Knickoftime wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:KNICKOFTIME PLEASE take a deep breath and READ

Lauletta probably isn't the Giants QB in 2019 and beyond.

Manning definitely isn't.

Probably isn't > definitely isn't...

Because ELI is THE BEST QB on the team...

And why does that matter when they have no shot at the postseason for NO LESS THAN (and maybe more) this year and next?

What do you think you're trying to win? You ACTUALLY want 4 wins this season instead of 2?

You have insinuated that he is the next Tom Brady

This just deserves to stand here on its own.

So now you are claiming your point all along was to improve our draft position? Okay, sounds good.

This too.

And your not hating on Manning? Have not seen any bench the O line, Defensive line, Secondary, Kicking team rants.

Yes, that's why I endorse a full rebuild. Why I'm fine with the trades so far and would like to see jenkins before the deadline.

a 37 year told QB has no place on a team 3-4 years away.

And is Beckam earning his contract?

I don't know about Beckam but Beckham is neither tradeable or releasable.

Remember ALL of those many, many needs all around the roster the Giants have? You know how they can free up the most cap room on the roster?

By releasing Manning.

You want new offensive and defensive lineman and defensive backs? Giants only have 2 picks in the first 3 rounds and one of those picks might be on a QB?

Where do you think all these new players are coming from?

Sound plan. 8th game of the year and lets pull the plug.

What is it you think they're plugged into? The postseason? You think this team has 9-0 in them???

Remember how crappy their O-line, secondary and pass rush is?

So your point is...…. give the job to the guy not in the future plans but that was a 4th rounder and has no experience just for ****s and giggles.

No, play him for the reason he was drafted and carried inactive on the 53 man roster for 7 weeks, none of which was ****s and giggles. Play him to see if he's a football player.

Think we can get a draft pick or one via trade

Wow, you missed the point, which is odd considering it's YOUR point.

The rest of the team is too bad for a good quarterback to make enough of a difference in the next 2 seasons.

The point was if you swap out Manning for Mahomes or Brady or Rodgers on THIS Giants team this year or next, they still aren't a postseason team.

Their O-line, secondary and pass rush need major overhauls, remember?

Think you just cant understand/cope that not everyone agrees with you.

Interesting given you may be the only person alive who thinks Eli Manning is on the Giants next season.

You think most NFL teams should start their 4th round QB after the 7th game of the year.

A LOT of NFL teams have some hope for the postseason. Only a few already know they don't. The Giants being one of them. That's why most NFL teams aren't trading their starting defensive tackles and corners but the Giants are.

Because of this moment, they no longer qualify as most NFL teams.

You really don't understand the difference between 1-6 and 4-3 in the NFL, do you?

Now about that bet...

Bro, your back to rambling and posturing. (Reminds me of clip below) But it is quite entertaining. You do know what the layman call your endless ranting and redirects? …..BULLSHIT

You failed the assignment to read carefully. Let me dumb it down for you. I do not think Eli should be benched for a 4th rounder for the last 9 games of the year. Let me say it again. I do not think Eli should be benched for a 4th rounder for the last 9 games of the year. You may be shocked that your endless excellent points did not sway my opinion. (Not really endless as all you did was repeat yourself and try to sneaky pete some other premises) I am truly sorry if my opinion hurts you?

Brw, as mentioned, here is a Funny scene for you. Are you the bald guy? JK...

Wager? Afraid to ask. What is the wager? In case you have not noticed, we seem to agree on everything except if Eli should be benched. Which again is an opinion and cant be proven wrong no matter how many quotes someone creates. Or is it if Lauleta is as good as Tom Brady? I'll take that bet. But don't think its a good idea to wager with guys that like to move the goalposts at the drop of a hat.

HofstraBBall wrote:Or lets just make friendly wager that Eli will infact be the 2019-2020 QB

Ok.

Let's.

Knickoftime wrote:This is NOT a 'bench Eli and don't do anything else' thing. This is a 'bench Eli AND also do EVERYTHING else' thing.

Understand?

As long as Eli Manning is healthy and on the roster, he's starting. The Maras and Tisch are very loyal to Manning in that regard. He's not playing well, but he's not playing so horribly that he's forcing himself to the bench.

The Giants will likely get involved in some blowouts down the road, so backups can get some garbage time on the field at some point.

While there is some value in seeing what a backup can do, Parcells said it best - "When you have two QBs, you really have none"

The Giants can still tank by gutting the rest of the team in trade/small trades and still keep Eli Manning in place.

The danger of going to your young backup is if he falters ( which happens 95 percent of the time), then you have to go back to your aging starter, and that's not good for anyone. It's a lot of turmoil.

Shurmur and Gettleman came into this situation with the understanding that Eli Manning will start and play if he's healthy and on the roster. What happens to Gettleman long term, that's more complicated.

It's a lost season, there really is no need to bench Eli Manning at this point. Yes, the Giants would be served to see what younger players on the roster can do, but there is still time to that without creating turmoil now.

I've scouted Lauletta a decent amount and he's not ready. From people I've talked to, he's just not ready. Well that's never stopped anyone before but benching Eli Manning really doesn't seem like a likely result from all the factors in play RIGHT NOW.

Promises were made when the Geno Smith incident happened with McAdoo, many which never made the open press. This is really a Mara/Tisch decision and they just don't seem likely to do it.

Knickoftime wrote:Totally different this year. If the Giants go 1-7 into their bye, and don't look good at home doing it, the entire Giants football world will become about when to sit Eli for two straight weeks. The media is already fixated on the topic. The drumbeat will only get louder every week. It'll be deafening during the bye.

Mara and Tisch don't give a **** what the media says or does not say.

The press was clamoring for Tom Coughlin's head for a long long time, and guess what? It took a long ass time to cycle old Tom off this franchise.

Gettleman and Pat are new. Really no need to embroil them into a QB controversy when the season is lost anyway.

Some will argue the Giants spent a 4th on Lauletta, well lots of teams spend draft capital on finding what they hope are backups, because the cost of starting QBs is high, but decent backup QB cost is also not all that fun when you need to spread money around the roster. Bill Belichick and Andy Reid have made it a cottage industry to draft QBs, then use them for a while then trade them. Using a third or a fourth on a backup QB prospect isn't a bad investment strategy.

If the Giants are 1-7, that's great for their tanking strategy. You don't bench Eli, the media will shove **** down throat. You do bench Eli, the media will still shove **** down their throat.

Changing the QB, esp to Lauletta, does not magically wipe away all the other woes contributing to losses instead of wins.

Eli Manning is established in the locker room. When you want to change your QB1, you have to consider the mood and morale of the team. This can work both ways, the Seahawks roster believed in Russell Wilson and not Flynn, even though Flynn was the veteran with the bigger contract. I can say without a doubt, from everyone I've talked to the league about the general QB situation, that no one in NY truly believes Lauletta is the answer.

What's more likely is Manning might accrue some dings to the point where the team can simply say he's injured. That's really the simplest pathway to something like this.

This is a lost season, nothing is going to turn it around. While it sucks to see the team lose, every loss is pathway to better draft position, where the QB situation might get addressed sooner than later.

What you want the Giants to do is engage in a QB Carousel. It never works. It only makes things worse.

PS Fuck the media. Take the PR and media speak out of it and John Mara could give a **** what the media has to say about it.

Knickoftime wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:Gettleman and Pat are new. Really no need to embroil them into a QB controversy when the season is lost anyway.

Exactly.

At 1-7, the controversy will be NOT playing Lauletta, not the other way around.

If they announced Eli is the starter for the rest of the season, they'll get roasted. Literally NO one is calling for Manning to play out the season.

You do bench Eli, the media will still shove **** down their throat.

No, they won't.

I don't know where you guys are seeing any division on this topic. I see universal agreement its only a matter of when, not if.

Changing the QB, esp to Lauletta, does not magically wipe away all the other woes contributing to losses instead of wins.

I don't understand why I keep seeing this rebuttal pop up. Nobody is suggesting it is.

The Giants are going to LOSE a LOT any which way. The idea isn't sitting Manning makes them any better. It will not.

The idea is sitting Manning will have some utility

Eli Manning is established in the locker room.

So was Harrison.

When you want to change your QB1, you have to consider the mood and morale of the team. This can work both ways, the Seahawks roster believed in Russell Wilson and not Flynn, even though Flynn was the veteran with the bigger contract. I can say without a doubt, from everyone I've talked to the league about the general QB situation, that no one in NY truly believes Lauletta is the answer.

What difference does it make? This and next season are OVER. If anyone in the locker room thinks they're playing for a playoff spot in the next 14 months, cut them, because they're stupid.

And again, a circus will created only if the Giants stick with Manning.

Yeah, if anything, the players that want to compete right now are going to want to be traded or released. I personally think everyone is fair game besides SB and even he should be in a better situation.

HofstraBBall wrote:My point was that Eli will always be the QB over Lauletta.

Ok. Then a bet about that? Lauletta starts over a healthy/able to play Manning THIS season.

Name your terms.

Like I said, I have a true bet for you. One that is close to your heart. You think their is a possibility that Lauletta will be as good as Tom Brady.

I can't answer that question.

I don't think its at all likely there is a possibility he'll be as good as Brady, if that's what you meant to ask.

Btw. Can I call you Lauletta from now on?

Is that a trick question? Feel free.

HofstraBBall wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:My point was that Eli will always be the QB over Lauletta.

Ok. Then a bet about that? Lauletta starts over a healthy/able to play Manning THIS season. Sneaky Pete.... A bet that he starts after the 7th game of the year?

Yes.

Since your point was that Eli will ALWAYS be the QB over Lauletta, on 10/26 that can only refer to the last 9 games and subsequent seasons.

So is it a bet or did I somehow manage to get you to say something you didn't really mean ... again?

HofstraBBall wrote:Bet above and most of our conversation was what a dumb idea (Yours) it was that Eli should be benched in the 8th game of the year for a 4th round draft pick.

No, it wasn't.

You first offered a bet that Eli would be the QB in 2019 & 20.

Was never about the 8th game either, in which case you would have wrote. "My point was that Eli will be the QB over Lauletta on Sunday, Oct 28."

You didn't. You wrote "My point was that Eli will always be the QB over Lauletta."

We both agree on what "always" means, right?

As it were, that's your second error. Your first is I never wrote Lauletta should be the QB Sunday against Washington. Point of fact, I wrote Manning should be the QB Sunday vs. Washington. Not implied. I wrote that literally.

Also wrote Manning should be the QB on week 17 home vs. Dallas.

I offered the opinion Lauletta should be the QB after the bye in San Fran, but later also offered the opinion that's unlikely to be the case.

I do think Lauletta WILL start multiple games after San Fran and before dallas, whether Manning is healthy or otherwise.

Since that directly contradicts "always", I assumed that would be a bet.

Guess not.

According to your statement, you think Lauletta should be starting Sunday.

Again, no. According to my actual statement "There is really NO reason to play him after Sunday. But you can't just move the scout team QB into the line-up in 4 days. Give Eli a home game against a division rival for fans to say goodbye" I think you can't just move Lauletta into the line-up in 4 days, therefore Manning should and will start Sunday.

Do you feel he will start this Sunday?

I hope the above clarifies my original and consistent position.

So do YOU think Lauletta will start multiple games over a healthy Manning in 2018, just not Sunday vs WSH or week 17 vs Dallas, yes or no?

If yes, cool, then we agree.

If no, we have a bet, right?

Knickoftime wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Bet above and most of our conversation was what a dumb idea (Yours) it was that Eli should be benched in the 8th game of the year for a 4th round draft pick.

No, it wasn't.

You first offered a bet that Eli would be the QB in 2019 & 20.

Was never about the 8th game either, in which case you would have wrote. "My point was that Eli will be the QB over Lauletta on Sunday, Oct 28."

You didn't. You wrote "My point was that Eli will always be the QB over Lauletta."

We both agree on what "always" means, right?

As it were, that's your second error. Your first is I never wrote Lauletta should be the QB Sunday against Washington. Point of fact, I wrote Manning should be the QB Sunday vs. Washington. Not implied. I wrote that literally.

Also wrote Manning should be the QB on week 17 home vs. Dallas.

I offered the opinion Lauletta should be the QB after the bye in San Fran, but later also offered the opinion that's unlikely to be the case.

I do think Lauletta WILL start multiple games after San Fran and before dallas, whether Manning is healthy or otherwise.

Since that directly contradicts "always", I assumed that would be a bet.

Guess not.

According to your statement, you think Lauletta should be starting Sunday.

Again, no. According to my actual statement "There is really NO reason to play him after Sunday. But you can't just move the scout team QB into the line-up in 4 days. Give Eli a home game against a division rival for fans to say goodbye" I think you can't just move Lauletta into the line-up in 4 days, therefore Manning should and will start Sunday.

Do you feel he will start this Sunday?

I hope the above clarifies my original and consistent position.

So do YOU think Lauletta will start multiple games over a healthy Manning in 2018, just not Sunday vs WSH or week 17 vs Dallas, yes or no?

If yes, cool, then we agree.

If no, we have a bet, right?

Whos on first. What's on second. I don't know is on third.

OK good. We have a bet. You think our 4th round savior will start this Sunday.

HofstraBBall wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Bet above and most of our conversation was what a dumb idea (Yours) it was that Eli should be benched in the 8th game of the year for a 4th round draft pick.

No, it wasn't.

You first offered a bet that Eli would be the QB in 2019 & 20.

Was never about the 8th game either, in which case you would have wrote. "My point was that Eli will be the QB over Lauletta on Sunday, Oct 28."

You didn't. You wrote "My point was that Eli will always be the QB over Lauletta."

We both agree on what "always" means, right?

As it were, that's your second error. Your first is I never wrote Lauletta should be the QB Sunday against Washington. Point of fact, I wrote Manning should be the QB Sunday vs. Washington. Not implied. I wrote that literally.

Also wrote Manning should be the QB on week 17 home vs. Dallas.

I offered the opinion Lauletta should be the QB after the bye in San Fran, but later also offered the opinion that's unlikely to be the case.

I do think Lauletta WILL start multiple games after San Fran and before dallas, whether Manning is healthy or otherwise.

Since that directly contradicts "always", I assumed that would be a bet.

Guess not.

According to your statement, you think Lauletta should be starting Sunday.

Again, no. According to my actual statement "There is really NO reason to play him after Sunday. But you can't just move the scout team QB into the line-up in 4 days. Give Eli a home game against a division rival for fans to say goodbye" I think you can't just move Lauletta into the line-up in 4 days, therefore Manning should and will start Sunday.

Do you feel he will start this Sunday?

I hope the above clarifies my original and consistent position.

So do YOU think Lauletta will start multiple games over a healthy Manning in 2018, just not Sunday vs WSH or week 17 vs Dallas, yes or no?

If yes, cool, then we agree.

If no, we have a bet, right?

Whos on first. What's on second. I don't know is on third.

OK good. We have a bet. You think our 4th round savior will start this Sunday.

Well... that IS actually more likely than Manning being the Giants QB in 2019 and 2020 and every remaining game in 2018.

So, there's that.

But we don't have a power run line which has set everything back.

I believe this will be the last year we see Eli as the Giants QB. Love the guy, allowed me to witness 2 SB with some epic moments. But Its time to move on. It's harder today to build good Olines then it was in the past. Need QBs who can move in and out of the pocket.

I believe the Giants are setting up with the recent moves to free up a ton of cap space. Eli and Jack Rabbit may be cut in the off-season. I have read this would free up something like $57mil in space.