How would you have handled it?

[Ed Vette]

Lets just set the timeline to October and there is solid evidence that Daniel Jones can no longer be supported as the QB for the NYGs. How would you handle the Owner? Would you carry him to the end of the year? If so why? If you replace him, how would you handle the situation? Deal with the team, leading up to the change? How would you deal with Jones? Leave him second string? Send him on his way?

In other words, avoid a meltdown amd media circus, for the best possible outcome.

[EDjohnst1981]

It's New York.

There would always be a circus.

I would have asked him to waive his injury guarantee

[Gmo11]

IF he were willing to waive the injury guarantee I would probably just ride it out with him.  But why on earth would he do that?  It'd be incredibly stupid of him to do that and while he's not any good at football all indications are he's a smart guy. 

Having said that, you could still make an argument it makes more sent to evaluate Devito anyway once you all agree that you're moving on from Jones.  You just risk the circus they've been dealing with since they did it.

[Ed Vette]

It's New York.

There would always be a circus.

I would have asked him to waive his injury guarantee

That question was asked of Jones, and he said it was a business on both sides as I recall. I assumed he declined. I don't recall them asking Daboll that question, but I don't think he would answer it. 

[Ed Vette]

IF he were willing to waive the injury guarantee I would probably just ride it out with him.  But why on earth would he do that?  It'd be incredibly stupid of him to do that and while he's not any good at football all indications are he's a smart guy. 

Having said that, you could still make an argument it makes more sent to evaluate Devito anyway once you all agree that you're moving on from Jones.  You just risk the circus they've been dealing with since they did it.

He did go to Duke. lol

I think we have to assume they asked him, but if they didn't, then they just wanted to move on and not look back. So, what's the better way of handling it? There was no better way?

[Gmo11]

He did go to Duke. lol

I think we have to assume they asked him, but if they didn't, then they just wanted to move on and not look back. So, what's the better way of handling it? There was no better way?

I don't think so.  You can't risk him getting hurt.  That's the starting point.  That's negligence on the part of the team if they run him out there and he gets hurt.  It's not like he was lighting the world on fire with his excellent play.  Whether they are losing with Jones or losing with Devito doesn't make much of a difference.  So you have to bench him.  The only thing the might have done differently is sign Tim Boyle who's one of the worst QB I've ever seen. 

The practice safety stuff was over blown, that's what 3rd stringers are doing during install segments of practice.  it's not like they had him out there trying to cover Theo Johnson or tackle Singletary in practice.  He was pretty much standing around.  Losing sucks.  Emotions are high, people are pissed, and they should be.  But this step needed to be done.

[Ed Vette]

I don't think so.  You can't risk him getting hurt.  That's the starting point.  That's negligence on the part of the team if they run him out there and he gets hurt.  It's not like he was lighting the world on fire with his excellent play.  Whether they are losing with Jones or losing with Devito doesn't make much of a difference.  So you have to bench him.  The only thing the might have done differently is sign Tim Boyle who's one of the worst QB I've ever seen. 

The practice safety stuff was over blown, that's what 3rd stringers are doing during install segments of practice.  it's not like they had him out there trying to cover Theo Johnson or tackle Singletary in practice.  He was pretty much standing around.  Losing sucks.  Emotions are high, people are pissed, and they should be.  But this step needed to be done.

But was there a way of doing that where it didn't divide the locker room and cause a media fury? The media... they were calling for Jones' head all season and then when they benched him, they make it about Lock over DeVito. Would you have started Lock first?

[MrGap92]

I would have benched him sooner.

I'm assuming going back in time and letting him go after 2022 isn't an option in this exercise.

So, in this case I would have done it after the Eagles game. It's NY, no matter what there is a media circus, a little more transparency is about all you can give at that point. We are doing what is best for the long term interest of the Giants, feel it is best to make a change at QB. We are starting that change by seeing what we have in  DeVito who is an ERFA and will likely return next year, as we also evaluate other options moving forward as well. Or maybe I start Lock first for a game or two then still switch to TD after the bye.

Reword it as you see fit, but I don't think there is much else that could have been done.

[Ed Vette]

I would have benched him sooner.

I'm assuming going back in time and letting him go after 2022 isn't an option in this exercise.

So, in this case I would have done it after the Eagles game. It's NY, no matter what there is a media circus, a little more transparency is about all you can give at that point. We are doing what is best for the long term interest of the Giants, feel it is best to make a change at QB. We are starting that change by seeing what we have in  DeVito who is an ERFA and will likely return next year, as we also evaluate other options moving forward as well. Or maybe I start Lock first for a game or two then still switch to TD after the bye.

Reword it as you see fit, but I don't think there is much else that could have been done.

That's what I would have done. Transparency is a key element here too.

[MightyGiants]

Lets just set the timeline to October and there is solid evidence that Daniel Jones can no longer be supported as the QB for the NYGs. How would you handle the Owner? Would you carry him to the end of the year? If so why? If you replace him, how would you handle the situation? Deal with the team, leading up to the change? How would you deal with Jones? Leave him second string? Send him on his way?

In other words, avoid a meltdown amd media circus, for the best possible outcome.

If I were GM, I would have never agreed to the injury guarantee.  They say a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others.  I have never seen such injury guarantees work out well, especially at QB.

If I had somehow ended up in this situation, I think I would have talked to Jones immediately after the Panthers' game.  I would have told him we were intending to end his season (and career) with the team.  His options would have been to stay home or, if he requested, we would release him.  I certainly wouldn't have told the players Monday morning of week 2 of the bye week break and then announced it in the press and let DJ dangle in the wind for a couple of days.

Mike Lombardi often talks about the importance of second-level thinking when it comes to management/leadership.  In this case, the Giants management team went as far as first-level thinking (we need to shut down Daniel Jones) but failed the second-level thinking (how to do so with minimal distraction).

If they intended to go with DeVito, he should have been elevated to QB 2 weeks ago (another second-level thinking point).   Maybe even give him some more reps as more and more signs pointed to DJ's departure.

[Ed Vette]

If I were GM, I would have never agreed to the injury guarantee.  They say a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others.  I have never seen such injury guarantees work out well, especially at QB.

If I had somehow ended up in this situation, I think I would have talked to Jones immediately after the Panthers' game.  I would have told him we were intending to end his season (and career) with the team.  His options would have been to stay home or, if he requested, we would release him.  I certainly wouldn't have told the players Monday morning of week 2 of the bye week break and then announced it in the press and let DJ dangle in the wind for a couple of days.

Mike Lombardi often talks about the importance of second-level thinking when it comes to management/leadership.  In this case, the Giants management team went as far as first-level thinking (we need to shut down Daniel Jones) but failed the second-level thinking (how to do so with minimal distraction).

If they intended to go with DeVito, he should have been elevated to QB 2 weeks ago (another second-level thinking point).   Maybe even give him some more reps as more and more signs pointed to DJ's departure.

So, do you think they needed the bye week to make a decision? I don't think they did.

[LennG]

I always feel being honest is the way to go. If I were Schoen, I would have called Jones in and told him that he either waive his injury clause or be demoted. I would explain the whys also, telling him that as GM he has to look out for the team's future and that Jones just wasn't part of it anymore. That leaves the onus on Jones, and as we know, he declined to waive that injury clause, so why blame Giant management anymore? Jones had the chance to stay a Giant and probably start for the rest of the season. Blaming Schoen, Daboll, or even Mara at this point is silly. Jones is no dummy, he understands all of this perfectly, so playing the poor, hurt player is just not the way to go. Come on, he saw the handwriting on the wall during the off-season. This was his 'prove it's year. They gave him everything they could for him to be a legit QB in the NFL, everything all the Jones supporters asked for, and he still failed. Yet, the supporters still find ways to spin this so it falls on Schoen and Daboll and even Mara as the cause. I just love how this entire thing is being spun to make others the 'bad' boys and poor Daniel Jones was the victim. Give me a huge break here.

[Ed Vette]

Good point about risking the Player's career in a lost season, where you aren't keeping him next season.

Rawb Rob Maldonado Facebook
Putting myself in the owners shoes, this couldn't have been an easy decision. You were part of drafting DJ. You put all your faith and money behind him to succeed. You gave him 6 seasons to prove himself. Now you're 2-8 facing another losing season and your QB hasn't worked out. So you have to do what is best for your franchise at this point. Benching DJ saves your business from being at risk. I look at it as a business decision. You're going nowhere this season. No reason to risk an injury behind a bad line. He's already coming off a bad injury and your team is losing. People just see money and that's part of it. But why put the QB's future in harms way? It was a smart decision but one that you know you're gonna take a lot of criticism no matter how it was handled. If they kept him in and he gets injured you put the players career at risk. If you bench him it's all about money. Either way you can't win. It was the right move at the right time.

[MightyGiants]

So, do you think they needed the bye week to make a decision? I don't think they did.

They should have played out all the scenarios before the season even started.  So, no, they wasted that first week.

[Woody]

But was there a way of doing that where it didn't divide the locker room and cause a media fury? The media... they were calling for Jones' head all season and then when they benched him, they make it about Lock over DeVito. Would you have started Lock first?

possibly could have benched Jones for a couple of games and see what would happen ....ala last week.  then if not a drastic improvement play him again....why not ...it would have sent message you need to play a lot better or your gone ...