Daniel Jones

[mild]

Apologies, kind sir

Appreciate that. Not often you get an apology on this board. That is actually classy.

Our guy Danny Dimes is frickin' awesome at running the rock. No doubt about it. He doesn't have the shake of Lamar, nor Hurts' dead leg move or power-running style... but he doesn't need those things when he's ripping off 8+ yards on Saquon read-keepers.

...

So, to Jones. I think the big questions are:

- What is Schoen and Daboll's honest evaluation of his ability to grasp a modern NFL scheme? (we don't and won't know until '23 FA, but no doubt he's already looked better in 6 weeks of Daboll's playbook than he ever did prior)
- Is there another option for the Giants in the '23 draft that would legit challenge him for the role? (I keep landing on "maybe Levis" - but this is a Schoen question)
- Does Daniel Jones (or another team) think he deserves a multi-year contract? (If he does, then I don't think G-men are involved)
- Would the G-men use the Franchise Tag to push this all back again a year whilst finding a developmental QB? (Strong possibility imo)

...

This is a fantastic post.

Hey man, appreciate that - thankyou.

I would like to make one amendment to the bolded... and yes, I'm wearing a Giants jersey as I type this on work hours... but...

With the way this is going, and how the Giants are setup next year... I am thinking it's more and more likely that the G-men are going to give Danny an extension. He's clearly showing he can operate within Daboll's scheme, and I don't think there's another option coming to town in 2023 that will make them more short-term competitive.

This was a teardown year - it wasn't supposed to go like this. Next year will be when Schoen and Daboll start truly shaping the roster in their image. They currently have 61 million in free cap teed up for 2023 (as opposed to no cap space they currently have) and that's before we cut Kenny (who is going-going-GONE as soon as they can cut him for maximal cap gain).

If Daniel Jones is still available at discount Gettleman/Judge prices in your Superflex... then I think he's a no-brainer swoop-in purchase.

[Space Cowboy]

This was his first stint in a real offense with a competent staff. NYG will probably give him a 2 year $40 million deal with the second year partially guaranteed.

[killer_of_giants]

First Tua was the best QB from his class, now Daniel Jones is the best rushing QB? Bro pass the blunt

I did qualify by saying "arguably", which means a credible argument could be presented based on facts and stats.

nope. NEEEXT!

[mild]

Frickin' awesome breakdown by Josh McCown on their latest episode of Scheme (think like the QB school) on how the Giants scheme is smashing the hell out of the league.

Short version: Daniel Jones is Cam Newton now.

https://youtu.be/ay397bCHjco

[j4pac]

I want to check the consensus opinion on Daniel Jones.

Here’s my quandary. My league is converting to SF next year. As in my sig, I have Lawrence, Murray, and Jones. The problem is that you can only keep 2 QBs from year to year, and there is a roster limit of 3 QBs (QBs on IR don’t count). This definitely changes the dynamics of a SuperFlex league. Essentially, you are hoping to have a top 24 QB, and the others will be likely rentals (or players you hope may outplay one of your starters).

So looking at strategy, I had a few questions. First, would Jones be kept as a top 24 QB? Because if he is, I could potentially trade him to one of the few teams that have only one decent starter. But if the return is poor, would it be better to shop Murray. His stock is down but should be higher than Jones. I think I could probably live with Lawrence and Jones for a year. I also have the #2 pick, so I could get a rookie QB (but would sadly miss on Gibbs). If I could get a first for Murray, perhaps I can use that pick on the next tier of RBs after Gibbs while getting a rookie QB to hedge Jones.

[Jigga94]

I want to check the consensus opinion on Daniel Jones.

Here’s my quandary. My league is converting to SF next year. As in my sig, I have Lawrence, Murray, and Jones. The problem is that you can only keep 2 QBs from year to year, and there is a roster limit of 3 QBs (QBs on IR don’t count). This definitely changes the dynamics of a SuperFlex league. Essentially, you are hoping to have a top 24 QB, and the others will be likely rentals (or players you hope may outplay one of your starters).

So looking at strategy, I had a few questions. First, would Jones be kept as a top 24 QB? Because if he is, I could potentially trade him to one of the few teams that have only one decent starter. But if the return is poor, would it be better to shop Murray. His stock is down but should be higher than Jones. I think I could probably live with Lawrence and Jones for a year. I also have the #2 pick, so I could get a rookie QB (but would sadly miss on Gibbs). If I could get a first for Murray, perhaps I can use that pick on the next tier of RBs after Gibbs while getting a rookie QB to hedge Jones.

You can't keep all 3 since Murray is on IR?

But yes Daniel Jones is a top 24 QB. He's in the 14-18 range or so for me. Future a little uncertain, but he's no worse than Goff, Stafford, etc. QB9 this year, but he's failed to Crack the top 20 his other 3 years.

If you can't keep all 3 and can't trade Jones, I'd look to trade Kyler for sure. In any deal, just think of Daniel Jones being added in on their side of the deal.

Could also find a team with 1 good QB and offer them Kyler and Jones for their 1, given its a good upgrade.

[FantasyFreak]

Frickin' awesome breakdown by Josh McCown on their latest episode of Scheme (think like the QB school) on how the Giants scheme is smashing the hell out of the league.

Short version: Daniel Jones is Cam Newton now.

https://youtu.be/ay397bCHjco

Do you mean how they are a top 4 running team? They were a bottom half team in total offense, unless I'm mistaken, so I am assuming this is about running the football?

[mild]

Do you mean how they are a top 4 running team? They were a bottom half team in total offense, unless I'm mistaken, so I am assuming this is about running the football?

There's definitely a lot of QB running in there, yes. Lots of cool plays that play off of the threat of Saquon, too. (It's a QB focussed video, hence it's relevance to this particular thread)

There's also a lot of good throws. And there's been a lot of wins against teams that are far more talented than us.

The scheme is putting up points and winning games with Richie James and Isaiah Hodgins. It's definitely worthy of our praise and attention.

Nobody is confusing this offense for the Chiefs. If Daboll gets his 10th win this season against the Vikings, it will be a minor miracle... and yet, Vegas has us within a FG on the road, which is probably closer to a pick 'em if it was at a neutral site.

I have a feeling we're very live dogs. I love this scrappy-a$$ Giants team. Enjoy the Scheme video, Pray for Saint Daboll, and eat Arby's.

[j4pac]

I want to check the consensus opinion on Daniel Jones.

Here’s my quandary. My league is converting to SF next year. As in my sig, I have Lawrence, Murray, and Jones. The problem is that you can only keep 2 QBs from year to year, and there is a roster limit of 3 QBs (QBs on IR don’t count). This definitely changes the dynamics of a SuperFlex league. Essentially, you are hoping to have a top 24 QB, and the others will be likely rentals (or players you hope may outplay one of your starters).

So looking at strategy, I had a few questions. First, would Jones be kept as a top 24 QB? Because if he is, I could potentially trade him to one of the few teams that have only one decent starter. But if the return is poor, would it be better to shop Murray. His stock is down but should be higher than Jones. I think I could probably live with Lawrence and Jones for a year. I also have the #2 pick, so I could get a rookie QB (but would sadly miss on Gibbs). If I could get a first for Murray, perhaps I can use that pick on the next tier of RBs after Gibbs while getting a rookie QB to hedge Jones.

You can't keep all 3 since Murray is on IR?

But yes Daniel Jones is a top 24 QB. He's in the 14-18 range or so for me. Future a little uncertain, but he's no worse than Goff, Stafford, etc. QB9 this year, but he's failed to Crack the top 20 his other 3 years.

If you can't keep all 3 and can't trade Jones, I'd look to trade Kyler for sure. In any deal, just think of Daniel Jones being added in on their side of the deal.

Could also find a team with 1 good QB and offer them Kyler and Jones for their 1, given its a good upgrade.

Can’t keep all three. But I could keep two, draft another…move Murray to IR after the draft and pick up a 4th. Definitely a strategy I plan to employ if Murray is on my team

[killer_of_giants]

i would employ a strategy that takes me out of a league with roster positional limits...

that said, i'd sell murray before i sell jones, given their perceived value. the injury makes it a little tougher to sell him tho. and i like the idea of shipping murray and jones for 1QB too.

[FantasyFreak]

Jones reverted back to some bad habits tonight. Held the ball way too long, and missed wide open throws (yes, the game was over, but that's one of the easiest throws you'll ever have to make) like the one to James.

I think the G-Men should consider moving on. A bridge contract may be in order, but I feel like they've peaked, and have gone as far as the can with DJ. Daboll should be coach of the year, if not Pederson.

[mild]

Jones reverted back to some bad habits tonight. Held the ball way too long, and missed wide open throws (yes, the game was over, but that's one of the easiest throws you'll ever have to make) like the one to James.

I think the G-Men should consider moving on. A bridge contract may be in order, but I feel like they've peaked, and have gone as far as the can with DJ. Daboll should be coach of the year, if not Pederson.

With you. I think it's likely we franchise Saquon (10 million a year is very reasonable) and work out a short contract with Dimes... or let him spring the coop. I don't think it makes sense to franchise DD at 35 mil for one year, and I don't think the Giants are looking at him as their long term guy - just by the nature of how much they had to scheme him up to be successful.

Mays said it well... "I think they know what he is, and what they are... I don't think anything that ties you to him long term makes sense."

They maximised his skillset. I think they're aware of his limitations. It'll be an interesting negotiation this offseason, for sure.

[Anteaters]

I really hate the idea of franchise tagging Saquon or any other RB, because their window to earn (really only their first post-rookie contract) is so short. Either pay on an acceptable new deal, or let him go/trade him. With no WRs of reknown, probably a new start at QB, and a DEF that needs work, it's not like the G-men are planning on a deep run next season. They should either pay Saquon, or let another team pay him what he's worth. It's bad enough to trap him on a team that can't win with him - even worse to keep him on the tag while doing that.

[mild]

I really hate the idea of franchise tagging Saquon or any other RB, because their window to earn (really only their first post-rookie contract) is so short. Either pay on an acceptable new deal, or let him go/trade him. With no WRs of reknown, probably a new start at QB, and a DEF that needs work, it's not like the G-men are planning on a deep run next season. They should either pay Saquon, or let another team pay him what he's worth. It's bad enough to trap him on a team that can't win with him - even worse to keep him on the tag while doing that.

Moral stances or "feelings based takes" are cool and all, but the CBA Salary Cap mechanisms really don't care.

It's in the CBA, and it's the smartest route to retaining control of one of the Giants' more valuable assets. It also serves as a way to negotiate that "acceptable new deal" with leverage for the FO. If they can't strike a deal? Tag time.

No doubt he's earned it, and I'm sure they'll try not to pi$s him off - but it's not personal, it's just business.

[Anteaters]

I really hate the idea of franchise tagging Saquon or any other RB, because their window to earn (really only their first post-rookie contract) is so short. Either pay on an acceptable new deal, or let him go/trade him. With no WRs of reknown, probably a new start at QB, and a DEF that needs work, it's not like the G-men are planning on a deep run next season. They should either pay Saquon, or let another team pay him what he's worth. It's bad enough to trap him on a team that can't win with him - even worse to keep him on the tag while doing that.

Moral stances or "feelings based takes" are cool and all, but the CBA Salary Cap mechanisms really don't care.

It's in the CBA, and it's the smartest route to retaining control of one of the Giants' more valuable assets. It also serves as a way to negotiate that "acceptable new deal" with leverage for the FO. If they can't strike a deal? Tag time.

No doubt he's earned it, and I'm sure they'll try not to pi$s him off - but it's not personal, it's just business.

Feelings based takes.

Not personal, just business? Easy to say when it's not your business. When your boss cuts your pay and says "not personal, just business", you immediately hate the decision, lose respect for the person, and start looking for somewhere else to work. I know the CBA might make it less easy for SB to readily go somewhere else. But a tag might make him take off every game where he feel a twinge in a body part. Why risk your future earnings for a team that doesn't respect you?

No, SB won't sit out the season and go totally unpaid - he's smart and all players saw how that worked out for the last couple of guys who went that route. But I'm sure he'll ask his buddy Lamar how to navigate the Tag waters. Just like Keyshawn Johnson learned how to negotiate from his WR friend Joey Galloway who went through a contract dispute the season before Keyshawn convinced Bill to free him by sending him elsewhere. Barkley will learn he can take the Tag $, work honestly, and take every ( and I mean every) precaution to protect his health ... though those precautions (sitting out games when he doesn't feel 100% healthy) might keep the team from attaining its potential. Oh well.