I thought Schoen provided some clues regarding the position going forward.
First, Daniel Jones will be on the roster next year. This should be a surprise to no one considering his contract and cap charge next year ($47M). There is no way to move off Jones and I'd assume there is no trade market. So, Jones takes up a spot in the QB room.
This is where I thought his comments were telling:
-Schoen said there are multiple avenues to address the position which include free agency and trade.
-He brought up the bust rate for top 10 QB's drafted while specifically citing the 2018 draft.
-He admitted that they will need to address QB which again isn't a surprise, but it shows just how bare the Giants are at this position.
-He talked about dealing with the NY market. I know some will disagree with me, but I think this does matter. Hurts is an example of a QB who provides no distractions.
A lot depends where NYG picks, for the sake of discussion let's give them two more wins. They squeak out a win somewhere and beat a resting Eagles team to get to 6-11. This probably puts them in the 5-10 range in the draft.
Would Schoen trade their 24 first, 24 second, 25 first, 25 third and Jalin Hyatt to move to the first pick in the draft? I doubt it. Given the roster holes and the financial commitment to Jones in 2024, I don't see it.
I think it's much more likely to trade into the back of the first and draft a QB. Maybe they sit tight and Daniels is there or maybe they can do a modest trade up in the first to secure one of the top tier QB's, but I don't see a situation where they mortgage a ton of draft picks and a young player like Carolina did.
I could see Schoen getting creative though. This would be trading a mid round pick for someone like Justin Fields or someone else out there that is young and still cost effective. One of Daboll's strengths is developing QB's, so maybe a guy like Fields does better under Daboll.
With Jones assured a roster spot, it makes it tricky though. Do you commit to bring back DeVito knowing he wouldn't last on the practice squad? Do you carry three QB's on game day?
I'd bet whoever is brought in (draft or trade) will have a strong chance to be the starting QB next year. I wonder if they feel the need to bring in two QB's or bring back DeVito and keep developing him.
Quote:
In comment 16306429 Go Terps said:
Quote:
What I would do:
1. Cut Jones (I'm going to assume that's possible despite his injury but I don't know if it is)
2. Leave this draft with two of the following QBs (1 from each group): (Group 1)Daniels/Maye/Nix/Penix; (Group 2)Beck/Pratt/Ward/Hartman... This list will certainly change between now and April
What I think the Giants will do:
1. Sign a vet (Tannehill, Brissett, etc.)to start the season as Jones recovers
2. Possibly draft one of the Group 2-type QBs if the opportunity arises
3. Give the starting job back to Jones at some point next season
How does this strategy help Schoen though? We've seen some intense fan outrage (Eli benching, end of Judge), but this level of negligence would be like nothing we've ever seen. The 2024 season would be very uncomfortable and I think there is a good chance they'd all be fired after the season.
it doesn't.
remember this - many of this years QBs are 6th year CFB players. penix and bo nix are going to be 24 year old rookies, so just 3 years younger than Jones except lacking the 2+ years with Daboll in system.
i think nix more than penix is in the group of the most likely players they may draft, so im not saying age vetoes them - the point is jones won games for them and they signed him for extra years over the tag because they like him. there is very little reason to take the penalty of dumping him early bc of 4 bad games. they need to give themselves a quality option under control beyond next year and the best way to do that is 5 years of control on higher grade prospect than devito and then seeing how things play out on the field.
I don't necessarily disagree, but if they take the out, the money isn't intolerable to eat. They're essentially doing so with the Golladay money and they were willing to do so despite really needing the money for other things.
The idea of drafting a 24 year old Bo Nix as QB just seems like window dressing/half measures to me. Mediocre in the SEC, goes to the Pac-12 where the competition isn't as strong and puts up numbers. Not excited for it. Almost smells like appeasement.
Quote:
In comment 16306498 JOrthman said:
Quote:
and he had been to a SB with the team.
Plenty wanted to stick with Collins and draft offensive line then too. Paul Schwartz has an infamous headline saying Go Get Gallery from 04.
You guys are both missing the point of me saying that. It was one of two examples in which a team drafted the air apparent. If you don't like the Giants example, look at the Eagles or countless other teams. Alex Smith had been to the playoffs multiple times when they drafted Mahones.
you are correct. hurts was drafted in 2020 about 10 months after wentz got extended for $144m and $108m in guarantees.
trey lance was drafted with jimmy g under contract (and we all know how that ended up with purdy).
rivers was drafted with drew brees in SD and sat for 2 years.
love drafted with rodgers and sat for 3 years.
it is not that uncommon to take a qb in round 1 while a starter is still under contract (especially if that starter isnt elite and has injury concerns).
Simple as that.
I don't necessarily disagree, but if they take the out, the money isn't intolerable to eat. They're essentially doing so with the Golladay money and they were willing to do so despite really needing the money for other things.
The idea of drafting a 24 year old Bo Nix as QB just seems like window dressing/half measures to me. Mediocre in the SEC, goes to the Pac-12 where the competition isn't as strong and puts up numbers. Not excited for it. Almost smells like appeasement.
Caleb Williams plays in the same P12. Younger yes, but also a lot more turnovers. The offense Nix is in is pretty low risk and that's the type of thing i think only a head coach/oc can translate but he had basically the fewest turnover worthy plays in all of CFB the last 2 years. Remember where Josh Allen came from and what he turned into. I think Nix is in a group they will evaluate (along with Daniels, Penix, Mccarthy obviously Maye/Caleb if they are in reach). this is a better QB class than the prior 2 and they are going to have the ammo to get someone they like somewhere in rd 1.
On the finances you are wrong - cutting Golladay didnt cost them 22m more than keeping him would have this year - as it would to cut jones and 'take the medicine' next year. he would have cost more to cut than keep in 2022, which is why they didnt cut him even when he was a wasted roster spot. they waited to cut him until cutting him saved more money than the dead $.
Quote:
I don't necessarily disagree, but if they take the out, the money isn't intolerable to eat. They're essentially doing so with the Golladay money and they were willing to do so despite really needing the money for other things.
The idea of drafting a 24 year old Bo Nix as QB just seems like window dressing/half measures to me. Mediocre in the SEC, goes to the Pac-12 where the competition isn't as strong and puts up numbers. Not excited for it. Almost smells like appeasement.
Caleb Williams plays in the same P12. Younger yes, but also a lot more turnovers. The offense Nix is in is pretty low risk and that's the type of thing i think only a head coach/oc can translate but he had basically the fewest turnover worthy plays in all of CFB the last 2 years. Remember where Josh Allen came from and what he turned into. I think Nix is in a group they will evaluate (along with Daniels, Penix, Mccarthy obviously Maye/Caleb if they are in reach). this is a better QB class than the prior 2 and they are going to have the ammo to get someone they like somewhere in rd 1.
On the finances you are wrong - cutting Golladay didnt cost them 22m more than keeping him would have this year - as it would to cut jones and 'take the medicine' next year. he would have cost more to cut than keep in 2022, which is why they didnt cut him even when he was a wasted roster spot. they waited to cut him until cutting him saved more money than the dead $.
Am I misunderstanding what's been phrased as an 'out' in the deal after '24?
We've beaten this to death, but very aggressive is debatable at a minimum of 2/82M. Carr effectively got 2/70M if I remember correctly.
I'd categorize this average aggressive.
On what planet does this strategy add up.?
There is ZERO chance ownership will sign off on this “strategy”.
Now we're all enjoying the results.
I don't want to see Jones play anymore at that point. There is nothing else to discover. He is who he is - a mediocre QB who occasionally has a surprisingly good game surrounded by too many bad performances. Like that's going to suddenly change. That bet is decided.
If Dabka can make DeVito look interesting imagine what they would do with an elite talent...
The out after 2024 is that he has no more new cash guaranteed to him if he's cut before 2025.
He has 11.1M in amortized bonus monies attached to 2025 and 2026 respectively. The 2026 cap charge would accelerate if he's a pre-June 1 cut, for a total dead cap charge of 22.2M on 2025.
The net cap savings would be 19.3M on 2025 and 47.5M on 2026.
Quote:
In comment 16306536 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
I don't necessarily disagree, but if they take the out, the money isn't intolerable to eat. They're essentially doing so with the Golladay money and they were willing to do so despite really needing the money for other things.
The idea of drafting a 24 year old Bo Nix as QB just seems like window dressing/half measures to me. Mediocre in the SEC, goes to the Pac-12 where the competition isn't as strong and puts up numbers. Not excited for it. Almost smells like appeasement.
Caleb Williams plays in the same P12. Younger yes, but also a lot more turnovers. The offense Nix is in is pretty low risk and that's the type of thing i think only a head coach/oc can translate but he had basically the fewest turnover worthy plays in all of CFB the last 2 years. Remember where Josh Allen came from and what he turned into. I think Nix is in a group they will evaluate (along with Daniels, Penix, Mccarthy obviously Maye/Caleb if they are in reach). this is a better QB class than the prior 2 and they are going to have the ammo to get someone they like somewhere in rd 1.
On the finances you are wrong - cutting Golladay didnt cost them 22m more than keeping him would have this year - as it would to cut jones and 'take the medicine' next year. he would have cost more to cut than keep in 2022, which is why they didnt cut him even when he was a wasted roster spot. they waited to cut him until cutting him saved more money than the dead $.
Am I misunderstanding what's been phrased as an 'out' in the deal after '24?
you are misunderstanding when the out is available. below is jones contract (otc) follow the 2024 line over and cutting him accelerates an extra $22m hit from future years to bring the total dead $ in 2024 to $69m.
after 2024 (ahead of 2025 season) the out is that they can cut him with $22m of dead money, but save a net of $19m by cutting him since his cap # is scheduled at 41.6m.
Quote:
none of these statistics matter nearly as much as whatever the internal analysis was, and that's the result that spoke loudest. they gave him a very aggressive contract when they could have tagged him just as easily as they declined the 5yo the year before.
We've beaten this to death, but very aggressive is debatable at a minimum of 2/82M. Carr effectively got 2/70M if I remember correctly.
I'd categorize this average aggressive.
my memory is that most expected carr to do better on open market than jones extended with threat of tag. it was certainly a comp we were keeping an eye that jones beat.
The aim is to improve the OL for a QB who is much better than Jones.
Can this be pinned to the top of this forum? Fans struggle to grasp this.
Quote:
In comment 16306549 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16306536 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
I don't necessarily disagree, but if they take the out, the money isn't intolerable to eat. They're essentially doing so with the Golladay money and they were willing to do so despite really needing the money for other things.
The idea of drafting a 24 year old Bo Nix as QB just seems like window dressing/half measures to me. Mediocre in the SEC, goes to the Pac-12 where the competition isn't as strong and puts up numbers. Not excited for it. Almost smells like appeasement.
Caleb Williams plays in the same P12. Younger yes, but also a lot more turnovers. The offense Nix is in is pretty low risk and that's the type of thing i think only a head coach/oc can translate but he had basically the fewest turnover worthy plays in all of CFB the last 2 years. Remember where Josh Allen came from and what he turned into. I think Nix is in a group they will evaluate (along with Daniels, Penix, Mccarthy obviously Maye/Caleb if they are in reach). this is a better QB class than the prior 2 and they are going to have the ammo to get someone they like somewhere in rd 1.
On the finances you are wrong - cutting Golladay didnt cost them 22m more than keeping him would have this year - as it would to cut jones and 'take the medicine' next year. he would have cost more to cut than keep in 2022, which is why they didnt cut him even when he was a wasted roster spot. they waited to cut him until cutting him saved more money than the dead $.
Am I misunderstanding what's been phrased as an 'out' in the deal after '24?
you are misunderstanding when the out is available. below is jones contract (otc) follow the 2024 line over and cutting him accelerates an extra $22m hit from future years to bring the total dead $ in 2024 to $69m.
after 2024 (ahead of 2025 season) the out is that they can cut him with $22m of dead money, but save a net of $19m by cutting him since his cap # is scheduled at 41.6m.
I dont think I misunderstood then but I may have made my point poorly. I'm not suggesting they should cut him at any point before the end of 2024.
Now we're all enjoying the results.
Some seemingly more than others.
I dont think I misunderstood then but I may have made my point poorly. I'm not suggesting they should cut him at any point before the end of 2024.
cutting jones this offseason was what the original post suggested (that sean commented on and I replied to).
In comment 16306536 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
In comment 16306440 Sean said:
Quote:
In comment 16306429 Go Terps said:
Quote:
What I would do:
1. Cut Jones (I'm going to assume that's possible despite his injury but I don't know if it is)
2. Leave this draft with two of the following QBs (1 from each group): (Group 1)Daniels/Maye/Nix/Penix; (Group 2)Beck/Pratt/Ward/Hartman... This list will certainly change between now and April
What I think the Giants will do:
1. Sign a vet (Tannehill, Brissett, etc.)to start the season as Jones recovers
2. Possibly draft one of the Group 2-type QBs if the opportunity arises
3. Give the starting job back to Jones at some point next season
How does this strategy help Schoen though? We've seen some intense fan outrage (Eli benching, end of Judge), but this level of negligence would be like nothing we've ever seen. The 2024 season would be very uncomfortable and I think there is a good chance they'd all be fired after the season.
it doesn't.
remember this - many of this years QBs are 6th year CFB players. penix and bo nix are going to be 24 year old rookies, so just 3 years younger than Jones except lacking the 2+ years with Daboll in system.
i think nix more than penix is in the group of the most likely players they may draft, so im not saying age vetoes them - the point is jones won games for them and they signed him for extra years over the tag because they like him. there is very little reason to take the penalty of dumping him early bc of 4 bad games. they need to give themselves a quality option under control beyond next year and the best way to do that is 5 years of control on higher grade prospect than devito and then seeing how things play out on the field.
I don't necessarily disagree, but if they take the out, the money isn't intolerable to eat. They're essentially doing so with the Golladay money and they were willing to do so despite really needing the money for other things.
The idea of drafting a 24 year old Bo Nix as QB just seems like window dressing/half measures to me. Mediocre in the SEC, goes to the Pac-12 where the competition isn't as strong and puts up numbers. Not excited for it. Almost smells like appeasement.
We've beaten this to death, but very aggressive is debatable at a minimum of 2/82M. Carr effectively got 2/70M if I remember correctly.
I'd categorize this average aggressive.
my memory is that most expected carr to do better on open market than jones extended with threat of tag. it was certainly a comp we were keeping an eye that jones beat.
Sure. My point is that I don't think either qualifies as very aggressive.
The 35-41 practical AAV range is in the bottom third of veteran + starter agreements.
I'd categorize Jones's agreement as more than they should have, but less than they could have.
Quote:
The OL has been poor. So has Jones. Both can be true. In Jones's case his performance has been consistent going back to Duke. This is nothing new.
The aim is to improve the OL for a QB who is much better than Jones.
Can this be pinned to the top of this forum? Fans struggle to grasp this.
It won't matter. A sizeable chunk of this board will not have conclusion on Jones until he is surrounded by a foolproof supporting cast on and off the field.
And even then, they will likely want multiple years to for complete proof.
Other have said it so well. If Jones was available on free agency from another team, NOBODY on this board would want anything to do with him. Even as a stop-gap solution.
Quote:
I certainly agree that their actions spoke loudest about his 2022.
Now we're all enjoying the results.
Some seemingly more than others.
Yeah it's been a great five years watching this level of football and being told it's good. Great experience.
Quote:
In comment 16306144 Thegratefulhead said:
Quote:
In comment 16305337 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
Exactly regarding the remedial offense.
So why did Daboll go along with this?
Was he fooled that he could turn Jones into something more? Or was the decision out of his hands? What answer is worse?
They ran a remedial offense because the offensive line was so poor. You guys act like a simple offense is bad. It can be very good. You do not need to do a lot well. It is much better to a few things well then try to do a bunch of things mediocre.
Just me here, but if I hired a new coordinator and installed a QB's 3rd offense in 4 years, I would make it less complicated, not because of the talent of the QB but because it is the intelligent thing to do.
It worked to the tune of coach of the year.
Everyone here gets far too much wrong to be talking like experts.
When anyone speaks with CERTAINTY like they KNOW, what Daboll or Schoen think or thought, you can only be certain of ONE THING.
That you are listening to an idiot.
Nobody runs an entirely remedial offense because of the OL. Never happened in the history of the NFL. You design the offense first and foremost around the QB. And of course you make provisions when the OL fails. The 2022 gameplan was scaled back from the jump. At no point did the Giants show a willingness to play vertical football. This shouldn't be a surprise. They have been scaling back the offense since the beginning, and Jones has pretty much only played in different flavors of remedial offense since he joined the Giants.
Wrong, very wrong. Design and offense is the wrong description. Let's use game plan.
Only an idiot would install a downfield game-plan with an OL that can't block long enough for it to succeed.
I think there are also idiots who think that a vertical passing game takes any longer to execute than a horizontal short passing game.
The part that takes longer is waiting for WRs to run open (regardless of whether those routes are vertical or horizontal) rather than throwing with anticipation.
I won't guess at Daboll's intent with the offensive scheme here, but I do know that a vertical passing game doesn't necessarily require longer pass pro sets than a horizontal passing game with the sort of concepts that Daboll/Kafka run.
Quote:
none of these statistics matter nearly as much as whatever the internal analysis was, and that's the result that spoke loudest. they gave him a very aggressive contract when they could have tagged him just as easily as they declined the 5yo the year before.
We've beaten this to death, but very aggressive is debatable at a minimum of 2/82M. Carr effectively got 2/70M if I remember correctly.
I'd categorize this average aggressive.
my memory is that most expected carr to do better on open market than jones extended with threat of tag. it was certainly a comp we were keeping an eye that jones beat.
Sure. My point is that I don't think either qualifies as very aggressive.
The 35-41 practical AAV range is in the bottom third of veteran + starter agreements.
I'd categorize Jones's agreement as more than they should have, but less than they could have.
what argument was there for higher? he's at 40m with incentives that could have pushed to $44m. next above that are/were:
allen $43m
mahomes $45m
watson $46m
murray $46.1m
wilson $49m
hurts, herbert, burrow, lamar are all over $50m but none of those were done deals at the time.
jones' contract was aggressive (ive said that since day it was announced). they bet on him for 2 years and lost year 1 and behind the sticks on year 2 bc of the injury.
Fields and Jones have a similar game, Daboll is good at developing QB's and maybe he gets something out of Fields. His contract lines up where he'd be on a rookie deal in 2024 and potentially the 5th year option in 2025.
He would be aligned with Jones in that Schoen could pick up his option in 2025 while Jones is completely off the books in 2026. This assumes Jones is released after next season. The Giants would then decide what to do with Fields in 2026 or have no QB obligations then.
Financially it's not a bad strategy to keep all draft assets and build while you manage the mistake the Jones contract was. A way to do this is bring in a highly talented QB who's been stuck with a poor offensive staff.
Schoen could draft a QB, but the Giants are playing themselves out of Williams/Maye and probably Daniels. Everyone else is going to be a polarizing prospect with flaws most likely.
I think Fields is not a bad play. Trade a 3rd for him. He can compete with Jones & DeVito and probably win the job.
As an aside, couldn't you also see the Eagles bringing in Fields? That's a franchise that is always bringing in QBs.
This is interesting. If you want to throw a little Maranoia into it, that would also put Arch Manning into play as the pivot play in 2026. You know John Mara would find that appealing.
Quote:
In comment 16306569 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I certainly agree that their actions spoke loudest about his 2022.
Now we're all enjoying the results.
Some seemingly more than others.
Yeah it's been a great five years watching this level of football and being told it's good. Great experience.
did you enjoy last year? or did you abstain from both bbi and broadcast television?
Quote:
none of these statistics matter nearly as much as whatever the internal analysis was, and that's the result that spoke loudest. they gave him a very aggressive contract when they could have tagged him just as easily as they declined the 5yo the year before.
We've beaten this to death, but very aggressive is debatable at a minimum of 2/82M. Carr effectively got 2/70M if I remember correctly.
I'd categorize this average aggressive.
my memory is that most expected carr to do better on open market than jones extended with threat of tag. it was certainly a comp we were keeping an eye that jones beat.
Sure. My point is that I don't think either qualifies as very aggressive.
The 35-41 practical AAV range is in the bottom third of veteran + starter agreements.
I'd categorize Jones's agreement as more than they should have, but less than they could have.
I get what you're saying. You're right. They could have committed to the third full year and didn't. Nevertheless, it does feel like they paid close to the top of the market. Which really coincides with a creeping critique of Giants management: They fall in love with their players and have a hard time being objective about evaluations of their marquee draft selections.
And whatever one thought of the deal in the moment, in hindsight, it's a complete disaster. Look at the producton we got for that money. And there's a non-zero chance Jones never throws another pass for the Giants.
Quote:
In comment 16306591 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16306569 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I certainly agree that their actions spoke loudest about his 2022.
Now we're all enjoying the results.
Some seemingly more than others.
Yeah it's been a great five years watching this level of football and being told it's good. Great experience.
did you enjoy last year? or did you abstain from both bbi and broadcast television?
The Minnesota game was fun, but that only lasted a few days before the Eagles reminded us all of where the Giants (and Jones) really are. I didn't leave the season with a good feeling, and I'm surprised so many keep pointing back to it like a great achievement in team history. Standards have plummeted.
I do give the coaches and team a lot of credit. They played well enough to get the result. Jones too. Just no long term faith.
The Minnesota game was fun, but that only lasted a few days before the Eagles reminded us all of where the Giants (and Jones) really are. I didn't leave the season with a good feeling, and I'm surprised so many keep pointing back to it like a great achievement in team history. Standards have plummeted.
it was year 1 of a new regime that had a blank slate. they turned over the majority of the roster, ate a ton of dead $, and presumably had the autonomy to do as they pleased - like declining the 5yo.
it's possible to be critical of mistakes they've made without seeing ghosts that date back before they got here.
their biggest mistakes have been on the OL which trace from their first FA priorities (glowinski, feliciano) to their first draft (neal, ezeudu), to that same eagle game, and now through their intial 53 roster decisions and worst performances early this year that sank the season.
Quote:
In comment 16306582 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
none of these statistics matter nearly as much as whatever the internal analysis was, and that's the result that spoke loudest. they gave him a very aggressive contract when they could have tagged him just as easily as they declined the 5yo the year before.
We've beaten this to death, but very aggressive is debatable at a minimum of 2/82M. Carr effectively got 2/70M if I remember correctly.
I'd categorize this average aggressive.
my memory is that most expected carr to do better on open market than jones extended with threat of tag. it was certainly a comp we were keeping an eye that jones beat.
Sure. My point is that I don't think either qualifies as very aggressive.
The 35-41 practical AAV range is in the bottom third of veteran + starter agreements.
I'd categorize Jones's agreement as more than they should have, but less than they could have.
what argument was there for higher? he's at 40m with incentives that could have pushed to $44m. next above that are/were:
allen $43m
mahomes $45m
watson $46m
murray $46.1m
wilson $49m
hurts, herbert, burrow, lamar are all over $50m but none of those were done deals at the time.
jones' contract was aggressive (ive said that since day it was announced). they bet on him for 2 years and lost year 1 and behind the sticks on year 2 bc of the injury.
You do know that Schoen knew well what Lamar, Herbert, Hurts and Burrow were likley to get. It wasn't a freaking top secret. So you cannot dimiss their contracts.
I think it was too much $$ also, but not far out of line.
The only veteran QBs who have signed contracts with significantly higher AAVs, for likely years of service, than Daniel Jones are Lamar Jackson and DeShaun Watson.
Jones is very comparable, on AAV, to Dak, Russell Wilson and Matt Stafford. As the figures look now, Jones AAV could dip a bit if he goes out after the third year of his contract, but who knows if he will.
Rookie extension AAVs (Allen, Herbert, Mahomes, Hurts, Burrow) as accurately shown in the Cash AAV columns, are very different from, and lower than, the news headline numbers mentioned in this thread because of the spread of money over existing years of control.
Quote
You do know that Schoen knew well what Lamar, Herbert, Hurts and Burrow were likley to get. It wasn't a freaking top secret. So you cannot dimiss their contracts.
I think it was too much $$ also, but not far out of line.
Glad you sign off on the deal. How are you feeling about the results? Jones doesn't belong in the neighborhood with those QBs. He's a $10M QB who got $40M per year
Quote:
In comment 16306603 christian said:
Quote:
In comment 16306582 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
none of these statistics matter nearly as much as whatever the internal analysis was, and that's the result that spoke loudest. they gave him a very aggressive contract when they could have tagged him just as easily as they declined the 5yo the year before.
We've beaten this to death, but very aggressive is debatable at a minimum of 2/82M. Carr effectively got 2/70M if I remember correctly.
I'd categorize this average aggressive.
my memory is that most expected carr to do better on open market than jones extended with threat of tag. it was certainly a comp we were keeping an eye that jones beat.
Sure. My point is that I don't think either qualifies as very aggressive.
The 35-41 practical AAV range is in the bottom third of veteran + starter agreements.
I'd categorize Jones's agreement as more than they should have, but less than they could have.
what argument was there for higher? he's at 40m with incentives that could have pushed to $44m. next above that are/were:
allen $43m
mahomes $45m
watson $46m
murray $46.1m
wilson $49m
hurts, herbert, burrow, lamar are all over $50m but none of those were done deals at the time.
jones' contract was aggressive (ive said that since day it was announced). they bet on him for 2 years and lost year 1 and behind the sticks on year 2 bc of the injury.
You do know that Schoen knew well what Lamar, Herbert, Hurts and Burrow were likley to get. It wasn't a freaking top secret. So you cannot dimiss their contracts.
I think it was too much $$ also, but not far out of line.
obviously everyone knew where the market was going, but schoen had the choice of franchising jones - at a number almost $10m less than he paid him on average - to make him earn on a deal on that level.
instead he chose to take a 20% discount on top of market to get a deal locked in, presumably because they liked jones. i never said it was out of line but it was aggressive. its not impossible jones comes back and proves them right next year.
The only veteran QBs who have signed contracts with significantly higher AAVs, for likely years of service, than Daniel Jones are Lamar Jackson and DeShaun Watson.
Jones is very comparable, on AAV, to Dak, Russell Wilson and Matt Stafford. As the figures look now, Jones AAV could dip a bit if he goes out after the third year of his contract, but who knows if he will.
Rookie extension AAVs (Allen, Herbert, Mahomes, Hurts, Burrow) as accurately shown in the Cash AAV columns, are very different from, and lower than, the news headline numbers mentioned in this thread because of the spread of money over existing years of control.
im not familiar with the cash aav acronym (it's kind of an oxymoron) but i think thats showing what otc calls cash flow, which is perhaps the area where jones' deal was most significantly stronger than carrs.
https://overthecap.com/some-thoughts-on-the-jones-carr-and-smith-contracts - ( New Window )
instead he chose to take a 20% discount on top of market to get a deal locked in, presumably because they liked jones. i never said it was out of line but it was aggressive. its not impossible jones comes back and proves them right next year.
Are you really interested in running this back a 6th year with Jones?
Quote:
instead he chose to take a 20% discount on top of market to get a deal locked in, presumably because they liked jones. i never said it was out of line but it was aggressive. its not impossible jones comes back and proves them right next year.
Are you really interested in running this back a 6th year with Jones?
not without a much better backup plan since he's hurt.
they have more draft ammo than they can expect to have in any future season, both with a high pick and the extra 2nd, and probably a better QB class than the last few. obviously light years better than 2022. i think the obvious move is getting 5-7 years of control from a player several levels more talented than devito and letting things work themselves out on the field. if jones doesnt perform they have an out after next year.
I look at his season really coming down to the games of Seattle, Miami and SF. Both AT and SB were out and to me it showed not only how important both players are but that the BD/JS team made some very critical mistakes this offseason. The three rushing efforts against those three teams were amongst the worst in Giants history. That situation coupled with horrific PB makes me wonder on those not factoring this in.
I think the contract at least says they thought Jones was good enough to win with. Not going NEFT was surprising to me and I think says they had some pretty big expectations. The get out of after two years also could have been about other things not going right and making other changes.
Quote:
instead he chose to take a 20% discount on top of market to get a deal locked in, presumably because they liked jones. i never said it was out of line but it was aggressive. its not impossible jones comes back and proves them right next year.
Are you really interested in running this back a 6th year with Jones?
sadly it won't matter... We are running this back next year. People don't want to believe it but Jones is going to be here and the odds he loses out to a rookie going into his 3rd year in this system won't happen... that doesn't mean he will finish the year as starter but this is going to be run back.
sadly it won't matter... We are running this back next year. People don't want to believe it but Jones is going to be here and the odds he loses out to a rookie going into his 3rd year in this system won't happen... that doesn't mean he will finish the year as starter but this is going to be run back.
Oh, I'm way ahead of you. Until I see hard proof otherwise - like using a high pick on a QB - I expect Schoen to use the draft and free agency to add more parts for Jones. I'm of the school of thought that Schoen led the charge to keep Jones as his signature move as the NYG GM. And 2023 will be categorized as a throwaway year.
Schoen just doesn't strike me as a quick pivot GM. He very likely believes Daboll is one of the better QB whisperers in the NFL. And if he can do it once with Jones, he can do it again with Jones.
I'm dying to be completely wrong, but Jones is like a cat with nine lives.
The irony in this is telling. If Jones was an available free agent from another team, NOBODY on this board would have a scintilla of interest in him. Absolutely NOBODY.
What would be the point, since everyone's so anti-tanking
Quote:
So based on that we're supposed to believe Jones was the 7th best passer in the NFL in 2022?
if you are the fan of EPA you say you are, yes. yards per attempt is a dramatically overrated stat that says as much about the receivers as it does the QB (see Tua's y/a pre-Hill). receiving yards per game by receivers are one of the most stable predictive stats every year, so if you dont have those players you arent going to throw for the most yards per attempt.
total QBR (which does include rushing) was pretty close to EPA. they had him as 13th best passing and 4th best running.
none of these statistics matter nearly as much as whatever the internal analysis was, and that's the result that spoke loudest. they gave him a very aggressive contract when they could have tagged him just as easily as they declined the 5yo the year before.
The article below is on NY/A being one of if not the most important and predictive stats in the NFL. Jones's NY/A in 2022 was 5.74 (24th in the NFL). That was the second highest NY/A of his career (5.92 in 2021).
Jones's career NY/A is 5.46. That ranks him 33rd of the 34 active QBs with at least 1500 pass attempts. Note that the players around him have all been on 3+ teams. Yet we handed him 4/$160M.
Tough to rationalize.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 16306485 Go Terps said:
Quote:
So based on that we're supposed to believe Jones was the 7th best passer in the NFL in 2022?
if you are the fan of EPA you say you are, yes. yards per attempt is a dramatically overrated stat that says as much about the receivers as it does the QB (see Tua's y/a pre-Hill). receiving yards per game by receivers are one of the most stable predictive stats every year, so if you dont have those players you arent going to throw for the most yards per attempt.
total QBR (which does include rushing) was pretty close to EPA. they had him as 13th best passing and 4th best running.
none of these statistics matter nearly as much as whatever the internal analysis was, and that's the result that spoke loudest. they gave him a very aggressive contract when they could have tagged him just as easily as they declined the 5yo the year before.
The article below is on NY/A being one of if not the most important and predictive stats in the NFL. Jones's NY/A in 2022 was 5.74 (24th in the NFL). That was the second highest NY/A of his career (5.92 in 2021).
Jones's career NY/A is 5.46. That ranks him 33rd of the 34 active QBs with at least 1500 pass attempts. Note that the players around him have all been on 3+ teams. Yet we handed him 4/$160M.
Tough to rationalize.
Link - ( New Window )
That is such a weird stat in terms of team success though. Lawrence is the only top QB not in Top 17, but at the same point you have a number ranked highly who have been losers in the NFL like Jameis Winston, Kirk Cousins, etc. You will get no argument from me that Jones is overpaid, but NY/A I don’t think is your best argument.
Quote:
In comment 16306485 Go Terps said:
Quote:
So based on that we're supposed to believe Jones was the 7th best passer in the NFL in 2022?
if you are the fan of EPA you say you are, yes. yards per attempt is a dramatically overrated stat that says as much about the receivers as it does the QB (see Tua's y/a pre-Hill). receiving yards per game by receivers are one of the most stable predictive stats every year, so if you dont have those players you arent going to throw for the most yards per attempt.
total QBR (which does include rushing) was pretty close to EPA. they had him as 13th best passing and 4th best running.
none of these statistics matter nearly as much as whatever the internal analysis was, and that's the result that spoke loudest. they gave him a very aggressive contract when they could have tagged him just as easily as they declined the 5yo the year before.
The article below is on NY/A being one of if not the most important and predictive stats in the NFL. Jones's NY/A in 2022 was 5.74 (24th in the NFL). That was the second highest NY/A of his career (5.92 in 2021).
Jones's career NY/A is 5.46. That ranks him 33rd of the 34 active QBs with at least 1500 pass attempts. Note that the players around him have all been on 3+ teams. Yet we handed him 4/$160M.
Tough to rationalize.
Link - ( New Window )
jeez didn't realize 1 guy at stadiumtalk.com felt that way. this changes everything.
quick question, since i took the time to read the article you linked, what was your new favorite author's 2nd most important and which QB led the league in it last year?
Credit should be given for scoring points and fault should be given for INTs.
On the other hand, sacks are very tough to assign fully on a QB for obvious reasons. And sometimes a sack is just as good as a punt.
I think we sometimes get TOO granular with this sort of thing. Yes, some INTs are the fault of the receiver, but I would argue that tends to balance out with receptions that are made on bad throws that might otherwise have been picked off. And some INTs are effectively as good as a punt, but there are also throws that a defender intentionally knocks down because a turnover on downs would be more favorable.
My point is, over time, the INTs that might not be so bad or might not be the QBs fault tend to balance out with the bad throws that a QB gets away with, bailed out by his receivers or by the defense not intercepting it despite the opportunity.
The same applies to TDs - there are some instances where a pass play ends up inside the five yard line and the offense runs it in, but there are also other plays where a receiver takes a short pass and breaks off a long YAC for a TD, which credits the QB for a passing TD when the pass itself might not have been the reason for the TD (at least not to the extent that the receiver's effort after the catch was responsible).
It might not wash away perfectly clean, but it's pretty close. And when we start to get super granular about it, usually that's because we're only looking for the specific examples that support our argument and not those that weaken it.
We also see this with the close losses that we could/should have won - a lot of posters like to claim that the Giants should have beaten the Jets and Bills this year but for a couple of unfortunate mishaps. Those same posters don't do the same exercise for the wins that could/should have been losses but for a couple of fortunate breaks.
It tends to even out over time. Good things happen more frequently for good teams because they're good teams. Bad things happen more frequently for bad teams because they're bad teams. Sometimes you can stay on the plus side of good luck for most of a season. Sometimes you end up on the wrong side of bad luck for most of a season.
Eventually, you are what your record says you are as a team. And likewise, eventually, you are what your stats say you are as a player.
Quote:
Interceptions can be tough to assign blame to as well. They also can be as good as a punt.
I think we sometimes get TOO granular with this sort of thing. Yes, some INTs are the fault of the receiver, but I would argue that tends to balance out with receptions that are made on bad throws that might otherwise have been picked off. And some INTs are effectively as good as a punt, but there are also throws that a defender intentionally knocks down because a turnover on downs would be more favorable.
My point is, over time, the INTs that might not be so bad or might not be the QBs fault tend to balance out with the bad throws that a QB gets away with, bailed out by his receivers or by the defense not intercepting it despite the opportunity.
The same applies to TDs - there are some instances where a pass play ends up inside the five yard line and the offense runs it in, but there are also other plays where a receiver takes a short pass and breaks off a long YAC for a TD, which credits the QB for a passing TD when the pass itself might not have been the reason for the TD (at least not to the extent that the receiver's effort after the catch was responsible).
It might not wash away perfectly clean, but it's pretty close. And when we start to get super granular about it, usually that's because we're only looking for the specific examples that support our argument and not those that weaken it.
We also see this with the close losses that we could/should have won - a lot of posters like to claim that the Giants should have beaten the Jets and Bills this year but for a couple of unfortunate mishaps. Those same posters don't do the same exercise for the wins that could/should have been losses but for a couple of fortunate breaks.
It tends to even out over time. Good things happen more frequently for good teams because they're good teams. Bad things happen more frequently for bad teams because they're bad teams. Sometimes you can stay on the plus side of good luck for most of a season. Sometimes you end up on the wrong side of bad luck for most of a season.
Eventually, you are what your record says you are as a team. And likewise, eventually, you are what your stats say you are as a player.
No problem with any of that and the same could be said for sacks as well. Over time things will equal out and you'll be what your numbers say. However, for short-term analysis, I think these points are valuable to consider.
Credit should be given for scoring points and fault should be given for INTs.
On the other hand, sacks are very tough to assign fully on a QB for obvious reasons. And sometimes a sack is just as good as a punt.
ANY/A moves Jones up to 32 of 34 active players with 1500+ pass attempts. He jumps over Darnold. No way to shine it.