I.  Gilbride

After last night, the blogosphere is alight with angry Giants fans wondering what has happened to our vaunted offense over the past two weeks.

Andrew Furman, the proprietor of the excellent Giants blog UltimateNYG.com, points the finger squarely at Gilbride, who has long been the target of his wrath.  I think Furman has been a little tough on Gilbride in the past, but in this case, I agree with everything he says.

To appreciate the argument in its full indignant force, definitely check out his post.  In a nutshell, Furman’s argument goes thusly: Gilbride continued to call for deep drops and patterns that took way too long to develop, essentially letting Eli take the beating he did.   Instead, Furman says we should have gone with a diet “quick slants, 3 step drops, slip screens, draws, TE dumpoff checkdowns above the line of scrimmage.  Instead, we got long 7-step drops, and… shocking… 8 sacks.”

In his general takedown of Gilbride, he makes the point that the Giants have been outcoached for two straight weeks.  In the Philly game, both teams had to adjust to the wind.  Philly did, the G-Men didn’t.  In the Cowboys game, both teams had to adjust to their opponent’s ferocious pass rush.  The Cowboys did, the Giants didn’t.

So good job as always, Andy!

II. Lack of Plax

The problems with the game plan notwithstanding, it’s becoming pretty clear how much we will miss Plax – we’re really not the same team without him.  Plax is so talented that he can bail us out of a misbegotten play or gameplan with his long arms, strength, and ability to catch balls in traffic. 

The thing about Plax is that even if he’s covered, he’s still a viable option.  But if, say, Hixon is covered, Eli has to go to his next progression.  This takes time, and this becomes a significant problem if he’s under pressure, as evidenced by last night.

So I posit that beyond the offensive line’s brutal performance and Gilbride’s poor play-calling, the lack of Plax played a big role in the beating Eli took.  Going forward, this is something we have to adjust to. 

But can we?  Is it that easy?  Or was losing Plax a bigger blow than we even realized?  Yes, the Seahawks, Cardinals, and Redskins games went fine without him, but at this point, those games seem less instructive about what will happen going forward than the past two games.

So I’m worried, and I’m also very pissed.  If our offense doesn’t recover from this, we are likely in for a very disappointing ending to what had been our most promising season in ages.  And we’ll have Plaxico Burress and his stupidity to blame.

III.  Lack of Jacobs/Free Ahmad (Again)

The running game struggled yesterday, but I frankly don’t think things would have been any different if Jacobs was getting the carries that went to Ward.  Simply put, there weren’t any holes, and while Jacobs is great at charging through holes with a head of steam and running downhill for big gains, he’s not so good at creating for himself.  With the penetration the Cowboys defenders got last night, Jacobs wouldn’t have done any better.

But you know who might have?  Ahmad Bradshaw, who continues to be stashed on the bench and criminally underutilized.  When we were running for 200 yards and blowing teams out, Coughlin and Gilbride apologists offered the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” rationale for why Bradshaw was on the bench.  But after two pathetic offensive showings, it’s safe to say that this shit is broke, and it’s time to deviate from what we’ve been doing.

I’ve made this point before, but if your offense is struggling to score points, you need playmakers.  Ahmad is a game-breaker – maybe he could have broken off a 40-yard play last night that would have jump-started our offense.  But no.  For some reason, we stayed with Ward and continued to bang our heads against the wall while our offense repeatedly failed.

IV.  Hixon Needs to Return Kicks and Punts (Again)

This is related to the point I made above: If you’re struggling to score points, the need for big plays is more acute.  Having Moss (who is a terrible return-man) and ‘Dubs returning kicks and punts, respectively, takes away one of our best opportunities for big plays in Hixon’s returns.

It almost as if Coughlin doesn’t see the return game as a chance to do something positive, but rather as a liability where things can go wrong, whether fumbles or injuries.  Ever since he chose the sure-handed but slow Chad Morton over Willie Ponder in 2005, it seems like we’ve never gotten as much out of the return game as we can.

Hixon is clearly our best returner.  It’s a shame the small chance of his getting hurt has to cost us so much in the return game.  The situation is symptomatic of the philosophy that keeps Ahmad buried on the bench: It seems like there’s this assumption that everything is fine, that all parts of the Giants machine are exactly where they need to be.  But things aren’t fine; it’s time for Tom to start maximizing the roster’s resources.

That said, there’s a chance that Hixon hasn’t been returning kicks/punts because of his foot/ankle injury.  If that’s the case, fine, that’s very reasonable.  But come playoff time, he better be back there.  We can’t afford to have him not be.

V. Eli

I know there have been mitigating circumstances the past two games, and I know he hasn’t played terribly.  But look: After we lost Plax and teams officially started ganging up to stop the run, we knew our fate would hinge on Eli.  At this point, you’d have to say things aren’t going too well in that regard.

Forget the play-calling and the pass rush for a second.  Haven’t Eli’s throws been off?  A little high, maybe?  I think his mechanics are a little out of whack.  He needs to play better.

VI.  Problems on Third Down

Just came across this statistic via Trent Dilfer on ESPN (he is an excellent analyst, in my opinion): Before the last two games, we were converting at a 45 percent clip on third down.  Against the Cowboys and Eagles, we were 6 for 26, or 23 percent.

This is bad, but it’s actually encouraging going forward.  Basically, it means our offense will improve because that low conversion rate has to be considered something of an aberration.  Granted, we’ve been bad on first and second downs the past two games, but I’m pretty sure we haven’t been that bad.  Our poor performance on third down, therefore, is a bit of an outlier and one that will even out in the future.  So while our offense has been very bad over the past two games, it hasn’t been as bad as it’s looked.

VII. Tackling

Two big and inexcusable plays from last night: 1) Michael Johnson letting Witten slip out of his arms on the game-clinching first down; and 2) Antonio Pierce going high on Witten, catching a stiff-arm, and letting Witten rumble down to the 1 on the Cowboys’ second touchdown drive.

A big play in the Eagles game: Kenny Phillips taking a horrific angle and missing LJ Smith on a third-and-long, which eventually led to a touchdown.

We need to tighten things up.

The credit for the inspiration behind this entry belongs to Dales, a commenter on FootballOutsiders.com, who looked up the catch-rates of the Giants receivers (the percentage of balls a receiver catches when he is the intended target).  Dales, wherever and whoever you are, thank you.  You’re the man.

Smith: 84% (31 passes)

Hixon: 80% (15 passes)

Moss: 71% (7 passes)

Plax: 56% (45 passes)

Toomer: 53% (38 passes)

Now, these figures shouldn’t be read as a ranking of the best receivers on the team.  Smith’s percentage is bound to be high because he’s targeted mostly on short, over-the-middle routes. Plax and Toomer, on the other hand are targeted more downfield, which will naturally yield a lower percentage.  And because they work more toward the sideline, they are naturally farther away from the quarterback, which will lead to a lower percentage.  And in Hixon’s case, 15 passes in his direction is too small a sample to really conclude anything, although it is promising.  But the conclusion here is obvious: Steve Smith catches everything thrown his way.

In FootballOutsiders’ individual DVOA statistic, which takes catch-rate into account and adjusts traditional stats based on situation – like whether the catch gets a first down – Smith ranks 21st in the entire NFL.  (Plax, at 27th, is no slouch either.)

Giants fans know that Smith is good, but we may not realize exactly how good.  I think some of us tend to think of Smith as the proverbial (and backhanded) “nice player.”  But what he really is is one of the best possession receivers in the game.  The fans should realize this, but more importantly, so should the coaching staff so they can find ways to get this guy more involved.

The amazing thing about Smith is that he was only active for four regular season games last year before exploding onto the scene in the playoffs.  Even including those playoff games, he’s played in only 14 NFL games.  Yet his best attribute is his savviness, his understanding of how to find creases in zones and get open.  And of course, his hands, which are borne out by the 84% statistic.

But don’t sell Smith’s athleticism short.  No, he’s not a speed-burner, but he’s a perfect underneath receiver because he’s able to reach top-speed quickly.  Also, his body-control is elite: think of the catch he made in the Super Bowl that preceded the Plax TD, when he tiptoed along the sideline while picking up the first down right in front of Brandon Meriweather’s face.  He also has good ups: think of the 22-yard catch he made to get us going on the final drive of the first half of the Dallas playoff game, without which there is no miraculous playoff run.

So we have a gem in Steve Smith.  This means I was dead wrong in my initial disappointment that Carolina took Dwayne Jarrett a few picks before we selected.  It also means that the Giants should make a point of getting this guy the ball.

**

Dales also compiled the catch-rates of the running backs:

Ward: 81% (16 catches)

Hedgecock: 60% (5 passes)

Jacobs: 44% (9 passes)

(Bradshaw didn’t show up on the stats, meaning that he hasn’t been targeted the minimum 5 times.)

This tells us what we already knew: Ward is a very good receiver, and Jacobs can’t catch.

But I don’t want to end on that note, because Jacobs has been absolutely amazing this year, causing me to temper my long-held skepticism about him.  That topic is for another entry, though.

I’ve been pouring over the game film, so here are some general thoughts on the D.  Observations on individual players will follow in the next post.

Obviously, it wasn’t our best effort.  23 points on 347 consequential yards, with an untimely choke at the end of regulation.

And we were lucky to give up only 23 points.  The Bengals horrific clock management at the end of regulation kept 4 points off the board.  Earlier in the game, on the second series, an obvious endzone pass interference by Butler on Houshmenzadeh was not called, leading to the Bengals settling for a field goal.  And in the third quarter, and endzone drop by tight end Daniel Coates – who was double-covered by Dockery and Butler, neither of whom managed to get a hand on the ball – led to field goal instead of a touchdown again.

A key factor in the D’s struggles was the ineffectiveness of the blitz.  Yes, we had those 6 sacks, but Palmer – who did an outstanding job hitting his hot routes – burnt us on many a blitz.  As Justin Tuck himself said, “Sometimes, the stats are misleading.  We had six sacks today, but I don’t think we rattled [Palmer.]”

With a game like this, it’s hard to separate out where blaming the defense ends and crediting the offense begins: Was it Spags’ fault those blitzes didn’t work out, or was it because the Bengals’ line did a good job picking them up while Palmer got the ball out quickly and accurately?  Surely some credit must go to the Bengals’ game-plan, which was predicated on quick passes – to the elusive Chatman and the Housh, a big target – designed to neutralize our blitz.

On a somewhat related note, sometimes the offensive play call just happens to work out given what the defensive call is.  There’s not a “moral of the story” to every play, where you can neatly ascribe blame to a given defender for any big gain.  Sometimes the defensive play-calls, coupled with the offensive play-calls, give the defenders little chance to do their jobs well (and vice versa).  There’s not much to say after something like this, other than to hope we’re a little more lucky next time.

This seemed to happen to the Giants D on Sunday, including three big plays that totaled 76 yards and were instrumental in 10 Bengals points:

The most prominent of these was the Perry touchdown in the second quarter, when the Bengals went up 10-7 and we all knew we were in for a game.  It was 2^nd and 10 and Spags guessed pass, which meant our dime defense was in. 

Normally, the dime defense is the “safest” defense, designed to minimize chance of a big play, but in this case it backfired.  Because of the personnel grouping, Michael Johnson had linebacker duties.  After slo-moing the tape a few times, I realized that it was his responsibility to fill the gap through which Perry galloped on the way to the endzone.

But because Johnson was in unfamiliar environs, he was hesitant to fill the gap, which allowed a blocker to engage him and clear a huge, gaping hole.  That, right there, sprung Perry, who sprinted through the hole “unmolested” – I can’t write that with a straight face – and away from Corey Webster, who was occupying the safety position.  (I don’t mean to overstate the point on this one: a hold on Johnson at the end of that initial block, a slow reaction to step up by Webster, and Big Fred’s and Tollefson’s getting more washed down than they should have didn’t help either.)

Why were we in the dime defense on that 2^nd and 10?  A 25-yard gain two plays earlier might help explain why.

On 2^nd and 10, we blitzed a safety off the quarterback’s blind side, which left Dockery singled up against Chatman with no deep help on that side of the field.  The  Bengals picked the blitz up, and Palmer hit a little hitch to Chatman, who had been given a huge cushion by Dockery.  Because he caught the ball with so much space in between him and Dockery, he had room to maneuver, and maneuver he did, scampering for 25 yards on the play.

This was an instance of Palmer doing an excellent job hitting his hot read and a blitz backfiring.  It also underscored how things aren’t as cut and dried – Dockery sucks! – as they often appear.  (Dockery does suck, and we’ll get to that in the next post, but he’s not as bad as he looked on that play.)

Also, this play to Chatman explains why Spags called the dime defense on 2^nd and 10 on the Perry play.  When an offense is designed to get the ball to the receiver on the edges, it’s good to have as much speed as possible.  On the Perry play, we went speed while they went power, and we paid the price.

The third play I noticed in which we got caught in a bad defense for their play-call was on the Bengals’ last series of the first half, when we sent a zone blitz with Tollefson dropping back into pass coverage.  Unfortunately, Tollefson wound up being responsible for picking up Housh, who was dragging across the middle.  Not surprisingly, he didn’t get there nearly quickly enough, and Housh caught the ball with nobody around him, free to pick up 26 yards.

Again, it kinda just so happened that a wide receiver was running a shallow crossing pattern in Tollefson’s territory here.  It could have been a tight end, who would have been easier for Tollefson to spot and react to.

Bob Glauber in Newsday reports the Giants are not only looking at DeAngelo Hall, but also Seattle CB Marcus Trufant.

There is speculation they’re interested in dealing for Falcons cornerback DeAngelo Hall, who said Friday he will not return to the team after new general manager Thomas Dimitroff told him the club would consider offers for him. Add in another potential target of the Giants: Seahawks cornerback Marcus Trufant.

According to a league source familiar with the Giants’ situation, Trufant is on their radar as a potential acquisition once the trading period begins next Friday. Seattle has designated Trufant as their “franchise” player, meaning Seattle has virtually exclusive negotiating rights with him for the 2008 season. But that does not preclude them from making a trade. He is coming off his best season, with a career-high seven interceptions.

Hall has one year left on his contract with Atlanta, and had initially expressed optimism about staying. But Friday, after hearing that Dimitroff would listen to offers for him, Hall told reporters in Indianapolis that he isn’t coming back.

“You know what, I’ll go anywhere – anywhere they want me,” he said. “It’s hard to play or be a part of an organization that doesn’t want you, so I just want to go somewhere that wants me. It ain’t about the money. I even told the Falcons, ‘I’ll play out the last year of my contract if you don’t franchise tag me the following year.’ And they couldn’t agree to that.”

It looks like the Giants will revamp the  secondary.