As we do every week, I asked you to send in New York Giants questions with the #nygmail hashtag on Twitter and you obliged. Here are the results.

@DanGrazianoESPN when will the giants fire coughlin ? will them let him finish out the season? #nygmail

— Jared pepper (@philadelphianut) September 19, 2014

@DanGrazianoESPN: May as well get right to it, huh? It's worth pointing out that the person asking this question appears to be a Philadelphia fan, as opposed to a disgruntled Giants fan. But this is a question we are definitely starting to hear, again, and if the Giants keep losing it's going to keep getting asked. It's important to remember that, even if the Giants are going to decide to move on from head coach Tom Coughlin (far from a certainty), it wouldn't happen until after the season, That's just the way they operate. They let the season unfold and then make evaluations based on the entire 16-game sample, as opposed to two or four or six or eight games. I still think this is a two-year plan the Giants are beginning here, and that the goal is to see progress with the new offense by the end of 2015, and for that reason I believe Coughlin is here for at least two more years. But I also think a truly terrible (think 3-13) season could change a lot of people's minds. Coughlin is an excellent coach, and unquestionably the person the Giants' owners want coaching the team. But he's also 68, and if the organization thinks it's either far away from a turnaround or not headed in the right direction for one, it could decide to make a few long-view changes, and that could include Coughlin.

@DanGrazianoESPN when will Andre Williams finally break out of his shell? How long until we have a 100 yard rusher #nygmail

— Anarivicci (@AnariFBaby) September 19, 2014

@DanGrazianoESPN: I'm not sure exactly what "shell" rookie running back Andre Williams is in. He's a fourth-round rookie backup to a running back, Rashad Jennings, the team signed to a four-year, $10 million contract on the first day of free agency. Jennings is the starter and will be as long as he's healthy. Williams is a guy they like, but he's young and inexperienced and clearly behind Jennings on the depth chart. The Giants have used multiple-back systems in recent years, yes, but they need to see more out of Williams before making him a bigger part of the offense. I mean, everybody's on Victor Cruz for drops, but did you see the one Williams dropped Sunday? Hit him right between the numbers. He's got work to do before he's reliable. It also doesn't help that the Giants have faced two tough defensive fronts in the first two weeks with games against the Detroit Lions and Arizona Cardinals, and that's not getting any easier this week against the Houston Texans. So as for when Jennings (or I guess Williams, if Jennings gets hurt) rushes for 100 yards in a game? Maybe look to that Week 5 extra-rest home game against the Atlanta Falcons, who still don't have much up front of defense and aren't as incredible on the road as they looked at home Thursday night.

@DanGrazianoESPN @lindacohn Why are special teams so bad? #nygmail

— Zac Andrews (@z44ndrews) September 18, 2014

@DanGrazianoESPN: I think this is a more important than its simplicity makes it sound. The Giants have had issues on special teams -- return and coverage -- for a couple of years now, and to me it's as strong an indication as any of the problems they've had in the draft. If you're drafting well, you're constantly filling your roster pipeline with talented players who are talented enough to contribute on special teams hustle-type plays while they're hungrily working toward larger roles on offense or defense. If you're not drafting well -- and the Giants most definitely have not drafted well under GM Jerry Reese -- I think special teams are an area where that really shows up, because the overall talent depth on your roster is not good and the middle- and back-of-the-roster guys on other teams are good enough to beat you on talent and physical traits alone. So to me, the answer to your question is that the Giants' roster isn't deep enough with talent and is filling those special teams roles with substandard players.

@DanGrazianoESPN If we knew we needed time to gel, would it have been so wrong to play our starters for way more of the preseason? #nygmail

— Glenn (@plus_sign) September 19, 2014

@DanGrazianoESPN: Your premise is sound, but the Giants did have five preseason games, and their starters played in all five of them. Now, I guess your argument is that they should have played longer in those games. But the main point of preseason games is to finalize roster spots by evaluating players in NFL-level game situations who don't usually get the chance to play in those situations. So you do need to devote a certain amount of time in your preseason games to the second-, third- and fourth-stringers. All I can think here is what Tom Coughlin said about the starters after the final preseason game: "If they wanted to play more, they should have made some first downs." The fact is, the Giants' starters didn't sustain enough offense in the preseason to get the snaps you would have liked to see them get. For Eli Manning, 15 snaps was four or five possessions this preseason. By the time those possessions were over, it was time for the backups to play. So I guess you're right, but there are only so many minutes in those games. The Giants' starters had opportunities to get themselves ready, but they didn't play well enough.

Thanks for all of your questions. Enjoy the rest of your Saturday.