Seth Weissman asks: Why do you think the Giants cannot stop the run? Is it just that they don’t have enough talent on the line (other than Dex)?
Ed says: Seth, that question comes up again and again and again. I don’t have a definitive answer. The Giants are 31st in the league, giving up 5.9 yards per rushing attempt. They give up 9.5 rushing first downs per game, 28th. They give up 177.5 rushing yards per game, last in the league.
Aside from Dexter Lawrence, I don’t believe any of their interior defensive tackles are better than adequate run defenders. Kayvon Thibodeaux is a forceful, strong edge defender. Abdul Carter and Brian Burns are more athletic, maybe not as sturdy setting the edge. As many tackles as Bobby Okereke makes, I am not sure how impactful he is at this point.
You need the cornerbacks and safeties, too, and I’m not sure the Giants are getting what they need there. Cor’Dale Flott is 175 pounds, and he isn’t going to hold up against tight ends or pulling linemen.
I am not a defensive expert or a film junkie, but when you listen to Giants defenders speak I am not sure they are assignment-sound, either. Each player has a responsibility, a run fit, on every play. I’m not sure they all fully trust each other to handle their individual roles, and that leads to guys taking chances and trying to do more than their own jobs.
Dan Kantor asks: I’m curious how James Hudson will be treated by the coaches on a day-to-day basis now. Let’s say he’s in the doghouse. Let’s say he doesn’t start the next game, and we don’t see him unless injuries force him onto the field. How do the coaches treat him every day? Do they treat him like any other player who doesn’t get many snaps – trying to coach him up and reminding him to “stay ready”? Or do they give him the cold shoulder? I’m sure he knows by now that he messed up. I’m just wondering if being in the doghouse simply means less playing time, or if it actually comes with being ignored and given dirty looks.
Ed says: Dan, it is hard to see how Hudson gets back on the field any time soon. That said, if he is going to be on the roster what good does it do the coaching staff to ignore him? He is part of the roster, and as such the coaches are not doing their jobs if they just shun him. They signed him to a two-year contract for a reason, though at this point I doubt he sees that second season with the Giants.
Seth Friedman asks: Many of us were shocked by the unprofessional behavior and sideline demeanor of James Hudson this past Sunday. Despite NYG handing Hudson a 2 year contract this past off-season, his performance has totally failed the eye test. Given that NYG might want to get out from under year 2 of Hudson’s contract, why wouldn’t the Giants suspend him for 1 game as a result of conduct detrimental to team? A suspension of this type would likely void any guarantees associated with year 2 of Hudson’s deal and let the rest of the team know that everyone is accountable for their behavior.
Ed says: Seth, Hudson’s behavior was certainly unprofessional. I have never seen anything like it before. I am not sure, though, that it rises to the definition of “conduct detrimental to the team” and is worthy of a suspension. He committed stupid penalties. I would think the league would fine him, especially for that ridiculous swipe at the helmet of a Dallas player.
I lauded the Giants for going out this offseason and signing a real swing tackle, which Hudson showed with the Cleveland Browns, he can be rather than planning on a converted guard playing left tackle. Hudson has obviously been a disappointment.
The Giants tried before Sunday to paint him as a player who has an edge that could be beneficial, a sort of enforcer. Hudson himself referred to that when I spoke to him during training camp.
The problem, of course, is that Hudson has not been “edgy” or an enforcer. Going all the way back to OTAs when he somehow managed to get into a fight with Brian Burns during an unpadded, supposedly non-contact practice, he has been undisciplined and unable to control his emotions.
My guess is that Hudson will be inactive on game days for the foreseeable future.
Jeffrey Jacobs asks: Why is it so difficult to identify and develop offensive linemen. Looking around the league, it seems only 1 team (the Eagles) manage to get this right. Even when teams, like the Giants, draft players that are consensus good picks (Neal & Schmitz for instance) they seldom seem to turn out the play up to their pre-draft analysis. Should teams use former O-linemen as scouts to help evaluate prospective linemen? This seems to be a major issue around the league.
Ed says: Jeffrey, this is a topic that used to come up in sessions with Dave Gettleman and comes up at times with current GM Joe Schoen. To an extent, every player that comes out of college is a projection. You don’t know exactly what you are going to get at the NFL level, and in the scheme that you run.
College offenses are not NFL offenses. Just like a lot of quarterbacks come to the league never having taken snaps from under center, a lot of offensive linemen come to the NFL never having blocked from a three-point stance. Offenses can be vastly different. The hash marks are wider. The splits used by some offensive lines can be much wider. Some teams hardly run the ball, so NFL teams don’t know what they are going to get from some linemen in run blocking. The pass protection isn’t the same.
Largely, what teams are doing is looking for physical and mental traits they believe will project to what they want. They scour tape for the sometimes few-and-far-between examples of college linemen executing the blocks they will have to handle regularly in the NFL.
Every scout, like every player, has strengths and weaknesses. The Giants have Chris Snee on their scouting staff, largely because of his offensive line knowledge.
You can dig and dig and dig on a player and watch hundreds of hours of film, but the college and NFL games are not the same. There is always going to be a certain amount of crossing your fingers and hoping what you think you see on tape is what you get in real life.
Doug Mollin asks: When Thomas is ready, hopefully this week, would it be crazy to consider a realignment of the OL?
Thomas LT, Runyan LG, Van Roten C, Elu RG, Mbow RT. Perhaps Schlottmann instead of Van Roten at center, whichever player is the cleanest dirty shirt.
Ed says: Doug, no, it would not be crazy. It isn’t as simple, though, as just snapping your fingers are re-aligning the line. Greg Van Roten has taken very few reps at center. Jermaine Eluemunor has not taken a rep at guard since last spring. The last time he played the position was in 2022, when he played 71 snaps there. The only time he played the position with any regularity was a five-game stretch back in 2017 when he played right guard for 197 snaps. Is he actually any good at it? There isn’t any evidence that says so.
On paper, Eluemunor at guard and Mbow at tackle looks fine. Is Eluemunor going to happily accept that move? First, he is a good right tackle and I know that is where he wants to play. Second, he is a pending free agent. Sure, you can force him to play right guard whether he wants to or not but you are probably guaranteeing that he leaves as a free agent — unless you are willing to give him a nice contract extension first.
John Foti asks: Like you, I’ve never seen anything like James Hudson’s unraveling on the Giants first drive and I’ve been watching the Giants longer than you. I thought Daboll should have called a time out and benched him sooner. But also like you, I thought the Giants defense was responsible for the loss. I can’t remember giving up a lead with 25 seconds left. Everyone saw that the defense was playing soft. It’s easy to blame Bowen, but in this situation shouldn’t the head coach be going over strategy with the DC and other coaches? Is it all on Bowen or does Daboll share some of the blame?
Ed says: John, the ultimate blame always falls on the head coach. Brandon Aubrey’s range is something you know the Giants discussed extensively during the week. In speaking to Jevon Holland, it was clear the defense had been over this situation.
The coverage scheme was absolutely too soft. Everybody knows that. The head coach has a headset, though. He could have leaned in and reminded Bowen of the need to be aggressive. Or, overruled the play call and asked for something aggressive when he heard it.
You have to play to win. The Giants were bold on fourth down with the ball during the game. That was no place to go conservative. Bowen may have made the call, but Daboll is in charge.
Rob Stolzer asks: I’m curious if you’ve heard any rumblings about the Giants’ use of a fullback during the regular season. I know that many of us enjoyed seeing Elijah Chatman used as a fullback, and he’s only one call-up away. Would the fullback be something that could help jump start the Giants’ running game, or will they use tight ends to block/chip for the RBs?
Ed says: Rob, no, I have not. Daboll appears not to be a fan of using a true fullback. If Chatman gets called up maybe we see it a little bit, but Daboll has always seemed to prefer using two tight ends on the line of scrimmage or using a tight end to lead block from the backfield.
For what it’s worth, I am a big fan of using a true fullback.
Ronald Lukoff asks: Aside from the fact that the Giants have such a tough schedule, I find it very disturbing that they had to play the cowboys after Dallas had a three day mini bye. Besides having to play a Dallas team that had an additional 3 days rest, it was the Giants that had to do the traveling and as a result, I felt the Giants were gassed at the end of the game while the ‘Boys, not that they were fresh, had a big advantage with those three days off and not having to travel. The same thing happens every Thanksgiving, the Cowboys get an additional mini-bye. Somehow this feels as though the competitive balance is far from equal. At worst, the Cowboys should have done the traveling as the Eagles did. Your thoughts?
Ed says: Ronald, the NFL schedule is filled with inequities. Every team that plays on Thursday night has a rest advantage the next time it plays. It’s just the way it works with the league determined to play games on so many different days. I can’t get all worked up about this. In my view, it had nothing to do with the outcome.
Mark P. Lynch asks: With QB injuries in Minnesota and Cincinnati, would the Giants be open to trading Wilson? Should be able to get at least a 5th round pick. If he has a game/games like he had at Dallas. He could further prove he can still move an offense. If the Giants are 0-4 and ready to move on to Dart, I would think it would be a logical move.
Ed says: Mark, I can’t see it right now. Russell Wilson is still the starting quarterback. McCarthy will be out for a couple of weeks, maybe a little more, but he will be back. The Vikings aren’t going to do that. Jake Browning was really good the last time he had to sub for Joe Burrow.
Now, if they bench him for Jaxson Dart before the trade deadline, who knows. I suppose they could. In that situation, though, I don’t think the Giants would get much in return. I’m honestly not sure who would see Wilson as an answer after he failed in Denver, was one-and-done in Pittsburgh and gets benched by New York. If he is playing really well and the Giants, based on circumstance, still go to Dart maybe there is a little more interest.
Ronald Buchheim asks: Ed, can you explain why Singletary suddenly started at running back and why he didn’t get another carry after the first one?
And why Tracy is suddenly returning kickoffs?
And why Skattebo is suddenly getting way more carries than Tracy?
And why Dart was suddenly inserted during a crucial fourth quarter drive?
Doesn’t Daboll’s decision making strike you as odd?
Ed says: Ronald, you’re full of questions that are basically all about the same thing — Daboll’s decision-making. In order:
- Singletary — Don’t know. Daboll said Tracy had returned the opening kickoff, so they gave him a break. He denied it had anything to do with Tracy being critical of the play-calling vs. Washington.
- Tracy on kickoffs — Wan’Dale Robinson did it the week before and it didn’t look great, plus Robinson came out of the game with an ankle injury. They need two returners on kickoffs. Tracy returned kickoffs in college and did a good job, for what it’s worth. It might be a good role for him.
- Skattebo — The guy got more carries because he was productive. That’s what should happen. You produce you play.
- Dart — Because they were looking for an advantage. It didn’t work. It wasn’t a decision I liked because I thought the Cowboys would know what was coming.
- Daboll — There are always decisions that I question. It’s been that way with every coach I have ever covered. Over the past couple of years I have thought there have been mystifying decisions, especially in regards to the game day roster. I can’t get all fired up about any of these.
Dave Ambrose asks: Last week you said Daboll is not a position coach and is the overseer of the entire team. I’ve heard from many corners that Daboll was a big part of Josh Allen’s development. Wouldn’t your theory apply to Daboll in Buffalo? The offensive coordinator is also not a position coach. Does a head coach wash his hands of player development if he is the overseer of the whole team?
Ed says: Dave, the difference is that an offensive coordinator will work with the quarterbacks every day. The quarterback, of course, is the most important person on the offense and the QB and play-caller have to be in sync.
As for player development, Daboll doesn’t “wash his hands of it.” He is responsible for it, but he doesn’t run every position drill, conduct every meeting and sit in every film session involving a player and a coach. That is not physically possible.
Bosses delegate. Position coaches do the bulk of the work with players at their position. It is the head coach’s job to oversee that, to make sure it getting done right, that players are learning and growing. If they aren’t, you deal with than and find out why.
John Neubauer asks: Other than Eli, your thoughts on your favorite Giants players in the last 20 years.
Ed says: John, I honestly don’t know if I have one. It’s different, I think, when you do what I do rather than look at players from a pure fan’s perspective.
I’ve met a lot of wonderful people who were easy to root for. I have met a handful of players who were, in my opinion, not the world’s nicest human beings.
One story: When he was playing, Steve Weatherford was extraordinarily gracious to me. My son was a soccer goalkeeper who played collegiately, but always struggled with his kicking. I happened to mention that to Weatherford one day and he took the time to watch some film of the kid and offer some help. He didn’t have to do that.
Andrew Greene asks: Can you explain what the biggest differences are between Daboll’s offense last year and Kafka’s this year? How much of this can be explained by different philosophies and how much by the arrival of Russ?
Ed says: Andrew, you are forgetting that this is Daboll’s offense. It was Daboll’s offense when Kafka called plays in 2022 and 2023, and it is still Daboll’s offense now. This is not a scheme controlled by Kafka.
The deep ball was non-existent in the offense with Daniel Jones and the other quarterbacks the Giants had. Of course the fact that it is something Russell Wilson has always done well impacts the way the Giants call plays. Jaxson Dart and Jameis Winston also have the ability to deliver the deep ball.
David Silver asks: It sure feels like Brian Daboll is gaslighting the press corps and fans when he starts rolling out the mitigating factors around James Hudson’s first series. Now one of the penalties was on JM Schmitz, his second round bust who we were told last week is a really solid player. A swing Hudson took was really a football move, and looked worse that it was. Now Hudson is telling people he wasn’t out of control, and can’t be bothered by what other people are saying. WHAT? This sounds like the beginning of the end, when we are supposed to lap up the increasingly bizarre or unrealistic interpretations of plainly outrageous, out of control behavior and the whole act starts to look ridiculous. Maybe you keep the guy around, but don’t you do more damage than good by giving him excuses and leaving everybody else dumbfounded?
Ed says: David, you’re venting. You wanted Hudson cut. I get it. You’re also throwing around a bunch of things I have not seen said by Daboll or Hudson.
Daboll did say one of the false start penalties was not Hudson’s fault. I have the transcript. Daboll NEVER mentioned John Michael Schmitz or any other player as being at fault. If someone is making that connection, it did not come from Daboll. At least not to my knowledge.
Via Dan Duggan, this is what Hudson said:
Saying “it won’t happen again” is, to me, recognizing he messed up and taking accountability. That is all the guy can do right now.
I would not have objected had the Giants chosen to cut him to send a message about being undisciplined on the field. They didn’t. We will just have to see how that works out.
Submit a question
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to [email protected] and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.
0 CommentsSee More:
