Mike Tizzano asks: Following up on this after reading your article about why Azeez and Slayton must be traded. Two-part question:
1. You cited an exec that said he’d bring no more than a sixth. Could that have changed with his recent production?
2. Is there a possibility that they could fetch a conditional pick based on his production the remainder of the year post trade and/or the acquiring team re-signing him in the offseason?
Ed says: Mike, let’s not get this twisted. I did not say Azeez Ojulari and Darius Slayton “must” be traded. I said that the Giants need to be willing to trade them if they don’t believe either player intends to return to the team next season.
Both are good players who will have options. It would be nice to keep them. Each, though, could very well find more money than the Giants are willing or able to play elsewhere. In Ojulari’s case, he may want to go someplace where he can play full time rather than be a third wheel or situational player behind Brian Burns and Kayvon Thibodeaux.
If the Giants believe they are going to lose the players, they need to be willing to move them now and get something in return. I believe the chances of keeping both players are slim.
I assume when you ask about “recent production” that you are referring to Ojulari. Remember that he may very well be a rental for a team that trades for him. Between that and his injury history I would be surprised if the Giants got anything better than a sixth-round pick that turns into a fifth-rounder based on production/playing time.
Greg Riley asks: Bo Nix rookie QB1 of the Denver Broncos is looking better and better. Do you think GM Joe Schoen missed a glittering opportunity by passing on a trade offer with the Jets that could have netted Nix and an extra couple of draft picks?
Ed says: Greg, no I do not think the Giants missed a “glittering opportunity.” If the Giants had wanted Nix, they had the No. 6 overall pick. They would have used it to just take him. Nix is in the right spot with the only head coach who believed he was worth that kind of draft capital.
The Giants wanted Malik Nabers. They would have taken Rome Odunze had Nabers not been available to them, but if they trade down to No. 10 with the Jets they would have also lost Odunze. He went No. 9 to the Chicago Bears. Now, maybe they could have selected tight end Brock Bowers, who is having a spectacular season for the Las Vegas Raiders. But, do you really want to trade down and end up not getting the player you really want?
I do support trading down as a general rule. Anyone who has followed my work knows that. Sometimes, though, when you have a chance to select a game-changing star who plays a position where you desperately need help the right thing to do is stay put and pick the player.
Dan Welch asks: Just read through your last mailbag and there was one question about (Andrew) Thomas, but everything else was about other players and their usage or impacts. It seems like so much focus is spent on what is not the Giants’ clearly largest problem. What can you say about the O-Line and the repeated failures to fix it? Why can other teams revamp their lines in a year or two and the Giants seem condemned to having an atrocious line?
The line issue, more than anything else, I believe define the success of the team. Pondering about Jones’s success vs Lock, or Hyatt’s ability to get off the bench, feels very much secondary to figuring out how to protect the QB and provide rushing lanes. When I watch other teams, I’m regularly astounded that their pocket isn’t collapsing like a burst dam, or their RBs aren’t evading tackle well behind the line of scrimmage. Seeing the Niners run the ball feels like an entirely different game, and its clear that the Giants have been trotting out the JV for years and years. This is why I still have faith in Jones, that he can even be a competent quarterback when he’s not running in terror. Other QBs seem to be extended grace for their bad lines – that’s been the consistent story about Caleb Williams’s unsteady rookie season, for instance. Why not Jones, whose O-Lines have been historically terrible for his entire tenure?
So what can or will Schoen and the Gmen do about getting the line at least above average in the next year or two, and what do you think that impact would be on their skill players and Jones’s future? Would drafting a QB help anything without a line upgrade, or just reset the cap hit and extend the cycle of futility that leads to a .350 or so winning percentage every year?
Ed says: Dan, the Giants’ offensive line was functioning fine until the season-ending injury to Andrew Thomas. Every team in the league that loses a star left tackle is going to see its performance degrade, but it particularly hurt the Giants because they didn’t add a more reliable swing tackle than Josh Ezeudu in the offseason.
Daniel Jones has not been “running in terror” for most of this season. The protection has suffered the last couple of weeks because of the loss of Thomas. That’s something that is going to be tough to deal with.
Joe Schoen signed three veteran starters — Jon Runyan Jr., Greg Van Roten, and Jermaine Eluemunor — who have all done a good job. Center John Michael Schmitz has improved somewhat, though not as much as I’d hoped. The Giants will need to continue pouring resources, particularly draft resources, into the line.
Of course continuing to improve the line will make the quarterback, the skill players, and the entire offense better.
Bob Donnelly asks: It’s no secret that the Giants have trouble scoring, especially on their home field.
Two games ago Daboll benched Jones and went with Lock in a failed attempt to create a spark.
If this Sunday vs Washington Jones is again ineffective, given it’s a home game, in your view does Lock or DeVito have the greatest potential to create the spark Daboll is looking for?When would you expect to see such a change made?
Ed says: Bob, let’s be clear about NFL rules. Tommy DeVito has been the emergency third quarterback in every game this season. He is in uniform, but the only way he can play is if BOTH Daniel Jones and Drew Lock are injured and unable to continue in the game. So, unless something changes with the way the Giants have set their game day roster all season it has to be Lock if Daboll is going to pull Jones.
There is a segment of Giants fans that still wants to cling to Devito-Mania. DeVito still got huge cheers from fans in the preseason. But, he is the third quarterback for a reason. The Giants — and the rest of the league, for that matter — don’t believe he is a starting NFL quarterback. They paid Lock because they didn’t think DeVito should be No. 2.
DeVito would excite fans, sure. But, DeVito is not the answer at quarterback.
When will a change get made? I don’t expect it, but if Jones and the offense are stinking up the joint and Giants fans are booing like crazy it might happen at halftime on Sunday. Who knows?
I think the Giants know they are moving on from Jones when the season ends. I think Jones knows it, too. Brian Daboll has been as supportive as he can be of Jones, but it’s pretty clear both guys understand their marriage is failing and about to come to its end.
I don’t think the Giants want to pull the plug on Jones until they are officially out of playoff contention. The Giants have a bye week after they face the Carolina Panthers in Germany in Week 10. If they are 2-8 at that point, maybe a change comes after the bye.
A question from ‘X’.
Ed says: I’m not an Anthony Richardson fan. He’s a tremendous athlete. He has never been a good quarterback, not even collegiately at Florida. At least, that’s my view. The kid has a ridiculously awful 44.4% completion rate. That’s last in the league among 36 qualifiers, more than 14 percentage points behind 35th-place Mason Rudolph.
Matt Waldman of The Rookie Scouting Portfolio thinks Richardson’s film is better than his statistics. In last week’s game against the Houston Texans, in which Richardson was 10 of 32, Waldman says there are eight balls Colts receivers could/should have caught. He believes Richardson simply needs time, and the type of patience many teams no longer have with young quarterbacks.
The Colts aren’t trading Richardson at this point. They seem to want to “reset” him and try to let him learn. Sadly, more NFL teams should do that before these young quarterbacks fail spectacularly, rather than after when their careers have already been damaged.
If the Giants think there is something there with Richardson they could develop, there’s no harm in asking. I just have my doubts that Richardson’s play will ever catch up to his tools.
Gino P. asks: One of his Nabers’ strengths is to operate out of any receiver position. Some of the better NFL receivers have success from the slot, given that they have more route options. Robinson plays a good role, but mostly in the 5-10 yard range.
For some plays would it make sense for Nabers to line up n the slot, with Slayton and Hyatt on the outside?
Ed says: Yes, it would make sense. And that is why the Giants put Nabers in the slot 25% of the time. Nabers has played 366 snaps this season, and has aligned in the slot on 90 of them (24.6%).
Doug Mollin asks: If we trade free-agents-to-be Slayton and Ojulari, can we sign them as free agents in the offseason?
Both are solid players, not perfect, but they contribute. Depending on their market price, why not make them a fair offer and bring them back … and pocket the 6th round picks as well.
It’s not like the Giants are so overflowing with talent that we should let even guys like Slayton and Ojulari walk away (if the price is right of course).
Ed says: Doug, theoretically that could happen. As a practical matter, I think it’s far-fetched. Trading them signals that you don’t believe you will be able to sign them when the entire league has a chance to bid on their services. It may also signal that you don’t believe the player wants to return to the team, anyway.
Wayne Mirsky asks: What is dead money, how is it calculated and how does it affect your cap and how much you can spend on free agents?
Do the Giants have dead money on their books? I read that if Daniel Jones gets injured they would have over $23 million in dead money.
Ed says: Wayne, dead money is defined as the salary cap charge that remains on a team’s payroll even after a player is traded or released. It is “dead” because, since it is already charged to the team for a player it used to have, it cannot be spent on a new player.
Yes, the Giants have dead money on their books. Every team in the NFL has some dead money. The Denver Broncos are carrying $81 million in dead money, most in the league. The Cincinnati Bengals are carrying a league-low $8 million. The Giants are currently carrying $29.146 million in dead money.
What happens is that players get a certain amount of “guaranteed money” in their contracts. That guaranteed money is paid upfront, but for accounting purposes it is spread over a period of years. If there is still guaranteed money left on a contract when a player is released or traded, that guaranteed money stays on the teams books.
For example, the Giants are still carrying a $10.6 million dead money charge for guaranteed money they paid Leonard Williams that still has to be accounted for.
For Jones, his $30 million salary for next season is not guaranteed. But, $23 million of it is guaranteed for injury. If Jones is on the roster March 16 when the league year starts, $12 million of the $30 million becomes guaranteed. If he suffers a catastrophic injury and can’t pass a physical, the other $11 million becomes fully guaranteed.
If Jones is healthy and the Giants cut him before March 16, they still take a $22.21 million cap hit based on pro-rated signing bonus money that still needs to be accounted for.
Hope that helps.
Lawrence Kenney asks: With Andrew Thomas out for the year and the season possibly slipping, why not try Neal at left tackle?
If he’s not as good as advertised then you’ve lost nothing. If he shows talent, but don’t think he’s the answer at right tackle maybe use the fifth-year option and possibly get a draft pick in a trade. If he’s REALLY good then right tackle is still an option.
Unless there’s a problem we’re unaware, of why not?
Ed says: Lawrence, I feel like I have answered this a number of times already. If the Giants thought Neal could play left tackle, he would be playing left tackle.
Many people seem to have this idea that he was a collegiate left tackle, so it should be easy for him to play that spot now. He played ONE YEAR of left tackle at Alabama. He has been a right tackle exclusively for the last three years. His footwork and movement ability aren’t going to magically improve by making him switch sides to a spot he hasn’t played since 2021.
The fact that the Giants have played Josh Ezeudu and Chris Hubbard instead of Neal tells you what they think.
Submit a question
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to [email protected] and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.
