(1) When he was first hired by the Giants, and we had a chance to see/hear his first few press conferences, I think just about everyone felt he was such a breath of fresh air after Dave Gettleman.
(2) He was (and still is) much more polished in front of the camera/press and just seems to have a better overall grasp of the modern-day job/task of an NFL GM in all its myriad complexities.
(3) He also just seems to fit in much better with his fellow GMs -- he seems to know more of them; he seems to get along with more of them; he seems to be in contact with them more often; and he certainly looks like more of them in terms of age and overall hip, cool, prepped-out appearance.
(4) He also seems to be out on the road more often than Dave Gettleman attending/scouting numerous college football games.
(5) And my guess is that Joe Schoen has implemented several internal organizational changes that represent an improvement over Dave Gettleman's regime.
(6) And on top of all that, his team somehow, someway actually made the playoffs in his first term as GM when everyone knew he had taken on a mega re-building project. All of which served to only enhance all his positive attributes that were on full display.
(7) But after his second season, all of the above now seems like a precious vase that lies shattered on the floor. And whether or not Joe Schoen succeeds in changing the trajectory of this franchise is anyone's guess.
Also Giant fans: Why didn’t he win in year 2? He sux.
I think it was optimistic to think the Giants would find a credible replacement for Eli right away.
However, I never thought they would act this obtuse, year after year, that they haven’t yet and still can’t come to the realization that they need to actually try.
Big answers
Absolutely.
His drafts from year 1 to this past April, they're the most crucial aspect of this team succeeding in 2024. Evan Neal becoming semi average would carry this offense in a big, big way. Kayvon stepping up under the tutelage of Brian Burns and Andre Patterson. Be more consistent with his run contain and winning more one on one matchups when they present themselves.
But the mid round is where it needs to standout. Bellinger, Flott, Belton, and Ezeudu need to earn reps and make their
presence known. I feel like this year's
draft is key, also, notably Nabers and to
a degree, Nubin. These two can add another dynamic to their respective side.
Quote:
Yes it's incredibly easy to create cap space when you need to. Like say when you're contending for the Super Bowl. It's pushing $50 million out in the years you're not that stops you from getting in that position.
$50M in the years that you're not contending for the Super Bowl?
Like DJ's cap hit this year?
That's also an incredibly dramatic and wildly inaccurate representation of what would have been necessary to replicate last offseason's activity with DJ tagged and Barkley signed rather than vice versa.
No it's not. Feel free to disagree with something to back it up.
And yeah, like this year -- plus 2 more on top of already one more.
You can make any argument you want but it comes down to the same thing: if you wanted to keep Jones after declining his option and '22, this was the most prudent way. 2 year commitment instead of one, in exchange for a better team (outside QB which we don't know) and clean books on the other side.
Otherwise is essentially arguing they should ditched Jones after 22. Which is a fine (although not very defensible) position. That's OK. But don't layer on unwarranted criticism on the execution of the decision. Two different things
Well for starters the Giants only needed an incremental 17M on the 2023 cap, so 50M is a 3X exaggeration on its face.
I don't know how you define clean books, but if Jones was tagged he would have a $0 cap charge in 2024 or 2025. As it stands today, Jones will have a minimum cap charge of 22M on 2025.
So just to restate the facts I posted above, if the Giants would have tagged Jones in 2023 and signed Barkley, the incremental difference would be:
2023: No Parris Campbell and him losing his job half way through the year
2024: Jones is an UFA, but the Giants have Barkley under contract
And over the 2023-2025 period that Giants have +23.5M in cap space.
I used your numbers. And I define clean books as after this season. Because that's the point, right? New QB, clean cap, last chance at glory.
Quote:
They probably viewed 2022 as year 1 in the Daboll/Kafka system for Jones.
I think it was optimistic to think the Giants would find a credible replacement for Eli right away.
However, I never thought they would act this obtuse, year after year, that they haven’t yet and still can’t come to the realization that they need to actually try.
What would you have liked them to do? I recall you pushing back on the McCarthy hysteria. Trade up for Maye? I assume they tried, it's not like the Pats moved off the pick.
Penix at 6? Nix at 6?
Quote:
In comment 16549988 Sean said:
Quote:
They probably viewed 2022 as year 1 in the Daboll/Kafka system for Jones.
I think it was optimistic to think the Giants would find a credible replacement for Eli right away.
However, I never thought they would act this obtuse, year after year, that they haven’t yet and still can’t come to the realization that they need to actually try.
What would you have liked them to do? I recall you pushing back on the McCarthy hysteria. Trade up for Maye? I assume they tried, it's not like the Pats moved off the pick.
Penix at 6? Nix at 6?
I would have liked them to pursue QBs in any draft since 2019.
McCarthy was a clear overpay at #6 in my view. But in 5 drafts since 2019 I think I would have been able to come to the realization that some QBs were worth pursuing.
No not particularly. Willis was never a QB imv. He was a runner who had the option to throw if he saw it. Except of course as he progressed from high school to college to pros he saw it less and less as the competition improved more and more.
But it’s not about who succeeded and who didn’t. It’s about never taking a swing.
One previous prospect that actually fell and could have been acquired late in the draft is Sam Howell. His performance in DC was not the greatest this last year, but he also had a terrible OL and an idiot of an OC. He's someone I would have loved for them to snag late, be a backup at the very least and a cheap one at that.
For some reason bad OL still kick around. And I'm sure some team will try Neal at Guard.
One previous prospect that actually fell and could have been acquired late in the draft is Sam Howell. His performance in DC was not the greatest this last year, but he also had a terrible OL and an idiot of an OC. He's someone I would have loved for them to snag late, be a backup at the very least and a cheap one at that.
Unless they are secretly clairvoyant about their future draft position and available QBs, not drafting anyone at the position while still giving DJ $160m isn’t gaining my confidence. But hey, Nabers looks good throwing his dollar bills around at the local strip joints.
Kenny Pickett
2023:
none
2024:
Michael Penix
JJ McCarthy
Bo Nix
I'd have taken McCarthy at six. At minimum, I would have drafted a 2nd/3rd developmental QB at some point. Purdy looks like a big missed opportunity and I would have taken Hooker at some point in 2023.
Kenny Pickett
2023:
none
2024:
Michael Penix
JJ McCarthy
Bo Nix
I'd have taken McCarthy at six. At minimum, I would have drafted a 2nd/3rd developmental QB at some point. Purdy looks like a big missed opportunity and I would have taken Hooker at some point in 2023.
Not everything should be looked at as static with given draft position.. Schoen could have navigated picks, drafts, trades and even free agency to pursue QBs but did not. And that says nothing to the fact at how nothing was done before he even arrived going back to to 2019.
And as mentioned earlier, this isn’t just about which QB succeeded or not. They have a problem with simply swinging. Do you think that mindset just changes next offseason, or the next, or the next? When do the stars align on prospect, draft position and mindset...ever?
That is a catastrophically bad performance - bad enough to overshadow good things done elsewhere.
That is a catastrophically bad performance - bad enough to overshadow good things done elsewhere.
in your humble opinion...
How low is the bar now? Most would view 8-9 or even 7-10 as a successful season.
When Schoen was hired, is this what we expected heading into 2024?
Quote:
Schoen stepped into a QB room consisting of just Daniel Jones entering his 4th season on a rookie contract. Three years later he is entering the season with the third most expensive QB room in the league, and that room is made up of Jones, Lock, and DeVito.
That is a catastrophically bad performance - bad enough to overshadow good things done elsewhere.
in your humble opinion...
That is a catastrophically bad performance - bad enough to overshadow good things done elsewhere.
There's no denying the mistake made with Jones
Or that his contract is horrible
But "third most expensive QB room in the league" while I assume is accurate, is certainly misleading
Lock is getting 5m/ 1 year
DeVito?
Link - ( New Window )
That on its own doesn't directly reflect his cost, but you don't enter that list unless your total contract is large.
The total cap allocation by a position is a signal on what the team wants to lead by, and I think it's clear they want their QB to be the lead dog.
That on its own doesn't directly reflect his cost, but you don't enter that list unless your total contract is large.
The total cap allocation by a position is a signal on what the team wants to lead by, and I think it's clear they want their QB to be the lead dog.
It was also the negotiated cost of having an out after 2 years. An expensive one, but sadly necessary
The main point is that after three years the Giants are a lot more expensive at QB, but they aren't any better. It's a huge fail.
And yes, both sides will work out specific benefits in a deal that protect their respective interests. But the Giants gave Jones 82M in guarantees because they believe and expect him to be a very good quarterback. Not primarily because they want to get rid of him.
And yes, both sides will work out specific benefits in a deal that protect their respective interests. But the Giants gave Jones 82M in guarantees because they believe and expect him to be a very good quarterback. Not primarily because they want to get rid of him.
Right. I think they view him as a placeholder that will be difficult to unseat.
Quote:
In comment 16549931 HBart said:
Quote:
In comment 16549926 christian said:
Quote:
The Giants could have signed every player they did last year, including Okereke, except Campbell.
Signing Barkley and tagging Jones was an incredibly easy thing to do, regarding the cap.
Yes it's incredibly easy to create cap space when you need to. Like say when you're contending for the Super Bowl. It's pushing $50 million out in the years you're not that stops you from getting in that position.
$50M in the years that you're not contending for the Super Bowl?
Like DJ's cap hit this year?
That's also an incredibly dramatic and wildly inaccurate representation of what would have been necessary to replicate last offseason's activity with DJ tagged and Barkley signed rather than vice versa.
No it's not. Feel free to disagree with something to back it up.
And yeah, like this year -- plus 2 more on top of already one more.
You can make any argument you want but it comes down to the same thing: if you wanted to keep Jones after declining his option and '22, this was the most prudent way. 2 year commitment instead of one, in exchange for a better team (outside QB which we don't know) and clean books on the other side.
Otherwise is essentially arguing they should ditched Jones after 22. Which is a fine (although not very defensible) position. That's OK. But don't layer on unwarranted criticism on the execution of the decision. Two different things
It's not my job to teach you - for free - how the salary cap works. But you're wrong. Christian has it laid out accurately. Your alternate scenario is incorrect and serves only as a crutch for you to justify some choices that were less than optimal simply because Schoen ran out of time before free agency opened last year and chose to budge at the QB position rather than the RB position.
How low is the bar now? Most would view 8-9 or even 7-10 as a successful season.
When Schoen was hired, is this what we expected heading into 2024?
Is it really bottom tier? How can you say that when the season hasn't started? We do not know which players developed over the offseason or which ones improve during camp.
Can we wait to see how Bricillo shapes up the Oline and how Bowen improves the function of the defense. There are a number of very good players on defense. And the offense appears to be stronger. Yeah I agree on QB being quite questionable.
I tend to agree it isn't one of the better rosters, but they have some pretty good football players all over the roster.
Quote:
Make no mistake, a quarterback with a 48M cap hit on any year is making a lot of money. There's no practical reason to divvy up a cheap contract into a huge cap hit like that.
And yes, both sides will work out specific benefits in a deal that protect their respective interests. But the Giants gave Jones 82M in guarantees because they believe and expect him to be a very good quarterback. Not primarily because they want to get rid of him.
Right. I think they view him as a placeholder that will be difficult to unseat.
Well, the only reason it's difficult to unseat Jones is because the team won't draft anyone to do so. If the team had drafted McCarthy or Penix (possibly even Nix), the future looks much brighter and I think Jones is on the bench by week 6.
Quote:
In comment 16550317 christian said:
Quote:
Make no mistake, a quarterback with a 48M cap hit on any year is making a lot of money. There's no practical reason to divvy up a cheap contract into a huge cap hit like that.
And yes, both sides will work out specific benefits in a deal that protect their respective interests. But the Giants gave Jones 82M in guarantees because they believe and expect him to be a very good quarterback. Not primarily because they want to get rid of him.
Right. I think they view him as a placeholder that will be difficult to unseat.
Well, the only reason it's difficult to unseat Jones is because the team won't draft anyone to do so. If the team had drafted McCarthy or Penix (possibly even Nix), the future looks much brighter and I think Jones is on the bench by week 6.
That’s assuming those 3 QB’s pan out which neither you or I know that they will
Quote:
In comment 16550334 Sean said:
Quote:
In comment 16550317 christian said:
Quote:
Make no mistake, a quarterback with a 48M cap hit on any year is making a lot of money. There's no practical reason to divvy up a cheap contract into a huge cap hit like that.
And yes, both sides will work out specific benefits in a deal that protect their respective interests. But the Giants gave Jones 82M in guarantees because they believe and expect him to be a very good quarterback. Not primarily because they want to get rid of him.
Right. I think they view him as a placeholder that will be difficult to unseat.
Well, the only reason it's difficult to unseat Jones is because the team won't draft anyone to do so. If the team had drafted McCarthy or Penix (possibly even Nix), the future looks much brighter and I think Jones is on the bench by week 6.
That’s assuming those 3 QB’s pan out which neither you or I know that they will
We do have years of evidence now that the incumbent hasn't panned out, yet we're paying rack rate for that, so why does that assumption about the rookie QBs even matter? That's literally the case for every player drafted at every position. We don't know if they'll pan out. It's ALWAYS an assumption.
The only downside to taking one of those QBs isn't the risk that they might not pan out - it's simply the opportunity cost of not drafting Nabers. That's the entire risk, IMO.
And we don't know if Nabers will pan out either (although I think most of us are very confident that he will).
The whole gotcha with Willis would be a lot more damning if the Giants hadn't have picked a tackle who totally sucks on round one, and then gave a major commitment to a quarterback who mostly sucks the next offseason.
That's a good observation.
I think his argument would be Barkley was 26 on the FT and signing him long term at the end of 2023 was highly unlikely. Remember, he seemed to indicate that 27 was the inflection point for RBs.
Because he had a very, very good 2022? $10.1 mill isn't a lot of money for what Barkley did in 2022.
The whole gotcha with Willis would be a lot more damning if the Giants hadn't have picked a tackle who totally sucks on round one, and then gave a major commitment to a quarterback who mostly sucks the next offseason.
Considering a large portion of the base thinks it's perfectly reasonable to give Jones six years to prove himself. Why wouldn't that view apply to Willis as well?
Quote:
Why did he franchise Barkley after 2022 knowing what he believes in the RB position?
Because he had a very, very good 2022? $10.1 mill isn't a lot of money for what Barkley did in 2022.
I may be mistaken but I think they paid him $10.1M for 2023, not 2022.
But thank you for illustrating one of the things that might be a flaw of Schoen's: assigning next year's value based entirely on last year's performance.
Quote:
The whole gotcha with Willis would be a lot more damning if the Giants hadn't have picked a tackle who totally sucks on round one, and then gave a major commitment to a quarterback who mostly sucks the next offseason.
Considering a large portion of the base thinks it's perfectly reasonable to give Jones six years to prove himself. Why wouldn't that view apply to Willis as well?
I think it’s much more likely that a large portion of the fan base wants Jones replaced.
As for Willis, picking him in place of Neal would have been a horrible waste of resources.
Quote:
In comment 16550377 christian said:
Quote:
The whole gotcha with Willis would be a lot more damning if the Giants hadn't have picked a tackle who totally sucks on round one, and then gave a major commitment to a quarterback who mostly sucks the next offseason.
Considering a large portion of the base thinks it's perfectly reasonable to give Jones six years to prove himself. Why wouldn't that view apply to Willis as well?
I think it’s much more likely that a large portion of the fan base wants Jones replaced.
As for Willis, picking him in place of Neal would have been a horrible waste of resources.
In retrospect if it kept us from paying Jones it would have been a blessing. Neal looks like a missed pick anyway.
I think it’s much more likely that a large portion of the fan base wants Jones replaced.
As for Willis, picking him in place of Neal would have been a horrible waste of resources.
Forget Neal, who has been a catastrophe, I would rather have Willis over Ezeudu or Robinson.
Quote:
In comment 16550408 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 16550377 christian said:
Quote:
The whole gotcha with Willis would be a lot more damning if the Giants hadn't have picked a tackle who totally sucks on round one, and then gave a major commitment to a quarterback who mostly sucks the next offseason.
Considering a large portion of the base thinks it's perfectly reasonable to give Jones six years to prove himself. Why wouldn't that view apply to Willis as well?
I think it’s much more likely that a large portion of the fan base wants Jones replaced.
As for Willis, picking him in place of Neal would have been a horrible waste of resources.
In retrospect if it kept us from paying Jones it would have been a blessing. Neal looks like a missed pick anyway.
In hindsight, I definitely am not a fan of the Jones contract. A partial blessing :)
I know this going to cause BP to rise, but Neal is still 'wait and see' for me. His time is certainly running out, he can still be salvaged. Although, the odds are probably not great.
Quote:
I think it’s much more likely that a large portion of the fan base wants Jones replaced.
As for Willis, picking him in place of Neal would have been a horrible waste of resources.
Forget Neal, who has been a catastrophe, I would rather have Willis over Ezeudu or Robinson.
Neal is still in-play to turn out to be a good investment to me. Ezeudu, yes. Wandale Robinson? I would rather have Robinson than Willis. Of course I am using the benefit of hindsight. At the time of the draft Willis was a known name even for fans like myself. Robinson on the other hand was a player that I knew nothing about when he was selected.