For Schoen's claims of making progress to be true, how many wins out of 7?

[MightyGiants]

But we watched Hard Knocks and know that it did, they were priced out of Tyrod and had to go with a cheaper alternative.

Lock is a $5 million cap hit to the 2024 Giants

Tyrod is a $2.8 million cap to the 2024 Jets

[H-Town G-Fan]

But we watched Hard Knocks and know that it did, they were priced out of Tyrod and had to go with a cheaper alternative.

A lot of outlets have reported Tyrod had no interest in coming back because he wasn't given a real chance to compete for the starting gig and then was passed over for DeVito, even after he put up the best tape of any Giants' QB in 2023. Suffice it to say, I don't know that money was the only factor there.

[MightyGiants]

A lot of outlets have reported Tyrod had no interest in coming back because he wasn't given a real chance to compete for the starting gig and then was passed over for DeVito, even after he put up the best tape of any Giants' QB in 2023. Suffice it to say, I don't know that money was the only factor there.

This could be true, but ultimately those reasons still fall on Schoen and Daboll

[MrGap92]

Your scenario (incorrectly) assumes that a better QB is on the roster that will replace Jones.

So the answer is NONE.

Took the words right out of my keyboard

[T200]

This could be true, but ultimately those reasons still fall on Schoen and Daboll

I think you are vastly underplaying the influence the owner of the franchise has on the front office and the roster. It's all there, if you choose to see it. You recognize it with the family's involvement and Ronnie Barnes. It's there with Jones too. And it was with Barkley also.

[EDjohnst1981]

I think the bigger question isn't how many they will win but how many Schoen and Daboll should win now that they are not handicapped by Daniel Jones.

They should get 60 games with the next guy to test all the pillars and eliminate the excuses and then they can simply blame someone else rather than eat crow and say "boy, did we get wrong"

Sounds ridiculous though, right? Like actually ridiculous that it could be situation with that's what we are arguing about.

[MightyGiants]

They should get 60 games with the next guy to test all the pillars and eliminate the excuses and then they can simply blame someone else rather than eat crow and say "boy, did we get wrong"

Sounds ridiculous though, right? Like actually ridiculous that it could be situation with that's what we are arguing about.

Your desire to mock people with a great big "I told so!!!!!!" isn't the best of looks.  Don't get even get me started on the reality defying narrative you are using to achieve your goal 

[EDjohnst1981]

Your desire to mock people with a great big "I told so!!!!!!" isn't the best of looks.  Don't get even get me started on the reality defying narrative you are using to achieve your goal 

Oh the irony. Funny how memories are so short.

People reap what they sow.

[MightyGiants]

Oh the irony. Funny how memories are so short.

People reap what they sow.

Whatever helps you sleep at night

[PSUBeirut]

Tim,

My assumption follows the conventional team-building philosophy of your backup QB.  In most cases, you don't expect your backup to perform as well as your starter, but rather, you expect them to win roughly half the games he starts so as not to severely hurt a team's playoff chances.   Of course, if you are unsure if your starting QB will be ready to start the season or if he will fully be ready, you should be seeking out a higher-end backup QB.

Hard to follow this logic.  Win roughly half the games that the backup starts- or half the games the starter theoretically would have started?  Where is this conventional team-building philosophy coming from?  I've never seen a backup QB quantified in this way.

Anyway, it seems to me that most teams would HOPE their backup should win 50-80% of the games the starter would have won...ie, keep them in the hunt.  So in our case, DJ maybe would have a shot at winning 2 more games this year?  So maybe Lock could win...one more?  I'd say that would be about my gut instinct.

[MightyGiants]

Hard to follow this logic.  Win roughly half the games that the backup starts- or half the games the starter theoretically would have started?  Where is this conventional team-building philosophy coming from?  I've never seen a backup QB quantified in this way.

Anyway, it seems to me that most teams would HOPE their backup should win 50-80% of the games the starter would have won...ie, keep them in the hunt.  So in our case, DJ maybe would have a shot at winning 2 more games this year?  So maybe Lock could win...one more?  I'd say that would be about my gut instinct.

If your starter goes down for four weeks, you want your backup to be able to go 2 for 4.


As for where I learned it, I listen to and learn from reading and listening to a lot of former NFL GMs and coaches.

[PSUBeirut]

If your starter goes down for four weeks, you want your backup to be able to go 2 for 4.


As for where I learned it, I listen to and learn from reading and listening to a lot of former NFL GMs and coaches.

Do you find this conventional wisdom (as you say) to be in any way applicable to teams that are clearly having terrible seasons?  Does it make sense to suggest that a backup QB would come in and exponentially increase the likelihood of winning more games than the starter has?  This metric, as loose and anecdotal as it appears, does not appear to apply to teams in the same state as the Giants are currently.

[uconnjack8]

If your starter goes down for four weeks, you want your backup to be able to go 2 for 4.


As for where I learned it, I listen to and learn from reading and listening to a lot of former NFL GMs and coaches.

Rich, FWIW, I have heard that philosophy as well. 

I think most recently it was discussed on NFL Radio relating to the Miami Dolphins and what seemed to be any competency in the backup QB ranks. And to PSU's point they do talk it about more often with teams that were expected to be competitive.

[MightyGiants]

Do you find this conventional wisdom (as you say) to be in any way applicable to teams that are clearly having terrible seasons?  Does it make sense to suggest that a backup QB would come in and exponentially increase the likelihood of winning more games than the starter has?  This metric, as loose and anecdotal as it appears, does not appear to apply to teams in the same state as the Giants are currently.

Much of what we talk about is discussed pre-season and applies to teams in the playoff hunt.  It seems a reasonable to assume a team in a regime's third season has playoff potential.  So you bring on board a QB who should be able to keep the team playing 500 ball.  Another way to put it is why you want a starting QB who causes the team to win games, your backup should at least not lose the team games. 

As you said, our team is terrible (you said it was a terrible season, but you are what your record says you are).  Many are attributing the lion's share of the blame to Jones.  By benching Jones, there is an opportunity to test that theory.  If Jones is playing as bad as described a competent backup (which the Giants should have) should be able to win at least 2 or 3 of the remaining games (against a relatively soft schedule) or else this team has far bigger problems than their broken QB.

[MightyGiants]

Rich, FWIW, I have heard that philosophy as well.

I think most recently it was discussed on NFL Radio relating to the Miami Dolphins and what seemed to be any competency in the backup QB ranks. And to PSU's point they do talk it about more often with teams that were expected to be competitive.

I will confess to the point in bold; it's beginning to bother me.  I can't even state givens these days without people challenging me and my background.  We are just talking football; it's not a court of law, and I shouldn't have to provide testimony on how I am an expert witness just to express my opinions.