It's a fascinating topic to me as a fan in general.
During games I'm always rooting for the team to win, no matter the cost or benefit. Before and after the game, I'm more reasoned on what outcome is objectively best.
For instance, I 100% reject the hocus pocus notion that trying hard and winning meaningless games magically carries over to the next year. Or that treating meaningless games as exhibitions solicits a magical curse from the gods.
This year, I can't shake the idea that I would rather Daniel Jones unequivocally show he's not the answer, than tread water. I have no problem acknowledging I would rather the team go 3-14 than 7-10.
I'm perfectly comfortable with hoping players or coaches I don't think will ever be good, just prove it once and for all and move on.
Once the games start, I'll be rooting for Jones every second of every game. But between the games, I admit I have no confidence in him and hope he gets benched.
Anyone else feel that way?
1) Will losing help change the choices the team makes with current players?
2) Does losing help the chances of choosing better players in the draft?
3) Does playing younger player when you're eliminated benefit the team even if it decreases the chances of winning?
I get the pros and cons of 2 and 3, but I absolutely don't understand the other side to number 3.
I don't think it was a charade, but I think it shows their risk tolerance is low.
The most underreported and under-discussed variable is Jones is less expensive in 2025. Keeping Jones for the 2025 season will cost 30M in new cash. That's going to be 10M+ less than the franchise tag.
Will a relatively healthy 7-10 season, with middling production move them off an affordable quarterback they know and have vouched for repeatedly?
Quote:
It seems some believe that won't ever happen. I don't think the QB work was all a charade.
I don't think it was a charade, but I think it shows their risk tolerance is low.
The most underreported and under-discussed variable is Jones is less expensive in 2025. Keeping Jones for the 2025 season will cost 30M in new cash. That's going to be 10M+ less than the franchise tag.
Will a relatively healthy 7-10 season, with middling production move them off an affordable quarterback they know and have vouched for repeatedly?
Good point on 2025/Jones contract....I believe it depends on what he does in 2024. If he actually plays slightly better than 2022, he likely stays - it also means they probably won 9 or more games and takes them out of the 2025 QB Sweepstakes...uggggghhhhhh!
If he's healthy all season and the Giants return to a middle of the pack offense, I think it will be very easy for them to rationalize keeping him for another 1/30M.
If he's healthy all season and the Giants return to a middle of the pack offense, I think it will be very easy for them to rationalize keeping him for another 1/30M.
damned if you do and damned if you don't
That gets to my unintended consequences point. Likely a new staff for the Giants.
I agree with this.
Last season is the first time I could remember actually hoping that the Giants would lose games. I would turn them off as I couldn’t watch and actively root for a loss.
Reality is, and today’s NFL, you need either a legit franchise quarterback that gets paid or a QB on a rookie contract good enough to lead a team to a championship.
Once the Giants are out of contention, plowing for draft position has its positives. The only real problem I see with playing younger players over currently better vets is that it can create a bad team culture. The flipside is that players really understands what is necessary to get to a Super Bowl.
Regardless, as others have said, players will always play to win and if they are not, then that is a real problem.
If they win 3, everyone did a really bad job. Last year felt like a 3 win year, but they won 6. Things have to go REALLY bad to only win 3. That's hard to do.
The big variable is Jones' ability to run off the ACL and him generally being able to stay healthy. That's a big ask for him. 2022 was the only season he did not miss any time.
That is the equivalent of NFL hell...a middling team trotting back Jones @ QB.
Quote:
Sean, I agree. I think the Giants will win 7-8 games and Jones will return in 2025.
The big variable is Jones' ability to run off the ACL and him generally being able to stay healthy. That's a big ask for him. 2022 was the only season he did not miss any time.
We already know players returning from ACL surgery do not do that well in the 1st year returning. I doubt Daboll runs as many RPOs as previously called; I doubt Jones is the least bit effective running.
If he's healthy all season and the Giants return to a middle of the pack offense, I think it will be very easy for them to rationalize keeping him for another 1/30M.
The 2022 defense had some insanely well timed turnovers that are hard to count on. I think the record led to an overrating of the quality of the 2022 season (for Wink, Jones, etc.).
I admire your zen attitude.
May I ask a question?
What if you know the author sucks? Do you still read the book?
What if you guve the author a chance for the ___nth time and, alas, the book still sucks- do you keep reading?
Now what if you knew that a few more bad chapters and the books have a great chance to be amazing?….
I'm way more invested and knowledgeable on football, so I certainly care more about the in between.
The other issue is the exit NYG has off the Jones contract after this year.
There won't be consensus here until February of 2025 where we see the actions. My position is not that Nabers was about another weapon for Jones, it was Schoen/Daboll want a WR1 and this was the time to do it. I'd have taken the QB, but I'm not going to default to NYG wants Jones and no one else because they didn't take a QB.
As for the KOC/Payton argument - well, Nix was a very specific fit for Payton. Payton admitted he had no interest in any other QB. KOC let McCarthy come to him - did they even try to trade up for him beyond moving up one pick? I don't know.
And, NYG did try to trade up for Maye. Unless you believe that was a charade too.
The truth is likely to be far less extreme. Schoen & Daboll like Jones until they don't. Duggan came out with an article about how NYG needs cap space. If they are so bullish on the QB - restructure him. Then I'd really believe they love him.
I wholeheartedly agree on your take. I honestly think that the Giants had interest in quarterbacks and there WERE a lot of signs that they were looking. It all started with not picking up Daniel Jones fifth year option. JS was pegged into the corner after the 2022 season to make a difficult decision on resigning Jones. Unfortunately, the decision was not in his favor with the results of 2023. However, the structure of the contract points that they’re was still no solid trust, as there is an opportunity to get out of the contract in 2025 with a palatable hit on the cap.
You do bring up a good point that if they really are intending to stickiwith Jones, they would’ve restructured his contract already to sign more free agents. As we say and “ kicking the can down the road“. This would have been a vote of confidence in Daniel Jones.
I have a funny feeling that they have more faith than most on this board about the 2025 QB class. If they are middle the road at 7-10, say, they could probably get a QB. Kansas City and Buffalo did not get their QBs in the top three. The staff is going to do their due diligence again and you will see JS out there scouting on Saturdays like he did last year.
Quote:
Sean, I agree. I think the Giants will win 7-8 games and Jones will return in 2025.
That is the equivalent of NFL hell...a middling team trotting back Jones @ QB.
Disagree here...
If we're only on pace to win 7-8 games two things will happen: 1)Jones will be replaced mid season by Lock and 2) DJ won't be back in '25
I'm hoping DJ can do it but the fan base will make it impossible for DJ to continue under center if we're sitting mid season with a 3-5 record, especially if Lock has a shows well in the preseason which I'm confident he will.
The other issue is the exit NYG has off the Jones contract after this year.
There won't be consensus here until February of 2025 where we see the actions. My position is not that Nabers was about another weapon for Jones, it was Schoen/Daboll want a WR1 and this was the time to do it. I'd have taken the QB, but I'm not going to default to NYG wants Jones and no one else because they didn't take a QB.
As for the KOC/Payton argument - well, Nix was a very specific fit for Payton. Payton admitted he had no interest in any other QB. KOC let McCarthy come to him - did they even try to trade up for him beyond moving up one pick? I don't know.
And, NYG did try to trade up for Maye. Unless you believe that was a charade too.
The truth is likely to be far less extreme. Schoen & Daboll like Jones until they don't. Duggan came out with an article about how NYG needs cap space. If they are so bullish on the QB - restructure him. Then I'd really believe they love him.
Separately, my issue is that they didn't take a shot on goal anywhere in their three drafts here.
Not liking the remaining QBs and valuing Nabers highly is fine, I get that. But no pick anywhere?
Why isn't Brock Purdy a Giant? He wouldn't carry this team to contention, but he is clearly a staring caliber QB.
I don't think people understand how terrible Drew Lock is. The prospect of watching Lock and Jones this year is just depressing.
Quote:
In comment 16519428 christian said:
Quote:
Sean, I agree. I think the Giants will win 7-8 games and Jones will return in 2025.
That is the equivalent of NFL hell...a middling team trotting back Jones @ QB.
Disagree here...
If we're only on pace to win 7-8 games two things will happen: 1)Jones will be replaced mid season by Lock and 2) DJ won't be back in '25
I'm hoping DJ can do it but the fan base will make it impossible for DJ to continue under center if we're sitting mid season with a 3-5 record, especially if Lock has a shows well in the preseason which I'm confident he will.
7-8 win pace is enough to keep plugging away to try and make the playoffs, especially in this crappy NFC. You're 5-6 11 games, you're not making a change at QB most likely.
It's just a massive sin to me. Of the QBs with top ten QBRs (QBR isn't perfect, obviously, but want to use it as a quick indicator) in 2023, three were drafted after the first.
I totally support the Pats taking Maye and Milton. But we took none.
Neither Schoen nor Daboll have sufficient pelts on the wall for me to trust their judgement on the QBs to begin with, lol. I think there's a decent chance that Schoen is a dumbass, so I'm still very skeptical.
But rooting for the team to be 3-14 before it starts because you don't like the QB is a total head scratcher. If we are a 3 win team, we are many years away and the reason is well beyond Daniel Jones. It will mean the last three years have been an utter failure and we are likely looking at another three years before should expect to be competitive.
DJ is not the answer, this is a severely irrational thought to root for organization incompetence because you don't like the QB on a team who has already shown they no longer see him as the answer. You have to have a serious hate for the guy to go there, IMO.
Thankfully this team isn't going to draft a QB they don't believe in just to appease the fans who continue to talk as if the actions of the former regime is somehow on them. This group has not passed on any obvious QB options and have addressed a lot of other very big needs with their picks. Unfortunately we are not in position to take fliers on picks. Drew Lock is not some talentless schmuck and will be given chance to compete. The NE QB they picked up on the waiver has as much upside as some of the QBs taken in this draft after round 1. So despite the typical complaints, they are not sitting back and doing nothing at the position, you have to look at all moves not just draft where they only had 6 picks and lots of needs. They have done things at the position in FA, which is what smart teams do, you use FA to set yourself up to not have to force positions in the draft. It may or may not work out, but this idea that they are neglecting the position is simply not true. Lock is young and has actually shown some things on tape if you bothered to watch. I'm curious to see what Daboll can do with him.
Signing Drew Lock on a shorter cheaper contract than what they paid Taylor two years ago isn't a substantive investment.
Quote:
In everything you do you play to do your best and WIN!!!!
Sometimes in life you play your best to learn and make mistakes, to ultimately win.
This happens in business all of the time. Startups choose to lose money and not worry about profitability. They focus on testing things out, failing fast, and proving concepts. Only then do they worry about traditional measurable results.
The path to winning often times requires intentional losing.
I don't believe that the path to winning requires intentional losing.
You can learn and test ideas, skills and strategies without intentionally losing... You may indeed go into something recognizing that is the likely outcome, but intentionally losing is not how I would define that in any way.
I agree. First half of 2022 SB was almost like rookie year SB again. The teams poor 2nd half of the season coincidenced with his drop in production
I give Barkley credit without taking it away from Jones. Jones running was very much part of the equation and Daboll knowing which switches to pull.
Signing Drew Lock on a shorter cheaper contract than what they paid Taylor two years ago isn't a substantive investment.
I think Jones is bad but he beats out Lock 100%.
I think this defense is going to be okay, but think 3-5 wins is in the picture if we have Lock start.
Quote:
More like Barkley took a low talented team to the playoffs. Jones did ok and had some of his best games of his career in 2022, but Giants don't see the playoffs without Barkley in 2022. I'd lean more the credit Barkley's way than Jones.
I give Barkley credit without taking it away from Jones. Jones running was very much part of the equation and Daboll knowing which switches to pull.
Personally I think Barkleys presence set up those Jones runs. Most of the time they would fake to Barkley in some manner, and then Jones would keep it and run through a wide open hole. After a while defenses got smart to this and kept a player to watch for the Jones runs. I don't think Jones get those holes without Barkley on the field
Quote:
In comment 16519557 Route 9 said:
Quote:
More like Barkley took a low talented team to the playoffs. Jones did ok and had some of his best games of his career in 2022, but Giants don't see the playoffs without Barkley in 2022. I'd lean more the credit Barkley's way than Jones.
I give Barkley credit without taking it away from Jones. Jones running was very much part of the equation and Daboll knowing which switches to pull.
Personally I think Barkleys presence set up those Jones runs. Most of the time they would fake to Barkley in some manner, and then Jones would keep it and run through a wide open hole. After a while defenses got smart to this and kept a player to watch for the Jones runs. I don't think Jones get those holes without Barkley on the field
You do know that is how the RPO works, right? QB reads the defense and either hands off, makes a quick pass or holds it and runs. So yes the threat of Barkley helped.
I guess I have more faith in Lock here than most others. I do see us winning 7-9 games, but then I see us letting Jones go and giving Lock the job (because I think they are basically the same). Then we go and try to get a QB either in FA or the draft, pushing Lock to backup (or short term starter if its a rookie QB who isn't ready).
If we can be .500 with Jones/Lock, we may be only a QB away at that point
If the Giants were looking for a bridge starter, the previous guy fits that bill more.
If Daboll has an incantation that magically makes Lock better than Jones, they'll make him the headmaster at Hogwarts.
if it's the end of the season with 1-2 weeks left and nothing on the line, a loss that moves you up a couple slots in the draft order also fine.
when you believe in the regime, i think it's better to get wins. wins create credibility and belief, losing diminishes both.
if it's the right regime they will get the jones decisions right and upgrade when they get the right chance. "but they overpaid him blah blah blah" - maybe but the decision to bring him back was pretty universal. instead of tag they rolled the dice to get extra years of control but that's pretty normal compared to what most other teams have done in their situation (seahawks, bucs, etc).
The Giants guaranteed Jones 2 years while the Bucs and Seahawks guaranteed 1 year respectively.
It's like the line in Contact. First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
The Giants guaranteed Jones 2 years while the Bucs and Seahawks guaranteed 1 year respectively.
It's like the line in Contact. First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
and yet it's year 2 with geno smith is still in seattle, and year 2 of you missing the point.
the terms each player is/was able to demand is a function of whatever their market prices were. the point isnt that their contracts were exactly the same but rather that their teams chose to keep them off winning seasons with the option to keep them for multiple seasons. likely knowing that finding upgrades on even mediocre starters isn't as easy in reality as it is on message boards.
Geno Smith - At the conclusion of a 9-8 4200/30/11 2022 season the Seahawks gave Smith ~one year in AAV guaranteed, with the two yearly options (3/75M). At the conclusion of an 8-7 3600/20/9 2023 they picked up year two.
Daniel Jones - At the conclusion of a 9-6-1 3200/15/5 season the Giants gave Jones two years in AAV guarantees with two yearly options (4/160). At the conclusion of a 1-5/2/6 season the Giants had no choice on year two.
The point is when you have a mediocre quarterback who popped his head above water for the first time, you proceed with caution.
I'll take your point a lot more seriously if you say out loud you think the Giants would have picked up the second year for the mediocre Daniel Jones at 40M if they had the choice last month.
After all it's really hard to replace mediocre quarterbacks, right?
Geno Smith - At the conclusion of a 9-8 4200/30/11 2022 season the Seahawks gave Smith ~one year in AAV guaranteed, with the two yearly options (3/75M). At the conclusion of an 8-7 3600/20/9 2023 they picked up year two.
Daniel Jones - At the conclusion of a 9-6-1 3200/15/5 season the Giants gave Jones two years in AAV guarantees with two yearly options (4/160). At the conclusion of a 1-5/2/6 season the Giants had no choice on year two.
The point is when you have a mediocre quarterback who popped his head above water for the first time, you proceed with caution.
I'll take your point a lot more seriously if you say out loud you think the Giants would have picked up the second year for the mediocre Daniel Jones at 40M if they had the choice last month.
After all it's really hard to replace mediocre quarterbacks, right?
they didnt sign him with the foreknowledge he'd tear his acl, but even still it does appear by their actions they came pretty close to picking up that fictional option up since he's still their starting QB and all. they had the injury and at least 2 alternative paths they could have taken, multiple of which will start this season.
but hey, you just keep grinding down whatever point suits you at whichever time. last year you didnt think team jones did all that good, now you're on the worst deal ever train. and for whatever reason you're emotional enough about it you ignored my actual point that intended to answer your question - that if the guys making the decisions on players like jones arent the right people, nothing else really matters. but hey, why waste a chance to spend another thread arguing about daniel jones.
Jones is on the team because every literal penny of the cash he was owed this year was guaranteed. It wasn't a defacto option, they saved literally no money getting rid of him.
The shroud of the bad contract they gave him was seared into this year no matter the choice.
My view on Jones was always they should have tagged him. My view on how well he did was that given the emotional investment ownership has in him, I was surprised he didn't secure a practical guarantee in the third year.
In the pecking order of long-term veteran deals he's in third group (I believe the frame I used was the C+ group). A group Watson/Mahomes B group Murray/Prescott C group Jones/Carr.
Among all of the smaller sums of money we've debated and tortured. The mid-7 figure deals like Campbell, the low 8 figure deals like Glowinksi, the virtues of spreading a 8M in restructure money over 1 vs. 3 years, it's surprising to me how little negative space you give to the incremental 50M they gave Jones over the alternative.
The answer is no. Given the option to pay Jones 40M this year or let him go. No, they don't pay it.
Quote:
if it's the right regime they will get the jones decisions right and upgrade when they get the right chance. "but they overpaid him blah blah blah" - maybe but the decision to bring him back was pretty universal. instead of tag they rolled the dice to get extra years of control but that's pretty normal compared to what most other teams have done in their situation (seahawks, bucs, etc).
Jones is on the team because every literal penny of the cash he was owed this year was guaranteed. It wasn't a defacto option, they saved literally no money getting rid of him.
The shroud of the bad contract they gave him was seared into this year no matter the choice.
My view on Jones was always they should have tagged him. My view on how well he did was that given the emotional investment ownership has in him, I was surprised he didn't secure a practical guarantee in the third year.
In the pecking order of long-term veteran deals he's in third group (I believe the frame I used was the C+ group). A group Watson/Mahomes B group Murray/Prescott C group Jones/Carr.
Among all of the smaller sums of money we've debated and tortured. The mid-7 figure deals like Campbell, the low 8 figure deals like Glowinksi, the virtues of spreading a 8M in restructure money over 1 vs. 3 years, it's surprising to me how little negative space you give to the incremental 50M they gave Jones over the alternative.
The answer is no. Given the option to pay Jones 40M this year or let him go. No, they don't pay it.
I replied to the thread's question "Are You Comfortable Hoping for Bad Outcomes?" but it appears the question was kubuki theater into the same daniel jones arguments that fill up almost every other thread. my first post here explains why that's fallacy. if there are bad outcomes this year there's regime next year. you can tie yourself into knots trying to think of a definition of "bad outcome" where that's not the case but if you want daboll gone then root for bad outcomes. every other decision is downstream from that.
If you think the current staff will move on from Jones when the right option presents itself, that's a perfectly good place to begin and end. WTF Baker Mayfield has to do with it is beyond everyone but you.
My view is the staff and management believe in him, as evidenced by the size of the commitment. And that given the decrease in new cash next year, an average season will tip scales in his favor. Like you said, it's difficult to replace a mediocre quarterback. Especially when you really like him.
If you think the current staff will move on from Jones when the right option presents itself, that's a perfectly good place to begin and end. WTF Baker Mayfield has to do with it is beyond everyone but you.
My view is the staff and management believe in him, as evidenced by the size of the commitment. And that given the decrease in new cash next year, an average season will tip scales in his favor. Like you said, it's difficult to replace a mediocre quarterback. Especially when you really like him.
there was no false equivalency about the jones/mayfield/smith contracts, there was equivalency in them being 3 non-elite qbs whose non-contender teams extended them for multiple seasons because they liked them better than their other options.
that equivalency also goes by "reality".
In comment 16519791 Eric on Li said:
if it's the end of the season with 1-2 weeks left and nothing on the line, a loss that moves you up a couple slots in the draft order also fine.
when you believe in the regime, i think it's better to get wins. wins create credibility and belief, losing diminishes both.
if it's the right regime they will get the jones decisions right and upgrade when they get the right chance. "but they overpaid him blah blah blah" - maybe but the decision to bring him back was pretty universal. instead of tag they rolled the dice to get extra years of control but that's pretty normal compared to what most other teams have done in their situation (seahawks, bucs, etc).
8 or 9 wins however? Absolutely, and believe it or not, I don't neccessarily believe that's a horrible thing if Jones plays like he did in 2022. He was an above-average QB in 2022 based on the advanced metrics. That baseline would guarantee we'd be watching somewhat entertaining football.
Is there value in being a perpetual 8 or 9 win team? I don't think there's zero value unless your mentality is "Superbowl or bust." I do agree that the Superbowl is the ultimate goal, but have the Giants really earned the right as a franchise to be thinking that way based on recent history? We talk about them being mediocre, but mediocre would actually be a major step up; the'yve been one of the worst teams in the league.
If the Schoen/Daboll/Jones era lasted through 2025 and the next two years were around 8 or 9 wins, that would demonstrate the Giants have reached at least some basic level of sustained organizational competence from 2022-2025. It would then keep their heads above water long enough to actually identify that Superbowl competing QB ala the Chiefs with Mahomes, or even the Bills with Allen or the Ravens with Jackson (remember, both of these teams were in 8-9 win range when they made the moves).
I still feel this discussion is completely moot though because I strongly believe Jones is going to flop based on losing his mobility, and the energy is going to get real toxic starting in week 1 when the Giants lose to the Vikings similar to the Broncos in 2021.
OP:
And your reply was literally about Daniel Jones. Why is this a confounding outcome to you?
Your point appears to be winning more games is better, because if this is the right regime they will make the right decision regardless of circumstances. With the implication being they made the right decision last time (otherwise why bring up Smith and Mayfield?)
You just don't seem willing to acknowledge the material difference between guaranteeing twice as many years and twice as much money. The level of commitment they made to Jones was 100% greater than the two examples you continue to reference. You're right they're all well below elite quarterbacks, one of them just got twice as much money.