The following are some additional reader-submitted questions from this weekend's mailbag.
What is the reason Kyle Rudolph did not get assigned a number? -- Barbara N.
Hi Barbara. My guess is that Rudolph might be hoping to get No. 82, which is currently held by tight end Kaden Smith. Rudolph recently had his surgery, so I figure that has also factored in as far as a potential delay. Either way, I wouldn't worry about it; Rudolph will have a jersey number sooner than later.
Do you see Daniel Jones being more successful going into his third year? -- Paitton R.
What's up, Paitton? Put it this way: unless there is a rash of injuries on the offense, I do see Jones being more successful in the coming year. The Giants now have the talent to run the offense's full scope that I believe offensive coordinator Jason Garrett wanted to run but couldn't last year.
So now it's up to Daniel to take advantage of that new talent around him, the new wrinkled that will be added to the offense, and above all, to stay healthy.
In January, there was a brief news squib that Andrew Thomas had undergone an ankle "procedure," and since then, as best as I can tell crickets. Do we: a.) know what the procedure was; b.) know whether it was a factor in his rookie year play; c.) know how his recovery has gone? -- Howard R.
Hello Howard. My understanding is that it was a cleanout procedure, and yes, the ankle was believed to have bothered him during his rookie season, but he toughed it out.
As for his recovery, nothing new to report there as remember, the players have been scattered around the country. But my understanding is that they're not concerned about the ankle being a factor when team activities kick up again.
With possibly 5 QB's going in the top ten, this should put the Giants in great shape for either a position of need or the best available athlete. If either Pitts or one of the top wideouts are still available, would they go that route? -- Michael L.
Hi Mike. If Kyle Pitts is there, that's my pick, and I don't care who else is on the board at No. 11. Pitts is my top-ranked non-QB player on my personal board (not that my board matches anyone else's).
Would I go wide out at No. 11 if Pitts wasn't there? That would depend on whether one of the two tackles was there (Penei Sewell and Rashawn Slater).
I think an offensive lineman who could come in and plug up that right guard spot would be a much better value at No. 11 than a receiver, but I can certainly see the logic behind adding another receiver.