NY GIANTS 3 ROUND DRAFT SCENARIOS

The New York Giants hold the No. 3 overall pick in the 2025 NFL Draft, with eight total picks (Round 1: No. 3; Round 2: No. 34; Round 3: No. 65, No. 99; Round 4: No. 105; Round 5: No. 154; Round 7: No. 219, No. 246). With a 3-14 record in 2024, GM Joe Schoen and HC Brian Daboll face intense pressure from owner John Mara to address critical needs, particularly at quarterback, while leveraging draft capital and managing a projected $30–$40 million in 2025 cap space (per Over the Cap estimates). Below, I’ll outline realistic scenarios for the Giants’ first pick, considering team needs, trade options, other teams’ needs, best players available, owner pressure, draft capital, and cap constraints. I’ll then recommend the likely or optimal first three picks.

Giants’ Primary Needs (2025–2026)

1. Quarterback: The Giants cut Daniel Jones in 2024 and signed veterans Russell Wilson and Jameis Winston, but neither is a long-term solution. Mara has declared finding a franchise QB the top priority.
2. Defensive Line/Edge: Despite Brian Burns and Kayvon Thibodeaux, the Giants lack a dominant complement to DT Dexter Lawrence. They ranked bottom-five in defensive takeaways and need impact players.
3. Offensive Line: Injuries and inconsistency plague the line. Right guard (after failing to sign Will Fries) and depth at tackle/guard are priorities.
4. Playmakers (WR/CB): The offense lacks explosive weapons beyond Malik Nabers, and the secondary needs a shutdown corner. They ranked last in 20-yard pass plays.
5. Running Back/Linebacker: Depth behind Tyrone Tracy Jr. and a versatile linebacker could enhance the roster long-term.

Secondary Consideration: Other Teams’ Needs (2025–2026)

• Titans (No. 1): Need a franchise QB (Will Levis underwhelms) and offensive line help. Likely to take Cam Ward or trade down for capital.
• Browns (No. 2): Desperate for playmakers (WR or CB like Travis Hunter) and possibly a QB to move on from Deshaun Watson. Cap issues limit free agency.
• Patriots (No. 4): With Drake Maye at QB, they need offensive tackle, WR, or defensive playmakers (e.g., Abdul Carter).
• Jaguars (No. 5): Interior defensive line and secondary are priorities.
• Teams Behind (e.g., Raiders, Vikings, Saints): QB-needy teams may trade up for Shedeur Sanders, Jaxson Dart, or others.

Best Players Available (2025 Draft)

Based on consensus big boards (e.g., The Athletic, NFL.com):

• Cam Ward (QB, Miami): Elite arm, playmaking, experience. Likely No. 1.
• Travis Hunter (CB/WR, Colorado): Heisman winner, versatile. Top-5 lock.
• Abdul Carter (Edge, Penn State): Explosive pass rusher, 23 sacks in college. Top-5 candidate.
• Shedeur Sanders (QB, Colorado): Polished passer, football IQ, but average physical traits. Top-10.
• Ashton Jeanty (RB, Boise State): Dynamic RB, potential top-10.
• Jaxson Dart (QB, Ole Miss): Accurate, experienced, Day 1–2 range.
• Jalen Milroe (QB, Alabama): Athletic, inconsistent, Day 2 potential.
• Tyler Booker (G, Alabama): Elite interior lineman, Day 1–2.
• Mason Graham (DT, Michigan): Dominant interior defender, top-10.

Draft Capital and Cap Rate

• Draft Capital: Giants have five picks in the top 105, offering flexibility to trade up or down. They’re sixth in total draft capital (per Chase Stuart’s model).
• Cap Space: ~$30–$40M in 2025 allows free agency moves (e.g., veteran depth), reducing pressure to draft for every need. Wilson and Winston’s short-term deals don’t block a rookie QB.

Owner Pressure

John Mara’s mandate is clear: find a franchise QB. Schoen and Daboll are on the hot seat after back-to-back losing seasons, making a bold move at No. 3 likely. Trading up or securing a QB is critical to appease Mara, though a game-changer like Hunter or Carter could buy time if paired with a later QB.

Realistic Scenarios for Giants’ First Pick

Below are plausible scenarios for the No. 3 pick, incorporating trades, player selections, and strategic considerations.

Scenario 1: Stay at No. 3, Draft Shedeur Sanders (QB, Colorado)

• Rationale: If Ward goes No. 1 (Titans) and Browns take Hunter or Carter at No. 2, Sanders is available. The Giants view him as a potential franchise QB due to his accuracy and football IQ. He can sit behind Wilson/Winston, addressing Mara’s priority without trading assets.
• Pros: Saves draft capital, secures a QB, aligns with owner pressure. Sanders’ private workout with the Giants signals interest.
• Cons: Sanders’ average arm strength and ceiling may not match Ward’s upside. Passing on Hunter/Carter risks missing a generational talent.
• Impact: Addresses QB need for 2025–2026. Frees later picks for O-line or defense.

Scenario 2: Trade Up to No. 1 for Cam Ward (QB, Miami)

• Trade: Giants send No. 3, No. 34 (Round 2), and a 2026 1st to Titans for No. 1.
• Rationale: Ward is the consensus QB1 with elite arm talent and mobility. Titans, unsure about Levis, may trade down to stockpile picks for O-line or WR. The Giants jump the Browns to secure their QB, satisfying Mara’s urgency.
• Pros: Locks in a high-ceiling QB for 2025–2026. Ward’s playmaking boosts the offense.
• Cons: Costs significant capital, limiting ability to address O-line or D-line. Risky if Ward needs development time.
• Other Teams’ Needs: Titans gain picks to build around Levis or a later QB, addressing O-line (e.g., Tyler Booker).
• Impact: High-risk, high-reward move to appease ownership and reset the franchise.

Scenario 3: Stay at No. 3, Draft Travis Hunter (CB/WR, Colorado)

• Rationale: If Ward and Sanders go 1–2, or Giants don’t love Sanders, Hunter is a generational talent who can start at CB or WR. His versatility addresses the need for playmakers, boosting offense (with Nabers) or defense (opposite Deonte Banks).
• Pros: Best player available, immediate impact, high value at No. 3. Allows QB pursuit in Round 2 (e.g., Dart, Milroe).
• Cons: Delays QB solution, risking Mara’s wrath. Hunter’s best position (CB vs. WR) is debated.
• Impact: Enhances 2025 roster but requires a later QB plan (trade-up or 2026 draft).

Scenario 4: Stay at No. 3, Draft Abdul Carter (Edge, Penn State)

• Rationale: Carter’s 23 sacks make him a blue-chip pass rusher. Paired with Burns and Thibodeaux, he transforms the D-line, addressing the need for impact players. Giants could target a QB later (e.g., Dart at No. 34 or trade-up).
• Pros: Elite talent, fills a 2025–2026 need, preserves capital for QB moves.
• Cons: Non-QB pick may frustrate Mara. Crowded edge room (Thibodeaux, Burns) could prompt a trade (e.g., Thibodeaux).
• Impact: Bolsters defense but delays QB fix, relying on Wilson/Winston for 2025.

Scenario 5: Trade Down from No. 3, Target QB or Playmaker

• Trade Example: Giants trade No. 3 to Patriots (No. 4) for No. 4, No. 67 (Round 3), and a 2026 3rd. Patriots want Hunter or Carter; Giants target Sanders or a non-QB.
• Rationale: If Giants aren’t sold on Sanders, they gain capital to trade back into Round 1 for a QB (e.g., Dart) or draft a playmaker (e.g., Mason Graham, Tyler Booker). Patriots, not needing a QB, covet a blue-chip talent.
• Pros: Adds picks to address O-line, D-line, or RB. Flexible for QB pursuit later.
• Cons: Risks missing top QBs. Trading down may signal indecision, upsetting Mara.
• Other Teams’ Needs: Patriots need WR or edge to complement Maye, making Hunter/Carter appealing.
• Impact: Balances 2025–2026 needs but requires a precise follow-up QB plan.

Scenario 6: Trade Down Further, Stockpile Capital

• Trade Example: Giants trade No. 3 to Panthers (No. 8) for No. 8, No. 54 (Round 2), No. 113 (Round 4), and a 2026 2nd. Giants target a Day 2 QB (e.g., Milroe, Ewers) or lineman (e.g., Booker, Donovan Jackson).
• Rationale: Panthers need an edge rusher (e.g., Carter) after trading Brian Burns. Giants gain picks to address multiple needs (O-line, D-line, RB) while planning for a 2026 QB run.
• Pros: Maximizes capital, addresses depth. Cap space allows veteran signings.
• Cons: No immediate QB solution, high risk with Mara’s pressure. Delays franchise reset.
• Other Teams’ Needs: Panthers need defensive playmakers to rebuild.
• Impact: Long-term roster building but risky for 2025 success.

Scenario 7: Trade Up from No. 34 into Round 1 for a QB

• Trade Example: Giants stay at No. 3, take Hunter or Carter, then trade No. 34, No. 99, and a 2026 3rd to Vikings (No. 24) for Jaxson Dart.
• Rationale: If Sanders slides or Giants prefer Dart, they secure a playmaker at No. 3 and a QB later. Vikings, with only four picks, may trade down.
• Pros: Gets a blue-chip talent and a QB, satisfying Mara. Leverages draft capital.
• Cons: Costly trade-up reduces depth picks. Dart’s ceiling is lower than Ward/Sanders.
• Other Teams’ Needs: Vikings need picks to rebuild; QB-needy teams (e.g., Saints, Raiders) may compete for Dart.
• Impact: Dual impact for 2025 but sacrifices future flexibility.

Evaluating Scenarios

• Most Likely (Owner Pressure): Scenarios 1 or 2 (Sanders at No. 3 or trade up for Ward) align with Mara’s QB mandate. Schoen’s trips to scout Sanders and Ward suggest intent.
• Best Value (Draft Capital/Cap): Scenarios 3, 4, or 5 (Hunter, Carter, or trade down) maximize talent and flexibility, using cap space for veterans and later picks for a QB.
• Riskiest: Scenario 6 (trade down far) delays the QB fix, potentially costing Schoen/Daboll their jobs.
• Other Teams’ Influence: Patriots (No. 4) and QB-needy teams (Raiders, Vikings, Saints) could disrupt plans by trading up for Sanders or Dart, forcing Giants to act early.

Recommended/Likely First Three Picks

Given Mara’s pressure, the Giants’ dire QB need, and the draft’s top-heavy QB talent, the most likely and strategic path is to prioritize a quarterback while leveraging remaining picks for key needs. Here’s the recommendation:

1. Round 1, No. 3: Shedeur Sanders, QB, Colorado

• Why: Sanders is a polished passer with high football IQ, fitting Mara’s mandate. He’s available at No. 3 if Ward goes No. 1 and Browns take Hunter/Carter. His private workout with the Giants and Schoen’s scouting trips signal strong interest. Sitting behind Wilson/Winston allows development, addressing 2025–2026 QB need.
• Impact: Immediate franchise QB hope, frees later picks for O-line or defense.
• Alternative: If Sanders isn’t the pick, Travis Hunter (CB/WR) is the best player available, but this risks owner backlash.

1. Round 2, No. 34: Tyler Booker, G, Alabama

• Why: Booker is a mauler at guard, addressing the right guard need after missing Will Fries. His size (6-5, 325) and All-American status make him a Day 2 steal. The Giants’ O-line injuries demand a plug-and-play starter.
• Impact: Bolsters protection for Sanders/Wilson, enhancing 2025 offense.
• Alternative: Donovan Jackson (G/T, Ohio State) for versatility or a DT like Mason Graham if he slides.

1. Round 3, No. 65: Nic Scourton, Edge, Texas A&M

• Why: Scourton’s 49 pressures in 2024 complement Lawrence, Burns, and Thibodeaux, addressing the D-line need. A third-round edge rusher adds depth and future upside for 2025–2026.
• Impact: Improves pass rush, critical for a defense lacking takeaways.
• Alternative: Kaytron Allen (RB, Penn State) for RB depth or a CB like Azareye’h Thomas (Florida State) for secondary help.

Why This Plan Works

• QB Priority: Sanders at No. 3 satisfies Mara and secures a 2025–2026 cornerstone without burning extra picks.
• O-Line Fix: Booker stabilizes the line, protecting the new QB and boosting the run game.
• Defensive Impact: Scourton adds pass-rush depth, addressing a top need.
• Cap/Draft Capital: Staying at No. 3 preserves capital (five top-105 picks remain). Cap space allows veteran signings (e.g., secondary depth).
• Other Teams: Browns likely take Hunter or Carter, leaving Sanders. Patriots (No. 4) focus on tackle or WR, not QB, reducing trade-up threats.

Final Notes

• Trade Flexibility: If Sanders isn’t the guy, trading down to No. 4–8 (e.g., with Patriots or Panthers) for extra picks while targeting Dart or Milroe is viable. Trading up from No. 34 for a sliding Sanders or Dart is also possible if Hunter/Carter is taken at No. 3.
• Owner Pressure: Mara’s insistence on a QB makes Scenarios 1–2 most likely, but Hunter/Carter could be justified if paired with a Round 2 QB.
• 2026 Outlook: If no QB is taken, the Giants’ 2026 1st-rounder becomes critical for a QB run, leveraging extra capital from a trade-down.