Giants Country

New York Giants Mailbag: Daniel Jones, Defensive Backfield, and More

New York Giants fans ask about QB Daniel Jones, the defensive backfield, and more in this week's reader mailbag.

Patricia Traina

New York Giants Mailbag
New York Giants Mailbag / Patricia Traina | New York Giants on SI
In this story:

If you'd like to submit a question for the New York Giants On SI mailbag, please use this link to avoid having your question land in spam. You may also post your questions on X (formerly known as Twitter) to @Patricia_Traina, hashtag #askPTrain. Please note that letters may be edited for clarity/length.

Know you were all in at drafting a quarterback in the past draft. I wasn't; I'm glad the Giants stood pat. There was the talk about the Giants giving up a # 1, #2 this past year and a # 1 next for a quarterback. Do you think the Giants would have been a better team with drafting a quarterback that would not start the season, or a better team with Nabers and Nubin, who they would not have if they made the trade, and the probability of drafting a CB # 1 next season, again which they would not have? -- Joe G.

If the Giants had zero doubts about Jones being the guy, then they're not even thinking about or inquiring about trading up. It was crystal clear that they were looking to do it and that getting a quarterback was Plan A, getting the receiver was Plan B--that was spelled out by Joe Schoen himself in Hard Knocks. 

The Giants were looking to protect themselves given Jones's injury history and inconsistency. You think Schoen makes all those inquiries to move up in the draft order just for kicks and giggles? 

They were willing to give up a first this year and a first next year to move up to No. 3, but the Patriots, who I never believed for a second were willing to move, were looking for a Ricky Williams type of deal, which just wasn't happening. Had the Patriots been more receptive to a trade and the cost been reasonable, the Giants most definitely would have made the move as they're not trading away premium assets to get a backup quarterback.

Also as I reported–and what was shown on Hard Knocks–when the price was too high to move, they were going to pivot to taking a receiver, which is what they did. (You do remember I projected either Malik Nabers or Rome Odunze would be the pick, right?) 

They also wanted a cornerback, but because they traded away the higher of their second round picks to Carolina for Brian Burns, they missed out on that run in the second round on corners, which is why they pivoted to Tyler Nubin at safety.

The plan, had they gotten a quarterback, was to sit him for the upcoming year and let Jones (who has guaranteed money owed to him this year) and Drew Lock (who also has guaranteed money owed to him this year) do the heavy lifting while the rookie acclimated to life in the NFL. They felt they had that luxury to where they didn't have to rush the kid onto the field as Washington, Chicago, and Denver have chosen to do.

You sound as though this past draft was the last chance for them to get a No. 1 receiver or a starting safety. It's not. You have other drafts and those are two positions that you can toss into the starting line up relatively quickly. 

You also make it sound as though the Giants are built to make a Super Bowl run this year. They’re not. So yeah, I would have been fine with them taking a quarterback and having him sit for a year while letting the other needs work themselves out. 

Look, bottom line. Jones is the starter. I get it. I hope he balls out because it’s so much easier to cover a winning team than a losing one. But you can’t deny the facts behind what the organization was thinking when just about everything I told you every time you wrote to defend Daniel Jones and why the Giants shouldn't draft a quarterback played out on Hard Knocks.

I've said that as far back as my first 53-man roster projection done after the end of the spring practices and in my roster projections since that I believe the Giants will keep three quarterbacks. 

Nothing I've seen or heard has me second guessing that prediction as I write this.  Drew Lock is still ailing and while they say he's going to be okay, until I see him not on the Week 1 injury report, you keep three guys at the position. 

The other factor–and I  said this on my latest podcast episode–head coach Brian Daboll likes having quarterbacks who know his system in reserve. As I understand it, the system is complex and can take time for someone to pick up. Given Jones’s injury history, I can’t imagine that the Giants want to risk losing DeVito on waivers. I think that would be foolish.

Even if they were to get him through to the practice squad, another team can come and poach him. (Don’t automatically assume the Cedar Grove, New Jersey native is going to pass up a chance to sign with a 53-man roster if that opportunity were to play out.) 

I mentioned the new IR rule and how I think that’s going to help a team like the Giants keep a third quarterback. I truly believe that’s going to be the case and although it might seem like it would be a wasted roster spot, I think it makes too much sense not to keep a third guy. 

I know the emergency quarterback rule was tweaked this year, but I still think that, considering DeVito’s experience and having shown that the game isn’t too big for him, it’s a risk to put him on the practice squad. We’ll find out soon enough if the Giants agree. 

Truth be told, I wouldn’t be upset if the Giants starters got a quarter of play in this game. The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that won’t be the case. The majority of the starters didn’t miss much, if any, of their reps this summer. 

They also got in some quality reps int he joint practice this week. So anyone who meets that criteria, I could see a case being made to sit them in this preseason finale.

Those starters that I would defintiely play are the defensive secondary, as I thought their showing against the Jets during the joint practice was by far their worst practice execution wise of the summer.   

I’m sure there are going to be people out there who believe Daniel Jones, who had an up-and-down showing against the Texans, should get some work, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that if the starting offensive line is getting the night off, Jones will as well. 

I’m locked into covering this team, so I couldn't tell you who’s on the bubble with other teams. And then there is alway the possibility of a trade being pulled off. We’ll have to wait and see until we get closer to the cutdown date who becomes available--I’ll be watching the waiver wire for possibilities, but again, don’t rule out a trade as a possibility.

I think the jury is still out on that. I like their front seven, but I have questions about the defensive secondary. If they can shore up that unit, and keep everyone healthy, I would feel pretty good about them inching to top10 status. That said, I think that’s a huge leap to take considering they finished in the bottom third last season, so I’d probably say that moving to the top half of the league would be more realistic.

I'm thinking waivers, but if they can flip a Day 3 draft pick for a cornerback, I'd be fine with that.

I would think so. If they haven't added another quarterback to the roster by now given Lock's injury, I think that's a positive sign for Lock's being ready for the season, don't you?

If Jones has a “good” season, I think he’s back witht he Giants in 2025, but possibly with his contract number adjusted to lower his cap hit. 

Published |Modified
Patricia Traina

PATRICIA TRAINA

Patricia Traina has covered the New York Giants for over three decades for various media outlets. She is the host of the Locked On Giants podcast and the author of "The Big 50: New York Giants: The Men and Moments that Made the New York Giants" (Triumph Books, September 2020). View Patricia's full bio.

Home/Big Blue+