New York Giants Reader Mailbag: Pre-Draft Special

If you'd like to submit a question for the mailbag, please send it to nygiantsmaven@gmail.com. Note: We reserve the right to edit letters for clarity and conciseness. While we try to answer all questions received, we reserve to consolidate if several people ask the same question.

We know that Judge likes to rotate OL configuration. Are there any unique traits that prospects must have to fit that scheme? -- @BookDII

What’s up, Booker? As far as I can tell, the Giants seem to place a premium on athletic offensive linemen who can pull and fire out to the second level. This is just my theory, mind you, but I suspect that’s why Shane Lemieux saw more snaps at left guard ahead of Will Hernandez.

If Jaelan Phillips didn't have any concussion history, where do you think teams would have him ranked on their big boards? -- @JTarriff

What’s up, Justin? Hard to say since every team is different—some use rankings, and some use rows--but if I had to guess, I’d say Phillips would probably end up going somewhere between No. 10 and No. 20.

Does the o-line get addressed in the first three rounds? Also, least likely position addressed at 11 aside from QB?-- @KonSeanneryy

I think so. I’ve said this before and will say it again; the Giants will have four offensive linemen whose contracts are up after this year, and it would behoove them to get some additional talent in the pipeline to replace anyone they can’t or choose not to re-sign. As for your second question, I’m going to say tight end unless Kyle Pitts is there (which I doubt he will be.)

Should we solidify the offensive line in the first two rounds? Was thinking Rashawn Slater round 1, Wyatt Davis round 2. Thoughts? – Fint_Joshua (James B. also asked a similar question.)

Nope. Maybe you go offensive line in one of those two rounds—if given a choice between round 1 or 2, I might say go o-line in round 2 depending on how the board shakes out. But the more I look at this, the more I’m becoming convinced they might wait until Round 3 to go offensive line given how deep the guard class is.

Is there evidence that Garrett will do a better job this year?-- @RichardHayber1

Richard, I’m inclined to say, “We’ll see,” but I think if you look at the tape of the playmakers they added, I believe there is evidence that offensive coordinator Jason Garrett will be able to open up the offense a bit more and make it more productive.

It does come down to execution at the end of the day—that and injuries. But I do think the Giants offense will be better this year, assuming they figure out the offensive line configuration.

I found something odd from the Gettleman press conference. The line was always you build your team to win the division, but that’s not what he said that was interesting. The writers were so focused on the thought that he was building the team to make Daniel Jones succeed that they just glossed over that point.

It’s ridiculous to think that this is all about Daniel Jones, as if the Giants had Patrick Mahomes, they wouldn’t get him any receivers. The point is that if the Giants are looking to beat the best team, they’ll play, which is either Tampa or Kansas City. – Kevin L.

Kevin, the key to getting to the postseason is winning your division. You don’t play Kansas City or Tampa Bay every year, but you do play your division opponents every year, twice a year. So even if you beat TB and KC, if you don't at least break even in your division, it doesn't matter.

And you better believe this is all about Daniel Jones. There’s no question about what the Chiefs have in Patrick Mahomes, who proved it in his second season and continues to prove it.

The Giants feel good about what they have in Daniel Jones, but let’s face it—he hasn’t exactly set the league on fire, now has he? And if he doesn’t take that Josh Allen type of leap this year despite all the new playmakers added, the Giants better think long and hard about whether he’s their franchise quarterback before they go and extend his contract.

You left Steve Smith out of the top 10 WRs. Sure, he couldn’t play long time, but he dominated the league from playoffs '07 to '09. – Jason C.

Jason, I didn't write the article, but with that said, I agree with John's omission of Steve Smith (a heck of a guy, by the way) from the list.

I'm not sure what criteria you use to say a receiver "dominated the league," but Steve Smith never led the league in receiving yards and/or touchdowns, two criteria that I'd strongly consider before I'd say any receiver "dominated" the league.

Yes, he helped the team win a Super Bowl and it's not his fault he got hurt, but other than a Pro Bowl season and I think one year where he set a franchise record for most pass receptions), that's just not enough to say he dominated.

What would Engram's trade value be in draft capital? Could the Giants get a 3rd pick for him?—Carl F.

Hi Carl. I answered this on the podcast, but I did a little more research since then, and I think the Giants might have to accept a conditional pick for Engram if they moved him.

I’m thinking maybe a fifth at minimum with the potential to become a fourth. Remember, Engram has an injury history. I don’t think any team will give up a third-rounder for him, given all the wear and tear on his tires.

I’m confused about one aspect of the salary cap. Recently you stated, “the Giants also reworked the deals of cornerback James Bradberry and inside linebacker Blake Martinez by converting part of their respective base salaries into signing bonuses which now prorate over the remaining (and original) life of their deals.”

I understand how this benefits the Giants. But how does it help the players? It seems like it makes their future years more tenuous because of the potential salary cap hit if they are cut.—James P.

James, when you restructure a contract, you’re pushing money around for the sake of bookkeeping purposes. What the Giants did with Martinez and Bradberry benefits them because they got part of their 2021 base salary upfront before even setting foot on the field when that part was turned into a signing bonus.

Suppose you have a deal that runs through 2022 and pays you $2 million this year and $3 million next year with a prorated signing bonus of $1 million per year.

Now let’s say I restructure your $2 million base salary down to $1 million, but I tell you you’re going to get the $1 million in the form of a signing bonus payable upon your signing off on the restructure.

So now your 2021 cap number drops from $3 million to $2.5 million, but you're pocketing 50% of your original base salary upfront before even setting foot on the field. Make sense?

And if anyone suffers from restructuring, it's the team, not the players, because if a player has money pushed into later years of his deal and is cut, that's more dead money that gets charged t the salary cap.

There is a lot of talk about the team needing more weapons to evaluate Jones in Year 3 properly. However, don't they also need to see what they have with Saquon since his rookie deal is up after next year? That being the case, I would think solidifying the offensive line would better use that #11 pick.

It would help both players; Saquon would have a better line to run behind, and Jones would be afforded more protection and more time to throw. Let's say Waddle and Slater are both there at #11. Wouldn't the "smarter" pick be to take Slater? – Steve B.

Hi Steve. I know this was supposed to be for the podcast, but since I am unsure if we’ll be running another mailbag before the draft, let me get this answered here.

I’d go Rashawn Slater if he’s on the board and Kyle Pitts is gone. If Slater is gone and it comes down to the two 'Bama receivers, Waddle is my pick.

As for the Giants needing to see what they have in Saquon, they know that already. What they don’t know is how well Saquon is going to come back from his torn ACL, and that’s something that Saquon alone needs to show them.

In the last pod with Tony Pauline, he mentioned that that talent pool in this year's draft sort of falls off on Day 3. Because of that, his thought was that Gettleman might try and trade out of those later picks and acquire more draft capital for 2022.

However, what about the idea of packaging the last two picks (#196 and #201) and moving up? Would getting a 5th round pick this year be better than the two 6th round picks they currently have? – Steve B.

Steve, anything is possible, but if I’m Dave Gettleman, I look to trade for future picks in next year’s draft when there’s going to be a lot more talent to be had and where those extra picks are probably going to be far more valuable than this year’s crop.

As for those two sixth-round picks, hey, if the Giants get a player out of one or both, then they’re ahead of the game, but they did such a good job beefing up the depth at nearly every position that if one or both of those sixth-round picks don’t pan out, then no big deal.

Why are so many people thinking if the Giants draft a tackle it stops Matt Peart development? There are many players that can play multiple positions. --D.L.

Great question and one I wish I knew the answer to. I mean offensive linemen do get hurt. And Joe Judge seems to like using a rotation so I doubt even if Peart didn't win the starting job he'd rot on the bench, right?

What's next for the Giants this off-season? Sign up for our FREE newsletter for all the latest, and be sure to follow and like us on Facebook.

Submit your questions for our mailbag. And don't forget to check out the daily LockedOn Giants podcast, also available for subscription wherever you find podcasts.