The Giants did their part this past Sunday by beating the pathetic Redskins, but their main opponents in the NFC playoff race all won, so there was no relative movement of the teams. Technically, because this was a conference win for the Giants, they have the lead in the wild card race, but things change week to week, so it is too early to predict anything tangible. The only team that lost was the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and they are a game behind the pack at 7-5. Bucs also had a serious blow when they lost their starting CB to injury today.
It looks like the Falcons will win their division and have the best shot at the number 1 seed because of their remaining schedule. They have three nearly sure wins, with two games against the Panthers and one against the Seahawks. The fourth game on their schedule is the Saints. The Saints have a tougher schedule with a game against the underrated Rams, against the Ravens on the road and against the Buccaneers. If the Saints lose one other game, their game against the Falcons won't matter. If the Saints should run the table, I think the Falcons still get tiebreakers over the Saints. So, all in all we can certainly assume that the Falcons will win the NFC South. It looks like the Saints, currently with 9 wins should get one wild card. In the West, the Rams or Seahawks will win the division but there will be no wild card coming from the west.
That means that the Bears and Packers will fight it out for the NFC North; the Giants and Eagles will vie for the NFC East and the loser of those division races will compete with each other for the second wild card. Even though the Bears have a 1 game lead in the NFC-N, they are not a lock to win it over the Packers. Bears have a tough schedule with games against the Patriots, Vikings and Jets, while the Packers play the Lions, Patriots and Giants. The Bears and Packers close against each other. I can certainly see the Bears losing 2 out of the next 3 while the Packers win 2 out of 3. If that happens, the last game of the season between the Packers and Bears in Chicago would be for the NFC-N division title. The loser of that game would then have 10 wins and might not make it in to the playoffs at all.
The easiest path for the Giants to the playoffs is for them to win 3 out of 4 including their 2 division games against the Redskins and Eagles. If that happens, it looks like the Giants would win the division on the third tie breaker, which is conference record. If they were to lose to the Eagles but beat the Packers, they would lose the division to the Eagles but would win the wild card tie breaker against the Packers.
The big question is: what has to happen for the Giants to make the playoffs with only 10 wins? There are too many possibilities to consider, but the Giants have to beat the Eagles for one of their two wins and hope that the Eagles split their two games with the Cowboys. Packers have the Patriots on the road, so there certainly could be a loss for them and a chance for the Giants to pass them in the playoff standings .
Too many permutations and possibilities to really consider what could happen, but f the Giants win 11 they are in. If they get only 10 wins they will need some help from the Patriots, Jets and even the Cowboys.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Giants: More on the Redskins game
I am still ticked off at the INT that Eli threw. What was he thinking? Giants were up 14-0, had a 1st and goal at the 4, with 2 (or even 3) more downs to get it into the endzone. Of course, you could question the call of Killdrive to throw the ball there, after Giants had run almost unstoppably (is that a word?) in the game until then. But I will give the OC a pass because he is putting the ball in the hands of the franchise QB and he should have expected that Eli would have thrown the ball away if Boss was covered. On 3rd down, I can almost understand Eli trying to fit a ball in a narrow space, but not on 1st down. By the time the S and LB got back to help defend the play, Eli was essentially throwing into triple coverage.
I remember Boothe as being a marginal backup G last year but he seems to be playing well after his so-so opening game against the Eagles. Beatty got caught for two holding calls and one other that didn't get called. He played well enough besides that series and did help spring the RBs for a good rushing day. Nevertheless, I suspect that when Diehl is ready to come back, Beatty will resume his spot on the bench. Coaches hate penalties and mistakes and conversely love experience, so Diehl will come back for the stretch run. Andrews is feeling better, is still a few weeks (if at all) away from coming back, but it will be interesting to see what the Giants do if both Andrews and Diehl are ready to play. Seubert also played a good game at C, but if O'Hara comes back healthy and the Giants can move Seubert back to G, the Giants will have their OL back, healthy and strong. Seubert has really surprised me with his quality play this year. Last year he looked done, but I guess it was more injury (he had off-season shoulder surgery) than age.
What a great pickup Devin Harris was for the ST coverage. He made a tackle or two, blocked a punt and downed a punt on the 5 yard line. He looks like he might have the best straight line speed on the team. I hope the Giants coaches figure out how to use him and integrate him into the passing game. I wonder if he can return punts, because Reynaud sure doesn't remind anyone of Dave Meggett.
Derek Hagan's play was good on Sunday and his situation with the play of Devin Harris noted above may create a roster problem for Duke Calhoun or even Ramses Barden next summer. Too far away to think about that now - the roster changes so much from year to year. When the players you cut or release end up starting on other teams, it shows that you have talent. Bryan Kehl, Jay Alford, Leger Douzable, Charlie Pepprah and Ryan Grant (who was traded but would have been cut because of surplus players at RB) are a few recent example of this from the Giants roster. There may be some others, but these came to mind.
Did you notice that Terrel Thomas INT came from him playing the S position? It looked like the Giants pushed Rolle up into the box because of his superior tackling skills and moved Thomas back to S to take advantage of his superior speed and cover skills. They didn't do it all the time, but it shows that Fewell is thinking and creative. I would still like to see the Giants pick up a good backup cover CB. Ross has been so-so this year and there is a huge drop-off between the Giants 3rd and 4th CB. This means that the Giants are one CB injury from being vulnerable in the DB-field.
I said in the spring when the Redskins signed McNabb that it was a stupid move and it looks like, if anything, I was being understated in my criticism. It was a ridiculously stupid move. Redskins were coming off an awful season last year, with an aging weak roster and were dedicated to rebuilding it totally with new, young players. Instead, they trade for an aging QB, who relied on his legs, keep their old WR Moss and their old RB Portis as the core of the team. The only thing that would justify bringing in McNabb would be to have him tend to and guide the team and teach them what it means to be a team and a winner. Except McNabb has always been a me-first guy, is not a great locker room presence and certainly would not be considered the thinking man's QB who can tutor a young team in what it takes to win. Add on top of that, that his skills are clearly diminishing and it certainly adds up to the wrong fit for that team. Perhaps he will go to Minnesota next year when Favre retires for one last fling. It would be a mistake but at least somewhat defensible for Vikings, IMO.
Redskins defense sure missed a lot of tackles on Sunday. It actually inflated the stats on the Giants running game and made it look better than it really is. We'll take it - give the Giants RBs credit for taking every yard they could get, but the Redskins defense, especially the LBs did not want to tangle with the Giants RBs.
Speaking of RBs, I don't get why Jacobs had only 8 carries and Bradshaw had 25. Even though Bradshaw did not fumble on Sunday, he looked to me like he was carrying the ball loosely and I don't believe he has solved his problem of putting the ball on the ground. When he was trying to make moves in traffic, he had the ball away from his body, where it can easily be knocked out. I like starting with Jacobs and I want to see him get 2/3 of the carries.
I remember Boothe as being a marginal backup G last year but he seems to be playing well after his so-so opening game against the Eagles. Beatty got caught for two holding calls and one other that didn't get called. He played well enough besides that series and did help spring the RBs for a good rushing day. Nevertheless, I suspect that when Diehl is ready to come back, Beatty will resume his spot on the bench. Coaches hate penalties and mistakes and conversely love experience, so Diehl will come back for the stretch run. Andrews is feeling better, is still a few weeks (if at all) away from coming back, but it will be interesting to see what the Giants do if both Andrews and Diehl are ready to play. Seubert also played a good game at C, but if O'Hara comes back healthy and the Giants can move Seubert back to G, the Giants will have their OL back, healthy and strong. Seubert has really surprised me with his quality play this year. Last year he looked done, but I guess it was more injury (he had off-season shoulder surgery) than age.
What a great pickup Devin Harris was for the ST coverage. He made a tackle or two, blocked a punt and downed a punt on the 5 yard line. He looks like he might have the best straight line speed on the team. I hope the Giants coaches figure out how to use him and integrate him into the passing game. I wonder if he can return punts, because Reynaud sure doesn't remind anyone of Dave Meggett.
Derek Hagan's play was good on Sunday and his situation with the play of Devin Harris noted above may create a roster problem for Duke Calhoun or even Ramses Barden next summer. Too far away to think about that now - the roster changes so much from year to year. When the players you cut or release end up starting on other teams, it shows that you have talent. Bryan Kehl, Jay Alford, Leger Douzable, Charlie Pepprah and Ryan Grant (who was traded but would have been cut because of surplus players at RB) are a few recent example of this from the Giants roster. There may be some others, but these came to mind.
Did you notice that Terrel Thomas INT came from him playing the S position? It looked like the Giants pushed Rolle up into the box because of his superior tackling skills and moved Thomas back to S to take advantage of his superior speed and cover skills. They didn't do it all the time, but it shows that Fewell is thinking and creative. I would still like to see the Giants pick up a good backup cover CB. Ross has been so-so this year and there is a huge drop-off between the Giants 3rd and 4th CB. This means that the Giants are one CB injury from being vulnerable in the DB-field.
I said in the spring when the Redskins signed McNabb that it was a stupid move and it looks like, if anything, I was being understated in my criticism. It was a ridiculously stupid move. Redskins were coming off an awful season last year, with an aging weak roster and were dedicated to rebuilding it totally with new, young players. Instead, they trade for an aging QB, who relied on his legs, keep their old WR Moss and their old RB Portis as the core of the team. The only thing that would justify bringing in McNabb would be to have him tend to and guide the team and teach them what it means to be a team and a winner. Except McNabb has always been a me-first guy, is not a great locker room presence and certainly would not be considered the thinking man's QB who can tutor a young team in what it takes to win. Add on top of that, that his skills are clearly diminishing and it certainly adds up to the wrong fit for that team. Perhaps he will go to Minnesota next year when Favre retires for one last fling. It would be a mistake but at least somewhat defensible for Vikings, IMO.
Redskins defense sure missed a lot of tackles on Sunday. It actually inflated the stats on the Giants running game and made it look better than it really is. We'll take it - give the Giants RBs credit for taking every yard they could get, but the Redskins defense, especially the LBs did not want to tangle with the Giants RBs.
Speaking of RBs, I don't get why Jacobs had only 8 carries and Bradshaw had 25. Even though Bradshaw did not fumble on Sunday, he looked to me like he was carrying the ball loosely and I don't believe he has solved his problem of putting the ball on the ground. When he was trying to make moves in traffic, he had the ball away from his body, where it can easily be knocked out. I like starting with Jacobs and I want to see him get 2/3 of the carries.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Giants: Redskins Review
There was little to complain about in this game, but we certainly have to consider the opponents before we start making reservations for Dallas in February. The Redskins looked really awful. Their defense is the worst statistically in football and they lost two of their best defenders in S Landry and CB Rogers. Shanahan helped the Giants cause out further by sitting Haynesworth. In a December game in the Meadowlands, when it's cold and windy, you have to play northeast football, which means run the ball. They had their best two secondary guys out with injury and their best run stuffer sat down by coach's decision. I have to think that the rest of the Redskins locker room was not thrilled, regardless of what they may think of Fat Albert.
Giants ran the ball convincingly and passed enough to keep the offense moving. The Redskins LBs are really poor, IMO. Fletcher and McIntosh are both slow and not that big. Orakpo on the outside has been shifted to OLB from his natural DE position and hasn't quite figured it out yet, IMO. The defensive play calling by Haslett was weak - there were several plays where the Redskins blitzed or overloaded one side to stop a running play that they thought was going there and the Giants ran right through the vacated side to make big yardage. It takes a lot to get outcoached by Gilbride, but Haslett managed to do so.
This was Brandon Jacobs best game of the year. As I mentioned in one of last week's post leading up to this Redskins game, I have to give credit to my friend Ray for noticing last game that he looked more balanced and I think it showed even more this game. He lowered his pads and plowed through the pile when he had to and when he burst through a hole, he straightened himself up, ready to run for big yards. The two most notable plays were his first big run on the second play of the game when he ran for 30 yards around the Giants left side; and the second was his long TD run to make the score 28-0.
On the first run, there was not much of a hole at all, but he kept his balance and slid to the outside. He raised up when he got past the first weak attempted arm tackle and when he saw LB McIntosh, disposed of him easily with a stiff arm. When he made some space for himself, he burst to the outside and ran for 30. On the second run for his TD, he burst through the hole with his pads low, and when he got to the next level saw a DB facing him in the hole. He stopped, stutter stepped, let the DB lunge towards him and then cut to the outside accelerating again so no Redskin could catch him. Both of these plays required instinct, but most of all great balance, something we don't normally associate with a 265 pound man. I don't know why he has suddenly rediscovered it. I don't know if he's made peace with his role and the depth chart, if he's returning to his own style and not trying to emulate Bradshaw's or if the game is just "slowing down for him", but he has looked great these last few weeks and is definitely staying on his feet longer. I would stick with the RB rotation of Jacobs first and Bradshaw second.
The aspect of the game that has me most excited is the apparent emergence of JPP. He had two sacks, a batted pass, a fumble recovery and a few plays in the running game as well. We all knew he had special physical skills, but I think we are starting to see the emergence of a football player from under those long arms and legs, and from that strength and that incredible speed. The coaching he has received and the game experience he has gained in the first half looks like it's starting to sink in. Let me explain why I make this assertion. The two sacks he racked up yesterday were not "just" based on his pure physical skills, they were based on technique and coaching. His second sack was most exciting, so I'll start there. He was playing RDE and to start his rush, he dipped his left shoulder, took a step to the inside and showed an inside rush, getting the LT sliding and leaning to the inside. Then, he stood up, whacked the LT with his right arm to get him to continue to move to the inside and made a blurry quick next step to the outside with his right leg. He had the LT beat now, but the LT could still save the play by reaching out with his long arms and getting the rushing DE off balance. So JPP used another piece of football technique by making himself small and lowering his shoulders so the LT couldn't reach him. Now he had the LT beaten and was a step or two past him. When the QB sees an outside rush, he is taught to step forward in the pocket and let the route of the DE take him past the QB. JPP foiled this technique by reaching back with his super long and very strong left (inside) arm and tripped McNabb as he was stepping up in the pocket. I was positively giddy about this play. It showed his uncommon physical skills, but it required great technique.
His first sack also required more than just physical skills. He was lined up at LDE this time, with Tuck as DT to his inside shoulder. Tuck took an outside route, slanting towards the RT that was supposed to block JPP and occupying him for a second. JPP then looped around behind Tuck and took an inside route in the lane that Tuck was lined up in originally. The G who was supposed to block Tuck is supposed to slide off him, switch and pick up the looping DE, but JPP was too fast for him and blew right through the gap before the G could adjust, which gave JPP his other sack. This play required timing, coaching, awareness of the offensive blocking patterns and great speed to shoot the gap that was open. I am so excited about his development that I can't wait to see how he does next game.
Before we get too pumped up, we should realize that the Redskins OL is not very good and they were missing their starting LT. But - this is the first time JPP has shown something other than pure physical skill and I hope it keeps on coming..
The only thing to complain about was another INT by Eli in the red zone. I don't get it. he's a heady QB and has a great arm, I don't know why he's throwing the picks this year. On defense, there were some missed tackles and some blown assignments in the secondary, but these happened only after the score was 28-0, so I can't complain too much.
Giants ran the ball convincingly and passed enough to keep the offense moving. The Redskins LBs are really poor, IMO. Fletcher and McIntosh are both slow and not that big. Orakpo on the outside has been shifted to OLB from his natural DE position and hasn't quite figured it out yet, IMO. The defensive play calling by Haslett was weak - there were several plays where the Redskins blitzed or overloaded one side to stop a running play that they thought was going there and the Giants ran right through the vacated side to make big yardage. It takes a lot to get outcoached by Gilbride, but Haslett managed to do so.
This was Brandon Jacobs best game of the year. As I mentioned in one of last week's post leading up to this Redskins game, I have to give credit to my friend Ray for noticing last game that he looked more balanced and I think it showed even more this game. He lowered his pads and plowed through the pile when he had to and when he burst through a hole, he straightened himself up, ready to run for big yards. The two most notable plays were his first big run on the second play of the game when he ran for 30 yards around the Giants left side; and the second was his long TD run to make the score 28-0.
On the first run, there was not much of a hole at all, but he kept his balance and slid to the outside. He raised up when he got past the first weak attempted arm tackle and when he saw LB McIntosh, disposed of him easily with a stiff arm. When he made some space for himself, he burst to the outside and ran for 30. On the second run for his TD, he burst through the hole with his pads low, and when he got to the next level saw a DB facing him in the hole. He stopped, stutter stepped, let the DB lunge towards him and then cut to the outside accelerating again so no Redskin could catch him. Both of these plays required instinct, but most of all great balance, something we don't normally associate with a 265 pound man. I don't know why he has suddenly rediscovered it. I don't know if he's made peace with his role and the depth chart, if he's returning to his own style and not trying to emulate Bradshaw's or if the game is just "slowing down for him", but he has looked great these last few weeks and is definitely staying on his feet longer. I would stick with the RB rotation of Jacobs first and Bradshaw second.
The aspect of the game that has me most excited is the apparent emergence of JPP. He had two sacks, a batted pass, a fumble recovery and a few plays in the running game as well. We all knew he had special physical skills, but I think we are starting to see the emergence of a football player from under those long arms and legs, and from that strength and that incredible speed. The coaching he has received and the game experience he has gained in the first half looks like it's starting to sink in. Let me explain why I make this assertion. The two sacks he racked up yesterday were not "just" based on his pure physical skills, they were based on technique and coaching. His second sack was most exciting, so I'll start there. He was playing RDE and to start his rush, he dipped his left shoulder, took a step to the inside and showed an inside rush, getting the LT sliding and leaning to the inside. Then, he stood up, whacked the LT with his right arm to get him to continue to move to the inside and made a blurry quick next step to the outside with his right leg. He had the LT beat now, but the LT could still save the play by reaching out with his long arms and getting the rushing DE off balance. So JPP used another piece of football technique by making himself small and lowering his shoulders so the LT couldn't reach him. Now he had the LT beaten and was a step or two past him. When the QB sees an outside rush, he is taught to step forward in the pocket and let the route of the DE take him past the QB. JPP foiled this technique by reaching back with his super long and very strong left (inside) arm and tripped McNabb as he was stepping up in the pocket. I was positively giddy about this play. It showed his uncommon physical skills, but it required great technique.
His first sack also required more than just physical skills. He was lined up at LDE this time, with Tuck as DT to his inside shoulder. Tuck took an outside route, slanting towards the RT that was supposed to block JPP and occupying him for a second. JPP then looped around behind Tuck and took an inside route in the lane that Tuck was lined up in originally. The G who was supposed to block Tuck is supposed to slide off him, switch and pick up the looping DE, but JPP was too fast for him and blew right through the gap before the G could adjust, which gave JPP his other sack. This play required timing, coaching, awareness of the offensive blocking patterns and great speed to shoot the gap that was open. I am so excited about his development that I can't wait to see how he does next game.
Before we get too pumped up, we should realize that the Redskins OL is not very good and they were missing their starting LT. But - this is the first time JPP has shown something other than pure physical skill and I hope it keeps on coming..
The only thing to complain about was another INT by Eli in the red zone. I don't get it. he's a heady QB and has a great arm, I don't know why he's throwing the picks this year. On defense, there were some missed tackles and some blown assignments in the secondary, but these happened only after the score was 28-0, so I can't complain too much.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Giants: Random thoughts going into Redskins game
I wrote little about the Redskins game coming up this weekend because, although it is a big game, (week 13, home division game, 1/2 game behind the division leaders) I don't think Washington is a very good team and I will be very disappointed if the Giants lose. McNabb has a strong arm, throws down the field well and can still move around a little bit in the pocket. McNabb has beaten the Giants the past few years, but on the Redskins it is a different story. The Eagles teams were loaded with talent and the Redskins are not. Their OL is rather pedestrian and their WRs are not really big play threats. Santana Moss is a good WR but is not in the class of DeSean Jackson or Maclin as deep threats. The Redskins running game is injured with their top RBs, including Portis, out and a less that imposing run blocking OL leading the way. McNabb likes to get the ball deep but is not the most accurate passer on medium and short balls. Giants defensive strategy does not have to be very exotic or risky against McNabb. The pass rush should get some pressure without too much blitzing and the DB-field, while they want to keep everything in front of them, do not have to be ultra-conservative and play only zone. Mixing it up against McNabb should be effective and let the better athletes that the Giants have on the defensive side of the ball win their individual battles against the Redskins offense. Redskins do not have a very effective power running game, so I can see Fewell sticking with 3 S alignment often. Having said that, Shanahan does like to run the ball with whomever he has as tailback with his power zone blocking techniques, so we should see a bit more of the conventional 4-DL, 3-LB alignments this week.
On the other side of the ball, the Redskins are statistically the worst defense in football, giving up more than 400 yards per game. Defensive statistics are sometimes very misleading because they have to be considered in the entire context of the game - how good is the offense, how many close games do they play, how many points do you give up, how good is your punter, how many turnovers does your offense give up, etc. In other words, if one defense is ranked 8th, for example and another is ranked 12th or 13th, the number 8 defense is not necessarily much better than the 12th or 13th. However, when you're last.... you're last. They may not actually be the worst defense in the league, but they're close. I put a lot of this on the coach, because the Redskins had a pretty good defense last year with a stud DT in Haynesworth, a real strong young player in DE Orakpo on the edge and a very strong DB-field with Rogers and Hall at CB and Landry at S. They are slowing down at LB, but still had a solid defense. Then the new coach, Shanahan comes in and without evaluating the personnel and its fit for doing so, switches to a 3-4 defense. He then had the well reported problems with Haynesworth who announced that he was ticked off because he's not a good 3-4 DT (he's right). He also had to switch Orakpo to OLB, a position he is still learning and not sure if he's a good fit for. Though Hall had a few huge games at CB, both he and Rogers have taken a little step backwards and while S LaRon landry has had a great year, he is likely lost for the year with an injury. In summary, their defense is a mess.
Add in the poorly managed benching of McNabb in the 2 minute offense for future HOF QB Rex Grossman and you have a team with little talent and lots of key injuries that doesn't trust its coach. Not a formula for success. Giants should win this Sunday.
On the other side of the ball, the Redskins are statistically the worst defense in football, giving up more than 400 yards per game. Defensive statistics are sometimes very misleading because they have to be considered in the entire context of the game - how good is the offense, how many close games do they play, how many points do you give up, how good is your punter, how many turnovers does your offense give up, etc. In other words, if one defense is ranked 8th, for example and another is ranked 12th or 13th, the number 8 defense is not necessarily much better than the 12th or 13th. However, when you're last.... you're last. They may not actually be the worst defense in the league, but they're close. I put a lot of this on the coach, because the Redskins had a pretty good defense last year with a stud DT in Haynesworth, a real strong young player in DE Orakpo on the edge and a very strong DB-field with Rogers and Hall at CB and Landry at S. They are slowing down at LB, but still had a solid defense. Then the new coach, Shanahan comes in and without evaluating the personnel and its fit for doing so, switches to a 3-4 defense. He then had the well reported problems with Haynesworth who announced that he was ticked off because he's not a good 3-4 DT (he's right). He also had to switch Orakpo to OLB, a position he is still learning and not sure if he's a good fit for. Though Hall had a few huge games at CB, both he and Rogers have taken a little step backwards and while S LaRon landry has had a great year, he is likely lost for the year with an injury. In summary, their defense is a mess.
Add in the poorly managed benching of McNabb in the 2 minute offense for future HOF QB Rex Grossman and you have a team with little talent and lots of key injuries that doesn't trust its coach. Not a formula for success. Giants should win this Sunday.
Giants: Injured players starting to practice
Last year the Giants were hammered by injuries on the defense and never were able to recover. They disintegrated as the year went along and as the remaining players, who had the heavier load thrust upon them because of the injuries, weakened and caved by the end of the year. Lack of confidence in the DC didn't help either. This year, the story appears to be much more promising with the injuries this year concentrating on the offense, mostly at OL and WR. The good news is that the substitutes have played fairly well and even the schedule cooperated with a few softer games when the injuries were at their peak. The really good news, however, is that it appears that the injured players may be coming back soon and the Giants may be fairly healthy in the next few weeks to support the stretch run.
Nicks was supposed to be out 3 weeks, which puts him back in the lineup for the home Eagles game. He has spoken optimistically about returning a week earlier, perhaps against the Vikings. That bodes well for his return soon, if not early at least for his scheduled return in the Eagles game. Smith is most likely out this week but is targeting a return against the Vikings next week. Diehl is getting close to coming back and may be ready as soon as this week against the Redskins. With the competent play of Beatty last week, the injury that affects the OL play the most is O'Hara and he too is getting ready to come back in a week or two. O'Hara is one of the best C's in the NFL and his return to health would allow the Giants to slide Seubert back to LG where he has played very well this season. This would send Boothe to the bench, even though he played fairly well against the Jaguars after a rough start against the Eagles the week before. I would not push Diehl to come back this week against the Redskins. I would rather have him sit another week and see Beatty develop more as the presumed LT of the future. Giants really will have some options and tough decisions whenever Diehl does come back, especially if Beatty plays another solid game this week. A hamstring injury is serious and whenever Diehl does come back, he may be "good enough" to play but surely will not be in peak physical form for another month or two. Would you rather play a young, healthy, more mobile but inexperienced Beatty or an experienced veteran who is not in perfect physical shape?
Nicks was supposed to be out 3 weeks, which puts him back in the lineup for the home Eagles game. He has spoken optimistically about returning a week earlier, perhaps against the Vikings. That bodes well for his return soon, if not early at least for his scheduled return in the Eagles game. Smith is most likely out this week but is targeting a return against the Vikings next week. Diehl is getting close to coming back and may be ready as soon as this week against the Redskins. With the competent play of Beatty last week, the injury that affects the OL play the most is O'Hara and he too is getting ready to come back in a week or two. O'Hara is one of the best C's in the NFL and his return to health would allow the Giants to slide Seubert back to LG where he has played very well this season. This would send Boothe to the bench, even though he played fairly well against the Jaguars after a rough start against the Eagles the week before. I would not push Diehl to come back this week against the Redskins. I would rather have him sit another week and see Beatty develop more as the presumed LT of the future. Giants really will have some options and tough decisions whenever Diehl does come back, especially if Beatty plays another solid game this week. A hamstring injury is serious and whenever Diehl does come back, he may be "good enough" to play but surely will not be in peak physical form for another month or two. Would you rather play a young, healthy, more mobile but inexperienced Beatty or an experienced veteran who is not in perfect physical shape?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Giants: Playoff arithmetic
It's too early to start writing down playoff scenarios, like: who has to beat whom to make the playoffs, which teams are a lock, which teams are on the outside, which games are critical etc. But the fascinating thing about this year is that there are no teams that have elevated themselves way above the rest of the league, which has some interesting consequences. First, the playoff races will probably go down to the wire and even more so, the seeding in each conference will not be settled for a while either. Last year the Colts were undefeated and gave the Jets their playoff life by pulling their starters in the 15th game of the season. That is not likely to happen this year, although it is possible that the Falcons could pull away a bit because of their schedule. In the NFC, only one of the playoff contenders, Falcons, has 9 wins. Only two, Saints and Bears, have 8 wins and four other teams, Giants, Eagles, Packers and Buccaneers have 7 wins. Making this more interesting is that the very weak NFC West does not have a team over .500 so they will contribute only their division winner to the playoffs and do not have a team that will compete for the wild card. Confusing the actual playoff picture is how many games there are left between these playoff contenders themselves.
Everyone is now anointing the Falcons as the cream of the crop in the NFC, but there is something that should be considered in this analysis. There are a few principles that we need to consider when it comes to analyzing the strength of these teams and the "power rankings". First is the hallowed Parcells-ism: "you are what your record says you are". Even though I understand that and I accept it, you still have to realize that a team wins when it plays a team that is weaker than it is. And even though you can't control the schedule, a team will have a better record when it plays a whole schedule of weaker teams than it would if it played a schedule of strong teams. This is not rocket science, it kind of borrows from the BCS method and considers strength of schedule when considering bowl invitations and national championships in college football.
The other principle we have to be aware of is: it's not who you play, it's when you play 'em. Just look at the Dallas Cowboys, the Tennessee Titans or the Indianapolis Colts for examples. Would you rather have played the Cowboys when Phillips was coaching them and they were 1-7 or when Garrett is coaching them, they have a brief revival and are 2-1 since he took over? For the Titans, would you rather have played them earlier in the year when Vince Young and Kerry Collins were both healthy or now when they don't have a QB to send out on the field? Would you rather have played the Colts in week 2 when the Giants played them or now after they have sent 11 players to IR? Of course every team has its ups and downs during the season and its waves of injuries, and it is fortune and the NFL schedule maker that lines your team up against another on a particular week of the NFL season, but it still influences whether you win or lose.
In that context, when you look at the NFC this year, you see three fairly strong divisions and one really weak one. The NFC North has the strong Packers and Bears plus a talented but dysfunctional Vikings. The NFC South has three strong teams in the Falcons, Saints and Buccaneers. The NFC East is similar to the NFC North in that it has two good teams in the Giants and Eagles along with one talented but somewhat dysfunctional team in the Cowboys. (It is interesting that the only two NFL teams to fire coaches in mid-season are these two teams that I characterized as dysfunctional, flawed might be a better description, but the two teams coincidentally both won playoff games last year.) The NFC West is weak with the division winner possibly coming in with a losing record.
The reason I bring this up is that the NFC South played the NFC West this year, while the NFC East and NFC North played each other. The record of the NFC South against the West is 9-2, with even the lame Panthers getting their only win of the year against the West. Each of the 3 South teams in the playoff hunt has one game left against the West which you can probably chalk up as a win and a leg up in the playoff race. I know "you are what your record says you are", but strength of schedule counts. I'm just saying.
There are so many inter-playoff-contender games that it's not possible to say who really has the advantage now. Falcons have two left against the Panthers and one against the Seahawks, so that definitely puts them in strong position to get to at least 12 wins, a high playoff seed and a bye.
Looking at the Giants schedule, they have 3 winnable games on their schedule. Plain and simple: they have to win them. The tougher games (Eagles and Packers) will also go along way to determine if they make the playoffs. We will know a lot more about the Giants chances after this weekend and yet more after next weekend. We will do some analysis each week to see how the NFC playoff picture unfolds.
Everyone is now anointing the Falcons as the cream of the crop in the NFC, but there is something that should be considered in this analysis. There are a few principles that we need to consider when it comes to analyzing the strength of these teams and the "power rankings". First is the hallowed Parcells-ism: "you are what your record says you are". Even though I understand that and I accept it, you still have to realize that a team wins when it plays a team that is weaker than it is. And even though you can't control the schedule, a team will have a better record when it plays a whole schedule of weaker teams than it would if it played a schedule of strong teams. This is not rocket science, it kind of borrows from the BCS method and considers strength of schedule when considering bowl invitations and national championships in college football.
The other principle we have to be aware of is: it's not who you play, it's when you play 'em. Just look at the Dallas Cowboys, the Tennessee Titans or the Indianapolis Colts for examples. Would you rather have played the Cowboys when Phillips was coaching them and they were 1-7 or when Garrett is coaching them, they have a brief revival and are 2-1 since he took over? For the Titans, would you rather have played them earlier in the year when Vince Young and Kerry Collins were both healthy or now when they don't have a QB to send out on the field? Would you rather have played the Colts in week 2 when the Giants played them or now after they have sent 11 players to IR? Of course every team has its ups and downs during the season and its waves of injuries, and it is fortune and the NFL schedule maker that lines your team up against another on a particular week of the NFL season, but it still influences whether you win or lose.
In that context, when you look at the NFC this year, you see three fairly strong divisions and one really weak one. The NFC North has the strong Packers and Bears plus a talented but dysfunctional Vikings. The NFC South has three strong teams in the Falcons, Saints and Buccaneers. The NFC East is similar to the NFC North in that it has two good teams in the Giants and Eagles along with one talented but somewhat dysfunctional team in the Cowboys. (It is interesting that the only two NFL teams to fire coaches in mid-season are these two teams that I characterized as dysfunctional, flawed might be a better description, but the two teams coincidentally both won playoff games last year.) The NFC West is weak with the division winner possibly coming in with a losing record.
The reason I bring this up is that the NFC South played the NFC West this year, while the NFC East and NFC North played each other. The record of the NFC South against the West is 9-2, with even the lame Panthers getting their only win of the year against the West. Each of the 3 South teams in the playoff hunt has one game left against the West which you can probably chalk up as a win and a leg up in the playoff race. I know "you are what your record says you are", but strength of schedule counts. I'm just saying.
There are so many inter-playoff-contender games that it's not possible to say who really has the advantage now. Falcons have two left against the Panthers and one against the Seahawks, so that definitely puts them in strong position to get to at least 12 wins, a high playoff seed and a bye.
Looking at the Giants schedule, they have 3 winnable games on their schedule. Plain and simple: they have to win them. The tougher games (Eagles and Packers) will also go along way to determine if they make the playoffs. We will know a lot more about the Giants chances after this weekend and yet more after next weekend. We will do some analysis each week to see how the NFC playoff picture unfolds.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Giants: Jaguars game review II
I was very concerned about the OL going into the game, as everyone was, particularly the left side of the OL. Boothe played much better than he did in his first game back starting last week against the Eagles. The pleasant surprise was how well Beatty played at LT. Jaguars do not have a dominating defense, so we have to put it in context, but they do have a decent DL and Beatty allowed no sacks or even pressures off his side and he was a big part of the success in the Giants running game. Boothe made some very good blocks when he pulled and was crisp in his other blocks. Overall, even though the OL has not been dominant in manufacturing a running game the last few weeks, the pass blocking has been solid. Look at it this way: Giants have lost their starting C and his backup, they have their LG playing C, a player who was not active the first 6 weeks of the season starting at LG, the starting LT and his substitute out replaced by a 2nd year player and they still have not allowed a sack in the last 4 games.
This was clearly Jacobs best game of the year. He was more balanced, was running down hill and even juked a few players in the DB field. My friend Ray has noticed that Jacobs has looked a little off this year and he ran well this week. He pressed the holes quickly, did not try to imitate Bradshaw's style of constantly looking for a cut back lane and instead stayed true to his own style. As well as Bradshaw has done running the ball this year (except for the fumbles) I think I like the offense better with Jacobs starting and Bradshaw coming off the bench as the change of pace runner.
I guess we can't complain about the offensive play calling and performance. Putting up 24 points with half of your offensive starters out is pretty good. But I still hated the call of the draw to Bradshaw on 3rd and 2 from the 3 yard line on the Giants first drive of the game. It was 2nd and 10 after the fumble reversal and Jacobs ran for 8 down to the 3 yard line. Third and 2. After the 8 yard run, you had to figure that the defense was looking to stop another bruising run by Jacobs. I would not have minded giving the ball to Jacobs again, since the OL was getting a good push and have him drive towards the goal line, or perhaps just get a first down. It also might have been the perfect time to run a play action fake to Jacobs and throw a middle pass to Boss or a corner fade to a WR. Instead, Gilbride waited several seconds then made a personnel change sending in Bradshaw as RB. When Eli lined up in shotgun with Bradshaw next to him, it was such a transparent attempt at deception that there was no deception at all. I turned to my son sitting next to me at the game and we both said to each other in unison: draw play to Bradshaw. If we read it, I assume the Jaguars could do so also. Jaguars stopped Bradshaw for a loss of 2, one of only two running plays for negative yardage that the Giants had all game long. Think about it - 3rd and 2 from the 3. That's not an obvious passing down, so if you were going to pass, you would probably have the QB get under center and use a play action fake to keep the defense guessing. Lining up in shotgun there shows pass, so the defense would sense that there is a draw coming. It was not a good call.
JPP had his best game of the year with two sacks and an active game on the DL. Giants need him to come on and play well down the stretch. He has enormous physical talents but little experience. My hope was that he would gain some coaching and game experience in the first half of the season and come on in the second half. It's time.
Eli had a good game but missed Mannignham deep on a post early in the game. Manningham was behind the defense by a few yards and Eli badly underthrew him. It was an easy throw, because Manningham was on a post, running diagonally across the field and did not requrie the pinpoint depth that an over the shoulder throw requires. Eli could have put lots of air under it and let Manningham run under the ball.
This past Sunday's game against the Jaguars was a must win. Had they lost, I think their season would have been over. Next post will do some playoff arithmetic.
This was clearly Jacobs best game of the year. He was more balanced, was running down hill and even juked a few players in the DB field. My friend Ray has noticed that Jacobs has looked a little off this year and he ran well this week. He pressed the holes quickly, did not try to imitate Bradshaw's style of constantly looking for a cut back lane and instead stayed true to his own style. As well as Bradshaw has done running the ball this year (except for the fumbles) I think I like the offense better with Jacobs starting and Bradshaw coming off the bench as the change of pace runner.
I guess we can't complain about the offensive play calling and performance. Putting up 24 points with half of your offensive starters out is pretty good. But I still hated the call of the draw to Bradshaw on 3rd and 2 from the 3 yard line on the Giants first drive of the game. It was 2nd and 10 after the fumble reversal and Jacobs ran for 8 down to the 3 yard line. Third and 2. After the 8 yard run, you had to figure that the defense was looking to stop another bruising run by Jacobs. I would not have minded giving the ball to Jacobs again, since the OL was getting a good push and have him drive towards the goal line, or perhaps just get a first down. It also might have been the perfect time to run a play action fake to Jacobs and throw a middle pass to Boss or a corner fade to a WR. Instead, Gilbride waited several seconds then made a personnel change sending in Bradshaw as RB. When Eli lined up in shotgun with Bradshaw next to him, it was such a transparent attempt at deception that there was no deception at all. I turned to my son sitting next to me at the game and we both said to each other in unison: draw play to Bradshaw. If we read it, I assume the Jaguars could do so also. Jaguars stopped Bradshaw for a loss of 2, one of only two running plays for negative yardage that the Giants had all game long. Think about it - 3rd and 2 from the 3. That's not an obvious passing down, so if you were going to pass, you would probably have the QB get under center and use a play action fake to keep the defense guessing. Lining up in shotgun there shows pass, so the defense would sense that there is a draw coming. It was not a good call.
JPP had his best game of the year with two sacks and an active game on the DL. Giants need him to come on and play well down the stretch. He has enormous physical talents but little experience. My hope was that he would gain some coaching and game experience in the first half of the season and come on in the second half. It's time.
Eli had a good game but missed Mannignham deep on a post early in the game. Manningham was behind the defense by a few yards and Eli badly underthrew him. It was an easy throw, because Manningham was on a post, running diagonally across the field and did not requrie the pinpoint depth that an over the shoulder throw requires. Eli could have put lots of air under it and let Manningham run under the ball.
This past Sunday's game against the Jaguars was a must win. Had they lost, I think their season would have been over. Next post will do some playoff arithmetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)