Big Blue Huddle

Joe seems to be saying he is ignoring the injury guarantee that is looming as the season goes deeper


https://x.com/TalkinGiants/status/1856431653352042680

Good answer. Those football decisions extend beyond this season.

for what it's worth, reporters tried to define a "football decision".  Schoen reluctantly agreed with the suggested meaning of trying to win as many games as possible.



I am also mindful that I am pretty sure the NFLPA would have problems if the Giants bench DJ for non-football reasons, so Schoen had a motive not to discuss or acknowledge the injury guarantee.

I think if he gets benched, its justified, he hasn't produced, and they are 2-8, plenty of ways to spin that in a way that doesn't hurt them.

Regardless on where we all stand, I think we can agree on that much, I can't forsee the NFLPA coming at them for benching, if they did.

Quote from: MrGap92 on November 12, 2024, 03:35:53 PMI think if he gets benched, its justified, he hasn't produced, and they are 2-8, plenty of ways to spin that in a way that doesn't hurt them.

Regardless on where we all stand, I think we can agree on that much, I can't forsee the NFLPA coming at them for benching, if they did.

The only way I could see the NFLPA having an issue (beside Schoen saying he benched Jones due to the guarantee) would be if the offense does much worse with Lock (with Lock playing worse as well)

If that happens over the next 3 or 4 games, it would be hard to explain why they didn't make a change.  Although the out there would be to start DeVito.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 12, 2024, 03:38:11 PMThe only way I could see the NFLPA having an issue (beside Schoen saying he benched Jones due to the guarantee) would be if the offense does much worse with Lock (with Lock playing worse as well)

If that happens over the next 3 or 4 games, it would be hard to explain why they didn't make a change.  Although the out there would be to start DeVito.

Would that not be justified by the team "looking for a spark" or something along the lines, or in other words, is the reasoning for it not enough even if the results aren't there?

IDK what they look for or how they see things, I'm just wondering.

Or, if that is the case, what does "worse" look like in that regard?

Quote from: MrGap92 on November 12, 2024, 03:42:00 PMWould that not be justified by the team "looking for a spark" or something along the lines, or in other words, is the reasoning for it not enough even if the results aren't there?

IDK what they look for or how they see things, I'm just wondering.

Or, if that is the case, what does "worse" look like in that regard?

For the season, DJ has a 79.4 passer rating and a 46.3 QBR.  Those are not good numbers, but there is room for a QB to put up worse numbers.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 12, 2024, 03:38:11 PMAlthough the out there would be to start DeVito.

Yes. Absolute built in out with DeVito - which is ideal for the Giants. The worry there might be any galvanising effect he might have with the "mania" he brings.

Combining this with Daboll saying they will be reviewing the tape to determine best way forward at the QB position seems like they are providing each other plenty of cover for benching DJ.  I'm sure they worked these comments out beforehand.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 12, 2024, 03:46:53 PMFor the season, DJ has a 79.4 passer rating and a 46.3 QBR.  Those are not good numbers, but there is room for a QB to put up worse numbers.

I get it, I just wouldn't think the results would matter, good or bad, I just would have thought the reasoning behind such a decision would be enough, and in this case justified. But again, anything NFLPA related, is not something I am well versed in. I am probably looking at it too simply in all likelihood.

Quote from: MrGap92 on November 12, 2024, 03:57:26 PMI get it, I just wouldn't think the results would matter, good or bad, I just would have thought the reasoning behind such a decision would be enough, and in this case justified. But again, anything NFLPA related, is not something I am well versed in. I am probably looking at it too simply in all likelihood.

Lock is on a one-year deal.  If Lock had a multi-year deal, it would have been easier to justify continuing with Lock.   The NFLPA is a union, and these sorts of things tend to get arbitrated.   Assuming DJ is released, DJ could argue his new contract earnings were hurt by an improper benching.

So that's why I discuss this in terms of how benching DJ could be justified as a football decision.

It would be easy to argue jones is 3-13 over last 16 games
He has failed to score more than 1 score on 5occasions
And failed to score more than 20 on 13 occasions

Has 10 TDs, 13 Ints and 2 Fumbles


I do not think it would be hard to defend his benching

Of course if the football decision is which QB gives us the best chance at the #1 pick then maybe he keeps playing

I think DJ was bad enough in the last game, and his season overall has been bad enough (as was his previous season), that benching him purely because they want to try one of their other QBs is more than justifiable, and no further explanation is necessary.

@babywhales @DaveBrown74


If DJ's replacement plays substantially worse, DJ could argue the team rather than the QB is the problem

Playing Devito would be a mistake. He actually could win a few games. If we truly want to lose to gain a better draft pick and I just cannot see Daboll or Schoen even admit to that, we should play Jones, but then there is that injury clause and everyone seems to know about it, so Lock seems to best option. Jones sucks, so we are looking at the backup, Lock, and hope he doesn't get hurt and we have to play Devito. He could win some games for us.