Ridge Kennedy asks: I saw Antonio Pierce’s name come up in the the article about a possible replacement DC. A midseason change seems unlikely to me, but . . . I wonder about finding some role for Pierce in the organization.
I always had a very favorable impression of him as a player and person. What kind of guy was he in your experience? With experience in other organizations and his exposure to the media world now, is he someone the Giants should be thinking about getting on board in a leadership role or some sort.
What do you think?
Ed says: Ridge, I suppose that you could bring Pierce on as a defensive consultant. That type of role is usually reserved for coaches who have already been defensive coordinators at the NFL level, which Pierce has not done. If the Giants do replace Bowen at some point during the season, it would almost certainly be with an internal interim coach for the rest of the season.
I never dealt with Pierce, so I can’t speak to the rest of the question.
Bob Donnelly asks: Many BBV readers have been watching Giants football for a half century or more.Over that time we have watched the Giants snatch defeat from the jaws of victory many times.Some of those fiascos are more memorable than others, like the Pisarcik fumble now known as the Miracle in the Meadowlands. In your view would Sunday’s performance in Denver rank as one of the five worst Giants blunders you have seen?
Ed says: The Fumble. The Matt Dodge Game. The Trey Junkin Game. This one is right there. For me, the most similar game is the Junkin Game, the 2002 playoff loss to the San Francisco 49ers. Blowing a 38-14 second-half lead with a placekicking nightmare — that time by a backup long snapper rather than a backup kicker — playing a big role.
Doug Mollin asks: What advice do you have for Giant fans after that kind of loss? I mean, teams with that lead were 1,602 – 0 prior to Sunday. How do you keep your cool and keep your optimism going?
Ed says: Doug, you look at the fact that the Giants put 34 points on the Eagles and 32 on the Broncos (which should have been 35). Those are two of the best defenses in the league, and the Giants scored five touchdowns in back-to-back weeks. Without Malik Nabers. And without an NFL placekicker. They have their quarterback. I don’t think there is a team in the league right now that can look at the Giants and think “easy win.” We know that hasn’t always been the case for the last decade or so.
Sunday was terrible. The last 10-12 years have been mostly terrible. There are a lot of signs that the future is NOT going to be terrible. Some changes still need to be made, but there is a lot already in place to feel good about.
Jeff Robinson asks: What does the cap situation look like for next summer? Some cuts coming and going all in with players on rookie deals. Dart, Skat, Nabers, Carter, etc.
Ed says: Jeff, right now the Giants have $16 million in cap space on a projected cap of $295 million, per Over The Cap. This season isn’t even half over, we haven’t gotten to the trade deadline, and a lot can change. It’s really too early to worry about that.
Robert Sattler asks: Any updates on Micah McFadden?
Ed says: Robert, McFadden is on IR. He is expected to miss most, if not all, of the remainder of the season. He has not been around the locker room since he went on IR, at least not that I have seen. So, I don’t have much for you.
Albert Juliano asks: For all the fans and media who are want DaBoll and Schoen fired here are FOUR reasons why it should not happen: Gettleman, McAdoo, Shurmur, Judge. Does anyone think that the ownership would get the next hire(s) right? I certainly don’t. Do you, Ed?
Ed says: Albert, so, by your logic Brian Daboll and Joe Schoen should have jobs for life. Simply because the hires previous to them did not work out. That’s ridiculous, to be honest.
If ownership doesn’t think the right guys are leading the front office and coaching staff, you make changes. You can’t NOT make a change because you got it wrong a couple of times. Look around the NFL. Shoot, look around pro sports. There are a lot more bad GMs and head coaches than good ones — a lot more hiring mistakes than there are times where teams land the right GM and the right head coach at the right time.
If you don’t think you are on the right path, you change it. If you think have the right guys, you have patience and let them keep trying to build it.
Eric Vandersluis asks: Denver was devastating- no way around that- but what Dart did should have been cemented in Giants lore instead of this crushing loss. I know the INT was killer, but how he came back to lead what should have been a game winning drive really gives me hope. As a journalist, how much more fun would it have been to be writing about the arrival of Dart over the departure of Daboll (and whoever else the fan base wants to see roll)? Did you have a story in mind before the game got away from us? If so, can you share any of it?
Ed says: Eric, I love this question. I will give you a little bit of a “pull back the curtain” answer. The hardest story to write is the one that may seem the simplest to the reader — the immediate, post-game recap. I have written a million of them in my lifetime, and have tasked Sam Kirk with doing that this year. I feel bad for him when a game goes the way Giants-Broncos did.
A game that is in doubt requires basically trying to write two stories at one time (Giants win/Giants lose) and having both stories ready to go, or at least ready to be topped with the result and edited, when the clock hits :00. In a game like Sunday that comes down to the final play or final seconds, that is an absolute nightmare for the writer. And, to be honest, part of why you might see my freak out on people on ‘X’ who seem to enjoy picking on typos. They happen when you are in that much of a hurry to finish and deliver content to your audience. I will fix them eventually, but I’ve learned to live with them in the rush of the moment.
Reaction pieces like I have been doing, and like Tony DelGenio does, are somewhat easier. Though Tony, who has not spent a lifetime writing on deadline like I have, might disagree. Not easy. Somewhat easier. Because you don’t have the pressure of having to be done pretty much simultaneously with the end of the game.
For me, I might begin shaping things like ‘Kudos & Wet Willies’ and my ‘Things I think’ column around halftime. Or, midway through the third quarter. I begin to compile the ‘K&WW’ list and write some of it long before the game ends. I am at least mulling approaches and things I want to say for ‘Things I think.’
Yes, there would have been a much different ‘Things I think’ last Sunday had the Giants won. How could there not be?
I was thinking about the Theo Johnson 41-yard touchdown catch and what a seminal moment that would be for a franchise that has been downtrodden for most of the last 12 or so years. I was thinking of how that play and that game might signal a real change in the fortunes of the franchise.
Then, the collapse happened and I ended up writing about what a cruel tease that moment actually was.
Chip McCoy asks: Despite Sunday’s heartbreaker, the Giants are 2-2 since switching to Jaxson Dart and have shown they can play competitive football against top teams. If the rest of the season plays out the way the last four games have (I.e., we go .500 from now on, ending the season 7-10), is this enough for Daboll to keep his job? What about Schoen?
I can make the case either way. They finally have “their” QB and have shown that they can win with him. .500 with a rookie QB is pretty good, especially without Nabers. Schoen also is in a position where he can get aggressive with signings. On the other hand, Daboll’s in-game management has been poor, particularly vs. Dallas and Denver. Preparation has been questionable vs. Washington and New Orleans and is a recurring theme every year.
Mara said he wants “meaningful games” in December. He might not get that this year but there is clearly a foundation. Given how the season has gone so far, at what point does he decide to stick with Daboll and Schoen for another year? Are they a package deal?
Ed says: Chip, short answer to a long question. You wait until the end of the season when you have all of the evidence and then make a decision. It’s been a rollercoaster ride. You don’t make your choice when you’re at the top of the coaster, or at the bottom. You make your choice once you have completed the ride.
Are they a package deal? They could be, but don’t have to be. Mara said long ago that he could separate them. If ownership feels like the coaching staff isn’t getting the most out of the roster Schoen is providing, then Daboll could go while Schoen stays. If ownership thinks both have under-achieved, both will go.
Don Rivers asks: What do you think of Deonte Banks switching to S and moonlight as a CB ? He has the size and speed to do it and the action will be in front of him so he doesn’t have to turn his head to locate the ball as much. He also looks good as a returner so there’s that. Nubin could play more LB and put Muasau back on the bench.
Ed says: Don, I think that would be a disaster. Safeties are the last line of defense, and do you really want to trust Banks to be the guy in the back end who saves everybody else?
Banks was drafted as a man-to-man cover cornerback. He hasn’t shown any aptitude play well in zone coverage, to communicate with teammates in those situations, and to have the instincts to get into the right places when playing facing the quarterback. Those are all things safeties have to do.
On top of that, his run defense has deteriorated year over year, and he misses way too many tackles. That is a bad combination for a safety. And, you want the 210-pound Tyler Nubin to play linebacker?
Doug Leihbacher asks: A lot of criticism has been leveled at DC Shane Bowen for his conservative schemes in the fourth quarter vs. Denver. The other part of the equation is game/clock management on the offensive side. Do you know who called that pass play on third-and-5 from the Giants’ 35-yard line? I am curious if it was Kafka or if Daboll stepped in, because it seemed like the plan was to force Denver to use up their time outs. That was clearly the plan on 1st and 2nd down but then they seemingly re-thought it and decided to have their rookie QB throw when all they had to do is run the ball one more time and Denver would’ve been forced to use their last time out (if the Giants didn’t get a first down).
Ed says: Doug, Mike Kafka is the play-caller. Daboll clearly has the authority to overrule or to tell the offensive coordinator he wants the ball run on all three plays or what he is and is not OK with. These are situations that are discussed internally during the week prior to games, as well as during games. Daboll hears the play call. If he wants a run play, he can tell Kafka that.
Daboll was clearly fine with the play call. Here is what he said:
“I have confidence in Jaxson to go out like we did, similar, I’m not saying it’s the exact same thing, but the Chargers game when he hit (tight end) Theo (Johnson) there. I thought we had a good play called. They had some pressure, kind of got tripped up, but I have a lot of confidence in him and that’s why we called it.
“I have a lot of confidence in him and our offense to go out there and execute at that particular time. I thought Kafka had a good play call dialed up.”
Reality is, Johnson was wide open on the play. If Dart is able to step into the throw and get it over the linebacker it is an easy completion and it’s game over because the Giants would probably run another two minutes off the clock before perhaps having to punt.
They played to try to win, and it backfired.
We can argue … and argue … and argue some more over whether the strategy or the play call was right. I don’t know. There are valid arguments either way. I have always said this, and Rakeem Nunez-Roches told me the other day I should have it printed on a t-shirt:
A good play call is one that works. A bad one is one that doesn’t.
That one didn’t work.
Robert Stolzenberger asks: I watched with interest Darren Waller’s recent video interview where he remarked without any seeming malice that the Giants misused him during his stay here. He mentioned being asked to do alot of B-Gap work and stick routes, ignoring his strengths as a player. With the Dolphins, even though missing first few games, Waller already has 4 TD catches. What did you see during Waller’s NY time contrasted to what he is doing now? Did Daboll have suspect TE emphasis?
Ed says: My $.02 on this? Waller is spinning a nice tale to justify the reality that at that point in his life football just did not interest him that much. He played 568 snaps for the Giants in 2023. He aligned as a fullback 10 times. That is 1.7% of the time. Is that really such a cross to bear?
It is true that Waller’s yards per target (7.5) were among the lowest of his career in 2023. I am sure the Giants wanted to use him in more explosive ways. Remember, though, the quarterback play was a disaster. The offensive line was a disaster. Waller missed five games with injury. It just didn’t work out the way either side had hoped.
Bob Donnelly asks: There have been a few scenarios floated regarding the future of Wilson with the Giants. Among them are a trade, retirement, or releasing him.
Two-part question:
How would each scenario impact the cap space? And, what would they do for an emergency QB especially given the cap situation?
Ed says: Bob, as far as I understand it the impact is all the same at this point. If Wilson is removed from the roster the Giants are relieved of responsibility for whatever pro-rated portion of his $2 million base salary remains.
As for an emergency quarterback, they would do what every other NFL team does when they need one. Sign the best guy they can find, probably someone with experience they think could learn and play quickly if he had to. Like what happened with Tim Boyle a year ago.
Lou Catalano asks: I keep going back to John Mara’s statement a few years ago when talking about Daniel Jones he said something to the effect that “we have done everything possible to screw that kid up”. Given that, I believe that he will not make a HC change because from all appearances Daboll and Dart have a really strong relationship.
There are bound to be coaching changes after the season ends if not sooner, but keeping Daboll, Kafka and Dart together seems like the right thing to do.
Having said that, there have been some questionable decisions recently. As soon as I saw them going for 2 at 19-0 I questioned the call. An extra point (an iffy proposition at best as shown later) would have required 3 touchdowns by Denver. Instead, it left the door open for 2 TDs, 2 2 point conversions and a FG. With the massive meltdown later I haven’t seen anyone else who raised the issue. Your thoughts?
Ed says: Lou, for me this is another of those “two sides to the coin” decisions.
I didn’t like it. The extra point at least forced three touchdowns and successful extra-point conversions. Or, two touchdowns and two field goals would only tie. I did not think the benefit of going for two points to get back to a full three-score lead was worth the risk.
I never like teams chasing points. If you miss an extra point early, don’t start chasing that point right away. You never know how the game is going to unfold, and you might make it worse by failing on the 2-point conversion try, or tries. Go for two late in the game when the score indicates that you absolutely have to. Not before.
That said, like a lot of other teams in the NFL, the Giants put a lot of time and effort into studying the analytics and having a plan for these situations.
“That’s what was on our chart and that’s what we went with,” Daboll said. “That’s what I went with.”
My guess is that in this analytics-driven pro sports world most teams would have done the same.
Brian Misdom asks: Since Dart has been the starter, we’ve seen the offense put up points, beat good teams and seemingly have a scheme helping our young QB – all without Nabers or a great set of position players.
And yet, we’re 2-2, with an epic collapse, sloppy play and repeated questionable game management mixed in.
If this rollercoaster continues, is this enough to save Daboll’s job or cost him it?
Ed says: Brian, that is the big question to be answered over the next 10 games. The Giants believe in Daboll’s ability to mold a quarterback, and we can see the relationship between Daboll and Dart. If they can let that play out, the Giants would like to.
To get there, though, the Giants have to win some games. When they lose, Daboll’s game management can’t be part of the reason.
The answer isn’t clear yet.
George Field asks: I’m an east coaster who used to occasionally travel to CO, and was surprised to hear at Friday’s Dabs’ presser that the Gmen weren’t flying out to Denver until Saturday. Post game and reading BBV and other analysis on the following Monday, I haven’t seen much written about the altitude effect. Bottom line though, I don’t think that comeback could have happened to the Giants anywhere but Denver. Your thoughts?
Ed says: George, I’m not blaming the altitude. Over the last 17 minutes, all they really needed to do was make one play. I’m sure they were tired. But, the altitude didn’t cost them the game. There were a number of reasons, and I think we have spent the better part of the week analyzing them
Related
Brennan Kilpatrick asks: I have more of a general NFL/coaching question, but it stems from last week’s game. Much has been made of the 4th quarter collapse against the Broncos, with again a lot of focus on the Giants defense (holding a lead with 30 seconds left, Broncos with no timeouts and needing only a field goal to win) coming out with a very conservative defensive play call, allowing the Broncos to immediately pick up 30 yards and get into field goal range.
I’ve noticed several BBV commenters suggest that rather than blaming Bowen for the call, it’s ultimately Daboll’s fault. These commenters have essentially stated things like “you know Daboll signed off on the play call” or “head coaches always sign off on play calls in big moments of games” etc. etc.
My question for you, is not who to blame for the rush 3/drop 8 coverage call last Sunday, but to your knowledge do head coaches review and ‘sign off’ on their coordinators play calls in big moments of the game? Is that something that ‘always happens’ (as some commenters implied), something that sometimes happens, or something that rarely if ever happens? Or is this something you aren’t sure of yourself, and no one (outside of the coaches/individual teams themselves) could definitively claim to know?
Ed says: Brennan, ultimately the head coach is responsible for everything that happens on the field. Even if he did not make a certain play call or send a certain player into the game, he is the boss of the people who did. So, he is responsible.
Now, let’s talk about process. Coaches are on headsets and the head coach can listen to and communicate with all of them. Daboll can give his thoughts during the game, and hear each play call. Now, there isn’t much time for him to ‘overrule” and get an entirely different call sent in if he doesn’t like what he hears.
That is why teams prepare for these situations all week. Offensive coordinator Mike Kafka explained this week that part of the call sheet they prepare is “gotta have it” plays for specific situations. I’m sure the defense does the same thing, preparing well in advance what calls they want based on situations. The head coach participates in that process and knows what they are. DC Shane Bowen and the players have talked about their open dialogue recently. They practiced this coverage. The players knew it might be used in this situation. If they were against it, they had all week to tell the defensive coordinator. Brian Burns said it was the “perfect” call and the Giants just didn’t make the play.
Now, the drop eight/rush three play was the first one of the drive. What Daboll can do in that situation is lean into his microphone and say to Bowen “let’s rush the QB here” or “I want extra defensive backs on this one”, something along those lines to communicate how he wants the situation called.
Did that happen? I wasn’t on the headset.
Jeffrey Jacobs asks: I am so super frustrated with the overall lack of depth on the Giants roster, but the situation with kicker is so mystifying that I cannot wrap my head around it. Schoen could have cut Gano after 2 injury plagued seasons and saved over $3M in cap space, but he did not. THEN he chose to stick with a kicker who RUTGERS wouldn’t even trust with kicking and when they finally cut him after the debacle in Denver last week, today (Friday) they announce they’ve resigned said kicker back to the practice squad! I truly do not understand this – it seems to be malpractice of the highest order to not have a reliable kicker, and has cost the Giants several games in the past 2 seasons (although, rot be fair, there was more than blame to go around last week, so I’m not placing the loss solely on the kicker). This situation perfectly illustrates why the Giants need to get rid of Schoen and anyone involved in this decision!
What are your thoughts? What am I not seeing or understanding?
Ed says: Jeffrey, it is impossible to deny that the placekicker situation has been problematic for the Giants the past three seasons. The shame of that is that Graham Gano has been a very good kicker for a very long time, and still is when all of his body parts are in working order.
I was a bit surprised when the Giants did not cut Gano in the offseason, when it would have saved them $3.165 million against the cap. The flip side of the coin is that good kickers are not easy to find, and Gano is a good one. When healthy. Running it back with Gano was a gamble, and we have seen the good (6 of 6 on fields with a 55-yarder) and the bad (a pre-game groin injury that has, basically, cost him five games).
The Jude McAtamney part of the equation I agree with, to a point. The kid couldn’t kick for Rutgers, and the Giants could have gone with Younghoe Koo, who at least has a resume that includes several successful seasons. Even if last year wasn’t one of those successful seasons.
As for bringing the kid back to the practice squad, it hurts nothing. The Giants have an International Player Exemption for him, so he is not taking up a practice squad spot that could go to someone else.
As for Schoen, while I don’t agree with how the Giants have handled the placekicker situation, I’m not firing him over it. When it’s all said and done you take the whole body of work and make your decision on his future.
Submit a question
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to [email protected] and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.
See More:
