Brian Misdom asks: While this is older news, the season is quickly upon us and makes me wonder why the giants decided to extend Schoen before seeing any results on the field. It seemed premature – wouldn\u2019t it have been prudent to see the fruits of the Harbaugh\/Schoen pairing first? I just don\u2019t see a lame duck GM as having the same distraction as a lame duck HC typically brings. Was there a real risk to our personnel operation if this wasn\u2019t done over the summer? <\/p>\n
Ed says: Brian, Giants ownership has always liked the front office and scouting operation Schoen has put together. They have liked, as far as I can ascertain, how he communicates with ownership. Those things are important.<\/p>\n
The working relationship with Harbaugh is, of course, also incredibly important. By all accounts, the two have found common ground and an ability to work together. The fruits of that were shown in the Giants having what they felt was a fruitful offseason, both in the way they approached free agency and the draft.<\/p>\n
Harbaugh has talked about having the ability to \u201cagree to agree\u201d with the front office when he was in Baltimore. He has found that with Schoen. I think even the trades made in the week prior to the 53-man roster cut down show an ability for coach and GM to work together to build the roster the coach is looking for.<\/p>\n
The Giants liked what they saw in the relationship. Harbaugh was on board. Ownership saw no reason to make Schoen twist in the wind and keep answering questions about his job security. I am OK with that.<\/p>\n
Jimmy Siegel asks: Now that Evan Neal is in the rear view mirror, my question is what was it that Schoen and company didn\u2019t see in the endless college film they no doubt dissected for months? I\u2019ve always thought offensive lineman is one of the more easy transitions from college to pro. I believe that most first round OL tend to at least be quality starters in the NFL. But here\u2019s a guy who let speed rushes fly by him like a turnstile. How was that missed by the Giants brain trust. Is the gap between speed rushers in college and the NFL that wide that it\u2019s impossible to judge a college player? And yes, I know most teams had Neal as a top ten talent. So maybe my question should be what did the entire NFL miss with Neal?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Jimmy, I know that Joe Schoen has asked himself what, if anything, the Giants missed in their evaluation of Evan Neal. I know that he has gone back and studied the tape again. I also know that after re-watching that tape Schoen did not feel the Giants missed in their evaluation. He still believes he saw a player who, based on his college tape and what was known about him, deserved to be a top 10 pick.<\/p>\n
You are also right that most teams and talent evaluators agreed with Schoen, and that the pick was universally praised when the Giants made it.<\/p>\n
When I saw your question I went back and looked at a half-dozen or so pre-draft scouting reports on Neal. Almost everyone who evaluated him saw Neal as a future Pro Bowl or All-Pro caliber tackle.<\/p>\n
Evaluating players is not an exact science. I would disagree that the transition from college to NFL is easy for offensive linemen. College offensive linemen can be extremely difficult to evaluate. They often play little in a three-point stance. Many are hardly ever asked to run block. Many play in quick-passing offense that don\u2019t ask them to do more than get in the way of a rusher for a second or so. Even at Alabama, Neal probably only squared up with real NFL talent two or three times each season.<\/p>\n
Evaluators knew there were a couple of issues with his pass protection, but felt those could\/would be cleaned up with reps and NFL coaching. It didn\u2019t happen. Why? Injuries? Coaching? The player himself? Being used at the wrong position?<\/p>\n
Nobody really knows. It is probably some combination of everything. It just didn\u2019t work out.<\/p>\n
Daniel Frankel asks: For years I have felt that Harry Carson\u2019s #53 deserved to be retired. I never enjoyed watching anyone else wear it. Now that Darius Muasau has been cut, do you think it would be a good time to retire The Captain\u2019s number or at least to give that number to someone worthy of wearing the number, like Arvell Reese.<\/p>\n
Ed says: Daniel, the older I get the more I think numbers shouldn\u2019t get retired in the first place. It gets a little silly after a while, and now we have numbers getting unretired so kids coming out of college who haven\u2019t earned it yet can wear the number that goes with their brand.<\/p>\n
But, now that I\u2019ve had my \u201cget off my lawn\u201d moment, if we are going to retire numbers then Harry Carson\u2019s number should be among them. I don\u2019t know why it has not been retired. The problem you run into in football, though, is that you run out of available jersey numbers.<\/p>\n
Still, Carson deserves that honor.<\/p>\n
Ed Helinski asks: Please describe the various amounts of money that practice squad players make? What kind of latitude do NFL teams have with deals for practice squad players? Might some be guaranteed deals? And how does the game check change when a player is elevated to the active roster?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Ed, the practice squad salaries are collectively bargained. The standard practice squad contract pays $13,750 per week. Teams can have up to six players who are \u201cveterans\u201d, designated as having two or more accrued seasons. Those players can earn a minimum of $18,350 per week and a maximum of $22,850. That\u2019s it.<\/p>\n
There are no \u201cguaranteed\u201d practice squad deals. It is a week-to-week existence. Now, some undrafted free agents, like offensive tackle Ryan Schernecke, get guaranteed money when they sign. Schernecke received $247,500 guaranteed, which equates to a full season\u2019s practice squad salary.<\/p>\n
Players elevated to a game day roster get the minimum pro-rated game day check for that week based on their experience level.<\/p>\n
Donald Leichter asks: Given the Giants\u2019 obvious need for more run-stopping depth at defensive tackle, were you surprised they made no waiver claims despite having the No. 5 priority? Do you think they\u2019re satisfied with the current group, or have you heard anything suggesting they\u2019re pursuing a veteran run-stopper through a trade or free agency?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Donald, yes I was surprised they did not try to claim anyone. I do believe they would have made a claim or two if players they wanted had been there.<\/p>\n
Part of the process throughout the summer is identifying players you would like to claim if they are cut by other teams. I know that in the past the Giants have said there were players they wanted who ended up being kept by their teams rather than released. I would think that happened here, as well.<\/p>\n
As much as they know there are a few spots that need upgrading, they likely felt that what was available was not better than what they had.<\/p>\n
Matthew Sanzone asks: Questions from a practice squad dummy:
1. Do PS players travel with the team to away games?
2. Are they provided per diem money for expenses such as meals?
3. Do they have medical insurance as part of their compensation?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Matthew, let\u2019s look at each of these.<\/p>\n
There is no set answer to that. Practice squad players who are going to play travel, of course. In some instances, they will travel as a reward. In many instances, they will not. Remember, that is 15 or so extra people to put on an airplace already filled with large people.Practice squad players get free access to meals provided at team facilities. If they are traveling with the team, they are treated like everyone else.Practice squad players get medical benefits. Here is a look from a few years ago at those benefits<\/a>.<\/p>\n Pat Lam asks: Adding Jalin Hyatt to the practice squad is a headscratcher. Do you have any insight as to why?<\/p>\n Ed says: Pat, Hyatt was injured when the Giants were still in West Virginia and missed the rest of training camp and the entire preseason. He had been making some plays in practice, and the Giants were giving him an opportunity as a punt gunner.<\/p>\n Perhaps the Giants feel like the injury, caused by an overzealous hit from a defensive player, did not give this current coaching staff a full look at Hyatt. Perhaps they were looking for a speedy wide receiver to add to the practice squad, and didn\u2019t see anyone better than Hyatt. He is still a draft pick the front office is invested in, and speed always gets players extra chances.<\/p>\n It isn\u2019t that big a thing. Practice squad players come and go all the time, and Hyatt has no guarantees he will stay around.<\/p>\n Jerry Hand asks: Ed, I read all these articles about players the Giants should consider for Interior defensive line and they all contain the same basically unimportant stats\u2026 Pressures, sacks, Etc\u2026none very impressive\u2026If these guys were that good, they wouldn\u2019t still be available\u2026 At this point all that really matters when considering interior defensive lineman is CAN HE STOP THE RUN? If these guys playing the 0, 1, 1.5 technique can stuff the run, our \u201cstars\u201d should take care of business with sacks and pressures\u2026 what say you?<\/p>\n Ed says: Jerry, I hear you. The stats that get cited are simply an effort to be complete and to provide a little broader picture of what a player has done.<\/p>\n I agree that the one thing that should matter if the Giants are looking for interior defensive line help, is whether or not that player has a history of holding up at the point of attack and being able to anchor against the run. Statistically, that isn\u2019t easy to measure.<\/p>\n ctscan123 asks: Hope Springs eternal, but man, I still find the DT situation troubling. Alexander\u2019s seeminglack of progress this off-season really interferes with the proposition that what we are moving forward with is going to be good enough. It just doesn\u2019t feel like a potentially regressing second year player and a developing upside player who was nonetheless likely to be cut are enough behind two older starters. This really does seem to be a glaring week link in an otherwise successful offseason. It really feels like we should try and swing a trade using draft capital for a starting level player. Anyone in particular you would hypothetically target? What\u2019s the most draft capital you would part with to address this need if you were the GM? Could we get someone serviceable for a fourth?<\/p>\n