Spencer Gross asks: Regarding Tyler Shough, I must admit I’m a fan of the player so maybe I’m biased but is the age that big of an issue? It’s mentioned as a caveat multiple times but it’s also well documented that having a rookie QB on the cheap allows you to compete during free agency during that initial contract time frame. My argument is you’ll have him for 4 years to see if he succeeds which would put him at I believe 31 at the end of his contract. There’s still football to be played at 26 and older so why not give the dice a roll? I admit it makes me nervous about the injury history but surround him with high quality lineman and see what happens. I’m assuming but his age and education leads me to believe he could handle the difficulty of NY media. Picking him in the second round allows us to target a blue chip player at pick 3 while still gaining a possible QB of the future. If it doesn’t work out we are not in “new GM/new head coach with a highly drafted QB they didn’t choose” hell. Thoughts?
Ed says: Spencer, if Shough was Jaxson Dart’s age (21) he would clearly be QB2 in this class. I don’t know exactly where the right spot to take Shough would be, but I have no issue with taking him at 34 or even 65 if the Giants think he is a guy they want to work with.
Dave Propper asks: There have been comments stating that we should trade from #34 to the low end of the 1st round. I understand the desire to trade up to get your guy. Besides that, can you discuss your thoughts on the benefits/risk of such a move. On one hand, you get the 5th-year option which somewhat helps control costs in that year. On the other hand, the first 4 years are fully guaranteed and means you are somewhat stuck with them for all four years. Personally, I’m fine with the trade-up for a QB (if you believe in the guy). What are your thoughts?
Ed says: Dave, if you love the quarterback and think he’s the guy you want to work with going forward then by all means you make the trade up. I do that consistently in mock drafts, and I could see the Giants doing so for Jaxson Dart, Jalen Milroe or perhaps even Tyler Shough if he is a guy they really want.
The fifth-year option is absolutely worthwhile when you think about the costs of second contracts for quality quarterbacks.
Alan Backman asks: Though it’s disappointing, it looks like Cleveland may take Hunter. And that leaves us with a choice of Carter or maybe Sanders. Carter is clearly the bpa. And while there is an adage that you can never have enough pass rushers, the reality is that we have a lot of needs to fill and Edge at 3 is perhaps a luxury. So here’s an idea. Though Giants may need some depth at Edge, they perhaps don’t need a starter. But they do need pretty desperately some help for Dex on the DL. Patriots who pick 4th have the opposite issue. They have a lot of DT types with Barmore, Williams and Tonga. Sounds like a natural trade. Giants trade back from 3rd to 4th. Pats take Carter at 3. Giants take Mason Graham. Carter is clearly the better player. Per Jimmy Johnson trade chart, the trade up is worth about 200 points. That’s roughly a 3rd round pick which is 69th overall. Adding that extra 3rd could be worthwhile and give us 5 picks in the top 100 picks (#4, #34, #65, #69, #99). Plus we get Graham who arguably slots in nicely as DT2 next to Dex. Thoughts?
Ed says: Alan, you answered your own question. Abdul Carter is a better — much better in my view — prospect than Mason Graham. In most drafts, Graham wouldn’t be considered this early. Carter would. Forget position. The Giants need game changers. They need difference makers. Carter can be that. Honestly, I don’t see Graham as a player who should be selected that high in the draft. Especially with the number of good defensive tackles who can be taken later.
I don’t think a third-round pick is worth the difference between Carter and Graham. If I trade back a spot I need more than that. I need New England’s pick at No. 38, worth 520 points when the difference between picks 3 and 4 is 400 points, to even consider it. I can’t get stuck on the position/need thing. Maybe two years from now Carter is an All-Pro and Kayvon Thibodeaux plays for someone else. Needs change. Collect the best players you can.
When there is a clear difference, take the better player. I’m usually a proponent of trading down. In this case, though, I’m not trading down for a lesser prospect. At least not for pick No. 69.
Vincent Moody: What do you think the Browns do at 2? I know they said they are willing to figure out their quarterback over the next couple years, but can they really go into the season with Kenny Pickett and DTR? How do they not go QB at the top of the draft?
Ed says: Vincent, I think the Browns pass on Shedeur Sanders and take whichever of Travis Hunter or Abdul Carter they believe is best for them.
How does Cleveland not go quarterback at No. 2? There is still a widespread belief that — eventually — the Browns acquire Kirk Cousins to be their 2025 starter. Yes, the Browns need a young quarterback. GM Andrew Berry and coach Kevin Stefanski, though, are not in the same situation as Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll.
Because of the DeShaun Watson mess, and because Cleveland ownership has accepted responsibility for that, Berry and Stefanski have a longer leash than Schoen and Daboll. If they don’t think the quarterback available to them with the No. 2 pick is worth that selection, they can do something else.
Anthony Cantore asks: Who is more responsible for the failure or under performance of the Giant’s’ drafted players. Daboll’s coaching or Schoen’s selections?
Ed says: Anthony, I don’t think there is a “one size fits all” answer to that question.
Eli Manning used to say each interception had its own story. I think the same is true here — each draft pick has its own story. Very few people, for example, thought at the time that Evan Neal was a bad pick at No. 7 when Schoen did that. Some thought for a while Neal would go No. 1 overall. Is it Schoen’s fault the kid hasn’t worked out? Is it Brian Daboll’s fault? Is it the kid’s fault? I don’t know. It just hasn’t worked.
The Giants moved all over the board in 2022 to get Wan’Dale Robinson. Good pick? Bad pick? Should Schoen have taken George Pickens? Robinson is a really good player who lost time to a knee injury. He has not averaged enough yards per catch, or yards after catch. Is that his fault? The fault of the play-calling? Did the Giants misjudge what Robinson could do? Or, has Robinson just not had quarterbacks capable of giving him enough catch-and-run opportunities?
Florian Cortese asks: In the ever-shifting draft world of picks 1 to 3 in the fast approaching NFL draft, so many opinions are being bandied about. Specifically on what Cleveland and the Giants will do. It is pretty much settled that Ward is the pick at 1. Cleveland has gone form Sanders to Carter and now to Hunter. Excepting if Cleveland go Sanders, the Giants will have three option, Sanders, Carter or possibly trade back. A lot of people think 3 is too valuable and too early a pick for Sanders and that the Giants should go BPA. I am in that group of thinkers. If that happens Sanders will get picked maybe as far back as the Steelers at 21. If that happens, I feel the Giants need to move back into round 1 to get a QB. But how aggressive should they be? Cleveland will definitely grab one at 33. I don’t think waiting to 34, say for Dart, is realistic. We would have to move ahead of Cleveland. This may mean moving further into round 1. How aggressive a move (picks involving next year’s draft to be included in the package?) do you feel comfortable with the Giants offering?
Ed says: Florian, in the end if you get a quarterback pick right no one is ever going to care how much you gave up. The Giants gave up a 2004 third-round pick, a 2005 first-round pick and a 2005 third-round pick to get Eli Manning. They got two Super Bowl titles out of the deal. So, does anybody care what they gave up? They shouldn’t.
That said, getting back into the middle or later parts of Round 1 is not the same as getting into the top five. If the Giants think Jaxson Dart or Jalen Milroe or Tyler Shough is the guy they want to build with I’m fine with giving up a Day 2 pick this year and next year to do it. For me, giving up the 2026 first-round pick is a bridge too far for the players we are talking about targeting.
Matthew Annunziata asks: With the draft coming up and the 5th year option decisions looming shortly thereafter, I wanted to ask about Evan Neal.
Last offseason, it seemed as if the Giants original plan was to have Neal at RT and Eluemunor at RG. Obviously, that never happened because Neal wasn’t healthy yet. When Neal did come back, the Giants did not play him and I believe he was a healthy scratch for a game or two. You also mentioned in a couple of articles that Neal was only practicing at RT. Then due to injuries, Neal was forced into action. It also seems like Neal improved the more he played.
Now, this offseason everyone is still banging the drum for Neal to move inside to guard and Schoen mentioned that Neal is “open to everything”, giving the interpretation that he will move inside to guard.
I feel as though the Giants might be willing to give Neal the chance to win the RT position during training camp with the notion that if he doesn’t, then he will switch to guard. Do you think that’s possible or do you see him going straight to guard? Also, do you think that picking up the 5th year option might be more beneficial for the Giants since it will a) give them a year to work out a new contract if Neal ends up being a RT after all, b) a year to get him acclimated to guard if he doesn’t win the RT position, or c) look more appealing during the trade deadline for teams who may need an OL due to injuries?
Ed says: Matthew, Jermaine Eleumunor is the starting right tackle. He played well last year until being forced to move to left tackle. GM Joe Schoen has said multiple times this offseason that Eluemunor is the right tackle, they are happy with him there, and the only open spot on the offensive line is right guard.
As for the fifth-year option, why would the Giants commit another year to Evan Neal at a cost of $16.685 million? That is more money than the $14.751 million the Giants would have to give Kayvon Thibodeaux if they pick up his option. There is virtually no chance of Neal’s fifth-year option being picked up. You give fifth-year options to players who have earned it, and who you know you want to be part of your team next season. That is not the case with Neal.
I don’t know for certain that the Giants will move him to guard, but that’s my guess. I also think it’s unlikely that Neal begins 2025 as a starter. Greg Van Roten was good in 2024. If he doesn’t open the season as a starter, I think it would be a 2025 draft pick.
Matt Barone asks: There’s a chance the Giants take (Shedeur) Sanders at 3, but would that really stop them from taking a second QB later in the draft? QB being the most important position isn’t it better to take multiple swings at it? What if Dart is available in the second or top of the third round?
Second part, I can’t say I’ve seen this anywhere, but would a mid-round Quinn Ewers pick be a sign the Giants are going hard after Arch Manning next year? Would that even help the cause?
Ed says: Matt, at this point it would be surprising if they took Sanders at No. 3. It seems most in the draft community are convinced they will pass and get a quarterback later.
I could see selecting a quarterback at No. 34 or trading up into the back half of Round 1 to get one, and I could see selecting a quarterback as a flier in perhaps the seventh round. But, to make your first two picks quarterbacks? Or two of your first three? Nobody is going to do that. It screams that you don’t really believe in the first guy you picked, and you muddy the waters. Plus, Russell Wilson is the starter and Jameis Winston is the No. 2. If you are Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll and your jobs are on the line in 2025, are you really going to pick two quarterbacks who aren’t going to play and won’t help you keep them?
As for Ewers-Manning, I don’t see what drafting one would have to do with the other. You don’t recruit kids out of college, you draft them.
John Kozel asks: I see where you are tracking the 30 visits. It seems like Joe Schoen likes to select players he spends time with during these visits. It might be early but I was wondering if you see anything that might indicate if a trade back is being considered. Are they talking to players in the 5 to 15 range in the first round?
Ed says: John, I have not heard anything about a move down in the five to 15 range. That doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. In terms of visits, you can be sure that the Giants have — in some form — had discussions with almost every prospect. Just because we don’t see a name listed on a visits tracker does not mean the Giants have not talked to a player.
Submit a question
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to [email protected] and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.
