Eric Ravenell asks: In looking at possible candidates for the NY GMen, you see the same hot name DC’s and OC’s, one name that you don’t see, but I wouldn’t mind is Rex Ryan. Any insight why Rex hasn’t received any attention (other than being out the league so long. I think he would bring the stability and discipline the Giants need, he would definitely ensure that defense is defending and doing so aggressively and moving fast.
Ed says: Eric, the first and most obvious reason is that Rex Ryan has not been in the league since 2016. He is a celebrity talking head right now, and we know he is very much into being Rex Ryan. He is cut from the Wink Martindale cloth in the sense that he is going to say what he wants, which may not always be appreciated by the head coach.
Ryan has not been a defensive coordinator since 2008. I’d hope the Giants would want to hire someone who has actually done the job some time in the last decade.
Andy Flagg asks: We saw Sunday how Jahmyr Gibbs tore up the defense with his speed, and they only player on the Giants team that has that kind of speed as a running back is sitting on the practice squad unable to get on the field because they bring up Eric Gray? Eric Gray got kicked the football and dropped it. He is slow and offers no advantage to the offense. Why don’t the Giants activate Turbo Miller and bring some speed to the running back position?
Ed says: Andy, the pining for Dante Miller here at BBV has gotten ridiculous. Look, I am not an Eric Gray fan. He is a slow running back without explosive ability whose ball security has never been trustworthy. That said, Miller is not Jahmyr Gibbs. He’s not the next coming of Saquon Barkley. He is a kid who had six carries for South Carolina in 2022 and has not played in a game that counted since then.
I have had a few conversations with Miller, and happen to like him. That said the Giants have had a number of opportunities this year and last to bring him to the 53-man roster and have not done it. That tells you that for whatever reason they do not think he is a player who can help them win games. They have worked with the kid for two years, so I have to trust that they know what they have.
Being fast doesn’t make you a good player. It gives you a chance to show people you are a good player. A couple of nice gains on preseason screen passes against players who are not in the league now also doesn’t prove anything.
Wesley Protheroe asks: Effective GMs consistently deliver strong results and hire the right people. Joe Schoen has done neither. His 20-42-1 overall record (5-24 past two seasons) speaks volumes. He also has a pattern of firing, scapegoating or shaming key coaches and players – including Daboll, Martindale, Bowen, Jones, Barkley, Neal, Banks and Hyatt – to deflect from his own shortcomings. With this track record, why would top head coach candidates want to work for him? Or do you think Giant ownership moves on from him at season’s end?
Ed says: Wesley, you obviously have a perspective on Joe Schoen. I disagree with a lot of it and think a lot of it is blatantly untrue. I am not, though, going to change your mind. Or, even try. I will answer your question.
There are only 32 NFL head-coaching jobs. Obviously, there are the same number of GM jobs. Thirty-one if you want to subtract the Dallas Cowboys, where Jerry Jones thinks he is a GM. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would like those jobs. I did not say all of those people are qualified, but there is a massive candidate pool for those jobs.
I would think the Giants could find a good head coach to take the job whether Schoen stays or not. The job is an attractive one. There is a young franchise quarterback with three years, four including the fifth-year option, left on his rookie deal. There is, whether you like Schoen’s work or not, some good young talent to work with. It is the New York/New Jersey media market, which has well-known advantages if you win. A lot of coaches will want this job.
Besides, who says the coach has to work for the GM? That is the structure the Giants have always employed, with the general manager having final say over personnel decisions if he chooses to exercise it. That does not mean it has to be that way.
What if the Giants decide they want to hire Mike McCarthy? Insert the name of any coach you want — don’t get stuck on McCarthy, because who the coach is is not the point. Let’s say McCarthy (or coach whoever) doesn’t care who the GM is, but that he wants final say on the major personnel matters. Just because the Giants have never done that doesn’t mean they won’t. Before hiring Schoen and Brian Daboll they had not gone outside the organization before and brought in a head coach and GM in the same cycle.
Do you think Schoen would throw a hissy fit and quit in that circumstance? He might not be happy, but I don’t. Again, there are only 32 of those GM jobs in the world. With his current track record, Schoen is never getting another one. I don’t think he would leave unless he is told to leave.
Now, there might be a few candidates out there who would want to work with a GM of their choosing. If the Giants want one of them and that is what they have to do, then I think they would do it.
They might come to the end of this season, assess Schoen’s four-year track record, and say there are too many missteps to go forward. We’ll see.
Doug Mollin asks: As of this week, the Giants have the worst record in the NFL since 2017: 42-101-1.
That covers 3 GMs, 6 HCs, and numerous position coaches. Going back to 2012, the Giants have 3 winning seasons out of 14. We know the one constant over that time.
Can a modern NFL franchise compete with a family ownership structure like the Giants? Or, are they doomed to mediocrity indefinitely?
Ed says: Doug, I absolutely think the Giants can compete with their current ownership structure. I know it has been ugly lately, but the Giants have won four titles in the Super Bowl era and gotten their five times.
I have said many times that the ownership structure, the only 50-50 dual ownership setup (or, 45-45 with Julia Koch and her family now having a non-decision making 10% stake) in the NFL, makes things complicated. Yes, John Mara is more hands-on than Steve Tisch and probably has more input into football decisions, but Tisch has a voice. His opinion matters. If he won’t sign off on a choice like who the next head coach is going to be or if the current one is going to get fired, that move does not happen.
They have to get the right coach. It has been a frustratingly long time since they had that guy. Reality is, teams make mistakes in hiring head coaches far more often than they get it right. Just because the Giants have not gotten it right lately does not mean they can’t, or won’t.
Todd Weintraub asks: I follow you and saw the question posed as to whether going for it was the right decision. I say yes. Analytics seem split. Reality is that if FG is successful, up 6 and Lions get ball probably 30-35 yard line, need to go 65-70 yards for win. If go for it and unsuccessful need to go approximately 52-57 yards for reasonable field goal attempt to TIE, not win, and that’s a very long FG. Plus there’s like 25-35% chance Giants score TD and end game.
But I think it’s the wrong question. The more relevant question is on 2nd and goal from 2, why throw a pass and risk stopping clock? Especially if you are going to go on 4th, just run all downs, high probability of TD, and if not, you’ve burned max clock and left them to go 52-57 yards with no timeouts and under 2 mins.
Ed says: Todd, excellent topic. Let’s talk about this.
I absolutely understand the ‘run the ball and milk the clock’ argument. And I don’t think I would have had a problem with it if the Giants ran the ball four times in that situation. Or, at least on the first three plays. Especially since they got to the 2-yard line on first down. There had to be a creative run play, or even a shovel pass with little chance of falling incomplete, in Mike Kafka’s apparently deep bag of tricks.
But … there is always a but. Here is how I see the other side of that coin.
First of all, a reminder. I have said for almost 20 years now that a good play call is one that works. I don’t care how crazy or stupid it might look. A bad play call is one that doesn’t work. Even if it seems like a good idea and is brilliantly designed.
Example: Kafka is being glorified for the touchdown pass to Jameis Winston. What, though, if Gunner Olszewski, running around behind the line of scrimmage in panic mode, throws an interception? Or, what if he throws the ball to Winston and the quarterback, being covered by a linebacker, takes a massive hit, gets concussed or knocked out for the season, and we ended up having to watch Russell Wilson? Would media and the fans be praising Kafka for that? I don’t think so. But, the play worked so it was brilliant.
Look at the situation on Sunday vs. Detroit. There was 3:11 left on the clock. It was second-and-goal at the 2-yard line. The Lions had just used their first timeout, so the clock was stopped. If the Giants were ever intending to dial up a pass play in that sequence that was the time to do it because the clock was not running.
If the pass is completed, Kafka is a mastermind for taking the risk, fooling the Detroit defense and getting the touchdown that would have given the Giants a two-score lead and — probably — sealed an amazing upset victory. Instead, Malik Nabers and others think he doesn’t know how to manage the clock.
I don’t think the Giants would have burned as much clock as others might believe, even if they had run four times.
The third-and-2 run play took eight seconds and Detroit used its second timeout with 2:59 to play. Even if that had been their final timeout, the fourth down play took :05.
Because Detroit could have used a timeout after a second-down run, and because the clock would stop after a fourth-down change of possession, my math might be a little fuzzy, but I still think the Lions would end up getting the ball with about 2:40 to play.
Adam Jacobs asks: I would love your opinion on this. It’s two games into the Kafka interim era, and my question is, why isn’t Kafka being more seriously considered to be made the permanent HC after the season? The offense has not only held the offense together, but seems to have put them in position to even be better after taking over. As for the defense, I am sure he will be able to find a very good seasoned DC to run the defense, especially one that will coach to the team’s strength (a call to Wink, even if he says no, would be in his best interest). Why do you think Kafka isn’t being talked about more as a viable candidate? Curious what your take is.
Ed says: Adam, I think Mike Kafka is being seriously considered for the job. That might not be the case for Las Vegas oddsmakers or national writers throwing around names because they can, but that is how I see it. I think Kafka remains a long shot. Only 25% of interim coordinators since 2000 have gotten the full-time job, so he has a mountain to climb. He has been impressive so far, but he has to win some games for ownership to be able to sell giving him the full-time gig.
Michael W. asks: I have to admit Kafka has impressed so far with his attitude and demeanor. It’s refreshing. It’s also clear that he was really pushed in to the shadows of the Daboll regime.
I don’t fault Kafka for going for the TD. If he kicked the FG and the Lions answered with a TD of their own the narrative would’ve been he should’ve gone for the win at 2-9. With Bowen calling the shots on D he was in literally a no win situation.
My question is this, since Kafka has certainly been involved in the development of Dart and there would be continuity, what does Kafka need to do to earn the job over a different coordinator from another team?
It seems as though the media (all we have to go by) already has the job going to someone else. With all of the pieces they’ve lost on offense, I think he’s done a tremendous job. Calling out Carter and cutting ties with Bowen shows he’s got his own vision.
Ed says: Michael, when it comes to the media the reality is that some writers and broadcasters approach their work with an agenda to push. Part of that can be who they think the next coach should be. My agenda here, whether readers choose to believe it or not, is only to run a good website Giants fans want to make a regular stop in their hunt for Giants information and discussion.
Now, when it comes to Kafka he has pushed a lot of the right buttons to this point. As I have said previously, Kafka wins some games. If they go 0-7 or 1-6 on his watch giving him the job is a tough sell. The other big part is what his relationship with Dart looks like now that Brian Daboll is not in-between them. What is best for Dart has to be at the center of the next coaching decision, and Kafka now has five games to show he can be the guy to team with Dart and take the Giants forward.
Casey Hamlin asks: As Joe Schoen’s job security gets scrutinized I think it is fair to question how his personnel decisions have matched up to the “Smart, Tough, and Dependable” qualities he has stated to the media which he and the organization look for in players. Let’s start with Deonte Banks. They traded up for him. Tough and Dependable are questionable. Jalin Hyatt? Smart? Dependable? Now, I think this can be applied to JMS or Dart. How much of these traits are actually valued versus “window dressing” for media?
Ed says: Casey, every GM of every team has some similar version of “Smart, Tough, Dependable.” I don’t put a lot of stock in them.
That said, every team wants players with those qualities. They spend thousands of man hours studying NFL Draft prospects to try and learn everything them they can about a player before they draft him. Most of that is spent on what kind of person he is. The film will tell you about the player.
Every scout will tell you they rarely miss on the talent evaluation. They miss on the person. There was nothing, for example, in Deonte Banks’ background that would ever indicate some of the effort issues that have popped up. I have asked around about that.
Sometimes you get a player in your building and you realize he isn’t the person you thought he was, or the person everyone around him presented him as.
Dennis Gaudett asks: How much does the loss of McFadden play in the Giants poor run defense? Do you think that linebacker could be priority number 1 in the upcoming draft?
Ed says: Dennis, the loss of Micah McFadden has been a bigger blow than many thought it would be. One of the biggest flaws in the defense this year has been run fits from the linebacker level. That is something McFadden always did reliably. The issue with McFadden has never been him being where he is supposed to be or being able to get into position to make plays. The issue has been him not quite having the athleticism at times to make plays he was in position to make.
At an elementary level, if McFadden is where he is supposed to be that helps the rest of the defense have trust and be where they are supposed to be.
Darius Muasau was exposed again and again this season for not being where he was supposed to be. Guys like Demetrius Flannigan-Fowles, Swayze Bozeman, and Zaire Barnes are career special teams players who really should not be relied upon as regular members of a defensive rotation.
As for linebacker being the top priority in the draft, I think that is a tough sell — especially if Joe Schoen remains as GM. Schoen has always shown a belief in positional value, and off-ball linebacker is down the list when it comes to that metric.
That said, there are many who think Ohio State linebacker Arvell Reese is the best player in the country. It’s not hard to make a case that the Giants should select the best defensive player in the country, regardless of position, if they have that opportunity in the draft.
Chris Chianese asks: Ed, I’ve heard a couple of high profile names mentioned as good fits for the Giants next season for Defensive Coordinator. One name is Wink Martindale. Based on how it all ended when he was here, do you think Schoen would consider it if the HC wanted him? Would Mara sign off on it? If somehow Kafka did enough to be named HC, would Kafka want him?
Ed says: Chris, it’s an interesting question. I don’t have a good read on that yet. We know with 100% certainty that Wink Martindale and Brian Daboll would never choose to work together again. That said, Martindale referenced again and again while he was with the Giants how much of a privilege it was and how much he loved the organization.
There are a lot of questions I need answers to. Did Martindale burn bridges with GM Joe Schoen on his way out the door, making Schoen unwilling to consider him if he remains GM? Did his ugly exit burn bridges with Giants ownership, which does not like to be embarrassed? (And I know some of you will go right to — ‘but, ownership if embarrassing itself with the product on the field’). If Kafka gets the job, what is the relationship between the two of them? If someone else gets the job, would that person want Martindale?
There are a lot of unknowns.
John Foti asks: I think most Giant fans agree with you that this defense is not playing up to its’ level of talent, even with the injuries. What problems in particular can you and the BBV staff attribute to the coaching?
Ed says: John, I am not going to get into schematics. That is not my thing. I will, though, point you to the piece Chris Pflum did earlier this week on lessons the Giants need to learn. The first thing I will say, though, is that the Giants need to be far more aggressive on defense. It absolutely appears that Giants defenders have been trained to play passively, to wait rather than attack. From Chris’s post look at how passively Giants linebackers play the run vs. how Detroit’s linebackers aggressively attack the line of scrimmage:
The second thing I will pin on coaching is the lack of corrections that have been made. Game after game after game we have talked about linebackers and defensive backs not stepping up to fill their gaps properly in run support. We have talked over and over about how the Giants get destroyed by runs to the outside. How defensive backs lose their technique and commit too many penalties. How too many bad angles or plain old poor tackling efforts in the secondary have created big plays.
None of that has been corrected. That is coaching.
A third thing is effort and accountability. Tom Coughlin always used to talk about players at times needing to play above the Xs and Os for a team to be great. I talked to ex-Giants linebacker Jonathan Casillas about this on the ‘Valentine’s Views’ podcast earlier in the season. He said that for a defense to be really good players need to not only do their jobs, but do a little bit more.
If a player is where he is supposed to be, it’s easy for him to look at the film the next day and say “I was where I was supposed to be.” The question is, “what else did you do to help your team?”
Casillas gave this example, which I LOVE. If you are a linebacker and your job is to fill a gap and bounce a running back to the cornerback on the outside, you have “done your job” if you fill the gap and the back bounces to the outside where the cornerback should be waiting. But, if the back is Saquon Barkley, the cornerback is 1-on-1 with him and you stand there and watch the cornerback try to tackle Barkley in space by himself have you really done your job?
How much of that kind of “extra” effort do you see from the Giants defense? This is subjective, but I feel strongly that when you believe in your coach, when you believe in the message, when you believe in the calls, the philosophy, and your teammates it becomes easy to give that extra effort. When you don’t believe in those things, that effort doesn’t happen.
Steve Alessandrini asks: I like the way Kafka has the offense moving – both when Daboll was here and since he took over as interim head coach. Let’s say the Giants don’t win many games though and ownership isn’t ready to give him the head coaching job. If they bring in a defensive head coach, do you think they might encourage him to keep Kafka on the staff? I know Spags and Kafka worked together in KC so that might be a possibility.
Ed says: Steve, I do not know if Kafka would consider that or if he would feel that would be an awkward situation. I also don’t know if Kafka is under contract for next year. A pairing of Steve Spagnuolo and Kafka does have some appeal.
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:
