New York Giants mailbag: Joe Schoen, Evan Neal, Jalin Hyatt, practice squad, more

Brian Misdom asks: While this is older news, the season is quickly upon us and makes me wonder why the giants decided to extend Schoen before seeing any results on the field. It seemed premature – wouldn’t it have been prudent to see the fruits of the Harbaugh/Schoen pairing first? I just don’t see a lame duck GM as having the same distraction as a lame duck HC typically brings. Was there a real risk to our personnel operation if this wasn’t done over the summer?

Ed says: Brian, Giants ownership has

always liked the front office and scouting operation Schoen has put together. They have liked, as far as I can ascertain, how he communicates with ownership. Those things are important.

The working relationship with Harbaugh is, of course, also incredibly important. By all accounts, the two have found common ground and an ability to work together. The fruits of that were shown in the Giants having what they felt was a fruitful offseason, both in the way they approached free agency and the draft.

Harbaugh has talked about having the ability to “agree to agree” with the front office when he was in Baltimore. He has found that with Schoen. I think even the trades made in the week prior to the 53-man roster cut down show an ability for coach and GM to work together to build the roster the coach is looking for.

The Giants liked what they saw in the relationship. Harbaugh was on board. Ownership saw no reason to make Schoen twist in the wind and keep answering questions about his job security. I am OK with that.

Jimmy Siegel asks: Now that Evan Neal is in the rear view mirror, my question is what was it that Schoen and company didn’t see in the endless college film they no doubt dissected for months? I’ve always thought offensive lineman is one of the more easy transitions from college to pro. I believe that most first round OL tend to at least be quality starters in the NFL. But here’s a guy who let speed rushes fly by him like a turnstile. How was that missed by the Giants brain trust. Is the gap between speed rushers in college and the NFL that wide that it’s impossible to judge a college player? And yes, I know most teams had Neal as a top ten talent. So maybe my question should be what did the entire NFL miss with Neal?

Ed says: Jimmy, I know that Joe Schoen has asked himself what, if anything, the Giants missed in their evaluation of Evan Neal. I know that he has gone back and studied the tape again. I also know that after re-watching that tape Schoen did not feel the Giants missed in their evaluation. He still believes he saw a player who, based on his college tape and what was known about him, deserved to be a top 10 pick.

You are also right that most teams and talent evaluators agreed with Schoen, and that the pick was universally praised when the Giants made it.

When I saw your question I went back and looked at a half-dozen or so pre-draft scouting reports on Neal. Almost everyone who evaluated him saw Neal as a future Pro Bowl or All-Pro caliber tackle.

Evaluating players is not an exact science. I would disagree that the transition from college to NFL is easy for offensive linemen. College offensive linemen can be extremely difficult to evaluate. They often play little in a three-point stance. Many are hardly ever asked to run block. Many play in quick-passing offense that don’t ask them to do more than get in the way of a rusher for a second or so. Even at Alabama, Neal probably only squared up with real NFL talent two or three times each season.

Evaluators knew there were a couple of issues with his pass protection, but felt those could/would be cleaned up with reps and NFL coaching. It didn’t happen. Why? Injuries? Coaching? The player himself? Being used at the wrong position?

Nobody really knows. It is probably some combination of everything. It just didn’t work out.

Daniel Frankel asks: For years I have felt that Harry Carson’s #53 deserved to be retired. I never enjoyed watching anyone else wear it. Now that Darius Muasau has been cut, do you think it would be a good time to retire The Captain’s number or at least to give that number to someone worthy of wearing the number, like Arvell Reese.

Ed says: Daniel, the older I get the more I think numbers shouldn’t get retired in the first place. It gets a little silly after a while, and now we have numbers getting unretired so kids coming out of college who haven’t earned it yet can wear the number that goes with their brand.

But, now that I’ve had my “get off my lawn” moment, if we are going to retire numbers then Harry Carson’s number should be among them. I don’t know why it has not been retired. The problem you run into in football, though, is that you run out of available jersey numbers.

Still, Carson deserves that honor.

Ed Helinski asks: Please describe the various amounts of money that practice squad players make? What kind of latitude do NFL teams have with deals for practice squad players? Might some be guaranteed deals? And how does the game check change when a player is elevated to the active roster?

Ed says: Ed, the practice squad salaries are collectively bargained. The standard practice squad contract pays $13,750 per week. Teams can have up to six players who are “veterans”, designated as having two or more accrued seasons. Those players can earn a minimum of $18,350 per week and a maximum of $22,850. That’s it.

There are no “guaranteed” practice squad deals. It is a week-to-week existence. Now, some undrafted free agents, like offensive tackle Ryan Schernecke, get guaranteed money when they sign. Schernecke received $247,500 guaranteed, which equates to a full season’s practice squad salary.

Players elevated to a game day roster get the minimum pro-rated game day check for that week based on their experience level.

Donald Leichter asks: Given the Giants’ obvious need for more run-stopping depth at defensive tackle, were you surprised they made no waiver claims despite having the No. 5 priority? Do you think they’re satisfied with the current group, or have you heard anything suggesting they’re pursuing a veteran run-stopper through a trade or free agency?

Ed says: Donald, yes I was surprised they did not try to claim anyone. I do believe they would have made a claim or two if players they wanted had been there.

Part of the process throughout the summer is identifying players you would like to claim if they are cut by other teams. I know that in the past the Giants have said there were players they wanted who ended up being kept by their teams rather than released. I would think that happened here, as well.

As much as they know there are a few spots that need upgrading, they likely felt that what was available was not better than what they had.

Matthew Sanzone asks: Questions from a practice squad dummy:
1. Do PS players travel with the team to away games?
2. Are they provided per diem money for expenses such as meals?
3. Do they have medical insurance as part of their compensation?

Ed says: Matthew, let’s look at each of these.

There is no set answer to that. Practice squad players who are going to play travel, of course. In some instances, they will travel as a reward. In many instances, they will not. Remember, that is 15 or so extra people to put on an airplace already filled with large people.
Practice squad players get free access to meals provided at team facilities. If they are traveling with the team, they are treated like everyone else.
Practice squad players get medical benefits. Here is a look from a few years ago at those benefits.

Pat Lam asks: Adding Jalin Hyatt to the practice squad is a headscratcher. Do you have any insight as to why?

Ed says: Pat, Hyatt was injured when the Giants were still in West Virginia and missed the rest of training camp and the entire preseason. He had been making some plays in practice, and the Giants were giving him an opportunity as a punt gunner.

Perhaps the Giants feel like the injury, caused by an overzealous hit from a defensive player, did not give this current coaching staff a full look at Hyatt. Perhaps they were looking for a speedy wide receiver to add to the practice squad, and didn’t see anyone better than Hyatt. He is still a draft pick the front office is invested in, and speed always gets players extra chances.

It isn’t that big a thing. Practice squad players come and go all the time, and Hyatt has no guarantees he will stay around.

Jerry Hand asks: Ed, I read all these articles about players the Giants should consider for Interior defensive line and they all contain the same basically unimportant stats… Pressures, sacks, Etc…none very impressive…If these guys were that good, they wouldn’t still be available… At this point all that really matters when considering interior defensive lineman is CAN HE STOP THE RUN? If these guys playing the 0, 1, 1.5 technique can stuff the run, our “stars” should take care of business with sacks and pressures… what say you?

Ed says: Jerry, I hear you. The stats that get cited are simply an effort to be complete and to provide a little broader picture of what a player has done.

I agree that the one thing that should matter if the Giants are looking for interior defensive line help, is whether or not that player has a history of holding up at the point of attack and being able to anchor against the run. Statistically, that isn’t easy to measure.

ctscan123 asks: Hope Springs eternal, but man, I still find the DT situation troubling. Alexander’s seeminglack of progress this off-season really interferes with the proposition that what we are moving forward with is going to be good enough. It just doesn’t feel like a potentially regressing second year player and a developing upside player who was nonetheless likely to be cut are enough behind two older starters. This really does seem to be a glaring week link in an otherwise successful offseason. It really feels like we should try and swing a trade using draft capital for a starting level player. Anyone in particular you would hypothetically target? What’s the most draft capital you would part with to address this need if you were the GM? Could we get someone serviceable for a fourth?

Ed says: CT, I don’t think the Giants are going to surrender a fourth-round pick for someone “serviceable.” I think you find someone “serviceable” on another team’s practice squad or via free agency. There are a lot of defensive tackles currently on the market. Nick Falato looked at some of those players recently.

One player Nick did not mention is journeyman defensive tackle Austin Johnson. He played for the Giants in 2020 and 2021, and at 32 could still be an option if the organization believes he has anything left.

At this point, I think all the Giants can do is try to plug the hole the best they can. They won’t be able to do anything big to address it until next offseason.

Scott asks: You have noted numerous times that Joe Schoen is generally good at reading what other teams want and anticipating their draft needs. Do you feel this is a skill he has actively refined and gotten better at over the years?

Looking back at his first draft in 2022, it feels like an instance where as a rookie GM he may have misread the room. When the Giants took Kayvon Thibodeaux at No. 5 and Evan Neal fell to them at No. 7, Schoen later noted he took Neal because Ikem Ekwonu was taken by Carolina at No. 6. If he had locked in Ekwonu at No. 5, he could have risked losing Kayvon to Carolina at No. 6, but it would have secured a player who panned out better than Neal. My question is: If Schoen did take Ekwonu at No. 5, and the Panthers subsequently took Kayvon Thibodeaux at No. 6, who do you think the Giants would have selected with the No. 7 pick?

Ed says: Scott, this will be a pure guess on my part. First of all, I think if the Giants had taken Ikem Ekwonu at No. 5, I think they still would have had a chance to take Thibodeaux at No. 7. I believe Carolina would have taken either Neal or Charles Cross at No. 6.

If it worked out the way you suggest, I can tell you who I would have banged the table for. If I had been in the draft room, I would have been begging Schoen to take safety Kyle Hamilton.

Knowing what I know about Schoen, though, I think he would have selected whichever of the wide receivers he liked most. Drake London, Garrett Wilson, Chris Olave, and Jameson Williams went from No. 8 to No. 12.

Doug Mollin asks: Assuming Berrios is activated for Game One punt return duties, the Giants will need to name 6 players from their current 53 man roster as inactive for Game One to get down to 48. Who do you think sits? Looking at Ourlads depth chart for the Giants, I’d guess: Fidone, Harris (give him more time to get ready), Davis (hopefully we don’t need our 9th OL), BJT, Campbell, Barnes.

Ed says: Doug, it’s early for this. There will probably be more roster-juggling next week. Plus, we do not know if Malik Nabers will play vs. Dallas.

I will take stab at this, anyway, based on what would happen if the game was this Sunday. I will do this based on Nabers playing, which is not a guaranteed.

First, I don’t believe Najee Harris will be inactive. Harbaugh said when he signed him that he expected Harris to be ready for Week 1, and the guy got 11 carries vs. the Jets. To me, indications are he will get a jersey. Everyone has got to realize that the Giants signed Harris expecting that he will have a big role on this team.

Also, I believe the Giants will elevate two players. Berrios is one. The second would be newly-signed linebacker Malik Harrison. I don’t think he signed to sit on the practice squad and not play.

My seven inactives if the game were this Sunday:

TE Thomas Fidone; OT J.C. Davis; WR Darius Slayton; CB Nic Jones; DT Bobby Jamison-Travis; LB Zaire Barnes; RB Tyrone Tracy.

I don’t like leaving Tracy inactive, but that is my guess regarding what might happen. Of course, there is more than a week to go, so we will see. I could easily be wrong about that one.