Jerry Reese has gotten lots of credit for the 2007 draft, in which every draft choice made the team and several played significant roles for the Superbowl win. This credit is well deserved and the players he picked up continue to play well this year and form an important part of the team. To refresh your memory, the draft choices in 2007 were: Aaron Ross (1), Steve Smith (2), Jay Alford (3), Zak DeOssie (4), Kevin Boss (5), Adam Koets (6), Michael Johnson (7A), Ahmad Bradshaw (7B). That was a very good draft class.
I maintain, however, that the best draft anyone ever had was the Giants 2005 draft. Before we analyze it, let's get the setting straight. In 2004, Giants drafted Phillip Rivers and traded him for Eli Manning, giving the Chargers a boat load of draft picks along with Rivers. Giants gave up a 3rd rounder in the 2004 draft and in the 2005 draft, also gave up a 1st and 5th rounder. Since they had already traded their 7th round pick in another deal, the Giants had only four picks in that 2005 draft, in rounds 2,3,4 and 6. Before we jump to that 2005 draft, you could argue that the 2004 draft was pretty good also, since we got Manning, Snee and two other productive players that are no longer on the team: Gibril Wilson and Reggie Torbor. A budding star in Snee and the Superbowl MVP might be considered a pretty good draft by most standards, but I'm trumpeting that 2005 draft as the best ever. With those 4 picks in 2005, Giants drafted one DE, Eric Moore in the 6th round who got injured, never made the team and did not get picked up by any other NFL team. That was their one miss. With picks 2-3-4, Giants drafted Corey Webster, Justin Tuck and Brandon Jacobs. Giants already locked up Tuck to a long term contract- rightfully so, because he is one of the top 2 or 3 DL-men in football. Webster is an absolute star at CB. Giants would not have come close to winning the SB last year without him. He neutralized TO in the Cowboys game, made the big INT to win the Packers game, and held Randy Moss in check in the SB, mostly in single coverage. He opened up the field for Spagnuolo to give help elsewhere in the secondary where needed and give the opening to blitz more aggressively if that was the right call to make. My friend Ray pointed out that the biggest proof that a CB is feared is when the opposing team doesn't throw at him. A recent example: against the Cardinals a few weeks ago, Warner threw 52 passes and only 5 tested Webster.
I don't need to tell you about Jacobs. He is a stud and in a league where RBs are practically commodities, Jacobs is a one-of-a-kind RB who forces opposing defenses to game plan for him and opens up the possibilities for the rest of the offense.
The priority for re-signing Giants own FA's is clearly Webster, because great CB's transform a defense and besides qb and perhaps OT, might be the most important position on the team. I'd like to sign Jacobs also, but Ward and Bradshaw form an effective running combination also and his re-signing is a lesser priority in my opinion. Ward is also a FA as is Amani Toomer. Now that Plax is gone, Toomer has a better chance of coming back next year. Oh - it might be a good idea to re-sign Eli also, even though he is locked up for a few more years.
Back to that 2005 draft..... Giants had four picks and found three stars that form the foundation of the championship team. I rest my case.
BTW - Reese looks like he's doing pretty well with the 2008 draft class too: Phillips at S is already a stud and Terrell Thomas at CB looks like a very good player also.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Cowboys post mortem I
Not yet time to panic, but this beating was worse than the loss to the Eagles, not just because we hate the Cowboys so much. Against the Eagles, the Giants had at least some successful offensive plays and we could rationalize that the Eagles took away the run and the wind took away the pass. But Sunday night, no such rationalizations were available to assuage the hurt and the embarrassment of this loss. To me, it was fairly simple: the OL had its brains beaten in. It got worse in the 2nd half when McKenzie and Seubert left the game, but it wasn't their injuries that made the difference. Cowboys were beating the Giants OL all night long. And they weren't just beating the Giants at one weak spot. Giants got beat by speed rushers from the outside, by missing blocks on the inside and by generally having the pocket collapse at other times. There wasn't even any place for Manning to escape to. I thought that Eli actually played very well and was throwing the ball very well when he had even a moment to throw. But he just couldn't get time to throw. He was sacked 8 times and threw 35 passes, meaning he was sacked on 8 of 43 times that he dropped back. He was hurried and hit another 12 times, by my count, which means that he did not have a clean pocket to throw out of on nearly half his pass attempts.
Cowboys, as everyone knew and as I suggested in my preview post would do two things offensively: play aggressive run defense by keeping an extra S at the line of scrimmage and against the pass, blitz often and play agressive in coverage. But it was actually more than that: they kept their entire team up at the line of scrimmage, playing press coverage nearly all the time on the Giants WRs. They did not respect any WR going deep so they were playing tight man-to-man on every down. In order to defeat that kind of coverage, you have to beat them deep. But when you want to go deep, you need to have your qb hold the ball an extra second or two and the OL was unable to protect the qb long enough to let their WR get down the field. The WRs were not getting any separation at all. Every throw that Eli made was into a narrow window and even when he completed them, the WRs were tackled right away, there were absolutely no YAC yards. Giants never made the adjustments to get the running game going, to run some screens or to deceive the Cowboys defense in some other way. But when the OL is overwhelmed like they were Sunday night, there is not much you can do scheme-wise or in the play calling area to make things work.
Burress being gone was a much more important factor than Jacobs being missing. Ward is not as powerful a runner as Jacobs, but without holes or a good push from the OL, no RB is getting through. The absence of Burress invited the Cowboys to play the press coverage that the Giants WRs could not handle. It looked to me like Hixon was not right, he was not running as hard as he usually does. But for whatever reason, he simply could not separate from Newman.
The bigger effect of the loss of Jacobs was not in the running game but was in pass blocking. Jacobs is a crushing pass blocker and is very capable picking up blitzers, chipping the DE and giving max-protect help assisting the OL.
Diehl had a particularly bad game at LT. He handled Ware in the playoff game last January, but other than that has trouble against Ware. McKenzie got beat also and Boothe was beaten twice for sacks.
It's not time to panic yet. Giants still have time to make adjustments in the running game and passing game and get the ship back on its course. There is no doubt that Burress' absence has hurt this team and will permanently lessen the capability of the offense. But there is enough talent on the offense to be productive. Giants have to play better in the OL, have to throw more screens and more to the TE to open up the passing attack and move the defense off the line of scrimmage. Giants got away from running their traps and counters last night, but when the OL is getting beat up and dominated like it was last night, deception will not help. Next week's game against Carolina is an important game to restore the confidence and offensive rhythm of the team.
A word about the refereeing.
I really don't get it. Giants did get one questionable PI call with Newman 'arm-barring' against Hixon, but there were two other plays where there was a blatant armbar on Hixon and it was not called. Particularly egregious was the PI call that was reversed to offensive PI against Steve Smith. The TV replay showed Smith pushing off, but they did not show the entire play. The Cowboy DB pushed Smith and was holding him. Smith pushed him back so he could have both hands free to catch the ball. What really ticked me off though is that the ref on the sideline initially called defensive PI. That's his call. What did someone else see to convince him to reverse the call when the refs convened? Any other ref that saw something else did not have as good a view and it is outrageous that the call was changed to offensive PI.
I counted twice where Flozell Adams jumped early and should have been called for a false start, because the C Gurode often double-clutches on a shotgun snap. It should be a basic test for referees that if they don't see a 360 lb man move, he can't be a referee.
There was a blatant defensive PI call against Toomer towards the end of the game when the Giants had to settle for a FG. It was not a close call where the ref has to judge whether there was incidental contact or a small bump of insufficient impact to throw a flag. The DB tried to hit Toomer hard in order to jar the ball loose, but he hit him well before the ball arrived.
Cowboys, as everyone knew and as I suggested in my preview post would do two things offensively: play aggressive run defense by keeping an extra S at the line of scrimmage and against the pass, blitz often and play agressive in coverage. But it was actually more than that: they kept their entire team up at the line of scrimmage, playing press coverage nearly all the time on the Giants WRs. They did not respect any WR going deep so they were playing tight man-to-man on every down. In order to defeat that kind of coverage, you have to beat them deep. But when you want to go deep, you need to have your qb hold the ball an extra second or two and the OL was unable to protect the qb long enough to let their WR get down the field. The WRs were not getting any separation at all. Every throw that Eli made was into a narrow window and even when he completed them, the WRs were tackled right away, there were absolutely no YAC yards. Giants never made the adjustments to get the running game going, to run some screens or to deceive the Cowboys defense in some other way. But when the OL is overwhelmed like they were Sunday night, there is not much you can do scheme-wise or in the play calling area to make things work.
Burress being gone was a much more important factor than Jacobs being missing. Ward is not as powerful a runner as Jacobs, but without holes or a good push from the OL, no RB is getting through. The absence of Burress invited the Cowboys to play the press coverage that the Giants WRs could not handle. It looked to me like Hixon was not right, he was not running as hard as he usually does. But for whatever reason, he simply could not separate from Newman.
The bigger effect of the loss of Jacobs was not in the running game but was in pass blocking. Jacobs is a crushing pass blocker and is very capable picking up blitzers, chipping the DE and giving max-protect help assisting the OL.
Diehl had a particularly bad game at LT. He handled Ware in the playoff game last January, but other than that has trouble against Ware. McKenzie got beat also and Boothe was beaten twice for sacks.
It's not time to panic yet. Giants still have time to make adjustments in the running game and passing game and get the ship back on its course. There is no doubt that Burress' absence has hurt this team and will permanently lessen the capability of the offense. But there is enough talent on the offense to be productive. Giants have to play better in the OL, have to throw more screens and more to the TE to open up the passing attack and move the defense off the line of scrimmage. Giants got away from running their traps and counters last night, but when the OL is getting beat up and dominated like it was last night, deception will not help. Next week's game against Carolina is an important game to restore the confidence and offensive rhythm of the team.
A word about the refereeing.
I really don't get it. Giants did get one questionable PI call with Newman 'arm-barring' against Hixon, but there were two other plays where there was a blatant armbar on Hixon and it was not called. Particularly egregious was the PI call that was reversed to offensive PI against Steve Smith. The TV replay showed Smith pushing off, but they did not show the entire play. The Cowboy DB pushed Smith and was holding him. Smith pushed him back so he could have both hands free to catch the ball. What really ticked me off though is that the ref on the sideline initially called defensive PI. That's his call. What did someone else see to convince him to reverse the call when the refs convened? Any other ref that saw something else did not have as good a view and it is outrageous that the call was changed to offensive PI.
I counted twice where Flozell Adams jumped early and should have been called for a false start, because the C Gurode often double-clutches on a shotgun snap. It should be a basic test for referees that if they don't see a 360 lb man move, he can't be a referee.
There was a blatant defensive PI call against Toomer towards the end of the game when the Giants had to settle for a FG. It was not a close call where the ref has to judge whether there was incidental contact or a small bump of insufficient impact to throw a flag. The DB tried to hit Toomer hard in order to jar the ball loose, but he hit him well before the ball arrived.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Look Ahead to the Cowboys
This is such a tough game to figure, there are so many variables that are in play.
Was the Eagles game an indication that the Giants are coming back down to earth after their torrid first 3/4 of the season, or was it just one of those games... Eagles with their season on the line, windy conditions disrupting the Giants passing game, a couple of key dropped passes. Or... is the loss of Burress something that disrupts the balance in the Giants offense, giving opposing defenses a method to stop the Giants.
Are the Cowboys the same wounded, dangerous, desperate team that the Eagles were last week and ready to lay a beating on a suddenly shaky Giants team. Or... will the Cowboys continue what some think is becoming a pattern for them in big games against tough teams: they play well enough to show how talented they are, but find some way to make some key errors and lose.
Obviously, Las Vegas feels the same way, because the Cowboys are 3 point favorites. The game is in Dallas and the home field usually counts for 3 points in Vegas, so the game is essentially even. I find this a little strange, a first place team playing a team with 5 losses is an underdog. But it shows how far Giants have fallen in the eyes of the betting public and Las Vegas because of the events of the last two weeks, including Burress and the loss to the Eagles. The line hasn't budged since it was set, meaning that the betting public isn't putting too much money on one team or the other
It's funny how things turn around so quickly in the NFL. Three weeks ago it looked like the Eagles were done and the Redskins, Cowboys and Giants were the cream of the NFC East. Now, the Cowboys look like they have all kinds of internal dissension with TO (that stands for Team Obliterater, not Terrel Owens) picking on the qb for making bad decisions, the owner sniping at the teams star RB for being soft, the coach generally getting no respect from the players and all kinds of injury problems. The Redskins offense has totally disintegrated in the past 3-4 weeks and on top of that, their OL is decimated by injuries with their two starting OTs, Samuels and Jensen out for the year, the star RB Portis feuding with the coach and the team on a losing streak. Giants have their own problems with the Burress mess and (gasp) a game they actually lost. Suddenly, it looks like the Eagles are the most stable franchise in the division and are coming hard for a playoff spot. If Eagles win their last 3 games and Falcons don't, then the Eagles are in the playoffs.
Back to the Giants-Cowboys game:
I actually think that in analyzing this game, we should not overemphasize the emotional, impossible-to-measure aspects of the game like motivation and focus/concentration and stick to the things we can measure and evaluate.
Cowboys defense is solid, but not great. Defenses are usually ranked by yardage allowed which is not the best way to measure them. There are many other things to look it, so let's just say that the Cowboys defense is ranked in the upper half of the league in both run defense and pass defense. Their front 7 in their 3-4 scheme has some very good players and it is central to their defensive scheme to stop the run and get a big pass rush, rather than rely on their db-field to cover. DeMarcus Ware at OLB, is a very good player with 16 sacks on the year. Ratliff is very good on the interior of their DL and Bradie James is a very good ILB. Often the NT in the 3-4 scheme does not make a lot of tackles, but is responsible for stuffing opposing blockers and preventing them from getting to the next level and firing out on the LBs. But Ratliff makes a lot of plays in the running game himself and is having a very good year. IMO, the Cowboys db-field is not that good and they have some injuries there as well, which make their secondary somewhat vulnerable. I am sure the Giants will try to establish the run, but it may be smart to come out throwing against the weakest part of the Cowboys defense. In order for the Giants to win, Eli has to move the ball through the air and they have to involve new WRs and routes in order to be effective. The LBs are fairly quick in their drops and they do like to blitz quite a bit. The key to beating any defense is to block their DL, but it is certainly true against the Cowboys, because the front 7 is the real heart of the defense and the key to their stopping the run and the pass.
Against the Giants defense, Cowboys will probably try to run the ball a little bit, even with rookie RB Choice replacing Marion Barber. I was impressed with Choice when the Cowboys came in to the Meadowlands earlier this year. He is very quick and elusive and made some good runs against the Giants defense in the second half of that game. Last week against the Steelers, Choice had a particularly good game, with some good runs and some very good pass receptions out of the backfield. He put up more than 160 yards from scrimmage. But I expect them to put the ball in Romo's hands and try to throw the ball down the field especially to their TE Witten. Giants had trouble defending TEs in the middle of the field last year but seemed to have improved this year with improved play of their safeties. But last week, the Eagles effectively attacked the middle of the field with throws to LJ Smith and Westbrook. I look for Romo to try and do the same this week to Witten and their new TE Martellus Bennet, who looks like a real good player. Giants need a big game out of their LBs and S in pass coverage this week.
Hixon has a foot injury and it could really hurt the Giants passing attack if he is out. If he plays well and if the Giants use their other WRs, I expect that the passing game will be effective and the Giants have a good chance this week in Dallas.
You can't really say that this is a huge game for the Giants in the standings or even in the playoff seeding competition. Giants can lose and if they beat Carolina next week, they will lock up the #1 seed. If Carolina loses this week and Giants win, then the Carolina game next week becomes a little less important because Giants can lose that game and still carry the # 1 seed if the beat the Vikings in the last game of the season. If Giants win 1 of their last 3 games they will guarantee a bye in the first round, though not necessarily # 1 seed. If they lose all 3, they will need help to get a bye in the first round: they will need the Vikings to lose 1 of their last 3. It would be nice to get the # 1 seed, but I wouldn't mind seeing the Giants go on the road and playing in warmer weather against any of the NFC teams that might make the playoffs.
Because of the fact that this game is important only for mental health of the team and not a do-or-die game for making the playoffs or even for seeding in the playoffs, I would be smart and cautious with slightly injured players. To me that means that Jacobs sits this week and maybe next week to get ready for the playoffs.
Was the Eagles game an indication that the Giants are coming back down to earth after their torrid first 3/4 of the season, or was it just one of those games... Eagles with their season on the line, windy conditions disrupting the Giants passing game, a couple of key dropped passes. Or... is the loss of Burress something that disrupts the balance in the Giants offense, giving opposing defenses a method to stop the Giants.
Are the Cowboys the same wounded, dangerous, desperate team that the Eagles were last week and ready to lay a beating on a suddenly shaky Giants team. Or... will the Cowboys continue what some think is becoming a pattern for them in big games against tough teams: they play well enough to show how talented they are, but find some way to make some key errors and lose.
Obviously, Las Vegas feels the same way, because the Cowboys are 3 point favorites. The game is in Dallas and the home field usually counts for 3 points in Vegas, so the game is essentially even. I find this a little strange, a first place team playing a team with 5 losses is an underdog. But it shows how far Giants have fallen in the eyes of the betting public and Las Vegas because of the events of the last two weeks, including Burress and the loss to the Eagles. The line hasn't budged since it was set, meaning that the betting public isn't putting too much money on one team or the other
It's funny how things turn around so quickly in the NFL. Three weeks ago it looked like the Eagles were done and the Redskins, Cowboys and Giants were the cream of the NFC East. Now, the Cowboys look like they have all kinds of internal dissension with TO (that stands for Team Obliterater, not Terrel Owens) picking on the qb for making bad decisions, the owner sniping at the teams star RB for being soft, the coach generally getting no respect from the players and all kinds of injury problems. The Redskins offense has totally disintegrated in the past 3-4 weeks and on top of that, their OL is decimated by injuries with their two starting OTs, Samuels and Jensen out for the year, the star RB Portis feuding with the coach and the team on a losing streak. Giants have their own problems with the Burress mess and (gasp) a game they actually lost. Suddenly, it looks like the Eagles are the most stable franchise in the division and are coming hard for a playoff spot. If Eagles win their last 3 games and Falcons don't, then the Eagles are in the playoffs.
Back to the Giants-Cowboys game:
I actually think that in analyzing this game, we should not overemphasize the emotional, impossible-to-measure aspects of the game like motivation and focus/concentration and stick to the things we can measure and evaluate.
Cowboys defense is solid, but not great. Defenses are usually ranked by yardage allowed which is not the best way to measure them. There are many other things to look it, so let's just say that the Cowboys defense is ranked in the upper half of the league in both run defense and pass defense. Their front 7 in their 3-4 scheme has some very good players and it is central to their defensive scheme to stop the run and get a big pass rush, rather than rely on their db-field to cover. DeMarcus Ware at OLB, is a very good player with 16 sacks on the year. Ratliff is very good on the interior of their DL and Bradie James is a very good ILB. Often the NT in the 3-4 scheme does not make a lot of tackles, but is responsible for stuffing opposing blockers and preventing them from getting to the next level and firing out on the LBs. But Ratliff makes a lot of plays in the running game himself and is having a very good year. IMO, the Cowboys db-field is not that good and they have some injuries there as well, which make their secondary somewhat vulnerable. I am sure the Giants will try to establish the run, but it may be smart to come out throwing against the weakest part of the Cowboys defense. In order for the Giants to win, Eli has to move the ball through the air and they have to involve new WRs and routes in order to be effective. The LBs are fairly quick in their drops and they do like to blitz quite a bit. The key to beating any defense is to block their DL, but it is certainly true against the Cowboys, because the front 7 is the real heart of the defense and the key to their stopping the run and the pass.
Against the Giants defense, Cowboys will probably try to run the ball a little bit, even with rookie RB Choice replacing Marion Barber. I was impressed with Choice when the Cowboys came in to the Meadowlands earlier this year. He is very quick and elusive and made some good runs against the Giants defense in the second half of that game. Last week against the Steelers, Choice had a particularly good game, with some good runs and some very good pass receptions out of the backfield. He put up more than 160 yards from scrimmage. But I expect them to put the ball in Romo's hands and try to throw the ball down the field especially to their TE Witten. Giants had trouble defending TEs in the middle of the field last year but seemed to have improved this year with improved play of their safeties. But last week, the Eagles effectively attacked the middle of the field with throws to LJ Smith and Westbrook. I look for Romo to try and do the same this week to Witten and their new TE Martellus Bennet, who looks like a real good player. Giants need a big game out of their LBs and S in pass coverage this week.
Hixon has a foot injury and it could really hurt the Giants passing attack if he is out. If he plays well and if the Giants use their other WRs, I expect that the passing game will be effective and the Giants have a good chance this week in Dallas.
You can't really say that this is a huge game for the Giants in the standings or even in the playoff seeding competition. Giants can lose and if they beat Carolina next week, they will lock up the #1 seed. If Carolina loses this week and Giants win, then the Carolina game next week becomes a little less important because Giants can lose that game and still carry the # 1 seed if the beat the Vikings in the last game of the season. If Giants win 1 of their last 3 games they will guarantee a bye in the first round, though not necessarily # 1 seed. If they lose all 3, they will need help to get a bye in the first round: they will need the Vikings to lose 1 of their last 3. It would be nice to get the # 1 seed, but I wouldn't mind seeing the Giants go on the road and playing in warmer weather against any of the NFC teams that might make the playoffs.
Because of the fact that this game is important only for mental health of the team and not a do-or-die game for making the playoffs or even for seeding in the playoffs, I would be smart and cautious with slightly injured players. To me that means that Jacobs sits this week and maybe next week to get ready for the playoffs.
Distractions - Talent
The Burress affair was handled as well as possible by the Giants. Allowing the Burress affair to linger would no doubt have led to lots of locker room chatter and posturing, debate about what to do, speculation about what the league or the team would do and in fact could have hurt preparation for the upcoming game. Instead, they cut out the cancer quickly, decisively and without rancor. This had the affect of keeping any possible distraction to an absolute minimum. I don't think the problem with the Giants is any distraction caused by Burress legal issues or lack of focus from the team. The problem is that the Giants are not as good a team without Burress. Plax is a great player who can make catches under any circumstances, in any kind of weather, against man-to-man defense, against zone defenses, he sheds CB's that try to play him physically and chuck him at the line of scrimmage, he catches the ball in traffic, he can take short passes, break a tackle and make a big gain out of it. He's a great player. Losing a great player makes the team weaker; it's the talent loss, not the distraction.
I was a little bored last night and took out the DVD of the Giants 2007 season and Superbowl run. I had forgotten how many great plays Burress made for the team last year, how many great catches he made and how great a year he had despite his ankle injury. Just to refresh your memory and bring up a few highlights: in the 3rd game of the year, Giants at 0-2 and the season on the line, were down 17-3 at halftime. Burress had a monster second half, caught a few balls to set up two TDs and scored one himself on a 33 yard play. He also made huge plays against the Jets, against the Eagles and practically won the Conference Championship game single handedly against the Packers.
But it's more than just how many big plays he made, it's the type of plays he made. Of course he was a threat to catch a deep ball, but was also a threat to catch a short hitch, make a DB miss and turn it into a big play. That made it very risky to blitz the Giants, especially once Eli got his bearings and was able to read defenses better. He was a big threat at the goal line because of his size and he was able to make adjustments on the ball because of his size and catch balls even though he was not wide open. Remember the catch he made on the first drive of game 17 against the Patriots last year. He wasn't wide open, the safety was right behind him; but he went up and took the ball away from him. He was an enormous threat and disrupted defensive game plans.
We may have forgotten or minimized how good he is now, because the Giants have been winning this year without enormous contribution from him. The running game has been strong and Eli has stepped up and is spreading the ball around, so it seems like the only thing the Giants have to worry about is the distraction factor. But it's not so - he will be missed greatly, especially in the playoffs when Giants play the better teams with the rugged defenses and offensive yards are harder to come by.
Giants OC Gilbride and HC Coughlin have to be creative to compensate for the loss of Burress and for the different ways teams are sure to defend the Giants from here on out. Actually, I am not sure that the Cowboys will be so much different than they usually are, because Wade Phillips is an unimaginative coach and while the Cowboys are creative and dangerous offensively, on the defensive side of the ball they are fairly predictable. They play 3-4, they do like to blitz on passing downs, but are fairly predictable in the db-field when they show zone or man. Nevertheless, Gilbride has to replace the deep play threat that Burress gave the team.
I was a little bored last night and took out the DVD of the Giants 2007 season and Superbowl run. I had forgotten how many great plays Burress made for the team last year, how many great catches he made and how great a year he had despite his ankle injury. Just to refresh your memory and bring up a few highlights: in the 3rd game of the year, Giants at 0-2 and the season on the line, were down 17-3 at halftime. Burress had a monster second half, caught a few balls to set up two TDs and scored one himself on a 33 yard play. He also made huge plays against the Jets, against the Eagles and practically won the Conference Championship game single handedly against the Packers.
But it's more than just how many big plays he made, it's the type of plays he made. Of course he was a threat to catch a deep ball, but was also a threat to catch a short hitch, make a DB miss and turn it into a big play. That made it very risky to blitz the Giants, especially once Eli got his bearings and was able to read defenses better. He was a big threat at the goal line because of his size and he was able to make adjustments on the ball because of his size and catch balls even though he was not wide open. Remember the catch he made on the first drive of game 17 against the Patriots last year. He wasn't wide open, the safety was right behind him; but he went up and took the ball away from him. He was an enormous threat and disrupted defensive game plans.
We may have forgotten or minimized how good he is now, because the Giants have been winning this year without enormous contribution from him. The running game has been strong and Eli has stepped up and is spreading the ball around, so it seems like the only thing the Giants have to worry about is the distraction factor. But it's not so - he will be missed greatly, especially in the playoffs when Giants play the better teams with the rugged defenses and offensive yards are harder to come by.
Giants OC Gilbride and HC Coughlin have to be creative to compensate for the loss of Burress and for the different ways teams are sure to defend the Giants from here on out. Actually, I am not sure that the Cowboys will be so much different than they usually are, because Wade Phillips is an unimaginative coach and while the Cowboys are creative and dangerous offensively, on the defensive side of the ball they are fairly predictable. They play 3-4, they do like to blitz on passing downs, but are fairly predictable in the db-field when they show zone or man. Nevertheless, Gilbride has to replace the deep play threat that Burress gave the team.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Giants Burress-less
Hixon looks like he will be a good player, but Burress, despite somewhat limited production this year, is a star and one of the top WR's in the game. Hixon is inexperienced and, truthfully, we just don't know how good he will be. There's always a huge difference between a player that plays every play, every down, every game and achieves a consistent level of performance versus one that plays occasionally as a substitute and shows flashes of brilliance in his limited opportunities. It is true in every sport but particularly true in football when the stress and drain of the game wears on the players, where the challenge to play against different types of defenses, in different weather conditions and under pressure conditions distinguish the flash-in-the-pan or the one-time-wonder looking to capitalize on a few good plays from the star who has a record of excellent performance in all circumstances.
We clearly have not seen enough from Hixon to be confident that he will be able to replace Burress without the Giants suffering a drop off in the productivity of their offense. Burress was a unique kind of player. He was not the fastest WR in the league, but he was fast enough to get deep and his incredible size and ability to catch the ball in traffic meant that he did not need to beat his man by 3 yards. Eli could throw it up high for him and he would come down with it in traffic. Burress ran great routes and was a real student of the game. He was strong and could occasionally overpower a defender once he had the ball in his hands. No matter how well Hixon plays, the Giants offense will be reduced by the Burress absence. The Giants had no choice but to separate him from the team - it's not their fault. But his absence will hurt.
Even this year when his productivity was not impressive, he demanded double teams all the time and changed the balance of the passing game by his mere presence on the field. Going back a few years, when LT was playing for the Giants in the late '80s and early '90s, opposing offenses had to game plan for him, had to worry where he was going to line up and had 2 or 3 blockers paying attention to him. During one stretch, LT had an ankle injury and missed a few games and the dominant Giants defense took a big hit. LT did not make every tackle when he was out there - but when he was gone, suddenly the Giants defense was playing 11 against 11 instead of 10 against 8. When LT was out there, the opposing offense had 2 or 3 guys blocking him so the other 10 on the defense had 8 guys that they had to defend against and worry about. It is somewhat analogous with Burress - he was double teamed much of the time opening up passing lanes and running lanes for the rest of the offense. We'll see now how effective Boss can be, how effective Smith will be, whether Toomer can still make some plays when the opposing safeties and defense can play straight up.
Fortunately, I think that Eli has progressed so much as a qb in the area of making the right reads, making the right decisions, making accurate throws and executing great ball placement on his throws, that I don't think the defense will crash. If guys get open, he will still be able to find them. In fact, Eli is the perfect qb to handle this situation. The offense won't disintegrate, but it certainly will decline.
I think the offense has to change its tone a little bit and become more aggressive with deeper throws in the passing game to regain the respect or the fear of defenses and compensate for the loss of Burress. Giants have not thrown a lot of deep balls in this middle part of the season. They relied on the fact that the running game was very effective, they moved the chains with their passing game and threw medium and deep passes just enough to keep the defenses honest and to make it easier to score. Now, with Burress out, you can guarantee that the Giants will see lots of 8 man fronts from opposing defenses and Giants have to take what the defense gives them. If they take away the run, Giants have to pass. Throwing 5 yard hitches and hooks will not get the defense worried and move them off the line of scrimmage. Giants should use Moss more effectively, on deep routes, because he is the fastest of the Giants WR's after Hixon. Giants have to be a little less predictable because the dominant position of their offensive personnel is somewhat diminished. They have to change their style subtly to regain the balance on their offense.
We clearly have not seen enough from Hixon to be confident that he will be able to replace Burress without the Giants suffering a drop off in the productivity of their offense. Burress was a unique kind of player. He was not the fastest WR in the league, but he was fast enough to get deep and his incredible size and ability to catch the ball in traffic meant that he did not need to beat his man by 3 yards. Eli could throw it up high for him and he would come down with it in traffic. Burress ran great routes and was a real student of the game. He was strong and could occasionally overpower a defender once he had the ball in his hands. No matter how well Hixon plays, the Giants offense will be reduced by the Burress absence. The Giants had no choice but to separate him from the team - it's not their fault. But his absence will hurt.
Even this year when his productivity was not impressive, he demanded double teams all the time and changed the balance of the passing game by his mere presence on the field. Going back a few years, when LT was playing for the Giants in the late '80s and early '90s, opposing offenses had to game plan for him, had to worry where he was going to line up and had 2 or 3 blockers paying attention to him. During one stretch, LT had an ankle injury and missed a few games and the dominant Giants defense took a big hit. LT did not make every tackle when he was out there - but when he was gone, suddenly the Giants defense was playing 11 against 11 instead of 10 against 8. When LT was out there, the opposing offense had 2 or 3 guys blocking him so the other 10 on the defense had 8 guys that they had to defend against and worry about. It is somewhat analogous with Burress - he was double teamed much of the time opening up passing lanes and running lanes for the rest of the offense. We'll see now how effective Boss can be, how effective Smith will be, whether Toomer can still make some plays when the opposing safeties and defense can play straight up.
Fortunately, I think that Eli has progressed so much as a qb in the area of making the right reads, making the right decisions, making accurate throws and executing great ball placement on his throws, that I don't think the defense will crash. If guys get open, he will still be able to find them. In fact, Eli is the perfect qb to handle this situation. The offense won't disintegrate, but it certainly will decline.
I think the offense has to change its tone a little bit and become more aggressive with deeper throws in the passing game to regain the respect or the fear of defenses and compensate for the loss of Burress. Giants have not thrown a lot of deep balls in this middle part of the season. They relied on the fact that the running game was very effective, they moved the chains with their passing game and threw medium and deep passes just enough to keep the defenses honest and to make it easier to score. Now, with Burress out, you can guarantee that the Giants will see lots of 8 man fronts from opposing defenses and Giants have to take what the defense gives them. If they take away the run, Giants have to pass. Throwing 5 yard hitches and hooks will not get the defense worried and move them off the line of scrimmage. Giants should use Moss more effectively, on deep routes, because he is the fastest of the Giants WR's after Hixon. Giants have to be a little less predictable because the dominant position of their offensive personnel is somewhat diminished. They have to change their style subtly to regain the balance on their offense.
NFC playoff chase
The division leaders now seem locked in. Giants have clinched the NFCE; Cardinals own the NFCW; Vikings are ahead in the NFCN; in the NFCS Panthers have a leg up with their MNF win over the Bucs, but the Bucs have a game lead over the rest of the field for the first wildcard slot.
It's possible that the Bears will overtake the Vikings for the NFCN lead, but no teams from the North or West are going to get into the playoffs as a wildcard. The two wildcards will come from the South and the East. Bucs have a 9-4 record and lead three teams with 5 losses: Cowboys (8-5), Falcons (8-5) and Eagles (7-5-1). It seems like the Bucs are a lock to make the first wildcard, because they have a one game lead and two games that they should win: hosting the Chargers and Raiders in last two weeks of the season. Even if they lose this week at Atlanta, 11 wins will lock up a wildcard.
That leaves the last wildcard up for grabs among Cowboys, Falcons and Eagles. Examining their remaining opponents, Cowboys clearly have the hardest schedule. They get the Giants and Ravens at home followed by a week 17 game in Philadelphia, which I think will decide the final playoff spot. The Falcons have one easy game, facing the Rams in week 17 and two challenging, but winnable games coming up. The Falcons get the Buccaneers at home this week and are at Minnesota next week. If the Falcons split those two games and end up winning 2 out of the 3 remaining games, they will have a 10-6 record and will have 6 conference losses.. If the Cowboys also win 2 of their last 3 and end up tied with the Falcons at 10-6, the most number of conferences losses they can have is 5 and they will beat out the Falcons for that wildcard on the basis of better conference record.
But the unknown dark horse in this is the Philadelphia Eagles. They are 7-5-1 and look like they have the easiest schedule of all the 3 wildcard contenders. Eagles get the Browns this week at home, which is a sure win. They get the Redskins next week in Washington and the Redskins offense and team has completely fallen apart. In addition to not being able to score any points their all pro OT Samuels is out for the season. Redskins should be easy pickings for the Eagles. Then it comes down to the last week of the season against the Cowboys. No matter what the Cowboys do in the weeks before that, if the Eagles win their last 3, they will end with a 10-5-1
record. Since their last opponent is the Cowboys, if the Eagles beat them, Cowboys can be no better than 10-6 and Eagles will make the playoffs. As good as the Eagles looked against the Giants, I think they will run the table and make the playoffs as the last wildcard.
It's really funny how things turn around in the NFL. Three weeks ago, the Eagles looked done. They lost at home to the Giants; they tied the Bengals and they got absolutely pasted by the Ravens benching their all-world qb in the process. Since then they beat two division winners in the Cardinals and the Giants; because of their easy remaining schedule they have an inside track to make the playoffs.
It's possible that the Bears will overtake the Vikings for the NFCN lead, but no teams from the North or West are going to get into the playoffs as a wildcard. The two wildcards will come from the South and the East. Bucs have a 9-4 record and lead three teams with 5 losses: Cowboys (8-5), Falcons (8-5) and Eagles (7-5-1). It seems like the Bucs are a lock to make the first wildcard, because they have a one game lead and two games that they should win: hosting the Chargers and Raiders in last two weeks of the season. Even if they lose this week at Atlanta, 11 wins will lock up a wildcard.
That leaves the last wildcard up for grabs among Cowboys, Falcons and Eagles. Examining their remaining opponents, Cowboys clearly have the hardest schedule. They get the Giants and Ravens at home followed by a week 17 game in Philadelphia, which I think will decide the final playoff spot. The Falcons have one easy game, facing the Rams in week 17 and two challenging, but winnable games coming up. The Falcons get the Buccaneers at home this week and are at Minnesota next week. If the Falcons split those two games and end up winning 2 out of the 3 remaining games, they will have a 10-6 record and will have 6 conference losses.. If the Cowboys also win 2 of their last 3 and end up tied with the Falcons at 10-6, the most number of conferences losses they can have is 5 and they will beat out the Falcons for that wildcard on the basis of better conference record.
But the unknown dark horse in this is the Philadelphia Eagles. They are 7-5-1 and look like they have the easiest schedule of all the 3 wildcard contenders. Eagles get the Browns this week at home, which is a sure win. They get the Redskins next week in Washington and the Redskins offense and team has completely fallen apart. In addition to not being able to score any points their all pro OT Samuels is out for the season. Redskins should be easy pickings for the Eagles. Then it comes down to the last week of the season against the Cowboys. No matter what the Cowboys do in the weeks before that, if the Eagles win their last 3, they will end with a 10-5-1
record. Since their last opponent is the Cowboys, if the Eagles beat them, Cowboys can be no better than 10-6 and Eagles will make the playoffs. As good as the Eagles looked against the Giants, I think they will run the table and make the playoffs as the last wildcard.
It's really funny how things turn around in the NFL. Three weeks ago, the Eagles looked done. They lost at home to the Giants; they tied the Bengals and they got absolutely pasted by the Ravens benching their all-world qb in the process. Since then they beat two division winners in the Cardinals and the Giants; because of their easy remaining schedule they have an inside track to make the playoffs.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Eagles post mortem
Giants got beaten soundly on Sunday; there's not much doubt about that. When you get a special teams TD on a blocked FG and still don't win, it means you were outplayed by a lot. Somehow though, after reviewing the game on video, I think it was not as bad a beating as it seemed on the day of the game itself. The bad things were of course that the offense didn't score any points until the last garbage time TD and that the defense could not get the Eagles off the field in the second half. But if you're looking for me to say that this is a negative sign of things to come for this team, that without Burress it is a shell of itself and that it doesn't have a passing attack, look somewhere else, because I don't think that is the case at all. I really think that the Eagles outplayed the Giants by a little at the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. The Eagles DL didn't knock the Giants down on every play - Giants had quite a few successful running plays. The problem was a confluence of circumstances that converged to give the Eagles defense a leg up on the Giants. Eagles did exactly what I said they would in the pregame prediction. They tried to take away the Giants running game by bringing an extra S up in run support. But it was really much more aggressive run defense than that - they had their LBs and BOTH safeties running down hill towards the line of scrimmage. They run blitzed very often and had both safeties walking to the line of scrimmage. Eagles DC Johnson said after the game that when Burress is in the game, they keep a S back to defend him specifically because the Eagles CBs are so small. Burress has had huge games against the Eagles in the past and they change their game plan to account for him. When the defense plays this aggressively, the offense has to take some shots down the field to stretch the defense and move the S off the line of scrimmage. The wind made it very difficult to throw down field and the drops by Giants WRs on key plays - the deep ball by Hixon, the 4th and 3 drop by Smith combined to make the Eagles aggressive strategy work. In addition to that, I thought Jacobs ran tentatively and when Giants OL pierced the first level of Eagles run defenders, he was not able to make any big plays. Giants are going to get other chances to handle this defensive scheme, because you can guarantee that every team will play the Giants this way. Ravens did it four games ago, Cardinals did it three games ago and Redskins tried this defense last week and in all cases, Eli was able to move the ball through the air, get the defense moved off the line and get the offense cooking. The difference this week is that the weather conditions were made for this type of defense and the Eagles play this defense all the time. If the Cowboys try this approach, I have confidence that the Giants will be able to attack their overrated secondary and make plays to Hixon, Toomer and others. Of course, the worrisome news is that Giants will have to do this without the best WR on the team, but I am confident they can do it. It is naive to think that they are just as good without Plaxico as with him and that Hixon can fill in seamlessly. But, as I've been saying, the offense will not fall apart.
I think that if opposing defenses sell out to stop the run like the Eagles do, it is more important than ever to get Bradshaw some touches. He is very elusive and if he can make one guy miss, he goes for 80 yards, not 20. That's what Westbrook did on Sunday in his 30 yard TD run when we had 9 guys advancing to the line of scrimmage, all at the same level. There was a mistake in coverage by S Butler on that play, but once Westbrook go past the first level, he was gone. He didn't need to weave his way through the db-field.
Still on the offensive side of the ball - Boss had a very bad day blocking in the running game. He could not handle the S that he was matched against - they were too quick for him and they got him out of position several times. On the end around to Manningham that lost 12 yards, Boss missed a block badly on the LB or that play could have gone for decent yardage. Giants seemed out of sync at times in their blocking assignments and were not able to operate as smoothly as in the past.
Uncharacteristically, Hedgecock had a bad day blocking also and missed several blocks. When he engaged the guy he defeated him, but I counted 3 times where he whiffed on his block.
Giants are not using Sinorice Moss correctly. They have not yet used him to stretch the defense down the field with his speed. They are using him on short hitches and hooks; he always gets a big cushion because of his speed and he seems to catch every ball. They also use him on the drag routes over the middle trying to pretend he's Wes Welker and hope that he'll catch one out of the view of the defense, make someone miss and run for a big gain. But it's too easy to defend that route and the Eagles got in his way and bumped him preventing him from getting open. This doesn't hurt the team as much when Hixon and Burress are both deep threats, but when Burress is out, you have to get Moss moving down the field.
Eagles didn't do much on offense against the Giants defense, but they did enough, especially in the second half. They converted a string of 11 out of 12 first downs, mostly because McNabb played such a good game running the ball. Giants had no sacks but they did have pressure on McNabb several times and he ran away from it to complete passes and to run himself for several first downs. Giants strategy against Eagles in the first game and yesterday was to not to bring a lot of pressure and blitzes because they don't think McNabb is an accurate enough passer to beat you with his arm. Keep him in the pocket and make him beat you by throwing the ball. It's not a bad strategy, even though I would have preferred being a bit more aggressive. The problem Sunday was that even when Giants got pressure with their DL, they were not able to keep McNabb contained in the pocket. He broke out several times to make plays and it made it look like the Giants DL was completely dominated, but it really wasn't that bad.
A little mathematics/probability lesson for you all to show you how close the game could have been and how truly unlikely it was for the Eagles to keep the ball that long in the second half. Eagles converted 11 out of 12 first downs in the 2nd half. Teams would be thrilled to have a 40% or 50% conversion rate. Assuming they have a very strong 60% conversion rate on any individual 3rd down play, the probability of converting on 11 of 12 3rd down plays is 2.7%.
Giants LBs got toasted in this game. McNabb beat them on some of his scrambles. Westbrook beat them on his two big plays. TE LJ Smith beat them for several key receptions. Kenny Phillips missed a few tackles on Smith also. In fact, on both of Westbrook's long plays, it looked like Pierce was the victim, but the S should have given him help. You have to give the Eagles coaching staff credit, this is the first time I have seen Spagnuolo out coached. Their blocking schemes kept the Giants from sacking McNabb, they found the right plays for 3rd down conversions, kept getting Westbrook enough touches until they could find him in favorable match ups where he could make a big play. They attacked the weak spot of the Giants defense and made enough plays to win the game. Westbrook had an absolutely great game, blocking, running and catching passes. He is a great player.
The refs failed to call a few fairly obvious PI penalties against the Giants and against the Eagles.
I think that if opposing defenses sell out to stop the run like the Eagles do, it is more important than ever to get Bradshaw some touches. He is very elusive and if he can make one guy miss, he goes for 80 yards, not 20. That's what Westbrook did on Sunday in his 30 yard TD run when we had 9 guys advancing to the line of scrimmage, all at the same level. There was a mistake in coverage by S Butler on that play, but once Westbrook go past the first level, he was gone. He didn't need to weave his way through the db-field.
Still on the offensive side of the ball - Boss had a very bad day blocking in the running game. He could not handle the S that he was matched against - they were too quick for him and they got him out of position several times. On the end around to Manningham that lost 12 yards, Boss missed a block badly on the LB or that play could have gone for decent yardage. Giants seemed out of sync at times in their blocking assignments and were not able to operate as smoothly as in the past.
Uncharacteristically, Hedgecock had a bad day blocking also and missed several blocks. When he engaged the guy he defeated him, but I counted 3 times where he whiffed on his block.
Giants are not using Sinorice Moss correctly. They have not yet used him to stretch the defense down the field with his speed. They are using him on short hitches and hooks; he always gets a big cushion because of his speed and he seems to catch every ball. They also use him on the drag routes over the middle trying to pretend he's Wes Welker and hope that he'll catch one out of the view of the defense, make someone miss and run for a big gain. But it's too easy to defend that route and the Eagles got in his way and bumped him preventing him from getting open. This doesn't hurt the team as much when Hixon and Burress are both deep threats, but when Burress is out, you have to get Moss moving down the field.
Eagles didn't do much on offense against the Giants defense, but they did enough, especially in the second half. They converted a string of 11 out of 12 first downs, mostly because McNabb played such a good game running the ball. Giants had no sacks but they did have pressure on McNabb several times and he ran away from it to complete passes and to run himself for several first downs. Giants strategy against Eagles in the first game and yesterday was to not to bring a lot of pressure and blitzes because they don't think McNabb is an accurate enough passer to beat you with his arm. Keep him in the pocket and make him beat you by throwing the ball. It's not a bad strategy, even though I would have preferred being a bit more aggressive. The problem Sunday was that even when Giants got pressure with their DL, they were not able to keep McNabb contained in the pocket. He broke out several times to make plays and it made it look like the Giants DL was completely dominated, but it really wasn't that bad.
A little mathematics/probability lesson for you all to show you how close the game could have been and how truly unlikely it was for the Eagles to keep the ball that long in the second half. Eagles converted 11 out of 12 first downs in the 2nd half. Teams would be thrilled to have a 40% or 50% conversion rate. Assuming they have a very strong 60% conversion rate on any individual 3rd down play, the probability of converting on 11 of 12 3rd down plays is 2.7%.
Giants LBs got toasted in this game. McNabb beat them on some of his scrambles. Westbrook beat them on his two big plays. TE LJ Smith beat them for several key receptions. Kenny Phillips missed a few tackles on Smith also. In fact, on both of Westbrook's long plays, it looked like Pierce was the victim, but the S should have given him help. You have to give the Eagles coaching staff credit, this is the first time I have seen Spagnuolo out coached. Their blocking schemes kept the Giants from sacking McNabb, they found the right plays for 3rd down conversions, kept getting Westbrook enough touches until they could find him in favorable match ups where he could make a big play. They attacked the weak spot of the Giants defense and made enough plays to win the game. Westbrook had an absolutely great game, blocking, running and catching passes. He is a great player.
The refs failed to call a few fairly obvious PI penalties against the Giants and against the Eagles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)