I am sure we all know that DJ(or hardly most QBs) are worth the amount of money that supposedly DJ gets if we resign him past rookie contract or franchise tag him (at 30 million???? as per Tiki Barber's comments).
Even if DJ has an amazing year, it's going to rough on the cap. Everyone is saying he going to supposedly get 20 mill a year.
A)Who will want him anyway?
B)Can he sign at some rock bottom new contract if he is the "starter" next year?
C)Next year's QB class is getting a thumbs down by a few scouts.
Can we release him, gamble, and get him back at reasonable price provided he also sees the writing on the wall?
If you want a chance to keep him....transition tag.
But figure 20 mil
Sorry!
Quote:
And see how he fares after end of season. I am just wondering about the options and their relative costs
If Jones is let go the next time you see him he will be playing for a team in the NFC east! The Giants will be in qb hell for 3 - 5 years if they let Jones go, are you willing to wait it out?
Oh my god. The shock and horror. We might see Jones play for an NFCE team?
First of all, I know you're not talking about Dallas because Jones is not anywhere close to Prescott in class. And you're not talking about Hurts at this stage, who is playing great. So you must mean the Washington Commanders. And to the idea that the Commanders might add him, I say, bring it on. I would love to see Jones twice a year in a Commanders uni. But trust me, they won't stick with him for 4 years. It will be one year and done.
Quote:
And see how he fares after end of season. I am just wondering about the options and their relative costs
If Jones is let go the next time you see him he will be playing for a team in the NFC east! The Giants will be in qb hell for 3 - 5 years if they let Jones go, are you willing to wait it out?
We're in QB hell now. I'd love to play against 200 yards passing and 0-1 passing TD twice a year...just like our opponents now. Do you really think any team we play fears Daniel Jones as a passer?
WFT - Wentz has been awful although they prob run it back with him & Howell
Carolina- Mayfield is not the answer
Atlanta- Mariota = not good
NO- Jameis is not good
TB- Brady likely retires
Indy- Ryan is washed
Houston- Davis Mills prob not the guy
Seattle - I’m not sure they see Geno as a long term guy although he has played very well so far
Detroit- see above
This isn’t even mentioning teams like NYJ, CHI, NE, PIT, and SF who have young unproven guys that haven’t shown much. Tennessee is somewhere between a middling vet in Tannehill & Malik Willis.
I also think some of the decline in offensive production (especially the passing game) has been that OL play is getting worse, DLineman are getting better, and NFL defenses have evolved into this 2 high look that gives QB’s and OC’s fits.
The NFL is very cyclical.
Breeze, I agree with you that the QB situation in the league is not good. We can dump Jones but unless we have a real QB in hand, we will likely end up with another JAG.
The teams you listed are also looking for a QB.
This is a QB driven league but we know there simply are not enough top tier QBs in the league. So you have to build a team that can win with a game manager.
Nobody is seeing any paralells with our 3-1 start and our ability to finally run the ball this year? Let's focus on that for now. Continue to build strength in the OL while we wait for a true franchise QB to be within our realistic grasp.
Quote:
And see how he fares after end of season. I am just wondering about the options and their relative costs
If Jones is let go the next time you see him he will be playing for a team in the NFC east! The Giants will be in qb hell for 3 - 5 years if they let Jones go, are you willing to wait it out?
The Giants are in QB hell right now. Worry about one team. Let the other 31 worry about themselves.
It won't matter what team DJ goes to if we get the next QB right. It actually doesn't matter even if the next QB stinks just like Jones. It's still the right decision to let him walk, barring some massive leap forward in production this season.
Quote:
In comment 15848860 MeanBunny said:
Quote:
And see how he fares after end of season. I am just wondering about the options and their relative costs
If Jones is let go the next time you see him he will be playing for a team in the NFC east! The Giants will be in qb hell for 3 - 5 years if they let Jones go, are you willing to wait it out?
The Giants are in QB hell right now. Worry about one team. Let the other 31 worry about themselves.
It won't matter what team DJ goes to if we get the next QB right. It actually doesn't matter even if the next QB stinks just like Jones. It's still the right decision to let him walk, barring some massive leap forward in production this season.
We have been in QB hell for a long time. You also do not let him just walk without a replacement for him. Only fans in forums would do that.
Imagine the negotiation with a free agent QB right after we let Jones go? Nothing like handing over all of the negotiation leverage to the other side.
Quote:
In comment 15848870 Jack Stroud said:
Quote:
In comment 15848860 MeanBunny said:
Quote:
And see how he fares after end of season. I am just wondering about the options and their relative costs
If Jones is let go the next time you see him he will be playing for a team in the NFC east! The Giants will be in qb hell for 3 - 5 years if they let Jones go, are you willing to wait it out?
The Giants are in QB hell right now. Worry about one team. Let the other 31 worry about themselves.
It won't matter what team DJ goes to if we get the next QB right. It actually doesn't matter even if the next QB stinks just like Jones. It's still the right decision to let him walk, barring some massive leap forward in production this season.
We have been in QB hell for a long time. You also do not let him just walk without a replacement for him. Only fans in forums would do that.
Imagine the negotiation with a free agent QB right after we let Jones go? Nothing like handing over all of the negotiation leverage to the other side.
We have his immediate replacement on the roster already: Tyrod Taylor.
And the level of QB that we'd be looking at to potentially compete/unseat Taylor as the transition QB isn't getting any additional leverage by letting DJ walk. The actual replacement will be found in the draft. If, by chance, they go the FA route with an established QB (if Jackson somehow actually hits UFA without a tag, for example), having DJ in the fold or not has no impact on the negotiation.
Do you see a world where a placeholder QB of the Mariota/Trubisky/Dalton ilk is going to play hardball on contract value but all of a sudden takes a massive haircut because the Giants have DJ on speed dial?
I don't why I bothered to engage with a 9/22 in the first place.
Not sure how DJ would really take being a bridge QB though if we draft a guy. He probably will be stand up, looking forward to his eventual FA payday, but who knows how he will really feel. That would be a lot of years of frustration by that point.
Not sure how DJ would really take being a bridge QB though if we draft a guy. He probably will be stand up, looking forward to his eventual FA payday, but who knows how he will really feel. That would be a lot of years of frustration by that point.
I'm not sure if bridge QB means the same thing to you that it means to me, but I don't see how having TT as the bridge starter would make someone yearn for DJ because the very definition of a bridge QB is temporary in nature.
But the encouraging thing is that I guess we're all closer to alignment on the true worth of DJ as a QB: his best opportunity to play QB in this league will be as a temporary stand-in for his own replacement and the most encouraging thing the DJFC can even come up with is "he's better than Tyrod Taylor for a role that exists solely to be replaced."
The notion that the only way to a Superbowl is by having a top 10 QB is ludicrous. You can win with a decent QB who is surrounded by some talent and good coaching.
Quote:
In comment 15849459 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 15848870 Jack Stroud said:
Quote:
In comment 15848860 MeanBunny said:
Do you see a world where a placeholder QB of the Mariota/Trubisky/Dalton ilk is going to play hardball on contract value but all of a sudden takes a massive haircut because the Giants have DJ on speed dial?
I don't why I bothered to engage with a 9/22 in the first place.
We both know Tyrod is not a suitable replacement and if we go into a season with him as our starter, we are not planning to compete. Your point I guess is we are not competing with Jones anyway.
Regarding your 9/22 comment. I did not realize that tenure in this forum was a measuring stick for whether someone has a valid point about the giants. Imagine that line of thinking in business? Someone who joins the company one month earlier is told to STFU in a meeting because they are new? All contributions dismissed?
Let's see.. the Titans went to the playoffs 4 of the last 5 years, won their division last two seasons, and were the AFC top seed in '21. Meanwhile we still feel obligated to "evaluate" a QB with garbage production while we routinely select in the top-10 because of our lousy finishes. And based on that, THE TITANS are in QB hell, not us...
ok....
The notion that the only way to a Superbowl is by having a top 10 QB is ludicrous. You can win with a decent QB who is surrounded by some talent and good coaching.
Look at the teams who won a SB in spite of their QB rather than because of their QB - two of the most prominent examples people love to throw out there include Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. You can maybe put Nick Foles in that discussion, but that Eagles team got MVP-level QB play from Wentz in the regular season and Foles performed well at the right time with a team that was clicking.
So in order to win with a lesser QB, you need to REALLY nail the rest of your roster. Dilfer and Johnson had historically great defenses on the other side of the ball. Dilfer in particular had one of the greatest defenses in NFL history carrying his team.
For all the talk about how rare/difficult it is to find a truly elite franchise QB, it's worth noting that the kind of roster construction required to prop up a mediocre QB is even more rare and difficult to accomplish, and is often less sustainable over time than the roster model that focuses on building around a franchise QB.
Do you think we win two SBs with Collins + Gallery/Taylor instead of Eli?
But I think it is fair to speculate that those odds are getting even longer as the league trends ever more in a direction favorable to QBs. I think it is fair to speculate that Matt Stafford might be the worst QB to win a Super Bowl over the next decade. Which would mean, if you don't have a QB as good as Stafford, your season may be over before it starts. That is how much the game has changed in just the last decade.
But I think it is fair to speculate that those odds are getting even longer as the league trends ever more in a direction favorable to QBs. I think it is fair to speculate that Matt Stafford might be the worst QB to win a Super Bowl over the next decade. Which would mean, if you don't have a QB as good as Stafford, your season may be over before it starts. That is how much the game has changed in just the last decade.
Over the last decade plus I would say Flacco and Foles are worse. I think in the next decade plus you will get someone worse than Stafford. What seems to be most important is key pieces on team friendly deals allowing you to splurge elsewhere to fill out the roster. As great of a player as Saquon Barkley is, teams do not win spending that much money on the RB room. In addition, stability at QB is key. The teams that go far primarily use 1 QB the entire season. You may have a back-up for a landslide game, but not when the game is still in doubt. Also, situational running from QB is better than complete improv. Burrow and Stafford were not running QB's, but they had the vision to see when they had a lane to run the ball to get the first down when there were no good options in the passing game.
Quote:
is actually harder than obtaining an élite QB and there are much longer odds in winning the Super Bowl without an elite QB. Those are just the facts which we have gone over here many times.
But I think it is fair to speculate that those odds are getting even longer as the league trends ever more in a direction favorable to QBs. I think it is fair to speculate that Matt Stafford might be the worst QB to win a Super Bowl over the next decade. Which would mean, if you don't have a QB as good as Stafford, your season may be over before it starts. That is how much the game has changed in just the last decade.
Over the last decade plus I would say Flacco and Foles are worse. I think in the next decade plus you will get someone worse than Stafford. What seems to be most important is key pieces on team friendly deals allowing you to splurge elsewhere to fill out the roster. As great of a player as Saquon Barkley is, teams do not win spending that much money on the RB room. In addition, stability at QB is key. The teams that go far primarily use 1 QB the entire season. You may have a back-up for a landslide game, but not when the game is still in doubt. Also, situational running from QB is better than complete improv. Burrow and Stafford were not running QB's, but they had the vision to see when they had a lane to run the ball to get the first down when there were no good options in the passing game.
I agree with most of what you say here. My point was in the next decade, though, not the past decade. It was speculation, of course, but it feels like the league is trending in this direction.
I think I disagree that any QB on a favorable deal is better than having an elite QB. Look at the Rams, what did they have committed to the QB budget line last season? Was it $40M. If given the choice between a cheap average QB (or unproven rookie) and an expensive elite QB, I take the expensive option EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Quote:
In comment 15849866 Producer said:
Quote:
is actually harder than obtaining an élite QB and there are much longer odds in winning the Super Bowl without an elite QB. Those are just the facts which we have gone over here many times.
But I think it is fair to speculate that those odds are getting even longer as the league trends ever more in a direction favorable to QBs. I think it is fair to speculate that Matt Stafford might be the worst QB to win a Super Bowl over the next decade. Which would mean, if you don't have a QB as good as Stafford, your season may be over before it starts. That is how much the game has changed in just the last decade.
Over the last decade plus I would say Flacco and Foles are worse. I think in the next decade plus you will get someone worse than Stafford. What seems to be most important is key pieces on team friendly deals allowing you to splurge elsewhere to fill out the roster. As great of a player as Saquon Barkley is, teams do not win spending that much money on the RB room. In addition, stability at QB is key. The teams that go far primarily use 1 QB the entire season. You may have a back-up for a landslide game, but not when the game is still in doubt. Also, situational running from QB is better than complete improv. Burrow and Stafford were not running QB's, but they had the vision to see when they had a lane to run the ball to get the first down when there were no good options in the passing game.
I agree with most of what you say here. My point was in the next decade, though, not the past decade. It was speculation, of course, but it feels like the league is trending in this direction.
I think I disagree that any QB on a favorable deal is better than having an elite QB. Look at the Rams, what did they have committed to the QB budget line last season? Was it $40M. If given the choice between a cheap average QB (or unproven rookie) and an expensive elite QB, I take the expensive option EVERY SINGLE TIME.
They leveraged other positions and future year cap space to afford people. That is why you are seeing the chickens coming home to roost so far this year with all of the dead money forcing them to play guys who should not be starters. Even the Giants are more prolific on offense through 4 games. When was the last time Aaron Rodgers won a Super Bowl? Yes they have made the playoffs, but consistently came up short because of lack of secondary options on offense (although I think they have lost games because Aaron Rodgers was trying to pad his passing stats rather than using the running game) and terrible DB play.
Quote:
In comment 15848860 MeanBunny said:
Quote:
And see how he fares after end of season. I am just wondering about the options and their relative costs
If Jones is let go the next time you see him he will be playing for a team in the NFC east! The Giants will be in qb hell for 3 - 5 years if they let Jones go, are you willing to wait it out?
Oh my god. The shock and horror. We might see Jones play for an NFCE team?
First of all, I know you're not talking about Dallas because Jones is not anywhere close to Prescott in class. And you're not talking about Hurts at this stage, who is playing great. So you must mean the Washington Commanders. And to the idea that the Commanders might add him, I say, bring it on. I would love to see Jones twice a year in a Commanders uni. But trust me, they won't stick with him for 4 years. It will be one year and done.
Have to disagree about Prescott. $40M failure so far. Rush is a better game manager. You need to watch a few Cowboy games and stop listening to hype from ESPN.
I'm not sure if bridge QB means the same thing to you that it means to me, but I don't see how having TT as the bridge starter would make someone yearn for DJ because the very definition of a bridge QB is temporary in nature.
What I was thinking there is that TT would be the QB for one season, though I realize it could be just a span of games, and during that time we'll see that his flaws are worse than DJ's flaws and we'll be wishing that DJ was playing however many games those were. Which led to my thought that DJ may actually not take it very well if he is clearly a temporary QB with his replacement getting ready.
I also agree that all but the staunchest DJ fans realize he's just not good enough for the Giants to get back to being one of the best teams in the NFL. I'm rooting for DJ to prove us all wrong, while I totally get the issues with his game. I don't see that happening and I am most afraid that he will "almost" improve enough and we'll fall into that trap of giving him just a little more time, a little more coaching, a few better players. I think we have to be done after 2022.
Do you think we win two SBs with Collins + Gallery/Taylor instead of Eli?
That may be true but at this admittedly very premature point, the Giants might not be capable of drafting an Eli-caliber prospect in 2023. They may not even have an opportunity to make the same type of correct move they made in 2004.