Stafford has played 12 seasons...well i guess 11 full seasons. Could he go to a team like the Colts or 49ers and they make a SB run? Sure, he could. But...IMO he's not worth giving up a 1st round pick for *at the current time*...he's on the back 9, and getting closer to 18.
I don't think I'd part with a first rounder either, especially a top ten-ish one.
However, I would seriously consider a second. Sure, Stafford is 32, but 32 in today's game and rules is like being 28. And his salary isn't that punitive, particularly in '22.
So with him, it's a simple question - would Stafford make the Giants better for a second? I don't know how the answer isn't yes.
I'm not saying this is what I would do (I'd be deeper into the Watson sweepstakes), but it's an intriguing idea. Because right now, the NFCE is right there for the taking with the right parts.
Stafford has played 12 seasons...well i guess 11 full seasons. Could he go to a team like the Colts or 49ers and they make a SB run? Sure, he could. But...IMO he's not worth giving up a 1st round pick for *at the current time*...he's on the back 9, and getting closer to 18.
I don't think I'd part with a first rounder either, especially a top ten-ish one.
However, I would seriously consider a second. Sure, Stafford is 32, but 32 in today's game and rules is like being 28. And his salary isn't that punitive, particularly in '22.
So with him, it's a simple question - would Stafford make the Giants better for a second? I don't know how the answer isn't yes.
I'm not saying this is what I would do (I'd be deeper into the Watson sweepstakes), but it's an intriguing idea. Because right now, the NFCE is right there for the taking with the right parts.
Is that really a big prize? People here talked about how how silly it would be to call ourselves NFC champs this year because it was a function of general suckitude. HOw would that be different next year, as opposed to actually trying to build something sustainable (which Detroit already decided couldn't be done with an aging QB)?.
Stafford has played 12 seasons...well i guess 11 full seasons. Could he go to a team like the Colts or 49ers and they make a SB run? Sure, he could. But...IMO he's not worth giving up a 1st round pick for *at the current time*...he's on the back 9, and getting closer to 18.
I don't think I'd part with a first rounder either, especially a top ten-ish one.
However, I would seriously consider a second. Sure, Stafford is 32, but 32 in today's game and rules is like being 28. And his salary isn't that punitive, particularly in '22.
So with him, it's a simple question - would Stafford make the Giants better for a second? I don't know how the answer isn't yes.
I'm not saying this is what I would do (I'd be deeper into the Watson sweepstakes), but it's an intriguing idea. Because right now, the NFCE is right there for the taking with the right parts.
Is that really a big prize? People here talked about how how silly it would be to call ourselves NFC champs this year because it was a function of general suckitude. HOw would that be different next year, as opposed to actually trying to build something sustainable (which Detroit already decided couldn't be done with an aging QB)?.
Building around a quarterback that needs as much help as Jones does isn't sustainable.
apparently Stafford needs as much or more help than Jones.
He has one of the top WR's with him for several years and was able to manage zero playoff wins.
Meanwhile, the Giants likely don't have a top 25 WR on the field and the pitchfork monkeys act like Jones is one of the worst QB's to ever take the field.
Is that really a big prize? People here talked about how how silly it would be to call ourselves NFC champs this year because it was a function of general suckitude. HOw would that be different next year, as opposed to actually trying to build something sustainable (which Detroit already decided couldn't be done with an aging QB)?.
The goal every year should be to win the division. So I'm looking ahead now.
I'm pretty sure I know who Stafford is - a near pro bowl level player who played for a horrible organization and demonstrated he could be a force multiplier.
And I still don't know what we have in Jones. At best, he's probably a game manager that will require a lot of investments to try to optimize his abilities.
So I could see adding Stafford a very good solution for 3-4 years. That's a long time in the NFL.
with one of the top WR's by his side, the force multiplier had his team score in the top 10 of points 2 times. He was a force multiplier to zero playoff wins.
And the season the defense gave up the 3rd amount of points and the 2nd amount of years, the force multiplier led the offense to the 22nd most points!!
Is the definition of "force multiplier" the bullshit connotation when you can't tangibly point to actual impact a player has??
Is that really a big prize? People here talked about how how silly it would be to call ourselves NFC champs this year because it was a function of general suckitude. HOw would that be different next year, as opposed to actually trying to build something sustainable (which Detroit already decided couldn't be done with an aging QB)?.
The goal every year should be to win the division. So I'm looking ahead now.
I'm pretty sure I know who Stafford is - a near pro bowl level player who played for a horrible organization and demonstrated he could be a force multiplier.
And I still don't know what we have in Jones. At best, he's probably a game manager that will require a lot of investments to try to optimize his abilities.
So I could see adding Stafford a very good solution for 3-4 years. That's a long time in the NFL.
I'm usually right there with you bw...but I think you're wrong on this one.
I couldn't think of a worse QB to bring in where you trying to break a franchise that has grown accustom to losing.
I'd rather forge ahead with DJ or make a move to get a QB in this draft that looks like they might have the goods.
And, as you know, I'm not a huge DJ supporter.
Stafford just seems like a step backward for a team that is young and seemingly (hopefully) getting better.
so comparing Jones to Stafford is being laughed at, but comparing Stafford to Peyton Manning is fine??
Force multiplier my ass.
I'm comparing franchises and circumstances. Manning played for a HoF GM and Stafford has played for Martin Mayhew and Bob Quinn.
Wouldn't the better comparison be not the QB's but the team around them? We are less than Detroit and Stafford had no success for Detroit. Trading for Stafford changes the window because of his advanced age while also burning resources that could be used to better the surrounding team. And, I still say that nobody, including you and GT really know what Jones is yet.
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Still waiting on my force multiplier equation, please.
my mind is not made up on DJ, and I welcome the possibility that he will take a very big jump in Year 3 and beyond.
that said, it is interesting that this off season includes a more than a few high profile, productive QBs looking for new homes (Watson, Stafford, Rodgers, Wentz, etc)... and I will only say that IF the Giants coaching staff felt this team would be better served with one of these guys at the helm, I hope our old fashioned way of doing business wouldn't stand in the way of making a move to one of these guys that Judge et al want to lead the team.
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Get us some weapons on outside and Jones speed will be a massive weapon. Teams won't be able to double or play 2 high because you need to dedicate a spy. If you don't Jones will torch you on ground. It's really underrated part of his game and he should be coached to use it and recognize it. Having a QB as fast as he is is devastating when you get the defense to turn their back, which will happen often the way the line run blocks now and having Saquon back. Teams will absolutely need to play a lot of man against us and we need some players that can take advantage of it.
we are having discussion about Matthew Stafford, a guy who wasn't good as a rookie and then played 3 games in his second season....and went on to have a really solid career.....and saying that he is way better than Jones right now. No. shit. Jones has played 2 seasons.
It's called context. These conversations need it, badly.
I believe the more important part of this discussion is whether Stafford would be an upgrade for the Giants now and in the immediate future (3-4 years), rather than comparing their careers.
I offer no strong opinion about that - in fact I am on the fence b/c I still hold out hope for DJ... but it is not a ridiculous premise to say that the Giants would better off for the next 3-4 years with Stafford as QB over DJ...
though I put more stock in Judge's opinion on that than I do BBI... : )
I believe the more important part of this discussion is whether Stafford would be an upgrade for the Giants now and in the immediate future (3-4 years), rather than comparing their careers.
I offer no strong opinion about that - in fact I am on the fence b/c I still hold out hope for DJ... but it is not a ridiculous premise to say that the Giants would better off for the next 3-4 years with Stafford as QB over DJ...
though I put more stock in Judge's opinion on that than I do BBI... : )
Would hope DJ shows himself in year 3 as well.
Probably more likely that Stafford would be an upgrade, but as ryan suggests if the Lions did an upgrade at the beginning of Stafford's early career then he never turns into the one of the better QBs in the league in the end. Right?
This is all pie-in-sky thinking though as Judge and Giants are fully behind Jones for year 3.
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Get us some weapons on outside and Jones speed will be a massive weapon. Teams won't be able to double or play 2 high because you need to dedicate a spy. If you don't Jones will torch you on ground. It's really underrated part of his game and he should be coached to use it and recognize it. Having a QB as fast as he is is devastating when you get the defense to turn their back, which will happen often the way the line run blocks now and having Saquon back. Teams will absolutely need to play a lot of man against us and we need some players that can take advantage of it.
Massive weapon? That a big proclamation.
Jones mobility is really a one-way - straight line speed with pretty good turn of foot getting to the edge. Which is a plus to a degree. But he isn't a shifty, elusive, quick QB player like any of the usual suspects. And he's a big target to get hit. So there is a a high risk variable for a guy who has shown some pattern of getting injured.
I like some designed runs, but I need to see so much more from the pocket (and elsewhere) before I can even entertain "massive weapon" territory.
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Get us some weapons on outside and Jones speed will be a massive weapon. Teams won't be able to double or play 2 high because you need to dedicate a spy. If you don't Jones will torch you on ground. It's really underrated part of his game and he should be coached to use it and recognize it. Having a QB as fast as he is is devastating when you get the defense to turn their back, which will happen often the way the line run blocks now and having Saquon back. Teams will absolutely need to play a lot of man against us and we need some players that can take advantage of it.
Massive weapon? That a big proclamation.
Jones mobility is really a one-way - straight line speed with pretty good turn of foot getting to the edge. Which is a plus to a degree. But he isn't a shifty, elusive, quick QB player like any of the usual suspects. And he's a big target to get hit. So there is a a high risk variable for a guy who has shown some pattern of getting injured.
I like some designed runs, but I need to see so much more from the pocket (and elsewhere) before I can even entertain "massive weapon" territory.
Mahomes is a massive weapon.
Would you call Jones' running ability a force multiplier?
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Still waiting on my force multiplier equation, please.
Sure. More points produced by the QB = more winning opportunities.
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Get us some weapons on outside and Jones speed will be a massive weapon. Teams won't be able to double or play 2 high because you need to dedicate a spy. If you don't Jones will torch you on ground. It's really underrated part of his game and he should be coached to use it and recognize it. Having a QB as fast as he is is devastating when you get the defense to turn their back, which will happen often the way the line run blocks now and having Saquon back. Teams will absolutely need to play a lot of man against us and we need some players that can take advantage of it.
Massive weapon? That a big proclamation.
Jones mobility is really a one-way - straight line speed with pretty good turn of foot getting to the edge. Which is a plus to a degree. But he isn't a shifty, elusive, quick QB player like any of the usual suspects. And he's a big target to get hit. So there is a a high risk variable for a guy who has shown some pattern of getting injured.
I like some designed runs, but I need to see so much more from the pocket (and elsewhere) before I can even entertain "massive weapon" territory.
Mahomes is a massive weapon.
Massive? Devastating? I feel like I heard these same exact arguments when Barkley was drafted. This isn't Madden.
Jones is a nice runner. It definitely helps. But he's not Lamar, elusive, or even Mahomes, able to sling it on the run. Stop projecting what you think he'll be one day, and start looking at what he is.
Since Stafford has been there, the Lions have ranked 20th or lower in points scored 6 times.
But of course, we're regaled about his stat line being fantastic.....
I decided to revisit this now that I have time. Stafford has been the starter since 2011, and missed half of 2019 with an injury, so let's throw that year out. In essence, therefore, Stafford has been the FT starter for 9 years.
So FMiC focuses on the down years. However, the offense under Stafford did finish 4th, 7th, 13th, and 17th. So basically in half of his years as the starter, the Lions finished in the top half of the league in PPG, and twice in the top ten.
In the one year where they finished 20th, they still went 11-5 despite Megatron missing four games with an ankle injury.
And in the year where they finished 7th, in 2017, Megatron was retired and the receiving corp was Golden Tate and Marvin Jones.
Since Stafford has been there, the Lions have ranked 20th or lower in points scored 6 times.
But of course, we're regaled about his stat line being fantastic.....
I decided to revisit this now that I have time. Stafford has been the starter since 2011, and missed half of 2019 with an injury, so let's throw that year out. In essence, therefore, Stafford has been the FT starter for 9 years.
So FMiC focuses on the down years. However, the offense under Stafford did finish 4th, 7th, 13th, and 17th. So basically in half of his years as the starter, the Lions finished in the top half of the league in PPG, and twice in the top ten.
In the one year where they finished 20th, they still went 11-5 despite Megatron missing four games with an ankle injury.
And in the year where they finished 7th, in 2017, Megatron was retired and the receiving corp was Golden Tate and Marvin Jones.
Context is always interesting...
No offense. But 17 isn't the top half.
You could also frame that as: two top 10 offenses, two middle of the pack, and then four bottom half offenses. That wasn't a good stat for your point.
That means in more than half of his seasons, he had a bottom half offense (5/9). Although, two times, he had top ten offenses (2/9). Again though, not a great illustration of your point.
pointed out the two top 10 offenses above. And also what the offense did in a year where the defense was very good:
Quote:
with one of the top WR's by his side, the force multiplier had his team score in the top 10 of points 2 times. He was a force multiplier to zero playoff wins.
And the season the defense gave up the 3rd amount of points and the 2nd amount of years, the force multiplier led the offense to the 22nd most points!!
Since Stafford has been there, the Lions have ranked 20th or lower in points scored 6 times.
But of course, we're regaled about his stat line being fantastic.....
I decided to revisit this now that I have time. Stafford has been the starter since 2011, and missed half of 2019 with an injury, so let's throw that year out. In essence, therefore, Stafford has been the FT starter for 9 years.
So FMiC focuses on the down years. However, the offense under Stafford did finish 4th, 7th, 13th, and 17th. So basically in half of his years as the starter, the Lions finished in the top half of the league in PPG, and twice in the top ten.
In the one year where they finished 20th, they still went 11-5 despite Megatron missing four games with an ankle injury.
And in the year where they finished 7th, in 2017, Megatron was retired and the receiving corp was Golden Tate and Marvin Jones.
Context is always interesting...
Bw, it seems context is irrelevant with the Giants. Since Jones was the 6th pick he must overcome, and not be limited by circumstances. It seems when fans list reasonable factors as to why Jones has struggled the "6th overall pick" card gets played.
That means in more than half of his seasons, he had a bottom half offense (5/9). Although, two times, he had top ten offenses (2/9). Again though, not a great illustration of your point.
I said "in basically half of his years"...So rounding is implied. But fine. You are technically correct.
The underlying point still stands. Detroit did have years when their offensive production was good t- very good with Stafford in the saddle.
That means in more than half of his seasons, he had a bottom half offense (5/9). Although, two times, he had top ten offenses (2/9). Again though, not a great illustration of your point.
I said "in basically half of his years"...So rounding is implied. But fine. You are technically correct.
The underlying point still stands. Detroit did have years when their offensive production was good t- very good with Stafford in the saddle.
Wait a minute. Is that really the "underlying point"??
Isn't the point with Jones that he was the 6th pick and he has to elevate the team around him and be a "force multiplier"?? Stafford was the #1 overall pick!!
But hey, he had years where the offense was good to very good with him there.
I think some you need to call each other and have wild monkey sex. You are acting like young boys that do not know how to talk to girls yet, so you needle each other every chance you get. It looks like dislike, but you really want to kiss them.
Go for it.
I think some you need to call each other and have wild monkey sex. You are acting like young boys that do not know how to talk to girls yet, so you needle each other every chance you get. It looks like dislike, but you really want to kiss them.
Go for it.
Wow. This post is pretty weird. With that said, when this goes down, what do you suppose the Porn Hub title will be?
I think some you need to call each other and have wild monkey sex. You are acting like young boys that do not know how to talk to girls yet, so you needle each other every chance you get. It looks like dislike, but you really want to kiss them.
Go for it.
I don't even remember commenting on this thread and this is the first thing I see LOL
That means in more than half of his seasons, he had a bottom half offense (5/9). Although, two times, he had top ten offenses (2/9). Again though, not a great illustration of your point.
I said "in basically half of his years"...So rounding is implied. But fine. You are technically correct.
The underlying point still stands. Detroit did have years when their offensive production was good t- very good with Stafford in the saddle.
Underlying point? Top half 3 out of 9 years is now "basically half"? Weird.
Funny, but it really isn't if you watch the guy throw. He's very good at ball placement. MAybe even great. What Jones needs to work on is protecting the ball and decision making/reading the defense.
Too bad he was only allowed 20 games to master his craft. Maybe the next QB will be great right away. If not, cut him too.
Pat McAfee is pretty convinced the Colts are the destination with
the Pats being the other contender. Personally I'd love to see either. His stats will take a big hit going to Pats, but he'll win. Hope he gets a superbowl, so this nonsense about him gets put to rest and the whole QB is the whole team notion. I thought when Peyton's corpse won the SB it would, but he still had the name recognition and past SB success so people overlooked he was one of the worst QBs in the league that year.
I think some you need to call each other and have wild monkey sex. You are acting like young boys that do not know how to talk to girls yet, so you needle each other every chance you get. It looks like dislike, but you really want to kiss them.
Go for it.
Wow. This post is pretty weird. With that said, when this goes down, what do you suppose the Porn Hub title will be?
Charlottes Web?
FatMan Goes to DC?
Asking for a friend.
Who has the best Tight end?
Maybe old married couples would be a better example. We have good discussions then the old baggage rears its ugly head and poof ad hominem nonsense ensues.
RE: Pat McAfee is pretty convinced the Colts are the destination with
the Pats being the other contender. Personally I'd love to see either. His stats will take a big hit going to Pats, but he'll win. Hope he gets a superbowl, so this nonsense about him gets put to rest and the whole QB is the whole team notion. I thought when Peyton's corpse won the SB it would, but he still had the name recognition and past SB success so people overlooked he was one of the worst QBs in the league that year.
Rodgers was just very good on McAfee's show (AR's weekly Tuesday appearance). Guy is a breath of fresh air with his candor, whether you agree or disagree with his opinions.
I would love to see Rodgers with Reich or BB. Indy seems much closer to really competing, however, than the Pats, who have a lot of leaks in their dam...
RE: RE: Pat McAfee is pretty convinced the Colts are the destination with
the Pats being the other contender. Personally I'd love to see either. His stats will take a big hit going to Pats, but he'll win. Hope he gets a superbowl, so this nonsense about him gets put to rest and the whole QB is the whole team notion. I thought when Peyton's corpse won the SB it would, but he still had the name recognition and past SB success so people overlooked he was one of the worst QBs in the league that year.
Rodgers was just very good on McAfee's show (AR's weekly Tuesday appearance). Guy is a breath of fresh air with his candor, whether you agree or disagree with his opinions.
I would love to see Rodgers with Reich or BB. Indy seems much closer to really competing, however, than the Pats, who have a lot of leaks in their dam...
I thought I was the only one that watched that. Great show and a unique insight into the NFL. I always thought Rodgers got an unfair shake as far as what the media portrays him to be. Those interviews confirmed it for me. He's clearly a very introspective guy and, at this point, has mastered the line between candor and trying not to cross lines.
Today was very interesting to get a peak behind the curtain on how he feels about the Love pick. Obviously your franchise isn't commiting to him long term and he knows any offseason now he could have played his last game in a Packers uniform without knowing it. I mean he sounded like he wouldn't be shocked if they traded him this offseason.
I try to listen to PM's show when I can. I have never watched the stream. But he's pretty entertaining and has a lot of insight about the goings-on with the NFL. Mac and Rodgers have a very good rapport.
And I like Rodgers disdain for many in the conventional media.
He was very insightful today how he used video from 2010 to improve his mechanics and fix this subtle hitch he noticed...
I don't think I'd part with a first rounder either, especially a top ten-ish one.
However, I would seriously consider a second. Sure, Stafford is 32, but 32 in today's game and rules is like being 28. And his salary isn't that punitive, particularly in '22.
So with him, it's a simple question - would Stafford make the Giants better for a second? I don't know how the answer isn't yes.
I'm not saying this is what I would do (I'd be deeper into the Watson sweepstakes), but it's an intriguing idea. Because right now, the NFCE is right there for the taking with the right parts.
Quote:
Stafford has played 12 seasons...well i guess 11 full seasons. Could he go to a team like the Colts or 49ers and they make a SB run? Sure, he could. But...IMO he's not worth giving up a 1st round pick for *at the current time*...he's on the back 9, and getting closer to 18.
I don't think I'd part with a first rounder either, especially a top ten-ish one.
However, I would seriously consider a second. Sure, Stafford is 32, but 32 in today's game and rules is like being 28. And his salary isn't that punitive, particularly in '22.
So with him, it's a simple question - would Stafford make the Giants better for a second? I don't know how the answer isn't yes.
I'm not saying this is what I would do (I'd be deeper into the Watson sweepstakes), but it's an intriguing idea. Because right now, the NFCE is right there for the taking with the right parts.
Is that really a big prize? People here talked about how how silly it would be to call ourselves NFC champs this year because it was a function of general suckitude. HOw would that be different next year, as opposed to actually trying to build something sustainable (which Detroit already decided couldn't be done with an aging QB)?.
Quote:
In comment 15133961 ryanmkeane said:
Quote:
Stafford has played 12 seasons...well i guess 11 full seasons. Could he go to a team like the Colts or 49ers and they make a SB run? Sure, he could. But...IMO he's not worth giving up a 1st round pick for *at the current time*...he's on the back 9, and getting closer to 18.
I don't think I'd part with a first rounder either, especially a top ten-ish one.
However, I would seriously consider a second. Sure, Stafford is 32, but 32 in today's game and rules is like being 28. And his salary isn't that punitive, particularly in '22.
So with him, it's a simple question - would Stafford make the Giants better for a second? I don't know how the answer isn't yes.
I'm not saying this is what I would do (I'd be deeper into the Watson sweepstakes), but it's an intriguing idea. Because right now, the NFCE is right there for the taking with the right parts.
Is that really a big prize? People here talked about how how silly it would be to call ourselves NFC champs this year because it was a function of general suckitude. HOw would that be different next year, as opposed to actually trying to build something sustainable (which Detroit already decided couldn't be done with an aging QB)?.
Building around a quarterback that needs as much help as Jones does isn't sustainable.
He has one of the top WR's with him for several years and was able to manage zero playoff wins.
Meanwhile, the Giants likely don't have a top 25 WR on the field and the pitchfork monkeys act like Jones is one of the worst QB's to ever take the field.
But of course, we're regaled about his stat line being fantastic.....
Is that really a big prize? People here talked about how how silly it would be to call ourselves NFC champs this year because it was a function of general suckitude. HOw would that be different next year, as opposed to actually trying to build something sustainable (which Detroit already decided couldn't be done with an aging QB)?.
The goal every year should be to win the division. So I'm looking ahead now.
I'm pretty sure I know who Stafford is - a near pro bowl level player who played for a horrible organization and demonstrated he could be a force multiplier.
And I still don't know what we have in Jones. At best, he's probably a game manager that will require a lot of investments to try to optimize his abilities.
So I could see adding Stafford a very good solution for 3-4 years. That's a long time in the NFL.
Exactly what does a force multiplier do?
with one of the top WR's by his side, the force multiplier had his team score in the top 10 of points 2 times. He was a force multiplier to zero playoff wins.
And the season the defense gave up the 3rd amount of points and the 2nd amount of years, the force multiplier led the offense to the 22nd most points!!
Is the definition of "force multiplier" the bullshit connotation when you can't tangibly point to actual impact a player has??
Quote:
Is that really a big prize? People here talked about how how silly it would be to call ourselves NFC champs this year because it was a function of general suckitude. HOw would that be different next year, as opposed to actually trying to build something sustainable (which Detroit already decided couldn't be done with an aging QB)?.
The goal every year should be to win the division. So I'm looking ahead now.
I'm pretty sure I know who Stafford is - a near pro bowl level player who played for a horrible organization and demonstrated he could be a force multiplier.
And I still don't know what we have in Jones. At best, he's probably a game manager that will require a lot of investments to try to optimize his abilities.
So I could see adding Stafford a very good solution for 3-4 years. That's a long time in the NFL.
I'm usually right there with you bw...but I think you're wrong on this one.
I couldn't think of a worse QB to bring in where you trying to break a franchise that has grown accustom to losing.
I'd rather forge ahead with DJ or make a move to get a QB in this draft that looks like they might have the goods.
And, as you know, I'm not a huge DJ supporter.
Stafford just seems like a step backward for a team that is young and seemingly (hopefully) getting better.
He has one of the top WR's with him for several years and was able to manage zero playoff wins.
Stafford is 0-3 in the playoffs.
Peyton Manning was 0-3 in his first three playoff appearances. Did you see the offensive talent he had?
One player has been playing in NFL Hell in Detroit. And the other was playing for Bill Polian in Indy.
You don't lead the league in GW drives 3X in your career without some serious ability.
Force multiplier my ass.
Force multiplier my ass.
But what if the force = 0?
Force multiplier my ass.
I'm comparing franchises and circumstances. Manning played for a HoF GM and Stafford has played for Martin Mayhew and Bob Quinn.
Quote:
so comparing Jones to Stafford is being laughed at, but comparing Stafford to Peyton Manning is fine??
Force multiplier my ass.
But what if the force = 0?
Can I have the equation for force multipier?
FM = x/mc*rc/BS? Something like that?
Quote:
so comparing Jones to Stafford is being laughed at, but comparing Stafford to Peyton Manning is fine??
Force multiplier my ass.
I'm comparing franchises and circumstances. Manning played for a HoF GM and Stafford has played for Martin Mayhew and Bob Quinn.
Wouldn't the better comparison be not the QB's but the team around them? We are less than Detroit and Stafford had no success for Detroit. Trading for Stafford changes the window because of his advanced age while also burning resources that could be used to better the surrounding team. And, I still say that nobody, including you and GT really know what Jones is yet.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Still waiting on my force multiplier equation, please.
that said, it is interesting that this off season includes a more than a few high profile, productive QBs looking for new homes (Watson, Stafford, Rodgers, Wentz, etc)... and I will only say that IF the Giants coaching staff felt this team would be better served with one of these guys at the helm, I hope our old fashioned way of doing business wouldn't stand in the way of making a move to one of these guys that Judge et al want to lead the team.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Get us some weapons on outside and Jones speed will be a massive weapon. Teams won't be able to double or play 2 high because you need to dedicate a spy. If you don't Jones will torch you on ground. It's really underrated part of his game and he should be coached to use it and recognize it. Having a QB as fast as he is is devastating when you get the defense to turn their back, which will happen often the way the line run blocks now and having Saquon back. Teams will absolutely need to play a lot of man against us and we need some players that can take advantage of it.
It's called context. These conversations need it, badly.
I offer no strong opinion about that - in fact I am on the fence b/c I still hold out hope for DJ... but it is not a ridiculous premise to say that the Giants would better off for the next 3-4 years with Stafford as QB over DJ...
though I put more stock in Judge's opinion on that than I do BBI... : )
I offer no strong opinion about that - in fact I am on the fence b/c I still hold out hope for DJ... but it is not a ridiculous premise to say that the Giants would better off for the next 3-4 years with Stafford as QB over DJ...
though I put more stock in Judge's opinion on that than I do BBI... : )
Would hope DJ shows himself in year 3 as well.
Probably more likely that Stafford would be an upgrade, but as ryan suggests if the Lions did an upgrade at the beginning of Stafford's early career then he never turns into the one of the better QBs in the league in the end. Right?
This is all pie-in-sky thinking though as Judge and Giants are fully behind Jones for year 3.
Quote:
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Get us some weapons on outside and Jones speed will be a massive weapon. Teams won't be able to double or play 2 high because you need to dedicate a spy. If you don't Jones will torch you on ground. It's really underrated part of his game and he should be coached to use it and recognize it. Having a QB as fast as he is is devastating when you get the defense to turn their back, which will happen often the way the line run blocks now and having Saquon back. Teams will absolutely need to play a lot of man against us and we need some players that can take advantage of it.
Massive weapon? That a big proclamation.
Jones mobility is really a one-way - straight line speed with pretty good turn of foot getting to the edge. Which is a plus to a degree. But he isn't a shifty, elusive, quick QB player like any of the usual suspects. And he's a big target to get hit. So there is a a high risk variable for a guy who has shown some pattern of getting injured.
I like some designed runs, but I need to see so much more from the pocket (and elsewhere) before I can even entertain "massive weapon" territory.
Mahomes is a massive weapon.
Quote:
In comment 15134129 bw in dc said:
Quote:
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Get us some weapons on outside and Jones speed will be a massive weapon. Teams won't be able to double or play 2 high because you need to dedicate a spy. If you don't Jones will torch you on ground. It's really underrated part of his game and he should be coached to use it and recognize it. Having a QB as fast as he is is devastating when you get the defense to turn their back, which will happen often the way the line run blocks now and having Saquon back. Teams will absolutely need to play a lot of man against us and we need some players that can take advantage of it.
Massive weapon? That a big proclamation.
Jones mobility is really a one-way - straight line speed with pretty good turn of foot getting to the edge. Which is a plus to a degree. But he isn't a shifty, elusive, quick QB player like any of the usual suspects. And he's a big target to get hit. So there is a a high risk variable for a guy who has shown some pattern of getting injured.
I like some designed runs, but I need to see so much more from the pocket (and elsewhere) before I can even entertain "massive weapon" territory.
Mahomes is a massive weapon.
Would you call Jones' running ability a force multiplier?
Quote:
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Still waiting on my force multiplier equation, please.
Sure. More points produced by the QB = more winning opportunities.
Wow, that was really creative. Touche.
Quote:
In comment 15134129 bw in dc said:
Quote:
I think I know what Jones isn't - an elite talent capable of carrying a team. So now the gamble is if Jones can be a high end game manager with the right infrastructure to produce points and wins. I'm very unsure of that part right now.
I hear you on Stafford concerns. It's not my lead solution in this exercise. But I am bewildered how quite a few don't see the talented player he is compared Jones. Is it even close?
Get us some weapons on outside and Jones speed will be a massive weapon. Teams won't be able to double or play 2 high because you need to dedicate a spy. If you don't Jones will torch you on ground. It's really underrated part of his game and he should be coached to use it and recognize it. Having a QB as fast as he is is devastating when you get the defense to turn their back, which will happen often the way the line run blocks now and having Saquon back. Teams will absolutely need to play a lot of man against us and we need some players that can take advantage of it.
Massive weapon? That a big proclamation.
Jones mobility is really a one-way - straight line speed with pretty good turn of foot getting to the edge. Which is a plus to a degree. But he isn't a shifty, elusive, quick QB player like any of the usual suspects. And he's a big target to get hit. So there is a a high risk variable for a guy who has shown some pattern of getting injured.
I like some designed runs, but I need to see so much more from the pocket (and elsewhere) before I can even entertain "massive weapon" territory.
Mahomes is a massive weapon.
Massive? Devastating? I feel like I heard these same exact arguments when Barkley was drafted. This isn't Madden.
Jones is a nice runner. It definitely helps. But he's not Lamar, elusive, or even Mahomes, able to sling it on the run. Stop projecting what you think he'll be one day, and start looking at what he is.
But of course, we're regaled about his stat line being fantastic.....
I decided to revisit this now that I have time. Stafford has been the starter since 2011, and missed half of 2019 with an injury, so let's throw that year out. In essence, therefore, Stafford has been the FT starter for 9 years.
So FMiC focuses on the down years. However, the offense under Stafford did finish 4th, 7th, 13th, and 17th. So basically in half of his years as the starter, the Lions finished in the top half of the league in PPG, and twice in the top ten.
In the one year where they finished 20th, they still went 11-5 despite Megatron missing four games with an ankle injury.
And in the year where they finished 7th, in 2017, Megatron was retired and the receiving corp was Golden Tate and Marvin Jones.
Context is always interesting...
Quote:
Since Stafford has been there, the Lions have ranked 20th or lower in points scored 6 times.
But of course, we're regaled about his stat line being fantastic.....
I decided to revisit this now that I have time. Stafford has been the starter since 2011, and missed half of 2019 with an injury, so let's throw that year out. In essence, therefore, Stafford has been the FT starter for 9 years.
So FMiC focuses on the down years. However, the offense under Stafford did finish 4th, 7th, 13th, and 17th. So basically in half of his years as the starter, the Lions finished in the top half of the league in PPG, and twice in the top ten.
In the one year where they finished 20th, they still went 11-5 despite Megatron missing four games with an ankle injury.
And in the year where they finished 7th, in 2017, Megatron was retired and the receiving corp was Golden Tate and Marvin Jones.
Context is always interesting...
You could also frame that as: two top 10 offenses, two middle of the pack, and then four bottom half offenses. That wasn't a good stat for your point.
That means in more than half of his seasons, he had a bottom half offense (5/9). Although, two times, he had top ten offenses (2/9). Again though, not a great illustration of your point.
And the season the defense gave up the 3rd amount of points and the 2nd amount of years, the force multiplier led the offense to the 22nd most points!!
Quote:
Since Stafford has been there, the Lions have ranked 20th or lower in points scored 6 times.
But of course, we're regaled about his stat line being fantastic.....
I decided to revisit this now that I have time. Stafford has been the starter since 2011, and missed half of 2019 with an injury, so let's throw that year out. In essence, therefore, Stafford has been the FT starter for 9 years.
So FMiC focuses on the down years. However, the offense under Stafford did finish 4th, 7th, 13th, and 17th. So basically in half of his years as the starter, the Lions finished in the top half of the league in PPG, and twice in the top ten.
In the one year where they finished 20th, they still went 11-5 despite Megatron missing four games with an ankle injury.
And in the year where they finished 7th, in 2017, Megatron was retired and the receiving corp was Golden Tate and Marvin Jones.
Context is always interesting...
Bw, it seems context is irrelevant with the Giants. Since Jones was the 6th pick he must overcome, and not be limited by circumstances. It seems when fans list reasonable factors as to why Jones has struggled the "6th overall pick" card gets played.
That means in more than half of his seasons, he had a bottom half offense (5/9). Although, two times, he had top ten offenses (2/9). Again though, not a great illustration of your point.
I said "in basically half of his years"...So rounding is implied. But fine. You are technically correct.
The underlying point still stands. Detroit did have years when their offensive production was good t- very good with Stafford in the saddle.
Quote:
4 isn't half of 9.
That means in more than half of his seasons, he had a bottom half offense (5/9). Although, two times, he had top ten offenses (2/9). Again though, not a great illustration of your point.
I said "in basically half of his years"...So rounding is implied. But fine. You are technically correct.
The underlying point still stands. Detroit did have years when their offensive production was good t- very good with Stafford in the saddle.
Wait a minute. Is that really the "underlying point"??
Isn't the point with Jones that he was the 6th pick and he has to elevate the team around him and be a "force multiplier"?? Stafford was the #1 overall pick!!
But hey, he had years where the offense was good to very good with him there.
I wish you guys would at least be consistent.
Go for it.
Go for it.
Wow. This post is pretty weird. With that said, when this goes down, what do you suppose the Porn Hub title will be?
Charlottes Web?
FatMan Goes to DC?
Asking for a friend.
Go for it.
I don't even remember commenting on this thread and this is the first thing I see LOL
Quote:
4 isn't half of 9.
That means in more than half of his seasons, he had a bottom half offense (5/9). Although, two times, he had top ten offenses (2/9). Again though, not a great illustration of your point.
I said "in basically half of his years"...So rounding is implied. But fine. You are technically correct.
The underlying point still stands. Detroit did have years when their offensive production was good t- very good with Stafford in the saddle.
Underlying point? Top half 3 out of 9 years is now "basically half"? Weird.
Funny, but it really isn't if you watch the guy throw. He's very good at ball placement. MAybe even great. What Jones needs to work on is protecting the ball and decision making/reading the defense.
Too bad he was only allowed 20 games to master his craft. Maybe the next QB will be great right away. If not, cut him too.
Quote:
I think some you need to call each other and have wild monkey sex. You are acting like young boys that do not know how to talk to girls yet, so you needle each other every chance you get. It looks like dislike, but you really want to kiss them.
Go for it.
Wow. This post is pretty weird. With that said, when this goes down, what do you suppose the Porn Hub title will be?
Charlottes Web?
FatMan Goes to DC?
Asking for a friend.
Maybe old married couples would be a better example. We have good discussions then the old baggage rears its ugly head and poof ad hominem nonsense ensues.
Rodgers was just very good on McAfee's show (AR's weekly Tuesday appearance). Guy is a breath of fresh air with his candor, whether you agree or disagree with his opinions.
I would love to see Rodgers with Reich or BB. Indy seems much closer to really competing, however, than the Pats, who have a lot of leaks in their dam...
Quote:
the Pats being the other contender. Personally I'd love to see either. His stats will take a big hit going to Pats, but he'll win. Hope he gets a superbowl, so this nonsense about him gets put to rest and the whole QB is the whole team notion. I thought when Peyton's corpse won the SB it would, but he still had the name recognition and past SB success so people overlooked he was one of the worst QBs in the league that year.
Rodgers was just very good on McAfee's show (AR's weekly Tuesday appearance). Guy is a breath of fresh air with his candor, whether you agree or disagree with his opinions.
I would love to see Rodgers with Reich or BB. Indy seems much closer to really competing, however, than the Pats, who have a lot of leaks in their dam...
I thought I was the only one that watched that. Great show and a unique insight into the NFL. I always thought Rodgers got an unfair shake as far as what the media portrays him to be. Those interviews confirmed it for me. He's clearly a very introspective guy and, at this point, has mastered the line between candor and trying not to cross lines.
Today was very interesting to get a peak behind the curtain on how he feels about the Love pick. Obviously your franchise isn't commiting to him long term and he knows any offseason now he could have played his last game in a Packers uniform without knowing it. I mean he sounded like he wouldn't be shocked if they traded him this offseason.
And I like Rodgers disdain for many in the conventional media.
He was very insightful today how he used video from 2010 to improve his mechanics and fix this subtle hitch he noticed...
"We can't afford to pay an aging QB 20 million dollars. It will eat up our cap and we won't be able to get any talent. It will hamstring our cap..."