts (or helps) Jones to not play this year wrt future development (i.e., I don't believe our record will be better next year or any of the subsequent years if he plays now than it would ordinarily be). Even if so, if we lose 2 more games this year and win 2 more next year by playing them, next years wins don't count anymore than this year's.
I am strongly morally/ethically opposed to not trying to win games or not trying to do your best, under *any* circumstances. (If I even remotely as a fan of the '76ers' (or Miami Dolphins) I certainly would not be any longer.)
I think that's fair, though I disagree with you on a few points.
Regarding next year's wins not counting any more than this year's, I think this is a 6-8 win team this year at best. I think, with another very good draft and enough cap room to allow all personnel decisions to be purely merit-based, next year's team could be a legitimate playoff contender. If playing Jones turns us into a 4-6 win team this year instead, but adds two wins to next year's presumably stronger team, that's absolute a trade-off that I'd make 100% of the time.
The two wins between 10 and 12 can be the difference between being a wild card vs. a division winner (and a chance at home field in the playoffs). The two wins between 4 and 6 matter for the draft and nothing else. In that scenario, next year's wins are worth more, wouldn't you agree?
And while I understand where you're coming from WRT tanking, I think there's a difference between actively trying to tank for the full season vs. being willing to take a chance on the development of potential for the long-term benefit even if that means that your ability to win some of your games is compromised in the near-term.
Finally, I disagree with your suggestion that there is no material benefit to Jones in gaining experience this season and that he'll be the same QB next season whether he starts this year or not. IMO, it's not even about the game experience, though I think that alone is worth more than you're giving it credit for.
The real benefit to transitioning to Jones as the starter is that he gets the practice reps with the 1's. Practice time is so limited as it is in the NFL, and it's not like they can just tack on an extra 30 minutes to practice to make sure DJ gets reps. So long as he's the #2, his practice reps will be extremely limited, whereas if he was the #1, he'd be getting the bulk of the work throughout the week - I don't know how you can suggest that getting those practice reps this season won't translate to any sort of accelerated development for Jones that could result in a material difference as soon as next season.
Playing in the middle isn't safe. It's a death sentence.
And for the record... I was and am not a fan of the Shurmer hiring. An OC that got stymied in the playoffs by our chief competition is not someone I'm gonna get excited about. Didnt like the Snacks deal either. He should be a Giant. I'm open still to the Daniel Jones thingee... I think he has very solid potential. But as a compliment to Barkely. Not as the primary piece on the team.
I also was shocked by the Beckham issue and ultimate trade. Why did we lock this guy up and then toss away all that money for a guy we were never enamored with and so willing to just give away for a player and some picks? I still dont get why we made him the #1 paid receiver if we weren't gonna hold onto him for at least a couple years.
Jones will in all likely hood be a better QB in Year 2 than in Year 1. This team isn’t going anywhere this year and it makes more sense to look for Jones taking the next step in 2020 than in 2021.
Here are the FACTS
0-1 this year
5-12 with Shurmur
8-25 over last 2 years
38-58 over last SEVEN Years
0-1 in playoffs
Just one playoff appearance in 7 years and that team was carried by its defense
We have had 4 different HCs (Coughlin, McAdoo, Spagnoulo, Shurmur)
We have had 3 different offensive systems (and 4 different OCs (Gilbride, McAdoo, Sullivan, Shula) . He had a downfield passing offense, a West Coast offense, now an Andy Reid style one
First it was the WRs fault in 2013
Then it was the OLs fault
Then it was the offensive systems fault
Then it was the OLs fault again
Now its the defenses fault and the playcalling
The entire roster has changed 3 times over
The amount of games where this team failed to score 20 points is staggering
We have also had at least 1 of Odell Beckham and/or Saquon Barkley on the team for alot of these games
These are indisputable facts. Nothing above is disputable
At some point you have to look at the QB. Its not a narrative.
Its been 7 YEARS
Too many look at one play or one throw or one series or one game. Any NFL QB should be capable of having that. The real question is can they fo it consistently over a whole season to win enough games to make the playoffs ?
Whst in 7 years of examples tells anyone the answer is yes?
Jones will in all likely hood be a better QB in Year 2 than in Year 1. This team isn’t going anywhere this year and it makes more sense to look for Jones taking the next step in 2020 than in 2021.
yep - some people want Eli to be the starting QB for as far as the eye can see, and I guess that's fine.
But the "there isn't really any advantage to Jones' future of having him start right now" is either some really shitty gaslighting or an Eli-related mental illness.
Quote:
this is absolute non sense.
He will need playing time to develop into his final form, whatever that is.
Maybe 5 years down the road it wont matter, but it will absolutely matter in 2020 and 2021.
The nonsense is stating that playing time is certain to lead to better play from Jones next season. This has been shown time and again to have a negligent impact on a QB's development.
Jones should play when the team is eliminated and they are ready to move away from Eli. Playing him just to gain "experience" has no factual evidence to support that it is any better than waiting to play him.
Interesting.
To what evidence are you referring that playing time experience has a negligible (i assume you meant this and not negligent) impact on a QB's development.
I admit that I have not seen any analysis on this either way. But it seems to be common sense that experience will help a developing QB. Plus we have empirical evidence of QB's getting better as they gain experience. Eli for example improved in year 2 over year 1, and year 3 over 2, and carried the Giants in the playoffs to the SB in year 4.
That said, common sense is often wrong when the real numbers are analyzed. So I would be curious as to what analysis you have seen that says experience is such a small factor.
yep - some people want Eli to be the starting QB for as far as the eye can see, and I guess that's fine.
But the "there isn't really any advantage to Jones' future of having him start right now" is either some really shitty gaslighting or an Eli-related mental illness.
Its statistically-proven to not matter. It was discussed here at length. Now its just up to the coaches to tell DJ his development will be the same.
Coach Shurmur: "Daniel, here are our expectations of you in 2020".
Daniel Jones: "Thanks Coach. I won't let you down."
Coach Shurmur: "We know that Daniel. And since we don't think it matters in your development, we will expect those same results in 2020 whether you play in 0, 8 or 16 games this season. Got it?"
Daniel Jones: "Um, but I think I would be able to perform to a higher level expectation in 2020 if I got some playing time as a starter in 2019."
Coach Shurmur: "Bullshit. We have the stats Daniel of QBs over the past 20 years. It doesn't matter at all, trust me".
Daniel Jones: "But coach, I don't think that makes any..."
Coach Shurmur: "Daniel, who's the coach...me or you? Let me worry about your development. In the meanwhile, make sure all the Ipads are charged up before the next game, got it?"
Daniel Jones: "Yes coach".
Quote:
yep - some people want Eli to be the starting QB for as far as the eye can see, and I guess that's fine.
But the "there isn't really any advantage to Jones' future of having him start right now" is either some really shitty gaslighting or an Eli-related mental illness.
Its statistically-proven to not matter. It was discussed here at length. Now its just up to the coaches to tell DJ his development will be the same.
Coach Shurmur: "Daniel, here are our expectations of you in 2020".
Daniel Jones: "Thanks Coach. I won't let you down."
Coach Shurmur: "We know that Daniel. And since we don't think it matters in your development, we will expect those same results in 2020 whether you play in 0, 8 or 16 games this season. Got it?"
Daniel Jones: "Um, but I think I would be able to perform to a higher level expectation in 2020 if I got some playing time as a starter in 2019."
Coach Shurmur: "Bullshit. We have the stats Daniel of QBs over the past 20 years. It doesn't matter at all, trust me".
Daniel Jones: "But coach, I don't think that makes any..."
Coach Shurmur: "Daniel, who's the coach...me or you? Let me worry about your development. In the meanwhile, make sure all the Ipads are charged up before the next game, got it?"
Daniel Jones: "Yes coach".
when you said "statistically proven", I was assuming that you were going to link some stats, and not a weird/fake conversation that you fabricated and put in quotes.
Actually I have no fucking clue what his argument is.
Quote:
yep - some people want Eli to be the starting QB for as far as the eye can see, and I guess that's fine.
But the "there isn't really any advantage to Jones' future of having him start right now" is either some really shitty gaslighting or an Eli-related mental illness.
Its statistically-proven to not matter. It was discussed here at length. Now its just up to the coaches to tell DJ his development will be the same.
Coach Shurmur: "Daniel, here are our expectations of you in 2020".
Daniel Jones: "Thanks Coach. I won't let you down."
Coach Shurmur: "We know that Daniel. And since we don't think it matters in your development, we will expect those same results in 2020 whether you play in 0, 8 or 16 games this season. Got it?"
Daniel Jones: "Um, but I think I would be able to perform to a higher level expectation in 2020 if I got some playing time as a starter in 2019."
Coach Shurmur: "Bullshit. We have the stats Daniel of QBs over the past 20 years. It doesn't matter at all, trust me".
Daniel Jones: "But coach, I don't think that makes any..."
Coach Shurmur: "Daniel, who's the coach...me or you? Let me worry about your development. In the meanwhile, make sure all the Ipads are charged up before the next game, got it?"
Daniel Jones: "Yes coach".
Obviously you don't agree with some of the conclusions of that discussion here...
But can anybody point me to it. I must have missed that one.
Here are the FACTS
0-1 this year
5-12 with Shurmur
8-25 over last 2 years
38-58 over last SEVEN Years
0-1 in playoffs
Just one playoff appearance in 7 years and that team was carried by its defense
We have had 4 different HCs (Coughlin, McAdoo, Spagnoulo, Shurmur)
We have had 3 different offensive systems (and 4 different OCs (Gilbride, McAdoo, Sullivan, Shula) . He had a downfield passing offense, a West Coast offense, now an Andy Reid style one
First it was the WRs fault in 2013
Then it was the OLs fault
Then it was the offensive systems fault
Then it was the OLs fault again
Now its the defenses fault and the playcalling
The entire roster has changed 3 times over
The amount of games where this team failed to score 20 points is staggering
We have also had at least 1 of Odell Beckham and/or Saquon Barkley on the team for alot of these games
These are indisputable facts. Nothing above is disputable
At some point you have to look at the QB. Its not a narrative.
Its been 7 YEARS
Too many look at one play or one throw or one series or one game. Any NFL QB should be capable of having that. The real question is can they fo it consistently over a whole season to win enough games to make the playoffs ?
Whst in 7 years of examples tells anyone the answer is yes?
Especially the last 3 years including the playoff season.. at some point you have to try something.. This isn't a narrative.. all numbers and any unbiased analysis of the guy points to him not being any better than average..
Quote:
In comment 14568287 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
yep - some people want Eli to be the starting QB for as far as the eye can see, and I guess that's fine.
But the "there isn't really any advantage to Jones' future of having him start right now" is either some really shitty gaslighting or an Eli-related mental illness.
Its statistically-proven to not matter. It was discussed here at length. Now its just up to the coaches to tell DJ his development will be the same.
Coach Shurmur: "Daniel, here are our expectations of you in 2020".
Daniel Jones: "Thanks Coach. I won't let you down."
Coach Shurmur: "We know that Daniel. And since we don't think it matters in your development, we will expect those same results in 2020 whether you play in 0, 8 or 16 games this season. Got it?"
Daniel Jones: "Um, but I think I would be able to perform to a higher level expectation in 2020 if I got some playing time as a starter in 2019."
Coach Shurmur: "Bullshit. We have the stats Daniel of QBs over the past 20 years. It doesn't matter at all, trust me".
Daniel Jones: "But coach, I don't think that makes any..."
Coach Shurmur: "Daniel, who's the coach...me or you? Let me worry about your development. In the meanwhile, make sure all the Ipads are charged up before the next game, got it?"
Daniel Jones: "Yes coach".
Obviously you don't agree with some of the conclusions of that discussion here...
But can anybody point me to it. I must have missed that one.
I'll see if I can dig it up from archives.
If you want it faster, just say something critical of Eli and the guy that subscribes to the thinking will come running pretty quickly...
Question 1: Does getting early experience amke it more or less likely that a given QB will develop into a Franchise QB?
Question 2: Is in game experience a necessary part of a QBs development, and will there always be some growing pains once a player starts getting experience.
Regarding 1: I don't think there is any proven formula. I think it depends on the player and the surrounding circumstances. That said, I do think you can ruin a player by puttin gthem in a bad situation and ruining their confidence (ala David Carr). Other than that, there is no evidence that getting a guy early expereince affects the likelihood of greatness, or even really goodness.
Regarding 2: I certainly think that every QB needs experience to realize their potential. As long as the situation is not detrimental to the players growth, (i.e. the OL is so bad that all the player can do is run for his life, or they are simply not ready and need more coaching), there comes a point where delaying the experience is just delaying the necessary growth. It may not impact how good they will become, but it can impact the timeline for reaching that potential.
These are 2 very different questions.
As soon as the coaches determine that the situation is good enough for Jones to play, he should play. Get the growing pains out of the way.
Question 1: Does getting early experience amke it more or less likely that a given QB will develop into a Franchise QB?
Question 2: Is in game experience a necessary part of a QBs development, and will there always be some growing pains once a player starts getting experience.
Regarding 1: I don't think there is any proven formula. I think it depends on the player and the surrounding circumstances. That said, I do think you can ruin a player by puttin gthem in a bad situation and ruining their confidence (ala David Carr). Other than that, there is no evidence that getting a guy early expereince affects the likelihood of greatness, or even really goodness.
Regarding 2: I certainly think that every QB needs experience to realize their potential. As long as the situation is not detrimental to the players growth, (i.e. the OL is so bad that all the player can do is run for his life, or they are simply not ready and need more coaching), there comes a point where delaying the experience is just delaying the necessary growth. It may not impact how good they will become, but it can impact the timeline for reaching that potential.
These are 2 very different questions.
As soon as the coaches determine that the situation is good enough for Jones to play, he should play. Get the growing pains out of the way.
For point number 1 is the situation bad for a QB? This isn't the Houston Texans David Carr OL.. its actually a pretty good OL.. We have the best RB in the game.. we have a Good pass catching TE.. There are many worse situations in the league than being the QB for the Giants right now.. Even the WR are approved by DG.. both WR were paid very well by DG.. so unless you are willing to throw DG under the bus for WR contracts don't tell me our WR are bad (at least once Tate comes back in 3 games..)
Quote:
I can see there being 2 different questions that might get conflated.
Question 1: Does getting early experience amke it more or less likely that a given QB will develop into a Franchise QB?
Question 2: Is in game experience a necessary part of a QBs development, and will there always be some growing pains once a player starts getting experience.
Regarding 1: I don't think there is any proven formula. I think it depends on the player and the surrounding circumstances. That said, I do think you can ruin a player by puttin gthem in a bad situation and ruining their confidence (ala David Carr). Other than that, there is no evidence that getting a guy early expereince affects the likelihood of greatness, or even really goodness.
Regarding 2: I certainly think that every QB needs experience to realize their potential. As long as the situation is not detrimental to the players growth, (i.e. the OL is so bad that all the player can do is run for his life, or they are simply not ready and need more coaching), there comes a point where delaying the experience is just delaying the necessary growth. It may not impact how good they will become, but it can impact the timeline for reaching that potential.
These are 2 very different questions.
As soon as the coaches determine that the situation is good enough for Jones to play, he should play. Get the growing pains out of the way.
For point number 1 is the situation bad for a QB? This isn't the Houston Texans David Carr OL.. its actually a pretty good OL.. We have the best RB in the game.. we have a Good pass catching TE.. There are many worse situations in the league than being the QB for the Giants right now.. Even the WR are approved by DG.. both WR were paid very well by DG.. so unless you are willing to throw DG under the bus for WR contracts don't tell me our WR are bad (at least once Tate comes back in 3 games..)
our WRs are bad..
Quote:
I can see there being 2 different questions that might get conflated.
Question 1: Does getting early experience amke it more or less likely that a given QB will develop into a Franchise QB?
Question 2: Is in game experience a necessary part of a QBs development, and will there always be some growing pains once a player starts getting experience.
Regarding 1: I don't think there is any proven formula. I think it depends on the player and the surrounding circumstances. That said, I do think you can ruin a player by puttin gthem in a bad situation and ruining their confidence (ala David Carr). Other than that, there is no evidence that getting a guy early expereince affects the likelihood of greatness, or even really goodness.
Regarding 2: I certainly think that every QB needs experience to realize their potential. As long as the situation is not detrimental to the players growth, (i.e. the OL is so bad that all the player can do is run for his life, or they are simply not ready and need more coaching), there comes a point where delaying the experience is just delaying the necessary growth. It may not impact how good they will become, but it can impact the timeline for reaching that potential.
These are 2 very different questions.
As soon as the coaches determine that the situation is good enough for Jones to play, he should play. Get the growing pains out of the way.
For point number 1 is the situation bad for a QB? This isn't the Houston Texans David Carr OL.. its actually a pretty good OL.. We have the best RB in the game.. we have a Good pass catching TE.. There are many worse situations in the league than being the QB for the Giants right now.. Even the WR are approved by DG.. both WR were paid very well by DG.. so unless you are willing to throw DG under the bus for WR contracts don't tell me our WR are bad (at least once Tate comes back in 3 games..)
Yes, I agree, thus my comment in this case, when the coaches think Jones is read (as long as the situation is ok, i.e. we haven't lost key players along the line), play him.
Actually I have no fucking clue what his argument is.
LOL. Your assertion was specific to Jones playing year 1. If he didn't play, it would retard his development you said point blank.
I showed that the evidence doesn't lean one way or another. Year one playing time did not lead to greater performance in year 2. Nor did waiting until year 2 have a statistical advantage. It was a wash.
But even development as a whole isn't linear, nor does it trend upwards consistently. Heck, you could use Eli as the example there. His years of experience don't translate to better play. Mark Sanchez is an example. Jameis Winston. Quantifying experience to how it pertains to development doesn't show a correlation.
It seems that because that is illogical you've dismissed it.I'm just saying what the data tells us. And that data tells us little and is inconclusive.
And for people saying there is no risk to Jones development by playing him Year 1 - the data says otherwise on that too.
Quote:
Its not that playing time doesnt help, its specifically year one playing time that doesn't help, or isn't proven to help, or is proven to hurt.
Actually I have no fucking clue what his argument is.
LOL. Your assertion was specific to Jones playing year 1. If he didn't play, it would retard his development you said point blank.
I never said that. Do you want me to dig up the other thread in which you embarrassed yourself to show you the EVIDENCE you love?
I don't have that answer, nor will I pretend to.
Your idea of embarrassment is rich, considering the way you come off as being dim quite consistently.
You still sticking to the other side of that statement?
ponderous
For christ's sake - that exactly what the data doesn't show!! Playing him year one isn't shown to accelerate nor retard growth.
Are you being purposely dense?
our WRs are not league average. They are bad. Among the worst units in the league. Name 6 units that are worse than what the Giants have.
Quote:
Its not that playing time doesnt help, its specifically year one playing time that doesn't help, or isn't proven to help, or is proven to hurt.
Actually I have no fucking clue what his argument is.
But even development as a whole isn't linear, nor does it trend upwards consistently. Heck, you could use Eli as the example there. His years of experience don't translate to better play. Mark Sanchez is an example. Jameis Winston. Quantifying experience to how it pertains to development doesn't show a correlation.
It seems that because that is illogical you've dismissed it.I'm just saying what the data tells us. And that data tells us little and is inconclusive.
And for people saying there is no risk to Jones development by playing him Year 1 - the data says otherwise on that too.
Eli wasn’t a better QB in years 5-13 than. 1-4? Your other two examples are of a QB who wasn't any good and one who might not be.
Experience running an NFL offense won’t automatically make you good, but it’s critical to development. The further you push back the experience the further you push back the start date of expecting him to take the next step.
Quote:
that you are either too thickheaded or embarrassed to see is that playing him year one will accelerate his development.
For christ's sake - that exactly what the data doesn't show!! Playing him year one isn't shown to accelerate nor retard growth.
Are you being purposely dense?
Lol
EVIDENCE!!!
Its fucking common sense
Quote:
In comment 14568532 ron mexico said:
Quote:
that you are either too thickheaded or embarrassed to see is that playing him year one will accelerate his development.
For christ's sake - that exactly what the data doesn't show!! Playing him year one isn't shown to accelerate nor retard growth.
Are you being purposely dense?
Lol
EVIDENCE!!!
Its fucking common sense
there is evidence on both sides, however, we have a QB that is toast, and what waiting on the Jones era does is retard OUR progress as a team. The only reason Mahomes/Rodgers waited was because the teams they were on were competitive. We are not. The sooner we move on from Eli, the sooner the next era of winning Giants football will begin.
If that's the case - QB's should all have a bell curve of development, and a correlation to performance. Yet that isn't happening regularly.
Laugh at evidence or common sense, but the years of historical data say otherwise.
I'm going to just ignore this discussion now since the best you can say is "EVIDENCE".
Such a fucking dim poster.
Quote:
this is absolute non sense.
He will need playing time to develop into his final form, whatever that is.
Maybe 5 years down the road it wont matter, but it will absolutely matter in 2020 and 2021.
The nonsense is stating that playing time is certain to lead to better play from Jones next season. This has been shown time and again to have a negligent impact on a QB's development.
Jones should play when the team is eliminated and they are ready to move away from Eli. Playing him just to gain "experience" has no factual evidence to support that it is any better than waiting to play him.
I'm curious how this could possibly be proven? Since no two players' respective development is the same, and since development in general tends not to be linear, how is it even possible to to actually prove with evidence? This isn't like a double blind study with a control group that you can use to actually gather empirical evidence.
Rather, what we have are examples like Mahomes (who waited a year), Rivers (who waited two), and Rodgers (who waited three). These are three good to great QBs, and it's possible that the observations they were able to make on the bench helped them quickly ramp up their progress once they got a chance to take over the starting job.
But it's also possible that they might have been just as good had they started from day 1. After all, starting from day 1 didn't hurt Peyton Manning. Starting as a rookie didn't hurt Eli or Roethlisberger. It doesn't seem to have stunted Wentz's development, or Russel Wilson's, or Deshaun Watson's. Or maybe it did - maybe each of those QBs would have been even better with the benefit of more time on the bench.
The point is, we have no way of knowing. We can't compare the version of Peyton Manning that waited with the version that started from day 1, because only the latter exists. Likewise, we can't possibly compare Aaron Rodgers' development as a day 1 starter to the one who waited, again because only the latter exists.
Logically, it stands to reason that like most things in life, extra practice and repetition would help someone improve those skills. Given the limited practice time allowed in the NFL, being the #2 QB tends to mean that player is not only not playing in real games, but they're also not getting many practice reps. It's hard to believe that those practice reps ultimately have no impact.
In any case, that's just a long way of saying that I call bullshit on this being "shown time and again" because it logically cannot be proven.
The best you could hope for in terms of evidence is what each QB says in hindsight about the way they were handled early in their career. But even that can't be used to apply to any other player because they're not identical. Two players may engage differently depending on whether they're the starter or the backup. Two coaches may work with a young QB differently depending on whether he's the starter or the backup. Other teammates may spend more time with the young QB depending on whether he's the starter or the backup - and all of those variables are inconsistent from team to team to the extent that they cannot be relied upon as evidence that could apply to anyone else.
That said, I'd love to see this evidence. Seems like that would be more interesting than just wasting energy imagining all the ways that the data is almost definitely flawed.
If that's the case - QB's should all have a bell curve of development, and a correlation to performance. Yet that isn't happening regularly.
Laugh at evidence or common sense, but the years of historical data say otherwise.
I'm going to just ignore this discussion now since the best you can say is "EVIDENCE".
Such a fucking dim poster.
Actually, that bell curve is what you'd need in order to have evidence for EITHER side of the argument.
But I don't see how that's possible.
If that's the case - QB's should all have a bell curve of development, and a correlation to performance. Yet that isn't happening regularly.
Laugh at evidence or common sense, but the years of historical data say otherwise.
I'm going to just ignore this discussion now since the best you can say is "EVIDENCE".
Such a fucking dim poster.
yeah I'm the dim one, and apparently the contrarian when everyone on this thread thinks what I'm saying is true.
And if you haven't caught on yet, the EVIDENCE! response is an ode to your REASERCH!! posts that you think are so clever.
Quote:
sense??
If that's the case - QB's should all have a bell curve of development, and a correlation to performance. Yet that isn't happening regularly.
Laugh at evidence or common sense, but the years of historical data say otherwise.
I'm going to just ignore this discussion now since the best you can say is "EVIDENCE".
Such a fucking dim poster.
Actually, that bell curve is what you'd need in order to have evidence for EITHER side of the argument.
But I don't see how that's possible.
of course its not possible, this is the NFL not a science lab.
Quote:
I’d say they’re right about league average
our WRs are not league average. They are bad. Among the worst units in the league. Name 6 units that are worse than what the Giants have.
So that is at DG's feet not that he was given a bad WR core.. not that he had to sacrifice the WR core to get an OL or something like but he actively payed out 2 WR, a good starting WR salary.. and he actively traded away a player who is now costing us additional 16M this year who BTW was paid by DG..
Another point if I am picking a QB at 6.. I don't want one that needs a good OL, RB , TE and WR.. With that I can win with below average quality QB (Foles, Keenum).. SO overall we have a good team for a QB..
6 teams with worse WR corp then ours
Baltimore, Washington, 49ers, Cardinals, Dolphins, Bills, Titans.. May be seahawks..
1. He gets hurt
2. He struggles
Anything else?
Okay, #1 is completely unpredictable. And #2 is expected.
I'm all ears how the organization creates QB transition utopia so Jones has the greatest chance for success.
How soon can we get 11 new starters on defense?
Quote:
In comment 14568510 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
I’d say they’re right about league average
our WRs are not league average. They are bad. Among the worst units in the league. Name 6 units that are worse than what the Giants have.
So that is at DG's feet not that he was given a bad WR core.. not that he had to sacrifice the WR core to get an OL or something like but he actively payed out 2 WR, a good starting WR salary.. and he actively traded away a player who is now costing us additional 16M this year who BTW was paid by DG..
Another point if I am picking a QB at 6.. I don't want one that needs a good OL, RB , TE and WR.. With that I can win with below average quality QB (Foles, Keenum).. SO overall we have a good team for a QB..
6 teams with worse WR corp then ours
Baltimore, Washington, 49ers, Cardinals, Dolphins, Bills, Titans.. May be seahawks..
we are better than Wash and Miami. No to everybody else. anyway even if it true we are better than those 6 the point is made. We are worse than league average at WR.
Wrong names
Quote:
No amount of arguing/debate is going to expedite anything. It will happen when it happens.
Wrong names
Names or name?
Right? I almost wonder if we ought to trade Barkley. It sounds like lunacy, but not if he only fits in with Shurmur's plans if things are unfolding perfectly in a game.
That's true, but it's also a message board so it lends itself to us debating all sorts of things that we have no control over - that's kind of the nature of it, isn't it?
Quote:
coach on this team anymore after yesterday.
Right? I almost wonder if we ought to trade Barkley. It sounds like lunacy, but not if he only fits in with Shurmur's plans if things are unfolding perfectly in a game.
I've kicked that around, too. Of course it's a sacrilegious to explore that because SB is very likely an "untouchable" around here, but right now Shurmur is basically wasting SB's talents with this intentional or unintentional pitch count.
Daniel Jones might not start for 3 years
The plan is for Eli to start
Eli is our starting QB.
Blah, blah, blah insert more cliche's and coach/owner speak here.
I think the rule has always been Eli needs to win to start. There is no way they should say this...publicly.
I honestly believe that if we lose to Buffalo and Eli looks the same, it is his last start. He needs to play like a MVP or we need to win and look like we will be playing for something later in the year.
Quote:
In comment 14568674 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
No amount of arguing/debate is going to expedite anything. It will happen when it happens.
Wrong names
Names or name?
John Mara and Conscience Mara
Quote:
repeating this as if it is fact:
Quote:
this is absolute non sense.
He will need playing time to develop into his final form, whatever that is.
Maybe 5 years down the road it wont matter, but it will absolutely matter in 2020 and 2021.
The nonsense is stating that playing time is certain to lead to better play from Jones next season. This has been shown time and again to have a negligent impact on a QB's development.
Jones should play when the team is eliminated and they are ready to move away from Eli. Playing him just to gain "experience" has no factual evidence to support that it is any better than waiting to play him.
I'm curious how this could possibly be proven? Since no two players' respective development is the same, and since development in general tends not to be linear, how is it even possible to to actually prove with evidence? This isn't like a double blind study with a control group that you can use to actually gather empirical evidence.
Rather, what we have are examples like Mahomes (who waited a year), Rivers (who waited two), and Rodgers (who waited three). These are three good to great QBs, and it's possible that the observations they were able to make on the bench helped them quickly ramp up their progress once they got a chance to take over the starting job.
But it's also possible that they might have been just as good had they started from day 1. After all, starting from day 1 didn't hurt Peyton Manning. Starting as a rookie didn't hurt Eli or Roethlisberger. It doesn't seem to have stunted Wentz's development, or Russel Wilson's, or Deshaun Watson's. Or maybe it did - maybe each of those QBs would have been even better with the benefit of more time on the bench.
The point is, we have no way of knowing. We can't compare the version of Peyton Manning that waited with the version that started from day 1, because only the latter exists. Likewise, we can't possibly compare Aaron Rodgers' development as a day 1 starter to the one who waited, again because only the latter exists.
Logically, it stands to reason that like most things in life, extra practice and repetition would help someone improve those skills. Given the limited practice time allowed in the NFL, being the #2 QB tends to mean that player is not only not playing in real games, but they're also not getting many practice reps. It's hard to believe that those practice reps ultimately have no impact.
In any case, that's just a long way of saying that I call bullshit on this being "shown time and again" because it logically cannot be proven.
The best you could hope for in terms of evidence is what each QB says in hindsight about the way they were handled early in their career. But even that can't be used to apply to any other player because they're not identical. Two players may engage differently depending on whether they're the starter or the backup. Two coaches may work with a young QB differently depending on whether he's the starter or the backup. Other teammates may spend more time with the young QB depending on whether he's the starter or the backup - and all of those variables are inconsistent from team to team to the extent that they cannot be relied upon as evidence that could apply to anyone else.
That said, I'd love to see this evidence. Seems like that would be more interesting than just wasting energy imagining all the ways that the data is almost definitely flawed.
GD, thanks for laying this out...
It is in line with my thinking as well, that based on statistics, it is unknowable as to whether sitting or playing in any given situation will help or hinder a player to reach their potential.
At some point the player has to play. At some point they will be seeing thing live for the first time. You have to expect a certain amount of inconsistency in these situations until they become more familiar. That familiarity that leads to consistency is the growth curse that every QB has to go through. Nobody is just born with it. Whether you like it or not, at this point in his career Eli is consistent. In all likelihood DJ won't be.
Its up to the coaches to determine if the surrounding cast is so bad that they will Carr-ify him. Or if he needs more coaching or else he will Carr-ify himself. In the absence of both of those scenarios, there is no downside to playing him and moving past that inconsistent stage in a QBs development.
So I'm asking to stop the Straw Man. It is wasting all of our time. If your argument is that he does it to you I will find real Gypsies and have them curse you. I will go to New Orleans and hire a voodoo specialist and have him curse you too. That is a lot of cursing and you won't like it 1 bit.
So I'm asking to stop the Straw Man. It is wasting all of our time. If your argument is that he does it to you I will find real Gypsies and have them curse you. I will go to New Orleans and hire a voodoo specialist and have him curse you too. That is a lot of cursing and you won't like it 1 bit.
The point that GD is making is that you can only compare different players, who were on different teams, with different coaches. There is no control group, and such a ridiculously small sample size, that you cannot make any reliable predictions from the existing data. I agree with 100%.
To be able to make a valid statistical comparison, you would have to have an NFL Lab, where you drop the player into different circumstances, and try playing him vs waiting a year. And you would have to do this at least 100 or so times per player before you can build up a dataset from which you could draw conclusions.
Frankly, I don't even care about that debate.
What I think is undeniable is that every player at every position learns from playing actual snaps in actual games. The more times a player sees something, the better their recognition becomes, and the more they will make the best decisions for that situation. In other words, become consistent.
In other words, there exists a learning curve for every player at every position that is only fulfilled by playing real games.
As long as a player is far enough along the basic learning curve (the stuff you can learn without playing), and as long as the surrounding cast doesn't get him killed, then I don't see any downside to playing and moving that player along their learning curve. At least not for a team like the Giants who are not going anywhere.
It feels like people are arguing a position that fmic has never taken. I'm just Paul and it's between y'all.
I've kicked that around, too. Of course it's a sacrilegious to explore that because SB is very likely an "untouchable" around here, but right now Shurmur is basically wasting SB's talents with this intentional or unintentional pitch count.
On the other hand, the alternative of firing Shurmur and keeping Barkley is much more appealing.
Quote:
that you are either too thickheaded or embarrassed to see is that playing him year one will accelerate his development.
For christ's sake - that exactly what the data doesn't show!! Playing him year one isn't shown to accelerate nor retard growth.
Are you being purposely dense?
I don't think this is the sort of conclusion that can ever be supported by data. It's impossible. You can't clone a QB and his supporting staff and then compare the original who played immediately, to the clone who played after sitting his 1st year.
Comparing someone like Peyton Manning who started as a rookie to Aaron Rodgers who did not is erroneous and doesn't answer either of two obviously raised questions: how would Peyton have fared if he sat in year 1 and started year 2, and how would Rodgers have fared if he started immediately?
Without data to support or debunk either position, I think we should merely consider whether the 2020 version of Jones would benefit from actual game experience vs being a second stringer all season long. Is it really misguided to think he would, or must we be burdened to scientifically prove it?
Ideally you draft qb play him day 1 get the lumps out early. But if the player isn’t ready mentally or physically it could ruin him. Also getting the kid killed because the team is so bad ie the oline that could ruin him see David Carr.
Because everything depends on the individual player and situation experience just for experience sakes isn’t always the smart thing and statistically either way won’t or can’t show anything because every situation is different for a variety of reasons
Daniel Jones does look like Eli so...
Quote:
And derailed two threads now, to say you can’t prove that players benefit from experience.
I don't think he said that. If I am wrong so be it. I enjoy when I disagree with fmic he is fun to debate with. I would be all over that if I saw him say that. What I've seen him say is that there is no correlation between sitting year one and playing year one whether that QB will become a franchise QB. I very well could have missed him saying that QB's get no benefit from experience. Could you point specifically to that post for me, I would love to respond to that.
The problem is that we have a number of examples but that doesn't make them evidence. To wit, FMiC mentioned Mark Sanchez and Jameis Winston earlier in this thread. We know how Sanchez turned out and we have a pretty good idea of what Winston is at this point. And in both of their cases, they were starting QBs as rookies. But there's nothing instructive about that because we don't have any information on Mark Sanchez or Jameis Winston sitting their rookie years. We can't compare them to Aaron Rodgers or Patrick Mahomes because they have different coaches, different training staffs, different teammates, different personalities, different work ethics, different ways of reacting to being given an opportunity vs. waiting for/earning one, etc.
With that in mind, there can be no evidence about the relative value of playing vs. sitting in year one, because once a player becomes part of one of those two data sets, he is by definition eliminated from the other data set entirely. Comparing Mark Sanchez starting as a rookie vs. Aaron Rodgers sitting for three years doesn't tell us that sitting for three years makes someone a better QB. It tells us that Aaron Rodgers is a better QB than Mark Sanchez, and that he happened to sit at the start of his career whereas Sanchez started. Likewise, comparing Peyton Manning starting as a rookie vs. Paxton Lynch sitting to start his career doesn't provide us with any insight that we can apply to Daniel Jones.
There is no reliable and repeatable evidence that one could use to draw any conclusions about a correlation between playing as a rookie (or not) and becoming a franchise QB. Common sense does suggest that any athlete will improve more rapidly with experience and practice repetitions, and being the starter would seem to provide that opportunity more readily than being the backup. But we don't have any evidence to confirm that either; it's just our natural intuitive sense because each of us is familiar with the idea of practicing in order to improve skills.
The idea that there's some sort of evidence at the root of this debate is flawed. I think that's kind of the point.
I think we can all agree that trying to predict in the abstract whether its better to sit for a period of time or play right away is impossible to do. There are too many variables, and none of the variables are ever equivalent across players. Plus the sample size is too small.
So you are reduced to deciding what is best for a particular individual in a given situation. Even then, its only your best guess. However, once you have determined that the surrounding team is good enough, and his non-playing training is good enough. There can be no further benefit to sitting. So my only position here is that it must be, and always will be a case by case determination that needs to be made by the coaches and other player evaluators.
As far as DJ is concerned. My guess is that he is still in the process of learning what can be learned without playing. Now that he understands the system, he needs to see it in real situations on film. A improve from those teachable moments. Different teams will try to exploit different strengths of their own and weaknesses on the Giants. It will take a few games for that to shake out. I have said in the past, probably between game 6 and 9 he should be as ready as he will ever get. At that point, the only question will be if there is enough of a team around him for it to make sense.
That is of course if you believe there is anything to situational experiences, familiarity, recognition skills and the like that benefit a QB's development.
Quote:
And derailed two threads now, to say you can’t prove that players benefit from experience.
I don't think he said that. If I am wrong so be it. I enjoy when I disagree with fmic he is fun to debate with. I would be all over that if I saw him say that. What I've seen him say is that there is no correlation between sitting year one and playing year one whether that QB will become a franchise QB. I very well could have missed him saying that QB's get no benefit from experience. Could you point specifically to that post for me, I would love to respond to that.
He is not taking the negative position, just saying the affirmative can’t be proven.
Basically arguing to argue.
> Russell Wilson - started right away. Very successful.
> DeShaun Watson - started the second game of his rookie year. Trending to success.
> Andrew Luck - started right away. Successful.
> Dak Prescott - started right away. Trending to success.
> Marcus Mariota - started right away. Mixed results.
> Jameis Winston - started right away. Mixed results.
> Lamar Jackson - started half into the season. A very interesting TBD.
> Matt Ryan - started right away. Very successful.
> Baker Mayfield - started 13 games. Trending successful.
> Patrick Mahomes - waited a year. Very successful.
> Jared Goff - started midway through rookie year. Successful.
> Josh Allen - started early his rookie year. TBD.
> Derek Carr - started right away. Solid.
> Matthew Stafford - started ten games his rookie year. Solid.
> Cam Newton - started right away. Successful.
> Mitch Trubisky - started most of his rookie year. Decent success.
> Carson Wentz - started right away. Very Successful.
So that's 17 current starters with everyone but Mahomes starting most of their rookie year. Of those 16, my subjective analysis tells me majority have been successful since they played significant games their rookie year.
Quote:
In comment 14569021 ron mexico said:
Quote:
And derailed two threads now, to say you can’t prove that players benefit from experience.
I don't think he said that. If I am wrong so be it. I enjoy when I disagree with fmic he is fun to debate with. I would be all over that if I saw him say that. What I've seen him say is that there is no correlation between sitting year one and playing year one whether that QB will become a franchise QB. I very well could have missed him saying that QB's get no benefit from experience. Could you point specifically to that post for me, I would love to respond to that.
He is not taking the negative position, just saying the affirmative can’t be proven.
Basically arguing to argue.
To the extent that he's saying common sense is irrelevant because the evidence shows no correlation, it seems to me that he's at least leaning into the negative (because otherwise, one would at least acknowledge that there's some truth to the concept, generally, that practice and repetition help people improve at any skill and that it would make sense, at least in a vacuum, to start that practice/repetition process sooner in order to improve sooner).
> Russell Wilson - started right away. Very successful.
> DeShaun Watson - started the second game of his rookie year. Trending to success.
> Andrew Luck - started right away. Successful.
> Dak Prescott - started right away. Trending to success.
> Marcus Mariota - started right away. Mixed results.
> Jameis Winston - started right away. Mixed results.
> Lamar Jackson - started half into the season. A very interesting TBD.
> Matt Ryan - started right away. Very successful.
> Baker Mayfield - started 13 games. Trending successful.
> Patrick Mahomes - waited a year. Very successful.
> Jared Goff - started midway through rookie year. Successful.
> Josh Allen - started early his rookie year. TBD.
> Derek Carr - started right away. Solid.
> Matthew Stafford - started ten games his rookie year. Solid.
> Cam Newton - started right away. Successful.
> Mitch Trubisky - started most of his rookie year. Decent success.
> Carson Wentz - started right away. Very Successful.
So that's 17 current starters with everyone but Mahomes starting most of their rookie year. Of those 16, my subjective analysis tells me majority have been successful since they played significant games their rookie year.
Very helpful.
If I'm being fair to the argument, I'll acknowledge that we'll never know if any of those guys could have been even MORE successful had they sat out their rookie year and learned by observation.
As I mentioned, it becomes impossible to know because as soon as a player enters one group he is necessarily eliminated from the other, and then all the other context/variables have to be considered. Which is to say that if anyone tells you that they have evidence of some sort of correlation about this, it's questionable at best.
So all in all, some pretty hefty results - IMV.
If I'm looking for comps I start with:
1) was the QB in a pro style or similar offense in college
2) did the QB have a functioning line and reliable set of weapons, including a + offensive threat at RB or WR
3) was his head coach an offensive or QB expert
4) did the QB have good size and speed
I'd say take a look at QBs in situations like that to see if getting early experience helped them.
He had 4 years at Duke under coach cut and all the camps money could buy.
Pat said he is ready, playing will do nothing but continue his development.
He is not going to get David Carr’ed
Sure, eventually. Once he gets the practice reps that he could have gotten this season.
The question that I have is what's the benefit in waiting unless the team is doing well and winning? If yesterday is indicative of this season's outlook, what's the point in waiting?
Ponderously contrarian.
Ponderously contrarian.
I think FMiC is very pro analytics, actually.
The list I outlined above clearly shows, at a minimum, this trend - more and more teams are playing rookie QBs right out of the gate. It’s undeniable; and the ratio of those QBs who end up doing well is well over 50%.
Ponderously contrarian.
You really have become just a trolling imbecile.
Thegratefulhead summed my position up here quite well. I referenced a couple of analyses that showed that there is no correlation in either direction to say if starting a rookie QB year 1 vs. sitting him is the most beneficial. You were the one who went on the rant about how valuable experience is.
Try to stay with the thought process here - my take is to start the QB when he provides the best chance for the team to win. I originally showed those analyses to refute the assertion that starting Jones would either accelerate his growth or conversely that sitting him would retard his growth. That was it. The position that Jones HAS to play this year to develop is not backed up.
Gatorade makes good points about the methodology of the data - but I'm not even a slave to the data. That's something your consistently dim posts can't grasp. Why don't you vomit out another EVIDENCE, there Chief.
Basically, if you start a QB year 1 or sit him, there's no particular bias on which method works best. The more pertinent discussion is around the economics of a rookie contract, but that wasn't what was being discussed.
And bw is also right - I'm pro-analytics. It is part of the reason I challenge that faux analytic guy NoGainDayne. Ironically, he calls me a luddite while a significant portion of my job is spent dealing in market data analysis. The problem analysts have in football today is that they want to package it neatly like baseball can. They try to develop new advanced stats - and then what do they do? They will reference something like PFF ratings - a completely subjective, non-data, non-analytics backed process. That's just one of many hypocritical views taken.
It doesn't surprise me that you couldn't follow my argument. It probably takes a bit of intelligence to do so.....
And there are about 5 or more people on this thread stating that they are not sure what your position is, so I guess we are all dim bulbs.
Just take a L on this and move on.
The "data" about other QBs is not qualified data and has no place in the analysis. There are too many variables that don't apply.
If Jones doesn't play the Giants are in effect say either:
1) Jones won't benefit from the experience or
2) they believe the incremental benefit of today Manning vs. today Jones is the difference in a shot at a ring
And if you are - that's exactly why you are so fucking dim. It isn't black and white, which was my point all along.
Thankfully it seems clear that Shurmur is seeing that as well. Inserting Jones at the end of the game said a lot to me.
Thankfully it seems clear that Shurmur is seeing that as well. Inserting Jones at the end of the game said a lot to me.
It says you read into things what you want and not what's there.
Quote:
And trending towards black.
Thankfully it seems clear that Shurmur is seeing that as well. Inserting Jones at the end of the game said a lot to me.
It says you read into things what you want and not what's there.
Time will tell.
I get the feeling that the next time we find ourselves in the same situation, Shurmur wont wait for the 2 min mark to put Jones in.
Rosen is back on the bench on a new team after being thrown to the wolves last year.
Again, how do you even quantify it?
I don't follow the Jets so can't comment on Darnold's development but I find it hard to believe he would have fared better if he sat all of last year.
The "data" about other QBs is not qualified data and has no place in the analysis. There are too many variables that don't apply.
If Jones doesn't play the Giants are in effect say either:
1) Jones won't benefit from the experience or
2) they believe the incremental benefit of today Manning vs. today Jones is the difference in a shot at a ring
Isn't there a 3? That even if they think Jones will benefit and there isn't a realistic shot at the playoffs either way, that maybe they're leaving Eli at QB to allow him to finish off his final season as the starter?
That's not a pop at Eli - I highly doubt this roster is going anywhere short of inserting Aaron Rodgers at QB. But the experience would obviously benefit Jones. And I don't think anyone expects either Jones or Eli to push this team into the playoffs. So the only reason I could see why they wouldn't start Jones would be because they want to let Eli ride his final season out.
At least that would be loyalty. Any other reason wouldn't make sense.
Rosen is back on the bench on a new team after being thrown to the wolves last year.
Again, how do you even quantify it?
Why does it need to be quantified? And as FMIC pointed out, growth isn't linear. There will be ups and downs. We all know this from experience and common sense.
And if the guy doesn't develop at all, that is also useful information.
Quote:
The only question that matters is will game experience get Daniel Jones closer to being a championship quarterback.
The "data" about other QBs is not qualified data and has no place in the analysis. There are too many variables that don't apply.
If Jones doesn't play the Giants are in effect say either:
1) Jones won't benefit from the experience or
2) they believe the incremental benefit of today Manning vs. today Jones is the difference in a shot at a ring
Isn't there a 3? That even if they think Jones will benefit and there isn't a realistic shot at the playoffs either way, that maybe they're leaving Eli at QB to allow him to finish off his final season as the starter?
That's not a pop at Eli - I highly doubt this roster is going anywhere short of inserting Aaron Rodgers at QB. But the experience would obviously benefit Jones. And I don't think anyone expects either Jones or Eli to push this team into the playoffs. So the only reason I could see why they wouldn't start Jones would be because they want to let Eli ride his final season out.
At least that would be loyalty. Any other reason wouldn't make sense.
Thats what a lot of us are afraid of. That they are acting out of loyalty and sentimentality and not doing what is best for the team.
And believe me I get it. I have a ton of admiration for Eli and I don't know him on a personal level like Mara does. I'm sure their relationship goes far beyond Employer / Employee, not no mention Eli had probably increased the Mara's net worth quite a bit.
But my fears in that regards have come down.
It's about accelerating the process of finding out what you have, and making sure that IF getting the first iterations (whether it be 3 or 4, or a dozen) as a starting QB under one's belt is a meaningful thing, you do it sooner than later so that 2020 doesn't need to be the same disgrace that the last 7 seasons have been by and large.
And if it isn't a meaningful thing (which there is absolutely no way to know/measure with whatever anecdotes of different historical players one might identify), you've lost literally nothing other than perhaps a handful of football games, which may actually be helping you improve your future more quickly.
With a competent OL and the best RB in the game, any suggestion that they might actually damage Jones by playing him now is absurd.
He is not going to get David Carr’ed
I think you nailed it - this is the underlying fear with those who want the transition process to be more methodical and measured. We don't want another David Carr on our hands. And I get that to a degree. Plus, sprinkled in between, there is this desire to see Eli finish out on his terms and/or that he still has the good to produce wins.
But it's a risk I'm willing to take because the NFL's trend - I know some want more granularity in the data - is that rookie QBs are starting right away (more than ever), or very soon into their rookie year. And most, > 50%, are showing green arrows. Just look at what I compiled last night above. There are a lot of success stories brewing in the NFL with QBs who started early. It's clear as day.
So I am ALL in on Jones starting right away. And I'm a guy who probably is the most skeptical about him. But I see huge value in finding out as soon as possible if he is indeed the boom or the bust. If he's the boom, then we get great ROI off his first contract. If he's the bust, then we re-group and start looking for another solution quicker...
It's about accelerating the process of finding out what you have, and making sure that IF getting the first iterations (whether it be 3 or 4, or a dozen) as a starting QB under one's belt is a meaningful thing, you do it sooner than later so that 2020 doesn't need to be the same disgrace that the last 7 seasons have been by and large.
And if it isn't a meaningful thing (which there is absolutely no way to know/measure with whatever anecdotes of different historical players one might identify), you've lost literally nothing other than perhaps a handful of football games, which may actually be helping you improve your future more quickly.
With a competent OL and the best RB in the game, any suggestion that they might actually damage Jones by playing him now is absurd.
But it's not a right or wrong situation. It's a philosophical difference.
It used to be that a rookie QB needed three years before they can be judged, and that included time on the pine learning. Why is everybody in such a rush all of the sudden. Give the kid some proper time to develop. After all, what do you have to lose besides a handful of football games in the big picture, right?
Quote:
this over-complicated.
It's about accelerating the process of finding out what you have, and making sure that IF getting the first iterations (whether it be 3 or 4, or a dozen) as a starting QB under one's belt is a meaningful thing, you do it sooner than later so that 2020 doesn't need to be the same disgrace that the last 7 seasons have been by and large.
And if it isn't a meaningful thing (which there is absolutely no way to know/measure with whatever anecdotes of different historical players one might identify), you've lost literally nothing other than perhaps a handful of football games, which may actually be helping you improve your future more quickly.
With a competent OL and the best RB in the game, any suggestion that they might actually damage Jones by playing him now is absurd.
But it's not a right or wrong situation. It's a philosophical difference.
It used to be that a rookie QB needed three years before they can be judged, and that included time on the pine learning. Why is everybody in such a rush all of the sudden. Give the kid some proper time to develop. After all, what do you have to lose besides a handful of football games in the big picture, right?
I must have missed the "3 years before they can be judged era". And surely you aren't saying that it doesn't matter how they 3 years are spent?? So Sit 1 Play 2, Sit 0 Play 3, Sit 2 Play 1 are all the same? Just let 3 years pass and then judge?
Time to develop is exactly what I'm trying to give Jones. Live fire, with a competent OL and a great RB, and virtually no pressure to win right now since everyone knows the defense sucks. Reps with the #1s and preparation as a starter, week in and week out. Frankly, that sounds to me like just about the most ideal environment to develop that I could imagine given that it's a bad team.
I'm not saying anything is right and wrong. But if 2-3 more weeks pass and we see a team remotely as bad as we saw in Week 1, I see virtually no credible argument that Jones shouldn't start.
Just like you, I hope that the defense figures some shit out, the offense puts some points on the board, and we're 3-1. If that's the case, I happily punt the conversation until things aren't looking as good. I just can't say I'm optimistic as of today.
Quote:
In comment 14570036 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
this over-complicated.
It's about accelerating the process of finding out what you have, and making sure that IF getting the first iterations (whether it be 3 or 4, or a dozen) as a starting QB under one's belt is a meaningful thing, you do it sooner than later so that 2020 doesn't need to be the same disgrace that the last 7 seasons have been by and large.
And if it isn't a meaningful thing (which there is absolutely no way to know/measure with whatever anecdotes of different historical players one might identify), you've lost literally nothing other than perhaps a handful of football games, which may actually be helping you improve your future more quickly.
With a competent OL and the best RB in the game, any suggestion that they might actually damage Jones by playing him now is absurd.
But it's not a right or wrong situation. It's a philosophical difference.
It used to be that a rookie QB needed three years before they can be judged, and that included time on the pine learning. Why is everybody in such a rush all of the sudden. Give the kid some proper time to develop. After all, what do you have to lose besides a handful of football games in the big picture, right?
I must have missed the "3 years before they can be judged era". And surely you aren't saying that it doesn't matter how they 3 years are spent?? So Sit 1 Play 2, Sit 0 Play 3, Sit 2 Play 1 are all the same? Just let 3 years pass and then judge?
Time to develop is exactly what I'm trying to give Jones. Live fire, with a competent OL and a great RB, and virtually no pressure to win right now since everyone knows the defense sucks. Reps with the #1s and preparation as a starter, week in and week out. Frankly, that sounds to me like just about the most ideal environment to develop that I could imagine given that it's a bad team.
I'm not saying anything is right and wrong. But if 2-3 more weeks pass and we see a team remotely as bad as we saw in Week 1, I see virtually no credible argument that Jones shouldn't start.
Just like you, I hope that the defense figures some shit out, the offense puts some points on the board, and we're 3-1. If that's the case, I happily punt the conversation until things aren't looking as good. I just can't say I'm optimistic as of today.
Drew Brees was drafted in 2001. He sat behind Doug Flutie for an entire season save for coming in for injury relief. He beat Flutie out in 2002 and started the whole season. In 2003, he started again before being benched for Flutie midway through. In 2004 the Chargers drafted Rivers (Manning) because they thought Brees was garbage. Rivers held out, and Brees blew up.
And wait three years before judging what you have in a QB was a pretty common philosophy up until the spread offense became prolific, because the step up from the college to pro level was significant. The spread offense dumbed a lot of that down.
Quote:
this over-complicated.
It's about accelerating the process of finding out what you have, and making sure that IF getting the first iterations (whether it be 3 or 4, or a dozen) as a starting QB under one's belt is a meaningful thing, you do it sooner than later so that 2020 doesn't need to be the same disgrace that the last 7 seasons have been by and large.
And if it isn't a meaningful thing (which there is absolutely no way to know/measure with whatever anecdotes of different historical players one might identify), you've lost literally nothing other than perhaps a handful of football games, which may actually be helping you improve your future more quickly.
With a competent OL and the best RB in the game, any suggestion that they might actually damage Jones by playing him now is absurd.
But it's not a right or wrong situation. It's a philosophical difference.
It used to be that a rookie QB needed three years before they can be judged, and that included time on the pine learning. Why is everybody in such a rush all of the sudden. Give the kid some proper time to develop. After all, what do you have to lose besides a handful of football games in the big picture, right?
I think the NFL has evolved a bit in this regard. For one - the salary cap dictates that a team benefits greatly when a QB is performing while still under their rookie contract. This wasn't so much the case when Eli was drafted because the rookie scale hadn't been introduced yet (highly drafted QBs were expensive commodities).
Because of that rush to take advantage of the cap, teams simplified their offenses for the QBs. Before that, you had guys sitting and learning respective systems, working on mechanics. Now, look at the past few years, with offenses specifically tailored to the QBs drafted in an attempt to ramp them up as quickly as possible. Do you think Lamar Jackson would have been up and running as quickly if he were drafted back in 04?
It's a different sport. Roster turnover is quicker now than it was years ago. CBAs mean guys get less practice time. Successful teams know that they don't have as much time to develop raw players as they had in the past. I think this in part did Reese in as well, as he had heavily weighted player potential over production. A raw prospect who has all the talent in the world might not be worth a pick if they're going to take all of their rookie contract to get up to speed (see Shiancoe, V).
Maybe Derek Carr just wasn't a good player. Maybe Brees was going to be amazing no matter what, and having him on the bench was just time stupidly wasted. No way to know.
I'm not saying that playing Jones versus sitting him changes what he is long-term as a player. I'm saying that you embark on the road to find out what that is sooner than later. I'm saying that it's been damn near a decade of losing, with the same QB at the helm, and there is now an another highly regarded young QB on the roster that the org used a blue chip pick to acquire. Every review has been positive. And the words "not ready" haven't been uttered by a single person from GM to coach to player to teammates.
Maybe Derek Carr just wasn't a good player. Maybe Brees was going to be amazing no matter what, and having him on the bench was just time stupidly wasted. No way to know.
I'm not saying that playing Jones versus sitting him changes what he is long-term as a player. I'm saying that you embark on the road to find out what that is sooner than later. I'm saying that it's been damn near a decade of losing, with the same QB at the helm, and there is now an another highly regarded young QB on the roster that the org used a blue chip pick to acquire. Every review has been positive. And the words "not ready" haven't been uttered by a single person from GM to coach to player to teammates.
That's right. So why are we so sure that one way is the right way when we have examples of success and failure in both?
Quote:
The only question that matters is will game experience get Daniel Jones closer to being a championship quarterback.
The "data" about other QBs is not qualified data and has no place in the analysis. There are too many variables that don't apply.
If Jones doesn't play the Giants are in effect say either:
1) Jones won't benefit from the experience or
2) they believe the incremental benefit of today Manning vs. today Jones is the difference in a shot at a ring
Isn't there a 3? That even if they think Jones will benefit and there isn't a realistic shot at the playoffs either way, that maybe they're leaving Eli at QB to allow him to finish off his final season as the starter?
That's not a pop at Eli - I highly doubt this roster is going anywhere short of inserting Aaron Rodgers at QB. But the experience would obviously benefit Jones. And I don't think anyone expects either Jones or Eli to push this team into the playoffs. So the only reason I could see why they wouldn't start Jones would be because they want to let Eli ride his final season out.
At least that would be loyalty. Any other reason wouldn't make sense.
Honestly, I refuse to personality entertain that option because it would ruin watching the season for me ;)
Personally I don't see the type of situation that would "ruin" a QB. Good enough line, good enough skills players, an offensive minded coach.
Feels a lot like 2004 to me frankly.
I assume when the losses pile up, Jones will be the QB. I assume the losses will pile up and we see Jones after the break.
What I hope Gettleman & Mara take a long hard self reflective look at is whether keeping Manning was a smart football move, logically and financially.
If you look at the situations where the highly drafted QB sat and went on to be successful -- what do they have in common as far as the reason that the QB was sitting?
In almost every single one of them, the reason was that the team was objectively in a realistic position to try and win.
I didn't think the NYG were in that boat from the outset. And I won't go down the $17M-doesnt-really-matter rabbit hole defense of Eli. We are where we are today. My only point is that if NYG look like a non-playoff team 3-4 games into the season, there simply is no good reason not to play Jones (and no, you don't wait for 'mathematically eliminated' nonsense).
I guess to hone in on where we disagree -- if the NYG are 0-3 going into week 4, would you make the change? If no, why?
It is still early in Week 2. These guy's JOBS primarily involve winning games. Bottom line. What a lot of you guys aren't getting about what Fatman is saying is that Jones will be put in over a health scratch Manning when it balances out to level with him giving them what they believe to be an equal chance to win games, or a better chance to win games.
These dude's jobs are on the line, from coaches to players. You don't just throw games away to develop one player. There are so many moving pieces in all of this, and it is a very fluid situation from week to week. Coughlin didn't know he was going to start Manning in week 10. It just eventually balanced out to that. There was no if we're 0-2 in week three or by the bye week, or whatever. He just felt it was time for a change.
This situation is ever evolving.
Quote:
In comment 14569982 ron mexico said:
Quote:
And trending towards black.
Thankfully it seems clear that Shurmur is seeing that as well. Inserting Jones at the end of the game said a lot to me.
It says you read into things what you want and not what's there.
Time will tell.
I get the feeling that the next time we find ourselves in the same situation, Shurmur wont wait for the 2 min mark to put Jones in.
I disagree. The *only* reason Jones got into this game was because Shrumer conceded. And, that's the *only* reason he will get into future games, until (if) they make the full switch which will happen during practice of the week prior. And, Shurmer is highly unlikely to concede a game until they were well into it and there is no miraculous hope of coming back.
Quote:
So I am ALL in on Jones starting right away. And I'm a guy who probably is the most skeptical about him. But I see huge value in finding out as soon as possible if he is indeed the boom or the bust. If he's the boom, then we get great ROI off his first contract. If he's the bust, then we re-group and start looking for another solution quicker...
I got money that says that it's less about value and more about choosing the lesser of two despisals.
It is still early in Week 2. These guy's JOBS primarily involve winning games. Bottom line. What a lot of you guys aren't getting about what Fatman is saying is that Jones will be put in over a health scratch Manning when it balances out to level with him giving them what they believe to be an equal chance to win games, or a better chance to win games.
These dude's jobs are on the line, from coaches to players. You don't just throw games away to develop one player. There are so many moving pieces in all of this, and it is a very fluid situation from week to week. Coughlin didn't know he was going to start Manning in week 10. It just eventually balanced out to that. There was no if we're 0-2 in week three or by the bye week, or whatever. He just felt it was time for a change.
This situation is ever evolving.
Coughlin starting Eli in Week 10 at 5-4 was far more ballsy and far less of a no-brainer than starting Jones after an 0-3 start (for instance) would be.
We just don't see eye to eye on this. But I respect you for the civil discussion - thanks for that.
Quote:
In comment 14570036 bigbluehoya said:
Quote:
this over-complicated.
It's about accelerating the process of finding out what you have, and making sure that IF getting the first iterations (whether it be 3 or 4, or a dozen) as a starting QB under one's belt is a meaningful thing, you do it sooner than later so that 2020 doesn't need to be the same disgrace that the last 7 seasons have been by and large.
And if it isn't a meaningful thing (which there is absolutely no way to know/measure with whatever anecdotes of different historical players one might identify), you've lost literally nothing other than perhaps a handful of football games, which may actually be helping you improve your future more quickly.
With a competent OL and the best RB in the game, any suggestion that they might actually damage Jones by playing him now is absurd.
But it's not a right or wrong situation. It's a philosophical difference.
It used to be that a rookie QB needed three years before they can be judged, and that included time on the pine learning. Why is everybody in such a rush all of the sudden. Give the kid some proper time to develop. After all, what do you have to lose besides a handful of football games in the big picture, right?
I think the NFL has evolved a bit in this regard. For one - the salary cap dictates that a team benefits greatly when a QB is performing while still under their rookie contract. This wasn't so much the case when Eli was drafted because the rookie scale hadn't been introduced yet (highly drafted QBs were expensive commodities).
Because of that rush to take advantage of the cap, teams simplified their offenses for the QBs. Before that, you had guys sitting and learning respective systems, working on mechanics. Now, look at the past few years, with offenses specifically tailored to the QBs drafted in an attempt to ramp them up as quickly as possible. Do you think Lamar Jackson would have been up and running as quickly if he were drafted back in 04?
It's a different sport. Roster turnover is quicker now than it was years ago. CBAs mean guys get less practice time. Successful teams know that they don't have as much time to develop raw players as they had in the past. I think this in part did Reese in as well, as he had heavily weighted player potential over production. A raw prospect who has all the talent in the world might not be worth a pick if they're going to take all of their rookie contract to get up to speed (see Shiancoe, V).
This. 1000% this. I wish more fans understood the subtle edges teams can gain by playing the cap game properly.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think we need Terps to come give a refresher course on the advantages of savvy cap management (and specifically how much value a rookie-contract QB provides).
At the point where they concede that they are playing for next year and not this year, they will put Jones in. If Eli goes down with an injury, they will put Jones in. If it looks like Eli is what is holding the team back, then they will put Jones in....And none of that is week #2.
This has been true for 3 years now.
He's done putting an inferior team on his back and carrying them into the playoffs. Those days are done. This season, is a rebuilding season. I love Eli. He doesn't deserve this.
But the situation isn't changing.
Quote:
If it looks like Eli is what is holding the team back, then they will put Jones in....And none of that is week #2.
This has been true for 3 years now.
They do not concur with your assessment.
At the point where they concede that they are playing for next year and not this year, they will put Jones in. If Eli goes down with an injury, they will put Jones in. If it looks like Eli is what is holding the team back, then they will put Jones in....And none of that is week #2.
just to be clear - you thought Jones was an awful pick, correct?
Imagine thinking that it would be disrespectful to the fans/employees/team to play the QB that you just drafted #6 overall, after going 31-49 over the last 5 seasons?
Quote:
They are not the Dolphins. They are going to approach this season and each game with the respect to their fans, their own employees (the non-QB players being asked to risk injury each week), and the game itself as if they want to win the game and progress in the season. I disagree that it's "ring" or nothing either, but more a realistic shot at making the post-season. They're approach is different than yours; they're not quitters and divers and they won't punt the season before it even begins.
At the point where they concede that they are playing for next year and not this year, they will put Jones in. If Eli goes down with an injury, they will put Jones in. If it looks like Eli is what is holding the team back, then they will put Jones in....And none of that is week #2.
just to be clear - you thought Jones was an awful pick, correct?
Imagine thinking that it would be disrespectful to the fans/employees/team to play the QB that you just drafted #6 overall, after going 31-49 over the last 5 seasons?
Incredible, isn't it? Some people act like this franchise has been a winning franchise these past 7 seasons or something. They literally block it out like it never happened and like we're still not in it. It's hilarious and strange at the same time.
Lets see how warm of a reception the status quo gets in Giants stadium this week
Quote:
They are not the Dolphins. They are going to approach this season and each game with the respect to their fans, their own employees (the non-QB players being asked to risk injury each week), and the game itself as if they want to win the game and progress in the season. I disagree that it's "ring" or nothing either, but more a realistic shot at making the post-season. They're approach is different than yours; they're not quitters and divers and they won't punt the season before it even begins.
At the point where they concede that they are playing for next year and not this year, they will put Jones in. If Eli goes down with an injury, they will put Jones in. If it looks like Eli is what is holding the team back, then they will put Jones in....And none of that is week #2.
just to be clear - you thought Jones was an awful pick, correct?
Imagine thinking that it would be disrespectful to the fans/employees/team to play the QB that you just drafted #6 overall, after going 31-49 over the last 5 seasons?
Jones was not the pick I wanted when Goodell was at the podium. I wanted Allen and I wanted a 2020 QB. But a nanosecond after Goodell said his name, I was a supporter of Jones.
And, your hypothetical doesn't make too much sense. There isn't any draft pick, whether he's #6 over all or #6 round, that is different in the sense that it's disrespectful not to start them merely because they were drafted. Your play the player that will help you win the next game the most.
Quote:
to not do what they think is best for the team to win a game in any given week?
Lets see how warm of a reception the status quo gets in Giants stadium this week
You realize that "status quo" is 100% on the defense, right? Not sure how that is relevant to this topic.
Seems like some sort of weird code of chivalry to me.
If their honest view, given what the last 7 seasons have been as a body of work, is that the player they just used the #6 overall draft pick on is a guy that it would be DISRESPECTFUL to others to put on the football field, I would say the greater disrespect to the fans was drafting that player at #6.
But they don't think that. This is all a ruse. It has nothing whatsoever to do with respect for the fans. And I don't think you think it has anything to do with that, Britt. You have some actual well-reasoned logic behind your opinion. This respect thing is drivel.
Quote:
In comment 14570277 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
to not do what they think is best for the team to win a game in any given week?
Lets see how warm of a reception the status quo gets in Giants stadium this week
You realize that "status quo" is 100% on the defense, right? Not sure how that is relevant to this topic.
The def is terrible, no doubt. I've been saying that all off season.
The O still only managed to put up 10 points when the game was in contention.
Hey, if there are promising young guys on the def side of the ball, put them in as well. I think they should be playing Ballentine over Hamilton as well
And he is sitting on the bench.
He will not get David Carr'd with this line and running back.
We know who Eli is. He has the power to audible. He had protection and a running game against Dallas and looked.
EXACTLY THE SAME AS HE HAS FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS.
It was boring. So boring.
If we lose against Buffalo or ever get 2 game below 500 I will be screaming for Jones. Not because I hate Eli but because Jones just might be the truth. He looked the best of all the rookie QBs in preseason. Arizona isn't worried about Murray.
It would exciting to watch a young player with upside grow. I see nothing negative to playing him with many possible positives.
Manning needs to WIN to continue start IMO
Quote:
In comment 14570277 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
to not do what they think is best for the team to win a game in any given week?
Lets see how warm of a reception the status quo gets in Giants stadium this week
You realize that "status quo" is 100% on the defense, right? Not sure how that is relevant to this topic.
That's absolutely wrong, when the offense couldn't manage more than 10 points. Even a great defense isn't winning with 10 points of support from their offense.
The main problem with this team is the defense, but the offense hasn't exactly been holding up their end of the bargain.
Quote:
In comment 14570287 ron mexico said:
Quote:
In comment 14570277 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
to not do what they think is best for the team to win a game in any given week?
Lets see how warm of a reception the status quo gets in Giants stadium this week
You realize that "status quo" is 100% on the defense, right? Not sure how that is relevant to this topic.
That's absolutely wrong, when the offense couldn't manage more than 10 points. Even a great defense isn't winning with 10 points of support from their offense.
The main problem with this team is the defense, but the offense hasn't exactly been holding up their end of the bargain.
I don't agree with this at all. I think people are so hung up on the Eli question that they've overblown the impact of the offense on Sunday's game. Eli is now the defense's scapegoat.
They did progress down the field and some of those failed scoring opportunities were dictated by the defense's lapses. I'm positive that we would have kicked FG's at least twice instead of going for it on 4th down. And yeah, you can say it's only 6 more points but it's part of a lot of changes dictated by Dallas so easily scoring on every opportunity. In part, and I think to a large part, it changed how we used Saquon and that had a huge impact.
AT 0-2 since 1990 only 12% made the playoffs...That would be time
1-3 15%
2-4 9%
3-5 7%
4-6 7%
5-7 4%
I did not choose the records arbitrarily.
record playoff matrix - ( New Window )
I get that teams should try to win every game, but at a certain point, if one path may result in a significantly higher ceiling for long-term success (not saying it will, just considering the hypothetical that it could) but reduces your chances for winning a handful of games this season, and the other option offers no long-term benefit but probably does maximize your chances of winning each game this season (even if those chances aren't exceptionally high in some instances regardless of which option you choose), you have to at least be willing to choose the long-term benefit, don't you?
Or is the preference simply to lose by less points? Because if we're going to suck out loud either way, I'm fine with sucking even more this year if it means that we're Super Bowl contenders again sooner.
It's fine to play every game to win, but if there's a material difference to the long-term potential for this franchise, I'll be disappointed if that's not even a consideration at all.
IMO, it's more disrespectful to the fans to think that they're not capable of understanding that the future matters too. But considering that John Mara seems to treat the low-IQ cesspool of WFAN like a free focus group that gives him a pulse of the fanbase, it's not surprising that he would generally underestimate the intelligence of his customers.
I think I recently read that since 2006ish that only 10% of the teams who started 0-2 make the playoffs. So I agree, Eli should sit for Jones if we go down to Buffalo.
Unfortunately I think Eli is in the saddle until we are officially, mathematically eliminated. And that will be precious time lost...
Quote:
In comment 14570251 Bill L said:
Quote:
If it looks like Eli is what is holding the team back, then they will put Jones in....And none of that is week #2.
This has been true for 3 years now.
They do not concur with your assessment.
They’re 38-58 the last 7 years, are we assuming they’re right?
Quote:
of trotting him out there after starting 0-2. DJ isn't getting ruined behind this line and he looks ready. Although ill start pressing the panic button if he fumbles again in his next action. Needs to clean that up, really strange considering he wasn't a big tumbler in college.
I think I recently read that since 2006ish that only 10% of the teams who started 0-2 make the playoffs. So I agree, Eli should sit for Jones if we go down to Buffalo.
Unfortunately I think Eli is in the saddle until we are officially, mathematically eliminated. And that will be precious time lost...
I'd like to get a better feel for "precious". Is there a detonator somewhere?
Quote:
He is not going to get David Carr’ed
I think you nailed it - this is the underlying fear with those who want the transition process to be more methodical and measured. We don't want another David Carr on our hands. And I get that to a degree. Plus, sprinkled in between, there is this desire to see Eli finish out on his terms and/or that he still has the good to produce wins.
But it's a risk I'm willing to take because the NFL's trend - I know some want more granularity in the data - is that rookie QBs are starting right away (more than ever), or very soon into their rookie year. And most, > 50%, are showing green arrows. Just look at what I compiled last night above. There are a lot of success stories brewing in the NFL with QBs who started early. It's clear as day.
So I am ALL in on Jones starting right away. And I'm a guy who probably is the most skeptical about him. But I see huge value in finding out as soon as possible if he is indeed the boom or the bust. If he's the boom, then we get great ROI off his first contract. If he's the bust, then we re-group and start looking for another solution quicker...
It's a fundamental truth of Giants fans - they have an indelible memory for that one time that a worst case scenario played out, even if it was elsewhere in the NFL.
"We can't have Peppers returning punts because Jason Sehorn!"
"We can't take a RB from Penn State because Blair Thomas!"
"We can't draft a QB from Duke because Dave Brown!"
So it should come as no surprise that the same fanbase has a new rallying cry:
"We can't play Jones as a rookie because David Carr!"
Quote:
of trotting him out there after starting 0-2. DJ isn't getting ruined behind this line and he looks ready. Although ill start pressing the panic button if he fumbles again in his next action. Needs to clean that up, really strange considering he wasn't a big tumbler in college.
I think I recently read that since 2006ish that only 10% of the teams who started 0-2 make the playoffs. So I agree, Eli should sit for Jones if we go down to Buffalo.
Unfortunately I think Eli is in the saddle until we are officially, mathematically eliminated. And that will be precious time lost...
Quote:
In comment 14570314 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
of trotting him out there after starting 0-2. DJ isn't getting ruined behind this line and he looks ready. Although ill start pressing the panic button if he fumbles again in his next action. Needs to clean that up, really strange considering he wasn't a big tumbler in college.
I think I recently read that since 2006ish that only 10% of the teams who started 0-2 make the playoffs. So I agree, Eli should sit for Jones if we go down to Buffalo.
Unfortunately I think Eli is in the saddle until we are officially, mathematically eliminated. And that will be precious time lost...
I'd like to get a better feel for "precious". Is there a detonator somewhere?
Funny thing about "precious" is that it has multiple meanings. Like, for example, I might use it like this, "it's starting to feel like the basis of your position in this argument is not wanting to say goodbye to your precious Eli, rather than any particular concern in either direction about what's in the best interest of the team's long-term potential."
I wonder if that record is a part of the thinking process if they lose this week.
Quote:
It's going to be something if he retires from here with a sub .500 record. I mean, if the Giants lose this weekend, he has a .500 career record. I don't know why people want to see that happen.
I wonder if that record is a part of the thinking process if they lose this week.
If any Eli-specific record good/bad/otherwise is on the mind of any NYG decision-makers, then this organization has lost its way even more than it's been given credit for.
Quote:
In comment 14570329 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14570314 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
of trotting him out there after starting 0-2. DJ isn't getting ruined behind this line and he looks ready. Although ill start pressing the panic button if he fumbles again in his next action. Needs to clean that up, really strange considering he wasn't a big tumbler in college.
I think I recently read that since 2006ish that only 10% of the teams who started 0-2 make the playoffs. So I agree, Eli should sit for Jones if we go down to Buffalo.
Unfortunately I think Eli is in the saddle until we are officially, mathematically eliminated. And that will be precious time lost...
I'd like to get a better feel for "precious". Is there a detonator somewhere?
Funny thing about "precious" is that it has multiple meanings. Like, for example, I might use it like this, "it's starting to feel like the basis of your position in this argument is not wanting to say goodbye to your precious Eli, rather than any particular concern in either direction about what's in the best interest of the team's long-term potential."
Actually, that would be the same meaning.
I actually don't have that strong a feeling for Eli per se, but since yours (and others) antipathy is so , so extreme, it must seem that way to you. As I said, I think when the time comes for them to concede the season, then it will be time and, even more so, there will *always* be enough time (hence, my raising an eyebrow at bw's use of "precious"), to get Jones fully developed. No need to take a dive at the beginning of the season.
Quote:
In comment 14570334 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 14570329 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14570314 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
of trotting him out there after starting 0-2. DJ isn't getting ruined behind this line and he looks ready. Although ill start pressing the panic button if he fumbles again in his next action. Needs to clean that up, really strange considering he wasn't a big tumbler in college.
I think I recently read that since 2006ish that only 10% of the teams who started 0-2 make the playoffs. So I agree, Eli should sit for Jones if we go down to Buffalo.
Unfortunately I think Eli is in the saddle until we are officially, mathematically eliminated. And that will be precious time lost...
I'd like to get a better feel for "precious". Is there a detonator somewhere?
Funny thing about "precious" is that it has multiple meanings. Like, for example, I might use it like this, "it's starting to feel like the basis of your position in this argument is not wanting to say goodbye to your precious Eli, rather than any particular concern in either direction about what's in the best interest of the team's long-term potential."
Actually, that would be the same meaning.
I actually don't have that strong a feeling for Eli per se, but since yours (and others) antipathy is so , so extreme, it must seem that way to you. As I said, I think when the time comes for them to concede the season, then it will be time and, even more so, there will *always* be enough time (hence, my raising an eyebrow at bw's use of "precious"), to get Jones fully developed. No need to take a dive at the beginning of the season.
I was waiting for you to point out (correctly) that the meaning was the same.
As for the rest, if you think you don't have a strong feeling but somehow think I harbor any sort of antipathy, I suggest you rethink your position (and possibly your EQ in general). My hope is that the franchise, despite a recent history of poor decisions and half-measures, sets forward on a course that prioritizes the future and the long-term best interests of the roster. Unlike you, it seems, I think this season is likely to be yet another mediocre campaign, with yet another record below .500 and yet another high draft pick.
With that in mind, I don't quite give a rat's ass about who gives us the best chance to win games this season in what I consider to be a largely meaningless season in terms of W/L record. I care about what gives us the best chance to win our next Super Bowl. I'm quite confident that Eli will not be the QB whenever it is that we hoist our next Lombardi Trophy, and as such, I would prefer to begin the maturation process with Jones that will hopefully accelerate the timeline toward that next championship.
As to your suggestion that "there will *always* be enough time, that seems like a weird statement. If something takes X amount of time, then it takes X amount of time. Starting it tomorrow instead of today means you complete it a day later, too. But of course, if you're emotionally invested in whatever motivates you to procrastinate, maybe you'd actually prefer to complete it later. Just don't pretend that that's some sort of impartial take.
Now back to your regularly scheduled charade that your position in this debate isn't ENTIRELY about prolonging the Eli Manning era.
But since this is his last year witht he team, and I never expected anything like 500 or above. To me he is entirely inconsequential.
My only concern is the long term and what will get us to the point of that next Lombardi. Full Stop.
You have no skin in the game. The people that are paid to win games and are on and off the hot seat on a weekly basis do care who gives them the best chance. And it's not just coaches. Coaches and players lose jobs. It's a results based business and maybe Shurmur isn't as confident in keeping his job if he loses the next ten games in a row testing the rookie. Yeah, maybe it makes Daniel Jones get a little more experience, but all that losing certainly tightens the noose around Shurmur's neck, and can have effects on players on the roster as well.
It's fun to think big picture as a fan, but being wrong or right doesn't cost us anything.
Quote:
With that in mind, I don't quite give a rat's ass about who gives us the best chance to win games this season in what I consider to be a largely meaningless season in terms of W/L record.
You have no skin in the game. The people that are paid to win games and are on and off the hot seat on a weekly basis do care who gives them the best chance. And it's not just coaches. Coaches and players lose jobs. It's a results based business and maybe Shurmur isn't as confident in keeping his job if he loses the next ten games in a row testing the rookie. Yeah, maybe it makes Daniel Jones get a little more experience, but all that losing certainly tightens the noose around Shurmur's neck, and can have effects on players on the roster as well.
It's fun to think big picture as a fan, but being wrong or right doesn't cost us anything.
Do you really think that 4-12 with Jones as the QB gets Shurmur's seat hotter than 8-8 with Eli?
(cast aside the suggestion that there's probably far less than a 4 game differential between the choices)
I have to imagine that both Shurmur and Gettleman are here until there's at least an indicative sample of Jones as starting QB unless there's some level of off-field disfunction that becomes untenable.
bw and I don't agree on much, but even he and I agree (and I think most of you actually do to but are unwilling to concede it) that Jones won't see the field until we are mathematically eliminated or completely noncompetitive.
And I don’t think Many players would complain either. We saw how shep and Saquan stood up for him to Baker and how impressed Tate was with his accuracy.
bw and I don't agree on much, but even he and I agree (and I think most of you actually do to but are unwilling to concede it) that Jones won't see the field until we are mathematically eliminated or completely noncompetitive.
I simply don't see how playing Jones can be dismissed out of hand as a tank-job. I'm not saying it's an odds-on bet, but there is a chance this offense gets BETTER. Let's face it, Eli may not be a "problem" per se, but the offensive scoring output hasn't been adequate (even if the defense is THE problem). Maybe it even changes some of the energy around the team.
I do agree that Jones probably will not see the field as the starting QB until mathematically eliminated, or close to it, because I think management is still operating sub-optimally. (the standard little impasse that you and I have sometimes had in these discussions between 'should'/opinions and 'will'/predictions).
And keep in mind, all of what I'm saying is predicated on a terrible start over 3-4 games, as in 0-3, 1-3, etc. Even just 2-2 and I give it 2-3 more games no complaints, and re-assess from there (assuming Eli does not actually become a problem with his play).
But I'm going to keep pounding the cyber table here and say that Jones looks to have more dimensions to his game than Eli - athletically it's not even really close - and that expands Shurmur's playbook options. So if you believe most of that theory, than I think it's safe to extrapolate that out to mean that we have more chances to win. Or to at least be a wash between Jones and Eli.
If Jones was truly Eli 2.0 physically - good arm but very immobile - than I could sort of buy the strategy to start Eli (to a degree). But the only similarities are the cheesy mannerisms, the Cutcliffe connection, and they are right-handed.
So in the garage sits a potentially better model of Eli. And the old car with FM/AM and manual windows rolls back onto the field...
Quote:
There is too much invested, and it's just not in their DNA. They're not going to do it.
bw and I don't agree on much, but even he and I agree (and I think most of you actually do to but are unwilling to concede it) that Jones won't see the field until we are mathematically eliminated or completely noncompetitive.
I simply don't see how playing Jones can be dismissed out of hand as a tank-job. I'm not saying it's an odds-on bet, but there is a chance this offense gets BETTER. Let's face it, Eli may not be a "problem" per se, but the offensive scoring output hasn't been adequate (even if the defense is THE problem). Maybe it even changes some of the energy around the team.
I do agree that Jones probably will not see the field as the starting QB until mathematically eliminated, or close to it, because I think management is still operating sub-optimally. (the standard little impasse that you and I have sometimes had in these discussions between 'should'/opinions and 'will'/predictions).
And keep in mind, all of what I'm saying is predicated on a terrible start over 3-4 games, as in 0-3, 1-3, etc. Even just 2-2 and I give it 2-3 more games no complaints, and re-assess from there (assuming Eli does not actually become a problem with his play).
And I think they will. If this thing goes south early, then the needle will move closer towards putting Jones in.
As I said earlier, it's fluid.
bw and I don't agree on much, but even he and I agree (and I think most of you actually do to but are unwilling to concede it) that Jones won't see the field until we are mathematically eliminated or completely noncompetitive.
On this I agree with you as well. Mara will insist that Eli get every chance to turn this thing around, and will not allow Jones to start until there is either literally or virtually no chance for them to make the playoffs.
But I disagree with you about the resining - it's not because he believes Eli gives them the best chance to win, it's because he considers Eli as something akin to a son. (And I do think it's Mara calling the shots here.) What Shurmur thinks is best for the team I really couldn't say.
Quote:
bw and I don't agree on much, but even he and I agree (and I think most of you actually do to but are unwilling to concede it) that Jones won't see the field until we are mathematically eliminated or completely noncompetitive.
On this I agree with you as well. Mara will insist that Eli get every chance to turn this thing around, and will not allow Jones to start until there is either literally or virtually no chance for them to make the playoffs.
But I disagree with you about the resining - it's not because he believes Eli gives them the best chance to win, it's because he considers Eli as something akin to a son. (And I do think it's Mara calling the shots here.) What Shurmur thinks is best for the team I really couldn't say.
Careful -- many here are insistent that Eli being the QB right now is all Shurmur and nobody else. Mara has nothing to do with it.
We heard rumors that the org didn't want OBJ around to be a bad influence on a rookie QB.
I wonder if the real concern was they didn't want OBJ in the locker room that had both Eli and a promising rookie.
Quote:
With that in mind, I don't quite give a rat's ass about who gives us the best chance to win games this season in what I consider to be a largely meaningless season in terms of W/L record.
You have no skin in the game. The people that are paid to win games and are on and off the hot seat on a weekly basis do care who gives them the best chance. And it's not just coaches. Coaches and players lose jobs. It's a results based business and maybe Shurmur isn't as confident in keeping his job if he loses the next ten games in a row testing the rookie. Yeah, maybe it makes Daniel Jones get a little more experience, but all that losing certainly tightens the noose around Shurmur's neck, and can have effects on players on the roster as well.
It's fun to think big picture as a fan, but being wrong or right doesn't cost us anything.
That's a VERY fair point, and you're right - their motivations are much more real in that sense.
That said, there's also something to be said for being realistic and managing expectations to that end. What I mean by that is, if this team sucks this year totally independent of whichever QB is playing, going 2-14 with an established (even if aging) franchise QB is going to look a lot worse for Shurmur than if he racks up that record with a rookie QB taking his lumps. At least if this year's record can be thrown away internally in the name of building toward the future, that might buy Shurmur some leeway that going balls out and failing won't.
I don't know how Mara and Tisch will see it, and can't pretend to, but I don't think it's just a matter of a win is a win is a win when you're in a transitional phase of a rebuild. And even as I say that, I don't know if Mara and Tisch are even aware that they are in the middle of a rebuild right now whether they like it or not.
Eli might be better, sad to say the margin isn’t much at this point. Dinking and dunking all game knowing your defense is giving up 30+ points isn’t a recipe for winning.
bw and I don't agree on much, but even he and I agree (and I think most of you actually do to but are unwilling to concede it) that Jones won't see the field until we are mathematically eliminated or completely noncompetitive.
This also presumes that Eli does, in fact, give them a better chance to win a meaningful amount more games this season. To the extent that Jones is simply a better fit for Shurmur's offense from a physical standpoint, I don't know how much more Eli's experience and mental edge makes up for the physical gap. It's definitely some amount, but I don't know how much in the aggregate. Is it one win? Two? More? Are there games that Eli would win that Jones would lose but also some games that Jones might win that Eli might lose?
I think it's pretty close, although with the OL finally resembling an actual NFL line, it's probably more tilted toward Eli than it would have been the past couple of years. I think with the line as bad as it was in '17 and '18, Jones's athleticism would have presented a very interesting option. But that's just conjecture anyway.
We heard rumors that the org didn't want OBJ around to be a bad influence on a rookie QB.
I wonder if the real concern was they didn't want OBJ in the locker room that had both Eli and a promising rookie.
Hard to refute that since they did trade OBJ, but keep in mind that the most vocal source of that speculation went out in a wild meltdown that called most of his asshat info into question.
We're about 3-5 years too late on the rebuild to justify him starting today.
Eli might be better, sad to say the margin isn’t much at this point. Dinking and dunking all game knowing your defense is giving up 30+ points isn’t a recipe for winning.
They won’t make it there with Manning. Jones will have been inserted before we got to 6-10.
Quote:
and this is entering tin foil hat territory but...
We heard rumors that the org didn't want OBJ around to be a bad influence on a rookie QB.
I wonder if the real concern was they didn't want OBJ in the locker room that had both Eli and a promising rookie.
Hard to refute that since they did trade OBJ, but keep in mind that the most vocal source of that speculation went out in a wild meltdown that called most of his asshat info into question.
true true
its not a completely fleshed out theory. I need a way to work Sasquatch in
Quote:
With that in mind, I don't quite give a rat's ass about who gives us the best chance to win games this season in what I consider to be a largely meaningless season in terms of W/L record.
You have no skin in the game. The people that are paid to win games and are on and off the hot seat on a weekly basis do care who gives them the best chance. And it's not just coaches. Coaches and players lose jobs. It's a results based business and maybe Shurmur isn't as confident in keeping his job if he loses the next ten games in a row testing the rookie. Yeah, maybe it makes Daniel Jones get a little more experience, but all that losing certainly tightens the noose around Shurmur's neck, and can have effects on players on the roster as well.
It's fun to think big picture as a fan, but being wrong or right doesn't cost us anything.
Dude you are acting like eli is going to win games. Wli is cooked and then story has been the same for 7 years. Only difference is that before the eli fans would blame their own mother before eli and now the oline is much improved and eli still cant produce points. Nothing eli can do with this below average team that Jones cant and jones would be learning. Eli will just be losing and making bank
bw and I don't agree on much, but even he and I agree (and I think most of you actually do to but are unwilling to concede it) that Jones won't see the field until we are mathematically eliminated or completely noncompetitive.
I am willing to concede it.
And I base that on little to no confidence in this front office to understand how really noncompetitive this team is with Eli at QB. So we wait...
But before you defenders sink your fangs in that statement, I am not blaming on Eli on the losing. I am only stating we are simply not going to win consistently any more with him at QB, and that is something this poster has been beating the drum on since after the season 2016 season.
And still we wait...