Here is a particularly bad article. I’ve followed the pressers today and DG and JJ make it clear that they are not discussing individual players and are focusing on open competition, for many reasons.
With that, the headlines is, “ Giants’ Dave Gettleman, Joe Judge refuse to commit to Daniel Jones as franchise QB | Could he be traded? What would it cost?”
And the article discusses Gettleman’s commitment to DJ as “tepid at best”, noting that the Gmen have not met Tua, but are evaluating QBs, which may both be true but say nothing of note.
I know it’s lying season but this strikes me as one of the most glaringly misleading articles I’ve read in a while.
Lonk - (
New Window )
1998, Peyton Manning 28 INTs.
Sure, Jones is no Peyton but I don’t think anyone is judging a rookie QB on turnovers after one year.
Quote:
In comment 14819027 Diver_Down said:
Quote:
based on the comments, today. I listened to the pressers and with the non-committal to any player/depth chart. I interpreted it as a motivational tool for both players and coaches. But what piqued my ears was the mention of no sacred cows. Woah! I began using the zero scholarship/no sacred cows euphemism towards the end of last season when it was apparent that a new staff would be brought in. We were in the midst of an 8 game losing streak captained by our very own Danny Boy in position to pick #2. There were a number of discussions clamoring for Young, but Go Terps picked up on my No Sacred Cows mantra and ran with it. The idea was that the new staff shouldn't be forced to work with any players they didn't see fit and picking as high as we were positioned at the time, it would be a dereliction of their duties if they didn't consider QB with all other positions.
Do you think there is a QB in this draft that is better than DJ?
I'm not arguing here I myself don't see it given what DJ did minus the fumbles. I'm curious who would be the one given that Burrows will be gone
I don't. But the exercise at the time is that the new staff shouldn't be hamstrung with any specific players. We were terrible with them. We can be terrible without them. If the new staff wanted to trade Barkley, then so be it. I lost all personal attachment to any of these players. The whole Sacred Cows mantra was that they all can be sent to slaughter (traded/cut).
I can agree 100% with this
It's exactly as stupid as the attempts to stir up the speculation that Burrow might "pull an Eli" and refuse to report to the Bengals, which earlier today he flat out denied: "I'll go to whoever drafts me... it would be a great thrill and dream come true to be drafted first"...
And some total moron was still trying to blow up the point about Burrow's "double negative" statement the next sentence.
Total garbage trying to generate clicks with controversy that doesn't exist.
So you woulda traded Simms in the early '80s when he was dueling it out with Brunner?
How is he our beat writer?
I really despise his $&@&$&$& Philly head
I’m being nice by not typing that adjective - it’s not explicit
It’s just mean
Giants’ fans need beat Giants reporters!
Lombardo just quit - you don’t like our team and we don’t want you here
Well no, there really shouldn't ever be a reference or discussion about anything that tool writes. By ignoring him completely, we can make him disappear.
He wants the players to be viewed clean and now how they looked under McAdoo or Shurmur.
Quote:
with 25+ turnovers?
1998, Peyton Manning 28 INTs.
Sure, Jones is no Peyton but I don’t think anyone is judging a rookie QB on turnovers after one year.
Nice
This is exactly what you should hope for as a NYG fan. This is what FO do.
If they sense any breeze of interest from slots 5-8...then expect more PR not less.
You want them to drum up another 2nd or another 1st from smoke and mirrors.
1992 first season starting 13 INTs 14 fumbles (13 games)
1993 second season starting 24 INTs 7 fumbles
Daniel Jones
2019 12 INTs 18 fumbles (13 games)
I’m extrapolating from this and predict 2 Super Bowls and a Canton induction for Danny boy.
Gettleman did respond by saying that the Giants are open for business when asked about the draft and trading down. So there may be a first time for a trade down with him.
Lombardo knows this and isn't writing this because he thinks there is a realistic chance it happens. He is writing it for clicks. The fact that this was posted here and has 80+ responses is proof it was a good idea.
The chance that we draft a top QB and trade DJ has to be the lowest % but if there is a chance that one of the QBs is a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady you at least have to discuss it. I dont see it happening as the class has a lot of questions. Burrow went from average to all world, was that a one year wonder?
In comment 14819123 twostepgiants said:
Could he? Yes. Does it compute based on what we know? No.
1992 first season starting 13 INTs 14 fumbles (13 games)
1993 second season starting 24 INTs 7 fumbles
Daniel Jones
2019 12 INTs 18 fumbles (13 games)
I’m extrapolating from this and predict 2 Super Bowls and a Canton induction for Danny boy.
Nice post, thanks for including fumbles.
Atlanta did dump him after 1 year. Of course Jones was better as a rookie.
1) It would undermine his stated rule NOT to discuss individuals,
2) It would make other players wonder why he's not supporting them publicly.
3) It would let the league know that we're not drafting a QB at #4, thus costing us a massive amount of leverage over QB-needy clubs below us.
Folks are tired of losing games. You change that by bringing in winners....that is how it works in the real world.
It will be dependent solely on
1) Which QBs are on the board at 4.
2) Which teams want the guys in 1)
3) Miami sitting at 5, and rumors or suspected facts about Miami's draft board.
The extremely unlikely chance that the Giant might not be 100% sold on Jones is completely or at least largely irrelevant.
Well you gotta admit that's a challenge!