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.
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.