ALL DANIEL JONES POSTS AND DISCUSSIONS HERE

[AZGiantFan]

In my opinion and from what I've read from professionals that use next Gen stats for clearer picture of what's going on with an offense "Time to Throw" doesn't give a ton of information on its own. Only when it's coupled with other next Gen stats like actual Air Yards, and intended air yards can you get a better picture.

For example:

Patrick mahomes has a bad time to throw stat but his air yards and intended air yards are way above average borderline really long, and his 20+ and 40+ plays are tops in the league then we can assume from the data that his time to throw is bad not because of the offensive line or anything he's doing but because he is holding the ball longer to allow for routes/plays to develop.

Daniel Jones Bad time to throw stat and his Inteded air yards, and actual air yards are extremely short, that he's holding the ball and not throwing it far when he does release suggests a disconnect in the offense. 

If that helps, but yeah time to throw doesn't offer much without context of other stats involved.

Maybe that's because Mahomes' receivers get open?  They lost one of the top 3 receivers in the league and still have a receiving corps that is light-years better than the Giants'.

[Rambo89]

I can never make and sense of the letting Barkley go arguments. How is this team going to score any points?

And why is it some package deal? Barkley stays since he clearly the best player on this team/ the focal point of the offense/ the only player who who has any kind of breakout plays and you can tag him for relatively little cap space.

All this talk about Sexy dex and linebackers is trying to get too cute. This defense is not a problem. And dexter is a good to have 2 down player; nothing near as important as barkley.

The lifespan for RB's is not long and Barkley has already had injury issues.  Signing him to a big money extension is short sighted as IMO we've already gotten the best of Barkley as an NFL RB.

Neither am I so this is a straw man argument.  They are not sufficient at pass pro, they stink.  They have one excellent player and a bunch of guys who would be back-ups on most teams.

LOL, you've consistently made the argument Jones can be elite with the a great supporting cast around him.  The reality is when it comes to pocket play Daniel Jones is Danny Clueless.

Maybe that's because Mahomes' receivers get open?  They lost one of the top 3 receivers in the league and still have a receiving corps that is light-years better than the Giants'.

Or it's because Mahomes has instincts and isn't completely lost in the pocket

[Jclayton92]

Maybe that's because Mahomes' receivers get open?  They lost one of the top 3 receivers in the league and still have a receiving corps that is light-years better than the Giants'.

I wasn't arguing one way or another just giving examples on time to throw and how people use it.

[AZGiantFan]

I can never make and sense of the letting Barkley go arguments. How is this team going to score any points?

And why is it some package deal? Barkley stays since he clearly the best player on this team/ the focal point of the offense/ the only player who who has any kind of breakout plays and you can tag him for relatively little cap space.

All this talk about Sexy dex and linebackers is trying to get too cute. This defense is not a problem. And dexter is a good to have 2 down player; nothing near as important as barkley.

Because filling in the holes in the roster is of more value than the marginal advantage an aging, inconsistent, and injury prone Barkley provides over the kinds of RBs you can get for modest FA money or middle round draftees. 

As for the defense, they are 27th in giving up yards and 20th in points allowed.  Long term, that's a problem.  And while I'm not the biggest PFF fan, Dexter is putting up elite grades almost every game, while Barkley has put up some stinkers, including 7 games where he averaged under 4 ypc, two of which were under 3 yards per carry.

[Fletch]

Because filling in the holes in the roster is of more value than the marginal advantage an aging, inconsistent, and injury prone Barkley provides over the kinds of RBs you can get for modest FA money or middle round draftees. 

As for the defense, they are 27th in giving up yards and 20th in points allowed.  Long term, that's a problem.  And while I'm not the biggest PFF fan, Dexter is putting up elite grades almost every game, while Barkley has put up some stinkers, including 7 games where he averaged under 4 ypc, two of which were under 3 yards per carry.

I don't think so. It sounds like you are using 21 st century NFL philosophy and analytics and trying to argue in terms of absolutes. All that BS goes out the window when you have a dynamic and explosive player like Barkley; especially one you can tag for now and worry about it later.

What would the Giants record be without Barkley's 30-40 yard runs down the stretch in several games before the bye week that resulted in wins?

How many fewer points would this team have scored without Barkley and if they had some marginal back like a Fournette on their team?

And you want consistency? What you expect him to do that every game and run for 160 yards every game? That is a tall order in the NFL . This isn't high school football were talking about here.

Also I'd like to see the numbers when this team actually has a QB that can pass and score more to give the D a little more rest before we start talking about their numbers and signing Dex to any kind of money.

[AP44]

Does anyone else find "this backup QB" can be just as good as Jones based off one meaningless game against a bad team.

I mean there is a poster who is posting on this thread who has spoke many times on this board and another board about how much better Nick Foles is than Daniel Jones. I mean - come on people - let's do better.

Now we are all over Baker Mayfield - who's on his third team this year and the team that cut him mid season is much much better without him.

[True Blue]

Does anyone else find "this backup QB" can be just as good as Jones based off one meaningless game against a bad team.

I mean there is a poster who is posting on this thread who has spoke many times on this board and another board about how much better Nick Foles is than Daniel Jones. I mean - come on people - let's do better.

Now we are all over Baker Mayfield - who's on his third team this year and the team that cut him mid season is much much better without him.

Nick Foles beat Tom Brady in a Super Bowl. He isn't special, very inconsistent, hasn't had a "good year" since 2013, but that is no minor feat and should not be overlooked.

Also I did CTRL + F for Foles in the last 5 pages, and I do not see any mentions of him in this thread? Also not sure what blaming people here for what someone on another forum said is supposed to accomplish?

[AP44]

Nick Foles beat Tom Brady in a Super Bowl. He isn't special, very inconsistent, hasn't had a "good year" since 2013, but that is no minor feat and should not be overlooked.

Also I did CTRL + F for Foles in the last 5 pages, and I do not see any mentions of him in this thread? Also not sure what blaming people here for what someone on another forum said is supposed to accomplish?

If you didn't say it - then don't worry about it. The poster knows who he is.

It's sad people stuck up for Nick Foles more than people they root for.

[Jclayton92]

Lol who's pumping up Nick Foles or Baker Mayfield?

I would however say that Baker Mayfield, Jones, and Murray are all in the same group of average yet uninspiring NFL starters.

[DaveBrown74]

 

Maybe that's because Mahomes' receivers get open?  They lost one of the top 3 receivers in the league and still have a receiving corps that is light-years better than the Giants'.

I disagree that their receivers are "light years better" than the Giants'. That seems wildly hyperbolic to me.

Additionally, I think it's interesting that the Chiefs lost Tyreek Hill, a top three or four receiver in the sport, and yet Mahomes' season is significantly better this year than last year. There is a material margin for him in passer rating, QBR, and PFF this year versus last year.

If QB performance is so directly correlated to the receivers and no QB is capable of being so good that he can transcend that, how do you explain this?

[AP44]

I disagree that their receivers are "light years better" than the Giants'. That seems wildly hyperbolic to me.

Additionally, I think it's interesting that the Chiefs lost Tyreek Hill, a top three or four receiver in the sport, and yet Mahomes' season is significantly better this year than last year. There is a material margin for him in passer rating, QBR, and PFF this year versus last year.

If QB performance is so directly correlated to the receivers and no QB is capable of being so good that he can transcend that, how do you explain this?

How do you explain hill having more catches and yards without Mahomes then?

It works both ways.

[DaveBrown74]

How do you explain hill having more catches and yards without Mahomes then?

It works both ways.

That's two different questions. Hill for whatever reason had a slightly down year last year relative to all his other years with Mahomes. That is not uncommon and there are any number of reasons for that. Could have been nursing a minor injury that mildly impacted his performance. Who knows.

My point is Hill is clearly a stud receiver who is easily top five and most likely top three in the league. I don't think that statement is up for debate.

Hill left the Chiefs.

Mahomes' numbers are better this year than they were last year.

My point is that that's hard to explain if the correlation between QB performance and their exact receivers is as direct and strong as you guys say it is. Losing Hill, according to how many here emphasize the dramatic importance of receivers, should have impacted Mahomes noticeably to the downside, and not only has that not happened, but Mahomes is having an MVP caliber season that is better than last year by a significant margin.

[Fletch]

^

Game. Set. Match.

That's not to say that I don't think d jones could be effective laying on the dolphins and 49ers. He very well could and needs a team like that.

But for him to be here given the holes in the roster and not on a rookie deal makes no sense .

[kingm56]

That's two different questions. Hill for whatever reason had a slightly down year last year relative to all his other years with Mahomes. That is not uncommon and there are any number of reasons for that. Could have been nursing a minor injury that mildly impacted his performance. Who knows.

My point is Hill is clearly a stud receiver who is easily top five and most likely top three in the league. I don't think that statement is up for debate.

Hill left the Chiefs.

Mahomes' numbers are better this year than they were last year.

My point is that that's hard to explain if the correlation between QB performance and their exact receivers is as direct and strong as you guys say it is. Losing Hill, according to how many here emphasize the dramatic importance of receivers, should have impacted Mahomes noticeably to the downside, and not only has that not happened, but Mahomes is having an MVP caliber season that is better than last year by a significant margin.

Tannehill lost AJ Brown and his numbers are the exact same; Chase was out for over a month and Burrow continued to put up top 5 numbers. I could go on-and-on...

[AP44]

^

Game. Set. Match.

What does this even mean?