|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Jones has done enough to win the first two games, so that’s definitely progress. But there needs to be an understanding of the lens on Jones’ evaluation from Daboll and new general manager Joe Schoen. This isn’t like Jones’ second or third season when he had time on his side. When Schoen decided not to exercise Jones’ fifth-year option for 2023, this became a make-or-break season for the 25-year-old. So the stakes are much higher. Essentially, Jones needs to play well enough convince the new regime that he’s worthy of $31.5 million on the franchise tag in 2023. Otherwise, Schoen and Daboll will embark on a search for a quarterback to build around in the draft. They aligned themselves to take that path by declining Jones’ option. Daboll and Schoen have seen first-hand the difference an elite quarterback makes. Daboll has five Super Bowl rings, thanks in large part to Tom Brady, from his time as a Patriots assistant, while Daboll and Schoen were part of the group in Buffalo that chose Josh Allen with the seventh pick in the 2018 draft. Allen is in the conversation for the best quarterback in the league, and the Bills are Super Bowl favorites. It’s important to keep all of that in mind while evaluating Jones this season, because the people who will make the ultimate decision on the quarterback’s future certainly will. |
Remove head from clouds. MAra and the franchise can be too loyal at times, especially to younger players and even younger coaches, but they aren't going to throw around 50-100 million just because they like the guy.
YEt he did it. Twice.
The Giants needed about 3 drives second half of each game to win them. And they did just that. Then they kept the ball last Sunday to seal it.
Not to defend Jones or anything. But he did lead them to wins by driving the ball late, multiple times each game.
Quote:
I am also feeling that throw away QB will now be drafted. Guys used and abused until contract time, let go, and another found. Beat spending 20% of the cap on one guy.
Not to miller the thread, but this is something that Terps was advocating for years ago, and it does have merit.
The league adjusted years ago to the reality that RBs tended to age quickly and age poorly, so very few of them ever reach a lucrative second contract (or beyond). It's entirely possible that teams will begin to adopt a similar approach with QBs, but not because of the wear-and-tear; rather, because of the difference in cap value at the QB position from rookie contract to veteran contract.
Obviously, it's the rookie salary scale that creates this massive implied value at the QB position (20 years ago, rookie QBs taken near the top of the draft were expensive right away), but it's the advanced offensive schemes at the high school and college levels that make it possible to take advantage of that opportunity.
That's why it's so important for a QB to develop quickly at the NFL level: the salary cap advantage is too massive to take lightly, and because QBs should be able to play at a high level very early on in today's QB-friendly NFL, with offensive systems that are actually based on the college game, rather than the way it used to be, when the NFL game was exponentially more sophisticated than the scholastic and collegiate ranks.
That's also why it's tiresome when the DJFC trots out examples from decades ago of QBs who took a long time to develop, because it's irrelevant. A QB has to be really good within his rookie contract, and if he's not, you're better off failing fast and hitting the reset button every four years (if not sooner) until you find the franchise guy. It's an exhausting process, but it's still more realistic than hoping to build the kind of supporting cast necessary to carry a game-manager style of QB (by all means, if you want to give me the 2000 Ravens defense or even the 2002 Bucs defense, I can see a path to a championship with a QB on DJ's level).
There's some truth to this, but there's also simple truth in saying you want as many cost controlled young studs on the team as possible, not just QB, but any position. Yes you want a great young QB that isn't getting paid, but that doesn't mean you can't win with a highly paid star vet QB either. It also doesn't necessarily mean a team that didn't win BIG with a good, young and cheap QB can't win BIG with that same QB only now he's making more money. You're implying that a team should punt on the QB if they didn't win big and he's about to get paid. So if Cincy doesn't win a title and JB is due for the big contract they should punt and start over?
Look at the super bowl winners since 2000 or so. Look at the competitive teams year after year. Most of them have the highly paid QB. If you have a lot of highly paid star power, you can keep most of the team together by moving money around. IT's when the team sucks you will see the owner and GM go scorched earth like NYG. Dallas has had to let a few players go but they will keep that young defense in place with Dak and even guys like Zeke and the OL. Look at the Rams. They have older expensive players up and down the roster, including the QB. Why and how Because they are good.
Daniel Jones turning into a super star player and getting paid a brinx truck worth of money is a great case scenario for NYG despite some of thinking otherwise. Not saying it will happen but for the sake of this topic, allow it for a second.
Perfect scenario? Jones tanks, we draft Tom BRady part 2 in April. We all know that. But finding a star vet QB and paying him is not "bad" at all. It's good.
Eagles are in a nice spot. Niners kind of since JG isn't making stupid stupid money if memory serves. They did just "lose" another cheap year out of Lance. Bears? They kind of suck. Miami is in a nice spot but Tua is coming up on money sooner than later.
It's easier said than done.
Quote:
In comment 15826873 section125 said:
Quote:
I am also feeling that throw away QB will now be drafted. Guys used and abused until contract time, let go, and another found. Beat spending 20% of the cap on one guy.
Not to miller the thread, but this is something that Terps was advocating for years ago, and it does have merit.
The league adjusted years ago to the reality that RBs tended to age quickly and age poorly, so very few of them ever reach a lucrative second contract (or beyond). It's entirely possible that teams will begin to adopt a similar approach with QBs, but not because of the wear-and-tear; rather, because of the difference in cap value at the QB position from rookie contract to veteran contract.
Obviously, it's the rookie salary scale that creates this massive implied value at the QB position (20 years ago, rookie QBs taken near the top of the draft were expensive right away), but it's the advanced offensive schemes at the high school and college levels that make it possible to take advantage of that opportunity.
That's why it's so important for a QB to develop quickly at the NFL level: the salary cap advantage is too massive to take lightly, and because QBs should be able to play at a high level very early on in today's QB-friendly NFL, with offensive systems that are actually based on the college game, rather than the way it used to be, when the NFL game was exponentially more sophisticated than the scholastic and collegiate ranks.
That's also why it's tiresome when the DJFC trots out examples from decades ago of QBs who took a long time to develop, because it's irrelevant. A QB has to be really good within his rookie contract, and if he's not, you're better off failing fast and hitting the reset button every four years (if not sooner) until you find the franchise guy. It's an exhausting process, but it's still more realistic than hoping to build the kind of supporting cast necessary to carry a game-manager style of QB (by all means, if you want to give me the 2000 Ravens defense or even the 2002 Bucs defense, I can see a path to a championship with a QB on DJ's level).
There's some truth to this, but there's also simple truth in saying you want as many cost controlled young studs on the team as possible, not just QB, but any position. Yes you want a great young QB that isn't getting paid, but that doesn't mean you can't win with a highly paid star vet QB either. It also doesn't necessarily mean a team that didn't win BIG with a good, young and cheap QB can't win BIG with that same QB only now he's making more money. You're implying that a team should punt on the QB if they didn't win big and he's about to get paid. So if Cincy doesn't win a title and JB is due for the big contract they should punt and start over?
Look at the super bowl winners since 2000 or so. Look at the competitive teams year after year. Most of them have the highly paid QB. If you have a lot of highly paid star power, you can keep most of the team together by moving money around. IT's when the team sucks you will see the owner and GM go scorched earth like NYG. Dallas has had to let a few players go but they will keep that young defense in place with Dak and even guys like Zeke and the OL. Look at the Rams. They have older expensive players up and down the roster, including the QB. Why and how Because they are good.
Daniel Jones turning into a super star player and getting paid a brinx truck worth of money is a great case scenario for NYG despite some of thinking otherwise. Not saying it will happen but for the sake of this topic, allow it for a second.
Perfect scenario? Jones tanks, we draft Tom BRady part 2 in April. We all know that. But finding a star vet QB and paying him is not "bad" at all. It's good.
No, I'm not suggesting that a team punt on a young QB at the end of his rookie contract if he has not yet won a Super Bowl or whatever arbitrary playoff level you want to use as a benchmark.
I'm saying that if a QB hasn't absolutely proven that he COULD win a championship as anything other than a passenger on an otherwise elite team, you should move on and try to find a better QB.
The point being, if you have the sort of QB that needs everything around him to be perfect in order to win, chances are you can replace him pretty easily and still win (because of the supporting cast that the first guy needed to succeeded anyway), with the hope that you can reach an even higher level of championship caliber by eventually landing that truly elite franchise QB. There's no downside if your plan for the original QB was going to have to be "build a perfect roster around him" anyway. Just do that for the next guy and keep it cheap at QB until you nail it.
You don't need to pay retail for a DJ-level veteran QB if you have to surround him with rookie-level training wheels anyway.
Quote:
In comment 15826899 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15826873 section125 said:
Quote:
I am also feeling that throw away QB will now be drafted. Guys used and abused until contract time, let go, and another found. Beat spending 20% of the cap on one guy.
Not to miller the thread, but this is something that Terps was advocating for years ago, and it does have merit.
The league adjusted years ago to the reality that RBs tended to age quickly and age poorly, so very few of them ever reach a lucrative second contract (or beyond). It's entirely possible that teams will begin to adopt a similar approach with QBs, but not because of the wear-and-tear; rather, because of the difference in cap value at the QB position from rookie contract to veteran contract.
Obviously, it's the rookie salary scale that creates this massive implied value at the QB position (20 years ago, rookie QBs taken near the top of the draft were expensive right away), but it's the advanced offensive schemes at the high school and college levels that make it possible to take advantage of that opportunity.
That's why it's so important for a QB to develop quickly at the NFL level: the salary cap advantage is too massive to take lightly, and because QBs should be able to play at a high level very early on in today's QB-friendly NFL, with offensive systems that are actually based on the college game, rather than the way it used to be, when the NFL game was exponentially more sophisticated than the scholastic and collegiate ranks.
That's also why it's tiresome when the DJFC trots out examples from decades ago of QBs who took a long time to develop, because it's irrelevant. A QB has to be really good within his rookie contract, and if he's not, you're better off failing fast and hitting the reset button every four years (if not sooner) until you find the franchise guy. It's an exhausting process, but it's still more realistic than hoping to build the kind of supporting cast necessary to carry a game-manager style of QB (by all means, if you want to give me the 2000 Ravens defense or even the 2002 Bucs defense, I can see a path to a championship with a QB on DJ's level).
There's some truth to this, but there's also simple truth in saying you want as many cost controlled young studs on the team as possible, not just QB, but any position. Yes you want a great young QB that isn't getting paid, but that doesn't mean you can't win with a highly paid star vet QB either. It also doesn't necessarily mean a team that didn't win BIG with a good, young and cheap QB can't win BIG with that same QB only now he's making more money. You're implying that a team should punt on the QB if they didn't win big and he's about to get paid. So if Cincy doesn't win a title and JB is due for the big contract they should punt and start over?
Look at the super bowl winners since 2000 or so. Look at the competitive teams year after year. Most of them have the highly paid QB. If you have a lot of highly paid star power, you can keep most of the team together by moving money around. IT's when the team sucks you will see the owner and GM go scorched earth like NYG. Dallas has had to let a few players go but they will keep that young defense in place with Dak and even guys like Zeke and the OL. Look at the Rams. They have older expensive players up and down the roster, including the QB. Why and how Because they are good.
Daniel Jones turning into a super star player and getting paid a brinx truck worth of money is a great case scenario for NYG despite some of thinking otherwise. Not saying it will happen but for the sake of this topic, allow it for a second.
Perfect scenario? Jones tanks, we draft Tom BRady part 2 in April. We all know that. But finding a star vet QB and paying him is not "bad" at all. It's good.
No, I'm not suggesting that a team punt on a young QB at the end of his rookie contract if he has not yet won a Super Bowl or whatever arbitrary playoff level you want to use as a benchmark.
I'm saying that if a QB hasn't absolutely proven that he COULD win a championship as anything other than a passenger on an otherwise elite team, you should move on and try to find a better QB.
The point being, if you have the sort of QB that needs everything around him to be perfect in order to win, chances are you can replace him pretty easily and still win (because of the supporting cast that the first guy needed to succeeded anyway), with the hope that you can reach an even higher level of championship caliber by eventually landing that truly elite franchise QB. There's no downside if your plan for the original QB was going to have to be "build a perfect roster around him" anyway. Just do that for the next guy and keep it cheap at QB until you nail it.
You don't need to pay retail for a DJ-level veteran QB if you have to surround him with rookie-level training wheels anyway.
Totally agree. The question now is what is Daniel Jones. Maybe we already know, but I think he's playing better than he ever played, including 2019. I'd like to see more though. Not deluding myself or anything I just see a better player. That scramble on 3rd down to seal it was one of the best plays of his career in my view.
And yet is still a below average NFL starter. That's the crux of why I want the Giants to be rid of him - nothing about him has ever indicated that he can be an upper-echelon QB, even as he has improved from his past seasons.
Guy just isn't all that good.
Quote:
I think he's playing better than he ever played, including 2019.
And yet is still a below average NFL starter. That's the crux of why I want the Giants to be rid of him - nothing about him has ever indicated that he can be an upper-echelon QB, even as he has improved from his past seasons.
Guy just isn't all that good.
OK.
They've done incredible on drafts, made a lot of good moves in FA, but they haven't made any aggressive moves on QB, in part because they are always competitive and out of prime draft position and they don't seem to want to part with assets.
The end result is this retread carousel they've been on. "We've got a great roster, let's just fill it in with Rivers, Wentz, Ryan etc."
Remove head from clouds. MAra and the franchise can be too loyal at times, especially to younger players and even younger coaches, but they aren't going to throw around 50-100 million just because they like the guy.
Willy-nilly is a bad way to describe it. This may come as a shock to you but some people find it difficult to separate their feelings on a person from an objective evaluation of them. It's ridiculous to think that Mara is intentionally throwing money away on someone he "likes" but you scoffing at the idea that Mara would waste money is off the mark. Chris and Tim and John and the whole gang signed off on Solder, KG and all the other money wasters we've seen. I'm not making them the culprits but they certainly aren't innocent so don't act like they aren't perfectly capable of pissing money down the drain.
Another logical inconsistency in your point is like well this is stupid, Mara wouldn't do anything stupid would he? Well I'd argue that the press conference in which he named Jones the starter and gushed over him and made him a victim of his teammates was incredibly stupid. The very idea that an owner is standing up and asking a fan base to excuse the most important position on the field from the team being shitty is dumb on it's face. But the fact that he basically had to toss the rest of his offense under the bus to do it is even worse. He had to call the rest of them bad to prop up his fragile little flower of a QB. Not to mention he publicly undercut his new GM and coach. And you want to act like he's not capable of being a part of stupid actions or frivolous spending? Come on.
Do you watch college football? Who besides the 2 QBs we wont be able to get has impressed you? None. I havent seen the Wash St QB Cameron Ward, but the rest have not been good vs decent competition so far
That's a ridiculous statement. There are any number of QB's who have looked good, and last time I checked, it is still only September. For example, Michael Pinex at Wash has looked fantastic - 1,100 yards, 10 TD's, only 1 pick, including 400 yds and 4 TD's v. 11th ranked Mich St.
Your argument boils down to "drafting a QB is a crapshoot, so we should just stick with what we have". It's a good thing Ernie Acorsi didn't listen to you.
Quote:
when people here honestly believe that Mara is all willy-nilly on PAYING Daniel Jones a shit load of money. That not only will he meddle and force the HC/GM's hand to sign a QB that isn't highly thought of by said GM/HC but PAY that guy a shit load of money. Why? Because he likes the cut of his jib? Or needs to be proven right?
Remove head from clouds. MAra and the franchise can be too loyal at times, especially to younger players and even younger coaches, but they aren't going to throw around 50-100 million just because they like the guy.
Willy-nilly is a bad way to describe it. This may come as a shock to you but some people find it difficult to separate their feelings on a person from an objective evaluation of them. It's ridiculous to think that Mara is intentionally throwing money away on someone he "likes" but you scoffing at the idea that Mara would waste money is off the mark. Chris and Tim and John and the whole gang signed off on Solder, KG and all the other money wasters we've seen. I'm not making them the culprits but they certainly aren't innocent so don't act like they aren't perfectly capable of pissing money down the drain.
Another logical inconsistency in your point is like well this is stupid, Mara wouldn't do anything stupid would he? Well I'd argue that the press conference in which he named Jones the starter and gushed over him and made him a victim of his teammates was incredibly stupid. The very idea that an owner is standing up and asking a fan base to excuse the most important position on the field from the team being shitty is dumb on it's face. But the fact that he basically had to toss the rest of his offense under the bus to do it is even worse. He had to call the rest of them bad to prop up his fragile little flower of a QB. Not to mention he publicly undercut his new GM and coach. And you want to act like he's not capable of being a part of stupid actions or frivolous spending? Come on.
OK, short and sweet, they aren't re-signing Jones unless Daboll and Schoen want to. And it's going to take good play out of Jones to sway Daboll and Schoen.
And yes, it's stupid to say Mara will bust out the foot and insist that Jones be re-signed despite GM and HC saying no fucking way.
The only thing being suggested is Mara's clear affinity for Jones could lead JS to make his own mind up differently than he would in a vacuum. There are Mara's in personnel Mara has already shown us he is overly attached to Jones despite no evidence at all that he can be a good QB. It's not black and white and anyone that doesn't think the team winning increases the risks of this happening hasn't been watching the Mara's closely enough.
You're reaching. Actions speak louder than words.
Mara went out of his way to praise Jones, as if Jones had no impact on the shitty record the Giants had. He was hiring an entirely new management and coaching staff, he should have said nothing in regards to personnel..."I'll leave personnel decisions to the new personnel staff".
The reality is that Schoen probably goes with Jones anyway by virtue of his limited options, but an owner shouldn't be putting his thumb on the scale.
I challenge you to look at a new coach and new GM that came into a situation with an underperforming QB and kept that underperforming QB as opposed to trading him. New regimes like to have their guy. Jones not being shown the door in is actually evidence of abnormal behavior and a sign that there was influence that changed that behavior.
You all want to wave your mission accomplished banner every time. New GM! All the problems are fixed! But the pattern here and the general pattern in business is you don't just fix problems instantaneously and Jones is very much the poster boy for old, problematic thinking that plagued the team.
So yeah, when an owner quite atypically comes out and names a starter before training camp and simultaneously also atypically throws his entire offense under the bus to make that QB look better, I guess? Yeah, that is a sign that the problem might not be solved. Ignore it if you want but it is staring you in the face.
Schoen wanted Trubisky but he opted for Pittsburgh.
I don’t have all the examples in front of me. But, the Browns new regime stuck with Mayfield for a year and Stefanski likely knew he wasn’t the long term answer.
There was no clear replacement in the draft this year. I would have liked Willis drafted initially, but the NFL clearly felt differently.
Schoen wanted Trubisky but he opted for Pittsburgh.
I don’t have all the examples in front of me. But, the Browns new regime stuck with Mayfield for a year and Stefanski likely knew he wasn’t the long term answer.
There was no clear replacement in the draft this year. I would have liked Willis drafted initially, but the NFL clearly felt differently.
Darnold fetched 3 picks. 2,4,6. You could argue that Jones put together a little more on field success than him even though Darnold had much more college success. I think you could probably fetch at least a 3 if not like a 3 and a 4 for Jones and IMO you take that in a New York minute.
Schoen wanted Trubisky but he opted for Pittsburgh.
I don’t have all the examples in front of me. But, the Browns new regime stuck with Mayfield for a year and Stefanski likely knew he wasn’t the long term answer.
There was no clear replacement in the draft this year. I would have liked Willis drafted initially, but the NFL clearly felt differently.
The market for Garoppolo was limited because he was coming off shoulder surgery AND is in the midst of a big contract. Mara's declaration that Jones was the starter certainly didn't help Schoen's efforts to find another QB, as anyone hoping to land a starting gig (Trubisky, Marriotta) were much less likely to sign here.
I do agree that Schoen probably runs it back with Jones by virtue of the limited options he had.
Especially since there actually is some talent on this team.
Quote:
What was the market for Jones though? The Niners couldn’t even trade Garoppolo who is better with a much better resume than Jones.
Schoen wanted Trubisky but he opted for Pittsburgh.
I don’t have all the examples in front of me. But, the Browns new regime stuck with Mayfield for a year and Stefanski likely knew he wasn’t the long term answer.
There was no clear replacement in the draft this year. I would have liked Willis drafted initially, but the NFL clearly felt differently.
The market for Garoppolo was limited because he was coming off shoulder surgery AND is in the midst of a big contract. Mara's declaration that Jones was the starter certainly didn't help Schoen's efforts to find another QB, as anyone hoping to land a starting gig (Trubisky, Marriotta) were much less likely to sign here.
I do agree that Schoen probably runs it back with Jones by virtue of the limited options he had.
When did Mara declare that Jones was the starter?
When did Mara declare that Jones was the starter?
While he didn't use the term "starter", Mara did go out of his way to say that he wanted to see how Jones would perform with better talent around him, that "we certainly haven't given up on Daniel Jones". This at a press conference to announce his new GM.
He should have deferred any questions about any player to his new Gm; "I'll leave the personnel decisions to the personnel staff".
He may not have said those exact words, but let's be honest - it doesn't take a detective to deduce his meaning here.
Link - ( New Window )
“But let’s bring in the right group of coaches now and give him some continuity and try to rebuild the offensive line — and then be able to make an intelligent evaluation of whether he can be the franchise quarterback or not.
“I have a lot of hope in Daniel. I know how badly he wants it. I know how the players feel about him. So we are certainly not giving up on him by any stretch of the imagination.”
First of all, it was said at the presser to announce Schoen as the new GM, so it wasn't like Schoen had time to go through tape to see how he felt moving forward with Jones at QB. And even if he was prepared to go into the season with Jones as the starter, Mara gave the impression that he had his thumb on the scale, that HE was the one deciding who was QB.
It was reported that Schoen had talked to other QB's, most namely Trubisky. Mara's comments could be an impediment to signing another QB who was looking for shot at the starting job. I'd flip your question around, what purpose did Mara's comments serve? They provided no benefit, and may have hurt Schoen's efforts to find another QB.
Quote:
and the coaches were seeing eye to eye when that comment was made, then what is the big deal? I don't see anything wrong with it, but maybe I am missing something.
First of all, it was said at the presser to announce Schoen as the new GM, so it wasn't like Schoen had time to go through tape to see how he felt moving forward with Jones at QB. And even if he was prepared to go into the season with Jones as the starter, Mara gave the impression that he had his thumb on the scale, that HE was the one deciding who was QB.
It was reported that Schoen had talked to other QB's, most namely Trubisky. Mara's comments could be an impediment to signing another QB who was looking for shot at the starting job. I'd flip your question around, what purpose did Mara's comments serve? They provided no benefit, and may have hurt Schoen's efforts to find another QB.
Here is Mara's entire quote: “I want Joe and the new head coach to make that evaluation,” Mara said. “We do feel that Daniel can play. We’ve done everything possible to screw this kid up since he’s been here. We keep changing coaches, keep changing offensive coordinators, keep changing offensive line coaches. I take a lot of responsibility for that.
“But let’s bring in the right group of coaches now and give him some continuity and try to rebuild the offensive line — and then be able to make an intelligent evaluation of whether he can be the franchise quarterback or not.
“I have a lot of hope in Daniel. I know how badly he wants it. I know how the players feel about him. So we are certainly not giving up on him by any stretch of the imagination.”
Mara said he wanted Schoen and the HC to make that decision. To me it reads like Mara is giving public support to a player.
I also wonder if Mara just volunteered this information or was asked about it. If volunteered it, I think that would be odd, if he was asked then I do not think it was a big deal, his comments would serve as public support for the qb.
Its just blatant favoritism based on Jones's Easy to Root For qualities.
I don’t see it that way, but no big deal.
Link - ( New Window )
That can be a sign of a few things but moving up in the pocket when not necessary is something to keep a eye on. It can be a overwhelmed type of issue or he is confused which can be a little system related. Moving like that (forwards) or leaving a good pocket to the outside is generally not good. At least for a pocket passer imv. Something worth keeping a eye on.
I really believe the tail end of Eli Manning’s career fucked with the psychology of Mara and many fans, and created this dysfunction that the team is there to serve the QB.
You see it sentiments like the Giants “wasted the end of Eli’s career” and that “Manning deserved to retire whenever he wanted because of what he’d accomplished.”
Heck, there was poster on BBI recently admonishing another member because he wouldn’t compliment Jones after a pedestrian game.
Dexter Lawrence was picked a 13 picks later than Jones and had a pedestrian season last year, and is on his 3rd system. Imagine how ridiculous it would be to replace Jones with Lawrence in that quote.
Yes, we're 2-0, but I don't think anyone would say DJ is a major reason why. There's still a ton of season to go so let's see how things play out, but-gun to head-I think we're going shopping for a new QB in next year's draft.
That is solid advice for many situations
Quote:
Yikes. Link - ( New Window )
That can be a sign of a few things but moving up in the pocket when not necessary is something to keep a eye on. It can be a overwhelmed type of issue or he is confused which can be a little system related. Moving like that (forwards) or leaving a good pocket to the outside is generally not good. At least for a pocket passer imv. Something worth keeping a eye on.
I wonder if Daboll & Kafka have stressed to DJ to step up in the pocket more, and he’s overdoing it. I’ve always felt he panics a bit and runs out of the pocket even when he has room to step up.
That is solid advice for many situations
100%.
I just don’t think Jones warrants any of that treatment. But, as SFGF says, the 5th year option was declined.
Not so much with the thinking that Manning can play as long as he wants.
One can reasonably argue the first statement. The other is bad business.
This isn't Eli. Eli won 2 Super Bowls here. I get the attachment. Hell, I'm guilty of it too. I'm glad Eli only played for us. But Jones is a completely different story. Other than looking like Eli & the Cutcliffe connection, I don't get Mara's love for this kid.
Ultimately Manning just got his teeth kicked in for a few more years, and then got benched. I’m assuming everyone agrees that sucked.
The owner simply just shouldn’t have favorite players. And if he does, he should have the good sense to keep it as much to himself as he can.
Ultimately Manning just got his teeth kicked in for a few more years, and then got benched. I’m assuming everyone agrees that sucked.
The owner simply just shouldn’t have favorite players. And if he does, he should have the good sense to keep it as much to himself as he can.
Do the Giants get the benefit of branding with Eli if they cut bait in 2018 and he finishes his career with Jacksonville? I don’t know either way, but I’m sure holding onto Eli has been good business for the franchise and I don’t know if the prospect of going 7-9 with a Bridgewater/Darnold QB room would be enough to sway Mara after the fan backlash.
You make a good point though, Eli did get his teeth smashed in and another playoff run elsewhere could have done his playing legacy better.
Other than looking like Eli & the Cutcliffe connection, I don't get Mara's love for this kid.
Could be that it’s because it’s all in your mind…
I lived in San Francisco for a bunch of years, and everyone loved Montana. No one cared he played in KC. I think the single team thing is overrated in the long run.
Mara got himself in the mess with the benching charade and the aftermath. I agree not much was going to cleanup that mess in the short term, but there have been some good QBs drafted since. That would have helped.