Leonard Huber asks: It seems to me that a seventh-round draft pick is usually pretty worthless. Very few seventh-round picks amount to much. So what about the Giants using their last pick this year (246, I believe) on Ben Sauls, a kicker from the University of Pittsburgh? Having a healthy kicker week in, week out, could produce a few more victories and less roster chaos. I favor this guy because he’s had plenty of opportunities to kick in cold winter weather, like we have in New Jersey.
Ed says: Leonard, unless the Giants are planning to cut Graham Gano to save salary cap space I don’t see the point of drafting a placekicker. I thought at the beginning of the offseason the Giants would cut Gano, who is 37 and has had back-to-back injury-plagued seasons. To this point, they have not. They still have Jude McAtamney on the roster, as well.
Sauls, for what it’s worth, is the top kicker on the NFL Mock Draft Database Big Board. He is, though, ranked No. 424, which means as of now he would be looked at as an undrafted free agent.
Russell Tiberio asks: Just read your seven-round mock draft. If it fell that way I wouldn’t cry about it. My question is if Shedeur Sanders is indeed sitting there at 3, would a trade back be a better option if one were available? Maybe with the Jets at seven or Saints at nine. Maybe our first-round pick and pick 99 for their first, second and third this year and a first and third next year. Would the Pro Football Network simulator accept this trade, more importantly, is this something the Giants would entertain in the real world? I have no idea what the JJ (Johnson) draft chart would say about it.
Ed says: Russell, I have played with a lot of draft scenarios. I would hate to trade with the Jets, simply because it’s New York and if you trade with them, they take Sanders and he becomes a star the public flogging would be unbearable.
I don’t mind a small trade back. But, to do that you have to be sure that the Las Vegas Raiders (No. 6) are not taking a quarterback and that no one will jump in front of you for the player you want. So, it’s a risk.
I think the trade back play if you want Sanders is to the Jacksonville Jaguars at No. 5. Jacksonville won’t take a quarterback. Neither will the New England Patriots at No. 4. So, you get the quarterback and you add a pick or two.
Jeff Bergman asks: Do you think the Giants offseason moves have brought them to league average at all position groups? While Wilson isn’t what he was, I believe (or want to believe) he can at least be average over a full season. Competent QB play is something we’ve only seen maybe once since Eli retired. I’m not expecting miracles but can Wilson and the other moves deliver “proof of concept” of the Schoen/Daboll vision?
Ed says: Jeff, I’m not going to do a deep dive position-by-position. I think, though, you can argue that the Giants are at adequate, or league average, at nearly every spot. How many positions are there where they are well above average or top tier? That’s different.
I do think it is pretty clear that the Giants are banking on the Russell Wilson move proving that better quarterback play will lead to better offense, and hopefully better overall results. Brian Daboll has pointed to the importance of quarterback play. Joe Schoen has said the quarterback can raise the level of his teammates.
The Giants have not, to this point, really added anything substantial on offense. So, it is clear they are banking on Wilson — on paper the best quarterback the Giants have had since Eli Manning — doing just that.
There is a lot riding on the answer.
Simon Hines asks: I am concerned with Schoen’s scouting of O-line talent. Having drafted Neal, Ezeudu, McKethan, and JMS, none of which have looked great. JMS is probably the best of them, and I don’t understand the stubbornness to keep playing Ezeudu out of position. How much of an impact do you think Chris Snee will have? We all know Snee was a great player, is there anything that suggests he can identify talent?
Ed says: Simon, you are not alone in your concern about Schoen and evaluating Oline talent in the draft. That is one of the reasons Chris Snee was hired by the Giants. He played the position at a high level and should know what talent looks like when he sees it. If and when the Giants draft an offensive lineman or two in a few weeks I believe Snee’s opinion will have a lot to do with it.
Ron Corcillo asks: If Abdul Carter is available for the Giants to draft at #3, what do you think are the chances that they take him and immediately trade Kayvon Thibodeaux for a Day 2 pick?
Ed says: Ron, I think there is a chance the Giants would take Carter. There are good arguments for taking Carter or Travis Hunter if both are available, and I don’t think there is a wrong answer.
As for trading Thibodeaux, I guess that is possible but I don’t expect the Giants to do that right away. Thibodeaux may not have played up to the standard of a No. 5 overall pick, but he is a good, young player. The Giants need more of those.
Yes, there is the question of how to get Carter, Thibodeaux and Brian Burns on the field at the same time. That would be Shane Bowen’s problem, and it would be a good one to have. Steve Spagnuolo figured out how to get Michael Strahan, Justin Tuck, Osi Umenyiora and Mathias Kiwanuka at the same time and that worked out pretty well. More pass rushers is always a good thing.
There’s also this: If you trade Thibodeaux for a Day 2 pick, are you going to get a player as good as he already is? Maybe. Maybe not.
I think moving on from Thibodeaux is possible eventually, but I wouldn’t expect the Giants to do so immediately.
William Ridley asks: I have a question around the draft process and the local area college invites. Do you know the history, or why the local area invites being exempt from the 30 visits rule exists?
It seems like some teams will have an advantage being in the region of schools that are frequently in the national championship discussion, your Ohio State’s, Alabama’s and Georgia Bulldogs of the world for example.
If CoPilot is accurate, it looks like the Lions can get ‘free’ visits from Michigan and Michigan State, two decent schools, while the Raiders only get free visits from Nevada (Las Vegas), Nevada (Reno) and Southern Nevada, not exactly hotbeds of first round picks.
Ed says: William, I have not been able to find anything on the history of how the local Pro Day workouts came to exist. If anyone can, feel free to drop the information in the comments.
I can clarify some things about the “30 visits” and the local Pro Day workouts.
30 visits — These can include any players a team wants to bring into its facility. Some refer to these as “top 30 visits,” but that isn’t the case. Teams don’t just bring their top 30 prospects in. They bring some of their top prospects, players they may have lingering questions about, and some they may want to get to know before signing as an undrafted free agent or inviting to a rookie mini-camp tryout.
These visits can involve physical exams, but players cannot be timed or tested. These are not workouts.
Local Pro Day — A local Pro Day involves players who attended college or reside in a team’s “metropolitan area”. There is no exact mileage that defines that area, rather it is considered a group of contiguous suburbs. The league defines that area for each team.
Thus, a local Pro Day for the Giants would include players from Rutgers, Stony Brook and Monmouth. But it could also players from anywhere in the country who reside in or played high school football in the New Jersey metropolitan area. Players from New Jersey high schools land at Division I schools all around the country, so players from big-time college programs anywhere could be invited to the local Pro Day.
These local days do include on-field workouts, and can include a smattering of big-time prospects.. They are generally geared toward lower-level prospects who did not get invited to the NFL Scouting Combine or have not been at a big-time college Pro Day. Teams use these largely to fill out their 90-man rosters with undrafted free agents or rookie mini-camp invites.
Jim Moriarty asks: I know and understand your draft rules for success. I have a hypothetical that could very well play out.
You are sitting at 3 and Sanders and Hunter are still there. You like Sanders, and plan on taking him. That being said, you know that the teams immediately below you would love to get their hands on Hunter, and will not take Sanders. Your rules would say (I think) don’t get cute, just take Sanders at 3, although you are 99% certain he would not be taken at 4 or 5- your only risk would be a trade up to take Sanders (and you’d still end up with Graham or another quality player). If you can get a 2 or early 3 to move down 1 or 2 spots (Jimmy Johnson chart) and still get Sanders, is this “being cute” or effectively playing the board? Isn’t taking the miniscule risk worth it for a quality Day 2 pick?
Ed says: Jim, I answered this one above, but I will expand on it a bit here.
If the Giants love Sanders and think he is a quarterback who can win a Super Bowl they should just take him at No. 3. The trade back that makes sense is to Jacksonville at No. 5, provided you are comfortable that the Patriots won’t trade out of No. 4. That way, you get Sanders and add a Day 2 pick.
Trading down farther than that may also make sense if you don’t want Sanders. You add draft capital, but you do risk giving up on the best players in the class.
My rule of thumb, as you indicated, is don’t get cute. That worked for the Baltimore Ravens a few years ago when the moved back and still got Lamar Jackson, but it is a recipe for outsmarting yourself.
Stephan Morris asks: One scenario that I haven’t really seen anyone talk about, and probably because my idea is dumb, is to take a longer view. Other than job security, why not trade down in the first round to pick up an extra first-rounder next year. Take the best player available at that point, and then pick up a project like McCord. You get a year to see how they develop, if they’re good then you’re set for next year, if they’re not then you have extra draft capital in a much better quarterback class.
Ed says: Stephan, your idea isn’t dumb. I think, though, you answered your own question. Can we really expect Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll, in a win-now or get fired year, to trade down and take a lesser talent than they could get at No. 3 while acquiring draft capital they could well be handing to new general manager and head coach?
The theory is sound. I just don’t think the circumstance the Giants are in really allows them to both pass on quarterback AND miss out on one of the premier players in this draft class.
Brian Hsu asks: Why do you or anyone else keep mentioning drafting a QB on Day 2 as a good idea? The goal here is to find our QB of the future – i.e. someone who can win at the highest levels – not a solid backup, not an occasional starter, and not the next Andy Dalton or Derek Carr. I hate to harp on Jalen Milroe, but I believe as recently as a week ago you were still talking about him as an intriguing Day 2 pick. Instead, why not draft a high quality non-QB positional player who has a high probability of contributing meaningful snap counts immediately rather than a low-probability “project” that will likely see either zero snaps or play non-playoff caliber football?
Ed says: Brian, I am well aware that the deeper you get in the draft the longer the odds are that you can find a franchise quarterback. Before the 2024 draft, I studied the percentages on all three days of the draft:
Obviously, if the Giants believe Shedeur Sanders is a franchise-level quarterback they can win Super Bowls with they should select him at No. 3 and not fool around.
Here’s the thing: A lot of analysts aren’t convinced that is the case, and that there isn’t mcuh — if any — different from Sanders to Jaxson Dart, and maybe Tyler Shough and Jalen Milroe.
My belief is that at some point in this draft — at No. 3, by trading back into Round 1, by taking one on Day, by taking one on Day 3 — the Giants need to add a rookie quarterback to the mix. Maybe that player doesn’t turn out to be the future, but he gives them an option to work with and assess.
Let’s be realistic about where the Giants are. GM Joe Schoen and head coach Brian Daboll have to put a better product on the field in 2025 or they may lose their jobs. Are they going to do that by selecting a quarterback at No. 3 who isn’t going to play until the season is lost? Probably not.
Is ownership, John Mara specifically, going to sign off on trading significant draft capital to get back into Round 1 for a quarterback? That’s debatable. He may be unwilling to let Schoen empty the cupboard for 2026 and potentially handicap a new GM.
The best hope might be sit with the picks they have and take a quarterback at 34, 65, or 105. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe you get a long-term backup out of doing that
One thing that approach does not do is handicap the Giants, whether it is Schoen or another GM, in the 2026 draft. If you want to go all-in on a QB at the top of next year’s draft, taking one on Day 2 or Day 3 does not prevent you from doing that.
There are never any guarantees no matter what round you are selecting a player in. All I’ve said is the Giants should take a QB swing in the draft. If it’s Day 2, fine. If it’s Day 3, fine. Just take a swing.
Ron Corcillo asks: A question about Travis Hunter: it seems like a lot of guys have had difficulty learning/adjusting to Shane Bowen’s defensive scheme. Do you think it would be easier for Hunter, as a rookie, to learn his role as a WR in Daboll’s offense than as a CB in Bowen’s defense, and if so, is that a reason to start him on offense first?
Ed says: Ron, I don’t know that it’s true that “a lot of guys” have trouble learning Shane Bowen’s system. I think what is more accurate is that Bowen’s system is vastly different that Wink Martindale’s and some of the personnel on the roster weren’t/aren’t perfect fits for what Bowen does. Tae Banks, for example, was drafted as a man-press cornerback, and that is not a staple of how Bowen has called defenses in the past. We’ll see if the coordinator adjusts a bit in 2025 to allow Banks to do what he does best more often.
As for Hunter, I don’t know that I agree offense would be easier to learn. The offensive playbook is much bigger than the defensive one, and players always say that the Daboll-Kafka offense is a complicated one with a lot of nuance. To me, defense is simpler for a cornerback because there are only a certain number of coverages to learn, though communication can only be developed by repetition.
If you’re the Giants, figuring it out would not be a bad problem to have.
Submit a question
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to [email protected] and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.
