Mon 8 Dec 2008
I. Not Invincible
The first lesson from yesterday doesn’t have to do with “distractions†or even the absence of Plax. Rather, we learned again that even excellent teams are capable of sometimes playing very poorly. In brutal conditions – trust me, I was there – we turned in an awful performance against very good Eagle team that is probably one of the top five in the league right now. And we got our asses handed to us. It happens, even to 11-1 teams.
I’m assuming the Giants will bounce back against Dallas, although yesterday’s loss certainly raises the stakes for that one. Once that happens, everything will be well and good in G-Men nation again. In that sense, yesterday’s wasn’t a disturbing loss in that it shouldn’t shake our conception of who the 2008 Giants are: With all due respect to the Titans, we still have to be considered the best team in the league.
But the game reminded us that our path to another title isn’t inexorable. In any playoff game, we can come out sloppy and get knocked off. It has been a great season, but just being the best team in the league doesn’t guarantee a championship. Just ask the 2007 New England Patriots.
II. Eli and the Meadowlands Winds
On the other hand, here’s what emerged from Sunday’s game that has me worried going forward:
We know that teams will stack 8 or 9 in the box for the rest of the year, especially after yesterday. Therefore, the fate of our offense hinges on Eli, which means that we’re one bad Eli performance away from a heartbreaking playoff loss (and, even though the prospect off a post-season loss is not unlikely, anything short of a Super Bowl title will be severely disappointing.)
So it’s all up to Eli, which is fine except for this: Because we have home-field advantage, there is a chance that we’ll catch a windy-as-hell day like we did today. And if we do, I think we’re in trouble. Because as good as Eli has become, he is especially vulnerable to the Giants Stadium winds because he doesn’t throw a tight spiral.
Right now, this is just a theory: I hope Eli proves me wrong. But, offhand, I can think of three super-windy days on which Eli has played poorly: The Carolina playoff game in 2005, the Redskins home game late last year, and yesterday.
I know his final numbers weren’t all that terrible yesterday, and I know they were hurt by the Hixon and Smith drops. But… they were also artificially aided by the garbage-time touchdown drive and the near-interception dropped by Asante Samuel. (As I said to NYGMen commentator Dan, with whom I attended the game, Asante Samuel has a habit of dropping game-clinching interceptions against the Giants.)
So I can picture a scenario where our home-field advantage turns into a disadvantage. Back in the ‘80s, people used to talk about how Phil Simms was uniquely qualified to be the Giants quarterback because of his tight spiral. Isn’t it possible the converse is true with Eli?
III. Lack of Plax
Yesterday’s game answered all those who thought we’d be perfectly fine without Plax based on the Seattle and ‘Zona games. Surely, he will be missed, especially in windy conditions when Eli’s ball takes unpredictable paths.
I have a feeling that most NYGMen readers weren’t on board with the whole “We won’t miss Plax, just like we don’t miss Shockey†thing. But here’s why that premise is wrong anyway:
Shockey would brattily demand the ball, forcing Gilbride to draw up plays to keep him involved just so he would shut the fuck up (this according to Ralph Vacchiano of the Daily News.) But Plax, for all his off-field antics – which, in my mind, have crossed the line and demand his removal from the team – was a total team player between the lines.
It’s qualities like these that make parting with Plax – if that is indeed what we do – so fraught with mixed emotions. It would be easy to say, “The guy was just a complete tool,†and leave it at that. But that’s just not the case.
IV. Free Ahmad
Can’t we get this guy on the field already? Did we forget how good he was in the playoffs? At this point, we can’t afford not to use him. Without Plax, we need playmakers.
The Giants have been really great this year on a play-by-play basis, even moreso on offense than defense. But often – possibly due to the fact that our offensive dominance is based on the running game, which will usually yield fewer points than an explosive passing game – the scoreboard has failed to fully reflect our dominance. It’s great to pound the rock down teams’ throats, but no team is without the need of big plays. A guy like Bradshaw can provide some; at this point, it’s criminal to keep him buried on the bench.
I can totally picture a post-season scenario in which we completely outplay the other team, but only have a 10-point lead in the third quarter. And then they break off a big play, then Eli throws a pick on a high pass that goes off Hixon’s fingers, and then we’re in danger of an awful loss.
We need firepower. Put in #44.
(Also on this note, can Hixon please get back to returning kicks? I’m hoping that Colonel Tom is just protecting him from injury and that he’ll be back deep when the playoffs come. But please, we’re really sitting on too many resources here. It really might bite us in the ass.)
V. Â The Lack of a Pass-Rush
You can live with a big game by Westbrook – he’s an awesome player who capitalized on some missed assignments to break a couple of long gains. But to me, what’s more worrisome going forward was our total lack of pressure on McNabb.
Despite our good sack totals – we are tied for fourth in the league with 37, and are seventh in FootballOutsiders’ Adjusted Sack Rate – our pass rush has been inconsistent this year. Without it, our defense is penetrable.
I suppose the overall theme of this post is that while we are good, we’re not so good that there aren’t scenarios under which we can lose. At 11-1, it might have been easy to forget that. Yesterday was a reminder.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Great points all around; I made a similar call re: asante not being able to handle Eli’s wobbling spiral.
The only thing I would like to add is: Why is pierce out on the field on obvious passing downs? There have been multiple third and 7+ when pierce has gotten beat on a seam route and he is just such an obvious liability in pass coverage that I can’t think of a good reason not to send blackburn or Kehl out there. I’m sure that it has been beaten into the ground on the blogs but putting Pierce on Westbrook, ever, much less on third down, is inexcusable. I mean anyone who even plays Madden knows that westbrook is their only legitimate offensive threat. Also, what the fuck was with our run defense not being able to get a stop in the fourth quarter, that was the most disheartening part of the game for me.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Greg, generally I agree with all of your comments.
I disagree however with your point on Eli. Now, as you might remember, I haven’t been the biggest Eli supporter over time – but I just can’t fault him for this game. The pass to Hix? On the $$. the pass to St Smith in the first half on 3rd down? Right on the money. The guys on the receiving end MUST EXECUTE. I agree that Eli has as much trouble as anyone out there on windy days – but I just can’t place the blame on him for yesterday. The 4th and short when they went empty backfield and spread it out? Doesn’t make any sense to me. This one is on Gilbride, if you ask me.
Agreed on the pressure from the DLine, we gotta knock McNabb on his ass out there and not give him time to let the play develop.
Oh well, boys – lets put this perspective: we weren’t going undefeated in the NFC E. We all knew that. Philly always plays the GMen tough and if the GMen can somehow figure out a way to 4-2 or even 5-1 in the NFC East, I will be a happy, happy man.
Come on, this is what the prognosticators said would be the 3rd place NFC E team, right? If I told you at the beginning of the season that the GMen would go 4-2 in NFC play (which they will, even if they drop the game to Dallas) wouldn’t you take that? Hell, I would!
Now I think is the time to put last week behind us and focus on taking the Cowboys out to pasture. If the Gmen let this team hang around, they will be very dangerous in the postseason. I’d much rather put them out of their misery next week and say sayanora from there.
Go GMEN!
December 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Good points and I agree with Gui Buck that Pierce shouldn’t have been there on those passing downs. In the end thought i hate to admit it but Andy Reid and the Eagles get all the credit becasue they had a game-plan (choosing to kick off first, not allowing the Giants to have the ball much in the third quarter so the Gmen will throw into the wind in the 4th) and executed it perfectly. If the Giants just got one of those 4th downs they missed we might be writing about how they pulled out this victory.
Ah well let’s go to Dallas and pop Tony Romo a few times. That asshole is slippery and I hope we can contain him becasue if we lose by more points than we did to the Eagles then I’ll never hear the end of it.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
The thing about the Westbrook touchdown (at Pierce’s expense) was that there should have been some downfield help on that side of the field.
As my brother pointed out, either Terrell Thomas or Michael Johnson (I can’t remember which one) followed a crossing route into the other one’s zone, thereby leaving that whole side of the field vacant. So, from this perspective, the touchdown was as much the result of a blown assignment by one of those guys as it was Pierce’s fault.
That said, Pierce did a shitty job on that play. For some reason, he got really close to Westbrook and decided to trail him, rather than keeping him in front of him. Westbrook outran Pierce — it was pretty obvious that was gonna happen — and there was nobody there to make the tackle once McNabb delivered the ball.
It’s also worth mentioning that there was ZERO pass rush on that play — Westbrook was one of McNabb’s last checkdowns and probably wouldn’t have had the time to get separation from Pierce if there was any semblance of a rush. So there were many breakdowns on that play — Pierce’s wasn’t the only one.
That said, Pierce is a vulnerability in pass coverage. It seems like he’s never too far away from being where he has to be, but just does stupid things technique/positioning-wise.
As far as Kehl or Blackburn are concerned, they probably don’t want those guys in on third down because they don’t have the command of the D that Pierce does, but that’s just my guess. In other words, the G-Men are probably willing to tolerate Pierce’s shitty pass coverage skills in exchange for his field General smarts in those situations.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
It was Thomas.