Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 12, 2024, 05:10:46 PM@babywhales @DaveBrown74


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

Rich,

To me, the downside of some arbitration dispute with Jones sounds much less great than the downside of taking an additional $23mm cap hit on him by continuing to play him and having him incur a serious injury sometime in these final 7 games.

I don't think he has much of a case either, frankly. He's been objectively bad.

Regardless, a potential dispute with Jones down the road scares me a lot less than a wasted $23mm does. The latter is catastrophic. The former sounds more like a mild to moderate nuisance at worst.

Wilson and Carr have suffered the same fate recently with of NFLPA involvement.

Arguably, the only person who has stopped Jones earning those incentives, is in fact, Daniel Jones.

Quote from: DaveBrown74 on November 12, 2024, 05:52:05 PMRich,

To me, the downside of some arbitration dispute with Jones sounds much less great than the downside of taking an additional $23mm cap hit on him by continuing to play him and having him incur a serious injury sometime in these final 7 games.

I don't think he has much of a case either, frankly. He's been objectively bad.

Regardless, a potential dispute with Jones down the road scares me a lot less than a wasted $23mm does. The latter is catastrophic. The former sounds more like a mild to moderate nuisance at worst.

In the end, I don't think DJ would win, but the team should be careful

Jones is 2-8 THIS YEAR.. therefore leaving him as the starter projects the same percentage for the back half of the season.

Naming Mr. Ed as the starter vs Jones projected record over 17 games is in itself a solid football decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 12, 2024, 06:16:18 PMIn the end, I don't think DJ would win, but the team should be careful

I agree they should be careful. Which means he should not see the field again this season.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 12, 2024, 05:10:46 PM@babywhales @DaveBrown74


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

Burning Bridges

Quote from: LennG on November 12, 2024, 05:11:01 PMPlaying 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.

It's a different situation, Lenn. Last year Jones was a beaten dog. This year, he's a leader and has been one tough SOB. The team is behind him, with the exception of a Receiver who needs his wings clipped.

I think the decision has been made and they are just waiting for an appropriate time to announce a change.  Likely it will get leaked that Lock or DeVito took reps with the first team.

I would place chances of arbitration regarding a potential benching at slim-to-none.

First off, the implication that if Lock plays badly, the NFLPA could say: "Look, the Giants played an inferior player!" is never going to happen. Guess who the NFLPA also represents? Drew Lock. The ramifications of the NFLPA having to say Drew Lock is a bad enough player that there was no reasonable way to go to him are... problematic to say the least. What if one day Drew Lock is in a similar position? If I'm on the other side, I immediately go "Hey NFLPA, remember when you said Drew Lock was a horrible player?" This is just a single example that immediately comes to mind. There's numerous other pitfalls of taking a position like this.

If we're talking about incentives, there's really no good argument he'd be denied the opportunity to collect a single one. Projecting out his stats to date through the end of the season has him missing the lowest milestone rung for every one of the four categories. Also, imagine trying to argue to a panel of people versed in these subjects that a guy with as dubious a record as Daniel Jones was actually underpaid by the Giants. That's tough sledding.

I also think its incorrect to evaluate the decision based on how Drew Lock plays, because it's inapposite to the real subject at issue: whether benching Daniel Jones would be in bad faith. And to get there, I think you'd have to get to something along the lines of the Giants believed at the time they benched Jones that there was no possible area that Drew Lock could play better than Jones. Given what has transpired, I find that hard to believe--even if Lock is ultimately a lesser player, he may offer something Jones doesn't (i.e. deep passing). Anything short of that gets into subjective areas... and that's where I'd argue a true football decision lies. I'd be hard pressed to believe the panel would have the ability to substitute its judgment for that of the professional organization (and this is a concept about "business judgment" from other areas of the law).

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 12, 2024, 07:00:22 PMI would place chances of arbitration regarding a potential benching at slim-to-none.

I agree.  This sounds like Mike Florio level shite stirring.

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 12, 2024, 07:00:22 PMI would place chances of arbitration regarding a potential benching at slim-to-none.

While I think there were some well-reasoned points made, I think you (and @AZGiantFan) underappreciate how these things work in union environments (I managed in a double union environment for years).   Clearly the Giants are concerned with this possibility.  It's why Schoen made it clear it would be a "football decision."

It's why one of the Giants' mouthpiece reporters (the ones that run stories the Giants want run) is running this article:

Money won't decide Daniel Jones' fate with Giants: 'Football decision'


Look, I think arbitration is not likely to happen, but the team is aware of the possibility and hasn't dismissed it.  They are being careful to avoid any appearance that the injury guarantee played a role in their decision to bench Jones (despite pundits and beat reporters talking about that all season).

If things were as unlikely as you suggested with your "slim and none," Schoen wouldn't have made the "football decision" comment, and they wouldn't have had Paul Schwartz publish the article denying the role the guarantee would play in the decision.



You know, it's kind of funny; I am sure that DJ's agent pushed for the injury guarantee (during negotiations) as soon as the team made it clear they wanted to structure the contract with an escape after 2 seasons.   The idea is that if Jones plays well but gets seriously hurt in year two, the team would abandon Jones high and try and move on. Now it appears the guarantee is working against DJ.  I say appear because I think DJ needs to take the bench or a season to two to try and get his confidence back and his head straight ala Sam Darnold (the QB that made the "seeing ghosts" popular

The only decision- "football" or some "otherwise" the Giants must now make is to end Daniel Jones's role as Giants QB, save as much net cap money as they can, and to focus on when, where and who will be the starter next season.

Cheers! 

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 13, 2024, 08:47:33 AMWhile I think there were some well-reasoned points made, I think you (and @AZGiantFan) underappreciate how these things work in union environments (I managed in a double union environment for years).  Clearly the Giants are concerned with this possibility.  It's why Schoen made it clear it would be a "football decision."

It's why one of the Giants' mouthpiece reporters (the ones that run stories the Giants want run) is running this article:

Money won't decide Daniel Jones' fate with Giants: 'Football decision'


Look, I think arbitration is not likely to happen, but the team is aware of the possibility and hasn't dismissed it.  They are being careful to avoid any appearance that the injury guarantee played a role in their decision to bench Jones (despite pundits and beat reporters talking about that all season).

If things were as unlikely as you suggested with your "slim and none," Schoen wouldn't have made the "football decision" comment, and they wouldn't have had Paul Schwartz publish the article denying the role the guarantee would play in the decision.

His quote about a football decision is how you maintain the slim-to-none chance of anything occurring. Saying something stupid ("Of course we're considering the injury guarantee!") is how you give more ammunition to Jones (akin to the Broncos outright asking Wilson to take a paycut or be benched) and shift that ratio towards a potential claim. But there's no need to say anything more than "football decision" here. I can tell you business organizations, even when the likelihood of litigation is remote, still try to keep their messaging clean to avoid potential problems (especially because you never know what might happen and what you consider un/important now might shift).

I specifically noted why the union cannot throw its own players under the bus in support of Jones--its unsustainable for the NFLPA. And I'm not sure how you get to any argument that it was wrongful to bench Jones for Lock (or DeVito) without having to take shots at the latter players along the way. The only way to do so would be to say Jones's play was so clearly beneficial to the team there could be no reasonable way to bench him, and we simply know that isn't the case.

Also, has there ever been an instance of a QB filing an arbitration claim because they were benched? I'm not aware of any. If you're the NFLPA and this is a case of first impression that you want to set precedent with, is Daniel Jones really the player to be the test case? If anything, the Broncos threatening Wilson to take a pay cut was a much better opportunity for this sort of claim: Hall of Fame-trajectory QB, middling but still decent performance in 2023 with some strong factors (TDs and INTs). And even with objective evidence that the injury guarantee was likely a factor in the decision making process... nothing.

And really--what is the harm to Daniel Jones from the benching? He would need to articulate damages to a panel. And we're not talking reputational or any "soft" damages like that. He's not on track for a single incentive milestone, so that won't fly. Is he going to argue that he should play so that he can get injured and collect a $23MM guarantee next March? That doesn't work because it sure as hell isn't a football reason to keep playing. Is he going to say he's being stopped from getting another contract? Good luck with that since it's basically the worst year of his career--I'd argue benching him and not letting him put anymore bad tape out there actually helps him in free agency next season.

If I were the NFLPA's attorneys advising DJ (if it ever got that far), I'd say you have virtually no chance of winning (and I sure as hell am not throwing any other union members under the bus for a guy who already has made more than 99% of them), our damages are speculative at best, and this might hurt your ability to secure another contract this offseason (most organizations don't love litigious employees because they could always be next).

In sum, I still don't see it.

Screw that. He has stolen enough money.  Sit him down and if the NFLPA wants to involve themselves so be it.

I can't wait to see, confident, repaired Daniel Jones with the year 8 breakout with the Raiders