If Giants draft a quarterback, what will they do with Daniel Jones?
The Giants seem to be serious about drafting a quarterback. Specifically, about drafting Drake Maye — if they can get him.
If they do, what happens with Daniel Jones?
They gave him a contract last year that guaranteed the first two years of the contract. Jones has $35.5 million in fully-guaranteed salary for 2024.
The Giants could try to trade Jones. They'd have to be willing to pay a large chunk of his salary, like the Jets did in splitting the $5.5 million obligation to Zach Wilson with the Broncos. Buy why not pay $17.75 million to move Jones, if keeping him means paying him $35.5 million to ride the pine.
That's the other question. Would he play in New York or would he be benched? They signed Drew Lock early in free agency. His contract was curiously underreported to omit a $3 million incentive package. Which might have been calculated to conceal the team's interest in drafting a new quarterback.
If they don't trade Jones, it would be Jones and Lock and Maye on the depth chart. Would Jones be QB1? Would he start until Maye is ready, like Kurt Warner did 20 years ago when Eli Manning was a rookie?
The situation has hot-mess potential written all over it. Which makes sense. The Giants have been a hot mess since winning Super Bowl XLVI. Since 2012, they have the fourth fewest regular-season wins in the NFL, with 76.
If they do indeed get a quarterback to replace Jones, they need to figure out what to do with Jones in 2024.
It becomes an interesting decision point for the Giants on Jones, especially since they've blown each of the two prior key decision points. They failed to pick up his fifth-year option when they should have. Then, they gave him a significant new contract when they shouldn't have.
Some would say the Giants blew three decision points on Jones, dating back to April 2019 when they put his name on a draft card with the sixth overall pick in the draft. Given that they're currently thinking about using another top-10 pick on a new quarterback, that's not an unfair characterization.