With the Super Bowl on the horizon, let’s talk about ways to fix the New York Giants in this week’s mailbag. Again, this week's questions are comprised of a whole bunch of your emails. Thanks for the submissions. Keep ‘em coming. Feel free to offer up questions on Twitter with the hashtag #GiantsAfterDark, on Facebook or via email at Jordan.raanan@espn.com.
Now let’s get to work:
I’ve been seeing a lot of mock drafts with Clemson QB Deshaun Watson going to Houston at 25. I’ve seen one with the Giants taking Watson at 23. If Watson is available at 23, do you think the Giants should take him? --Mack
Raanan: Plain and simple, yes. Watson might take a few years to develop, but that is fine. He can sit behind Eli Manning for two years or so. He has all the skills and his intangibles (huge for a quarterback) are off the charts.
There’s little doubt in my mind that if there were a quarterback the Giants really liked (such as Watson) they wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger. They’re admittedly looking for Manning’s successor and I heard as far back as November they were looking closely at quarterbacks. Coach Ben McAdoo also was in Green Bay when they drafted someone at No. 24 named Aaron Rodgers with Brett Favre on the roster. Favre was 35 at the time; Manning is currently 36. That seemed to work out OK for the Packers.
The last two seasons have been exceptionally kind to Giants sophomore second-round picks -- [Weston] Richburg last year was a top-5 PFF rated center, and then All-Pro season this year from [Landon] Collins. Maybe nothing more than a coincidence, but what should the Giants expect from [Sterling] Shepard in year 2? --Matt
Raanan: The future is bright for Shepard. On the surface, 65 catches for 683 yards and eight touchdowns isn’t special, but it’s solid for a rookie. Only New Orleans’ Michael Thomas had a more productive rookie season. I wouldn’t expect Shepard to be an All-Pro next year, but there should be a nice jump. Let's put him in the 1,000-yard range. The grind of the season seemed to wear on him a bit this year. That will not happen in year two. The Giants and even some defensive backs on opposing teams continue to rave to me about his route running. That only gets better with more experience.
Love reading your articles! I'm one of those Giants fans who believe that our offense let us down drastically this season. I don't think it's any one thing, but a combination of a few things: bad offensive line play, no fullback, no real outside threat at wide receiver (no offense to VC), no true tight end and simply horrible, unimaginative, predictable plays. All these things feed off each other to some degree. As far as the plays, everyone keeps talking about the head coach, but isn't Mike Sullivan the offensive coordinator? I honestly think that Coach McAdoo should move Sullivan and bring in a fresh, young mind to breathe some life and ingenuity into the offense. --Ronald
Raanan: Thanks for reading, Ronald. You’re certainly not alone in this thinking. I’ve heard nothing to indicate it’s happening, though. Sullivan is likely to return. But there was definitely something wrong with the offense and the predictability even bothered some players. But let’s be clear, this is McAdoo’s offense. He’s calling the plays. It will be interesting to see the tweaks and changes that are made. And I’d expect plenty. Sullivan is not one of them, although he might receive help.
Was wondering if you agree that part of the Giants' problem running the ball this past season is that they call so many plays out of the shotgun? I think it severely limits what running plays you can call. It seemed to me that when the running game finally picked up the last couple games of the season, part of it was Perkins, but part of it was running out of more of standard pro set. -- Rich
Raanan: There is no doubt that the Giants' running game lacked imagination. I had several people around the league tell me after watching the Giants that they saw the same two or three running plays on loop. Yes, playing in the shotgun so often is part of this equation. It limits the possibilities. It also hurt that opposing teams didn’t respect the Giants running game and more often than not handled it with six men in the box.
Reflecting upon one of your columns describing the potential cap casualties this offseason, the running back position appears to be fairly concerning. If [Rashad] Jennings is cut (as you said is expected) and [Shane] Vereen is on the bubble, that leaves only one RB on the roster who made any sort of valued contribution in Paul Perkins. (Bobby Rainey’s step kickoff step out that the 3-yard line knocks him out as a “valued contributor.”) Obviously handing the starting role to a second-year RB with minimal experience isn’t idea, so what do the Giants do? Try to make a splash and go after someone like Adrian Peterson, should he become available, even with his health concerns? Or is there another veteran RB out there who could serve as a complementary piece to Perkins and help him along to becoming an every-week starter? --Keith
Raanan: Well, let’s start off by saying Vereen was on the list, but I expect him to return, health permitting. Still, in my estimation, the Giants need to make a splash at running back either in the draft or free agency, even if it’s a proven veteran such as Peterson, who would only make sense at a greatly reduced price. The Giants just didn’t have enough talent at running back this season. It needs to improve. Look no further than their longest run being 25 yards. That’s insufficient, and don’t give me the line that the offensive line wasn’t good. Their running backs reached the secondary at times. They just weren’t able to turn any solid runs into game-breaking plays.
