Jeffrey Greenberg raises an intriguing question: With all the buzz surrounding the Giants potentially trading up for a quarterback, let’s explore a different angle: could they consider moving up to select Marvin Harrison Jr.?

My rationale for this suggestion is based on the belief that Harrison is a generational talent and many analysts regard him as the top prospect in this year’s draft. With four quarterbacks likely to be drafted within the top five, including teams that might leap ahead of the Giants, acquiring Harrison might only necessitate a modest trade involving a Day 2 or 3 pick along with their #6 overall pick. Should the Giants take this bold step to secure a foundational player for the future?

Ed responds: Jeffrey, to begin with, I find the term “generational talent” quite overused and frankly tiresome. It has become somewhat of a cliché in sports discussions. However, I do acknowledge that Harrison is a tremendous prospect and is widely regarded as the best wide receiver in this draft class, if not the best overall.

Despite that, I would adamantly oppose the idea of trading up for Harrison. I seriously doubt that Joe Schoen would entertain such a move either. The reality is that making such a trade could mirror Dave Gettleman’s decision to ignore potential offers for the No. 2 pick when he chose Saquon Barkley, which ultimately didn’t pay off.

Why would the Giants trade up for Harrison when they could potentially select Malik Nabers or Rome Odunze, both of whom are projected to be immediate No. 1 receivers in the NFL and are also available in this draft class? One or both of these players will likely still be on the board at pick No. 6.

Is the gap between Harrison and Nabers/Odunze significant enough to justify giving up a second-round pick that could be critical for this year and a first or second-round pick in 2025 that could be pivotal in securing a quarterback next year? I don’t believe so.

From my perspective, sacrificing valuable draft assets—especially those that might help in acquiring a future franchise quarterback—for Harrison would be a grave mistake. The focus should be on moving up for a quarterback, or not trading up at all.

ctscan123 expresses concern: Amidst the discussions about quarterbacks and wide receivers, I feel like we’re overlooking a crucial aspect. Am I crazy for thinking that our situation at cornerback is dire? I mean, what’s happening there? Banks is slated as CB1 and he had a dismal 51 rating in his rookie year. He wasn’t exactly a standout, and yet he’s at the top of the depth chart? Who exactly is our CB2? Is it Strong safety? Mills? That’s a significant downgrade from McKinney. I haven’t heard much about how we’re planning to address such a troubling situation. What are your thoughts?

Ed responds: Absolutely, CT. The Giants are in dire need of cornerback support. As I write this, there’s an expectation that they will meet with Tre’Davious White, a former All-Pro cornerback from the Buffalo Bills. While he may not be at the peak of his powers anymore, if he can stay healthy, he could still perform adequately as a CB2 on a reasonable contract.

I anticipate that the Giants will prioritize cornerback in the upcoming draft, whether or not they sign White or another veteran. If they decide to trade back in Round 1, cornerback could certainly be a target. Only time will tell.

In terms of safety, I expect Dane Belton to play a more significant role this season. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if they draft another safety at some point if the opportunity arises.

Roy Koeslag inquires: Do you foresee the Giants implementing a running back by committee approach this season? It certainly appears that way given the players we currently have.

Ed responds: Yes, it seems increasingly likely. This is a common strategy employed by many teams today. Devin Singletary is expected to take the lead and receive the most carries, but he has never handled the volume that Barkley was accustomed to. Reports suggest that the Giants are also looking for another affordable veteran to bolster depth at this position. Additionally, they have Eric Gray, who may play a larger role this year. A mid- to late-round draft pick could also be in the mix.

Lawrence Kenney asks: With the signing of Brian Burns to a lucrative contract, are we creating a dilemma of sorts?

If Kayvon Thibodeaux continues to improve, he will inevitably look to Burns’ contract as a benchmark.

Considering that salary caps fluctuate, do you think it’s feasible to compensate two young edge rushers at that level simultaneously?

Ed responds: Lawrence, as you mentioned, that’s a great dilemma to have. Yes, it is certainly possible. While there would be a ripple effect, paying substantial amounts to both Burns and Thibodeaux would indeed impact other areas of the roster, but it is achievable.

By the time the Giants face this decision, they may be structuring their team around a quarterback on a more affordable rookie contract. However, there’s no way to know that at this moment.

The Giants will address this issue when it arises, but if they are determined to compensate both players at competitive rates, they will find a way to make it work.

Brian Misdom asks: As we look at mock drafts, it seems almost a given that one of the top three wide receivers will be available for the Giants at the sixth overall pick.

But what if there’s a run on wide receivers that leads to selections 3-5? While it’s unlikely that one of Maye/Daniels/Caleb would still be available, it would eliminate the chance to fill what I see as one of the biggest remaining gaps in our lineup: a true WR1.

What if they have an interest in the remaining quarterback? How do you think the Giants would adapt? The prevailing assumption has been QB or WR for that sixth pick, but such a scenario could derail those plans. What are your thoughts?

Ed responds: Brian, I don’t foresee any major pivot in strategy. I believe it will be quarterback or wide receiver for the Giants at No. 6, with no alternatives. I think the quarterbacks they are genuinely interested in are Drake Maye or J.J. McCarthy. If they select a wide receiver, it would likely be Malik Nabers or Rome Odunze.

The real question arises if McCarthy and one or both of the receivers are still on the board. I would be lying if I said I had a definitive answer. If the top four quarterbacks are gone, might they consider trading down? Possibly, but passing on Nabers/Odunze would be a tough decision.

Edwin Gommers notes: I read your article about Simmons. Here’s a thought: At Clemson, Simmons played a hybrid LB/S role. I believe his coverage skills are solid. He’s quite fast based on his 40-yard dash and has good height. Would it make sense to transition him to safety in place of the recently departed McKinney?

Ed responds: Edwin, I’m not sure why so many in the fan base are so intrigued by Isaiah Simmons. Yes, he was a former first-round pick, but he played just one-third of the defensive snaps last season and had very little real impact.

Regarding your question, no, moving him to safety would not make sense. Simmons is a 240-pound linebacker who can occasionally line up at safety in specific sub-packages or matchups. He has only played 65 snaps there over four years. He is primarily a linebacker with the capability to do other things on occasion.

If Simmons fits into Shane Bowen’s defensive scheme in a limited role and the price is right, the Giants may consider bringing him back. If not, they will not pursue him.

Jim Cardamone asks: Recent mock drafts and commentary have been focused on QB and WR as the most likely targets for the Giants at #6. While the Giants clearly need a big-bodied, genuine #1 WR, I believe this draft class is deep enough that they should avoid using the #6 pick on that position. The leading QBs are likely to be off the board by then. I wanted your perspective on this situation. What if they solidify the O-Line with Joe Alt at #6 and then target a WR in the second round? Players like Ja’Lynn Polk, noted for contested catches, or Troy Franklin, who combines smoothness with confidence, or Roman Wilson, known for his NFL-level speed and decision-making, could be available.

Ed responds: Jim, as I mentioned in response to Brian Misdom’s question, I believe that if the Giants remain at No. 6, it will be a choice between a quarterback or a wide receiver. That’s all there is to it. They made significant investments in the offensive line during free agency, adding two starters and five players overall.

The left tackle position is solidified with Andrew Thomas, while the right tackle will likely be either Evan Neal or Jermaine Eluemunor, with the other shifting inside to guard. I can see the Giants drafting a developmental tackle in the middle rounds, but I can’t envision them bypassing a potential No. 1 receiver or a quarterback for a tackle they currently don’t need, especially one who would require a transition from left to right.

I could see them adding a guard who could potentially compete for a starting role or serve as a quality backup on Day 2 or early Day 3.

Nate Carter asks: After viewing Chris Simms’ QB rankings, where he places Bo Nix as his number 3 QB in the “franchise” category, I couldn’t help but wonder; If you were Joe Schoen and Brian Daboll and your scouting department shared that assessment, how would you approach the draft? Can you justify taking Nix at 6? Would you consider trading down? I’m interested in your thoughts.

Ed responds: Personally, I cannot justify selecting Bo Nix at No. 6. I just don’t see the high ceiling in his game. But, what do I know?

Everyone has their opinions. Everyone tries to evaluate talent and film to the best of their abilities. However, nobody truly knows. If they did, the success rate for drafting quarterbacks in the first round would be much higher than the current 30-40% range over the last 15 years.

Chris Simms undoubtedly possesses more knowledge about quarterback play than I do. That’s why I seek him out for insights during the NFL Scouting Combine—he’s not inviting me on ‘PFT Live’ to share my insights. That doesn’t mean he’s infallible, nor does it imply that I am.

Could I see selecting Nix in a trade-down scenario? Absolutely. If Schoen and Daboll believe he is a superior long-term option compared to their current options, then it’s a possibility.

Seth Friedman asks: There seems to be a significant amount of attention surrounding J.J. McCarthy as a potential pick for the Giants at #6 in the draft. While QB remains a mystery for the Giants, little discourse has emerged suggesting that Schoen and his team might be trying to divert attention from their true intentions in the first round.

If there’s a perception that the Giants are set on McCarthy at #6, it could be advantageous for Schoen and the team. There’s already considerable chatter indicating that the Vikings are looking to jump ahead of the Giants in Round 1. If that occurs, it could push additional WR talent towards the Giants if the Vikings follow through.

What are your thoughts?

Ed responds: Seth, we are definitely in smokescreen season. There’s been speculation that the Giants may pursue McCarthy or Drake Maye. Some believe they will wait patiently at No. 6 and see how everything unfolds. Others speculate they might trade down to acquire more assets.

We will have to wait and see. If the Giants are fine with not selecting a quarterback with their first choice, then enticing the Vikings to trade up in front of them would certainly provide them with more options.

Vincent Moody asks: In recent weeks, there has been considerable speculation linking JJ McCarthy to the Giants, with whispers that they may even trade up to secure him. I find it puzzling how a quarterback who was seen as a second- or third-round talent at the end of the college season could suddenly rise to potential fourth overall choice. His college tape remains unchanged, so what has changed? Additionally, do you think the Giants are intentionally spreading this information to prompt the Vikings or another team to leap ahead of them to draft a quarterback, thereby increasing their chances of obtaining the receiver they desire or acquiring a better haul in a trade down?

Ed responds: Vincent, as I mentioned earlier, this is indeed smokescreen season. It’s challenging to discern what’s genuine and what isn’t. We will eventually find out.

I want to address the ‘what does the NFL see in McCarthy?’ question. I reiterate that there’s a lot more to this than the highlights available on YouTube. The extensive analysis conducted by various sources, along with conversations we’ll never be privy to, plays a significant role. In-person interviews and evaluations, such as those conducted at the Combine and pro days, are critical. The fact that he has achieved substantial success in both high school and college—he’s a proven winner—also factors in.

In my view, the tape reveals that he can make all the necessary throws, possesses the athleticism to function off-script, demonstrates accuracy in hitting receivers in stride, and can make crucial plays in critical moments. At just 21 years old, he still has ample room for growth and development.

Ron Corcillo asks: It appears that Shane Bowen primarily utilized a 4-3 defense in Tennessee. However, the Giants’ personnel seems better suited to a 3-4 scheme. Dexter Lawrence excels as a nose tackle, and Burns and Thibodeaux appear more effective as stand-up rushers from the OLB position rather than lining up as defensive ends. Do you think Bowen will maintain the Giants in a 3-4 formation or shift to a 4-3? If he opts for a 4-3, how would that impact the roster? Would Thibodeaux and Burns transition to defensive ends? Would we need to add more outside linebackers?

Ed responds: Ron, the Titans operated primarily as a base 3-4 team under Bowen, and I anticipate the Giants will adopt the same approach. Kayvon Thibodeaux and Brian Burns are both suited to play as 3-4 outside linebackers who can also line up with their hands on the ground as defensive ends on occasion. The Giants wouldn’t have made a significant investment in Burns if he didn’t align with how Bowen intends to structure his front seven.

Mendy questions: Why do you think the Giants opted not to place the franchise tag on McKinney or Barkley and then attempt to trade one of them for draft picks? That’s how they acquired Burns. Clearly, there were teams willing to pay either player more than the franchise salary, so they likely would have relinquished draft choices as well. I believe this was particularly true for McKinney.

Ed responds: The Giants and Saquon Barkley’s representatives mutually agreed not to tag him again. Doing so would have only created animosity, and there was no guarantee that they would receive trade offers worth pursuing. You can be certain they evaluated the market before making their decision.

Regarding McKinney, the four-year, $67 million contract he received from the Green Bay Packers was an anomaly in a financially depressed safety market. The franchise tag would have been $17.123 million, which is what the Packers are now paying him annually. I don’t believe any team was going to make that move.

There’s no way the Giants wanted to be stuck with McKinney at that price if they couldn’t find a trade partner. Again, they probably understood that the market wouldn’t be favorable.

Chris Fiegler asks: Will the Giants receive compensatory picks in 2025 for the signings of Saquon Barkley with the Philadelphia Eagles, Xavier McKinney with the Green Bay Packers, and Tyrod Taylor with the New York Jets?

Ed responds: We won’t have a definitive answer to that until next offseason, but it doesn’t seem likely. The formula for compensatory picks is based on the free agents lost and gained, and the signings the Giants made appear to have offset what they lost. Here’s the quote from Over The Cap, excluding the signing of Matt Peart by the Denver Broncos: