Isaac L. Scharf asks: Hello, do you really believe that the Giants are contenders, or are they pretenders? We may be seeing a little bit of last year’s Patriots given the fact that we haven’t played a single team over .500. So do you think the Giants are contenders or pretenders?
Ed says: Isaac, the standings say they are contenders. The oddsmakers say they are the favorites to win the NFC East. The way everyone else in the division has played absolutely tells us that the Giants should be in the race
for the division down to the wire.
Pretenders? Well, yes, if you think of them as a team that will or should be a legitimate Super Bowl contender.
I say just take the ride, enjoy it, and don’t try to label the Giants as anything.
Chris Holland asks: I am wondering if the NFL has made any statements regarding the rampant use of the “peanut punch”. From a safety perspective this is an accident waiting to happen. Ball carriers are going to start suffering injuries to their hands and lower arm as the result of having very large and strong defenders throw full force punches at the ball. I have already seen a player get accidentally punched in the head by one of these “peanut punches”. I get the feeling that the league will continue to allow this practice despite obvious safety concerns because the punches can result in turnovers and looks good on Sportscenter. I also think it’s basically impossible for the ball carriers to truly secure the ball against these punches. Thoughts?
Ed says: Chris, no, there have not been any statements about the Peanut Punch that I am aware of. The league did fine Dre Greenlaw for striking the helmet of Atlanta Falcons wide receiver on a missed punch. Maybe it comes up during the offseason when new rules are discussed. Until then, I don’t think anything changes.
Darren Silver asks: Supposing JJ McCarthy continues to play well and the Giants make the playoffs as a result, does it really make sense to then trade him for draft picks? Since he’s on a manageable contract, I think having a starting caliber QB back-up is much more valuable than any extra draft picks he might attract. We know Dart (or any starting QB) can go down in a heartbeat. Why not have QB insurance to save us from losing a season due to another Dart injury? I don’t think even a first round pick is as valuable as that would be.
Ed says: Darren, there is a line between having a good backup quarterback and having a full-blown quarterback controversy over who should be the starter. That can divide a locker room, a coaching staff, a fan base, and the media that pumps out content about the team every day. Nobody wants “who is playing quarterback this week?” to be a question that gets asked consistently. Or, for fans to start chanting the backup’s name the first time the starter plays poorly.
If McCarthy plays well enough, that is is the risk you run. If he plays well enough the rest of the season to deserve to be a starting quarterback, you automatically set up a “who’s team is it?” situation if they are both on the 2027 roster. Those never work out well.
Jameis Winston is the quarterback insurance, and he is fine for a few games. A lot of teams would love to have him.
The only way I see McCarthy and Dart both being on the team next season is if McCarthy plays OK, but the overall body of work makes it clear that the ceiling is higher with Dart and there is zero question about who is No. 1.
I still believe the ideal scenario is that McCarthy plays well enough to create a robust market for him this offseason, and that the Giants are able to turn that fifth-round pick they used to acquire him into multiple draft picks of higher value.
Could McCarthy play so well that the Giants actually decide to put Dart on the market in the offseason? Sure. But, we are nowhere close to that yet. It has been five quarters of football.
Tom Donlan asks: What is the biggest roster weakness that you think could prevent the Giants from winning the division, and how realistic can it (they) be upgraded via trade this year, and which parts of the Giants success look sustainable beyond this season so they challenge for the division with regularity? Also, when you look back at this deadline two years from now, what decision – or decision to stand pat – would tell us the Giants evaluated themselves correctly?
Ed says: Tom, I think the biggest roster weakness the Giants need to address is defensive tackle. D.J. Reader is the only good, reliable interior defensive lineman they have. The run defense has been good at times, porous at other times. You can’t consistently defend the run if you can’t consistently hole the line of scrimmage.
The sustainable part of the Giants is that they will have John Harbaugh for the next few years. Rosters change, and there are a lot of unforeseen things. I think we have to see what decisions ultimately get made before speculating on the last part of the question. The generic answer would simply be the tell-tale sign of whether or not the Giants did the right thing would be how much success they have beyond this year.
Ronald Buchheim asks: Ed, have you talked with trainers or doctors about groin injuries in general or the one that Andrew Thomas has? Do you know whether it is wise to play through these injuries rather than resting completely? And whether playing through risks the injury becoming chronic and hampering the player’s subsequent career?
Ed says: Ronald, I have not asked anyone. Players play through injuries all the time. I’m sure there is some risk of making the injury worse, but the Giants wouldn’t put him out there if he wasn’t capable of playing or was risking damaging his career.
Michael Buscemi asks: Trying to understand the Colts philosophy — there’s four or five teams interested in Taylor. I don’t understand at this point the Colts demands if they want a number one and no one stepping up to the plate to pay a number one they have two choices — the first don’t do a trade, keep Taylor.
By playing him this week they risked the factor of injury which removes any trade ability why take a chance if you really want to trade him trade him or do nothing? Again the risk of injury playing him could remove any possible trade.
Ed says: Michael, the Colts, it seems, are going to play this out all the way to the trade deadline on Tuesday and see if anyone will get desperate and up their offer. There is risk, but if they hold him out and then don’t trade him that is not a good look for Indianapolis.
Brennan Lyons asks: I was wondering if you guys have heard any solid rumors about us pursuing Brian Thomas of Jacksonville? I really liked him coming out of LSU, along with Nabers, a few years ago. I would love to see them paired up again on the Giants.
I have seen reports that the Jaguars are looking for depth at Edge and are apparently intent on getting rid of Thomas. Do you think there would be any chance of trading Thibs for him? I doubt we will resign him after this year but I’m not so sure we would be willing to let him go now that we are in the midst of a legitimate playoff run. Do you think we can effectively replace Thibs for the rest of the season?
Long term, we would have control of Thomas for two more years than Thibs. Do you think the Giants would make that move?
Ed says: Brennan, I have not. The Giants, by all accounts, are focused on adding at defensive tackle or taking a big swing at a star running back.
I understand the idea of trading Kayvon Thibodeaux. The issue with that is that the Giants have already lost Brian Burns, Tremaine Edmunds, and Chauncey Golston to injury. Thibodeaux is important to the defense right now. If the Giants were not in prime position to make a playoff run trading Thibodeaux would be an obvious move. Now? Love him or not, he is an important piece of the defense.
Joseph LoBue asks: I found the Compensatory Free Agent chart that you put together last week quite informative (from a CFA process perspective) but even more interesting from a roster-building perspective. In theory, the chart suggests that, on paper, four of the free agents that the Giants gave up (Flott, Bellinger, Belton, Schlottman) were of roughly equivalent value to four that they gained (Likely, Newsome II, Stout, Ricard). In other words, on paper, the league viewed the two sets as equal. However, in reality, the four that they gained (in terms of talent, impact and fit) seem way more valuable from a roster-building standpoint than the four they lost. I recognize that this is a small sample size, but it further suggests to me that Harbaugh really knows what he is doing in getting more for less. Your thoughts?
Ed says: Joseph, I’m glad you found that informative. I don’t know that I would draw any conclusions. Three of the players you mentioned — Isaiah Likely, Jordan Stout, Patrick Ricard — are all players Harbaugh brought with him from Baltimore.
Submit a question
Have a Giants-related question? E-mail it to bigblueview@gmail.com and it might be featured in our weekly mailbag.
