Three Big Questions About Daniel Jones's Giants Future
The New York Giants hoped that in Daniel Jones, their first-round pick of 2019 chosen sixth overall, they had found themselves the man who could lead the offense for the next decade.
Unfortunately, that might not be the case. Besides dealing with injuries, including his latest, a neck issue that could see him miss multiple games--Jones's play has left something to be desired of late.
In this analysis, we're going to look at why things haven't gone well for Jones, what they can do to ride out the tide until they can get out of the contract with him (if they so choose), and the financial implications involved against the cap if the Giants do want to run for the exit on this contract.
What's Gone Wrong?
To be fair, Jones's problems aren't all his fault. Playing behind the league's worst offensive line makes for a tough challenge, no matter who the quarterback is.
New York has allowed 96 pressures through five games- the most in the league, per Pro Football Focus. Whether it's being on 3-step, 5-step, or the rare 7-step drop, it doesn't matter. Jones has been under constant pressure to where he's become shell-shocked.
But it's also fair to ask how much Jones has helped his offensive line. An offensive line's best friend is a quarterback who can take the snap, make quick reads, and get the ball out of his hand in 2.5 seconds or less.
This has been a problem for Jones this year. According to Pro Football Focus, he's averaging 2.84 seconds to throw. While that might not seem like a large difference, when you have an injury-ravaged offensive line like the Giants, you're not doing them any favors by holding onto the ball longer than necessary.
Jones is also averaging 3.31 seconds from snap to being sacked, which could suggest one of two things: either his receivers aren't getting open down the field, or he's not seeing the entire field because his internal clock is messed up from all the hits he's taken.
In a nutshell, Jones and this offensive line are not a match for each other. And while no one is suggesting that the offensive line doesn't need fixing--it most certainly does--the reality, as we've now seen, is that it is very difficult to fix a unit in one offseason that, outside of Andrew Thomas and John Michael Schmitz, has a lot of question marks.
Can They Make it Work with Jones?
It's possible, but it will probably take a shift in philosophy. Simply put, the Giants need to think about going to more 12-personnel versus the 11-personnel they have been looking to run, at least for the short term.
Again, because Jones and this current offensive line situation don't seem to be a match made in heaven, any thoughts by this offense of becoming an explosive unit run on 11 personnel needs to be tapered.
A big reason why so many of us were encouraged by what we saw this past summer was the deployment of 11 personnel and the explosiveness that the offense could generate. But as injuries began to eat away at this team--losing Thomas and Saquon Barkley for multiple games, and the injury to Schmitz, who will miss his second straight game was huge--the complexion of the roster changed into the Giants' worst-case scenario.
But let's get back to a case for running more 12 personnel. According to Sports Info Solutions, the Giants, excluding spikes and throwaways, have run 11 personnel 64 percent of the time through five games but have a 38 percent success rate in doing so, 26th in the league.
They've run 12-personnel 18 percent of the time and have a 48 percent overall success rate, 7th in the league.
Last year, the Giants used 11 personnel 60 percent of the time (again, excluding spikes and throwaways) with a 45 percent success rate, and 12 personnel on 8 percent of their plays with a 42 percent success rate.
When it came to the passing game, they used 12 personnel on 68 percent of the plays (versus 67 percent with 11 personnel) and had a much higher success rate (52 percent) with 12 personnel versus 11 personnel (44 percent).
The 12-personnel grouping (one running back, two tight ends) allows the team to keep one of the tight ends to help with max protection (which this offense clearly needs) or send him on a route.
While this grouping does take away a potential deep threat option--Daniel Bellinger currently has an average depth of target of just 1.3 yards (down from the 4.0 he averaged as a rookie) if this means affording the quarterback an extra layer of protection on obvious passing downs, wouldn't it make more sense to deploy it and look to get the ball into the hands of those receivers who are yards-after-the-catch (YAC) specialists?
Can the Giants Just Get Out of the Jones Contract?
Sure, they can, and the good news is they can do so after this year--but there is a caveat.
Let's first look at simply cutting Jones, which is unlikely to happen given the financial implications involved.
Per Over the Cap, if the Giants simply cut Jones after this year, they wouldn't save anything--they'd be in the red for $22.2 million, which means they'd be looking at a whopping $69.315 million dead money hit.
That dead money hit is more than double their projected effective cap space ($38,498,429) and more than the $56,046,862 total cap space the team is projected to have in 2024 as of this writing.
Simply put, a pre-June 1 cut isn't happening. Neither is a post-June 1 cut in which the Giants break even in the savings but now get charged the dead money in 2024 and 2025.
But what the Giants could do, if they're looking to get out of the contract, is trade Jones to a team looking for a quarterback.
This would be contingent on New York drafting a new franchise quarterback and ensuring they have a backup on the roster (i.e., Tyrod Taylor) to serve as a mentor, much in the same way how Kurt Warner, back in the day, served as a mentor/placeholder until future franchise quarterback Eli Manning was ready to take the reins.
If the Giants were to pursue this approach, they would not only gain some additional draft capital to spend on other areas where the depth is weak, but they also would be able to get a quarterback on his rookie deal. At the same time, they continue to build around him the right way.
Then there is the cap savings. Trading Jones before June 1 would result in $13.79 million in savings and just $33.315 million in dead money. The reason the Giants' dead money hit would be reduced is because they would no longer be on the hook for the quarterback's guaranteed salary ($36 million, of which $35.5 million is his base salary). That liability gets absorbed by the acquiring team.
And speaking of the acquiring team, gaining a starting quarterback who would cost them $36 and $30 million over the next two years would be a bargain in the grand scheme of things.
Final Thoughts
Despite how he's looked this year, Jones is not a horrible quarterback and could find a home with teams such as the Patriots, Vikings, and Atlanta if any of them decide to move on from their current signal callers. If he's to truly succeed, he will need an offensive line that can help mask his deficiencies, something he's unlikely to find with the Giants anytime soon.
Do I think he's going anywhere next year? Probably not. But if the Giants end up with a top-ten draft pick and the chance to draft a franchise quarterback is within reach, I think they have to seriously consider it and build out this roster the right way, which is to get a signal-caller on his rookie deal and devote the financial resources toward beefing up the offensive line and other areas that currently lack.
- Get the latest breaking news and analysis on the New York Giants
- Follow and like us on Facebook
- Submit your questions for our mailbag
- Check out the Giants Country YouTube Channel.
- Subscribe and like the LockedOn Giants YouTube Channel
- Connect with us via text alerts! Free 14 Day Trial!
