Anthony Cantore asks: Ed, I read your appraisal of the failed daft Giants picks. However with so many of the picks not living up to where they were drafted, how much of the that is on Daboll\u2019s coaching? You brought up JJ McCarthy. What gives you any confidence that Daboll would have developed him like Kevin O\u2019Connell was able to do? That goes for several of the players. What player has gotten better under Daboll coaching? I\u2019m for firing them both.<\/p>\n
Ed says: Anthony, there is no way to know if Brian Daboll would have been successful with McCarthy. The Giants obviously felt McCarthy wasn\u2019t right for them. If Daboll had felt as strongly about McCarthy as he did \u2014 and does \u2014 about Jaxson Dart, he would be a Giant. If McCarthy turns out to be really good, we just have to give the reminder that he was there for the Giants to take.<\/p>\n
As for Daboll developing players, what I say all the time is that Daboll is not a position coach. He is the overseer, he doesn\u2019t conduct position meetings, run the position drills, etc.<\/p>\n
Andrew Landman asks: I hadn\u2019t noticed this when watching, but a caller on Big Blue Kickoff Live pointed out that Jamie Gillan kicked off to start last week\u2019s game. Apparently Gano performed the rest of the kickoffs. Any insight into why Gillan handled the first one? Strategy, an equipment malfunction for Gano, something else?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Andrew, Brian Daboll said that was a strategic decision based on the type of kickoff the Giants wanted to employ. I don\u2019t know the schematics of kickoff plays well enough to know exactly what the Giants felt Gillan could do better on that kickoff than Gano, but that is the explanation we were given.<\/p>\n
Peter Smyth asks: Watching the game last Sunday, I thought Washington\u2019s defensive front was overwhelming and excellent. Reading several of your pieces this week, your team feels it\u2019s our O-line that was terrible. How do you know for sure what the cause was? Maybe Washington is just really damn good? Could that be part of our bad play? Or is it just clear we stink.<\/p>\n
Ed says: Peter, in 2024 the Commanders were a middle of the pack defense that did not rush the passer well. This offseason, the only significant addition was a well past his prime Von Miller. The fact that you thought that defensive front was \u201coverwhelming and excellent\u201d is in itself an indictment of the Giants\u2019 offensive line. That front seven is not as good as the Giants made it look.<\/p>\n
There were blocking mistakes or misses on almost every running play. On passing plays it wasn\u2019t a jailbreak in Russell Wilson\u2019s direction, but the Giants really didn\u2019t give Wilson the opportunity to get the ball down the field. Which is what he does best.<\/p>\n
Jeff Jenkins asks: Is there any merit to switching personnel on the OLine and letting the backups play? Also, I expected more from Carmen Bricillo in his 2nd year. Have you noticed any reasons for the regression of the OLine based on his coaching?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Jeff, what backups would you like to see play? James Hudson is a backup who was forced to play on Sunday, and he did not play well. Evan Neal? If the Giants believed in him he would have been playing rather than being inactive. Maybe Neal will be an option at some point, but it\u2019s clear that right now the Giants don\u2019t believe that is the case. If the Giants had better players, they would be playing. I am not going to get on Bricillo after one game. As far as I can tell he is a good coach. The line did not play well. I don\u2019t think it is a great line, but I think it can and should be better than it was vs. Washington. Let\u2019s see how it unfolds.<\/p>\n
Martin Hand asks: Ed, what are your thoughts on having two players spy on running quarterbacks? I\u2019m thinking about third and medium situations when a player like Daniels takes a quick look down field and then takes off\u2026 I know that leaves us nine defenders against 10 offensive players, but the way I\u2019m thinking about it is to organize your three rushers with two defensive ends and a nose tackle in the A gap\u2026 Two spies on either side of the nose tackle and the rest of the defenders in either man or zone or some hybrid \u2026 Running quarterbacks are killing us, and we have to do something out of the ordinary\u2026 We all know the definition of insanity.<\/p>\n
Ed says: Martin, I think you answered your own question when you said two spies gives the defense a numbers advantage. One spy basically removes a defender from his normal responsibilities. Two spies increases the advantage for the offense. You still have to rush, and cover the receivers.<\/p>\n
The question you raise, though, is why it is so difficult to handle quarterbacks who can hurt defenses with the pass and the run, and who operate with good schemes.<\/p>\n
Teams will sometimes \u201cmush rush,\u201d where they aren\u2019t really trying to sack the quarterback. Instead, they are trying to close off lanes and keep the quarterback from leaving the pocket.<\/p>\n
Jason LaBombard asks: Why would you draft Cam Skattebo and not run him three times in a row on first and goal from the one? Explain.<\/p>\n
Ed says: Jason, did you see the one play where the Giants did hand the ball to Skattebo at the 1-yard line? He got hit well behind the line of scrimmage and lost 2 yards. If the Giants felt good about their ability to move Washington off the ball and give Skattebo space to get into the end zone, they would not have called a trick play with rookie offensive tackle Marcus Mbow as the intended receiver on first down. If you can\u2019t block well enough to give the running back a chance, it doesn\u2019t matter who you are handing the ball to.<\/p>\n
The Giants do need to run the ball better, and more often, than they did against Washington. They know that.<\/p>\n
Michael George asks: With the home opener coming up in two weeks I\u2019m curious how you\u2019re able to operate at MetLife Stadium on game day? Can you stand on the sideline or end line during play? Do you have access to the press box? Do the Giants offer you any goodies during the game that ticket holders don\u2019t receive?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Michael, writers do not have access to the field during the game. Credentialed media is in the press box. We\u2019re not there to collect \u201cgoodies,\u201d we are there to work. Perhaps the only \u201cperk\u201d we get is that we do get free food while we\u2019re working. We get access to the head coach and the players post game.<\/p>\n
Doug Mollin asks: Your draft article on Wednesday got me thinking about what is a fair hit rate for NFL GM\u2019s.<\/p>\n
We know all the best teams and the best GMs in the league miss on picks. Even first round picks.<\/p>\n
It also got me thinking that the majority of Schoen\u2019s picks were sound choices at the time. Evan Neal, JMS, Banks, Hyatt (although that 2022 draft was kind of wacky after round one). Is it coaching? Injuries? The imprecise nature of drafting? Or is Schoen and the scouting staff just not that good?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Doug, sometimes you do the right thing and you get the wrong results. Almost everyone felt Neal was a top 10 pick and the right choice for the Giants. John Michael Schmitz was a guy some thought would be selected in Round 1. The Tae Banks pick was praised, and some of what we have seen with him was unexpected. The Hyatt move is another one the Giants were praised for, but it just hasn\u2019t worked.<\/p>\n
Each successful or failed pick probably has its own story. Personnel people I have talked to say when you miss on a pick most of the time it is about the person, not the evaluation of his play. As much work as teams do and as much information as they have, they can\u2019t know everything about a player until they get him in their building.<\/p>\n
No one will ever get every pick right.<\/p>\n
Greg Riley asks: What is your opinion of my totally amateur and most likely unwanted but possibly career saving idea\/advice for the Giants coaches. How about trying Evan Neal at center? He is certainly big enough and strong enough to anchor against nose tackles, something JMS has real serious problems with.<\/p>\n
As a four-year high school lineman myself (first 3 years as a blocking\/receiving tight end – looking at you Theo I did actually catch passes, and moved to tackle my senior year in which we were 1969 New Hampshire state champs) I think center is the best position to hide deficits in lateral mobility and capitalize on Neal\u2019s run blocking skills. Seems to make sense to me so what do you think?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Center? Greg, you really want to try Evan Neal at center? First of all, he is 6-foot-7, gargantuan for a center. If his movement deficiencies have not been adequately masked at guard, are they really going to be masked at center? I\u2019m not sure I see how.<\/p>\n
What about making the line calls? Would you trust Neal to do that? We are only one week in. Let\u2019s see if Neal can develop into a useful guard.<\/p>\n
Bob Donnelly asks: Over the course of Brian Dabol\u2019s tenure there have been twenty seven (27) games out of fifty four (54) games (including playoffs) where the Giants have scored one or fewer offensive touchdowns; 50% of games played.<\/p>\n
Six different quarterbacks have started games during this run:<\/p>\n
Daniel Jones, Tyrod Taylor, Tommy DeVito, Drew Lock, Tim Boyle and Russell Wilson<\/p>\n
Why should we expect better results in 2025?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Bob, the only answer I can give you is the one we have been talking about for months. The Giants believed their biggest issue on offense was quarterback play, and they aggressively addressed it. If they get the same running back and receiver play they got a year ago, and the adequate offensive line play they got before Andrew Thomas got hurt and injuries decimated the line, they believe their revamped quarterback room will lift the offense.<\/p>\n
That was not the case in Week 1. It doesn\u2019t mean that can\u2019t, or won\u2019t, happen.<\/p>\n
Mike asks: Just for the hell of it, I went back and watched some Evan Neal video from Alabama, he played the left side and he actually looked pretty comfortable with left being his strong side. Do you think that might make a difference? Also, wasn\u2019t Runyan a right guard at GB? I\u2019m losing patience with this line….why not try Thomas, Neal, Van Roten\/JMS, Runyan and Eluemunor…. What do you think?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Mike, do you really think the Giants have not also looked at the film of Neal on the left side. Joe Schoen has admitted that as Neal has struggled he has gone back and re-evaluated the tape to see if he missed something. He is convinced the Giants, and everyone else who believed he was a top 10-worthy pick, had the right evaluation. It just hasn\u2019t worked out, for a lot of reasons.<\/p>\n
The Giants worked Neal on both sides all spring and summer. Realistically, though, right guard is the only spot that was ever considered \u201copen.\u201d Jon Runyan did play both sides for the Packers, but has admitted that given a choice he would prefer to stay on the left. The Giants jerked him around from right to left a year ago, and don\u2019t want to do it again. If the Giants think Runyan is their best interior offensive lineman, and Runyan thinks his best side is the left side, it makes sense to play him there.<\/p>\n
Maybe Neal will continue to work and will become a real option at guard. It\u2019s apparent right now, though, that the Giants don\u2019t think he is ready to help them. Let\u2019s see what happens, especially once Thomas comes back and settles in.<\/p>\n
Stephen Turcotte asks: Where is Daboll\u2019s offensive guru status predicated on? It seems more and more contrived and fabricated as his tenure with the Giants rolls on.<\/p>\n
The prevailing opinion that Daboll \u201cunlocked\u201d Josh Allen\u2019s talent seems backwards, Allen\u2019s talent seems to have fabricated Dabolls credentials. His tenure at Alabama was enhanced by having clearly superior talent. The last 3 years have provided zero evidence of a superior offensive mind, or a developer of QB or offensive talent, quite the opposite in fact. The play designs, and last years play calling does not engender any confidence that he is going to be regarded in the same category as McVay, Kevin O\u2019Connell, Shane Steichen, Matt Lafleur, Kyle Shanahan, or even Kellen Moore and Ben Johnson. There are probably a dozen more names on that list before you would consider mentioning Daboll.<\/p>\n
I supported bringing him back this season, like a lot of us I was irrationally excited about the preseason, but I\u2019m no longer confident that he has the ability or credentials to turn this offense around. I really don\u2019t want to start over again with a new coaching staff, but I have to admit that Daboll\u2019s guru status is a mirage. <\/p>\n
What do you think, is Daboll really an offensive guru, struggling with bad ingredients, or a mirage unable to develop the talent he has been given?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Stephen, this is a question I have seen before as frustrations have mounted with the Giants poor offensive play the last couple of seasons. I certainly understand it.<\/p>\n
To start with, let\u2019s not forget that Daboll was Coach of the Year in 2022 and did coax the best season of his career out of Daniel Jones. I\u2019m not going to get into a long argument about Josh Allen. I think Daboll deserves credit for helping Allen by building a relationship and really learning how to help him succeed. I think Allen deserves credit for working and learning. I think Allen\u2019s quarterbacks coach, Jordan Palmer, should get some of the credit as well. It takes a village.<\/p>\n
I think, to a certain extent, the Giants\u2019 offensive personnel hasn\u2019t been great. The quarterback play hasn\u2019t been good since 2022, the offensive line hasn\u2019t been good enough, and even with Malik Nabers you can argue they need more play-making weapons. That said, I think it is fair game to criticize Daboll and the offensive staff for some of the decisions that have been made, and to question their role in some of the personnel that had under-performed their draft position.<\/p>\n
Mike Winterode asks: I understand why most defenses use only 2 down linemen, with passing schemes as advanced as ever. But when you have smaller linebackers, and 2 down linemen aren\u2019t enough to hold up against the run, why not have a 3rd down linemen on first and short 3rd downs? Outside LBS with their hands in the dirt don\u2019t count either. It\u2019s not just the Giants, Baltimore ran all over Buffalo\u2019s similar setup as did Philadelphia vs. Dallas. I\u2019m not asking for a return to a base 4-3, but this 2 down linemen approach seems suicidal to me.<\/p>\n
Ed says: Mike, that is something I happen to agree with. Brian Burns, Kayvon Thibodeaux and Abdul Carter are not defensive ends, and asking them to align as such on run downs and try to set the edge against blockers who are 60-70 pounds heavier than they are is a difficult task. This is, though, something NFL teams do quite a bit of.<\/p>\n
In theory, perhaps a 3-3-5 with three true defensive linemen, two edge defenders, an off-ball linebacker and five defensive backs might be the way to go.<\/p>\n
Here, though, is something to be aware of. The Giants aligned with three defensive linemen on the field on 14 of 70 defensive snaps (20%) Sunday vs. Washington. They gave up 120 yards rushing on those plays, 8.6 yards per attempt. Maybe some of those were scrambles by Jayden Daniels, but the Week 1 numbers \u2014 an admittedly far too small sample size \u2014 don\u2019t support the argument.<\/p>\n
Christopher Scanlon asks: Like others, prior to the season I felt very strongly that we should try to trade Thibodeaux for an offensive or defensive lineman with similar performance and upside. in fact, given positional value, I thought that we could end up with a plus starter at guard or DT in a one for one swap. my recollection is that you were not in favor of trying to move Thibodeaux.<\/p>\n
One week into Groundhog Day, would you reconsider that position? We acquired Golston to be the rotational edge and he got 11 snaps. while it may be true that you can never have enough edges, it\u2019s also true that you need functional guards and run stopping defensive tackles to not be embarrassed by the Washington commanders. if at this point you would be willing to consider moving Thibodeaux, are there any edge needy teams that have a guard, center, or run stuffing DT who you might target? <\/p>\n
Ed says: Christopher, I am still not on board the trade Kayvon Thibodeaux train. I still want to give the defense as constructed a chance. Besides, the Giants have shed too many good players over the past few years. That is a trend I would like to see stop. Now, if the Giants get near the trade deadline, things are not going well and there are good offers being made for Thibodeaux that would be beneficial long-term moving on from him would have to be considered.<\/p>\n
What would be a good offer? No one is giving up a starting offensive lineman or defensive tackle, especially not the contending-type teams that might be in the market for an edge defender. You\u2019re probably talking about a Day 2 draft pick, maybe a Day 2 pick and a late-rounder to sweeten the pot.<\/p>\n
Robert Massaroni asks: I thought the preseason play calling was exciting. I get that preseason players are much different and who is quarterbacking is important but last week where were the screens, misdirection, Trap blocking, and reverse type plays? Yes, they tried to throw to the tackle on first-and-goal but the rest of the calls, to me, were boring and plain. Washington\u2019s defense was aggressive to the ball and why not be as everything thrown at them was straight forward.<\/p>\n
Ed says: Robert, of course preseason is different than the regular season. That said, I understand your frustration.<\/p>\n
I think there are a couple of issues. The Giants were struggling to block just about anything. I talked to a couple of players on Thursday, and they said the Commanders used some movement along the line of scrimmage and angles of attack the Giants had not seen on film, and that made some of the blocking assignments difficult.<\/p>\n
When you are in long-yardage situations it becomes difficult to be as creative as you might like to be. That said, the screen game worked well for the Giants in the preseason, and they didn\u2019t use it in Week 1. The Giants also were predictable in that they ran out of a lot of heavy or tight formations.<\/p>\n
I would love to see them spread the field to lighten the box and run from those formations, and throw from some of the tighter formations.<\/p>\n
Justin Orr asks: Why doesn\u2019t Joe Schoen trade players he the team won\u2019t use? Last year, we could have gotten something for Ojulari, but didn\u2019t trade him. He then got injured and went to the Eagles. Now, he refused to trade Hyatt who didnt play a single snap in week 1? Why are we holding onto players that make no impact for us rather than at least getting some draft capital?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Justin, I do think Schoen is open to trading players. I do believe he made a mistake in not trading Azeez Ojulari, but Schoen has repeatedly said he did not like the offers he was presented with. Still, something is better than nothing.<\/p>\n
There was a report that teams had inquired this summer about the availability of players like Jalin Hyatt, Daniel Bellinger and Evan Neal and were told the Giants intended to keep them. We don\u2019t know if offers were ever actually made. My guess is if they were they were of the conditional seventh-round pick variety, which generally means based on playing time with the team acquiring the player. Is that worth trading players before Week 1? I don\u2019t know that it is.<\/p>\n
Seth Weissman asks: Given the play by Hudson, what do you think about putting Eluemunor at left tackle and letting Mbow play RT? He has good lateral movement and he has a nasty streak. We need some guys who want to play physical football. <\/p>\n
Ed says: Seth, I know you sent three questions. I have to be fair and answer only one. I choose the offensive tackle question.<\/p>\n
Eleumunor is a good right tackle. He can play left tackle but I know from talking to him that he wants to stay at right tackle. He is in the final year of his contract. If the Giants start jerking him around and moving him to left tackle, or guard as I have seen some people suggest, he is going to remember that when it comes time to figure out whether or not he wants to stay with the team beyond this year.<\/p>\n
Here is the other thing that makes it way too soon to consider the move you are asking for. Andrew Thomas is coming back. Why disrupt the line by moving Eluemunor to a position he would rather not play, then having to move him back whenever Thomas is ready to take over at left tackle?<\/p>\n
My recommendation, and I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if this is already happening (we don\u2019t get to see enough of practice to know this) is that the Giants begin to work Marcus Mbow at guard during practices. Unless they don\u2019t intend to keep Eluemunor beyond this year, which I think would be a mistake, that is the move I would be looking at.<\/p>\n
John Watkins asks: Can you explain why so many feel that putting Dart into the line up is going to fix the faulty 3, center and both guards.Their willing, eager, to throw the future of the team out to get beat into the ground, and ruin another QB of the future behind an o line that management refuses to fix or even acknowledge as a problem.<\/p>\n
Ed says: John, to my knowledge no one has said starting Jaxson Dart will fix the interior of the offensive line. Better play, or better players, is what will fix that. Dart might be able to overcome pass protection issues with his legs at times, but how many costly mistakes will he make along the way.<\/p>\n
The question really is if the offense doesn\u2019t look any better soon, if Russell Wilson doesn\u2019t play any better, if the Giants keep losing games, how long can Daboll wait before getting Dart on the field. The longer he can wait, the better. The situation, including his own job security, might not let him wait.<\/p>\n
Gino P. asks: After watching the Packers-Commanders game last night I found myself even more concerned about the Giants. The Packers\u2019 defense was able to put quite a bit of pressure on Daniels without him gashing them for yards on the ground. Why couldn\u2019t Lawrence, Thibodeaux, Burns and Carter have that level of success? Furthermore, the NY secondary\u2019s zone defense was picked apart by Daniels, but the Packers played much zone also with more success. The Commanders had 220 yards rushing vs NY, while Green Bay held them to 51 yards rushing (granted they played with a lead).<\/p>\n
The week one post mortem focused on the Giants\u2019 floundering offense. After the Packers game, I am also concerned with the defense. Granted, the Packers had the week one game to study the Commanders offense and prepare for it. Do you share that concern?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Gino, I did not watch the Thursday Night Football game. That said, I think it is clear that the Giants need to be better on both sides of the ball. I think they can be, especially on defense.<\/p>\n
I think you will see all of the Giants \u2018Core Four\u2019 on defense play more snaps on Sunday vs. Dallas. I think that will help.<\/p>\n
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to bigblueview@gmail.com and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.<\/p>\n