Does it concern anyone that the Giants spent months saying that they were proponents of the KC method giving Jones time to learn and mature from the sidelines and now after two games they have done a complete 180? You would think that like any good business they would have gamed out all the possible scenarios and someone would have considered that they have a very young and not very talented defense and they were going to start the year against two very tough defenses.
I agree that the move had to be made barring a miraculous playoff run, but doing so at this time seems panicked and reeks to me of desperation. Is starting Jones against a quick Tampa defense without Tate, Latimer and maybe Sheppard whats truly best for his development or did Shurmur afraid for this job go to a front office that pays far too much attention to an angry and impatient fan base and they completely switched gears out of fear?
What is it going to be like in Giants land in a month if they are 0-6 and the realization that Jones can't save the season takes hold. I am sure that next on the firing line are Bechter, Baker, Ogltree, etc, but when do the Tua chants start? I have seen a lot of former GMs on TV state that it is very tricky developing a QB in a major market due to all the pressure. Jones seems like a tough kid, but maybe giving him more time on the bench, letting Eli bare the brunt of the criticism until everyone realizes that the season truly is about development and the receivers are back at full strength would have been better.
I am really starting to question how the decisions are being made and who is making them. A lot of posters are lauding that now we can run Shurmur's full offense, but this is a guy who doesn't use Barkley on 3rd & 2 and then 4th & 1 and are bootlegs really going to change the world? In a season that was always all about development are the Giants really putting Daniel Jones in the best position to succeed or did they just panic and do an about face to try and change the narrative and temporarily satisfy some very restless natives?
What say you BBI? If we ruin this kid who seems to have so much potential we are in a world of hurt for the next half a decade!
Quote:
The O has not scored enough points even with a good D so what are we waiting for?
Huh? What do you mean by a "Good D?"
It is fucking over already. How many more years of losing do we need? What exactly are some of you afraid of? We cannot get much worse.
Huh??????????
I think you're out of your mind in your confidence that it is "obvious" to go with Jones. I'm 50-50 going with Jones now that Shep can play but to dismiss not having him sit imo is silly.
How is it that this will make Jones better if Shep isn't 100% ready to play? Are you sure he is absolutely 100% fine? Because if he isn't - then chances are the WR's wont get open enough. How often do you think Jones will be content to just throw the ball away if WR's are not open? And yes he is more mobile than ELi -- but he is no "Michael Vick" either.
And if/until his coach proves he is not a complete idiot you think it a good idea for Jones to not give the ball to Barkley much because the coach seems like he is unwilling to use Barkley as much as he should? While having Wr's that can't get open? Would waiting just two games for Tate to come back in which you give Jones some experience with Tate and Shep really stunted his growth over the course of next season and his career? If you have Engram, Tate and Shep - if one goes down and you still have Sb you have weapons. But with no Tate and one guy goes down -- the GMEN have a passing attack easily contained.
How is that good for Jones? SO he can learn to throw the ball out of bounds? If Shep or Jones go down you've just given Jones the worst possible scenario. And with our idiotic coach - you have confidence that he isn't going to put Jones in bad situations?
Ideally I would like the coach to show some signs of life that he has a brain by using SB a lot. In addition to- I'd like to see our QB throw to receivers who actually know the plays. Didn't you listen last week and hear how the bottom tier WR's were running some wrong routes? How does that possibly help Jones this early in his career?
Yet with all this I'm 50-50 playing him cuz Shep and Engram along with SB is decent enough. Those other crummy WR's need more time. Too bad Latimer is hurt. While he is not that good he is better than the other bottom tier guys.
Quote:
this team has sucked for how many years now? Questioning whether we should have waited longer to make the change is like still hesitating to dump Blockbuster Video stock.
It is fucking over already. How many more years of losing do we need? What exactly are some of you afraid of? We cannot get much worse.
Huh??????????
I think you're out of your mind in your confidence that it is "obvious" to go with Jones. I'm 50-50 going with Jones now that Shep can play but to dismiss not having him sit imo is silly.
How is it that this will make Jones better if Shep isn't 100% ready to play? Are you sure he is absolutely 100% fine? Because if he isn't - then chances are the WR's wont get open enough. How often do you think Jones will be content to just throw the ball away if WR's are not open? And yes he is more mobile than ELi -- but he is no "Michael Vick" either.
And if/until his coach proves he is not a complete idiot you think it a good idea for Jones to not give the ball to Barkley much because the coach seems like he is unwilling to use Barkley as much as he should? While having Wr's that can't get open? Would waiting just two games for Tate to come back in which you give Jones some experience with Tate and Shep really stunted his growth over the course of next season and his career? If you have Engram, Tate and Shep - if one goes down and you still have Sb you have weapons. But with no Tate and one guy goes down -- the GMEN have a passing attack easily contained.
How is that good for Jones? SO he can learn to throw the ball out of bounds? If Shep or Jones go down you've just given Jones the worst possible scenario. And with our idiotic coach - you have confidence that he isn't going to put Jones in bad situations?
Ideally I would like the coach to show some signs of life that he has a brain by using SB a lot. In addition to- I'd like to see our QB throw to receivers who actually know the plays. Didn't you listen last week and hear how the bottom tier WR's were running some wrong routes? How does that possibly help Jones this early in his career?
Yet with all this I'm 50-50 playing him cuz Shep and Engram along with SB is decent enough. Those other crummy WR's need more time. Too bad Latimer is hurt. While he is not that good he is better than the other bottom tier guys.
I meant "If SHep or Engram go down" for this TB game then Jones has nothing to throw to ./ his passing will be easily contained. Thereby putting him more at risk in part because our coach has proven to be an idiot.
Would it have been better if Jones was held back a bit? Yes it would have because that would have meant Eli was playing well and the team was scoring and winning.
Neither of those things were happening, and it could be argued that the way Eli was handling adversity was part of the reason for that with regards to the offense.
I don't think anyone in their right mind thought the Giants were going to beat the Cowboys, but I do believe they should have performed better against the Bills.
Baldy shows film showing it wasn't entirely on Eli -- I argued before Baldy showed those plays that it was the aftermath of those plays that were the issue. They took the wind out of Eli's sails and he played very tentatively and was pressing after each of them for the rest of that set of downs.
So the question becomes -- is it better to sit Jones and let him develop behind what is essentially a losing mentality - or try to change that mentality by pulling out part of the problem and putting Jones in and seeing if he can change the mentality with his play?
Hey -- either way you look at it, the intentions had not been fulfilled. Eli knew he had to have a fast start to keep Jones off the field -- and it didn't go that way. Hence Jones will be on the field now. We will see everything we need to see on Sunday. If Jones gives them a spark with his play and athleticism and the offense performs better with him under center - then Jones is the better QB right now even with the inevitable growing pains he will have, and you go with and develop him on the battlefield.
You are right it is not what they planned - it is not ideal - but it is the best action to take given what was taking place.
Are we?
Are we?
No were not, the only way Eli goes back in is because of injury. Daniel Jones is the starter for the next 30 games minimum
When your defense is looks to be bottom 5 and badly coached let the kid play. The team was not making the playoffs with Eli and he isn’t coming back so why would he play the rest of the year. If they are 0-6 or 1-5 we can pray for Chase Young. There are A LOT OF teams who will need a QB high. Miami for sure
The goal should absolutely be to absorb some ups/downs in 2019, show some progression in his development, and determine whether or not we can rely on the guy to start in 2020 or not.
Quote:
With the agony and ecstasy title, what agony?
Secondly, the KC plan? What about this team reminds you of that play off Team
Thirdly, if you see an original plan is not working, and you stick with it despite your # 6 quarterback in the wings, that would be cause for concern
Fourthly, It s probable this coaching staff believes Eli s lack of athleticism has been holding them back, and Jones gives them the better chance to win.
Eli has been given more opportunities to remain a starter than any other NFL quarterback in recent memory who has had 1 winning season 7 years and is 8-25 in his last 33 starts.
These posts that continue to bemoan his demotion after 2 games have become annoying.
It s about what s best for the New York Giants, not Eli.
A woman called into HCR this morning and was literally screaming about how the Giants did Eli dirty.
So some are certainly in agony over the reigns being handed over
I don’t equate nonobjective hysteria to agony
You are right it is not what they planned - it is not ideal - but it is the best action to take given what was taking place.
Your last point is arguable. Not giving Jones the best chance to succeed rather a potentially "no chance to succeed" might not be the "best course of action."