Training camp for your New York Giants is in full swing. Let’s open up our first Big Blue View mailbag of training camp.
Casey Hamlin asks: I have been a believer that the Giants have the most depth at the Running Back position and ought to use that depth via trade ... Paul Perkins was a starter before injury. Before Saqun came on the scene – Wayne Gallman was our starter and showed signs of promise (I thought). Both are relatively young and cheap contract wise. They signed Rod Smith so carrying 4 RBs is probably not realistic ... Why don’t the Giants explore trade possibilities for either draft capital or edge rush help while they can given these two have been starters and both have shown they can be decent NFL starters? It seems like letting their contracts expire/cutting them when they could get something for them would be prudent to a roster in need of talent/depth at key positions.
Ed says: Thanks for the question, Casey. The Giants might want to “explore” trading one of those players. Maybe. There are good reasons why they shouldn’t, at least not yet. And probably better reasons why they wouldn’t find a market.
What did the Giants get in exchange for Eli Apple? Fourth- and seventh-round picks. They got a fifth-round pick for Damon Harrison. They couldn’t get an acceptable draft pick for Landon Collins last year.
NFL teams don’t trade draft picks lightly, or unless they absolutely have to.
Perkins failed as a starter in 2017, averaging 2.2 yards per carry and being removed from the lineup after four games. Gallman started one game in 2017 and the longest run he has in 162 attempts is 24 yards.
Teams know the Giants will probably end up cutting one of them. On top of which, by the time the preseason ends there will probably be a half-dozen or more running backs the caliber of Perkins and Gallman available on the waiver wire or as free agents. Why trade a draft resource for one when you can pick one up after he’s been cut?
Not to mention, what is happening with the Giants’ wide receivers is instructive. You don’t want to trade a player now, suffer an injury at the position and then find yourself searching for depth.
Alex Peterson asks: We hear a lot about the Giants hoping to follow the “Kansas City model” or the “Green Bay model” for quarterback development. Since the draft, I’ve had a lingering concern that they could end up following the “Arizona model” - spending significant draft capital on a quarterback and then flipping him for pennies on the dollar the following year when a “better” opportunity presents itself.
It currently looks like there are several highly regarded QB prospects that could go pro next year. And, despite what I believe to be an improving roster, it is in the realm of possibility that the Giants have a high pick next year. I know there are a lot of hypotheticals involved here, but do you think there is a world in which the Giants would consider trading Daniel Jones in 2020 if they end up with a top draft pick and DG is smitten with one of the highly touted QB prospects?
Ed says: Alex, thanks for the question. I’m going to answer this one succinctly — absolutely not.
Jones is Gettleman’s legacy pick. He’s the guy Shurmur will be tied to. Yes, it’s possible the Giants won’t be good and will end up with a high draft pick. They won’t use it on another quarterback. Like the pick or not, Jones is going to get the opportunity to succeed or fail, so you aren’t going to see the Giants in the quarterback market for a while.
Yes, there might be a lot of quarterbacks at the top of the draft. If the Giants are in position, the smart play is to take advantage of that. To either let a great player fall to you because everyone else is grabbing quarterbacks, or use your high pick to trade for a bundle of picks to help accelerate your roster build.
Tom Ciro asks: So I have sat back and watched, listened and read that the purpose of our GM Dave overhauling the roster making substantial changes and trades which in part I certainly agree with but will this culture change, change the bottom line?
In my mind the bottom line is the bottom line and if your not winning games and contending to win the division and make the playoffs then does the culture change matter?
I think culture change is a good thing and I think good moves were made I don’t discount that but will it end up bringing in more wins than 5 and a chance to win the division or make the wild card?
Ed says: Tom, in answering this question I think about something that Gettleman said on Friday.
“You can’t turn this thing on a dime.”
The Giants were an absolute mess when Gettleman got the job. They were losing games and had been for several years. The locker room was also a mess of egos and personalities with their own agendas who were pulling in different directions.
In a recent column I wrote this:
“Sometimes, before you can move forward you have to clear out everything and everyone you feel is standing in your way. The path can sometimes be blocked by big old trees laying across the road. Talented or not, if players — especially top of the roster ones — aren’t all in with what your management and your coaching staff are trying to do their displeasure becomes apparent and has a trickle-down effect across the roster.”
You have to start somewhere. It’s like remodeling a house. You have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is removing the things that don’t fit your vision of what you want.
I also wrote that I don’t know exactly what progress will look like in 2019. I also agree with Gettleman when he says he wants to see “improvement,” but that it’s “not fair” to put a number on it. So many things can happen. We will just have to sit back at the end of the year and decide for ourselves if we thing progress has been made.
As for culture, I think the idea is you have to have players you believe in, and who believe in you and your coaching staff. That’s a place to start. Continuing to draft well, and bring in the kind of people you want, is next.
Let’s see where it goes. But, yes, getting the right kind of people is part of it.
Matt Sanzone asks: I didn’t read any mention of the shot-put O-Lineman the Giants signed. Have they cut him?
Ed says: Matt, Austin Droogsma is the player you are referring to. No. he has not been cut. He is in training camp competing, and has been practicing with the third team. Droogsma is an extreme long shot to stick around, perhaps with a chance to make the practice squad if the Giants see enough to think he can develop into a real NFL player.