Qb some teams go decades without a guy. The Giants have been lucky in the past with Qbs, most teams aren't as lucky.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: DaveBrown74 on May 08, 2024, 06:17:48 PMI tend to agree. If I'm a betting man, I'd probably give him a moderate edge to be our practice squad QB this year over Tommy D.The Luck/Lock predictive text has gotten the better of me multiple times already lol
Do I think he'll ever see the field this year in a real game if at least one of Jones or Luck is healthy? Nope.
Quote from: Philosophers on May 08, 2024, 04:07:54 PMReplace a top 10 performance at toughest and most important NFL position with a rookie likely to do poorly? Why not just draft one and sit him for a year?There are also 5 starting qbs slated to hit free agency if they aren't tagged.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 08, 2024, 09:16:25 AMThe part in bold is where we see things differently. I don't do absolutes like "regardless of circumstances". I always factor in circumstances when I evaluate anything in football. Evaluating without considering circumstances is akin to taking a quote out of context, in my opinion.@kingm56 just the other day posted multiple examples of Qbs playing at an elite level despite having one of the worst olines in the NFL but we are supposed to give Jones a pass that he looks worse than most of the backups that started at some point last season in the same scenario.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 08, 2024, 08:02:23 AMWhy did you ignore the 7th receiving targets versus the 32nd receiving targets? Do you think that receivers don't improve a QBs production? If not, why do you think WRs make so much money?I didn't say they don't. A backup or any backup should not look significantly better than your 40 million dollar qb regardless of the circumstances and not one but several backup Qbs did this past season.
As to your point, 32nd is unlimited bad. We have clear stats that show the protection was significantly worse in terms of percent of pressure and time to pressure under Jones, and even with the improvements after Jones, they were still last. Even adding a healthy Andrew Thomas and Pugh off his coach didn't move the Giants off 32nd in pass protection.
So why do NFL teams spend so much money on receivers and offensive linemen if things like pass protection and receiving targets don't make a difference?
Quote from: AZGiantFan on May 08, 2024, 01:57:41 AMSure and the difference between the worst WR group and the #7 WR group couldn't have anything to do with it. Plus, Lock was sacked 6 times in 2 games (3/game) while Jones was sacked 30 times in 5 games (6/game), just to put some context in that 28th to 32nd OL comparison.So that would have been 18 sacks to 30 over a 6 game stretch. If you deduct the sacks that were his fault then they are about even.
Quote from: Ed Vette on May 07, 2024, 08:05:39 PMCamp armI like his pocket presence significantly more than Devitos.
Quote from: AYM on May 07, 2024, 09:30:54 PMFor what it's worth, the Giants gave up 20 more sacks than the 31st place team. It could be argued that there was a giant chasm between the Giants OL and the 28th ranked line.You could very well be 100% right as I haven't looked at the overall pressures, rankings etc and just looked at the base ratings pff gave teams olines.
Quote from: MightyGiants on May 07, 2024, 07:20:07 PMI am curious: do you think the fact that Jones was working behind the worst pass protection in the league and throwing to the worst receivers (per PFF) might have skewed last year's numbers when you compare that to Lock having the 28th pass protection, but throwing the 7th best receiver group in the league?Is there really that big of a difference in the 28th vs the 32nd to you?