“Most NFL teams have similar talent levels. What separates them is usually quarterback play.”
While I think that this year this may finally be true for the Giants it certainly has not been true in the previous years of Jones’ career. The Giants’ talent level has been nothing short of atrocious. Hope this works out because it would be best for the team. Not a clue if it will.
I think the coaches aren't announcing a QB competition in order to keep the media and fans quiet. If they announced the competition then there will be factions on each side of Jones and Lock and whoever is playing there will be detractors every time there is a bad pass or interception.
Announcing that Jones is the starter quiets all that talk. If Lock somehow becomes the starter week 1, it will be because Jones "hasn't fully recovered."
I cannot believe there's not even an competition. I can't ever listen to this 'No scholarships' BS that we're fed.
Are they supposed to hold tryouts? I’m not sure I follow - Jones is the starter unless someone else looks a hell of a lot better. And they aren’t going to announce a QB competition even if they are having one, so it’s a moot point anyway.
If the questions remain through the end of September, it will be difficult to evaluate fairly any of our QBs, running backs or receivers. But it will be easy to predict our record.
wonderful Free Agent Signings Scoreboard which provides all the answers we need for where DJ stands with the Giants.
If you want to know what the Giants think about DJ, you don't have to listen to what the Coach or anyone else says. All you have to do is follow the money.
The Giants have a problem at LB. What do they do? They spend $141,000,000 and the 39th pick in the draft on Burns' 5 year contract and $40,000,000 for 4 years on Bobby Okereke last year.
They have a problem at O-line. What do they do?
John Runyan 3 years for $30 million, Eluemunor 2-Years, $14 million, not to mention Stinnie, Schlottmann, and Nelson for another $5 million total.
Most people think the Giants have an even bigger problem at QB, but what do the Giants do?
Drew Lock for One Year, $5 million. That's it. One year? That doesn't sound very permanent.
Forget about what Daboll says about DJ. The Giants have put their money where their mouth is. Jones is the starting QB until he can't get on the field. There is no QB competition. The Giants aren't lying. For better or worse, DJ is their guy.
Maybe the Giants are wrong. Maybe the Giants are idiots. Maybe. But there is no maybe about DJ being the starter and Lock and DeVito being merely back-ups. There is no maybe about the Giants saying that THEY THINK that DJ is the best QB on the Giants.
There are all kinds of QB questions, but there is no doubt about where DJ currently stands with the Giants.
All I can say is God help us if DJ is too injured to play.
If you think Jones haters are not secretly rooting against him to succeed so they don’t have “egg on their face” I don’t know what to say.
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Most of us are desperate for Jones to be a player. Personally, I don't care if I have egg on my face.
But, who wants to watch losing football over, and over, and over, and over again?
Who wants to watch a 3rd string quarterback come in and sling Rao's spaghetti sauce, and passes that look more exciting and play with more spark than the franchise quarterbacks?
Who wants to wait for seven, eight or even nine seasons of excuse after excuse as to why their teams quarterback just doesn't look as good as the quarterbacks in the rest of the NFC East, and keep hearing that he could if only?
Please Daniel Jones, I am begging you to go out there and play winning, spirited football all season. Throw two or more TDs a game. Start a first quarter by marching down the field and scoring a TD game after game. I would love that. I really would. I just haven't seen this kind of play in the past five years. Please make it happen.
Heading into training camp, this is the most indifferent I can ever remember feeling about the Giants. I want to feel excited, but refuse to take the cheese. I will remain skeptical until this team, and DJ specifically, consistently play sound football week in and week out.
Heading into training camp, this is the most indifferent I can ever remember feeling about the Giants. I want to feel excited, but refuse to take the cheese. I will remain skeptical until this team, and DJ specifically, consistently play sound football week in and week out.
The other position write-ups will make you feel better.
write up, but the "DJFC" sentence was not necessary. You had it as neutral as possible up until that point and thereafter.
Like 95% of us here, I see very little chance we get anything other than what we have seen in the previous years. I have serious reservations Jones magically transforms into a defense reading wizard. He has all the tools necessary for the job, except he cannot read the defense and go to open WR quickly.
I am less concerned on the neck than most. Both times he took defenders head on and lost. His knee injury should reduce his running attempts and lessen the chances. Last year's was a stinger which is a fairly common injury. The previous year's injury was the serious one.
Jones could easily have the best season of his career, and it still be thoroughly mediocre. If Jones throws for 3500 yards and 21 TDs for 6 or 7 wins, that's his best year. But it's also not nearly enough. That's the dangerous range, because that's when he gets brought back for year 7 because of "progress"
Jones could easily have the best season of his career, and it still be thoroughly mediocre. If Jones throws for 3500 yards and 21 TDs for 6 or 7 wins, that's his best year. But it's also not nearly enough. That's the dangerous range, because that's when he gets brought back for year 7 because of "progress"
I agree about those stats not being 'enough' as a baseline. There could be a situation where those numbers could actually be impressive (time missed from injury, bad OL play, etc). I think the context of those numbers would be important.
RE: RE: What happens if it's a mix of option 3 and 4
Jones could easily have the best season of his career, and it still be thoroughly mediocre. If Jones throws for 3500 yards and 21 TDs for 6 or 7 wins, that's his best year. But it's also not nearly enough. That's the dangerous range, because that's when he gets brought back for year 7 because of "progress"
I agree about those stats not being 'enough' as a baseline. There could be a situation where those numbers could actually be impressive (time missed from injury, bad OL play, etc). I think the context of those numbers would be important.
This is year 6, enough of the excuses. Either he puts up, or he should be gone. And missing time because of injury is more damning than that statline.
Also, if the OL is so bad that we are still doing these BS excuses after half a decade of them, then the entire FO should be fired. And there is no way Jones should survive another house cleaning
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
We have three journeyman QBs. They are likely at best just game managers. That is not a good recipe for success. Jones, Lock, and DeVito are too erratic and inconsistent. They likely can't elevate the team on a continuing basis, and probably also can't help us maximize our talent at WR.
The overwhelming likelihood is that the Giants tried to trade up for Maye. Given the cost to do so, that by itself shows they have little faith that Jones, Lock, or DeVito are the long-term QB of the Giants.
Jones doesn't see the field well enough. His best attribute is his legs. When the best attribute of your starting QB is his legs and not his arm and head that by definition means you don't have a franchise QB. He also has a very significant injury history, including two serious neck injuries and a concussion. His need to run to be successful means that there is an increased likelihood that he will suffer another neck or head injury.
My guess is that this is the last year for Jones, but if he stays healthy and plays decently, he might stay through the 2025 season.
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
What context would you find that makes that statline over a full season look impressive? In my view, at best, it gives plausible deniability that he doesn't suck. That's been the way I have viewed his entire career. Most of the conversation around Jones seems to be "Well the OL and WR have been bad, so you can't prove he sucks." At some point, to earn his keep, he needs to prove he is actually good, not just be able to have reasons why he might not suck.
So my question is what would make that statline look impressive, not just passable? What would the context have to be for you to sign up for another 40+ million cap hit year of Jones?
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
What context would you find that makes that statline over a full season look impressive? In my view, at best, it gives plausible deniability that he doesn't suck. That's been the way I have viewed his entire career. Most of the conversation around Jones seems to be "Well the OL and WR have been bad, so you can't prove he sucks." At some point, to earn his keep, he needs to prove he is actually good, not just be able to have reasons why he might not suck.
So my question is what would make that statline look impressive, not just passable? What would the context have to be for you to sign up for another 40+ million cap hit year of Jones?
Let's say the OL provides consistently terrible protection that would cause a top 5 qb to struggle. I could see that stat line impressive considering the circumstances. Now the 40 million a year is a different question. I'll answer that separately - Jones cap hit is 47m (ranks 5 in qbs spotrac). To commit again to Jones - The coaches would have to see on film that Jones is obviously being dragged down by the OL. They would have to see much better decision making, anticipation, pre/post-snap reads etc (dramatic difference, not just noticeable). That is if one trusts the coaches evaluations. It would help to have other former players and coaches confirm this viewing the game tapes, that way there are other eyes and brains seeing the same information.
I could see the stat line you proposed earlier in the thread as being impressive and possibly worth an extension with the context provided above. And again, I don't think this is likely but still possible (many things are possible) but not probable.
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
What context would you find that makes that statline over a full season look impressive? In my view, at best, it gives plausible deniability that he doesn't suck. That's been the way I have viewed his entire career. Most of the conversation around Jones seems to be "Well the OL and WR have been bad, so you can't prove he sucks." At some point, to earn his keep, he needs to prove he is actually good, not just be able to have reasons why he might not suck.
So my question is what would make that statline look impressive, not just passable? What would the context have to be for you to sign up for another 40+ million cap hit year of Jones?
Let's say the OL provides consistently terrible protection that would cause a top 5 qb to struggle. I could see that stat line impressive considering the circumstances. Now the 40 million a year is a different question. I'll answer that separately - Jones cap hit is 47m (ranks 5 in qbs spotrac). To commit again to Jones - The coaches would have to see on film that Jones is obviously being dragged down by the OL. They would have to see much better decision making, anticipation, pre/post-snap reads etc (dramatic difference, not just noticeable). That is if one trusts the coaches evaluations. It would help to have other former players and coaches confirm this viewing the game tapes, that way there are other eyes and brains seeing the same information.
I could see the stat line you proposed earlier in the thread as being impressive and possibly worth an extension with the context provided above. And again, I don't think this is likely but still possible (many things are possible) but not probable.
If the O-line is that bad again after inheriting a top 5 LT, giving out multiple big contracts to FA, a top 5 pick, a 2nd round pick, a 3rd round pick and a 5th round pick at the position in 3 years, I think the FO is (and should be) out of jobs. And I don't see another regime commiting to Jones (unless Mara has another phony GM search to find a yes man)
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
What context would you find that makes that statline over a full season look impressive? In my view, at best, it gives plausible deniability that he doesn't suck. That's been the way I have viewed his entire career. Most of the conversation around Jones seems to be "Well the OL and WR have been bad, so you can't prove he sucks." At some point, to earn his keep, he needs to prove he is actually good, not just be able to have reasons why he might not suck.
So my question is what would make that statline look impressive, not just passable? What would the context have to be for you to sign up for another 40+ million cap hit year of Jones?
Let's say the OL provides consistently terrible protection that would cause a top 5 qb to struggle. I could see that stat line impressive considering the circumstances. Now the 40 million a year is a different question. I'll answer that separately - Jones cap hit is 47m (ranks 5 in qbs spotrac). To commit again to Jones - The coaches would have to see on film that Jones is obviously being dragged down by the OL. They would have to see much better decision making, anticipation, pre/post-snap reads etc (dramatic difference, not just noticeable). That is if one trusts the coaches evaluations. It would help to have other former players and coaches confirm this viewing the game tapes, that way there are other eyes and brains seeing the same information.
I could see the stat line you proposed earlier in the thread as being impressive and possibly worth an extension with the context provided above. And again, I don't think this is likely but still possible (many things are possible) but not probable.
If the O-line is that bad again after inheriting a top 5 LT, giving out multiple big contracts to FA, a top 5 pick, a 2nd round pick, a 3rd round pick and a 5th round pick at the position in 3 years, I think the FO is (and should be) out of jobs. And I don't see another regime commiting to Jones (unless Mara has another phony GM search to find a yes man)
Eric - appreciate your insight on the NY Giants, but one player I believe you have underestimated is Nathan Rourke.
I know most believe Rourke is just some camp arm who played in the CFL, but if you watch him actually play or listen to feedback from coaches and teammates - you will understand what I mean.
I followed the OTA and mini-camp updates, and while Rourke did not get as many reps, he did quite well. Ed Valentine from Big Blue View had this to say when commenting on the #3 spot (after watching Rourke):
https://youtu.be/qxJI_wRTvoo?t=279
Also - have you actually seen Rourke play? Have a look at his Jaguars pre-season footage last year. It was pretty impressive and a lot of Jaguars fans, teammates and coaches were impressed. In three pre-season games, he completed 23 of 35 passes for 348 yards with one touchdown and no interceptions.
Here's what Brian Baldinger from the NFL Network had to say about Rourke after watching him in pre-season:
https://x.com/i/status/1694041631429632430
Rourke was claimed on waivers by the Patriots in December. Within three weeks, Bill Behlichik named him the #2 QB ahead of Mac Jones in the final Jets/Patriots game:
https://youtu.be/FhiSyUWaS4g?t=12
More about Rourke:
He threw for 7,457 yards and 60 touchdowns and ran for 2,639 yards and 49 scores at Ohio. He led the Bobcats to three bowl victories and a 25-14 record.
In the CFL for the BC Lions, Rourke earned the starting job in 2022 and in only 10 games he threw for 3,349 yards and 25 TDs and ran for 304 yards and seven touchdowns. He completed 34 of 37 passes in one game and broke the record for single-game passing yards three times -- breaking his own record twice.
I know everyone thinks Nathan Rourke is just some camp arm. WATCH his footage. Listen to what teammates and coaches have said about this 'camp arm'. Rourke is LEGIT and I can guarantee you while most of the Giants are enjoying their six-week break in the summer, he is the kind of guy who will be studying the offense and working on his game at the Quest Diagnostics Training Center.
Here's what Giants Assistant GM had to say about Rourke:
Jones could easily have the best season of his career, and it still be thoroughly mediocre. If Jones throws for 3500 yards and 21 TDs for 6 or 7 wins, that's his best year. But it's also not nearly enough. That's the dangerous range, because that's when he gets brought back for year 7 because of "progress"
3500 and 21 TDs are very Jalen Hurtsish. That would be a dilemna.
I appreciate the optimism, but there is nothing out there to suggest that Rourke will be able to move up the depth chart. He's stuck as the #4 guy right now. Daboll just said the mini-camp was important to Lock because it was probably the last time he will work a lot with the #1s. Lock will get the #2 reps. DeVito the #3 reps. Rourke may get a handful of snaps in each practice.
In other words, even if he were the best QB on the roster, he won't get a chance to show it.
I hear you, and getting reps will be difficult for Rourke with 4 QBs in NY. In Jacksonville Rourke was part of a 3 QB roster.
Having said that - all Rourke can do is come to training camp and do his best to push DeVito for reps. DeVito had a decent OTA, but going over the OTA recaps and I believe when he went head to head with Rourke - 5 reps each...Rourke was far more accurate.
On a team with a QB recovering from a torn ACL, a new QB backup and a coach who needs to win this year with potentially his job on the line - Eric, anything can happen.
I appreciate the optimism, but there is nothing out there to suggest that Rourke will be able to move up the depth chart. He's stuck as the #4 guy right now. Daboll just said the mini-camp was important to Lock because it was probably the last time he will work a lot with the #1s. Lock will get the #2 reps. DeVito the #3 reps. Rourke may get a handful of snaps in each practice.
In other words, even if he were the best QB on the roster, he won't get a chance to show it.
Forgot to add one other thing besides the QB with the torn ACL, the new backup QB, and the pressure on Daboll: the offensive line. Regardless of whether Rourke makes the 53 man roster, on a team that is trying to improve his offensive line - with a few QBs who tend to get sacked more than others....that's another potential reason Rourke may be playing more than others think. Most didn't think Tommy DeVito would play last year. 6 games.
And one more time: watch Rourke's footage and how mobile he is and evades sacks.
I hear you, and getting reps will be difficult for Rourke with 4 QBs in NY. In Jacksonville Rourke was part of a 3 QB roster.
Having said that - all Rourke can do is come to training camp and do his best to push DeVito for reps. DeVito had a decent OTA, but going over the OTA recaps and I believe when he went head to head with Rourke - 5 reps each...Rourke was far more accurate.
On a team with a QB recovering from a torn ACL, a new QB backup and a coach who needs to win this year with potentially his job on the line - Eric, anything can happen.
In comment 16537910 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I appreciate the optimism, but there is nothing out there to suggest that Rourke will be able to move up the depth chart. He's stuck as the #4 guy right now. Daboll just said the mini-camp was important to Lock because it was probably the last time he will work a lot with the #1s. Lock will get the #2 reps. DeVito the #3 reps. Rourke may get a handful of snaps in each practice.
In other words, even if he were the best QB on the roster, he won't get a chance to show it.
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
The ‘excuses’ are simply obvious observations: We have had a bottom 5 pass blocking OL coupled with bottom 5 talent at the receiver position.
If it happens for 1 year or 5 doesn’t change the situation. Expecting gaudy numbers is unrealistic. Knowing how DJ would perform without being at a major disadvantage is still (frustratingly) unknown.
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
The ‘excuses’ are simply obvious observations: We have had a bottom 5 pass blocking OL coupled with bottom 5 talent at the receiver position.
If it happens for 1 year or 5 doesn’t change the situation. Expecting gaudy numbers is unrealistic. Knowing how DJ would perform without being at a major disadvantage is still (frustratingly) unknown.
Again, "you can't prove he doesn't suck" is not a good reason to allocate nearly 20% of your cap to a player
I don’t disagree and would’ve been in the ‘let him walk’ camp if you told me he’d get a legit $40/yr contract after ‘22. But that’s besides the point. He’s our QB this year and we currently don’t know how he can play in a normal situation.
If the OL isn’t a mess and DJ’s injury clause doesn’t take hold then we’ll have our answer and the ability to move on.
I don’t disagree and would’ve been in the ‘let him walk’ camp if you told me he’d get a legit $40/yr contract after ‘22. But that’s besides the point. He’s our QB this year and we currently don’t know how he can play in a normal situation.
If the OL isn’t a mess and DJ’s injury clause doesn’t take hold then we’ll have our answer and the ability to move on.
I am not a DJ hater or anything, at this point I essentially have no strong feelings. Your point about the injury clause is the important part. I agree he's the QB this year if healthy, but not next year - so combine that with his injury clause and inability to stay healthy and I think they will just play it safe if he gets dinged. I believe his injury clause only kicks in for an IR injury or a failed physical when he's cut. So say he has more ankle or neck problems, I think they just keep him inactive.
it would have to be overwhelmingly one-sided to start the $5 million QB over the $40 million QB and absorb the even bigger firestorm of ridicule they would face.
While I think that this year this may finally be true for the Giants it certainly has not been true in the previous years of Jones’ career. The Giants’ talent level has been nothing short of atrocious. Hope this works out because it would be best for the team. Not a clue if it will.
They won 10 games including a playoff game with the worst qb ever, at least that’s what some here believe.
But lock is worse.
Announcing that Jones is the starter quiets all that talk. If Lock somehow becomes the starter week 1, it will be because Jones "hasn't fully recovered."
Or, maybe not.
Thanks. I chose my words carefully.
Are they supposed to hold tryouts? I’m not sure I follow - Jones is the starter unless someone else looks a hell of a lot better. And they aren’t going to announce a QB competition even if they are having one, so it’s a moot point anyway.
If the questions remain through the end of September, it will be difficult to evaluate fairly any of our QBs, running backs or receivers. But it will be easy to predict our record.
2-3
180 passes
64.4%
1343 yds
5 TDs
3 INTs
DeVito
3-3
179 passes
64.0%
1101 yds
8 TDs
3 INts
Jones
1-5
160 passes
67.5%
909 yds
2 INts
With a similar amount of games and passes attempts on our team, Jones had worst record, least TDs, least passing yards and most INTs.
Taylor 38 attempts 197 rush yds
DeVito 36 attempts 195 rush yds 1 TD
2-3
180 passes
64.4%
1343 yds
5 TDs
3 INTs
DeVito
3-3
179 passes
64.0%
1101 yds
8 TDs
3 INts
Jones
1-5
160 passes
67.5%
909 yds
2 INts
With a similar amount of games and passes attempts on our team, Jones had worst record, least TDs, least passing yards and most INTs.
Why did you leave out the dissimilar level of competition and the dissimilar makeup of the offensive line?
Even if OL does not get better......a New QB will be brought in if Jones falters.
Jones must step up.
Looks like the weapons will be the best he has had.
OL will have a proven LT, 2 pro guards, and 2 highly touted young guys.....and a proven OL coach.
With HC calling plays. Its time.
Quote:
ylor
2-3
180 passes
64.4%
1343 yds
5 TDs
3 INTs
DeVito
3-3
179 passes
64.0%
1101 yds
8 TDs
3 INts
Jones
1-5
160 passes
67.5%
909 yds
2 INts
With a similar amount of games and passes attempts on our team, Jones had worst record, least TDs, least passing yards and most INTs.
Why did you leave out the dissimilar level of competition and the dissimilar makeup of the offensive line?
You are right. DeVito and Taylor had to play the likes of the Green Bay Packers & Buffalo Bills . Good point.
Quote:
If Daboll and Kafka can transform Lock into a passable NFL quarterback it will be the biggest magic act of their respective careers.
They won 10 games including a playoff game with the worst qb ever, at least that’s what some here believe.
But lock is worse.
Now now, no one believes Jones is the worst QB ever.
For example, I doubt many would say he's worse than Brock Osweiller who also once had a winning record in a season, including a playoff game.
If you want to know what the Giants think about DJ, you don't have to listen to what the Coach or anyone else says. All you have to do is follow the money.
The Giants have a problem at LB. What do they do? They spend $141,000,000 and the 39th pick in the draft on Burns' 5 year contract and $40,000,000 for 4 years on Bobby Okereke last year.
They have a problem at O-line. What do they do?
John Runyan 3 years for $30 million, Eluemunor 2-Years, $14 million, not to mention Stinnie, Schlottmann, and Nelson for another $5 million total.
Most people think the Giants have an even bigger problem at QB, but what do the Giants do?
Drew Lock for One Year, $5 million. That's it. One year? That doesn't sound very permanent.
Forget about what Daboll says about DJ. The Giants have put their money where their mouth is. Jones is the starting QB until he can't get on the field. There is no QB competition. The Giants aren't lying. For better or worse, DJ is their guy.
Maybe the Giants are wrong. Maybe the Giants are idiots. Maybe. But there is no maybe about DJ being the starter and Lock and DeVito being merely back-ups. There is no maybe about the Giants saying that THEY THINK that DJ is the best QB on the Giants.
There are all kinds of QB questions, but there is no doubt about where DJ currently stands with the Giants.
All I can say is God help us if DJ is too injured to play.
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Most of us are desperate for Jones to be a player. Personally, I don't care if I have egg on my face.
But, who wants to watch losing football over, and over, and over, and over again?
Who wants to watch a 3rd string quarterback come in and sling Rao's spaghetti sauce, and passes that look more exciting and play with more spark than the franchise quarterbacks?
Who wants to wait for seven, eight or even nine seasons of excuse after excuse as to why their teams quarterback just doesn't look as good as the quarterbacks in the rest of the NFC East, and keep hearing that he could if only?
Please Daniel Jones, I am begging you to go out there and play winning, spirited football all season. Throw two or more TDs a game. Start a first quarter by marching down the field and scoring a TD game after game. I would love that. I really would. I just haven't seen this kind of play in the past five years. Please make it happen.
Yes, it is abundantly clear you don't know what to say.
Break down is the suitable title as well for this particular NYG position.
The other position write-ups will make you feel better.
Like 95% of us here, I see very little chance we get anything other than what we have seen in the previous years. I have serious reservations Jones magically transforms into a defense reading wizard. He has all the tools necessary for the job, except he cannot read the defense and go to open WR quickly.
I am less concerned on the neck than most. Both times he took defenders head on and lost. His knee injury should reduce his running attempts and lessen the chances. Last year's was a stinger which is a fairly common injury. The previous year's injury was the serious one.
I agree about those stats not being 'enough' as a baseline. There could be a situation where those numbers could actually be impressive (time missed from injury, bad OL play, etc). I think the context of those numbers would be important.
Quote:
Jones could easily have the best season of his career, and it still be thoroughly mediocre. If Jones throws for 3500 yards and 21 TDs for 6 or 7 wins, that's his best year. But it's also not nearly enough. That's the dangerous range, because that's when he gets brought back for year 7 because of "progress"
I agree about those stats not being 'enough' as a baseline. There could be a situation where those numbers could actually be impressive (time missed from injury, bad OL play, etc). I think the context of those numbers would be important.
This is year 6, enough of the excuses. Either he puts up, or he should be gone. And missing time because of injury is more damning than that statline.
Also, if the OL is so bad that we are still doing these BS excuses after half a decade of them, then the entire FO should be fired. And there is no way Jones should survive another house cleaning
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Quote:
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
We have three journeyman QBs. They are likely at best just game managers. That is not a good recipe for success. Jones, Lock, and DeVito are too erratic and inconsistent. They likely can't elevate the team on a continuing basis, and probably also can't help us maximize our talent at WR.
The overwhelming likelihood is that the Giants tried to trade up for Maye. Given the cost to do so, that by itself shows they have little faith that Jones, Lock, or DeVito are the long-term QB of the Giants.
Jones doesn't see the field well enough. His best attribute is his legs. When the best attribute of your starting QB is his legs and not his arm and head that by definition means you don't have a franchise QB. He also has a very significant injury history, including two serious neck injuries and a concussion. His need to run to be successful means that there is an increased likelihood that he will suffer another neck or head injury.
My guess is that this is the last year for Jones, but if he stays healthy and plays decently, he might stay through the 2025 season.
Quote:
In comment 16537776 ChrisRick said:
Quote:
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
What context would you find that makes that statline over a full season look impressive? In my view, at best, it gives plausible deniability that he doesn't suck. That's been the way I have viewed his entire career. Most of the conversation around Jones seems to be "Well the OL and WR have been bad, so you can't prove he sucks." At some point, to earn his keep, he needs to prove he is actually good, not just be able to have reasons why he might not suck.
So my question is what would make that statline look impressive, not just passable? What would the context have to be for you to sign up for another 40+ million cap hit year of Jones?
Quote:
In comment 16537796 Blue The Dog said:
Quote:
In comment 16537776 ChrisRick said:
Quote:
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
What context would you find that makes that statline over a full season look impressive? In my view, at best, it gives plausible deniability that he doesn't suck. That's been the way I have viewed his entire career. Most of the conversation around Jones seems to be "Well the OL and WR have been bad, so you can't prove he sucks." At some point, to earn his keep, he needs to prove he is actually good, not just be able to have reasons why he might not suck.
So my question is what would make that statline look impressive, not just passable? What would the context have to be for you to sign up for another 40+ million cap hit year of Jones?
Let's say the OL provides consistently terrible protection that would cause a top 5 qb to struggle. I could see that stat line impressive considering the circumstances. Now the 40 million a year is a different question. I'll answer that separately - Jones cap hit is 47m (ranks 5 in qbs spotrac). To commit again to Jones - The coaches would have to see on film that Jones is obviously being dragged down by the OL. They would have to see much better decision making, anticipation, pre/post-snap reads etc (dramatic difference, not just noticeable). That is if one trusts the coaches evaluations. It would help to have other former players and coaches confirm this viewing the game tapes, that way there are other eyes and brains seeing the same information.
I could see the stat line you proposed earlier in the thread as being impressive and possibly worth an extension with the context provided above. And again, I don't think this is likely but still possible (many things are possible) but not probable.
Quote:
In comment 16537799 ChrisRick said:
Quote:
In comment 16537796 Blue The Dog said:
Quote:
In comment 16537776 ChrisRick said:
Quote:
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
What context would you find that makes that statline over a full season look impressive? In my view, at best, it gives plausible deniability that he doesn't suck. That's been the way I have viewed his entire career. Most of the conversation around Jones seems to be "Well the OL and WR have been bad, so you can't prove he sucks." At some point, to earn his keep, he needs to prove he is actually good, not just be able to have reasons why he might not suck.
So my question is what would make that statline look impressive, not just passable? What would the context have to be for you to sign up for another 40+ million cap hit year of Jones?
Let's say the OL provides consistently terrible protection that would cause a top 5 qb to struggle. I could see that stat line impressive considering the circumstances. Now the 40 million a year is a different question. I'll answer that separately - Jones cap hit is 47m (ranks 5 in qbs spotrac). To commit again to Jones - The coaches would have to see on film that Jones is obviously being dragged down by the OL. They would have to see much better decision making, anticipation, pre/post-snap reads etc (dramatic difference, not just noticeable). That is if one trusts the coaches evaluations. It would help to have other former players and coaches confirm this viewing the game tapes, that way there are other eyes and brains seeing the same information.
I could see the stat line you proposed earlier in the thread as being impressive and possibly worth an extension with the context provided above. And again, I don't think this is likely but still possible (many things are possible) but not probable.
If the O-line is that bad again after inheriting a top 5 LT, giving out multiple big contracts to FA, a top 5 pick, a 2nd round pick, a 3rd round pick and a 5th round pick at the position in 3 years, I think the FO is (and should be) out of jobs. And I don't see another regime commiting to Jones (unless Mara has another phony GM search to find a yes man)
Quote:
In comment 16537802 Blue The Dog said:
Quote:
In comment 16537799 ChrisRick said:
Quote:
In comment 16537796 Blue The Dog said:
Quote:
In comment 16537776 ChrisRick said:
Quote:
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
Alright - I agreed above (in case you didn't see it) those numbers over 16-17 games with manageable circumstances would not be good.
If Jones plays well, while most of the rest of the offense struggles then I could see those numbers being impressive even for a full season. (I doubt this happens).
I think there is a difference between 'excuses' and 'context'. I think Jones could very well be benched this year due to performance, but I can see a case where I am wrong (again) and Jones somehow becomes the player we all wanted him to be which I admit is unlikely.
I think the difference in our thinking (not a bad thing) is that you may be more likely to close the door on unlikely events, which is fair. While, I am keeping the door open, although unlikely and also fair.
What context would you find that makes that statline over a full season look impressive? In my view, at best, it gives plausible deniability that he doesn't suck. That's been the way I have viewed his entire career. Most of the conversation around Jones seems to be "Well the OL and WR have been bad, so you can't prove he sucks." At some point, to earn his keep, he needs to prove he is actually good, not just be able to have reasons why he might not suck.
So my question is what would make that statline look impressive, not just passable? What would the context have to be for you to sign up for another 40+ million cap hit year of Jones?
Let's say the OL provides consistently terrible protection that would cause a top 5 qb to struggle. I could see that stat line impressive considering the circumstances. Now the 40 million a year is a different question. I'll answer that separately - Jones cap hit is 47m (ranks 5 in qbs spotrac). To commit again to Jones - The coaches would have to see on film that Jones is obviously being dragged down by the OL. They would have to see much better decision making, anticipation, pre/post-snap reads etc (dramatic difference, not just noticeable). That is if one trusts the coaches evaluations. It would help to have other former players and coaches confirm this viewing the game tapes, that way there are other eyes and brains seeing the same information.
I could see the stat line you proposed earlier in the thread as being impressive and possibly worth an extension with the context provided above. And again, I don't think this is likely but still possible (many things are possible) but not probable.
If the O-line is that bad again after inheriting a top 5 LT, giving out multiple big contracts to FA, a top 5 pick, a 2nd round pick, a 3rd round pick and a 5th round pick at the position in 3 years, I think the FO is (and should be) out of jobs. And I don't see another regime commiting to Jones (unless Mara has another phony GM search to find a yes man)
Agreed 👍
Quote:
It was well-written and as neutral as you will get for such a polarizing position.
Thanks. I chose my words carefully.
Very fair assesment. There is some hope, but a lot of reasons to be skeptical.
I know most believe Rourke is just some camp arm who played in the CFL, but if you watch him actually play or listen to feedback from coaches and teammates - you will understand what I mean.
I followed the OTA and mini-camp updates, and while Rourke did not get as many reps, he did quite well. Ed Valentine from Big Blue View had this to say when commenting on the #3 spot (after watching Rourke):
https://youtu.be/qxJI_wRTvoo?t=279
Also - have you actually seen Rourke play? Have a look at his Jaguars pre-season footage last year. It was pretty impressive and a lot of Jaguars fans, teammates and coaches were impressed. In three pre-season games, he completed 23 of 35 passes for 348 yards with one touchdown and no interceptions.
Rourke pre-season Jaguars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0TuKZUbHsk&pp=ygUZamFndWFycyBwcmUtc2Vhc29uIHJvdXJrZQ%3D%3D
Trevor Lawrence commentary on Rourke:
https://youtu.be/FhiSyUWaS4g?t=12
Doug Pedersen commentary on Rourke:
https://youtu.be/FhiSyUWaS4g?t=12
Here's what Brian Baldinger from the NFL Network had to say about Rourke after watching him in pre-season:
https://x.com/i/status/1694041631429632430
Rourke was claimed on waivers by the Patriots in December. Within three weeks, Bill Behlichik named him the #2 QB ahead of Mac Jones in the final Jets/Patriots game:
https://youtu.be/FhiSyUWaS4g?t=12
More about Rourke:
He threw for 7,457 yards and 60 touchdowns and ran for 2,639 yards and 49 scores at Ohio. He led the Bobcats to three bowl victories and a 25-14 record.
In the CFL for the BC Lions, Rourke earned the starting job in 2022 and in only 10 games he threw for 3,349 yards and 25 TDs and ran for 304 yards and seven touchdowns. He completed 34 of 37 passes in one game and broke the record for single-game passing yards three times -- breaking his own record twice.
I know everyone thinks Nathan Rourke is just some camp arm. WATCH his footage. Listen to what teammates and coaches have said about this 'camp arm'. Rourke is LEGIT and I can guarantee you while most of the Giants are enjoying their six-week break in the summer, he is the kind of guy who will be studying the offense and working on his game at the Quest Diagnostics Training Center.
Here's what Giants Assistant GM had to say about Rourke:
https://x.com/i/status/1796218595694739664
Don't be surprised if Rourke suddenly becomes a story after training camp and during pre-season...
Rourke Jaguars Pre-season - ( New Window )
3500 and 21 TDs are very Jalen Hurtsish. That would be a dilemna.
In other words, even if he were the best QB on the roster, he won't get a chance to show it.
Having said that - all Rourke can do is come to training camp and do his best to push DeVito for reps. DeVito had a decent OTA, but going over the OTA recaps and I believe when he went head to head with Rourke - 5 reps each...Rourke was far more accurate.
On a team with a QB recovering from a torn ACL, a new QB backup and a coach who needs to win this year with potentially his job on the line - Eric, anything can happen.
In comment 16537910 Eric from BBI said:
In other words, even if he were the best QB on the roster, he won't get a chance to show it.
And one more time: watch Rourke's footage and how mobile he is and evades sacks.
In comment 16537920 Ranger_Blue said:
Having said that - all Rourke can do is come to training camp and do his best to push DeVito for reps. DeVito had a decent OTA, but going over the OTA recaps and I believe when he went head to head with Rourke - 5 reps each...Rourke was far more accurate.
On a team with a QB recovering from a torn ACL, a new QB backup and a coach who needs to win this year with potentially his job on the line - Eric, anything can happen.
In comment 16537910 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I appreciate the optimism, but there is nothing out there to suggest that Rourke will be able to move up the depth chart. He's stuck as the #4 guy right now. Daboll just said the mini-camp was important to Lock because it was probably the last time he will work a lot with the #1s. Lock will get the #2 reps. DeVito the #3 reps. Rourke may get a handful of snaps in each practice.
In other words, even if he were the best QB on the roster, he won't get a chance to show it.
Quote:
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
If it happens for 1 year or 5 doesn’t change the situation. Expecting gaudy numbers is unrealistic. Knowing how DJ would perform without being at a major disadvantage is still (frustratingly) unknown.
Quote:
In comment 16537776 ChrisRick said:
Quote:
I understand about time missed due to injury, that has been a problem.
You don't see a scenario where those numbers could be impressive with certain context?
No, I really don't. There are 2 ways to get that statline.
1. He does that over 16 or 17 games. If that happens, those are pathetic numbers. Enough with the excuses
2. He does that over 12 games, which would look impressive, but he again misses a 3rd of a season and shows that he just can't stay healthy. The most important ability is availability.
We are on year 3 or 4 of Daniel Jones having a "no excuses season." Time to actually mean it.
The ‘excuses’ are simply obvious observations: We have had a bottom 5 pass blocking OL coupled with bottom 5 talent at the receiver position.
If it happens for 1 year or 5 doesn’t change the situation. Expecting gaudy numbers is unrealistic. Knowing how DJ would perform without being at a major disadvantage is still (frustratingly) unknown.
Again, "you can't prove he doesn't suck" is not a good reason to allocate nearly 20% of your cap to a player
If the OL isn’t a mess and DJ’s injury clause doesn’t take hold then we’ll have our answer and the ability to move on.
Is it really secretly? Seems pretty out in the open to me.
If the OL isn’t a mess and DJ’s injury clause doesn’t take hold then we’ll have our answer and the ability to move on.
I am not a DJ hater or anything, at this point I essentially have no strong feelings. Your point about the injury clause is the important part. I agree he's the QB this year if healthy, but not next year - so combine that with his injury clause and inability to stay healthy and I think they will just play it safe if he gets dinged. I believe his injury clause only kicks in for an IR injury or a failed physical when he's cut. So say he has more ankle or neck problems, I think they just keep him inactive.