Big Blue Huddle

Defense doing their part. Jones and Co. need to put up points.

Embarrassing start to a game with 11 days to prepare.

Sorry to only be seeing this now, but rest in peace Jim.

Quote from: T200 on January 24, 2023, 08:39:28 AMDak and DJ both choked. Dak's was worse because, as you said, the teams were fairly matched.

The Giants were clearly overmatched talent-wise and definitely outcoached. Jones reverted back to last season where he was indecisive and shell-shocked.

You don't have to go back to last season. The first Dallas game was this same version of DJ. The game ocurring around him looked too fast for him to process.

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on January 01, 2023, 04:34:22 PMI disagree with the Saints game. He played well for 8 mins of the 4th and was excellent for OT.

Tonight, he was excellent for a complete game. Couple of early dodgy throws but a minor quibble.

I was really impressed with him tonight. And massively happy for him.

Saints were a very good defense last year and a decent team overall, plus the Giants were playing in the Superdome. The Colts are awful and Jones had this performance at home. I feel better about this win (though mostly because of the playoff implications), but honestly could go either way.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on December 21, 2022, 11:43:39 PMThis might all be the case if this were a debating board and not a discussion board.  As it is I have my opinion and I'm not trying to change your mind, nor am I going to be drawn into a debate when soon enough we will see what happens.  I'll just add that acknowledging the fact that the are people here who want to see DJ's back is not an ad hominem, it is a recognition of reality.  And if you read my post on what I think will happen you'd be hard-pressed to discover a narrative.

You can have your opinions. But when you state something as fact that is demonstrably wrong, that's not an "opinion" beyond question on a "discussion board." You stated something as fact (Daniel Jones is a middle-of-the-pack passer by production this season) that is demonstrably wrong by virtually any meaningful (i.e. rate based) metric. I wasn't debating you, but pointing out that argument is, again, demonstrably wrong. You tried to come back with some spin on it based on conjecture and speculation, which even if assumed didn't even support your position. You now try to also spin an ad hominem attack into something about "acknowledging reality" (which is certainly up for deba... discussion). And even if one were to believe you, then what actual purpose does such a comment serve? I'd say not very much, which evidences its true intent.

Also, I never mentioned anything about a narrative (or approached an accusation that you have some predisposition on the Daniel Jones matter). Your unwarranted defensiveness is telling.

Suffice it to say I disagree with your "opinion" that Jones is a middle-of-the-pack passer this year.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on December 21, 2022, 06:52:23 PMYou have inadvertantly made a point about his durability.  With the stat you cite coupled with the fact that the he is 16 in yards passing the implication is that QBs who are "better" than him have lost time to injury.

Why is that the implication, precisely? Because it fits your supposition? Sorry, but QBs with better yards-per-attempt and less overall yardage have been benched for production reasons (Zach Wilson, Marcus Mariota). Its incumbent upon you to support your position with evidence and not self-serving assumptions.

And moreover, how does this support the idea that Jones is an above-average passer in any way? If these "better" QBs are getting injured and replaced by backups... well the teams overall are still performing far better on average than the Jones-led Giants! The teams idea really neutralizes your argument from the beginning. At best, your argument supports the idea that Jones is healthier than average (a proposition that for this season at least I can agree with), but not an average passer.

QuoteIAC, we'll see what happens.  I think there will be teams that will look at him differently, that see that the Giants are near the bottom of the league in pass attempts and some of the other points I made that you chose not to address and offer him better coin than some folks think. They'll say, look what he's accomplished with a lousy OL and lousy receivers - our OL and receivers are way better, so imagine how he would do with them - and outbid the Giants.  Which will make a bunch of you guys happy.

I chose not to address your other points because I wasn't involved in your conversation, but felt the need to correct a patently false idea that the Giants or Daniel Jones are middle-of-the-pack in passing. And as I said before, there are certainly valid criticisms about the quality of the Giants receiving corps, so why would I address mitigating factors that I already agreed with? I also don't feel the need to debate with you every point you (or anyone else) has. If you want me to, I can surely try.

The ad hominem attacks about people being happy about Jones departing are unnecessary and truly a refuge for a weak argument.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on December 21, 2022, 04:24:43 PMHe's 16th in total passing yards.  In a 32 team league that is the very definition of "average middle of the road passing numbers".  And he has made himself top-notch in ball security despite being sacked the third-most times in the league, behind our supposedly improved OL (although going from 2.2 sacks per game last year up to 3.1 sacks per game this year doesn't seem improved to me).  And he's about 4th in rushing yards.

These are the things that will make a team look at him and the lack of quality in the offense he's playing in and think about what he might do in their offense that is higher quality.  And offer him more than the Giants are willing to pay him.

When you use Jones's individual ranking in total yards then imply its out of 32, you're not making an apples-to-apples comparison. In a 32-team league, the Giants passing offense ranks 28th in yards-per-game and 27th in yards-per-attempt. If you look at Jones's yards-per-attempt for qualified passers this season, he's 27th as well (so right in line with the team rankings). Jones is decidedly not middle-of-the-pack in this regard. Doesn't change your arguments about the quality of the offense, but it's categorically incorrect to imply that the passing production of Jones has been anything but well below-average this season.

Daniel Jones is definitely one of the players in the NFL. Of all the NFL players, he is one of them. Some say that Daniel Jones is an NFL player, and I agree with them. And when people say Jones isn't an NFL player? I tell them he is...

... Sorry, I just can't go in circles anymore with identical arguments about Jones, simply featuring this week's stats. I feel like I've read the same thing with different clothes every week since the Giants' winning ways ceased. I know I'm spinning my wheels here (to amuse myself and maybe, hopefully, others), but it's been a relief to not feel obliged to jump in to every Jones thread to get my two cents in.

Quote from: madbadger on November 29, 2022, 05:51:31 PMThat's partially correct, but before they ruled on that point they found you have a right to carry a firearm out of the home for protection. In the Heller case the court found you have a right to have one in your home. That's why other non CCW states like Cali, ill, NJ and Hawaii are now being forced to issue permits.

Sorry, but I'm not following this. You said:

Quotethe Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen Burress had a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.

Again, this just isn't a correct interpretation of the actual holding of the court. Feel free to show me where in this opinion its stated that the Second Amendment a universal right to carry a firearm in public. At best, they state that there are legitimate reasons - specifically self-defense - for a person to want to carry a weapon in public, hence why they struck down the "proper cause" requirement of New York's statute. Most of the other time spent on the topic is largely dicta which doesn't control any further rulings of the court (though they've largely dispensed with any idea that long-standing precedent is settled, so I guess it's immaterial either way).

A completely different case from more than a decade prior, Heller, does (as you identify) stand for the proposition that a law banning a person from having a firearm in their home was unconstitutional (provided that they weren't disqualified from the Second Amendment's protections). But I don't see how this makes your above statement regarding what the actual holding of Bruen is somehow correct. And moreover, Heller dealt largely with an interpretation of the term "militia" - something not at issue at all in Bruen.

QuoteAnd it's farcical to say that he didn't have a carry permit because the state refused to issue them except to exceedingly wealthy people and politicians. They used their arbitrarily enforced proper cause clause to decide who did and didn't get a permit. His choice was to break what is now an unconstitutional law or not carry at all.

It's similarly farcical to imply Burress did what he did out of some upstanding moral belief that the law was unconstitutional and he would someday be exonerated or proven correct. You're also assuming that in the absence of a "proper cause" requirement, New York wouldn't be allowed to impose any conditions on the issuance of a concealed carry license and Burress would have been issued a license and legally allowed to carry. Except that's not what Bruen says, and even Alito's concurrence makes it clear that they were not saying whether any sort of limitation was unconstitutional, simply the one at issue. And guess what? The revised statute that New York implemented after Bruen prevents concealed carry license holders from bringing their weapons into bars. Under that schema, Burress still (presuming he applied for a license and got it) would have broken the law by doing what he did under the current iteration of the statute.

Quote from: madbadger on November 29, 2022, 01:38:08 PMAgree with the decision or not but according the the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v Bruen Burress had a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. If it happened now he would have an avenue to appeal his conviction avoiding jail. One day hopefully he'll have his record expunged. Yes what he did was stupid and reckless but at the end of the day the only person who suffered from that decision was Burress.

This is not correct. Bruen states that New York's requirement to state a proper cause for a concealed carry license is unconstitutional. Plaxico didn't have a New York (or New Jersey) license at all, and his Florida one had expired at the time of the incident. He was effectively concealing an unlicensed firearm and discharged it in a public setting. There's absolutely no basis to have his record "expunged."

Quote from: GiantsRevival2 on April 04, 2021, 07:22:01 PM
Wrong the lawyers had to retract their statements because they we pressured to do so.  If they didn

For those still spouting the voter fraud argument, you need to understand that it was never a real position and the attorneys who were touting it in multiple states have had to retract their statements in an effort to protect themselves. Sidney Powell, Trump's attorney, had to declare in briefing - and I quote - "reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process." (And please understand that statements in pleadings carry great weight not only in that particular case but across the board because attorneys can be held to those statements regardless of where they were made since they have a duty not just to their client but to the law and the courts themselves.) The "statements" referenced therein are the allegations of widespread (indeed even non-widespread, just marginally identifiable) voter fraud. And those claims which "awaited testing" were thrown out because the testing revealed the claims were wholly un-meritorious. Long story short: there was no there there.

To break it down even further: in this election cycle, there has not been a cognizable legal argument that voter fraud affected this election that has survived the most basic of scrutiny. If you believe the contrary, you're engaging in a conspiracy theory. You're just wrong. Republican and democratic judges alike have rejected these spurious cases.

Georgia's recent law has nothing to do with protecting elections. If its election was compromised, that would have been apparent given the microscope it was under. No, the recent laws are about inconveniencing people in the hope that they forego their constitutional rights. Its despicable. No American should welcome such a blatant effort to curtail citizens' constitutional rights.

Quote from: LennG on August 15, 2020, 12:44:47 PM
Woman-- Are you sure you have the right person?
Man-- I'm sure.
woman-- Oh, come on. Do I look like the mother of the future? I mean am I tough, organized? I can't even balance my checkbook! Look Reese, I didn't ask for this honor and I don't WANT IT, ANY OF IT!
Man-- Your son gave me a message to give to you. He made me memorize it.
Man-- Thank you, Sarah, for your courage through the dark years. I can't help you with what you must soon face, except to say that the future is not set. You must be stronger than you imagine you can be. You must survive, or I will never exist.

Kyle Reese, a man out of time, and Sarah Connor having an exchange.

Quote from: T200 on August 14, 2020, 02:00:03 PM
"You remember your business associate, Marcellus Wallace, don't you?"

"Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead."