Giant
Well-known member
- Mar 19, 2019
- 1,912
- 0
Getty Images
The Giants have provided plenty of legitimate reasons for criticism of their current roster strategy, assuming they even have one. However, a recent report regarding rookie quarterback Daniel Jones feels like someone is piling on the team and the player.
As crafted, the report that someone wanted Jones to work out as a tight end obviously originated with a team and not with Jones’ camp, since the explanation was that the team didn’t believe Jones was good enough to play quarterback. It feels so over the top and almost cartoonish that it’s very tempting to conclude that another franchise (maybe the other one that plays in New Jersey) wants to make the Giants look even worse for making him not just a first-round pick but the sixth overall pick.
The lying that characterizes the pre-draft process surely lasts after the draft ends, with teams trying to create all sorts of false impressions regarding the guys they drafted (“We wanted him all along!“) and the guys they didn’t (“We never wanted him!“). Would any team that was interested in Daniel Jones as a quarterback admit it now? And, more importantly for these purposes, why wouldn’t a team that wants to make things even more awkward for the Giants and Jones try to make the Giants and Jones look worse instead of better?
That’s not a knock on the report, per se. The report wasn’t fabricated. But the information shared with the reporter may have been. If not fabricated, then possibly exaggerated or embellished.
Regardless, for the same reason that pre-draft reports regarding interest or lack thereof are inherently unreliable, post-draft reports regarding interest or lack thereof also are inherently unreliable. Or, at a minimum, they need to be viewed through the basic prism that: (1) the incentive to prevaricate is high; and (2) the cost for doing so is low.