Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: Giant Jim on November 22, 2024, 12:33:53 PMI agree about the part about outside NFL activities, not so sure about if he's on another team. Hopefully we'll find out.

Guarantee this is not the case or the Giants would never release him like this because they could just put him on ice to ensure no injury. Pretty sure "release" means terminating his contract, so there's no injury clause in effect anymore.

Quote from: ozzie on November 21, 2024, 04:28:22 PMI'm not looking to stir up trouble or get into a war of words with anyone, but for everyone that thinks John Mara is too meddling and too involved and goes out of his way to protect Daniel Jones, if that stuff was true and DJ was actually JM's boy, do you really think he would allow Daboll to embarrass DJ by knocking him down to 4th on the depth chart and making play scout team safety?
That's just an honest question, like I said I'm not trying to get into any arguments.

An honest response: I seriously doubt Mara is involved in the precise nature of benching DJ. He probably got the high-points: DJ is not going to play again this season, it's DeVito and Lock, we may need to make some additional moves, etc. No way did Daboll or Schoen ever go "Hey, DJ is going to play a snap or two at scout safety, you cool with that?"

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 20, 2024, 02:07:56 PMTim,

While there have been notable exceptions, the sense I get is that the unwritten player code is you don't begrudge your teammate's salary.  In other words, let them get theirs.  When I thought about it, that sort of made sense because at some point (at least if their career enjoys some success) they will be in a position of asking for as much money from the team as they can get.

So, while your point about less available money is hurting the team's success for all the players, I think inherently, most players don't view it that way.

Easier for Dex not to care when he already got paid himself.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 20, 2024, 12:39:17 PMLook, I don't necessarily agree with the decision to start DeVito, but I think the HC should give the QB a confidence boost when all it takes is to say he is the man.   Daboll wouldn't be signing a contract, he could always change his mind, but I have to think a young QB would appreciate a show of support and confidence.


https://x.com/gregp_j/status/1859289800987091093

Here's something I've been thinking about: if the Giants are truly concerned about Drew Lock hitting any incentives in his deal, you could get rid of those concerns by starting DeVito for a game or two. If he plays well, then of course you don't need to turn to Lock and there's no incentive risk. If it goes badly for DeVito, you say you're making a change to Lock and just two games is likely to be enough to ensure the latter doesn't hit snap percentages or pass attempt minimums. It would look far worse if Lock was trending towards those incentives and you benched him right before he could get them for DeVito.

I'm not positive this is what they're doing, as we're probably only talking $250k-$1MM potentially off the 2025 cap, which likely doesn't make a difference since they're not likely to compete with a new QB at the helm. But its not out of the question.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 18, 2024, 03:37:43 PMThe Giants are tight up against the cap to the point they had to release McCloud when he refused a $2 million pay cut.  SEE NOTE BELOW


https://x.com/spotrac/status/1858517974828609543

Playoff berth incentives obviously aren't a consideration.

Doubtful he would hit any of the snaps incentives. We're more than halfway through--with 7 games left, that's roughly 41% of remaining snaps. If he was trending to get this, they could put DeVito in for a game at the end of the season to ensure he didn't get it.

The other incentives require 224 pass attempts (per Dan Duggan in April of this year). He'd need 30 attempts a game to reach that mark to be eligible. Does not seem outlandish, but I'd imagine they lean more heavily on the run game and this this too wouldn't be met.

I think this move is more about them actually believing DeVito gives them a better chance to win then gaming around an additional $250k or $500k cap hit next year.

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on November 18, 2024, 10:37:42 AMSo with the Daniel Jones era effectively over. 

How many of the remaining games do you think the Giants will win with a non-franchise QB at the controls?

Guests can vote.

Selected 0-2. Cowboys and Colts are the only games where I feel there's a real chance (and if Anthony Richardson's revival last week is indicative of how he plays moving forward, I'm doubtful of that game). The Giants are still not going to be able to roster an average player at the QB position, which will likely yield largely similar results to the Giants' pre-bye week performance. Further, DeVito will not have the benefit of Andrew Thomas covering his blindside, as Jones did for the first 6 weeks. My expectations on the next few weeks don't change much, if at all, in the wake of Jones's benching.

Quote from: MrGap92 on November 18, 2024, 09:14:14 AMMy best guess, and it is just an assumption, is since he is an ERFA and will likely be back in 2025, they rather see him some more to see if he can at the very least be their #2 moving forward since Lock was on a one year deal.

I don't think their level of talent evaluation are a factor here.

Also, they identified and signed Tyrod in 2022, who was a capable fill-in and consummate professional. So are we analyzing just their backup QB signing this past offseason? Seems to cut out a significant part of the equation. In any case, I personally don't care about the backup QB spot in terms of making a judgment about QB evaluation skills because it's not going to be that signing that determines Daboll or Schoen's future with the Giants...

Per Rapaport on Twitter.

No, because I don't care about wins and losses (ostensibly why you're acquiring Cousins) in a transitional year to a new QB. And especially not for impact draft capital.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 15, 2024, 08:58:29 AMhttps://x.com/rydunleavy/status/1857414175967875422

It seems like Schoen has his valuation of players and isn't afraid to make and offer based on that and stick with it (similar to the Love and Barkley situations). Not fun to lose talented players, but I can at least get on board with the approach to business.

Quote from: Doc16LT56 on November 14, 2024, 10:41:49 PMI agree but I don't think they can make it mandatory. Maybe a salary cap incentive to keep rookie QBs off the field. Don't count the first year against the cap for those QBs who are redshirted. I don't know but it's something worth thinking about.

This is interesting... but almost backwards? It allows you more cap flexibility to build a team during the year you're not using your rookie QB. So it seems more to help in a season where the drafting team is attempting to win now, but also one in which they drafted a 1st round QB. (The Falcons almost immediately come to mind, but I tend to think this is somewhat uncommon). But as to the backwards part, the season you begin to use the sophomore QB, that cap flexibility is gone. So unless you got a few guys on 1-year deals in the red-shirt season, you may end up having to cut some fat because you now just added $10MM+ to your cap when your now 2nd year QB comes online.

Alternatively, they you could do a straight up draft pick: if you sit your rookie QB for a full season, you get a compensatory 3rd round pick after that year (or something to that effect). In that situation, you're giving the team potentially more ammunition to aid the QB in the season he's actually playing (sophomore campaign), instead of flexibility to add players in a year which the draft QB isn't contributing.

Interesting idea overall though.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 14, 2024, 02:30:12 PMSchoen signed AT and Dex to big contracts as well.   It would have been easy to use those contracts to shift cap money lost by giving DJ the franchise tag

He certainly could have. Schoen has shown a reticence to push significant dollars into the future. The Giants have a healthy cap as a result--though, a healthy cap without win/loss production isn't exactly something to brag about.

Quote from: MrGap92 on November 14, 2024, 02:14:48 PMAnd that one, I agree with you 100%

I would have preferred that scenario much more myself, so on that one, we agree.

I would even prefer DJ getting the tag if it meant Barkley left a year sooner (maybe he would have landed elsewhere too), cause at least Jones is fully off the books, which would be better cap wise than the year 2 out.

A Barkley/Tracy duo would be fun to watch.

DJ had a $15MM cap hit in 2023 due to the contract he signed, which pushed more money into 2024 and 2025. It would have been $18MM more on the cap in 2023 if they franchised him (total $33MM). As I recall, this was part of the issue--franchising DJ was a strong option, but the cap implications because of the position valuation were difficult to reconcile with the rest of the required team building. To put it in broader strokes: in 2023 the Giants entered with Barkley at $10MM (franchise tag) and Jones at $15MM, for a total of $25MM. Assume that's what they could pay for the combined positions without cutting short the other facets of the team they needed to improve: there's simply no way to achieve that low a combined cap hit when you franchise Jones--you're already $8MM over it before even taking into account Barkley's contract. I think they would have loved to flip-flop the contracts and franchise Jones and long-term deal with Barkley, but it was largely infeasible if you actually wanted to retain both and make improvements to the squad overall. I can't recall perfectly, but I think if they franchised Jones the Giants wouldn't have had any real flexibility in the 2023 offseason if they franchised Jones.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 14, 2024, 10:06:47 AMTo point one, dismissing a point because it doesn't fit your narrative and claiming you are doing so "to avoid the muck" isn't how I would do things.

I didn't dismiss your argument--I said I didn't think your single point "ruined" my argument. You know the difference.  This is the muck. Thanks for bringing me here despite my pleas.

QuoteTo point two, I do not buy it. You said they signed him to a deal due to potential and then immediately dismissed that and tried to say only I was talking about potential.  Clearly Schoen and Daboll saw franchise abilities in Daniel Jones or they wouldn't have inked that contract.  It would be better to adjust your position, than ignore these critical points, in my opinion

Come on. At least present my point consistently. I noted in the same breath about potential other factors at play, specifically Mara, that you ignore. I said the deal was premised on potential and development, and you want to twist that into I now mean Daboll/Schoen unequivocally saw franchise potential. I didn't say that.

And do not deign to tell me to "adjust my position." Not once have I attempted to dissuade you from your opinions--noting how reasonable minds could differ on these matters--now here you are telling me to change while misrepresenting my point. You should be embarrassed at this with how often you cry out for civility, about being attacked for your opinions, etc.

Take your last word and be done please.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 14, 2024, 09:36:33 AMDJ didn't start until week 3 but still through 24 TDs, sort of hard to dismiss that as unsuccessful especially for a rookie with no number one WR (or even a good receiver corps) and mediocre protection.

Why argue a topic I literally said we just are going to have to disagree on and didn't even offer any substantive response? What earthly purpose could this serve? I'm trying not to descend into the muck where I know we will simply not see eye-to-eye, so please stop.

QuoteAs to Schoen and Daboll, they gave him a deal premised on potential and Jones's ability to develop.

I completely agree with that statement.  Knowing more about DJ than anyone on the planet they saw franchise potential not a very limited QB who needed special schemes for him to be functional

I'm not making any proclamation about what Daboll / Schoen saw in DJ when they he inked after 2022. Your interpretation of the potential they believed Jones had is not gospel--the deal itself indicates they didn't think he was worth a full franchise-level investment, neither in money or time. There are also other pressures (i.e. Mara) for which you're not accounting. But you have your opinion and that's fine--I am not trying to dissuade you from it (nor do I think that possible) and have little desire to keep going back and forth about topics when we both know where the other lands.