Big Blue View mailbag: Draft, free agency, Saquon Barkley … the usual stuff

The mail’s here!

Robert Biggerstaff asks: Since the draft and the free agent markets are inextricably connected in terms of planning the 2024 roster, who in your opinion are the top three FAs (excluding Giants FAs) and top three most likely players available at #6? Which one from each group would you want?

Ed says: Robert, the two are definitely tied together. I think it’s difficult to pin down three of each, especially in the free agent category. Let’s see.

In free agency, wide receiver Tee Higgins would look nice as a Giant but I don’t see it. I think the Cincinnati Bengals will franchise tag him. Plus, I think the Giants will look at the draft and think they can get a top-tier wide receiver without spending what it might cost if Higgins did hit the market.

Realistic options?

How about the best guard the Giants can get, whether that is Kevin Dotson, Robert Hunt or someone else? How about Tennessee Titans’ defensive lineman Denico Autry on a short-term deal? How about a veteran cornerback to start opposite Deonte Banks? Not sure who that is, but I’d be looking for one.

I’m not sure the Giants will be able to pay top of the market prices. Let’s see how much salary cap room they create before free agency starts next month.

Could I pick at absolute top target? Not really. Maybe when we see exactly how much money the Giants have when free agency starts. Or, maybe after I come back from the Combine.

In the draft, I think this is pretty straightforward.

I think we’re talking about Drake Maye at quarterback if he falls that far. Currently, the consensus seems to be it’s more like Maye falls than Jayden Daniels. I’m not a ‘run Daniel Jones out of town on a rail’ guy, but Maye would be a difficult pass for me.

I think we’re talking about wide receivers Malik Nabers or Rome Odunze. I will happily take either guy. Push come to shove, though, I might take Odunze. And I know I’m probably in the minority.

We’re probably talking about offensive tackle Joe Alt if the Giants are moving Evan Neal and haven’t replaced him in free agency.

I think receiver is most likely, as of right now.

Patrick Morris asks: Barkley’s contract next year is an interesting debate. You don’t really want to pay him $15 million a year. Nor do you really want to franchise for a second year in a row. At the same time, you really don’t want him walking out the door at a low price, but incentive laden contract. Is this one of the rare cases where it’s worth putting the transition tag on him potentially? So you can see what other teams are willing to offer, and match it if it’s reasonable?

Ed says: Patrick, using the transition tag on a player after using the franchise tag on him seems like kind of murky territory. I got differing answers from a former agent and a former GM I reached out to.

First, here is a quick definition of the transition tag:

The transition tag is a one-year tender offer for the average of the top 10 salaries at the position — as opposed to the top five for the franchise tag. It guarantees the original club the right of first refusal to match any offer the player might receive from another club.

CBS Sports cap expert and former sports agent Joel Corry offered this answer:

“The transition tag is available to use on Barkley. It’s going to be the same 120% of prior year’s salary as his franchise tag.”

Corry said the only scenario where the transition tag makes sense is “if trying to encourage some other team to set Barkley’s market and match an offer sheet.”

Former NFL GM Randy Mueller had this to say:

“Great question, I don’t recall that that’s ever been done. In reading through the CBA it does not specifically address such a scenario. That being said, I don’t think the CBA would allow a reduction in pay and still restrict the players rights. That part would probably be a hangup. Obviously the transition number would be lower than the franchise number that he made a year before.”

Either way, I’m not in favor of using any kind of tag on Barkley. If you want to keep him that is just going to upset him and make that less likely.

If you can’t agree on a value before free agency, let him go to the open market with an agreement between the two sides that the Giants will get an opportunity to negotiate against any offers received if they choose to. Barkley wants “fair” treatment, and I think that’s fair to him. Yes, I’m aware that takes control of whether Barkley ultimately stays or goes out of the Giants’ hands.

Moshe Kolodny asks: Do you think seeing as they are stuck with Daniel Jones for this coming year. Would it be worthwhile to trade back to the bottom of Round 1 or even Round 2 to build equity for a possible trade up next year?

Ed says: Moshe, there is no chance I am trading from the sixth overall pick in the draft all the way to the bottom of Round 1 or even into Round 2. I would not give up the opportunity to get a game-changing top-tier player to move that far down in the draft under any circumstances. I am especially not doing it if I’m Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll and I’m not guaranteed getting a fourth season. I am not prepping for a future I might not have. I am worrying about making the team better now.

As I wrote earlier in the week, I might be OK moving back a few spots from No. 6 for the right package. I would also be OK making a pick at No. 6 and then using some draft assets to move back into Round 1 for a quarterback if there is one I really want. Your scenario, though, is a non-starter for me.

Bob Donnelly asks: It is said building a winning team starts foundational players. Going into year three who do you view as Schoen’s players to build upon? What else does he need to finish building his foundation?

Ed says: Andrew Thomas, Dexter Lawrence, Bobby Okereke, Kayvon Thibodeaux are easily identifiable to me as foundational players. Tae Banks and John Michael Schmitz might join that list in Year 2. Jalin Hyatt? Love the guy, but he needs to convince me.

I think we will find out next month whether or not the Giants see Xavier McKinney as a foundational piece.

Two or three years ago, I would have added Daniel Jones and Saquon Barkley to that list. Now, I think there are too many questions about the long-term futures of both players to do that.

What does he need to add? I’m not sure you ever “finish” building a foundation. Blocks always need to be replaced. The Giants need to just continue adding the best players they can, especially via the draft. The biggest piece to the foundation, of course, is quarterback. There is still a chance Jones can be that guy, but I think the Giants are well-served at this point to look seriously toward a Jones-less future.

Peter Caust asks: Do you think that, if the Giants don’t show sufficient improvement record-wise in the next 1-2 years and ownership decides its time for a change, Joe Schoen gets a shot at hiring another head coach or he and Brian Daboll are tied at the hip and either both stay or both go?

Ed says: Peter, I think that question is difficult to answer right now. I think we have to see how things pan out and, if they don’t go well, ownership will have to decide where the fault lies. Is the biggest issue the coaching, or is it the decision-making of the Schoen-Daboll duo?

The two came in together. I would think the Giants would like to keep them together if that is at all possible.

Doug Mollin asks: How would you prioritize the Giants free agency objectives? The team has multiple needs up and down the roster: WR1, CB2, DL, Edge, G1, G2, T3. That doesn’t even include what we’ll need if we don’t bring back Saquon, McKinney and Waller.

Leaving RB, S and TE aside for now, where do you spend Schoen’s money in free agency?

IMO, we need veterans added to the OL first and foremost. We need two starting guards, a swing tackle to at least compete with Neal for RT and a backup G/C. Get one guard in the draft and the other three in free agency.

That leaves the draft in some order for: WR1, CB2, DT and Edge.

What do you think?

Ed says: Doug, trying to prioritize all of that makes this old man’s head hurt. I am really not even going to try.

I don’t think you can sit here and say ‘do this in free agency’ and then ‘do that in the draft.’

The old philosophy is that you try to fill needs in free agency and then just add the best talent possible in the draft. Dave Gettleman used to say you don’t want to shop hungry in the draft — you don’t want to go into the draft feeling like there are a lot of things you have to have.

As you indicated, there are a lot of ways the Giants could spend their money — and their draft capital.

If you’re Joe Schoen, I think you just identify players in free agency across all of the various positions where you think you have needs and see what makes sense. You do that with an eye to the draft as well. You identify a position or positions in the draft you believe are deep, and perhaps shy away from spending free agent dollars there.

Maybe all of that is too vague, but I just can’t pin it down to two separate buckets.

Jim Moriarty asks: I sincerely hope you are reading too much into Schoen’s comments about Evan Neal. I do not expect him to indicate that Neal is moving to guard, or anything that would tip his hand regarding free agency or the draft. I do fully expect that Schoen, like anyone that has seen Neal, is not banking on a sudden improvement because of a new OL coach (remember, Duke Manyweather worked with him as well). I expect that Joe will sign a competent RT in free agency – or draft one in the first round (we have seen that doesn’t always work). I expect that Neal will go into the season as an underdog for the RT job, and be quickly moved to guard. Fixing RT is the most important job Joe has prior to the season, and I believe he knows that. Do you agree/disagree?

Ed says: Jim, no one knows what decision Joe Schoen, Brian Daboll, Mike Kafka and Carmen Bricillo will make about Neal. We haven’t gotten to free agency or the draft. They will tell us with their words, or they will tell us with what they do to supplement the line this offseason.

I think there is an argument to be made for leaving Neal at right tackle. I am not saying it is my argument or that I am in favor of it, just that there is one to be made. Neal had a 2023 season that was interrupted three times by injuries. A concussion cost him a chunk of training camp. Two ankle injuries cost him much of the regular season. He did not, thus, have an opportunity to practice or play consistently. Thus, it can be argued that he didn’t have a true opportunity to improve last season. Also, his offseason is being interrupted by recovery from ankle surgery. Further, if you fault former offensive line coach Bobby Johnson the argument can be made that Bricillo should have a chance to work with Neal at tackle.

There is also an argument for moving him to guard. He played it well for one season at Alabama. It might mitigate some of his issues in space. It might take advantage of his power.

You can expect whatever you expect, that’s fine. Personally, I have no expectations other than that Schoen and the Giants will do what they think is best to try and upgrade the line.

I disagree that fixing right tackle is the most important job this offseason. Seriously? That is more important than the Saquon Barkley decision? That is more important than figuring out how to go forward at quarterback?

Figuring out what to do at right tackle is part of figuring out the offensive line overall. It’s no more important than figuring out the two guard spots. Or whether to resign Xavier McKinney. Or trying to find a WR1. Or finding a cornerback opposite Tae Banks. Or finding some pass rush.

As I have said, there is a lot on Schoen’s to-do list.

Brad Nellis asks: Why haven’t we heard of any talk of the Giants having an interest in Justin Fields, if he comes available? He is still on an affordable rookie contract and would be an excellent option if Daniel Jones isn’t ready for the beginning of the season. Look what Dabs did with Josh Allen in Buffalo…maybe he could work the same kind of magic with Fields. We need a veteran backup who may play himself into QB1 during the spring and summer and if it doesn’t work out, release him after next season…your thoughts?

Ed says: Brad, apparently you have missed the last couple of times I have answered this in the mailbag. I will, though, answer it again because your take is slightly different.

I have no interest in the Giants trading for Justin Fields.

First of all, he isn’t really still on an affordable rookie contract. He is entering his fourth season. You have to make an immediate financial decision on whether or not pick up his fifth-year option, estimated to be $21.978 million, or face the same type of negotiation you had with Daniel Jones if you want to keep him long-term.

Secondly, you don’t acquire Fields as a “veteran backup.” If you are acquiring Fields, the price you will pay in terms of players and draft capital means he is walking in as your Day 1 starter. So, you’re going to pay Daniel Jones $47 million to sit the bench.

Thirdly, if Fields was all that he wouldn’t be 10-28 as an NFL starter and the Bears wouldn’t be likely to draft Caleb Williams and move on. They would be seeking a king’s ransom for the first overall pick to build around him. That doesn’t seem to be what they are doing.

From where I sit, there are just as many questions right now about Fields as there are about Jones.

Yes, the Giants need a veteran backup. That’s not Fields. That’s someone like Jacoby Brissett, Mitchell Trubisky or Tyrod Taylor.

I will keep saying it, and saying it, and saying it. If the Giants want to start over at quarterback the right way to do that is by drafting one and getting a four- or five-year runway with a player on a rookie contract.

Submit a question

Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to bigblueview@gmail.com and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.