Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic
Could the Giants find their quarterback of the future by revisiting their recent past?
The Giants bypassed J.J. McCarthy and instead selected receiver Malik Nabers with the No. 6 pick of the 2024 NFL Draft after conducting extensive in-person homework on the quarterback who guided Michigan to a national championship.
“Malik was our guy,” general manager Joe Schoen said when asked about choosing between those two prospects. “He was the guy we targeted.”
One year later, the Vikings, who drafted McCarthy with the No. 10 pick, could use him as a trade chip if they re-sign surprise Pro Bowler Sam Darnold to a massive extension instead of franchise-tagging Darnold.
Would the Giants offer the No. 3 pick in 2025? Should they?
McCarthy once was a polarizing scouting evaluation inside the Giants, but circumstances change: The quarterback need is greater now, and the top two options in the 2025 draft class — Shedeur Sanders and Cam Ward — might be just out of reach.
The Post asked several NFL sources whether the Giants should trade No. 3 for McCarthy, working under assumptions that he will be graded higher than Sanders and Ward and that the Vikings will entertain offers.
Why the Giants should do it
If Sanders and Ward are going to be the top-two picks, the Giants will need to trade multiple picks to the quarterback-needy Titans (No. 1) or Browns (No. 2) to move up. It sounds like a big risk when the early consensus in scouting circles is that neither Sanders nor Ward would have been higher than the fourth-best quarterback in the 2024 class.
Swapping spots from No. 3 to No. 2 to secure a quarterback (Mitch Trubisky) cost the Bears two third-rounders and a fourth-rounder in a trade with the 49ers in 2017.
So, the Giants would acquire a better player in McCarthy for a lesser cost: just the No. 3 pick instead of No. 3 and more. And McCarthy only would be owed a bargain $8.3 million total over three seasons (instead of the standard four-year rookie contract).
“I would do it if it’s a given that I had him higher than this year’s quarterbacks — and some teams won’t have one or both of [Sanders and Ward] at that level,” an NFC executive said. “Once you get J.J., you find ways to keep good players. If you think a quarterback is talented, I don’t care if you get him for No. 3, No. 6 or No. 9.”
McCarthy also would arrive with the benefit of having spent his rookie year in head coach Kevin O’Connell’s quarterback-maker system. There was pre-injury buzz that McCarthy might win the Week 1 starting job after his impressive preseason debut.
“When J.J. got hurt, I thought it might have been the best thing that ever happened to him,” the executive said, “because he gets a redshirt year under Kevin.”
ESPN NFL Draft analyst Mel Kiper Jr. said recently on “Unsportsmanlike” that the Giants should trade No. 3 for McCarthy.
“If you look at his grade last year compared to the grades this year of the quarterbacks,” Kiper said, “he would be the No. 1 guy.”
The value of No. 3 in the 2025 draft also could be less than the value of No. 6 in 2024.
“Not all draft classes are the same,” one former NFL executive said. “Last year’s first-round class was particularly strong.”
Why the Giants should not do it
Since the Giants passed on McCarthy, he has undergone two knee surgeries (torn meniscus) and hasn’t thrown a regular-season pass.
The unknown about the injury is a major drawback, but all trades are made pending physicals, so the Giants could bring McCarthy in for a medical evaluation before a final commitment.
“There’s no way to know for sure about his knee until he’s on the field,” one NFC scout said. “I wouldn’t do it. Would you buy a car if all you saw was a very nice picture on FaceTime and then were told, ‘It got in a minor fender-bender, but it’s good as new now?’ His ability to make plays with his legs was one of his main tools.”
The optics would reek of hot-seat desperation by Schoen if the Giants decided that a healthy McCarthy was not worthy of No. 6 in 2024 but is worthy of No. 3 after a season-ending injury and with fewer years of team control.
“I like McCarthy as a prospect more than Sanders and Ward based on grades,” ESPN NFL Draft analyst Matt Miller said, “but I wouldn’t trade No. 3. I think it’s bad value for something you haven’t seen. How much was he really able to do this year to learn to put him in a position to play next year?”
Second-guesses would go like this: The Giants should’ve drafted McCarthy over Nabers as insurance for Daniel Jones failing, given the rookie a taste of action in a lost season and then gotten McCarthy a No. 1 receiver like Tetairoa McMillan in 2025.
“I wouldn’t make the decision until late April,” the NFC executive said. “I have three months to gather more information — and evaluate the top-five non-quarterbacks — before I have to pull the trigger.”
What would the Vikings think?
After 20 years of watching the rival Packers groom quarterback successors with four-year plans — Brett Favre to Aaron Rodgers to Jordan Love — the Vikings might want to copy that blueprint.
However, it would be enticing for a team coming off a 14-3 season to add a high-impact defensive starter to load up for a potential Super Bowl run in 2025.
The Vikings also could replenish their draft capital after two first-round trades in 2024 left them with just a first-rounder and two fifth-rounders in 2025.
But is it enticing enough to nearly double McCarthy’s salary-cap charge? Keeping him as a backup would cost $4.96 million while trading him would accelerate a $9.53 million dead-cap charge.
“I’m not doing it for them,” the NFC executive said. “It’s too hard to find your guy. If you think it’s McCarthy, I’m keeping both Darnold and McCarthy as long as possible.”
The irony is that the Vikings, who are flush with $71.33 million in salary-cap space, according to overthecap.com, could re-sign Giants’ cast-off Daniel Jones as Darnold’s backup — possibly for a replica of Darnold’s one-year, $10 million contract in 2024.
“I don’t think the Vikings can know right now,” Kiper said. “I’m letting this all play out.”
Other machinations of a trade
Acquiring McCarthy for just a second-round pick like the Dolphins did in 2019 when the Cardinals moved on from Josh Rosen after one season is unrealistic, though the NFC scout he would consider that as a “fallback plan” if it became an option.
But what if the Giants got creative? Could they trade down within the top 10, stockpile other picks and then trade their later top-10 pick for McCarthy while convincing the Vikings that it is still better value than when he was picked at No. 10?
“If No. 3 becomes No. 7,” the current executive said, “then you get J.J. and maybe two other pieces of the rebuild puzzle.”
Could the Giants trade No. 3 and a mid-round pick for McCarthy and the Vikings’ first-round pick (projected to be No. 28 pending the outcome of the playoffs)?
No. 3 is valued at 2,200 points, No. 28 at 660 points and No. 10 (McCarthy) at 1,300 points on the Jimmy Johnson-created trade value chart. So, the math works out but …
“I don’t think Minnesota will trade McCarthy,” Miller said.
