Ryan Dunleavy
@rydunleavy
·
2h
Important note: #Giants Daniel Jones says that after surgery it was determined that it was just an ACL injury, no other structural damage
I If you can win a Super Bowl with Jeff Hostetler, Nick Foles, Trent Dilfer, and Joe Flacco (none of whom were remotely close to elite), you can win with Daniel Jones.
Hostetler - no salary cap, one of the best defenses in NFL history
Dilfer - paid virtually nothing, one of the best defenses in NFL history
Foles - paid virtually nothing, Foles got absurdly hot briefly
Flacco - rookie contract, played at an elite level in Super Bowl run, at the end of a four-year stretch in which he averaged 22 TDs and 11 INTs per season.
Point being, in the current NFL if you're going to get average QB play and want to put together a Super Bowl team, it had better be on a rookie-type contract. I'm not convinced Daniel Jones even on a rookie deal is capable of that, but when he's a huge chunk of the cap I'm certain he isn't.
I hate these types of arguments. All those QBs won the SB with excellent teams around them. They weren't tasked with winning the SB as much as not losing it. Yes, you can win that way. But, you have to START with a really good team and add the QB at the end of that process. When you draft a guy at #6, you are expecting him to be part of the solution, not requiring an entirely built team around him.
When you draft a guy at #6, you are expecting him to be part of the solution, not requiring an entirely built team around him.
More importantly--at this point--is that when you give a QB a 4-year contract that includes $82M in guaranteed money, you expect him to be part of the solution. And I think Jones can be part of the solution, he just doesn't have to carry the team on his back the way he did in 2022. In today's NFL, in which there are no great teams, you can build a team around Daniel Jones that will get you to the Super Bowl. Of course he needs to stay healthy.
p.s.--Unless you just took a QB in the first round a year or two earlier (and he's playing well for you), I don't think any team should pass on a QB in the first round if he is the BPA when you're on the clock.
Was perfectly played, other than you'd hope it was for less dollars as you would with any contract given the cap.
Letting Jones walk wasn't an option (nor should it have been). His 2023 performance was better than average and his and the team's arrow were clearly pointed upward.
Schoen's other options were:
1) Franchise or transition tag for Jones and the other for Barkley. But that wasn't an option since it required $40MM+ in cap space in July. Not possible; even a long-term Barkley deal (which made no sense) would require $35MM.
2) Sign Jones to a multi-year long-term deal committing to him as Giants franchise QB for many years.
3) Sign Jones to a multi-year short term deal with a manageable '23 cap hit. By definition that would be 3-5 years. It made even more sense because they needed a QB in '24 also (no replacement on the roster).
An upper-tier journeyman starter (say Smith or Garropolo) is ~ $25 million, with prices rising each year.
I think it's outrageous to pay $20 for a great cocktail, but that's what it costs at nicer spots in Austin.
Based on past performance the Giants overpaid by some number, which all teams do at times, for continuity and/or in the expectation of continued improvement from a 26-year old QB with system stability for the first time in his career. They also paid more to only make what is really is a 2-year deal (Jones team likely wanted a real 5 year commitment).
Jones was obviously overpaid for '23. So is Joe Burrow. And so? His contract isn't an issue. He's either back on track or gone in a year.
Keep telling yourself paying $100M for a bad QB was perfectly played. Lol.
As long as you keep telling yourself you have a clue.
When you draft a guy at #6, you are expecting him to be part of the solution, not requiring an entirely built team around him.
More importantly--at this point--is that when you give a QB a 4-year contract that includes $82M in guaranteed money, you expect him to be part of the solution. And I think Jones can be part of the solution, he just doesn't have to carry the team on his back the way he did in 2022. In today's NFL, in which there are no great teams, you can build a team around Daniel Jones that will get you to the Super Bowl. Of course he needs to stay healthy.
p.s.--Unless you just took a QB in the first round a year or two earlier (and he's playing well for you), I don't think any team should pass on a QB in the first round if he is the BPA when you're on the clock.
When you are wrong and have buyers remorse, you don't double down on it. You pivot fast out and away.
If Jones is their guy, I can't think of worse decision than to take a QB in the top 10.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
Past decisions be damned, do you honestly think that if they draft a QB in round 1 that they think “Jones is their guy”? Seriously? That makes no freakin sense. If they draft a QB in round 1, they obviously don’t think Jones is their guy.
If Jones is their guy, I can't think of worse decision than to take a QB in the top 10.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
I'm surprised you are going this route, christian. It isn't consistent with what you were saying back in the summer.
The Giants you say made a 2 year commitment to Jones. They will be half way into that commitment by the time April rolls around. In the first year of the commitment, Jones (a running QB who threw 15 TD's last season) tore his ACL. He also had his second career neck injury.
Did that contract really say that Jones was their guy? Or was it a transitional contract based on what the top QB's have gotten paid?
And if Jones is their guy as you mention, why bother taking a QB in the 2nd round either?
I just don't buy that. The value may not match up with QB, but it won't be due to Jones' contract or Jones being their guy.
Was perfectly played, other than you'd hope it was for less dollars as you would with any contract given the cap.
Letting Jones walk wasn't an option (nor should it have been). His 2023 performance was better than average and his and the team's arrow were clearly pointed upward.
Schoen's other options were:
1) Franchise or transition tag for Jones and the other for Barkley. But that wasn't an option since it required $40MM+ in cap space in July. Not possible; even a long-term Barkley deal (which made no sense) would require $35MM.
2) Sign Jones to a multi-year long-term deal committing to him as Giants franchise QB for many years.
3) Sign Jones to a multi-year short term deal with a manageable '23 cap hit. By definition that would be 3-5 years. It made even more sense because they needed a QB in '24 also (no replacement on the roster).
An upper-tier journeyman starter (say Smith or Garropolo) is ~ $25 million, with prices rising each year.
I think it's outrageous to pay $20 for a great cocktail, but that's what it costs at nicer spots in Austin.
Based on past performance the Giants overpaid by some number, which all teams do at times, for continuity and/or in the expectation of continued improvement from a 26-year old QB with system stability for the first time in his career. They also paid more to only make what is really is a 2-year deal (Jones team likely wanted a real 5 year commitment).
Jones was obviously overpaid for '23. So is Joe Burrow. And so? His contract isn't an issue. He's either back on track or gone in a year.
Keep telling yourself paying $100M for a bad QB was perfectly played. Lol.
As long as you keep telling yourself you have a clue.
You think flushing a $100M down the toilet is perfect business, and I'm the one who doesn't have a clue. Ok, skippy.
If Jones is their guy, I can't think of worse decision than to take a QB in the top 10.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
I'm surprised you are going this route, christian. It isn't consistent with what you were saying back in the summer.
The Giants you say made a 2 year commitment to Jones. They will be half way into that commitment by the time April rolls around. In the first year of the commitment, Jones (a running QB who threw 15 TD's last season) tore his ACL. He also had his second career neck injury.
Did that contract really say that Jones was their guy? Or was it a transitional contract based on what the top QB's have gotten paid?
And if Jones is their guy as you mention, why bother taking a QB in the 2nd round either?
I just don't buy that. The value may not match up with QB, but it won't be due to Jones' contract or Jones being their guy.
I swear someone has hacked christians account. He’s had some bizarre posts for him recently
If the Giants draft a QB in round one Jones is effectively done here, and that would be a major reversal from the statement they made when they signed Jones. Removing whatever you think about Jones, from a timeline perspective drafting a QB doesn't make sense - you'll have $47M in cap space sitting on the bench in 2024. It makes more sense to wait until 2025 or 2026, when you can take full advantage of the cheap rookie QB contract.
I'll emphasize as I have before that this is not the path I would take. I would consider the Jones money thrown away, come out of this draft with two QB picks, and put both Jones and Barkley in the past. But the Giants never do anything I think they should so I'll assume they won't here.
If the Giants draft a QB in round one Jones is effectively done here, and that would be a major reversal from the statement they made when they signed Jones. Removing whatever you think about Jones, from a timeline perspective drafting a QB doesn't make sense
Removing whatever you think about Jones, the recent injuries make passing on a QB worthy of a top ten pick malpractice.[quot]- you'll have $47M in cap space sitting on the bench in 2024.[/quote]No, you'll have $6M in cap space sitting on the bench if Jones rebounds with a healthy year. It worked for Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers.
Quote:
It makes more sense to wait until 2025 or 2026, when you can take full advantage of the cheap rookie QB contract.
Believe me, under no scenario will Schoen and Daboll be operating under the assumption they will be selecting anywhere near the top ten again. When it happens, you don't pass on a QB worthy of the pick, I don't care if Patrick Mahomes is your QB.
If the Giants draft a QB in round one Jones is effectively done here, and that would be a major reversal from the statement they made when they signed Jones. Removing whatever you think about Jones, from a timeline perspective drafting a QB doesn't make sense - you'll have $47M in cap space sitting on the bench in 2024. It makes more sense to wait until 2025 or 2026, when you can take full advantage of the cheap rookie QB contract.
I'll emphasize as I have before that this is not the path I would take. I would consider the Jones money thrown away, come out of this draft with two QB picks, and put both Jones and Barkley in the past. But the Giants never do anything I think they should so I'll assume they won't here.
I get what you’re saying but man I sure hope the Giants prove you wrong. I have absolutely zero appetite for watching Daniel Jones for another year and then deal with another year of the constant debates as to why the offense was allergic to touchdowns, again.
As for christian, it doesn’t really have anything to do with agreeing with him or not agreeing with him. As Sean has stated several times, christians recent posts completely fly in the face of what he’s been saying since the contract was signed. From the day it was signed he was telling us all how great a deal it was for the Giants because of the escape clause and that it was essentially a two year deal that showed at the time the Giants were still not sold on Jones. But suddenly in the past couple of weeks, he’s acting like the contract is a huge anchor and since the Giants proved that they think Jones is the guy by giving him that contract, it would be stupid to draft his replacement. Makes no sense based on his prior opinions on the topic…
I think on one end of the plausible spectrum there was the franchise tender, and on the other there was something in the neighborhood of what Prescott received (3 years of virtually guaranteed money at 100M+). The Giants opted for something in the middle.
I don't think guaranteeing 82M was cavalier. That's a vote of some confidence. It's not the iron clad vote someone like Watson, or even Jackson got. But I don't think it's a vote that gets dismissed because of a torn ACL.
It's just a 2 yr anchor rather than a 3 or 5 yr anchor.
The correct move was to let both Jones and Barkley hit unrestricted free agency, not FT, not sign beforehand. None of the FT crew has successfully defended why FT was better than letting them walk.
It's just a 2 yr anchor rather than a 3 or 5 yr anchor.
The correct move was to let both Jones and Barkley hit unrestricted free agency, not FT, not sign beforehand. None of the FT crew has successfully defended why FT was better than letting them walk.
That was the best choice - yes.
But that wasn't going to happen once Jones displayed a pulse and played relatively well in 2022. So, if you accept that reality, the best approach in compensation was another prove-it offer - the FT.
I think my perspective is pretty consistent. The Giants made a 2 year commitment to Jones. I think when the dust settles and the Giants do the post mortem on the season two things will be pretty clear.
1) Jones's injuries are not career threateners
2) There will be enough plausible deniability (again) to cast doubt on whether Jones is the problem
I think Jones is getting the full two years, with the full faith of the organization. I don't think Schoen gave him those two years and then says JK over a torn ACL and a third of a season behind a pretty disastrous offensive line.
If Schoen was tepid on Jones he would have franchised him.
If you go pick a QB with a lottery pick, you're slamming the door on Jones, or at least you better be.
But I view this as christian saying he doesn't think Schoen et al are ready to move on from Jones. Not as much as many of us think or want.
And it has less to do with the money/contract and more to do with the likelihood they really like Jones.
So, they want it to work. And they will cue up audition #6 by bringing in more infantry for Jones.
Exactly. It's in Schoen's professional best interest for Jones to work out. If Jones is a throw away after one season, that doesn't bode well for Schoen's bona fides at quarterback evaluation.
"Hey John, I know I fucked up with Dan. But don't worry, all I gotta do is trade a bunch of picks and get the real right guy. Trust me."
This isn't the Browns dealing with a shitty person on top of an albatross of a contract. Joe Flacco probably played the best QB all year for them, that's saying something with what they are paying Watson.
This is not a situation where the Giants are trapped. It's a bad contract, but it's nowhere near an upper echelon QB contract.
The implication by some on this thread is the Giants would pass on Caleb Williams with the first pick because they've committed to Jones. No chance Schoen would do that. He's putting all these air miles on just for show? Come on.
The Giants need a QB. I keep hearing about the clean ACL tear, but what about the fact that Jones missed games in 2019. Jones missed games in 2020. Jones missed the final 6 games in 2021. Jones missed 3 games in 2023 before the ACL. Then add in the ACL for a running QB.
The contract was not a full endorsement by any means. If it was, it wouldn't have been such a tough negotiation and there wouldn't have been an out after 2024.
The contract is not good, but it's much closer to Carr and Garoppolo than Herbert or Burrow.
They might not take a QB in the first round. I don't know if it does make sense to trade up and give up a lot of draft capital. They might be picking outside of the top QB's. At most, Jones is an expensive transition QB in 2024 imo who will probably ultimately be benched because of the injury guarantee in 2025.
If you go pick a QB with a lottery pick, you're slamming the door on Jones, or at least you better be.
Why? If Jones is healthy, he will be the starter. Your lottery pick QB sitting for a year doesn't mean the year is wasted and an argument can be made that it's actually for the best. And it would be especially true for a rookie QB playing behind a shaky OL and throwing to mostly young, relatively inexperienced pass catchers. So you start Jones and see what kind of year he and the team have and take it from there.
Duggan had a good write up today that covers a few things, including why the backups have exposed Jones’ flaws. Some interesting stuff… How backups have revealed Daniel Jones’ flaws - ( New Window )
Duggan had a good write up today that covers a few things, including why the backups have exposed Jones’ flaws. Some interesting stuff… How backups have revealed Daniel Jones’ flaws - ( New Window )
I read that. He called Jones 'gun shy'. I don't that changing.
If Jones is their guy, I can't think of worse decision than to take a QB in the top 10.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
I'm surprised you are going this route, christian. It isn't consistent with what you were saying back in the summer.
The Giants you say made a 2 year commitment to Jones. They will be half way into that commitment by the time April rolls around. In the first year of the commitment, Jones (a running QB who threw 15 TD's last season) tore his ACL. He also had his second career neck injury.
Did that contract really say that Jones was their guy? Or was it a transitional contract based on what the top QB's have gotten paid?
And if Jones is their guy as you mention, why bother taking a QB in the 2nd round either?
I just don't buy that. The value may not match up with QB, but it won't be due to Jones' contract or Jones being their guy.
I think my perspective is pretty consistent. The Giants made a 2 year commitment to Jones. I think when the dust settles and the Giants do the post mortem on the season two things will be pretty clear.
1) Jones's injuries are not career threateners
2) There will be enough plausible deniability (again) to cast doubt on whether Jones is the problem
I think Jones is getting the full two years, with the full faith of the organization. I don't think Schoen gave him those two years and then says JK over a torn ACL and a third of a season behind a pretty disastrous offensive line.
If Schoen was tepid on Jones he would have franchised him.
If you go pick a QB with a lottery pick, you're slamming the door on Jones, or at least you better be.
Huh? Talk about moving the goalposts. You were among the crowd who were going against the idea of doing the 5th year guarantee because he was hurt two years ago! He’s hurt again now, twice!!!
If Jones has a marginal season in 2024 you assume they’re just going to run it back again in 2025 while they wait for a QB prospect to fall in their laps or god forbid force another Jones like pick in 2026 or 2027 if they stink again?
Unlikely. Not impossible. But unlikely.
If Schoen runs it back with Jones in 2024 with no winning season and no backup plan, he’s getting fired sooner than later whether it’s in one year or two.
Schoen has to get a buy in and longer term sell of hope in the QB room.
Jones got $40 million a year- the highest of all the free agent qb's available. The dead cap hit in 2025 when he is cut is $22 million I believe, the highest of any of the free agent qb's available. For perspective, that is what Thomas got on his extension and double what Barkley got. So it will cost good LT or 2 primo rb's money to rid ourselves of Jones at the end of next year.
And the warning signs were there: the passing numbers in line with what he had done the previous two seasons, the passing metrics compared to the League were bad, the fact that Jones threw for over 200 yards just twice in the first 9 games where we went 7-2, the 2-5-1 finish, the debacle against the Eagles in the playoffs.
There was no reason to automatically run it back with Jones or to bend over and give in to his demands to be a $40 million per year player and this was stupidly played based on a narrative that Jones had turned this big corner and opposing DC's would go to sleep on his running and not spend the season devising defenses to reign in running qb's.
There were several way this could have been played; bending over and giving in to the demands of a mediocre player was the worst of the options.
The inevitability of Jones's departure is much exaggerated.
Doesn't mean they aren't going to draft a QB though. Unless by some miracle Tommy Cutlets becomes the next big thing (Well, and then stays the next big thing... lol).
DJ has a much greater chance of being the "next great thing" that Devito does...
DJs chances of being the next great thing are zero.
Jones got $40 million a year- the highest of all the free agent qb's available. The dead cap hit in 2025 when he is cut is $22 million I believe, the highest of any of the free agent qb's available. For perspective, that is what Thomas got on his extension and double what Barkley got. So it will cost good LT or 2 primo rb's money to rid ourselves of Jones at the end of next year.
And the warning signs were there: the passing numbers in line with what he had done the previous two seasons, the passing metrics compared to the League were bad, the fact that Jones threw for over 200 yards just twice in the first 9 games where we went 7-2, the 2-5-1 finish, the debacle against the Eagles in the playoffs.
There was no reason to automatically run it back with Jones or to bend over and give in to his demands to be a $40 million per year player and this was stupidly played based on a narrative that Jones had turned this big corner and opposing DC's would go to sleep on his running and not spend the season devising defenses to reign in running qb's.
There were several way this could have been played; bending over and giving in to the demands of a mediocre player was the worst of the options.
This is exactly right. The sad thing is that there are very smart football guys on this thread that continue to believe that this contract was a "sensible hedge" because of the easy out after two years. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no easy out, especially for a team that is rebuilding. As you say Homer, the twenty percent cap hit in 2024 is an unmitigated disaster and the 2025 dead money is equivalent to the AAV of an elite starting left tackle. And let's hope that DJ doesn't get injured in 2024 forcing Schoen to cut him while injured, literally doubling the dead money hit.
The DJ contract was as dumb a move by any GM in NFL history. And no, this is not hyperbole. Please do not compare this to the Watson or Wilson contracts - these were both pro bowl players who have not lived up to legitimate expectations based on actual prior performance. Schoen made a massive bet on the come believing that DJ is a top ten quarterback talent, when he is in fact no better than backups like Marcus Mariota or Mitchell Trubisky.
Or Tyrod Taylor. Or Tommy DeVito. And that entire locker room knows it. So there is no "running DJ back". If Schoen is going to move forward in denial with such a plan, than the "DJ Era" will become synonymous with the "Reign of Schoen" as the worst nightmare in Giants history, replacing the Handley era, the 1970s and the recent three stooges coaching triumvirate as the pinnacle of that which should never be named...
Huh? Talk about moving the goalposts. You were among the crowd who were going against the idea of doing the 5th year guarantee because he was hurt two years ago! He’s hurt again now, twice!!!
I felt Jones was a risk because he couldn't protect himself well running. That's something he's greatly improved.
The neck injury this year cleared up quickly enough he was back on the field, and we all know ACLs are not career enders for QBS.
I think many of you underestimate the support he enjoys in the organization. I don't believe Schoen is operating with an imperative to replace Jones. Rather, I believe he's operating with the hope Jones succeeds.
That's not to say he won't draft a quarterback. But I don't believe he'll pick one in the top 10.
I think the more likely outcome is they trade into the end of round one or pick one on top of round two.
When you draft a guy at #6, you are expecting him to be part of the solution, not requiring an entirely built team around him.
More importantly--at this point--is that when you give a QB a 4-year contract that includes $82M in guaranteed money, you expect him to be part of the solution. And I think Jones can be part of the solution, he just doesn't have to carry the team on his back the way he did in 2022. In today's NFL, in which there are no great teams, you can build a team around Daniel Jones that will get you to the Super Bowl. Of course he needs to stay healthy.
p.s.--Unless you just took a QB in the first round a year or two earlier (and he's playing well for you), I don't think any team should pass on a QB in the first round if he is the BPA when you're on the clock.
First off, Barkley did a lot of that heavy lifting on his back last year. Second of all, if that is carrying the team on his back, it isn't much of a solution. It was a mediocre offense.
Jones got $40 million a year- the highest of all the free agent qb's available. The dead cap hit in 2025 when he is cut is $22 million I believe, the highest of any of the free agent qb's available. For perspective, that is what Thomas got on his extension and double what Barkley got. So it will cost good LT or 2 primo rb's money to rid ourselves of Jones at the end of next year.
And the warning signs were there: the passing numbers in line with what he had done the previous two seasons, the passing metrics compared to the League were bad, the fact that Jones threw for over 200 yards just twice in the first 9 games where we went 7-2, the 2-5-1 finish, the debacle against the Eagles in the playoffs.
There was no reason to automatically run it back with Jones or to bend over and give in to his demands to be a $40 million per year player and this was stupidly played based on a narrative that Jones had turned this big corner and opposing DC's would go to sleep on his running and not spend the season devising defenses to reign in running qb's.
There were several way this could have been played; bending over and giving in to the demands of a mediocre player was the worst of the options.
This is exactly right. The sad thing is that there are very smart football guys on this thread that continue to believe that this contract was a "sensible hedge" because of the easy out after two years. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no easy out, especially for a team that is rebuilding. As you say Homer, the twenty percent cap hit in 2024 is an unmitigated disaster and the 2025 dead money is equivalent to the AAV of an elite starting left tackle. And let's hope that DJ doesn't get injured in 2024 forcing Schoen to cut him while injured, literally doubling the dead money hit.
The DJ contract was as dumb a move by any GM in NFL history. And no, this is not hyperbole. Please do not compare this to the Watson or Wilson contracts - these were both pro bowl players who have not lived up to legitimate expectations based on actual prior performance. Schoen made a massive bet on the come believing that DJ is a top ten quarterback talent, when he is in fact no better than backups like Marcus Mariota or Mitchell Trubisky.
Or Tyrod Taylor. Or Tommy DeVito. And that entire locker room knows it. So there is no "running DJ back". If Schoen is going to move forward in denial with such a plan, than the "DJ Era" will become synonymous with the "Reign of Schoen" as the worst nightmare in Giants history, replacing the Handley era, the 1970s and the recent three stooges coaching triumvirate as the pinnacle of that which should never be named...
I don't like anyone referring to that as an "easy out". It requires an obscene amount of additional guaranteed money next season in the form of salary, which can't be amortized. There is nothing easy about the ridiculous cap cost next year for a mediocre QB.
Jones got $40 million a year- the highest of all the free agent qb's available. The dead cap hit in 2025 when he is cut is $22 million I believe, the highest of any of the free agent qb's available. For perspective, that is what Thomas got on his extension and double what Barkley got. So it will cost good LT or 2 primo rb's money to rid ourselves of Jones at the end of next year.
And the warning signs were there: the passing numbers in line with what he had done the previous two seasons, the passing metrics compared to the League were bad, the fact that Jones threw for over 200 yards just twice in the first 9 games where we went 7-2, the 2-5-1 finish, the debacle against the Eagles in the playoffs.
There was no reason to automatically run it back with Jones or to bend over and give in to his demands to be a $40 million per year player and this was stupidly played based on a narrative that Jones had turned this big corner and opposing DC's would go to sleep on his running and not spend the season devising defenses to reign in running qb's.
There were several way this could have been played; bending over and giving in to the demands of a mediocre player was the worst of the options.
100%. The ONLY reasons I got on board with re-signing him after the season were a) he seemed to have entrenched himself as THE leader of this team and b) I was resigned to the fact that it seemed inevitable. But, I maintained throughout the off season through the present that re-signing him should never have been over the $20-25M range. I didn't want to hear the "market for QBs" because he still hadn't proven himself as a top 10 QB.
I think a couple made salient points to remind us that comparing his deal to Watson or Wilson is apples to oranges because his was based 100% on hope, while theirs were based on past performance. That said, their deals were both stupid as well.
The real comp would be Hurts. Is anyone happier with Jones than Hurts?
I think the more likely outcome is they trade into the end of round one or pick one on top of round two.
The problem with that (from the pro-Jones perspective) is that the QBs that figure to be there at the 1/2 turn are going to be far more talented prospects than Jones.
If they draft Penix or Nix, sitting either of them behind Jones is both a waste of time and a misallocation of resources. Either of them becomes the most talented QB on the team the day they're drafted.
I think the more likely outcome is they trade into the end of round one or pick one on top of round two.
The problem with that (from the pro-Jones perspective) is that the QBs that figure to be there at the 1/2 turn are going to be far more talented prospects than Jones.
If they draft Penix or Nix, sitting either of them behind Jones is both a waste of time and a misallocation of resources. Either of them becomes the most talented QB on the team the day they're drafted.
I agree, but also wouldn't draft Penix and I'm hot and cold on Nix. Neither faces a lot of pressure for one. So, it is difficult to gauge. But, Penix has had 4 major injuries already. I just wouldn't chance it.
If they just miss out on Williams, Maye, or Daniels (my personal favorite of the 3), it will be an interesting thing to watch. I don't think any of the other QBs are worthy of a top 10 pick. Will they spend one on guys who are certainly talented, but less likely to be sure things in the pros?
I think the more likely outcome is they trade into the end of round one or pick one on top of round two.
The problem with that (from the pro-Jones perspective) is that the QBs that figure to be there at the 1/2 turn are going to be far more talented prospects than Jones.
If they draft Penix or Nix, sitting either of them behind Jones is both a waste of time and a misallocation of resources. Either of them becomes the most talented QB on the team the day they're drafted.
To be clear, I think you know my preference is they trade whatever is necessary to draft Daniels. And then hold Jones out with the small hope they can recoup some nominal compensation in a trade when he's healthy.
But that's fantasy world stuff.
Why should I believe the Giants won't give Jones every opportunity to keep the job?
I don't think that scenario is anywhere near fantasy land. I just don't believe Schoen is as sold on Jones as you do.
The contract is awful, but it's not like it was unexpected. Most of BBI predicted the AAV to be around $37M. Schoen valued the QB over the RB. He was wrong.
I don't think he'll double down on Jones and get himself fired in 2025/26. Daboll has even more pressure.
This is a franchise that listens to the fans. Duggan's poll had 77% of fans wanting to move on from Jones.
You’ve been making (depressingly) sensible points throughout the thread. But one obstacle to the “run it back with Jones argument” is that Daboll absolutely cannot have his third season torpedoed by the type of QB play Jones was displaying this year. And Jones is so inconsistent we don’t know what type of player will show up. Daboll would be playing Russian Roulette with a Jones 2024 campaign.
So Daboll can’t just anoint Jones the QB. That suggests his preference would be a pretty high draftee at the position and with open competition and the guy playing the best in camp earning the week 1 start.
The timing of this also needs to be considered. If I were Daboll, and Mara and Schoen told me that the Jones would be the starting QB next year, I’d start making phone calls to see if the rumored openings with the chargers and Bills represented an alternative. But this needs to be resolved in January, when NFL HCs are hired. So the timing presents another complication.
Sure hope our front office is already hashing this out this month.
People get memorized sometimes by college numbers. Injury prone. Immobile. Too many high rush throws.
Looks good because he plays with the 2nd best WRs group in the nation in the worst defensive conference in football.
Where were these gaudy stats at Indiana? Kid played six years of college football. For perspective - he’s been in college longer than Jones has been in the NFL.
Lol
Penix is then one guy inbound absolutely stay away from
Quote:
I If you can win a Super Bowl with Jeff Hostetler, Nick Foles, Trent Dilfer, and Joe Flacco (none of whom were remotely close to elite), you can win with Daniel Jones.
Hostetler - no salary cap, one of the best defenses in NFL history
Dilfer - paid virtually nothing, one of the best defenses in NFL history
Foles - paid virtually nothing, Foles got absurdly hot briefly
Flacco - rookie contract, played at an elite level in Super Bowl run, at the end of a four-year stretch in which he averaged 22 TDs and 11 INTs per season.
Point being, in the current NFL if you're going to get average QB play and want to put together a Super Bowl team, it had better be on a rookie-type contract. I'm not convinced Daniel Jones even on a rookie deal is capable of that, but when he's a huge chunk of the cap I'm certain he isn't.
p.s.--Unless you just took a QB in the first round a year or two earlier (and he's playing well for you), I don't think any team should pass on a QB in the first round if he is the BPA when you're on the clock.
Quote:
Was perfectly played, other than you'd hope it was for less dollars as you would with any contract given the cap.
Letting Jones walk wasn't an option (nor should it have been). His 2023 performance was better than average and his and the team's arrow were clearly pointed upward.
Schoen's other options were:
1) Franchise or transition tag for Jones and the other for Barkley. But that wasn't an option since it required $40MM+ in cap space in July. Not possible; even a long-term Barkley deal (which made no sense) would require $35MM.
2) Sign Jones to a multi-year long-term deal committing to him as Giants franchise QB for many years.
3) Sign Jones to a multi-year short term deal with a manageable '23 cap hit. By definition that would be 3-5 years. It made even more sense because they needed a QB in '24 also (no replacement on the roster).
An upper-tier journeyman starter (say Smith or Garropolo) is ~ $25 million, with prices rising each year.
I think it's outrageous to pay $20 for a great cocktail, but that's what it costs at nicer spots in Austin.
Based on past performance the Giants overpaid by some number, which all teams do at times, for continuity and/or in the expectation of continued improvement from a 26-year old QB with system stability for the first time in his career. They also paid more to only make what is really is a 2-year deal (Jones team likely wanted a real 5 year commitment).
Jones was obviously overpaid for '23. So is Joe Burrow. And so? His contract isn't an issue. He's either back on track or gone in a year.
Keep telling yourself paying $100M for a bad QB was perfectly played. Lol.
As long as you keep telling yourself you have a clue.
Quote:
When you draft a guy at #6, you are expecting him to be part of the solution, not requiring an entirely built team around him.
More importantly--at this point--is that when you give a QB a 4-year contract that includes $82M in guaranteed money, you expect him to be part of the solution. And I think Jones can be part of the solution, he just doesn't have to carry the team on his back the way he did in 2022. In today's NFL, in which there are no great teams, you can build a team around Daniel Jones that will get you to the Super Bowl. Of course he needs to stay healthy.
p.s.--Unless you just took a QB in the first round a year or two earlier (and he's playing well for you), I don't think any team should pass on a QB in the first round if he is the BPA when you're on the clock.
When you are wrong and have buyers remorse, you don't double down on it. You pivot fast out and away.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
Past decisions be damned, do you honestly think that if they draft a QB in round 1 that they think “Jones is their guy”? Seriously? That makes no freakin sense. If they draft a QB in round 1, they obviously don’t think Jones is their guy.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
I'm surprised you are going this route, christian. It isn't consistent with what you were saying back in the summer.
The Giants you say made a 2 year commitment to Jones. They will be half way into that commitment by the time April rolls around. In the first year of the commitment, Jones (a running QB who threw 15 TD's last season) tore his ACL. He also had his second career neck injury.
Did that contract really say that Jones was their guy? Or was it a transitional contract based on what the top QB's have gotten paid?
And if Jones is their guy as you mention, why bother taking a QB in the 2nd round either?
I just don't buy that. The value may not match up with QB, but it won't be due to Jones' contract or Jones being their guy.
Quote:
In comment 16316359 HBart said:
Quote:
Was perfectly played, other than you'd hope it was for less dollars as you would with any contract given the cap.
Letting Jones walk wasn't an option (nor should it have been). His 2023 performance was better than average and his and the team's arrow were clearly pointed upward.
Schoen's other options were:
1) Franchise or transition tag for Jones and the other for Barkley. But that wasn't an option since it required $40MM+ in cap space in July. Not possible; even a long-term Barkley deal (which made no sense) would require $35MM.
2) Sign Jones to a multi-year long-term deal committing to him as Giants franchise QB for many years.
3) Sign Jones to a multi-year short term deal with a manageable '23 cap hit. By definition that would be 3-5 years. It made even more sense because they needed a QB in '24 also (no replacement on the roster).
An upper-tier journeyman starter (say Smith or Garropolo) is ~ $25 million, with prices rising each year.
I think it's outrageous to pay $20 for a great cocktail, but that's what it costs at nicer spots in Austin.
Based on past performance the Giants overpaid by some number, which all teams do at times, for continuity and/or in the expectation of continued improvement from a 26-year old QB with system stability for the first time in his career. They also paid more to only make what is really is a 2-year deal (Jones team likely wanted a real 5 year commitment).
Jones was obviously overpaid for '23. So is Joe Burrow. And so? His contract isn't an issue. He's either back on track or gone in a year.
Keep telling yourself paying $100M for a bad QB was perfectly played. Lol.
As long as you keep telling yourself you have a clue.
You think flushing a $100M down the toilet is perfect business, and I'm the one who doesn't have a clue. Ok, skippy.
Quote:
If Jones is their guy, I can't think of worse decision than to take a QB in the top 10.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
I'm surprised you are going this route, christian. It isn't consistent with what you were saying back in the summer.
The Giants you say made a 2 year commitment to Jones. They will be half way into that commitment by the time April rolls around. In the first year of the commitment, Jones (a running QB who threw 15 TD's last season) tore his ACL. He also had his second career neck injury.
Did that contract really say that Jones was their guy? Or was it a transitional contract based on what the top QB's have gotten paid?
And if Jones is their guy as you mention, why bother taking a QB in the 2nd round either?
I just don't buy that. The value may not match up with QB, but it won't be due to Jones' contract or Jones being their guy.
I swear someone has hacked christians account. He’s had some bizarre posts for him recently
I'll emphasize as I have before that this is not the path I would take. I would consider the Jones money thrown away, come out of this draft with two QB picks, and put both Jones and Barkley in the past. But the Giants never do anything I think they should so I'll assume they won't here.
I'll emphasize as I have before that this is not the path I would take. I would consider the Jones money thrown away, come out of this draft with two QB picks, and put both Jones and Barkley in the past. But the Giants never do anything I think they should so I'll assume they won't here.
I get what you’re saying but man I sure hope the Giants prove you wrong. I have absolutely zero appetite for watching Daniel Jones for another year and then deal with another year of the constant debates as to why the offense was allergic to touchdowns, again.
As for christian, it doesn’t really have anything to do with agreeing with him or not agreeing with him. As Sean has stated several times, christians recent posts completely fly in the face of what he’s been saying since the contract was signed. From the day it was signed he was telling us all how great a deal it was for the Giants because of the escape clause and that it was essentially a two year deal that showed at the time the Giants were still not sold on Jones. But suddenly in the past couple of weeks, he’s acting like the contract is a huge anchor and since the Giants proved that they think Jones is the guy by giving him that contract, it would be stupid to draft his replacement. Makes no sense based on his prior opinions on the topic…
I wanna vomit.
I don't think guaranteeing 82M was cavalier. That's a vote of some confidence. It's not the iron clad vote someone like Watson, or even Jackson got. But I don't think it's a vote that gets dismissed because of a torn ACL.
And it has less to do with the money/contract and more to do with the likelihood they really like Jones.
So, they want it to work. And they will cue up audition #6 by bringing in more infantry for Jones.
The correct move was to let both Jones and Barkley hit unrestricted free agency, not FT, not sign beforehand. None of the FT crew has successfully defended why FT was better than letting them walk.
The correct move was to let both Jones and Barkley hit unrestricted free agency, not FT, not sign beforehand. None of the FT crew has successfully defended why FT was better than letting them walk.
That was the best choice - yes.
But that wasn't going to happen once Jones displayed a pulse and played relatively well in 2022. So, if you accept that reality, the best approach in compensation was another prove-it offer - the FT.
1) Jones's injuries are not career threateners
2) There will be enough plausible deniability (again) to cast doubt on whether Jones is the problem
I think Jones is getting the full two years, with the full faith of the organization. I don't think Schoen gave him those two years and then says JK over a torn ACL and a third of a season behind a pretty disastrous offensive line.
If Schoen was tepid on Jones he would have franchised him.
If you go pick a QB with a lottery pick, you're slamming the door on Jones, or at least you better be.
And it has less to do with the money/contract and more to do with the likelihood they really like Jones.
So, they want it to work. And they will cue up audition #6 by bringing in more infantry for Jones.
Exactly. It's in Schoen's professional best interest for Jones to work out. If Jones is a throw away after one season, that doesn't bode well for Schoen's bona fides at quarterback evaluation.
"Hey John, I know I fucked up with Dan. But don't worry, all I gotta do is trade a bunch of picks and get the real right guy. Trust me."
This is not a situation where the Giants are trapped. It's a bad contract, but it's nowhere near an upper echelon QB contract.
The implication by some on this thread is the Giants would pass on Caleb Williams with the first pick because they've committed to Jones. No chance Schoen would do that. He's putting all these air miles on just for show? Come on.
The Giants need a QB. I keep hearing about the clean ACL tear, but what about the fact that Jones missed games in 2019. Jones missed games in 2020. Jones missed the final 6 games in 2021. Jones missed 3 games in 2023 before the ACL. Then add in the ACL for a running QB.
The contract was not a full endorsement by any means. If it was, it wouldn't have been such a tough negotiation and there wouldn't have been an out after 2024.
The contract is not good, but it's much closer to Carr and Garoppolo than Herbert or Burrow.
They might not take a QB in the first round. I don't know if it does make sense to trade up and give up a lot of draft capital. They might be picking outside of the top QB's. At most, Jones is an expensive transition QB in 2024 imo who will probably ultimately be benched because of the injury guarantee in 2025.
If you go pick a QB with a lottery pick, you're slamming the door on Jones, or at least you better be.
How backups have revealed Daniel Jones’ flaws - ( New Window )
Subscribe, not prescribe, lol
I read that. He called Jones 'gun shy'. I don't that changing.
Can we please move the fuck on?
Quote:
If Jones is their guy, I can't think of worse decision than to take a QB in the top 10.
Even if you groom the pick, there's virtually no chance you get back what you paid for him in a trade.
If Jones is their guy, they damn well better be drafting a skill player on round one.
I'm surprised you are going this route, christian. It isn't consistent with what you were saying back in the summer.
The Giants you say made a 2 year commitment to Jones. They will be half way into that commitment by the time April rolls around. In the first year of the commitment, Jones (a running QB who threw 15 TD's last season) tore his ACL. He also had his second career neck injury.
Did that contract really say that Jones was their guy? Or was it a transitional contract based on what the top QB's have gotten paid?
And if Jones is their guy as you mention, why bother taking a QB in the 2nd round either?
I just don't buy that. The value may not match up with QB, but it won't be due to Jones' contract or Jones being their guy.
^This
1) Jones's injuries are not career threateners
2) There will be enough plausible deniability (again) to cast doubt on whether Jones is the problem
I think Jones is getting the full two years, with the full faith of the organization. I don't think Schoen gave him those two years and then says JK over a torn ACL and a third of a season behind a pretty disastrous offensive line.
If Schoen was tepid on Jones he would have franchised him.
If you go pick a QB with a lottery pick, you're slamming the door on Jones, or at least you better be.
Huh? Talk about moving the goalposts. You were among the crowd who were going against the idea of doing the 5th year guarantee because he was hurt two years ago! He’s hurt again now, twice!!!
If Jones has a marginal season in 2024 you assume they’re just going to run it back again in 2025 while they wait for a QB prospect to fall in their laps or god forbid force another Jones like pick in 2026 or 2027 if they stink again?
Unlikely. Not impossible. But unlikely.
If Schoen runs it back with Jones in 2024 with no winning season and no backup plan, he’s getting fired sooner than later whether it’s in one year or two.
Schoen has to get a buy in and longer term sell of hope in the QB room.
Jones got $40 million a year- the highest of all the free agent qb's available. The dead cap hit in 2025 when he is cut is $22 million I believe, the highest of any of the free agent qb's available. For perspective, that is what Thomas got on his extension and double what Barkley got. So it will cost good LT or 2 primo rb's money to rid ourselves of Jones at the end of next year.
And the warning signs were there: the passing numbers in line with what he had done the previous two seasons, the passing metrics compared to the League were bad, the fact that Jones threw for over 200 yards just twice in the first 9 games where we went 7-2, the 2-5-1 finish, the debacle against the Eagles in the playoffs.
There was no reason to automatically run it back with Jones or to bend over and give in to his demands to be a $40 million per year player and this was stupidly played based on a narrative that Jones had turned this big corner and opposing DC's would go to sleep on his running and not spend the season devising defenses to reign in running qb's.
There were several way this could have been played; bending over and giving in to the demands of a mediocre player was the worst of the options.
Quote:
In comment 16315506 Johnny5 said:
Quote:
In comment 16315366 christian said:
Quote:
The inevitability of Jones's departure is much exaggerated.
Doesn't mean they aren't going to draft a QB though. Unless by some miracle Tommy Cutlets becomes the next big thing (Well, and then stays the next big thing... lol).
DJ has a much greater chance of being the "next great thing" that Devito does...
DJs chances of being the next great thing are zero.
I guess it takes one to know one.... eh?
Jones got $40 million a year- the highest of all the free agent qb's available. The dead cap hit in 2025 when he is cut is $22 million I believe, the highest of any of the free agent qb's available. For perspective, that is what Thomas got on his extension and double what Barkley got. So it will cost good LT or 2 primo rb's money to rid ourselves of Jones at the end of next year.
And the warning signs were there: the passing numbers in line with what he had done the previous two seasons, the passing metrics compared to the League were bad, the fact that Jones threw for over 200 yards just twice in the first 9 games where we went 7-2, the 2-5-1 finish, the debacle against the Eagles in the playoffs.
There was no reason to automatically run it back with Jones or to bend over and give in to his demands to be a $40 million per year player and this was stupidly played based on a narrative that Jones had turned this big corner and opposing DC's would go to sleep on his running and not spend the season devising defenses to reign in running qb's.
There were several way this could have been played; bending over and giving in to the demands of a mediocre player was the worst of the options.
This is exactly right. The sad thing is that there are very smart football guys on this thread that continue to believe that this contract was a "sensible hedge" because of the easy out after two years. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no easy out, especially for a team that is rebuilding. As you say Homer, the twenty percent cap hit in 2024 is an unmitigated disaster and the 2025 dead money is equivalent to the AAV of an elite starting left tackle. And let's hope that DJ doesn't get injured in 2024 forcing Schoen to cut him while injured, literally doubling the dead money hit.
The DJ contract was as dumb a move by any GM in NFL history. And no, this is not hyperbole. Please do not compare this to the Watson or Wilson contracts - these were both pro bowl players who have not lived up to legitimate expectations based on actual prior performance. Schoen made a massive bet on the come believing that DJ is a top ten quarterback talent, when he is in fact no better than backups like Marcus Mariota or Mitchell Trubisky.
Or Tyrod Taylor. Or Tommy DeVito. And that entire locker room knows it. So there is no "running DJ back". If Schoen is going to move forward in denial with such a plan, than the "DJ Era" will become synonymous with the "Reign of Schoen" as the worst nightmare in Giants history, replacing the Handley era, the 1970s and the recent three stooges coaching triumvirate as the pinnacle of that which should never be named...
I felt Jones was a risk because he couldn't protect himself well running. That's something he's greatly improved.
The neck injury this year cleared up quickly enough he was back on the field, and we all know ACLs are not career enders for QBS.
I think many of you underestimate the support he enjoys in the organization. I don't believe Schoen is operating with an imperative to replace Jones. Rather, I believe he's operating with the hope Jones succeeds.
That's not to say he won't draft a quarterback. But I don't believe he'll pick one in the top 10.
I think the more likely outcome is they trade into the end of round one or pick one on top of round two.
Quote:
When you draft a guy at #6, you are expecting him to be part of the solution, not requiring an entirely built team around him.
More importantly--at this point--is that when you give a QB a 4-year contract that includes $82M in guaranteed money, you expect him to be part of the solution. And I think Jones can be part of the solution, he just doesn't have to carry the team on his back the way he did in 2022. In today's NFL, in which there are no great teams, you can build a team around Daniel Jones that will get you to the Super Bowl. Of course he needs to stay healthy.
p.s.--Unless you just took a QB in the first round a year or two earlier (and he's playing well for you), I don't think any team should pass on a QB in the first round if he is the BPA when you're on the clock.
Quote:
all the sugar coating in the world won't hide it.
Jones got $40 million a year- the highest of all the free agent qb's available. The dead cap hit in 2025 when he is cut is $22 million I believe, the highest of any of the free agent qb's available. For perspective, that is what Thomas got on his extension and double what Barkley got. So it will cost good LT or 2 primo rb's money to rid ourselves of Jones at the end of next year.
And the warning signs were there: the passing numbers in line with what he had done the previous two seasons, the passing metrics compared to the League were bad, the fact that Jones threw for over 200 yards just twice in the first 9 games where we went 7-2, the 2-5-1 finish, the debacle against the Eagles in the playoffs.
There was no reason to automatically run it back with Jones or to bend over and give in to his demands to be a $40 million per year player and this was stupidly played based on a narrative that Jones had turned this big corner and opposing DC's would go to sleep on his running and not spend the season devising defenses to reign in running qb's.
There were several way this could have been played; bending over and giving in to the demands of a mediocre player was the worst of the options.
This is exactly right. The sad thing is that there are very smart football guys on this thread that continue to believe that this contract was a "sensible hedge" because of the easy out after two years. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no easy out, especially for a team that is rebuilding. As you say Homer, the twenty percent cap hit in 2024 is an unmitigated disaster and the 2025 dead money is equivalent to the AAV of an elite starting left tackle. And let's hope that DJ doesn't get injured in 2024 forcing Schoen to cut him while injured, literally doubling the dead money hit.
The DJ contract was as dumb a move by any GM in NFL history. And no, this is not hyperbole. Please do not compare this to the Watson or Wilson contracts - these were both pro bowl players who have not lived up to legitimate expectations based on actual prior performance. Schoen made a massive bet on the come believing that DJ is a top ten quarterback talent, when he is in fact no better than backups like Marcus Mariota or Mitchell Trubisky.
Or Tyrod Taylor. Or Tommy DeVito. And that entire locker room knows it. So there is no "running DJ back". If Schoen is going to move forward in denial with such a plan, than the "DJ Era" will become synonymous with the "Reign of Schoen" as the worst nightmare in Giants history, replacing the Handley era, the 1970s and the recent three stooges coaching triumvirate as the pinnacle of that which should never be named...
Jones got $40 million a year- the highest of all the free agent qb's available. The dead cap hit in 2025 when he is cut is $22 million I believe, the highest of any of the free agent qb's available. For perspective, that is what Thomas got on his extension and double what Barkley got. So it will cost good LT or 2 primo rb's money to rid ourselves of Jones at the end of next year.
And the warning signs were there: the passing numbers in line with what he had done the previous two seasons, the passing metrics compared to the League were bad, the fact that Jones threw for over 200 yards just twice in the first 9 games where we went 7-2, the 2-5-1 finish, the debacle against the Eagles in the playoffs.
There was no reason to automatically run it back with Jones or to bend over and give in to his demands to be a $40 million per year player and this was stupidly played based on a narrative that Jones had turned this big corner and opposing DC's would go to sleep on his running and not spend the season devising defenses to reign in running qb's.
There were several way this could have been played; bending over and giving in to the demands of a mediocre player was the worst of the options.
I think a couple made salient points to remind us that comparing his deal to Watson or Wilson is apples to oranges because his was based 100% on hope, while theirs were based on past performance. That said, their deals were both stupid as well.
The real comp would be Hurts. Is anyone happier with Jones than Hurts?
I think the more likely outcome is they trade into the end of round one or pick one on top of round two.
The problem with that (from the pro-Jones perspective) is that the QBs that figure to be there at the 1/2 turn are going to be far more talented prospects than Jones.
If they draft Penix or Nix, sitting either of them behind Jones is both a waste of time and a misallocation of resources. Either of them becomes the most talented QB on the team the day they're drafted.
Quote:
I think the more likely outcome is they trade into the end of round one or pick one on top of round two.
The problem with that (from the pro-Jones perspective) is that the QBs that figure to be there at the 1/2 turn are going to be far more talented prospects than Jones.
If they draft Penix or Nix, sitting either of them behind Jones is both a waste of time and a misallocation of resources. Either of them becomes the most talented QB on the team the day they're drafted.
If they just miss out on Williams, Maye, or Daniels (my personal favorite of the 3), it will be an interesting thing to watch. I don't think any of the other QBs are worthy of a top 10 pick. Will they spend one on guys who are certainly talented, but less likely to be sure things in the pros?
The problem with that (from the pro-Jones perspective) is that the QBs that figure to be there at the 1/2 turn are going to be far more talented prospects than Jones.
If they draft Penix or Nix, sitting either of them behind Jones is both a waste of time and a misallocation of resources. Either of them becomes the most talented QB on the team the day they're drafted.
To be clear, I think you know my preference is they trade whatever is necessary to draft Daniels. And then hold Jones out with the small hope they can recoup some nominal compensation in a trade when he's healthy.
But that's fantasy world stuff.
Why should I believe the Giants won't give Jones every opportunity to keep the job?
The contract is awful, but it's not like it was unexpected. Most of BBI predicted the AAV to be around $37M. Schoen valued the QB over the RB. He was wrong.
I don't think he'll double down on Jones and get himself fired in 2025/26. Daboll has even more pressure.
This is a franchise that listens to the fans. Duggan's poll had 77% of fans wanting to move on from Jones.
So Daboll can’t just anoint Jones the QB. That suggests his preference would be a pretty high draftee at the position and with open competition and the guy playing the best in camp earning the week 1 start.
The timing of this also needs to be considered. If I were Daboll, and Mara and Schoen told me that the Jones would be the starting QB next year, I’d start making phone calls to see if the rumored openings with the chargers and Bills represented an alternative. But this needs to be resolved in January, when NFL HCs are hired. So the timing presents another complication.
Sure hope our front office is already hashing this out this month.
Go get Jayden Daniels.
I don't think there's much doubling down required.
I think a very plausible outcome is Jones is PUP until mid-August, and the other two quarterbacks on the roster are DeVito and say Penix.
When Jones gets healthy he gets his job back. If he plays poorly, Daboll goes to the rookie.
Looks good because he plays with the 2nd best WRs group in the nation in the worst defensive conference in football.
Where were these gaudy stats at Indiana? Kid played six years of college football. For perspective - he’s been in college longer than Jones has been in the NFL.
Lol
Not necessarily. It tells us the Giants want to develop a quarterback behind Jones. Which is exactly what I think they want to do.
When the Giants moved up to take Baker at 30, it cost them number 37, 132, and 142. And the 30th pick has a 2.5M cap hit in 2024.
That's a pretty light investment pick and cap wise. And it doesn't have the emotional weight of using a lottery pick on a QB.
He's a tremendous back shoulder thrower, especially to his strong side. And he throws a very catchable deep ball.
Those are fine attributes, but not enough - for me - to invest any high pick. Although I do think he throws the ball considerably better than Jones.