The Giants way is not to bench Jones to off-set injury guarantee

[Fletch]

...even though they should.

[Giant Obsession]

Of course they should.  But let's be real our "way" must be the right way because the Giants are worth over EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS.

No wins, doofus coaching, head scratching front office decisions are no longer the criteria for judging success.

EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS and rising is our Super Bowl trophy now.

[Fletch]

This might be Daboll and Showen waterloo. If he gets hurt and, they are on the hook for what comes out to 15% of their cap in 2025 for the tens of millions; they will get jettisoned. Even though it is not their fault. (I know Mara was behind this decision). Dude is a back up QB. If I can see it I sure hope they do. Maybe balloon head Mara doe snot.

[JT39]

If you dont think Daboll and Schoen had anything to do with the Jones's contract - then you are being extremely obtuse.

They are the HC and GM and they own it. Point blank.

[Bob In PA]

Fletch: I was with you up to... "even though they should."  lol

The fans are ready to fly another airplane over the stadium (and have been for a while, IMO). The Giants way includes sticking with Jones until they are essentially out of contention, which, if recent history is to be a guide, will likely occur before December (and, at the current rate, will likely occur before November).

So the injury risk is lower than it might appear, even considering that only a few games remain before they're out of contention, because if the defense doesn't get better real fast, Giants will be out of contention in individual games long before halftime (or, certainly, BY halftime) so the "injury-clause" thing will come into effect sooner in individual games, which in turn makes it even more unlikely Jones will incur a serious injury this season.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

If the Giants were to bench Jones now, they would get in trouble with the NFLPA

[Bob In PA]

If the Giants were to bench Jones now, they would get in trouble with the NFLPA

Rich: Our ownership may stink, but IMO they still care more about what the fans think (which is not much) than what NFLPA thinks (which IMO is not much at all). Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: Our ownership may stink, but IMO they still care more about what the fans think (which is not much) than what NFLPA thinks (which IMO is not much at all). Bob

There is a contract with the players and there is arbitration.   Benching a player for non-performance reasons so you don't have to potentially pay a contractual injury settlement is a likely loser with both. 

This is the letter the Broncos received from the NFLPA when they threatened to bench Wilson if he didn't remove the injury guarantees from his contract

"It has come to our attention that the Denver Broncos recently informed Mr. Wilson and his Certified Contract Advisor that if Mr. Wilson would not renegotiate his Player Contract to relinquish certain salary guarantees, the Broncos would remove him from the starting lineup.

"If the Broncos follow-through on the Club's threat, the Club will violate, among other things, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Mr. Wilson's Player Contract and New York law. And, we are particularly concerned that the Broncos still intend to commit these violations under the guise of 'coaching decisions.'

"Accordingly, we write to notify you that the NFLPA and Mr. Wilson 'reasonably anticipate' arbitration and/or litigation against the Broncos and the Management Council, triggering your respective obligations to preserve potentially relevant documents."

[Soundwave401]

Seems like differing scenarios though. If the Giants bench him for stated performance issues and don't demand he remove the injury clause why would that be a problem with the NFLPA?

Not that I think the Giants would bench him unless he becomes dreadfully bad. But what leg would the NFLPA have to stand on to prevent them from doing so?

[MightyGiants]

Seems like differing scenarios though. If the Giants bench him for stated performance issues and don't demand he remove the injury clause why would that be a problem with the NFLPA?

Not that I think the Giants would bench him unless he becomes dreadfully bad. But what leg would the NFLPA have to stand on to prevent them from doing so?

If they had benched him after week one, the performance claims would be valid.  After yesterday's game, not so much

[Stringer Bell]

All the more reason to root for an 0-8 start. There will be absolutely no legal defense the NFLPA could put up to thwart the Giants' perfectly warranted benching of a winless QB halfway through the season.

[H-Town G-Fan]

All the more reason to root for an 0-8 start. There will be absolutely no legal defense the NFLPA could put up to thwart the Giants' perfectly warranted benching of a winless QB halfway through the season.

Or just don't threaten him to rescind the injury guarantee or you'll bench him. That was monumentally stupid by the Broncos and evidence of bad faith. Just keep your mouth shut and bench him if/when you feel like it, say you're going a different direction, wanted to see what Lock/DeVito have (anything really) and you're probably fine.

[Dumpster Dan]

Pardon me guys  but I find this thread TODAY a little out of sync

DJ wasnt the cause of the loss yesterday

Dumpster Dan

[TDToomer]

The Commanders did once bench and deactivate RG3 and make him the #3 QB so that he couldn't get hurt with plans to release him at years end,. But they had Cousins who simply outplayed him with Colt McCoy has the #2.

[spiderblue43]

That's just pridefulness over prudence, and actually competence, which we know starts from the top.