Daboll- No guarantee Daniel Jones will be ready Week 1

[T200]

This is the critical quote, in my opinion


"The reality is he's coming off three injuries in two years," Schoen said. "That's facts. It's something we've gotta consider. We're gonna address it through free agency and if there's an opportunity in the draft — we're gonna look at every position, not only quarterback because we do have needs across the roster."

Joe and company gambled on Jones staying healthy and that gamble did not pay off.

They gambled twice on him; not picking up his 5th-year option and then the health gamble. Fool me once...

They'd be absolute fools to stake their careers on a QB they didn't bring in. That's why I think they will draft a QB this year.

[Bob In PA]

They gambled twice on him; not picking up his 5th-year option and then the health gamble. Fool me once...

They'd be absolute fools to stake their careers on a QB they didn't bring in. That's why I think they will draft a QB this year.

Tim: We both know your post makes a lot of sense, but consider this... did they not also learn in their few years as the helm that if you don't have a half-decent offensive line that can protect the QB AND open a few holes for the run game (neither of which they were very successful at) and also have an elite WR, your team will lead the NFL in offensive futility? The fool-me-once thing applies to those two situations as well.

I believe they will have a single QB in mind whom (if he falls to them without trading) they will take. But that is a very small window with very low odds, IMO.  When that fails, as it almost certainly will, they will have probably two (maybe all three) WR's in mind, because that trio (this year) IMO beats the crap out of the group of potential high-1st-round QB's.

I think the odds (absent a trade up or down) strongly favor a WR, with TE and O-line as long-shots.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

They gambled twice on him; not picking up his 5th-year option and then the health gamble. Fool me once...

They'd be absolute fools to stake their careers on a QB they didn't bring in. That's why I think they will draft a QB this year.

They gambled on the 5th year option and lost (when all facts were known, it would have been better to have picked up the option).  They gambled on the injuries and lost.  Of course, the Giants badly failed in building out their offensive line and stacked the deck against Schoen in terms of the injury gamble.  Things might have gone differently if Jones hadn't taken the pounding that he took behind center.  He might not have suffered the injuries he did (the neck was a blindside quick sack, and the ACL was Jones trying to escape pressure).

Still, even with the beating, the fact that two of the major injuries occurred in less than 6 games makes me doubt if Jones could stay healthy over the span of a couple of seasons (even at the high beating rate Jones took, one has to think the collective beating of say two seasons is greater than the less than 6 full games).

[T200]

Tim: We know your post makes a lot of sense, but consider this... did they not also learn in their few years as the helm that if you don't have a half-decent offensive line that can protect the QB AND open a few holes for the run game (neither of which they were very successful at) and also have an elite WR, your team will lead the NFL in offensive futility? The fool-me-once thing applies to those two situations as well.

I believe they will have a single QB in mind whom (if he falls to them without trading) they will take. But that is a very small window with very low odds, IMO.  When that fails, as it almost certainly will, they will have probably two (maybe all three) WR's in mind, because that trio (this year) IMO beats the crap out of the group of potential high-1st-round QB's.

I think the odds (absent a trade up or down) strongly favor a WR, with TE and O-line as long-shots.

Bob

Of course they have, Bob. They fired the offensive line coach, a close friend of the HC. They brought in a new OL coach who had success building a solid unit in Vegas. They signed four new linemen in free agency. Those moves tell me they understand what the core problem is and they've thrown coaching and player resources at it in the hopes that things will get markedly better.

There are only so many holes the team can fill in one off-season. For the bigger holes, the need and opportunity have to meet. Hopefully this is the highest they will get in the draft for the next few years. Being this close to the top, they have to try and get one of the top QBs now. Otherwise, they're going to build out their roster and find themselves as the New York Vikings.

[T200]

They gambled on the 5th year option and lost (when all facts were known, it would have been better to have picked up the option).  They gambled on the injuries and lost.  Of course, the Giants badly failed in building out their offensive line and stacked the deck against Schoen in terms of the injury gamble.  Things might have gone differently if Jones hadn't taken the pounding that he took behind center.  He might not have suffered the injuries he did (the neck was a blindside quick sack, and the ACL was Jones trying to escape pressure).

Still, even with the beating, the fact that two of the major injuries occurred in less than 6 games makes me doubt if Jones could stay healthy over the span of a couple of seasons (even at the high beating rate Jones took, one has to think the collective beating of say two seasons is greater than the less than 6 full games).

I don't blame the injuries on the offensive line. Players get hurt all the time. Jones is a runner and at some point, runners get injured. It's unreasonable to expect a line to keep a QB upright for 17 games. Getting hit and getting injured are a part of playing football.

[kingm56]

king: I understand why you say that, but IMO they don't have to say anything, so why would they go out of their way to make any statements at all?  No matter what question might be asked by reporters, the answer "We'll have to wait and see because there are so many variables" should always suffice, even for Jones' own ears, because no one knows better than he that his health issue is up-in-the-air (one day at a time). If pressed by the media, the follow-up answer is "I can't predict the future... buy a crystal ball."  Bob

It's a fair point, Bob.  However, not saying anything would cause rampart speculation and create unnecessary drama.  Daboll's answer completely defused the question.

[MightyGiants]

I don't blame the injuries on the offensive line. Players get hurt all the time. Jones is a runner and at some point, runners get injured. It's unreasonable to expect a line to keep a QB upright for 17 games. Getting hit and getting injured are a part of playing football.

Tim,

Didn't all three QBs get injured behind last year's line?

[T200]

Tim,

Didn't all three QBs get injured behind last year's line?

Yes. That doesn't equate to, "If the line was better, the QBs wouldn't have been injured."

Both Jones and Taylor have a history of injuries.

[katkavage]

I don't think the ACL injury was a result of a bad Oline.

[AZGiantFan]

Yes. That doesn't equate to, "If the line was better, the QBs wouldn't have been injured."

Both Jones and Taylor have a history of injuries.

It is not unreasonable to think that an OL can keep a QB upright for 17 games, but I think you are vastly underselling how horrific the Giants' line play was.  They were last in the league, giving up 5.0 sacks a game.  The next worst team gave up 3.8 sacks per game.  That's a huge difference.  Buffalo gave up sacks on 3.86% of drop backs and it was 4.04% for KC.  The Giants gave up sacks on 14.10% of drop backs.  That is a huge difference. 

The last time a team has given up sacks on 14.10% of drop backs since 2011 is never.  It was rare for a team to give up 10% over that time span.  The last time a team has given up 5.0 sacks per game over that timespan is never.  Only twice in those years did a team give up 4 or more. 

So the OL wasn't just not very good, it was historically unsurpassed in its badness in the last 13 years.

[T200]

It is not unreasonable to think that an OL can keep a QB upright for 17 games, but I think you are vastly underselling how horrific the Giants' line play was.  They were last in the league, giving up 5.0 sacks a game.  The next worst team gave up 3.8 sacks per game.  That's a huge difference.  Buffalo gave up sacks on 3.86% of drop backs and it was 4.04% for KC.  The Giants gave up sacks on 14.10% of drop backs.  That is a huge difference. 

The last time a team has given up sacks on 14.10% of drop backs since 2011 is never.  It was rare for a team to give up 10% over that time span.  The last time a team has given up 5.0 sacks per game over that timespan is never.  Only twice in those years did a team give up 4 or more. 

So the OL wasn't just not very good, it was historically unsurpassed in its badness in the last 13 years.

The likelihood of a QB not hitting the ground for 17 games is close to impossible. I didn't underestimate the line's futility. I just don't attribute the injuries to the QBs to the line.

How bad the Giants offensive line was, historically or otherwise, cannot be blamed for injuries.