Eagles-Cowboys Addendum: Go Iggles !

Another reason Giants should be rooting for the Eagles to beat the Cowboys:

As difficult as the Giants schedule is for the last 9 games of the season, the Cowboys schedule is ridiculously easy. Giants had all their softer opponents in the first half and the Cowboys have most of their weaker opponents in the second half. Specifically, Cowboys schedule after the Eagles game is: Seattle and Buffalo at home, followed by the Redskins on the road, Miami at home and back on the road in Arizona. They could win all 5 of those games and almost surely will win 4. The Cowboys have already played the hardest teams on their schedule: Patriots, Jets, 49ers and Lions. Their last 4 games of the season has the Giants twice sandwiched around games against the Buccaneers and Eagles.

My point with all of this is that, excluding the 4 division games the Cowboys have left against the Eagles and Giants, they should win a minimum of 5 out of 6 of the other games. That would put them in prime position to win the division.

By contrast, the Eagles have at least some difficult games remaining on their schedule: Bears, Jets and Patriots. So even though they also have the same weak opponents left from the NFC West: Seattle and Arizona, unless I am grossly underrating them, I don't expect them to win more than 5 of their other 9 games. That would give them around 8 or 9 wins and would not be enough to win the division.

Cowboys are better, have an easier schedule, have not played the Giants yet while the Eagles have already lost their home game against the Giants. Therefore the Cowboys constitute a much bigger threat to the Giants chances of winning the division. We want the Eagles to win this Sunday.

Cowboys-Eagles game

Whom do Giants fans root for in the Cowboys - Eagles game this Sunday? Eagles were the preseason favorites to win the division in a cake walk. Cowboys were supposed to be exposed as a team with a weak OL, a terrible secondary and wallow near the bottom of the division. Now, the roles seem to be reversed. Eagles are the team that have been exposed with some serious structural flaws: weak LBs, weak play at the S position, poor OL play and some very questionable coaching decisions and strategies, especially on the defensive side of the ball. By contrast, the Cowboys young OL seems to be gelling and their defense seems to be more formidable than anticipated in large measure, no doubt, because of the Ryan family coaching touch.

If the Eagles lose, they fall to 2-5 and are probably done. But the Cowboys would rise to 4-3, only one game behind the Giants, and possessing the more complete team, would be a real threat to take the division. On the other hand, if the Eagles win, the Eagles and Cowboys would both be 3-4, two games behind the Giants, and with the Giants already holding a road win against them, would not be as much of a threat in the division.

Even though it is tempting to root for the Cowboys and completely take the Eagles out, I can't do it. Go Eagles!

A look at the Eagles

After we got a look at the Eagles when the Giants played them in week 3, I asserted on this blog that the Eagles were waaaaaaay overrated. Despite having an array of really talented skill positions players on both sides of the ball, they are a seriously flawed team and will have a disappointing season. I am not saying that they will crash and burn and be below .500. But for a team designated as the dream team, with Super Bowl aspirations, a team that virtually every NFL prognosticator and preseason forecaster conceded the division to, they will fall well short.

Well guess what - all of a sudden all the football analysts are hopping on my bandwagon and agreeing with me that the Eagles have serious foundational problems.

Their flaws seem obvious - the interior of their OL is weak and while the two OTs are solid, they are far from great. The QB has a cannon for an arm and is a great runner, but is not a great pure QB. Sean McCoy is one of the best runners in the league, which gives their offense as many weapons as anyone, but there seems to be no balance or philosophy to the offense and with their weak OL, they seem to be not good in short yardage situations. But mostly, their problems are on defense. Their DL does not have great depth, has generally light players and not stout against the run. The LBs are a disaster and the S position is weak. When the middle of the field is open, and the DL can be run on, you have troubles on defense. The defensive philosophy was to load up the defense with speed, with speed pass rushes and Asomugha at CB, because teams would have to throw against the high scoring Eagles offense. Not a bad plan, except you can throw to the middle of that defense. Add to that the fact that Asomugha has been playing terribly, for some inexplicable reason and the defense has been really poor.

On top of these structural flaws, we have news this week that the Eagles have suffered three injuries further weakening these units. Antonio Dixon, the DT who was a huge body and decent space eater against the run is out for the season. Trent Cole, the Eagles best DE, is out for at least 3 weeks with a calf problem. Jason Peters, their left OT is out for at least 3 weeks with a hamstring strain.

I still think the Eagles have enough skill position players and playmakers to have a good record, but with these basic personnel flaws, it's hard to see them as a real Super Bowl threat.

Giants: Eagles III

Many football fans, when commiserating, one might even say whining, about a particularly painful loss by their team will talk about bad breaks, lucky plays by the opponents, fortune or even the alignment of the stars that took the game away from their beloved home team. You'll never hear me say that about a Giants loss (well almost never) and you will especially not hear me say that about this past week's game against the Eagles. Before we summarily dismiss that statement about luck, however it is worthwhile to spend a few minutes to define what we mean by luck in a football game. Sometimes it would be a fortuitous bounce of the ball, a blown call by an official, a remarkable play by a player who has never been known to make such a play in the past, or a play that has almost never been known to happen, is extremely rare and happens at the exact right moment in the game. One example from this current NFL season that nobody could argue with calling it lucky, might be the end of the Jaguars game a few weeks ago. The score was tied and only seconds were left in the game. The Jaguars had the ball out near midfield and decided to take one last shot into the end zone, what has become known as a Hail Mary and tossed a long ball that barely reached the goal line. The defender on the play was in perfect position, jumped and instead of trying to intercept the ball, batted it down with a strong forward motion of his arms so it would fall incomplete and send the game into overtime. Incredibly, the ball did not hit the ground, but it went directly into the arms of a Jaguar player, who caught the ball and walked into the end zone for the winning TD. Was this luck or skill? Obviously, the QB had to throw the ball a great distance to reach the end zone and the WR had to make an unbelievable catch to hold on to the batted ball. But there is no arguing that this was a lucky bounce of the ball and it occurred at a crucial moment of the game. This play had a remarkably low chance of success, say 1 in 100, and it happened. That is luck. Looking back at the Giants 2007 Super Bowl, we can say that the David Tyree helmet catch, in this context, should be considered a lucky play. Eli is not known for his scrambling and managed to elude a near sack with Patriots players getting their hands on him and Tyree was not known as a great WR, yet made a great catch on the play. Once again, the idea here is that the play had a very low probability of success, for argument sake, let's say 1 in 100, but it worked nonetheless. Being a student of probability and statistics, I assert that one could definitely argue that a similar result, despite extremely low probability of success worked for the Eagles on Sunday. There were 5 or 6 plays that all had low probability of success for the Eagles on Sunday in the 4th quarter, and every one of them, consecutively, worked. The fumble by Manningham, where no defensive player stripped him, he dropped the ball near the sideline and the ball which could just as easily have rolled out of bounds was recovered by the Eagles; the scramble by Vick, where Grant had him sacked and he ducked under his tackle to run for 30 yards; the scramble by Vick on 3rd and 10 from the 12 yard line, where he ran for 35 yards; the 65 yard pass play to Celek where Phillips went for the ball instead of the tackle; the punt return by Jackson where he dropped the ball, then picked it up and ran for a TD to end the game. All five of these plays were a result of great skill and tenacity by the Eagles, but all of them also had a relatively low probability of success. For argument's sake, if we assume a probability of success of each one of 25%, then the overall probability of all five of them succeeding is 1 in 1024. Enough probability.... my point is that the Eagles took the game from the Giants; it was skill, not luck. But they did need some good fortune to have all these somewhat unlikely events to occur, and they needed every one of them to fall into place in order to win.

The flow of the game and the foregoing analysis might even be considered to be a little misleading, because the Giants and Eagles are two teams that are built differently. the Giants are constructed more like an old school team. Classic drop back passer, power running game and an offensive philosophy that believes in balance between the pass and run, rather than relying on big plays. The Eagles, on the other hand, definitely are not your grandfather's football team. They have an offense that is completely predicated on speed, a running QB and making big plays. With that kind of team, they are not going to slowly and methodically move down the field and gradually build a big lead. Rather, they are all about the big play and are more likely to have games like they did Sunday - where they look weak at times on offense, because their speed players can't overcome the power of the defense. But then they find a little crack in the defense, a mistake, a bad angle and their speed and explosiveness takes a 5 yard play and makes it 35. They take a 20 yard play and take it all the way. The Giants defense dominated through 3 1/2 quarters, but then the mistakes they made were all capitalized on by an Eagles team that is built to do exactly that. 

Giants: Eagles review II

The game Sunday got out of hand so quickly and went downhill so fast that there wasn't even time to fret, be worried and have that uncomfortable, queasy in-the-pit-of-your-stomach feeling that the game was slipping away. It was over that quick. Eight minutes on the game clock and maybe 25 minutes on the wall clock. Eagles did not have long, slow torturous drives, where we could stew in our juices and be nervous. It was a few huge plays and zap... over. Like pulling off a Band-Aid. They had so many big plays, it felt like we were playing Madden 2004 (that's the one where Vick was on the cover.... you know before his little episode as a  torturer and murderer of puppies and prior to his stay in Leavenworth as a convicted felon. I hear he's on the cover of PETA 2011. A real role model.)  It's just now actually starting to sink in what a big opportunity the Giants missed on Sunday, and how many individual plays (not to mention coaching decisions talked about in the last blog post) that slipped through the Giants fingers, that if any one of them had played out differently, the Giants would have won. The worst errors by the Giants were: the inexplicable fumble by Manningham, not being hit or stripped, trying to get out of bounds and just dropped the ball, a play that opened the door for the Eagles; the play by Phillips to go for the INT and allow Celek to run for a TD when the score was 31-10; the mistake by Ross to lose contain and allow Vick to run for 35 yards on 3rd and 10 from the Eagles 12 when the score was 31-24; the scramble by Vick up the middle ducking under a sack by Grant. Of course, I am not including the ST failure of peeling back to block instead of staying up to recover the KO.

But you know me, ever the glass-is-half-full kind of guy, I want to spend some time analyzing what went right on Sunday in the first 3 1/2 quarters, when the Giants played well and dominated the Eagles.

Eagles did a fairly good job stopping the Giants running game. There was more running room than the first game, but still too many runs for zero or negative yardage. In the first game, the Giants RBs ran for only 39 yards and Sunday they ran for 100. The Eagles did a  lot of run blitzing against the Giants, with the LBs really playing down hill, and guessing when and where the Giants were going to run. There are really only a few remedies for countering those run-blitzes: swing passes to the RB out of the backfield, pitches to the outside where he can get around the pressure or anticipate where the blitz is coming from and slant the run in the other direction. Trap plays may not even work, because the trapping G usually knocks down a DT. If there are extra LBs charging into the backfield, there's not much the OL can do. Why then doesn't every defense run-blitz much more? Because if you guess wrong and the offense throws a little dump off to a TE or RB in the area vacated by the LB, it could go for a big gain. Furthermore, if the blitzer misses the RB, he also proceeds to the second level of the defense with a good gain. O'Hara's blocking was a little spotty in the middle of the OL, which is really to be expected after missing 6 or 7 weeks. The hope is that he will get better as the weeks go along and there will be enough season left where it matters.

The pass blocking by the OL was good, there were several times where Eli had a good clean pocket to throw from. But the truth is that Eli does not get nearly enough credit for moving around a bit in the pocket when there is a rush, buying himself a few more seconds and finding an open space to throw from, which makes the OL look better. I am not saying he is a scrambler or a fast runner, but he is definitely more elusive and has better pocket presence than everyone realizes.

I thought Eli threw the ball very well Sunday, made good decisions with the ball and was very comfortable in the pocket. I usually rant about the uncreative, unimaginative Gilbride (aka Killdrive) and what a mediocre OC he is. I have to give him his due this past Sunday, the game plan was perfect. I said in my pregame analysis that the Eagles CBs were so aggressive and eager to make a play on Eli's passes, that they would bite hard on fakes and would be vulnerable to a double move. I also felt that Manningham on the outside should be the go-to-guy on that deep ball, since Nicks was more likely to be double teamed and given safety help over the top. That's exactly what Gilbride dialed up in the first half on Manningham's first TD. It was a double move, where the CB was beaten so badly, he wasn't even backpedaling or running backwards as Manningham started on the second half of his route. The CB's feet were planted, he was on his toes ready to explode forward and jump what he anticipated the route would be. Manningham ran right through him and the CB was called for illegal contact. Great call, great route, perfect pass by Eli, dropping it right into his receiver's arms. The second part of the game plan was to not be afraid of taking some deep shots down the field early, which even if they did not work would loosen up the Eagles CBs, make them play with a slightly bigger cushion and open up short routes. This worked perfectly and Hagan was wide open for several short and medium routes catching 3 balls for about 40 yards. The other component of the game plan that I liked and wrote about in my preview of the game was to attack the Eagles rookie MLB not just by running at him, but by throwing to the TE on seam routes and option routes in the middle of the field. Gilbride called several of these and Boss had a big second half, catching 3 passes for 59 yards and a big TD. The TD he caught was specifically targeting the MLB, who made a mistake on the play and did not stick with Boss, leaving him open in the back of the end zone. Boss dropped 2 or 3 balls in the first half, one right up the seam over the MLB that would have gone for 40 yards. It is interesting that the Eagles S spent a lot of time paying attention to the WRs, so the TE was often matched up against a LB. That is a big advantage for the Giants against the Eagles defense and I am sure the OC will use that if the Giants get the opportunity to play the Eagles again. I would have liked to see the Giants try some seam routes to Beckum also, who was brought in specifically for that purpose - Boss is an excellent receiver, but Beckum has more speed and might be able to break one of those seam routes all the way. Now that the Giants have started to throw more aggressively to the TE and he has made some big plays, the rest of the league will be aware of him as a threat and it will open up passing lanes and wider areas of the field for the WRs.

Aaron Ross had his best game of the year on pass defense, getting in perfect position several times and defending passes to Avanti and another WR (can't remember who) on a crossing route. JPP continues to come on - he didn't get to Vick for a sack, but knocked down 2 passes at the line of scrimmage. I can't say enough about Justin Tuck - if it's possible to be an under-the-radar, unrecognized superstar, he is it. He was making plays in the running game and in the passing game on Sunday. I particularly liked one sack of Vick, because it showed Tuck's instincts, film study and football IQ in addition to his raw skills. Tuck was coming up field on a passing play with Vick slightly outside the pocket, behind and slightly to the inside of his RT. Tuck was coming at the RT on an angle from the outside. He engaged the RT and leaned his right shoulder to the inside, making it look like he was going to take an inside route to Vick. As soon as Vick saw this, he ran out of the pocket and ran to his right. Tuck anticipated this all the way, because as soon as he had engaged the RT, he ran away from him, straight up the field on a path that intersected with where Vick would be, not where he was when Tuck started the move. Great play by Tuck.  It looked to me like Fewell wasn't substituting and rotating as aggressively as he usually does in the DL and they may have gotten a little tired in the 4th qtr as a result. Truth is, Giants had 33 minutes of possession, so it wasn't the total possession in the entire game, but the fact that the Eagles had 3 possessions (almost in a row) in that 4th qtr because of the onside KO, that may have tired them out. Canty had a solid game as did Cofield and Bernard, but Osi was pretty quiet. Giants stayed with the 3 S alignment most of the game, which makes sense with the speed and athleticism that the Eagles have.Tollefson is out for a few weeks, so I am hopeful that 2nd round draft choice Linval Joseph gets activated and takes some snaps. He is a DT and Tollefson was a DE, but the Giants use Tuck a lot at DT, so it probably means that Tuck will get a few more snaps at his normal DE position. Canty can play DE also.

Because the Buccaneers and Packers both lost last Sunday, the Giants have the upper hand in the playoffs. If they beat the Packers, not an easy task on the road, they will make the playoffs. If they lose to the Packers this week, they still have an outside chance of making the playoffs, but will need some help from other teams.

Giants: Eagles game review / Coaches mistakes

Ugh.

At times like these, when your team suffers a bad defeat or some other serious misfortune, it requires some sense of calm, serenity and perspective. You have to make sure you don't just react emotionally to what happened but evaluate and analyze somewhat dispassionately. It is exactly in this spirit of dispassion and intellectual evaluation that I can say with complete conviction that this was not just the worst loss in Giants history. It was the worst loss in NFL history. I don't know if the Elias Sports Bureau can go back and look at games where a home team, leading by 3 TDs has ever given up 4 TD in 7 minutes to lose the game, but even if they could find such a game, I doubt that it would even match all the surrounding circumstances in this game. For one thing, first place in the division and a second seed in the playoffs were on the line. Second additional factor, that can't be evaluated statistically but has to be considered when evaluating the magnitude of a loss is the level of dominance that the Giants had exhibited throughout the first 3 1/2 quarters. The Giants were not just winning the game, they were dominating. The Eagles did absolutely nothing on offense - the Giants were pressuring Vick, stopping their running game, stopping their passing game and keeping him pinned in to the pocket so that he could not run. The 10 points the Eagles scored to that point came as a direct result (as usual) of Giants turnovers - 3 points on a Manning INT and 7 points after Manningham fumbled and gave the Eagles the ball at the Giants 20. But the Giants got some gift points on turnovers also and I am not blaming this loss on those two turnovers, I am merely pointing out that the Eagles offense was stopped cold and got their 10 points only by getting short fields against the Giants defense. Leading 31-10 with 7 1/2 minutes to go required a colossal sequence of coaching blunders that, if any one of them were not made, would have resulted in a Giants win. Let me be clear - there were four or five coaching decision, both strategic and tactical, that had to be made incorrectly in order for the Giants to lose and every single one of them was made incorrectly by the Giants coaching staff. The Eagles are an explosive team with two exceptional play makers that had to be good enough and dynamic enough to take advantage of these coaching blunders, but the Eagles were good enough to do so. Their coach was good enough to see the openings and take the game from the Giants. Let me review the coaching blunders one by one.

Leading 31-10 with 7 minutes left, the defense should be willing to give up a score, but should be in a prevent defense, forcing the opponent to take its time to go the length of the field to score. Instead, on the first play (maybe second play?) after the Boss TD, the Giants were in a single safety high formation with Phillips the only S deep in the middle of the field. Furthermore, the Giants were in a rather exotic zone blitz, which had the CB coming off the edge and Tuck (and perhaps Osi too, not sure) dropping back in the middle of the field in coverage. The blitz did not get home to Vick and you therefore had Tuck running 20 yards down the field to try to stay with TE Celek. Vick got the ball to Celek on a nice throw over the outstretched hand of Tuck, while  Phillips, instead of going for the sure tackle and giving up a 20 or 30 yard play, looks like he went for the ball, missed it and Celek eluded him for a 65 yard TD. The coaches will probably tell you that Phillips made a mistake by going for the ball and not playing safe by going for the TE, but the coaches put the player in a situation where he had no margin for error and where leaning slightly the wrong way ended up in the worst possible result. Is it a player's mental or physical error when the coach puts him in a difficult situation and he fails? That's a rhetorical question - it is a coaching error for the coach putting the player and the team in a position where there was so little margin for error. Aside from the tactical error of exposing Phillips, much worse than that, it  was the coaching gaffe of the highest magnitude to choose a defensive alignment that was strategically incorrect at that point in the game.

That was the first strategic / tactical error and the first play that had to go against the Giants in this perfect storm in order to lose a game like this. Second, even more incredibly, the Giants stayed in that defense a few more times in the next several Eagle possessions which opened running lanes for Vick to take off on and gobble up enormous chunks of yardage. Think about it - you have a running QB, perhaps the fastest player and best runner at any position in the league playing QB and you keep blitzing CBs and dropping DL-men into coverage. What happens then is: if Vick somehow gets past the wave of CB blitzers, on the back end of the defense, instead of having to elude quick, nimble DBs who might be able to run him down and contain him, he has slower DL-men in space to contend with who have no chance at all of keeping up with him. That was a strategic coaching mistake that was inexcusable. I can handle a bad play call here or there. I can accept when the opposing coach outguesses you on a defensive formation or anticipates what you are going to do and has the perfect response. But when you make a strategic miscalculation of that magnitude, it is nothing less than a complete failure of the coaching staff. What happened with this formation? On one of the plays (they are a bit of a blur, so I don't quite remember the sequence of when it happened) Aaron Ross blitzed from the right side of the defense and Tuck and Osi dropped into coverage in the middle of the field. Ross was supposed to go on the outside, stay in his rush lane, keep contain and make sure Vick did not get around him to the outside. Ross made the wrong move, did not keep contain, went to the inside and  Vick went outside him and went for about 35 yards. Was this a mental error by Ross? Maybe - but again, the coaches picked the wrong defense and put the player in a difficult position where one subtle mistake ends up in a huge play for the other team. Ross is a DB and he doesn't blitz that often. Even when the Giants blitz DBs, it is usually Rolle or Thomas, almost never Ross or Webster, so the Giants coaches put a player in a position he was not used to playing and asked him to make a play from that spot. To make my point with an extreme/absurd example, if the coaches were to ask a lean WR to to block a great pass rushing DE and he failed to do so - is that a mental or physical error by the player or a coaching error by putting a player in a suboptimal situation, one in which he was likely to fail. Obviously, Ross rushing off the corner is not as extreme or absurd an example, but the idea is the same. Ross is not used to rushing the passer and might be expected to make a mistake on the angle of his rush. Tuck and Osi are pass rushers and are not used to running down field and making tackles in open space. The coaches put the players in a position where they were likely to fail.


The next colossal failure was on the onside kickoff. Sitting in the stands, my son and I turned to each other and said: would you try an onside kickoff here if you were Reid? We weren't sure, but we agreed that the Giants have to guard against it. The Giants ST were not ready for it and the Eagles, unbelievably, recovered it with so much ease that the Eagle who recovered it probably could have run for about 10 yards after grabbing it. The Giants should have had their hands team on the field to guard against the onside kickoff. If they felt the team that was out there was good enough to cover the KO, they at least should have been in position to try for the recovery. Instead, they were running back getting in position to block for the return. After the game, the Giants coaches said that they warned the players to watch out for the onside KO. But they also said that they did not want to give up the yardage on the return by putting the hands team in the game.  Reid said that if the Giants had put their hands team in the game, he probably would not have tried for that play and would have kicked deep. Here, the coaching failures run deep at several layers. First, at that juncture in the game, leading by two TDs with 7:20 left, it is certainly true that an extra 10 or 15 yards of field position is way less important than possession of the ball. Of course, you might criticize that statement as ridiculous - 10 or 15 yards of field position is always less important than possession of the ball. Really what I mean is that at that point in the game, the clock is more important than field position. If the Giants were to get the ball on their own 15 instead of their own 30 by playing the hands team, they still need to get a few first downs to run the clock, punt and again play conservative defense to prevent the Eagles from scoring quickly. The theory of not wanting to give up field position is that even if the Giants have to punt the ball back, the extra field position gained on the KO return would mean that the Eagles would have that much further to go to score when they get the ball. However,  with the Eagles big play offense, 15 yards of field position hardly means anything. If they were going to score with starting position of their own 20, they would also score from their own 30. Time was the enemy, not yardage. Consequently, the coaches should have sacrificed the yardage because the clock was the the key strategic resource to manage, not field position. Furthermore, the fact that the coaches say that they told the players to watch out for an onside KO is an extremely lame excuse and is more infuriating to me. It is the coaches absolving themselves of guilt and throwing the players under the bus. Apparently, the "team" concept that the coaches try to engender, that everyone is accountable and responsible to each other for mistakes applies only to the players but not the coaches.  If the players didn't "listen" to the coaches, it means that the coaches didn't impress well enough on the players what to do. Either way, it's a coaching mistake. They may have told them to watch out for the onside KO, but the players obviously didn't hear it - coaches did not get their message across, which is what coaches are supposed to do. 

The only mistake in that entire sequence that perhaps can be attributed to a player's physical and/or mental error is the punt that did not go out of bounds. Even there however, the punter Dodge has a huge leg and has been up and down all year. He was awful in the beginning of the year, dropping the ball, shanking punts, hitting low returnable balls, but seems to have steadied a bit in the last few weeks. However, it is unacceptable that the ST / punt coach did not get him to master kicking the ball out of bounds by this point in the season. There are circumstances in some games in every season where this is the required play. It doesn't even matter that DeSean Jackson, the most dangerous punt returner was back there returning. It could have been Refrigerator Perry returning punts, but still, the only way for the Giants to lose the game at that point was to kick the ball in bounds and give the returner a chance. Perhaps this was the play closest to a physical player error, but the fact that in week 15 the ST coaches have not brought the player along to the point where he could execute this play is an indictment of the coaches also. One statistic from Elias: this is the first game in NFL history where a punt return for a TD to win the game was the last play in the game. Inexcusable.

Players play and coaches coach. Coaches are supposed to put players in the right position to make plays and they failed miserably. Back in 1978, the play called "the fumble" happened. The Giants were beating the Eagles, had the game won, only had to take a knee and the win the game. Instead, the coach called for a running play and QB Pisarcik mishandled the exchange with RB Csonka, resulting in a fumble, Herm Edwards swooping in to pick up the ball and run for a TD winning the game. The coach, John McVay was fired by Wednesday. The coaching failures yesterday were much worse than that game. For one thing, that Giants team in 1978 was terrible and had no chance of going anywhere that season. For another thing, that was one play, one misjudgment, one miscalculation, egregious though it might have been that cost the Giants a game that they had in their grasp. In yesterday's game, it was not one coaching mistake; rather  it was 4 or 5 and they were errors of the strategic, game management type that coaches should NEVER make. If the Giants were now 7-7 instead of 9-5 and had no chance of making the playoffs, I would fire them all by Wednesday. The fact that the Giants have so much talent and might actually make the playoffs anyway, does not absolve this coaching staff of guilt or incompetence. 

In later posts, when I calm down a bit, I'll try to analyze what went right in this game. That is the most annoying, disheartening, discouraging thing about this game - the fact that the Giants were dominating the game, shows that they have enormous talent on this team and can play with any team in the league. That's for another day.

Giants: Eagles 12:40AM Sunday morning, final thoughts

Last regular season home game of the year. Can't wait.

A few last minute notes:

There's more than one way to put pressure on a weak MLB than to just run right at him. That still requires getting past the Eagles DTs, Patterson and Dixon who are solid, though not spectacular players. Getting the RBs and the TEs involved in the passing game in the middle of the field, especially out of a two TE personnel grouping also tests the MLB in coverage. I look for the Giants to run behind the right side of the OL and test the new LDE of the Eagles, but the impressive thing about the Giants running game last week was that they ran everywhere - right, left and middle. A varied running game, with some deception, i.e. some traps, some designed cutback runs, or false steps in the backfield, where RB takes a step in one direction and then goes the other way with some influence blocking by the OL and TE could be really effective.

In the passing game, a double move and deep balls to the TE off of play action fakes should be in the game plan.

On defense, the game plan last time was really good, forcing Vick to his right by blitzing Rolle often from the right side of the defense. When that happens, the DE on the other side can rush straight up field expecting Vick to roll out to that side and go to where he anticipates Vick will end up, not where he is in the center of the field when he takes the snap. In addition, look for a big game from JPP coming from the opposite side, which is Vick's blind side, since he is a lefty. Eagles starting RT, Justice might be out, so Giants need to take advantage of him or his replacement in the pass rush.

Keys for the Giants are: don't turn the ball over; run the ball effectively; keep Vick more or less contained; keep the WRs in front of you. Simple game plan, but I think it works.

Nobody asked me but: the Eagles were all over the papers saying how they're going to stop the run, force the Giants to pass and (chuckle, chuckle) pick Eli off (smirk, smirk) all game long (snort, laugh, spit-eating-grin). No team would say this about any other team, player or QB in the league and I hope Eli absolutely sticks it to them tomorrow. I hate teams with no class.

Giants: Friday before the Eagles game

This is it. Game of the Century V2. In game 1 against the Eagles, the Giants could not run the ball at all and it really hurt the offense. Giants ran for only 61 yards that game, the only game of the year where the Giants were held under 100 yards rushing.  Was that game an anomaly? Or is the Kevin Killdrive offense so predictable and the Eagles so familiar with their in-division rivals that they simply cut everything off. Don't forget, last time, the Giants did not have a full complement of WRs for the Eagles to worry about and the OL was hurting, with O'Hara still out, Diehl out, Boothe in his first game at G and LT Shawn Andrews hobbling around on a weak back.

The truth is, even that 61 yard rushing total was misleading, because 22 of the 61 yards came on scrambles by Eli Manning, one of them ending in the fumble that effectively ended the game. So looking at the RBs, their results were even poorer: Bradshaw had 12 carries for 29 yards and Jacobs had 5 for 10 yards, for a total of 17 carries for 39 yards. Of those 17 carries by the RBs, 15 went to the right side, behind the side of the OL that was solid, uninjured and had played a few games together. The situation is different this time around - all 5 OL-men that started the season, and if fact the same 5 that started the Super Bowl in 2007 are healthy and participated fully, with no limitations in practice. I suspect that the Giants will slide O'Hara in at C and move Seubert back to G, sending Boothe back to the bench as a very good substitute. On the other side of the ball, facing this reconstituted OL is an Eagles front that has 2 starters, the MLB and the LDE out because of injury. The replacement for Bradley at MLB is also hobbling, so the Giants will have no excuses if they can't get their running game going. In fact, I think that is one of the keys to the game. Will the Giants OL and running game be productive and even dominant over the Eagles defense.

On the defensive side of the ball, can the Giants recreate their good scheme from the first game and keep Michael Vick contained? The worry there is that Andy Reid is a great offesnive coach and, having looked at Fewell's scheme, I am sure he will be able to come up with somehting to counter what the Giants did the first time around. Eagles are loaded with speed, so the Giants DBs have to keep everything in front of them and the Giants DL, playing so well in the last few games, have to put more pressure on Vick and keep him contained.

On offense, aside from running the ball effectively, the Giants should not be conservative with their passing game and should try to make big plays down the field. The Eagles think they can pick off Eli every time he throws the ball and have said as much in the papers. They will be jumping routes anticipating these easy throws by Eli. With the OL back in shape, Eli should have time to go down the field and test the Eagles secondary. With Eagles DBs playing aggressively, a double move on the outside to Manningham would be an interesting play. The Eagles sell out to stop the run, even more than other teams and they should be vulnerable to play action fakes or even a trick play - like a handoff to Jacobs and a pitch back to Eli.

On the first play of every game, it seems, Eli fakes a hand-off to the RB on a run to the left, rolls out to his right and throws either a 6 yard pass to the TE or a 12 yard pass slightly deeper on the sideline to a WR. Why not try something different and throw deep early on the Eagles. That would set an aggressive tone to the game, but at the end of the day, in the northeast, you have to pound the other guys with your running game.

Looking back at the last game, the Giants played poorly, could not run the ball, turned it over 5 times and still managed to take the lead in the 4th quarter on the road. If they elevate their game just a little and can move the ball better offensively, they have a good chance to win the game.

Giants: Thoughts before the Eagles game

Steve Smith has a cartilage injury to his knee, requiring surgery and is done for the season. Mario Manningham had a hip flexor injury and apparently this injury is not as serious as it could have been and he may even play Sunday versus the Eagles. The Eagles have some serious injuries themselves on defense that they just suffered this past Sunday that could negatively affect their play. The injuries could be a real influence to the play of the game and the strategy that the Giants employ in the game. Specifically, MLB Stewart Bradley is out indefinitely with a dislocated elbow. There's a chance he could come back in the playoffs, but he is surely out for the rest of the regular season. The Eagles also lost their starting LDE Brandon Graham, their first round draft choice, who is out for the year with a knee injury. With 2 starters in the front 7 out because of injury, particularly the MLB who is key to their run defense, the Giants could easily decide to lean on the power running game and give the Eagles a heavy dose of Jacobs and Bradshaw. Adding to the attractiveness of this strategy is that the Giants running game has really picked up, gaining 200 yards in each of the last two games. The OL seems restored to health and is playing well. Jacobs is running more resolutely and better than I have seen him run in years. The Eagles defense and team is built much like the Colts  - for speed and not for power. Andy Reid's theory is that his offense is explosive and will usually be able to get a lead in the game. If the opposing offense is playing from behind and is forced to pass, Reid's fast but undersized DL will blitz and pass rush all over the yard. Since the Eagles front is missing two key run stoppers from this already-light defense, the formula of running at them seems like an obvious tendency. If Giants employ this strategy, they have to stick with it and not come away from the run if they fall behind early. However, I am still fundamentally a believer in the "pass early, so you can run late" game planning philosophy. You have to mix in enough pass to keep the other guys honest. If, in addition to Bradley and Graham, DB Assante Samuel is out, the Giants should really have an advantage on offense and will have no excuses for not moving the ball..

If Manningham does not play, it means that Derek Hagan who has played well enough, will play and get some more action in the passing game. I said this after the last Eagles game, and I will repeat it here. The Eagles sell out so hard to stop the run, knowing the Giants playbook as well as they do and commit everyone - LB's, CB's and S's - to stop the run when they read it, that a simple trick play would surely work. Send Jacobs into the line, then have him turn and pitch it back to Eli. It will be wiiiiiide open down field.

I read that the Giants are happy with the progress of Devin Thomas, the WR/KR they picked up a few weeks ago from Redskins. Maybe we'll see him Sunday in the passing game.

It is really annoying how complex the Gilbride offense is. It is the reason that it takes WRs weeks and maybe even an entire season to learn the system, get comfortable with all the sight adjustments. pre-snap reads, route adjustments, etc. that they have to do. It may be a reason for all the INT's this year. Each year Gilbride and Manning tweak the offense, expand the play book and add a little more to it. It may have reached the tipping point and is so complex that it often leads to the QB being unsure where the WR is going to be and therefore him throwing without conviction. It could also lead to hesitation in the route running leading to less separation by the WR. The biggest thing we are seeing now is how long it takes for new WRs to learn and internalize the offensive system of Gilbride, which is the strongest indication of its complexity. Experienced WRs like Clayton and even Devin Thomas take a long time before they can even step on the field. Sinorice Moss never quite got it and Manningham was on the bench for a year before he could take an offensive snap. WRs have to make sight adjustments, read the defenses for zone or man and adjust the routes, make subtle route changes on the fly. We saw just two weeks ago that Manning and Manningham were not on the same page - Eli wanted Mario to run deep and he cut off his route. That's not good at this point in the season. By contrast, Norv Turner's offense and his routes are much more simple and compact, though certainly no less effective as is Caldwell's system on the Colts. Both Chargers and Colts have had a ton of injuries at the WR and TE position and have had a revolving door of new WR's coming in being basically very effective almost immediately. That never happens on the Giants. The burn in and training period is too long. Maybe if Chargers don't make the playoffs, Norv gets fired, Gilbride takes one of the open coaching positions (Dallas, would be perfect) and the Giants get to hire Norv Turner as OC.

A double TE formation, with a play action fake and the Giants TE's going down the middle on seam routes, to take advantage of and put pressure on the replacement MLB, might be a good thing to try.

I'll say it again - I hate that Eli is leading the league in INT's. It just has to stop. With the running game geared up and with the entire defense playing well, Giants have an advantage in the game and a good chance to win if Eli doesn't turn the ball over. When you think about it - of the 4 Giants losses this year, 3 have been almost the direct result of turnovers (Titans, Cowboys-II and Eagles-I).

In 2005, when the Giants won the division and Eli played his first playoff game, the Giants got smoked in the first round by the Panthers, 23-0. The reason I bring this game up is because of the offensive strategy that John Fox and the Panthers used in that game. Giants, if you remember, had a long list of injuries to their LB corps and they had  to sign football players off the street, who hadn't practiced at all with the team and were not really NFL caliber players. Fox's offensive strategy was to attack that weakness. He did that with lots of passes to the TE, to RBs on swing passes over the middle, and with a few draw plays and screen passes that typically put the most pressure on LB's. That might be a smart approach for the Giants Sunday - using TE's Boss and Beckum as well as RB's Jacobs and Bradshaw out of the backfield in the passing game. I still like the idea of max protecting with an extra RB and trying to get a TE deep off off a play action fake.

Especially against the undersized Eagles defense, I like the idea of punishing them with Jacobs and then going to Bradshaw. When the defense gets a little tired later in the game is when the speed back really can have a substantial impact. Look what the Eagles do with McCoy their RB nearly every week. He is slow getting going and then really picks things up in the 4th quarter when most defenses slow down just a smidgen. He did it against the Giants in the first game when he had little yardage for 3 1/2 quarters and broke off a 50 yard TD run to put the Eagles ahead and a 20 yard run late in the 4ht quarter to give the Eagles another  first down and seal the game. Giants have to be careful about defending that and about rotating their DL all game long to keep as fresh as possible.

The weather forecast as of Thursday night is for Sunday to be cold, but not bitterly so, with a high of about 37. The key thing that affects the passing game is the wind and, while things could change of course, the wind is supposed to be light, at about 10MPH. The low temperature will probably affect the tailgate and the freezing fans more than game itself.

Giants: Eagles game review II

As distasteful as it was, I watched the game again, recorded on my DVR, in order to review what really happened and where the Giants lost the game. Watching the game live I had the feeling that the Eagles completely dominated, were much more talented than the Giants on both sides of the ball and that the Giants were lucky to even be in the game. I got a much different impression when I was watching the game a little dispassionately, for some analysis and not rooting hard while watching it live. The truth is that the Giants defense played really well. They had a very good game plan and executed it very well. They did make a few mistakes and did have the big blown assignment on the 50 yard TD run that turned out to be the winning TD, but they really contained the Eagles offense very well. The Giants turned the ball over several times leading directly to 9 Eagles points. They got a first quarter TD and the 50 yard run after the Giants stopped the Eagles on the play before, but gave it back because of the off side penalty on JPP.

The strategy that Fewell used was not dissimilar to what we discussed in the pregame posts. Use the 3 S / 2 LB formation almost as the base defense to combat the Eagles speed. Keep DBs back on passing downs, playing more zone than usual and keeping the dangerous WRs in front of them. Don't be afraid to blitz Vick, but when you do, bring a S or CB instead of LB who will be quicker and therefore have a better chance of containing him. The idea was that it would be OK to give up some yardage on the underneath passes, but take away the long balls that Vick throws well. Rely on the athleticism of the DL to combat Vick's running and do not use a spy  to track him down. All that worked very well, we saw Rolle blitzing often from the right side of the defense, forcing Vick to run to his right where he could not throw the ball on the run - that was a very smart wrinkle by Fewell. Eagles got one TD early and after that only four FGs, three of them gifts after Giants turnovers, until that last run. That sequence was an absolute heart breaker. Eagles had 3rd and 6 with 4 minutes left and Vick got chased and forced into an incomplete pass but JPP was off side on the play. They reran the play and the Giants stopped them again on 3rd and 1 but then gave up the long 50 yard TD run when Reid went for it on 4th down. That is two weeks in a row where a minor, inconsequential penalty at the line of scrimmage cost the Giants a TD two plays later. Last week the false start by Beatty negated Jacobs rushing TD and two plays later the pick 6 cost the Giants the game. This week the off side by JPP took a 4th and 6 and gave the Eagles a 3rd and 1 which they hit for the long play.

The other disheartening part of that play was how close the Giants came to stopping it for a loss. Osi saw the pitch and broke to the ball, missed tipping it by about an inch. If he knocks it down, the Giants win the game.

Boley had a poor game missing contain on a few outside runs, though he did get a few good blitzes and hits on the QB. Rolle played very well in run support and disrupted Vick's passing game with his blitzes. Tuck was outstanding. He had a few sacks, the forced fumble which led to the TD that put the Giants ahead early in the 4th quarter and had a few other excellent plays disrupting the Eagles offense.

Overall, while the defense played really well, on offense, the Giants made a ton of mistakes. I am not limiting myself to the turnovers, there were also lots of mental errors, physical mistakes and a strategic issue which the Giants have to address. The WRs made a few plays but had several mental mistakes. On the Giants first drive of the game, Eli hit Nicks on 3rd and 10 for about 35 yards but Nicks did not keep his feet in bounds. On the second drive of the game, Eli hit Manningham for 6 yards on 3rd and 8 when Manningham had at least a 5 yard additional cushion to run the route deeper and get the first down. Later in the game, Eli threw a crossing route to Nicks about 1/2 foot high and too far out in front of him, but the defender had fallen down and Nicks could have caught the ball after which he would have run for 40 yards. Manningham and Boss missed blocks on a WR bubble screen to Calhoun that was set up perfectly and would have gone for a big gain.

Physically, the Giants did get beat up in two areas: the first was the TE blocking for the running game, which was really poor and it affected the running game more than the OL. Boss has been getting better as a blocker but he had a real bad game Sunday night and Beckum was invisible. I am not going to blame Beckum because he is small for a TE, but if there was ever a time for him to step up and at least be a down field threat, which is why he was brought here, now is the time. Pascoe was defeated on several blocks also but did have some plays where he stuck his man and opened some space for the few effective runs that the Giants had. Strategically, it is hard to be a power running team when your TEs are average blockers and your RB has a shifty cut back style. I don't understand why Gilbride only runs the ball inside. Think about it - the only time the Giants run wide is when they are in 3rd and 2 or 3 and they throw the little pitch to Bradshaw which they think will surprise the defense. Giants did not run outside once against the Eagles, it was all behind the T and off the C and G. I don't get why Gilbride does that: with a shifty, speedy back like Bradshaw; you have to run outside occasionally. The strength of the Giants OL, I think is the athleticism at the G position. When you run inside only, you minimize their ability to pull and get out in front of an occasional outside run. I understand that things may be different now with the beat up OL, but being predictable with the running plays is not good either. 

As to predictability of the running game: the Eagles flowed to the ball so smoothly, it was almost as if they were in the huddle and knew the play call. On one play, as Eli was handing the ball to Jacobs, the Eagles already had both S running up to the line of scrimmage and were in the box. The play had no chance.

Note to Gilbride for Eagles rematch: a trick play where the RB gets the ball and pitches back to the QB for a down field pass will be wiiiiiide open based on the way the Eagles guess and attack the line of scrimmage on running plays.

The second area where the offense was defeated was at the LG and C position. Boothe was OK in pass blocking but was not quick enough to get out and block in running plays. Seubert was not awful and I will give him a pass for playing out of position, but there were several running plays going to the right side which were blocked fairly well by the RT and RG which did not work because Boothe and Seubert did not effectively seal the back side of the Eagles defense and LBs flowed over to stop the play.
 
Giants have a real challenge with how to remake the offense in the next few games with Manningham as the only WR who was on the opening day roster able to suit up this Sunday. Your first instinct is to go to the power running game, use double TE sets and maybe Giants get lucky and Hedgecock comes back to help with that. But with the weak blocking performance of the TEs last week and the injured OL, it's a lot to ask. I would throw the ball early in the downs because the Jaguars defense will surely be up at the line to stop the run. When the Giants are in 3rd and long, they should be conservative, go to screens and draws and if they have to kick it away and rely on their defense, so be it.

 I would also try to use the RBs in the passing game and load up with an extra OL-man for extra pass protection so the RBs can release out of the backfield with more confidence. The Giants have been talking all season about team first and accountability. If there is real accountability, the Giants should sit Bradshaw and play Ware.

This punter is making me (and everyone else) crazy. He shanked a 25 yard punt this week and also nailed a few long ones. He dropped one snap and, luckily nobody was rushing him. He picked it up and hit his longest punt of the game, which of course shows that this is all mental with him. When he has too much tome to think, he misses them. When he picks it up and has to just "grip it and rip it" he hits a 65 yarder. On average, his distance was pretty good, but average does not indicate consistency. One 65 yarder and a 25 yarder comes out to an average distance of 45. But the 25 yard punt puts your defense in the whole, while the 65 yard punt went into the end zone, came out to the 20 and did not give the team a great field position advantage. I understand why the Giants are smitten with Dodge; he has a huge leg. But it is 10 games into the season and he has not settled down yet. Time for some action.

Giants: Eagles game review I

I am sure this will be the first of several reviews of the Eagles game that I post, which is why I numbered this post even before I mapped out whether there will be a sequel. (It was Godfather, then Godfather 2; Superman, then Superman II... get it ... the first movies in the sequence should have been named... oh forget it.)

Anyway - I am positively ill about this game, or really, to be more accurate, about these last two games, against the Cowboys and the Eagles. They are a model of who the Giants are as a team, what the coaches and players are like and why I fear and now think that the Giants will have an unhappy ending to this season. The summary is that the Giants show lots of talent and even show lots of grit, never giving up on a game, always fighting through extremely difficult circumstances, but in the end, being undone by turnovers and mistakes. The turnovers are an absolute killer. The Giants have 30 turnovers this year, for a ridiculous average of three per game. In a way, it is remarkable that the Giants actually have a winning record with all these turnovers. They are at or near the very bottom of the league in total turnovers and poor turnover differential. By contrast in the 1990 season the Giants had 15 turnovers for the entire season and the 2008 Giants had only 13. That's 3 or 4 weeks' worth of turnovers for this year's team.  You simply can't play this way and when it has lasted this long into the season, you have to presume the following:
1- it is more than just a momentary run of bad luck - when it has lasted 10 games, you have to say that it is deeply embedded into the character , the very DNA of the team. It is not enough for the coaches to say "we coach them not to turn the ball over, but they do it anyway". That means one of two things: either the coaches don't know how to coach them not to turn it over or the players are not listening to the coaching. Either way, the coaches are not getting through to the team and there is a problem with the coaching.
2-when it has gone on through 10 of the 16 games of the season, you also have to presume that it just isn't going to change. If you follow this blog, you all know that I think Eli is one of the elite QBs in the league. Well, I have to admit that he sure isn't playing like it this year. He has the talent of an elite QB - strong, accurate arm, great timing, ability to read the defenses, ability to make every throw a great QB needs to make. But 15 INTs and all those fumbles??? That is just unacceptable. When he fell forward instead of sliding and fumbled away the last chance the Giants had of winning, making the same mistake he made last year, it showed that he is just not playing well. In a way it was a microcosm of the season - he made a valiant attempt, showed running ability, made the first down but then gave it away. He has a lot of TDs and a lot of INTs - that's Brett Favre territory and is not the recipe or makeup of an elite QB. We've all analyzed that many of his INTs are the fault of the WRs, because of all the tipped balls. But when you have 15 INTs, regardless of whose fault some of them are - it's on the QB.

We said all along, when they were on their 5 game winning streak that the turnovers have to stop otherwise it would cost the team some games when they play against the better teams. Well, it just cost two games. Three, actually, if you include the Titans game which was also a gift to the Titans because of all the turnovers. You don't win games because of talent on the field. The talent on the field just gives you a chance to win - you win when the talent is productive and plays well. Turning the ball over undermines the yards and productivity that they pile up. 

I was going to recommend that it's time for the Giants to sit Ahmad Bradshaw down. They just can't afford to play him anymore - he may be more talented than Jacobs and DJ Ware, but not so much better or so much more productive that it makes up for all the turnovers and missed blocks. Unfortunately, the news this evening is that Nicks had some kind of serious leg condition and required a surgical procedure to his leg which will cause him to miss at least three games. That may have saved Bradshaw's starting job, because sitting him under these circumstances may not be possible. Even though he makes mistakes, he is one of the play makers on offense and the Giants probably can't afford to lose him now in addition to Nicks. In fact, they probably have to work him more into the passing offense to compensate for the loss of Nicks.

These injuries are crazy, really. Every team has injuries, but what really kills a team is when all the injuries are concentrated in one unit and the team does not have a chance to compensate for it. You can stock good back up players one layer deep and demand that one substitute player step up, but not 3 or 4 in the same unit. From the opening day roster, the Giants have now lost: Nicks, Smith, Barden and Cruz. When you add in the fact that they also lost Hixon and Moss to injury, you're talking about 6 quality WRs that are not available to the team. They already re-signed Derek Hagan, but he won't exactly replace Jerry Rice on NFL Networks top 100 players list, if you get my drift. Maybe David Tyree is still available. Forget that - Hagan took his number.

I am really sorry I vented and ranted about the Giants in this post without really talking about the Eagles game at all. That will have to wait until tomorrow.

Just one note about the game itself - even though this game was really close and a play here or there could have easily given the game to the Giants, from the big picture, the Eagles outplayed and outgained the Giants. Giants were kept in the game by their defense, holding the Eagles to 9 points on four first half drives when they could have had 28. One egregious drop of a sure TD pass by Avanti was pure fortune for the Giants and not the residue of any brilliant design. Even though the Giants had a lead in the 4th qtr and were one off-sides penalty away from actually winning the game, they still lost. More tomorrow.

Giants: Gameday Eagles

Take a look at the comments and really good analysis that Doron submitted on the post titled "Eagles game preview". He made some really good points.

If you follow this blog, you know that I am a big believer in the importance of match ups in football games, or any athletic competition for that matter. In that context, while it is definitely true that Vick is playing very well, the game he had against the Redskins last week made him look positively unstoppable in part because of the match up against the Redskins defense.

First, the Redskins have a big, slow relatively nonathletic DL. They switched to a 3-4 defense this year and moved Brian Orakpo, last year's very good rookie form his position of DE with hand on the ground to stand up OLB in this 3-4. He still rushes the passer often, but is learning the nuances of the new defense. They have a well chronicled disagreement with Haynesworth who does not want to play NT in the 3-4, because he claims he is not good at it. He's right, he's not. He's huge and fairly quick for a guy 365, but he's just not good, nimble and quick enough to get after a mobile QB. The other DL-men the Redskins have are fairly ordinary players and their LBs are getting a little long in the tooth (aside from Orakpo) and are not that quick. If you watched the Monday night game, you saw Haynesworth fall on the floor and stay there rather than chase after Vick on one play. You need quickness to have a chance against Vick and Redskins don't have it in their defensive front.

Second, the Redskins DB-field used to be very deep at CB, but now is not as good as it was. Carlos Rogers and DeAngelo Hall are both good CBs, with Hall much better than Rogers. They have one very fast S in LaRon Landry, but they have no talent or depth beyond those 3 players. When the Redskins made the very questionable defensive decision of moving Landry up to the line of scrimmage to act as a spy to take away Vick's running game, they exposed their back end, with no deep S help. As we all saw, that was a bad decision.

By contrast to the two points above, the Giants have a very athletic DL and have to rely on them to do a better job than the overmatched Redskins DL did. Giants need a big game from their athletic DL and have to try to do their best at pressuring Vick without exposing their defense to big plays. I hope Fewell learns from the lesson of what the Redskins tried with Landry and does not do the same thing. I would rather give up 80 yards rushing to Vick than give up 330 yards passing and lots of deep balls all over the yard. 

With all the focus on Vick and how the Giants defense is going to stop them, we have not looked at the Eagles defense and what the Giants should do against them. A lot depends on who is healthy in the OL and what the OL does, but I would use Jacobs more today that usual, particularly running to the right, behind the healthy right side of the OL. try to punish the light-ish Eagles defense. However, if the the OL is really banged up, they need to avoid obvious passing downs and should think about passing early in the down sequence, to avoid Eagles blitzes on 3rd and long. Eagles defense is not great, Giants should be aggressive early in the game and give them a good dose of Jacobs later in the game.

Giants: Eagles and random thoughts

Eagles are fast at every position on offense including QB. If there is one DL that has the athleticism and speed to at least challenge Vick, if not completely stop him, it is the Giants DL. (You can't stop him, you can only hope to contain him.)

Perry Fewell has gotten a lot of credit early in the year for the resurgence of the Giants defense. I am glad to give him credit, but two of the three Giants losses are directly attributable to Fewell getting out-coached by the opposing team's OC. It is one thing for the opposing offense to come in with a plan that you didn't expect or plan for, but you have to realize what's going on and make adjustments on the fly to address the unexpected. Against Indianapolis, Fewell expected the Colts to pass-pass-pass and sent in a 3 S, 2 LB alignment with only 6 players near the line of scrimmage to stop the run. Peyton saw the "soft box",  took what the Giants defense was giving him and he toasted them. It took Fewell until late in the 3rd qtr to change things up, by which time it was way too late.

Against the Cowboys, Kitna was max protected often and the Giants did not go to any pressure packages or different coverages on the back end to challenge them. The one time that the Giants did blitz a LB, the Cowboys read it perfectly, called a screen pass right behind it, which went for 71 yards and a TD. When the opponents hit you for a big play or two, you give them credit or write it off to a blown coverage. When they run 7 plays of more than 24 yards, then they are consistently out-scheming you and it is more about coaches than it is about players.

I thought punter Matt Dodge had things straightened out but he reverted to form last week. When he was punting from deep in his own territory he twice shanked a 30 yard punt. When he was out near midfield, he twice nailed a 55+ yard punt into the end zone, so the net on the punt was 20 yards less. With the Eagles dangerous team speed, Giants cannot afford to give up field position. Giants need a good day out of the punter as well as out of Tynes and the kick coverage teams.

Giants have to be physical with the Eagles. Eagles are faster, Giants are bigger. The DL needs to smack Vick around a little bit and be rugged and tough with him. I am not saying that they should be dirty, but they have to rediscover the swagger and be physical with him.

Statistics are funny - Vick has been sacked 15 times this year and Eli only 12 times, while Eli has played all 9 games to 6 by Vick. I guess this means Eli is more elusive in the pocket than Vick is.

What are we seeing with Vick? Is he on a short run of excellence and he will revert to form? Or are we seeing the emergence of one of the best pure athletes in the NFL finally marshal and control his incredible physical talents and channeling them towards being one of the great QBs in the league. I suspect he is on the rise, because Reid was very anxious to stick with him and announce that he would be the starter after he saw him perform in just a few games. Reid is a great offensive coach and recognizes what he has.

I guess Reid knew what he was doing when he traded McNabb. What are the Redskins thinking by giving McNabb that extension? Unless they outright cut him at the end of the ear, he is going to get lots of guaranteed money from the Redskins. McNabb looks terrible and the Redskins are another 2 years away of rebuilding their roster before they are any good. That's not a team that you want an aging QB for. It was a dumb move to trade for him and it is a dumber move to give him a contract extension with lots of guaranteed money.

Everyone is making a fuss over the Jets being lucky during their winning streak and saying that they are not really such a good team. I disagree - just win baby - that's all it's about. In 1986 when the Giants won their first Superbowl, they had a lot of close games that were decided by a break or two, by a lucky play here or there, but nobody on the Giants was apologizing for winning those games. Anybody remember the game up in Minnesota that year? I think it was week 10 or 11 in the season; Giants were down 20-19, a little over 1 minute left, and the Giants had a 4th and 17 at around midfield. Simms hit Bobby Johnson for a 20 yard gain down to the Vikings 30 yard line, right on the sidelines so Johnson could go out of bounds and stop the clock. Giants moved it a little closer and Raul Allegre kicked a winning FG as time expired. Giants won a few more close games that year where they were outplayed but survived. It's just about winning the games, not style points.

A few weeks ago when the Giants beat the Cowboys I made a fuss on this blog, posting  that the Cowboys were not really a talented team, as everyone had judged. I saw them with major holes in the OL and in the DB-field. The fact that they covered up the holes and came up with a game plan to beat the Giants does not change my assessment. Their DB-field is awful and the Giants had no trouble at all moving the ball through the air against them. Two soft offensive penalties nullified 2 Giants scores and gave one to the Cowboys for a 21 point swing. Cowboys covered up their OL weakness and hit a bunch of big plays against the Giants. Maybe they are better than I gave them credit for in my earlier analysis, but I stick by my assertion that they are not a great, talent-stocked team. Let's see how it goes the rest of the season.

Giants: Eagles game preview

I do not understand why the spread on this game is only 3 points. I have never been this pessimistic about the Giants chances in a game in recent memory. Giants are coming off one of their worst defensive performances of the last few years. (I'm excluding last year which was tainted by injury.) By contrast, the Eagles are coming off one of the most impressive, overwhelming offensive performances I have ever seen. The Eagles offense threw deep, short and medium. They threw to their outside WRs, to their TEs, ran the ball effectively, had Vick extending plays to find his WRs and scrambling when the pocket broke down or when he saw an opening. With those two units, the Eagles offense and the Giants defense, seemingly going in opposite directions, how do the Giants avoid getting trampled by a Vick-led offense that seems unstoppable and seems to be a perfect match up against the Giants defense. If you look at the lessons of last week's games, the Cowboys laid out a road map for how to beat the Giants defense. Don't let the Giants pass rush beat you, take lots of shots down the field, use play action passes and route combinations that will divert the safeties from helping out on the deep balls. The Cowboys did it by max protecting often and giving help to their OL to keep the Giants away from an immobile Kitna. The Eagles OL is superior to the Cowboys OL and they will not have to give as much help in pass protection. More important than that of course, is that Vick can avoid any pass rush with his feet and make time for his speedy and talented outside WRs, DeSean Jackson and Jerry Maclin to get deep on the Giants secondary. It is a very tall order for the Giants defense to handle.

(BTW - did everyone see Redskins unhappy DT Haynesworth fall to the ground on one of the Eagles pass plays - when he saw Vick starting to scramble around, he just lay there and did not get up for about 4 or 5 seconds, until the play was over. He's a real high effort player. He has a low motor; the anti-Tollefson)

The best the Giants can do defensively this week is to take a page out of the Cowboys playbook from last week. Play more zone and less man-to-man; play a little more conservatively with the secondary than they have so far this year. Man-to-man underneath occasionally to use different looks on Vick is fine, but always 2-deep zone behind them and make sure that you keep everything in front of you in the secondary. Remember that when the defense plays man-to-man underneath, the CB's backs are turned to the line of scrimmage and it gives Vick all kinds of running lanes, so this should only be used as an occasional change up look. But, you can't sit back in the same defense all game long, because a smart play caller like Reid will pick it apart. You may have to live with some runs by Vick at the expense of keeping him from hitting big plays down the field. If you stick with a lot of zone coverage, you are essentially saying: make the Eagles beat you with lots of short plays, hope the defense can make a play and don't gamble and challenge them to hit deep plays.

At the same time, while the DB-field needs to be conservative, I think you have to be aggressive and varied with the pass rush. Occasional blitz of a S or CB is not a bad idea, even though it is a big risk. Vick is too quick and it would be too easy for him to evade a blitzing LB, so bringing the extra DB instead gives a better chance of getting home. Giants, more than usual, need a huge game from their DL. They will need to stop the run on their own, without as much frequent help from an aggressive S in the box. They will also need to generate a pass rush while staying somewhat disciplined in the rush lanes so as not to let Vick out of the pocket. This is much easier said than done, Vick is a crazy athlete and a great runner. To play well, of course, the DL needs its top players to play well: Canty, Cofield, Tuck and Osi. But they will need some help and big games from secondary players this week as well. Specifically, Rookie JPP and even Dave "Rudy" Tollefson need to play very well this week because they are unusually fast for DL-men, even with the emphasis in the NFL on outside speed rushing DEs. Speed up front may be able to keep Vick from killing the Giants defense all by himself. Giants could have really used Kiwanuka this week against a shifty Vick. I would think about dressing Linval Joseph as an extra DL-man this week. The DL will benefit from frequent rest and lots of rotation to stay fresh while chasing after Vick all night. Overall, the Giants DL has quickness and is better suited to chase after Vick than the Redskins DL was, with Haynesworth in the middle.

The big worry is that if the Giants defense allows a lot of big plays and the game turns into a shootout, the crippled Giants offense, limited and not running on all cylinders, will be unable to keep up. Giants offense has 2 of their starting OL-men out (O'Hara and Diehl) and one (Seubert) playing out of position. Boothe was not very good at G last week and the injuries really hurt. (Word this morning is that Andrews, who played so well against the Cowboys has a bad back;  his absence would really hurt the team.) They are also missing Smith, their best WR and have a few key substitutes also gone (Barden). Don't forget that they lost for the year some other WRs that could have come in handy at this point, in Hixon, Moss and Cruz. That's a lot of talent that they are missing and the  Giants will not be as explosive as usual on offense. They did sign Derek Hagan, so at least they will have warm bodies at the WR position. Maybe the Giants can get a little creative and use Bradshaw in the slot sometimes with Jacobs and Ware doing more of the running. I would prefer to use Jacobs more in this game anyway, to try to push around the somewhat lighter Eagles defense. The Giants offense has to be careful with the ball and generate a big running game.

Overall, on both sides of the ball, a generalization we can make is that the Eagles are built for speed and the Giants are built for size (though speed is not bad.) Giants have to approach the game to try to leverage their size and mitigate the Eagles speed advantage.

Giants: Eagles game review II (offense)

This was the best that the Giants offense has looked in a long time. Particularly the OL was more solid than it has been and was more active and accurate with their blocking. Giants power running package is largely based on the interior OL-men, who are very athletic and nasty, pulling from their G positions and leading the blocking on the stretch play, the outside run. The TE has to get a seal on the DE or the LB and the FB Hedgecock has to get out in front leading the play. Jacobs then can get rolling, running down hill and scare some people on the perimeter. For various reasons, the OL was not in synch the entire year. Perhaps Seubert was hurt and was not pulling and getting out in front of it with good balance. Hedgecock looked like his timing was off and the Giants have probably missed blocking TE Michael Matthews more than they anticipated. They traded Matthews to the Patriots for a draft choice in the preseason and the Patriots subsequently cut Matthews. With all the injuries that the Giants have had and guys going on IR, it might have been a decent move to pick Matthews up, since there was probably a roster spot for him. Do the Giants need to keep Sinorice Moss, who doesn't get any balls thrown his way and has not even dressed for games the last few weeks? Anyway.... sorry for the digression about Matthews. My point is that the OL has been out of synch and against the Eagles last week, they were definitely playing better. The running game was solid, if not dominating. Seubert was getting out in front of those stretch plays; the TE, usually Darcy Johnson, was doing a better job on the edge and Hedgecock was getting a good push. Jacobs looked like he was running with authority. The short yardage situations, which had been a problem for the offense recently, were not a problem this week, as the offense converted several of them. I didn't love the way Bradshaw looked and played; in fact, I don't love Bradshaw. He's always looking to make a big play and when he doesn't, he leaves some yards on the field. There were a few times where he had the angle on beating his man to the outside and could have made 3 or 4 yards. Instead, he pulled up, juked, danced tried to make the man that was chasing him miss so that he could reverse field and go for a big run. Instead, he ended up with no gain. It is exciting when he makes those long runs, but sometimes he leaves some yards on the field.

The OL blocked well in the passing game as well. Eli was sacked a few times and was under pressure occasionally, but overall had a clean, comfortable pocket to throw from. Eli had a spectacular game. His decision making was excellent, his accuracy was perfect, his deep balls were on the money, his timing with his receivers was sharp and some of the medium range touch passes he made were superb. He even got lucky on one ball that was tipped by an Eagle LB, nearly intercepted and ended up being a completion to Boss. His numbers were great in terms of both completion percentage and yardage. Furthermore, he had about 4 or 5 balls that were dropped by his WRs that would have made his numbers look even better and maybe given the Giants a better chance to win. He had an easy TD pass dropped by Nicks, which I still can not understand how he dropped. People are giving a break to Nicks on that one, because he made a great play a few plays later and scored a TD on the same possession. I look at it differently - if that great play was there for Nicks to make, who's to say he would not have made that play anyway on some other possession later in the game? Nicks dropped a sure TD pass and you can't ever get that back. It's different if you're in a special situation - say on the goal line - and you drop one ball and catch the next. But out in the middle of the field, when you have a chance to make a big play and you drop it, it costs you. Boss dropped a magnificent pass by Eli that got just over the LB. It was not an easy catch, but he could have made it. Same for Steve Smith who dropped a beautiful sideline throw by Eli on 3rd down in the first half. That too was not an easy catch, but Eli floated it out there softly over the defender and Smith could have made a play on it.

The TD pass to Hixon was a great play call, great read by Hixon + Eli and showed excellent adjustment by the OL and the RB to pick up the blitz. Hixon was probably designated as the hot receiver and when the Giants read blitz from his side of the field, he pulled up and cut off his route, sitting down in a short zone where Eli could find him. Nicks, on the outside continued his deep sideline pattern attracting the attention of the safety and leaving Hixon alone. Actually, it was a strange defensive call by the Eagles, because usually when you blitz, you play tight man-to-man on the short receivers, assuming that the ball will come out quickly. Eagles looked like they were in some kind of zone, and Hixon was open. The RB picked up one of the blitzers who had the shortest path to the qb (the right read) and the second blitzer came free. Eli waited until the last second and released the ball just as he was about to get hit. When Hixon made one guy miss after the catch and broke a tackle from the S Mikell, who had a brutal game for the Eagles, he was home free for a TD.

The Giants have adjusted their use of the WRs perfectly this year. They moved Hixon down from the starting slot and actually have elevated Nicks into the starting role over Manningham. Despite the few drops he made in this game, Nicks is going to be an absolute star in this league. He has deceptive speed, a great athletic body, size to break a tackle and great hands. He is also a very polished WR, especially considering he has played only 11 games in the NFL(remember he missed a few games earlier this year with an injury). The thing I love the most about Nicks is his ability to run after the catch and make big plays. Consider this about Nicks: in 11 games he has played (he played sparingly at first, since he was still getting his feet wet), he has caught 38 passes and 6 are for TDs... that is a ridiculous 16% of his catches. He is averaging 18 yards per catch which is highest on the team and among the best in the NFL. Using Hixon as the 4th WR allows him to use his smarts on those 4 WR sets, when the defense is trying to confuse you with blitzes, disguised zones, etc. (At least other defenses try to do that). This reduced load in the passing game allows Hixon to be used as the KR and PR, for which he is the best suited player on the Giants.

With all the good things the offense did on Sunday night, we can still point out a few questionable calls by Kevin Killdrive and the coaching staff. After the Eagles went ahead 14-0, the Giants moved down smartly to the Eagles end, aided by the fortuitous bounce of a pass off of MLB Trotter's hands and into those of TE Boss, giving them first and goal from the 9. First down was a run to Bradshaw for 1 yard. Then came two passes, one to Smith where they challenged the Eagles best CB, Assante Samuel. This was somewhat questionable, but he was in single coverage on Steve Smith. The patten, however, was poor and Samuel read it perfectly. The route was a double move, similar to the Plaxico TD pass that won the Super Bowl in 2007. However, that play was from the 20 and the Patriots were in an all out blitz. This throw was from the 8 and there was just not enough room to make it work. In retrospect, a slant to Smith would have been better and would have worked, based on the way Samuel defended it. To be honest, that is a bit of a second-guess, but that's what we do on these blogs. Then on 3rd down the Giants called a fade to Manninham, who got behind his defender but did not stay in bounds. Mario did the same thing in the 4th qtr, but my complaint is the formation on the other side of the field. The Giants had a bunch formation to the right and as DarrenW pointed out to me in a previous conversation, this is not a good formation for the goal line. The 3 WR bunch counts on one of the defenders getting lost or bumped and losing his man. But it only works if the DBs are worried about someone going deep and running away from them. At the goal line where there is less time and less room, one or two defenders can stay right in the middle of the bunch and defend two guys that are in his area. The qb has to make a quick decision and the bunch takes a second or two longer to develop. I may be nitpicking there, because it did give Manningham man-to-man coverage on the other side, but the OC should have also noticed by now that Mario does not do a great job of keeping his feet in bounds on those fade routes. Nitpicking, maybe, but Giants had to settle for a FG when they were down 14-0 and needed a TD to get back in the game.

That, however, is a mere minor complaint compared to the very-difficult-to-understand play call later in the game. Giants were down 37-31 after stopping the Eagles on a 3 and out and getting the ball back with 1 minute to go in the 3rd quarter. Well, to be truthful, they did not really stop the Eagles with a brilliant defensive stand. Actually, McNabb had DeSean Jackson wide open, again, 3 yards past S Aaron Rouse 30 yards down the field and overthrew him by a few feet. Anyway - Giants moved the ball from their own 25, the 3rd qtr ended and the Giants were on the Eagles 43 with a 3rd and 5 with 2 minutes gone by in the 4th qtr. Crucial play call coming up and here are the things you have to consider as a HC/OC/playcaller and game strategist when making this call on 3rd and 5. (1) Eagles had absolutely torched the Giants secondary all game long and had done so every which way imaginable. They hit short passes, medium passes to TEs and WRs, deep sideline passes, go routes down the sidelines, deep crosses, etc. You name it, they hit it. In the second half, the Eagles gave up one INT, but had one ridiculously easy TD to DeSean Jackson and would have had another TD but missed him by 2 feet on another long ball. (2) Giants offense was clicking, particularly the passing game. Eli was sharp, he was making all the right reads and decisions; his receivers were generally getting open and the OL was doing a good job countering the Eagles blitzing. Furthermore, on 3rd and manageable, the blitz was less of a factor.

With all that in mind, it should have been obvious that from a game strategy perspective, the only way for the Giants to win the game was for the offense to outscore the Eagles. This was not the 1986 Giants defense or even the 2007 defense that the HC could rely on for a key stop. You needed to put the ball in the offense's hands to win the game. You needed a "we're in a shootout" mentality to win the game. Frthermore, having watched the first 47 minutes of the game, you also should have figured out that if you were going to ask the offense to win the game, you would put the ball in the hands of Eli, who had played a spectacular game and was throwing as well as he had all year.

Having said all of that, I turned to my buddy sitting next to me at the game and said: this is obviously a 2-down call. I would ask Eli to throw it and then go for it on 4th down, if he doesn't pick it up on 3rd down. But, since it is 2-down territory, I would not be surprised if they run a draw play on 3rd down to at least get close and if they have a 4th and short, they can go for it with a run, since the short yardage offense had been better that night.

Instead, they ran the draw play on 3rd down which disappointed me, but to my complete shock, they punted it away on 4th down. I am not saying that was the play or the sequence that cost the Giants the game, but it was terrible game management, poor strategy and poor play calling. To make matters worse, with Bradshaw in the game, the Giants were more likely to run a draw play or screen. If they were committed to a pass, they might have had Jacobs in the game to pick up the blitz, since he is a better pass blocker. This made the read easier for the Eagles defense and the play went nowhere. I am not putting all the responsibility for that sequence on Gilbride - Coughlin has to take a piece of the blame. The HC makes the clock management and game management decisions. My take on it was that it was almost irrelevant where the Eagles got the ball, since the Giants defense made the Eagles offense look unstoppable on this evening. The Eagles could score from deep in their own territory or from their 40. The extra 30 yards or so of field position, usually so crucial, were meaningless in this game. Therefore the Giants should have gone for it on 4th down, no matter what the results of the 3rd down play were.That judgement proved to be accurate, since the Eagles moved the ball 91 yards for a TD that was so easy that they did not even have to convert a 3rd down on the 12 play drive that lasted 7:41. That TD iced the game for the Eagles. You have to coach the game based on what is happening, not what you imagine might happen, should happen or hope to happen.

Giants: Eagles game review

There can be no longer any dispute that the problem with this team achieving anything at all this year is on the defensive side of the ball. The Giants have given up the 4th most points in the league and are listed up there (down there?) with the worst teams in the league. The fact that the Giants are 7-6 is a testament to the soft schedule early in the season and the excellent performance of their offense in many games this year. The weakness of the defense is brought out particularly by well coached, good offensive teams like the Eagles. There are different aspects to coaching: one is coming up with a game plan and strategy that will work against opponents' weaknesses and tendencies. The second part of coaching is making in-game adjustments and reacting to game situations or surprises that the opposing team does. Reid of the Eagles is an excellent coach in devising strategies and drawing up game plans, particularly on offense. He is not as adept at in-game adjustments, but against this poorly coached Giants defense, there are never any surprises or in game adjustments required. They are so completely predictable that the opposing offense can out-scheme it every time. Just line up in a particular way that is the slightest bit different from your team's normal formation and you get the exact match up you want and elicit confusion on the defense. I'll give an example of what I mean a bit later, but the problems with this defense are deep. Aside form predictability, which gives the opposing offenses an easy time setting formations and plays, the defensive schemes and plans themselves are flawed. Whenever the opposing offense tries even the slightest bit of deception, it works, fooling the Giants defense virtually all the time. Giants DBs bite on nearly every play action fake and are often caught biting up on short routes when they should be defending deep ones.


In the first Eagles game, the Giants defense was beaten by a few big plays and a few turnovers. The base defense was not as bad, though it was far from dominating. Nevertheless, we came into this Eagles game with the thought that if the Giants defense could stop the big plays, they would have a Chance to stay in the game. Instead, the Giants defense was far worse than in the first game. They gave up several big plays, medium plays and a few long drives mixed in for good measure. They were actually not awful at stopping the run, but they made up for it by being completely abysmal defending the passing game.

We all had a moment of hope after the defense held the Cowboys to 17 non-garbage time points last week and not allowing any long plays against them. Perhaps the defense was about to have a revival and return to playing up to its capability. We analyzed that some 125 of the Cowboys' nearly 400 passing yards were in garbage time and that the defense was actually pretty good. In retrospect, however, I think we can say that the defense was about the same against the Cowboys as it was against the Eagles. The difference in performance was that the Eagles have more dangerous skill position players and they have a coach that was willing to throw the ball down the field. Perhaps if Wade Phillips would have called some down field throws, Romo would have completed them.

I'd like to give a few examples of what I was talking about above. In the Cowboys game, on Roy Williams second TD that gave the Cowboys a temporary 17-14 lead early in the second half, the Giants defense was completely fooled. Romo faked a handoff to the RB, then faked a pitch to another RB and threw to Roy Williams who was open by 7 yards. It sure seems like it's hard to get open by 7 yards when you are on the 5 yard line, but he was. Three players bit on the fakes - LB Clark, CB Webster and S Rouse. Every deception works against the Giants defense. They are not coached to read their keys in the positioning and movement of the OL; rather, they look into the backfield at the QB and fall for every ball fake.

In the Eagles game on their TD on the opening drive of the game, Vick came in at QB and completed a 30 yard pass to DeSean Jackson. On that play, Vick was lined up in shotgun, but the Giants, reading the tendencies chart from the Eagles probably thought that a running play was coming, since Vick often runs when he is in the game. Vick took the snap and instead of running, made a play action fake to the RB on his left. It was the lamest ball fake I've ever seen. He made a perfunctory wave of the ball towards the RB, all the while, his head was up and he was looking down field. It seemed completely obvious that he was throwing as his heart was definitely was not into the fake. On the defense, 3 players bit on the fake, committed to the run and took several hard steps forward to get the potential ball carrier. To give the Giants defensive players a little break, the Eagle OL did carry out the fake well, because they did not drop back in a typical pass blocking stance. The RT and RG pulled to the left as if the play was a power run to the left side of the offense, giving more for the defense to bite on. But the WRs and the TE did no engage anyone to block, they were streaking down field and the safeties should have read this. Not only was De Sean Jackson open, all 3 receivers down field were open, as there were only two Giants back defending. It was a complete breakdown of the defense.

There are a few other damning plays we can call up in the Eagles game, but I will stick for now with the 40 yard TD pass to DeSean Jackson that gave the lead back to the Eagles 15 seconds after Eli took the offense down to put the Giants ahead 31-30. Giants were in a predictable 2 deep zone and DeSean Jackson lined up in the slot, instead of as a WR on the end of the line. This meant that he came into LB Boley's zone first who was covering him when he first broke off the line of scrimmage. When he ran out of this short zone, Boley passed him off to be covered by S Michael Johnson, but Johnson inexplicably bit up on a short route being run by a little used TE and was out of position to cover Jackson. Aaron Ross tried to come over from his position on the other side of the field to try to make a play on the ball, but he could not get there in time and it went for a TD. There are several things that are fundamentally wrong with this defensive play. First, neither of the players assigned to guarding Jackson on this play, Boley or Johnson are even remotely able to cover him, even in the best of circumstances. When one mistake in coverage was made by the Giants, it became a ridiculously easy TD instead of a slightly harder one, which might have required a good, accurate pass by McNabb instead of the easy pass that it was to the wide open WR. Second, Jackson is the most dangerous player on the Eagles and he should be accorded more coverage and special attention by the defensive schemes instead of less. On this play and virtually every other, Jackson was treated as if he were a run-of-the-mill average player rather than one of the best in the NFL. You have to game plan for him a little bit and give him some extra attention, not ignore him. Third, many people noticed the lack of the pass rush and accused it as being the main culprit in allowing big pass plays. This is not the case - while it is certainly true that no WR can be covered for 4 or 5 seconds, the WRs were running clear from the moment they went down field and left the line of scrimmage. They did not have to wait for a sophisticated pass play and 5 seconds of protection by the OL.

The Giants blitz packages and different zone coverages are simple, undisguised and easy to attack. One of their packages involves rushing only 3 DL-men, dropping one of them into coverage in the short middle zone normally occupied by the LB. Then, they drop the LB into a deeper zone to play S. That puts 2 extra players in coverage, for a total of 8, but 2 of them are easy to be attacked, the DE in LB zone and the LB is S zone, so the offense can take advantage of them. When they blitz, 90% of the time they send an extra blitzer right up the middle and it is too easy to pick up by the OL. Opposing OL's seem to keep an extra RB or TE in to block until they read whether the Giants are blitzing. If the Giants are not blitzing, the offensive players release and get into the pass pattern. With the poor S play Giants have gotten, extra pass blocking gives the QB time and one of the WRs is going to come free even if there is one less receiver running pass patterns.

To add to the Giants woes, several of the players seem unmotivated and are making mistakes and breakdowns on way too high a percentage of the plays. That seems to say to me that the coach is not getting through to the players. The bottom line on the DC is this: even if we concede that the players are not as good as we thought, that the Giants defense has had some injuries and maybe some players have taken a step back in performance, there is no excuse for the way the defense is playing. You can't go from being one of the best defenses in the league to allowing absolutely everyone to score on you in one year, with mostly the same players, unless the coach is messing things up royally. The coach has to put the players in optimum position to play well and he is not doing that. Even if we overestimate the quality of the defense, we can be sure that there are some very good players on that side of the ball and the defense is definitley playing below its capability. That's on the DC.

Still, with all of that, I contend that if any one of the following plays had gone in the Giant's favor, they might have won the game. If Bolley doesn't drop that easy INT/fumble recovery, he scores a TD. If Sintim or any other defensive player picks up the ball, Giants have another possession and a better chance. Eagles scored a few plays later, so the lack of a turnover on that fumble was a huge play. If Eli doesn't fumble the ball right after the Goff interception, maybe the Giants have another score. If Nicks holds on to that easy TD, maybe Giants get an extra score and make the game closer. Of course the fumble recovery and punt return that both went for TD's were killers. You never win a game when you give away two scores like that.

Will post something on the offense later in the week.