* EAST RUTHERFORD, NJ*
- Welcome to "Michael Eisen's Mailbag." Every few days, Giants.com's exclusive Writer/Editor Michael Eisen will pick some of the best questions and comments we receive via email* and answer them right here! If you'd like to submit a question or comment to Michael, click here.
What are the chances of sending the 1st round pick to Arizona in exchange for Anquan Boldin? Just think what eli could do with a target like that!!!
The Mailbag has received many questions about potential trades for wide receivers on other teams. I am forbidden by organization policy to comment on such proposals, because those players are under contract to other teams. I know there is tremendous interest out there regarding trade possibilities as the NFL Draft approaches. For some insight, you can read the story on Giants.com about Jerry Reese's Thursday news conference. But I can't talk specifically about players on other teams and the possibility of acquiring them in a trade.
Dear Mr. Eisen,
Everyone seems to be freaking out about us getting a wideout who can replace Plax physically. So I decided to look over the roster and noticed that we have 6'6" Micah Rucker who happens to have a 42" vertical. It seems as though we've already addressed our red zone threat need. Could you tell us a little more about him and how the giants are planning to use him? Also am I crazy or are most Giants fans overlooking our most glaring need which is linebacker? What are the chances that the ultra-secretive Mr. Reese packages some picks to go get us a stud linebacker, or perhaps a DE who doesn't want to play end anymore (ala Julius Peppers)?
Micah Rucker is an intriguing prospect, but I think it's premature to say he'll be a factor in the red zone simply because he's 6-6. There's the little matter of making the roster. Rucker has never played in a regular season game, so I think he needs to prove he can play before we start assigning him a specific role. I'm not sure I agree about a "glaring" need at linebacker, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it's a position that's addressed in the draft. Regarding defensive end…with Justin Tuck, Mathias Kiwanuka, Osi Umenyiora and Chris Canty, I don't see the Giants making a play for a high-priced veteran.
Giants need a big receiver yes and they have draft picks to use but the Giants have done an excellent job in the draft last few years and these draft picks have been a big part of the teams success. Hate to over pay for a big name and slow down the continued growth and depth to the team that the draft has given us. What about adding another running back? Is that in the mix?
Regarding all these questions about the draft, all I can do is repeat what Jerry Reese says: "Anything is possible in personnel." At his news conference yesterday, Reese was asked if he felt a need to acquire another running back in the wake of Derrick Ward's departure. This was his response: "We like the running backs that we have. Brandon (Jacobs) is Brandon and (Ahmad) Bradshaw, obviously, he will get more touches now. So he is chopping at the bit to touch the ball more. So he will start out as number two but he has got to earn the number two spot. Danny Ware is the guy who we think has a lot of potential. Obviously there are good players in the draft as well. So we feel good about our running backs."
Guy Whimper and Robert Henderson are two recent draftees that spent 2008 on Injured Reserve. Do you think either can project as a starter or quality back up (in Henderson's case if he develops does it help the Giants consider packaging some of their D- Line experience to either move up in the draft or trade for a WR)? Also what is a projected ceiling for Andre Woodson?
I think if Guy Whimper is healthy he will be the No. 1 backup offensive tackle. He has some ability, but I don't see him beating out David Diehl or Kareem McKenzie. Henderson probably has a way to go. He was a sixth-round draft choice who missed his entire rookie season and he plays a position, defensive end, where the Giants have two Pro Bowlers (Tuck and Umenyiora), a former first-round draft choice (Kiwanuka) and a season and versatile free agent acquisition (Canty). Woodson remains a project, but his college statistics were very impressive.
Michael, I was wondering if you could help me understand why the NFC East teams are traveling to the NFC North for a second year in a row. Shouldn't we be hosting the Vikings this season and traveling to Arizona? As I understand it, we will now play at Minnesota 3 years in a row (2008, 2009, and 2010). I thought this was never supposed to happen (with a non-divisional team) in the new schedule format that the NFL adopted in 2002 when it expanded to 32 teams.
It's just the way the NFL scheduling formula has worked out. Actually, the NFC East faced the entire NFC West last season and is playing the NFC South in 2009. The sites of those games (for example, the Giants hosting Carolina and Atlanta and traveling to New Orleans and Tampa Bay) were determined years ago, when the NFL released every team's slate of opponents for 2002-2009. But every team's schedule includes one home and one road game against teams from the other two NFC divisions that are based on the standings from the previous season. For example, this year the Giants are hosting the NFC West team that finished in the same place in the standings as the Giants in the NFC East. The Giants and Cardinals both finished first in their respective divisions, so Arizona will visit Giants Stadium. At the same time, the 2008 and 2009 schedules called for the Giants to visit the corresponding NFC North team. The Giants and Vikings both finished second in 2007, so the Giants traveled to Minnesota last year. They both finished first in 2008, so the Giants will again play in the Metrodome this year. The NFL hasn't announced if the formula used from 2002-09 will continue in 2010. But if it does, as expected, the NFC East will face the NFC North. So the Giants will visit the Vikings for the third consecutive season (as well as Green Bay) and host Chicago and Detroit.