Big Blue View mailbag: Quarterback, trade deadline, more questions

Wes Protheroe: The Giants passing game has difficulty in the red zone and rarely stretches the field. Yet they have two receivers on their roster that rarely use could which potentially improve these areas. Isaiah Hodgins at 6’3” is a big target, has good hands and can catch the ball in traffic. In 2022-23 he was one of DJ’s top targets and scored 8 touchdowns on 63 receptions (including playoffs). This year he is rarely activated. Last year the Giants traded up to get Jalin Hyatt and he averaged 16.2 YPC on 23 receptions. This year he is rarely targeted. Shouldn’t the Giants be playing Hodgins and Hyatt at least situationally to see if they improve their Red Zone and deep passing attack? They also need to better understand whether Hodgins and/or Hyatt can help replace Slayton’s who will be a FA after this year. Your thoughts?

Ed says: Wes, maybe the Giants have judged their personnel correctly. Maybe they haven’t. Don’t you think, though, that if they believed Hodgins or Hyatt were better than Darius Slayton or Wan’Dale Robinson that they would be playing.

Let’s talk about both guys.

Hodgins is on the practice squad, not the 53-man active roster. He was elevated for the games when Malik Nabers was in concussion protocol. I don’t want to hear about how the Giants need to learn more about Hodgins. He was with Brian Daboll and Joe Schoen for several years in Buffalo before the Giants claimed him in 2022. They have had him for years, and know exactly what he is.

Hodgins had a nice run during the second half of 2022. He’s a decent possession receiver. Honestly, I have ben a bit surprised at how far he has fallen in the pecking order. The Giants see more upside with Robinson, Slayton and even Hyatt.

As for Hyatt, no doubt his lack of development/playing time/production this season has been a disappointment. I have said this before, but the simple truth is Slayton is a better player. The better player plays. This isn’t rec ball where everybody gets a chance.

Hyatt can run like the wind. Unfortunately, he hasn’t shown anything else. I have seen him in the locker room and he is still incredibly skinny. Hyatt had a huge adjustment coming out of a very simple spread attack at Tennessee. There are some whispers that even halfway through his second season he may not have a full grasp on what he’s being asked to do. If you can’t get open and be where the quarterback expects you to be, why should you be playing?

---

David Kanter asks: Hi, Ed. They’re giving a lot of young players snaps every week. A lot of us have a hard time understanding what the deal is with Hyatt. I don’t see the argument that he hasn’t developed as a reason not have him on the field TO develop. What are we missing? Can we conclude that they don’t feel he is ready to develop?

Ed says: David, I answered a lot of this in addressing the previous question. What I will say, again, is the NFL is not your local rec league. You don’t get to play just because you show up. We don’t see practice every day because league rules don’t allow it during the season. If the Giants were seeing what they want/need to see from Hyatt on a daily basis he would be getting regular snaps during the games.

I know this. Hyatt worked with the starters all spring and about half of training camp. The Giants planned on him being a starter and Slayton being WR4. Eventually, they decided they didn’t like what they saw and went back to Slayton.

With an eye toward 2025, knowing they may lose Darius Slayton in free agency, perhaps Hyatt gets more snaps the rest of the way. it is pretty clear, though, that Slayton is still a better player than Hyatt.

---

Alex Sutherland: With Draft Watch officially underway, the SoS tiebreaker for draft order has come up a ton. To my understanding, SoS is determined before the season begins, based on the number of wins/losses that the year’s opponents accumulated in the prior season. Obviously the NFL changes each year with great teams one year, performing much worse the next.

Question – does SoS get adjusted at the end of the season to account for how good a teams’ opponents actually performed in the year? Or does SoS based on the previous years win/loss records stay in place regardless of the current season’s results?

Ed says: Alex, you are misinterpreting Strength of Schedule. In terms of the draft order, it isn’t measured before the season. It is measured by looking at the “current” combined records of each opponent on a team’s schedule. The Strength of Schedule will change somewhat each week.

---

Donald Poucher asks: A question more pertinent to after the season. Do you think either of these trades make sense and represent fair value (for both teams): Evan Neal for Bryce Young straight up, or assuming Darold continues to do well, 2 two’s (second round draft choices) for J.J. McCarthy.

Ed says: Donald, maybe there will be suitors for Neal after the season. No GM who wants to keep his job is trading a potential starting quarterback, much less one drafted No. 1 overall, for a failed offensive line prospect.

As for McCarthy, the Giants refused to draft him when he was right there for him to take No. 6 overall. What makes anyone think they would give up premium draft capital to trade for him a year later? Whatever the reasons were that the Giants did not believe McCarthy was the answer for them still exist.

I also think this belief that some have that the Minnesota Vikings will stay with Sam Darnold next year is misguided. Darnold is not Kirk Cousins. I believe he will be one and done in Minnesota and will find a nice contract in free agency this offseason. Honestly, it would not shock me if that contract comes from the Giants if they don’t think they will be able to get their guy in the draft.

---

Alan Backman asks: I’m curious. You are around the Giants FO a good amount including those who have been with the Giants for years. You’ve probably talked to ownership. Do you get the sense that they feel any sense of error or regret for the decisions that have been made and the performance of the team for 10+years? Or in the alternative, do they just (as Schoen has said) that patience is needed? And what does patience even mean in this context? Does it mean that they still think they’ve made the right picks and that we just need to give guys like Neal and Banks more time to show us they are good players? Or does patience here mean that they accept that many of the draft picks are bad, but blame this just on the odds of success being low and that future picks will be good? I ask this just because every year seems very similar. Giants make some change in the offseason (e.g. new DC). Some fans drink the blue kool aid. And then we’re 2-7 before we even get into November. There’s got to be some self-scouting if you want to call it that. Someone has to look back over the last decade and try to answer what went wrong? Was it really bad luck? Tough to say it’s been bad coaching since there have been so many coaches. What do you think Mara or someone else who has been here a while would say?

Ed says: Alan, if you don’t think John Mara feels regret or believe he doesn’t care about the losing you would be wrong. I see his face in the hallway on game days when things aren’t going well, and the anger/disappointment is written all over it.

Mara — and Steve Tisch — want to win. They know it hasn’t been good enough. Why do you think that after years of losing and being criticized for being stuck in an outdated way of doing things, they turned to outsiders like Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll and have allowed them to re-structure the organization?

Hiring a new coach/GM every 2 or 3 years is no way to build an organization, establish a winning culture. Mara knows the merry-go-round needs to stop. He also knows he and Tisch have made some poor hires. It’s not that Mara is accepting the losing. He has said again and again he needs to have more patience than he has shown since Tom Coughlin was let go. Maybe Schoen and Daboll are the right combo to be patient with. Maybe they are not. I think ownership will go as far as they feel they can with this duo before blowing it up. Again. Because constantly blowing it up hasn’t worked.

---

Raymond Dansereau asks: Winning can hide many flaws; losing can accent them. That said, I can’t help but think the experience of Washington (is their roster that much better than the Giants?) provides hope that with an improved quarterback situation, the Giants could be a candidate for a rapid turnaround. Question is, how do the Giants survive to that point? If they lose out (or mostly lose out), it may lead to pressure for a more thorough house-cleaning. If they win a few games, they risk taking themselves out of the running for better quarterbacks (see Drake Maye this past year). How do the Giants navigate this?

Ed says: Raymond, this may be a cop out answer but I honestly think they just play the games and whatever happens happens.

Tanking in the NFL is really a fan thing. It is not a thing teams do on purpose. Jobs and careers are on the line. Players are putting their long-term health on the line. No one is ever going out on the field intending to not try to win a game.

Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll aren’t going to try to lose games. They would like to keep their jobs, and a 2-15 record isn’t going to help them do that. Or, help them get other jobs.

There are NINE two-win teams in the NFL right now. I would guess that at least five of those, plus the three-win New York Jets, are going to be in the quarterback market. There are only two quarterbacks in the draft class right now who are playing like top 10 picks. So, a lot of teams are in the same situation.

Sorry, but I don’t think there is any in-season master plan to get there. About the closest to that will be the eventual benching of Daniel Jones, simply because the Giants will have to eventually accede to the reality that avoiding being on the hook for his injury guarantee next year is more important than playing the guy they think in their best quarterback during a lost season.

---

Eric Chavis asks: With the trade deadline just passing and the Giants not trading anyone, I was hoping you could provide some clarity for me. If a guy at the end of his contract leaves after this year, there’s a possibility for a comp pick, right? So then even if they keep a guy like Slayton or Azeez for the rest of the year, then they leave, isn’t there still a chance of getting something for them?

Ed says: Eric, yes there is a “chance.” There is not, though, any guarantee.

First, remember that compensatory picks are not awarded until a year later. So, if the Giants lose Azeez Ojulari and Darius Slayton in free agency, they wouldn’t be eligible to perhaps get a compensatory pick in return until the 2026 NFL Draft.

Then, remember that losing a free agent who qualifies for the compensatory formula does not mean you are guaranteed to get a compensatory pick. There are only 32 of those awarded, and they are doled out based on a value of players lost vs. players signed in free agency formula.

This is a look at last year, and how it affect compensatory picks the Giants could get in the upcoming draft:

To guarantee getting 2026 comp picks if the Giants lose Slayton and Ojulari, Joe Schoen would basically have to sit out free agency next March. If he does that, he probably loses his job and isn’t making those draft picks for the Giants in 2026.

So, unless they are able to re-sign Ojulari and Slayton there is a very good chance they will get nothing in return.

---

Andrew Greene asks: Can you explain why in a lost season the Giants didn’t trade either Slayton or Ojulari for draft capital? Is it somehow related to the compensatory picks that will come when they leave as free agents (which both will almost certainly do)? Or is it that the top priority to Schoen and Daboll is trying to win as many games as possible to protect their jobs?

Ed says: Andrew, the only thing I will add to the answer above is that the reporting has been clear that Joe Schoen was not giving up players, especially Ojulari, for just sixth- or seventh-round picks.

Was he right? Was he wrong? I wouldn’t have been that stubborn if I was Schoen. It won’t be a good look for him if, for the second straight trade deadline, he gets nothing for two players who leave in free agency.

---

Richard L. asks: In all likelihood, the Giants will bench Daniel Jones in the foreseeable future to reduce the chance that $23 million of his 2025 salary becomes guaranteed because of injury. Can the Giants and Jones restructure the contract to eliminate this injury guarantee? This would benefit both sides since (1) Jones gives the Giants the best chance to win and (2) Jones can continue to play and showcase his skills to other teams.

Ed says: Richard, I suppose theoretically this is possible. The Denver Broncos tried something like this with Russell Wilson, Why in the world would Jones — or any NFL player — agree to that, though?

If you worked for a power company or a construction firm and had to climb poles or roofs and constantly put your health at risk would you voluntarily agree if your employer demanded that you cancel your company health insurance policy to keep working? No, you wouldn’t.

Why would Jones agree to give up that guarantee and then continue to play, continue to put his body on the line and take the punishment that he takes — and doles out — on a weekly basis? He wouldn’t. That makes no sense.

If the Giants want to be 100% certain they don’t end up having to pay the injury guarantee they will need to take Jones out of the lineup before he gets hurt.

---

Matt Burden asks: At this point, nothing to do but dream about the future. Maybe too early, but what are your thoughts on tanking one more year and taking Arch Manning first in the 2026 draft? You know that Giants owners would love to have another Manning in the family. Keep Jones, draft another tackle, sell some more assets and go big in 2026.

Ed says: Matt, let’s just stop with the ‘tank for Arch in 2026’ stuff right now. Yes, it is easy to connect the dots and say that Giants ownership would love to have another Manning behind center.

But, let’s be realistic. Arch Manning has three years of NCAA eligibility remaining BEYOND 2024. He could declare eligibility for the 2026 NFL Draft. He could also stay in school, use his eligibility, and not enter the draft until 2028. With NIL money now, top players have no real financial incentive to enter the draft.

The other thing is Arch Manning has played very little football. Can you guarantee what kind of player he will ultimately be? Can you guarantee that the Giants would be in position to select him? Can Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll guarantee that they would have their jobs if and when the kid is draft eligible?

Maybe it shakes out someday that Arch Manning becomes the Giants quarterback. It would be kind of cool. But, to try and make that your plan right now is not realistic.

---

Tom Borys asks: One of my observations over the last few games is that when Daniel Jones targets Slayton he hits him in stride and showcases excellent ball placement. Conversely, when targeting Nabers, his ball placement is just…okay. To his credit, his miss is often to the safe side of the play to lower the risk of an interception, but he’s not putting the ball in a place that allows Nabers to use his run after the catch ability.

My questions are:

a) Does film study confirm this observation?
b) If so, do you think this is due to Jones/Nabers still being new to each other or is there potentially a chemistry issue?

Ed says: Tom, I haven’t done a deep film study of this. I would say, though, that Daniel Jones has been throwing to Darius Slayton for six years now. They know each other as well as a quarterback and receiver can.

Jones is an imperfect quarterback. Ball placement has never been a strength for him. It is, actually, one of the reasons Malik Nabers is a Giant. To make plays when Jones doesn’t throw the ball perfectly. Given time they would continue to develop that timing, chemistry, knowledge of each other. They probably aren’t going to get it.

---

Greg Kowalick asks: With all due respect to John Mara and Steve Tisch, it is obvious that they are incapable of putting a winning team on the field to represent the NY Giants franchise. They both are getting up there in age and you never hear about any succession plans as to who will take over for those two men. Is it possible that the franchise could be sold to an outside interest that may be more capable of bringing in a GM and Coach that can end this decade long excuse of a team they have been putting on the field? If that doesn’t happen, could the NFL please step in again as they did when Pete Rozelle basically hired George Young to be the Giants GM?

Something drastic needs to be done to end the misery of having the Giants be the laughing stock of the NFL!

Ed says: Greg, the New York Football Giants have been the Mara family business for 100 years. They are not selling the team. I can’t imagine the Tisch family selling their share, either. The Giants are still one of the most valuable franchises in the NFL, and a nearly $8 billion business.

---

Noman Haque asks: I may be alone in this take, but hear me out. Why would we get rid of Daniel Jones next year if we draft a new QB, and take all the rest of his contract in losses? Wouldn’t it be smarter to draft a 1st round QB, let him sit behind Daniel for a year or two, and then move on from DJ?

Rookie QBs tend to develop better and play well when given a few years to learn. This way, we wouldn’t incur any dead cap or losses, and we would have a “possible” star QB in a year or two. Is this not the smart move? It is quote obvious that under the current NY team, a rookie QB would do just as poorly if not worse than DJ.

Ed says: You are right that even if the Giants draft a quarterback, they are going to need a bridge quarterback to avoid having to force-feed the young quarterback before he is ready.

Yes, the Giants take $22 million in dead money if they cut Jones pre-June 1 — $11 million as a post-June 1 cut.

Do you really want to pay Jones a $30 million base salary next year to be a placeholder? Or, $46.5 million in 2026? I think you can do that more cheaply.

Even if you overpay on something like a two-year deal for Sam Darnold, at least that changes the narrative. It’s a clean break from a tenure with Jones that just hasn’t been good enough. Whatever you think of Jones, and I think he’s an imperfect quarterback who is partially but not fully to blame for the Giants’ woes, bringing him back would be an extremely hard sell to an already disgruntled fan base. Maybe to the locker room, too.

---

Julian Roberts asks: What ever happened to Dan Bellinger as it seems he is not targeted at all. Is he in Daboll’s dog house?

Ed says: Julian, Daniel Bellinger is not “in the dog house.” He is a reliable target who catches the ball underneath and an OK blocker. Theo Johnson is a bigger, faster athlete with more potential to become an explosive play maker. The Giants believe he will become a really good player. On the blocking side, Chris Manhertz has been one of the best blocking tight ends in football for several years now. He is better in that role than Bellinger.

---

James Butkiewicz asks: I agree with your view regarding the two-point conversion. What is your view regarding roster building based on position value? I know they are young, but I can’t help but think that if the Giants had resigned McKinney and possibly Love, our young cornerbacks might not have struggled so much in recent games.

Ed says: James, you can’t have everything. The Giants valued pass rush more than safety, which is the accepted mode of thinking in the NFL. If they pay McKinney, they don’t get Brian Burns. McKinney is having a great season, but I don’t question that choice. Pass rush over safety is the proper priority.

---

Robert Forgioneasks: Very simple question. how can one of the youngest teams in the NFL, with few elite players. have less than $3 million in cap space? Joe Schoen is in his third year, can’t keep blaming Gettleman. This is very worrisome.

Ed says: Robert, you’re right. We’re too far removed from Dave Gettleman’s tenure to blame him for the current cap squeeze. It is also far too simplistic to blame Daniel Jones $47.855 million cap hit. Jones’ contract is now 16th in the NFL among average annual value for quarterbacks. Besides, Schoen obviously knew two years ago what Jones’ cap hit would be in 2025.

So, how are the Giants here with just a shade above $3 million in cap space and having had to cut Nick McCloud, a good player, to even have that much?

Those who ascribe to the Howie Roseman School of Cap Management believe in pushing as much money into the future as possible, often using what look like ridiculous numbers of void years to do it. Jalen Hurts’ will cost the Philadelphia Eagles $97 million in dead cap thanks to void years if he isn’t on the team’s roster in 2029. Meanwhile, his cap number this year is only $13.558 million.

Pushing gobs of money into the future has traditionally been something general managers have not wanted to do. The way the cap is exploding year over year, though, it might be a philosophy worth embracing.

Schoen appears to be what I call a “take the pain now” guy, trying to avoid pushing money into the future.

He could get significant cap relief by restructuring Jones’ contract. But, in this case I agree with not doing that. If the likelihood is that Jones won’t be a Giant next year, why push money into the future for a player you won’t have?

It is different with guys on long-term deals who you think are going to be around for several more years.

The Giants restructured Andrew Thomas’s contract this year and saved $4.1 million on the cap. They could, though, have converted and pro-rated over the life of the contract almost another $9 million, driving Thomas’s bases salary down to the league minimum and saving $6 million or more on this year’s cap.

Brian Burns’ his five-year, $141 million contract includes an $8 million base salary this season. If the Giants had made that the league minimum they could have saved around $6.8 million in cap space, pro-rating the rest of that money over the life of the contract as signing bonus dollars.

Between the contracts of Burrns and Thomas, that is roughly $13 million the Giants could have shaved off their 2024 cap. That would have put them in the upper half of the league in available cap space.

The Giants could also have kept McCloud by going back to Burns for a re-structure, but chose not to.

---

Robert Conyea asks: What is your opinion on the use of analytics to make in game and personnel decisions? 0 for 6 on 2 point conversions, and Brian Daboll’s answer is “we’re just going with the analytics there.” Almost as if to say, “don’t look at me, that was the computer’s call”. Xavier McKinney has 6 interceptions and the Giants have a team total of 1. And of course Saquon Barkley is playing like Superman in Philly. But the analytics say we shouldn’t pay those guys. Are the Giants overdoing it in relying on analytics to make the decisions they are getting paid to make? I don’t think Bill Parcells would let a computer tell him what to do.

Ed says: Robert, I am an old guy, and somewhat old-school about this. Analytics are great in that they give you information. I don’t like being beholden to them to the points where the analytics make the decision and the coach doesn’t. Game situation, a coach’s feel for his team, etc., are things analytics can’t always measure.

When it comes to the 2-point conversions, the Giants have made the decision that the math says go for it in certain situations, and they are going to follow the math. Just like teams defer when they win the opening kickoff. The percentage of advantage they get from that is, the last time I researched it, very small. But, coaches will take even the tiniest apparent advantage.

I would be more concerned about the Giants’ inability to convert any of those 2-point attempts. If they are going to go for those, they need to figure out how to make some of them.

I do tend to be a believer in positional value. Though, again, sometimes you have to look at certain players, put aside the positional value, and say ‘that’s a guy we need to keep.’

I am not saying that was the case with Barkley or Xavier McKinney, because I agreed with not paying those guys what they got on the open market. Their team value beyond position, though, has to be a factor in your decision-making.

---

Spencer Gross asks: I was wondering if NFL teams have different types of scouts for different positions? It’s no secret the Giants have struggled to find mid round talent on the offensive line but they have successfully found quality players at different positions both on offense and defense later in the draft. From Micah McFadden, Andru Phillips and Tyron Tracy the Giants seem to be able to identify talent at different positions but not on the offensive line. My limited knowledge of scouting is aware of area scouts but is there scouts dedicated to certain positions? I’ve read about position coaches wanting certain players but are they doing the scouting themselves or are scouts bringing them names to watch?

Ed says: Spencer, teams generally have Pro Scouting and College Scouting departments that operate separately. Within the College Scouting group they have area scouts who are responsible for certain regions/schools, etc. Those are the scouts who do most of the leg work on players and bring players of interest to the attention of GM and other top decision-makers.

I haven’t found teams with “offensive line scouts” or “quarterback scouts.” That said, good front offices know that certain scouts have strengths and areas of knowledge, and also might not be as good scouting other positions. If they are looking at a player at a certain position, they will — or should — value the opinions of the scouts they know have the best track record of finding players at that position.

The Giants hired Chris Snee this year as a “senior scout.” He isn’t there to scout small-school defensive backs. He is there to help them identify offensive linemen, something we know they have struggled with.

---

Submit a question

Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to [email protected] and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.