BLUE in Pa. asks: You might have a couple years on me but I am in the old-school camp of absolutely loving fullbacks on the roster. It\u2019s one of those positions that a job well done means people probably don\u2019t know your name. That is unless you have a radical nickname like \u201cthe Hynoceros\u201d! <\/p>\n
My question, though, is why we spent a big chunk of change on a guy that seems a lot like someone else we already have on the roster. Maybe I\u2019m just rooting for the \u201clittle guy\u201d, but I am a fan of Elijah Chatman. After reading about Ricard, it seems like they are basically carbon copies of each other only for a bit of size difference. Ricard has played defensive tackle and, if I remember correctly, Chatman was used a couple times previously as a fullback. If we are giving guys like Evan Neal a second second chance, why not go with a guy that is on the roster instead of setting a market contract just to bring in the same version from the previous team?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Blue, I appreciate the love for Chatman. These two things, though \u2014 Ricard and Chatman \u2014 are not the same. \u201cCarbon copies\u201d? Not close. Physically or in experience and proven ability to play the position.<\/p>\n
Ricard is a 6-foot-3, 300-pound nine-year veteran who has been named to the Pro Bowl six times. He has played 3,394 offensive snaps. He is a known quantity as a blocker and emergency receiver. He knows what head coach John Harbaugh wants, and will be one of the culture-setters for Harbaugh in the locker room.<\/p>\n
Chatman is a 5-foot-11, 280-pound defensive tackle who played a little fullback at SMU and has three career NFL snaps in that role. He is a novice at the position, and we have no idea whether or not he can catch the ball.<\/p>\n
John Harbaugh is not rebuilding. If he was, he would not have signed a player like Ricard. He wants the Giants to be a playoff team in 2026. He knows Ricard is one of the best in the game at what he does. Chatman might be able to be more than a novelty at fullback, but we don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n
I would not mind, though, if the Giants asked Chatman to convert to fullback full time. If he were willing, try to slide him through to the practice squad and let him learn from Ricard for a year. Ricard\u2019s contract only has one year of guaranteed money, so perhaps Chatman could take over that role after immersing himself in it and learning for a year.<\/p>\n
Jamison Scotto asks: There has been a lot of ink spilled over the past few years about the NY Giants and most recently Joe Schoen not utilizing void years in player contracts. With Dawn Aponte taking over as senior contract negotiator\/salary cap strategist and the new free agents the Giants have signed or contracts restructured, has that tool finally been employed to help with managing our salary cap? If so what does it look like and what impact has it made?<\/p>\n
Chris Chianese asks: Ed, GM Joe Schoen has taken the criticism on the lack of the Giants using void years. It looks like we are still nit shopping in the premium free agent isle as those players in the positions we need have gone elsewhere. So is it really Schoen since most think Harbaugh is the one steering the ship on the Giants free agent acquisitions or is it John Mara?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Oops!! Left this blank when I first posted. Sorry about that.<\/p>\n
What I will say, and meant to say, is that void years needs to be a tool in the Giants\u2019 contract bag. BUT, I think it is important to note that Schoen \u2014 and now Aponte \u2014 have not handed out any free agent contracts longer than three years. That needs to be recognized. Almost all of those three-year deals include only two years of guaranteed money, meaning the Giants are only financially tied to a player for two years should things not workk out.<\/p>\n
When I look at the contracts the Giants handed out this offseason, maybe they could have used void years in the Isaiah Likely and Tremaine Edmunds deals. But, I understand not doing to because they are not tied to those players financially for years after they might no longer be Giants.<\/p>\n
When I look at contracts the Giants have given out, where I might have used void years is in the long-term extension given to Andrew Thomas. His cap hits the next four years range from $24.045 million to $26.281 million. Those are big numbers. A couple of void years might have been a good idea.<\/p>\n
Mitch Rogers asks: In light of the terrible ranking of the MetLife turf, have you heard anything from current and former Giants about the surface? Do you think it is a possible deterrent for free agents choosing the Giants? <\/p>\n
Ed says: Mitch, I would love to know exactly what the awful home field ranking in the last NFLPA survey was actually about. There have been no real complaints about the playing surface since the turf was replaced about three seasons, and league data shows it as one of the safest surfaces in the league.<\/p>\n
Do I think it\u2019s a deterrent? Absolutely not.<\/p>\n
Boomer asks: I\u2019ve been wanting to ask this for a while…Im obviously not an expert and I haven\u2019t been at practices so they may have done this but…why haven\u2019t they tried Neal on the left side….He was Freshman All-American at left guard and he was also 1st team All-American at left tackle as a Jr….nothing as a right tackle his Soph yr….He may just be more comfortable on that side….and to top it off Runyan played right guard for the Packers before we signed him…Typical Giants or am I just looking too deep?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Boomer, Evan Neal was never going to displace Andrew Thomas at left tackle. He played all across the line at Alabama, and there was evidence of him succeeding on the right side. So, the Giants did not just blindly trust that he could convert.<\/p>\n
The Giants would probably have liked to convert him to guard in 2024, but need, injury and other circumstances kept him at right tackle. Last year when he worked at guard, Neal did work on both sides. Runyan, for what it\u2019s worth, has said that given his choice he would like to stay on the left side.<\/p>\n
I would not say Neal is more comfortable on the left side. There is no real evidence of that. He was there some last summer, but it has been years now since he spent considerable time there.<\/p>\n
Alan Glickenhouse asks: In the mock drafts the two most common selections by the \u2018experts\u2019 are Styles and Downs. I\u2019ve already had both as draft crushes this season. In addition to these two Reese and Tate are also Ohio State products predicted to go in Round 1 and all are probably top 10 to 15 picks. <\/p>\n
Three of these are on defense. Is there a case to be made that because there were three highly skilled players needing to be planned for by opposing offenses, this may have boosted these players\u2019 results? Most offenses need to handle one elite player on the other team at most, not three. As an example, if Styles were put on another team and he was the sole focus of the opposing offense, perhaps they could have neutralized him and he would not be viewed so highly? I guess my question is that are all three of these players ranked higher than they might have been because they played together?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Alan, I see your argument. I am not sure I buy it. I don\u2019t necessarily know how you plan for an off-ball linebacker or a safety, other than perhaps not targeting them when possible. I think that when you pay extra attention to a player that also tells scouts something about what it takes to work with that guy.<\/p>\n
I also think that Ohio State was playing at the highest level of college football. I would guess that many times there were several NFL-caliber players on the other side of the ball, too. Succeeding against that level of competition tells scouts something, as well.<\/p>\n
Bob Donnelly asks: We are through the initial stages of the 2026 free agency period – the first in the John Harbaugh era. What, if any, differences do you see in this year\u2019s approach vs the previous four years?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Bob, do you think that without John Harbaugh the Giants would have given a fullback and a punter market-setting free agent contracts? I would argue that they would not have signed either Jordan Stout or Patrick Ricard, much less given them the kind of money they did.<\/p>\n
Honestly, I think the biggest thing you see is that the day of strict adherence to how the NFL commonly sees positional value is out the window.<\/p>\n
Alan Backman asks: Do you ever look back in BBV at this time of year in previous years? If so, do you look at the general view from BBV vs how the season actually turns out ? As a long time reader of BBV, it just seems that there\u2019s always something to be optimistic about -Daboll, playoff win, Nabers, prediction of Jones big year, then Dart, now Harbaugh. And except for 2022, it\u2019s been badly losing seasons for 7 of the last 8 years. So I gotta ask. Are the rosy views justified? Or do you think its just BBV\u2019s role to be optimistic this time of year ? <\/p>\n
I can\u2019t speak for everyone. But I wish you would just tell us what you think and can support. To me, this is a team trying to turn the corner. Sure, they should have been better than 4 wins last year. But \u201cbetter\u201d doesn\u2019t mean playoffs. We were – 4.5 Net Points. That\u2019s a 6 or 7 win team. And hopefully getting better. Got a QB, WR1, RB1 and a HC. Plus some pass rush. Got some work to do. Nothing wrong with that. Do we need to make it more than it is?<\/p>\n
Ed says: Alan, yes, I do that on occasion. Especially during slow times when it is hard to come up with ideas. At those times I often look back to see what we did to keep the site active in those years, and sometimes that generates ideas.<\/p>\n
I think, though, you are asking more about whether or not I reflect on things I have written and whether or not I have been too optimistic at times. The answer to that is, yes, I am sure there have been times I was overly optimistic.<\/p>\n
As far as telling readers what I think, I believe I have done that for the last 19 years. I don\u2019t do it loudly. I always try to be reasoned and unemotional about it. Part of my job here is to create discussion. Sometimes I may not have a strong opinion. In those case, I just put the information out there and let the commenters do what they do.<\/p>\n