Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 13, 2024, 08:47:33 AMYou 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

And that's why this arbitration "concern" is a non-starter, IMO.  He hasn't played well.  Teams bench 2-8 QBs all the time.

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 13, 2024, 09:46:32 AMHis 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.

100% agree. As I said, it would be easy for the giants to defend any unlikely claim and have it dismissed.

If I could like your post more than once, I would. Thank you for the time to lay this out.

Quote from: H-Town G-Fan on November 13, 2024, 09:46:32 AMHis 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.

Here's the thing: for a COMPETENT organization, this would be a non-issue.  I do not feel comfortable in the belief that the Giants (top to bottom) run a competent organization.

While I appreciate Kyle's analyses as quoted by Ed, and don't disagree with any of it, I personally do not see the point in trying to read minds and guess intentions of any of the parties involved currently or as may be in the future. 

And I might add, what in hell does it matter what we think about it unless we feel that cheering or booing up our rear ends somehow matters to someone to whom God only knows.

Cheers!

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 13, 2024, 12:30:38 PMHere's the thing: for a COMPETENT organization, this would be a non-issue.  I do not feel comfortable in the belief that the Giants (top to bottom) run a competent organization.

That doesn't change the facts that exist (I would agree it impacts the genesis of those facts, but it doesn't change them). I've laid out the strategy concerns interested parties would consider as applied to those facts and I'm extremely confident in that analysis.

Quote from: MightyGiants on November 13, 2024, 12:30:38 PMHere's the thing: for a COMPETENT organization, this would be a non-issue.  I do not feel comfortable in the belief that the Giants (top to bottom) run a competent organization.

In 3 years they won a playoff game, on the road in an apparent "hostile" environment.

Second year they lost their "franchise" QB.

This season with the "franchise QB" with high 1st round receiver, competent line for the half the games played and it's still the issue with the regime.

As someone said yesterday, we've entered the "trolling" phase.

As we are in that, why did the Jones signing thread end up deleted and which moderator suggested it needs to be deleted?

Quote from: EDjohnst1981 on November 13, 2024, 12:59:02 PMIn 3 years they won a playoff game, on the road in an apparent "hostile" environment.

Second year they lost their "franchise" QB.

This season with the "franchise QB" with high 1st round receiver, competent line for the half the games played and it's still the issue with the regime.

As someone said yesterday, we've entered the "trolling" phase.

As we are in that, why did the Jones signing thread end up deleted and which moderator suggested it needs to be deleted?

Before you call me a troll again, know these questions are asked in good faith

1)  In year two, what was their record prior to losing their franchise QB?

2)  In year three, their franchise QB is clearly broken.   So why are a rookie wide receiver with "bad habits" and a partially fixed offensive line (still making DJ the number one hit quarterback in the league) relevant?

As for the deleted thread, I have no clue what you are referring to.