Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 10:09:05 AMDid you see what Barkley was paid? 

Yep. There was absolutely a market for Barkley. Not trading him during the season seemed odd. In hindsight it looks even worse.

Quote from: AZGiantFan on Today at 01:59:40 AMPeople forget that there was a reason his (stupid) nickname was Danny Dimes after his rookie year.

DJ was 29-34 that preseason. And some of those balls he threw were absolute dots. It also translated to the season as well. His issue as a rookie was ball security and understanding how to run without getting annihilated by NFL defenders.

He has since cleaned that part up. Now if we get him a better coached OL (possibly checked off now) and an actual half decent WR group (possibly ALSO checked off now) with a viable offensive system (that too may be checked off under Daboll/Kafka)

I think we all whatever we think of DJ all (mostly) agree that DJ has had a very subpar support system of those 3 items for his career.

I don't think it's an impossibility that he looks more like the player we have seen have some very high level games now that those things could finally be in place.

Some may disagree that is a reasonable view. Fine. Well either way there is a good chance it's going to happen this year health withstanding, him being the starting QB that is. So why not just hope for the positive outcome. Otherwise why even bother watching this season?

Quote from: Stringer Bell on Today at 10:07:54 AMThe assumption that there was a willing trade partner looking to trade draft assets for an oft-injured RB on an expiring contract is not a good one.

Did you see what Barkley was paid? 

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 07:10:57 AMThis! it's not just who a team loses but who the team signs.  That's why the Giants would have been far better-served trading Saquan and McKinney last season at the deadline than letting them walk.

The assumption that there was a willing trade partner looking to trade draft assets for an oft-injured RB on an expiring contract is not a good one.

Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 09:29:57 AMExpectations by whom?

I said the consensus expected the Eagles to return to the Super Bowl.  What is the purpose of your question?  Are you disputing the consensus expected a Super Bowl repeat?  Do you want me to list a bunch of people who made that prediction so you can go to Google and most people who didn't predict the Eagles would return (even though consensus means the majority is not unanimous)? 

Can't you acknowledge that the Eagles fell far short of expectations?

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 08:46:22 AMYes, but it's frustrating to hear fans talk like Jones has been put in a normal NFL QB situation.  Jones has had shortcomings; like any QB (potentially more), Jones has shortcomings.  It's just frustrating that some fans seem not to acknowledge the terrible (and it's really been some of the worst in the NFL) support he has received in his NFL career.

That is fair. I have never denied that Jones' circumstances are substantially less than ideal if not downright poor. The whole team has been downright poor (or perhaps mediocre in some areas). I just don't think this 100% absolves Jones himself from his frequently poor play, nor do I think it 100% accounts for his lack of durability either. I appreciate that, based on your response above, you don't seem to feel that way either. I guess where we may differ is I have never seen any evidence (either before or after Jones arrived in the NFL) that he is going to be particularly good. You have said if everything around him gets better he can be a top 10 starter. I can't see that myself, but I'd certainly be delighted if it happened while he's still a Giant, which in my opinion is unlikely to extend beyond 2024.

Quote from: kingm56 on Today at 09:27:27 AMThe better question: How can you have a quality conversation when the opposing viewpoint reframes aggregate responses to benefit thier position?  Pray Tell, show me where the "Jones Critics" dismissed his 'brilliance.' Indeed, DJ's had some wonderful games/movements.  However, that's not the majority point.  The point was, and still is, a lot of professional QBs have moments of brilliance, especially QBs with 60 starts.  However, you chose to completely ignore that point, presumably because you don't have a good response; thus, you simply reframed the oppositions' position to give yourself the moral and intellectual high-ground.         

Even now, instead of hearing what I said and making an effort to understand my point, you only listen to the extent needed to formulate some sort of rebuttal

 

I used to disagree with Ed in terms of debate.  Ed opposed debate, while I thought it could be fun.   I think the problem is what we saw as debate.  I guess I saw the debate as discussing differing points of view, while I suspect Ed was seeing it as never listening to what the other side said and instead focusing all of one's efforts to try and prove that person wrong.

I spent considerable thought and effort trying to improve the quality of discourse, only to have those comments fall on deaf ears, and the issues I raised were just added to. I don't know what else I can do.

 

You win, whatever it is you think you are winning.  I can't keep going around in circles like this.

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 09:20:35 AMMatt,

I am confused.  The expectation for the Eagles (and this seemed to be a strong consensus) was that they would be returning to the Super Bowl.  How does putting up 11 wins (and making the playoffs) while suffering an embarrassing end-of-season loss to the Giants and immediately getting booted from the playoffs in a butt-kicking by the Bucs suggest the Eagles met expectations?

Expectations by whom?

Quote from: MightyGiants on Today at 09:15:46 AMThis comment sort of reflects the issue with discussing Jones.  Uncle Mickey had "showed flashes of brilliance" as a part of an argument.  The Jones critics focused on that part of the argument and first claimed Jones never showed brilliance.  Then, when you show historic accomplishments that any reasonable person would say was a flash of brilliance, the goalposts were moved, and it was claimed failed QBs had shown flashes of brilliance (not sure what that even means in context to UM's original point).  Finally, we have an entire point Uncle Mickey made thrown out, and it's declared the point that Jones has shown flashes of brilliance is now the entire argument, and clearly, that argument is a "bad one."

How can there be quality conversation in conditions like that?

The better question: How can you have a quality conversation when the opposing viewpoint reframes aggregate responses to benefit thier position?  Pray Tell, show me where the "Jones Critics" dismissed his 'brilliance.' Indeed, DJ's had some wonderful games/movements.  Nobody dismises that point; some, put them into context, like @Jess who noted most occurred during his rookie campaign.   However, that's not the majority point.  The point was, and still is, a lot of professional QBs have moments of brilliance, especially QBs with 60 starts.  However, you chose to completely ignore that point, presumably because you don't have a good response; thus, you simply reframed the oppositions' position to give yourself the moral and intellectual high-ground.         

Quote from: AYM on Today at 09:23:41 AMThey replaced Dan Quinn with Mike Zimmer who is probably just as good a DC.

Maybe, but he's 67 and spent the last couple of seasons kicking around the college ranks as an analyst/consultant.   At his prime, I would say you are correct, but it almost seemed like he was in semi-retirement and now is coming back.  Such returns are not always certain.