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.
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?