The mail’s here!
Greg Hart asks: The recent series in BBV analyzing past Giant Super Bowl teams was great. I’m thinking about what the league is now. Is it a passing or a running league? Many of the playoff teams seemed to emphasize the run, ball control and clock management. I believe the pendulum is swinging back to having a running game as an offense foundation affecting draft and free agent strategies. What are your thoughts?
Ed says: Greg, I believe it is still a passing league, or a quarterback-driven league. If you don’t have big-time quarterback play, you aren’t going to consistently compete deep into the playoffs.
I do think you have a point. NFL offensive coaches aren’t stupid. As defenses get lighter and faster and play more DBs in place of linebackers or defensive linemen, guess what becomes easier to do? Run the football. It’s the baseball equivalent of ‘hit ‘em where they ain’t,’ which too many big-league hitters seem to have forgotten. But, that’s a tangent.
I think the running game is always a foundation of an offense. You have to be able to punish defenses playing light boxes, you have to be able to keep defenses off your quarterback, you have to be able to control the clock when you have a lead. The running game does those things.
Jason Sorley: The more I think about moving Evan Neal to guard, the more I believe that decision needs to be made this offseason
Consider this likely scenario … the Giants give Neal one more year under a new coach and work to “fix” the interior of the o-line this year by signing a top free agent guard and drafting another in rounds 2-3. Add in recent draft picks in Ezeudu and McKethan and a swing tackle and you basically have your 2024 OL.
Fast forward to next offseason and let’s assume Neal doesn’t progress. You’ve locked in your iOL. Thomas isn’t going anywhere. Where do you put him?
Instead could you move him to guard this offseason, sign a RT like (Jermaine) Eluemunor, and draft another guard to compete for the other spot.
Now you have your line set for the next two seasons. Thomas, Neal, JMT, draft pick, Eluemunor.
Thoughts?
Ed says: Jason, I think that the Giants need to worry about and plan for what they think is best in 2024 before they worry about 2025. Remember, Daboll might not get 2025 if things don’t look and feel better in 2024.
I don’t know for sure if the organization actually still believes Neal can be a good right tackle, or have been saying that because they don’t currently have a better option. We will find out. I have said before that you can build a case for playing him at either spot, and I believe that.
I don’t have an issue with the line you propose. It could be what the Giants end up doing. The Giants need to get some value out of Neal. Whether that is at the position they drafted him to play or elsewhere shouldn’t matter. Honestly, I am as curious about what decision they will make as everybody else.
Robert Biggerstaff asks: Just read that JMS had trouble with ‘power.’ Reminded me of reading that Chris Snee was strongest OL in his draft. Am I right about that? Once he arrived it was my impression the IOL was no longer a problem. Many rookies of course need to get stronger than they were in college. Is JMS not really powerful enough? Can he correct this in year two? Should pick No. 2 be used to get powerful IOL building block at guard? Isn’t this better approach than recycling Neal at guard and drafting OT as pick #1?
Ed says: Robert, where did you read that about John Michael Schmitz? The reports on him coming out of college were that he wasn’t the most powerful or the best athlete, but that he had enough in all areas to be a good NFL player.
The Giants’ offensive line was a mess last season. Schmitz did not play as well as the Giants hoped he would, but let’s not discount the mess on both sides of him for much of the season. That is not an ideal circumstance for a rookie. Let the kid develop, let’s see what happens with a new offensive line coach and — hopefully — better talent and more stability around him.
As for the draft, I think it’s silly to sit here now and say ‘the second pick should be used for this’ or ‘the third pick should be used for that.’ See what happens in free agency. Then, see what players are available when it’s your turn to pick in the draft. Pick the ones you think could help you the most.
Ian Hobbs asks: Ed, I’m not trying to be a Giants fan wearing rose colored glasses, but I find myself getting annoyed by the national columnists who love to trash Daniel Jones’s performance in 2023. You actually have to have watched the games to understand what happened to him. He played the toughest stretch of the schedule and had injuries to Andrew Thomas and Saquon Barkley. The rest of his O line was a mess and while they weren’t a juggernaut later in the season, they did get some things figured out and played better later in the year. Wan’dale Robinson didn’t play early and took some time to get going. Instead of an effective Wan’dale, he was throwing to Paris Cambell until they realized he was not going to be a great receiver. I don’t think anyone could have played well during that stretch. It is annoying to see so called experts trash him when they clearly didn’t watch him regularly and understand the situation that he was playing through. I’m not arguing that he played well, but as you look back on the games Jones played, do you think any QB could have been successful in that situation?
Ed says: Ian, I think it’s a matter of degree. I don’t think any quarterback could have been successful the way the Giants’ offensive line was performing with Jones at quarterback — if you define success as turning what the Giants had into a quality, high-scoring offense.
I think, though, that Jones needed to be better than he was. Too much indecision. Too much hesitation. There was a cumulative effect of the pressure that he was under. If a guy is going to be your franchise quarterback, though, he needs to be able to overcome at least some of that. A year after he looked like he had begun to turn the corner, Jones couldn’t. I think that is the biggest disappointment.
Nikki Kreitz asks: Ed … Hypothetically if the Giants or any other team wishes to alleviate dead cap space can they do it via a trade? For example, could a team trade a very good player to an another team for say a 7th round pick with the understanding that they assume the dead cap? I’m guessing, however, that dead cap space cannot be transferred to another team but can there be a way to circumvent this?
Ed says: Nikki, you can’t trade the ‘dead cap.’ The dead cap generally comes from the pro-rated signing bonus. Daniel Jones, for example, got a $44.420 million signing bonus, per Over The Cap. That money was paid to him at signing, but for accounting purposes $11.105 million is charged to the Giants’ cap each season. That bonus money stays with the Giants — they have already paid it and it stays on their books. What would travel with Jones, or any player, is their base salary. For Jones, that is $35.5 million in 2024.
John Watkins asks: My question is quite simple. Since no one who projects the draft thinks that keeping our QB vertical is a priority. What would be the plan, some dreamer must have one.
Ed says: John, why do you believe no one thinks keeping the quarterback vertical is a priority? Just because few people think the Giants will use their first-round pick on an offensive lineman doesn’t mean no one sees it as a priority.
There is more than one round to the NFL Draft. Remember, the David Diehl, Rich Seubert, Shaun O’Hara, Chris Snee, Kareem McKenzie did not feature any first-round picks. O’Hara and Seubert were, in fact, undrafted players.
There is free agency. There is a new offensive line coach the Giants obviously hope can do a better job than Bobby Johnson did developing the four young players GM Joe Schoen drafted over the past two seasons.
I don’t know exactly what the plan is. We will find out in the coming weeks, and throughout the summer. The idea that the line isn’t a priority unless they use their first-round pick on it is silly.
Mendy asks: I am very happy for Spags and how his defense helped KC to win another Super Bowl. Chalk it up to another Giants owner/ management failure to recognize what a great defensive coach he is. We had him on our team twice and let him go.
My main question concerns Devito and why they didn’t start him in the last few games instead of Taylor. We already knew what Taylor could do. By playing him, he only enhanced his ability to be a good backup and upped his price in free agency, beyond what we would be able to pay. It seems to me it would have been better to play Devito to learn whether he could be an adequate backup or not. Unless they already decided he could/or could not do the job. Did they play Taylor because they really wanted to win a couple of games before the end of the season?
Ed says: Mendy, we have been over the Tommy DeVito-Tyrod Taylor question. I will go through it one more time.
The Giants saw plenty of DeVito to make an assessment of what they believed he was. I do understand the ‘play the kid’ argument. In some situations over the years, I have used it myself. This isn’t one of them.
A football team is about more than one person or position. Brian Daboll and Joe Schoen knew Taylor was a better quarterback than DeVito. The players in the locker room will never say it, but they knew it, too. As long as DeVito mania was rolling and the Giants were winning, the kid had to play. When that stopped, they went back to the better quarterback. And, yes, that better quarterback gave them a better chance to win.
Winning gams is the head coach’s job. It’s how he keeps his job. To be fair to the players, and to keep their support, they have to know you are doing everything you can to give them a chance to succeed. And maybe a chance to keep their own careers going. If they know you aren’t playing the best quarterback that’s going to cost you player support.
The Giants played Taylor, in short, because they felt it was the best thing to do for the entire team.
Jason Byam asks: With regards to coaching interviews, specifically to Kafka and Patterson, because other teams put in “requests” to interview them does that mean they were willing to leave? Do the teams reach out to the coach first, then put in the request? How does that process work?
Ed says: Jason, I think every case is unique. Still, I think you can read between the lines of the situations with Mike Kafka and Andre Patterson and get your answers.
Kafka has interviewed for six head-coaching jobs in two years, Everybody knows what he is hoping for. Kafka was a head coach at the Shrine Bowl. He interviewed twice for Seattle’s head coaching job. You can bet there were back-channel conversations to find out if Kafka would consider the offensive coordinator job with the Seahawks. Why wouldn’t he? If there is tension between Kafka and Brian Daboll and Daboll ends up taking over control of the offense in 2024 how does that help Kafka? It doesn’t. It would be a step backward for him. I always believed he would have taken the Seahawks coordinator job if the Giants had let him interview for it.
As for Patterson, he coached for Mike Zimmer in Minnesota for several years. The two are reportedly close. No surprise they would consider working together again. That doesn’t mean Patterson is trying to leave.
Jeff Marx asks: Good morning, Ed. You’ve talked about the balancing act Schoen and Daboll have to perform between winning in ‘24 and possibly needing to do so to keep their jobs. You’ve also talked about how ownership ultimately makes the final decision on the starting QB situation and any moves regarding Daniel Jones. My questions are is Schoen currently “reminding” ownership that this is simply the beginning of year 3 of a rebuild and the need to draft a QB in round 1 could impact this coming seasons record? Do you think part of the conversations that were had with ownership when Jones’ current deal was made included the idea that they still don’t know if Jones is the answer and this contract gives them a way out in ‘25? We know how Mara feels about Jones. Do you believe he’d let his personal feelings get in the way of the GM making crucial decisions? Thanks as always for the great content.
Ed says: Jeff, John Mara had a lot of affection for Odell Beckham and he let Dave Gettleman trade him. He has said many times he would love for Saquon Barkley to spend his entire career with the Giants. When Barkley and the Giants were within striking distance of a deal last year, Mara could easily have stepped in and ordered Schoen to bridge the gap. Or go beyond Barkley’s ask to make sure he signed. He did not. It does not appear he is doing that this time around, either.
When it comes to Jones, we know that Mara said when he hired Schoen and Daboll that he felt the organization had not given Jones a fair chance. He said he wanted Jones to have that chance under Schoen and Daboll, and for them to make the decision about Jones going forward.
I have to believe that Mara will keep his word. If Schoen and Daboll go to Mara and say they have decided they need to draft a quarterback and prepare to move on from Jones. It is what he said he would do and those types of decisions are the ones he hired Schoen and Daboll to make. To be fair to them, he needs to let them make that call.
That said, with these big franchise-changing decisions Schoen and Daboll had ultimately better get them right. If they don’t, that will eventually cost them their jobs.
Simon Hines asks: Would you rather spend $16M on the franchise tag for Xavier McKinney, or $12.1M on the franchise tag for Saquon Barkley?
Ed says: Neither.
I don’t want to give a running back with a long injury history whose performance is likely to decline in the coming seasons a 20% raise over last year. If I am signing Barkley I want it to be on a two-year deal for about $22 million with maybe $15 million guaranteed. That’s as much of a commitment as I would make. If he won’t take it, let him go to free agency and see if he can do better.
As for McKinney, the $16.224 million franchise tag would make him the fourth-highest paid safety in the NFL. He’s good, but he’s not THAT good. No chance I am devoting that cap hit to McKinney.
Phillip Grubler asks: Would you be in favor of the Giants restructuring contracts in order to sign a top lineman this offseason (namely Onwenu) or do you think the Giants should trust a new coach to develop the players already in the building while continuing to build through this year’s draft?
Ed says: Phillip, you asked three questions. The other two I will likely address at some point in a longer post. I will hit this one here.
Yes, I think the Giants will have to restructure some contracts. As I answer this, Over The Cap shows New York with $19.462 million in cap space. They can gain $5.7 million in cap space by cutting Mark Glowinski. That’s a no-brainer. They could gain $6.6 million by cutting Darren Waller, which would be a really interesting decision.
The most likely restructure possibilities are Andrew Thomas, Dexter Lawrence and Bobby Okereke. Spotrac says the Giants could save as much as $14.4 million in a Thomas restructure, $11.9 million in a Lawrence restructure and $5.4 million in an Okereke restructure.
Combine those three moves with cutting Glowinski and you save roughly $38 million, bringing available cap space to about $57 million. Joe Schoen prefers not to kick money down the road if he doesn’t have to, but this is something he could do.
As for Michael Onwenu, if the Giants want to move Evan Neal inside he is an obvious player to consider in free agency. The 2020 sixth-round pick by the New England Patriots is a 6-foot-3, 350-pound player who has solid experience at right tackle and both guard spots.
Pro Football Focus ranks him as their No. 25 free agent and projects a four-year, $58 million contract ($14.5 million annually) with $33.25 million guaranteed.
Submit a question
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to [email protected] and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login