I have to seriously question some people’s football intelligence.
We have the proclaimed “experts” on those football shows that actually are paid for their views which most times come off as nonsense.
Then you have our own fans who occasionally seem to lose their grip on reality every now and then.
Mind you, there was a large segment of us at this exact moment last year questioning whether Eli Manning would even be a “good” quarterback much less a guy who would eventually lead us to Super Bowl title.
All you had to do was read the newspapers, listen to talk radio and read the internet and fans were looking for replacement quarterbacks for Manning and we fixated on Derek Anderson (who was having a career year for the Browns in 2007) to replace him.
By the way, how has Anderson worked out this year? He was so bad he was benched halfway through the season.
This brings us to Plaxico Burress.
Since the time the Giants rang up 44 points on the porous Seattle Seahawks defense, there was an immediate rush to suggest that the contributions of Burress were easily replaceable. Domenik Hixon subbed that afternoon, gained over 100 yards, and scored a touchdown.
It appeared to be business as usual.
As the weeks went on, Burress’ production was not on the same level as it had been in his previous seasons with the team. This led many in Big Blue Nation to conclude the following:
1. He was simply not playing well.
2. He was not “mentally” in the game.
3. His presence was not needed for the Giants to be successful.
Of course, all of this was ridiculous, but there were too many people out there with megaphones (or those that think playing John Madden football is “reality”) declaring this as absolute truth. It made me wonder if the four eyes (sometimes two) I use watching these games were not functioning properly.
There were several factors for his slight decline in production this season that just happened to coincide with team dominant start to the season:
1. Defenses funneling their coverage towards him.
You think these coaches and coordinators did not watch the NFC Championship Game? The Green Bay Packers elected to single up Burress with their best cornerback Al Harris the entire game thinking he was going to lockdown the team most talented receiver.
The result: 11 receptions for 154 yards.
Bill Belichick was not as stupid as the Packers. He made sure that no matter where Burress was on the field in Super Bowl XLII, there would at least two Patriots defenders shading him. He only had one catch in the game until the games final drive. Suddenly, the Pats decided to use cornerback Ellis Hobbs to cover him one-on-one without any help.
The result: Touchdown
In the season opener, the Redskins decided they were going to “man up,” playing Burress just as the Packers did and use Shawn Springs on him one-on-one.
The result: 10 receptions for 135 yards
He was going to go crazy again the next week against the Rams until their coaches decided to smarten up in the second half and not be stupid. Since that point, every team the Giants have faced has implemented the same strategy with the intent on eliminating the team biggest home run hitter.
2. Manning grew up as a quarterback
It also did not hurt the Manning had developed into a quarterback that was no long reliant to feeding the ball and having his one focused on just one player. He had confidence to spread the wealth around to Amani Toomer and Steve Smith. With Jeremy Shockey and his loud mouth gone from the huddle, he utilized Kevin Boss. There were options to go with the football.
Oh what a shock, Eli had actually “grown up” as a player and no longer felt as if he need his big target to bail him out! This couldn't be true, could it?
Yes, it was true.
By obvious measures, this would mean that Burress’ production would go down. That is not his fault. What is Manning supposed to do? Force-feed and go deep for Plaxico when he covered by two defenders?
By obvious measures, this would mean that Burress’ production would go down. That is not his fault. What is Manning supposed to do? Force-feed and go deep for Plaxico when he covered by two defenders?
Or should he use his vision to find Toomer, Smith and Boss running free all over the field (which was happening if you simply rewatch the tape)?
The answer is obvious.
3. Numbers game
Teams already knew about the effectiveness of the Giants running game and for fear of being gashed with runs of 5, 6 and 7 yards, they would commit an additional defender to take away such plays. The problem was that the offense had many weapons to keep teams so honest that they couldn’t do anything to stop them.
In other words, the game was being played “9 on 9” instead of “10 on 9”. In the NFL this is huge, especially if you have a supremely talented team. This year, the Giants “9” have been better than anyone else’s “9”.
You don’t believe this? Watch the New England Patriots offense and watch how much attention is paid to Randy Moss last year and this year.
Team took their chances singling him up and he burned them consistently to the point where he set the NFL record for touchdowns by a receiver. Once it became apparent (and the Patriots were scoring 40 plus a game in the first half of 2007), teams adjusted their coverage that slowed down Moss, but allowed other players to be nearly wide-open all of the time (see: Wes Welker).
This year, teams have designed their defense to take Moss and his statistics have declined tremendously.
Does this mean he is having a bad year?
No. He is just being covered differently. There is nothing he can do.
There was only one team (Miami) stupid enough to cover him one-on-one this year.
The result: 8 receptions for 125 yards and 3 touchdowns in a 48-28 win by the Patriots.
Teams haven’t single covered him since.
Coincidence?
No. You think teams are that stupid enough to try that again?
When the Giants played the Cowboys at home in November, Dallas tried defending with seven men at the line of scrimmage in the first half and shaded its coverage towards Burress, who was being matched up Anthony Henry, who has the foot speed of a safety, but playing cornerback. Seeing this, Manning and the offense elected to throw and cerebrally dissected their defense in the first half to the tune of 21 points.
By the time the Cowboys figured what was going on, the attempt to play with more deep backs and they would eventually be gassed for 207 yards on the ground. Burress may have only had three catches in the game, but his presence and the defense fear of him opened up the offense to score 35 points.
This is not an accident. The Giants were the highest scoring team in the NFL while Burress was (and at times, was not) on the field.
The next week, the Philadelphia Eagles had the same problem. Knowing Burress had tormented them over the last three years, they would not play him man-to-man with 5’10 corner Sheldon Brown. On 73% of the snaps, they double-teamed him and that left open space for the rest of the receivers and eventually paved the way to a 219-yard rushing performance. They were powerless to stop the Giants offense on that night.
When he had to exit early with an injury at Arizona, the offense did not appear to miss a beat again. When they were in Washington, it looked the same way but it was becoming apparent that teams were going to be intent on stopping the Giants running game and forcing them to pass without Burress in the lineup as a threat.
The Giants then suspended him for the season and many fans applauded it by saying that it was not a big deal because they can just plug another guy in the lineup and it wouldn’t be a problem.
This type of thinking bordered on insane and damn near ridiculous.
Did anyone ever consider how bad the defenses of Seattle, Arizona and Washington really were?
An average team moves the ball on them weekly.
A better team smokes them out of the building.
The Seahawks are 3—11 with no defense. Arizona has given up point totals of 56, 37, 48, and 35 this season (Translation: stink). And the Redskins haven’t played well against a good team all season. It is reasonable to conclude that the Giants should have not missed a beat against those teams.
This is why I declared immediately back in October that the team would NOT repeat as Super Bowl Champions without “17” on the field.
I stood by it then and I still stand by the opinion today.
When they played the Eagles again, the wind may have played a major role, but knowing that Burress was never coming back, they chose to attack the Giants far differently than in previous games. The 73% double team number dropped to only 7% in the second meeting (4 of 51 snaps).
Coincidence?
The Eagles stuffed 8 men at the line of scrimmage and consistently used run blitzes on early downs. This led to more pressure on Manning. The same receivers who were getting open in the first game because of Plaxico were now bottled up by the Philly defenders.
The result: The Giants nearly shut out by the Eagles defense.
(Listen, you can say that if Hixon catches that deep pass that he dropped in the second quarter that the Eagles would have changed their defense, but he didn’t. So stop making the argument.)
The Cowboys employed the same strategy on Sunday night. This time the offensive line broke down. Manning was sacked eight times. No room to run consistently. The receivers were once again blanketed, this time by Dallas defenders.
The result: Six offensive points.
What has happened is a trickle down effect. Not having 17 out there moves up the chain of receivers against better corner and nickel backs. This non-fear of the teams passing game is allowing more defenders to creep to the line to commit more to the run. This is has led to more blitzes which in turn has led to a slow breakdown of the offensive line who cannot handle the five, six and sometimes six man blitzes that are now being sent.
The answer is obvious.
3. Numbers game
Teams already knew about the effectiveness of the Giants running game and for fear of being gashed with runs of 5, 6 and 7 yards, they would commit an additional defender to take away such plays. The problem was that the offense had many weapons to keep teams so honest that they couldn’t do anything to stop them.
In other words, the game was being played “9 on 9” instead of “10 on 9”. In the NFL this is huge, especially if you have a supremely talented team. This year, the Giants “9” have been better than anyone else’s “9”.
You don’t believe this? Watch the New England Patriots offense and watch how much attention is paid to Randy Moss last year and this year.
Team took their chances singling him up and he burned them consistently to the point where he set the NFL record for touchdowns by a receiver. Once it became apparent (and the Patriots were scoring 40 plus a game in the first half of 2007), teams adjusted their coverage that slowed down Moss, but allowed other players to be nearly wide-open all of the time (see: Wes Welker).
This year, teams have designed their defense to take Moss and his statistics have declined tremendously.
Does this mean he is having a bad year?
No. He is just being covered differently. There is nothing he can do.
There was only one team (Miami) stupid enough to cover him one-on-one this year.
The result: 8 receptions for 125 yards and 3 touchdowns in a 48-28 win by the Patriots.
Teams haven’t single covered him since.
Coincidence?
No. You think teams are that stupid enough to try that again?
When the Giants played the Cowboys at home in November, Dallas tried defending with seven men at the line of scrimmage in the first half and shaded its coverage towards Burress, who was being matched up Anthony Henry, who has the foot speed of a safety, but playing cornerback. Seeing this, Manning and the offense elected to throw and cerebrally dissected their defense in the first half to the tune of 21 points.
By the time the Cowboys figured what was going on, the attempt to play with more deep backs and they would eventually be gassed for 207 yards on the ground. Burress may have only had three catches in the game, but his presence and the defense fear of him opened up the offense to score 35 points.
This is not an accident. The Giants were the highest scoring team in the NFL while Burress was (and at times, was not) on the field.
The next week, the Philadelphia Eagles had the same problem. Knowing Burress had tormented them over the last three years, they would not play him man-to-man with 5’10 corner Sheldon Brown. On 73% of the snaps, they double-teamed him and that left open space for the rest of the receivers and eventually paved the way to a 219-yard rushing performance. They were powerless to stop the Giants offense on that night.
When he had to exit early with an injury at Arizona, the offense did not appear to miss a beat again. When they were in Washington, it looked the same way but it was becoming apparent that teams were going to be intent on stopping the Giants running game and forcing them to pass without Burress in the lineup as a threat.
The Giants then suspended him for the season and many fans applauded it by saying that it was not a big deal because they can just plug another guy in the lineup and it wouldn’t be a problem.
This type of thinking bordered on insane and damn near ridiculous.
Did anyone ever consider how bad the defenses of Seattle, Arizona and Washington really were?
An average team moves the ball on them weekly.
A better team smokes them out of the building.
The Seahawks are 3—11 with no defense. Arizona has given up point totals of 56, 37, 48, and 35 this season (Translation: stink). And the Redskins haven’t played well against a good team all season. It is reasonable to conclude that the Giants should have not missed a beat against those teams.
This is why I declared immediately back in October that the team would NOT repeat as Super Bowl Champions without “17” on the field.
I stood by it then and I still stand by the opinion today.
When they played the Eagles again, the wind may have played a major role, but knowing that Burress was never coming back, they chose to attack the Giants far differently than in previous games. The 73% double team number dropped to only 7% in the second meeting (4 of 51 snaps).
Coincidence?
The Eagles stuffed 8 men at the line of scrimmage and consistently used run blitzes on early downs. This led to more pressure on Manning. The same receivers who were getting open in the first game because of Plaxico were now bottled up by the Philly defenders.
The result: The Giants nearly shut out by the Eagles defense.
(Listen, you can say that if Hixon catches that deep pass that he dropped in the second quarter that the Eagles would have changed their defense, but he didn’t. So stop making the argument.)
The Cowboys employed the same strategy on Sunday night. This time the offensive line broke down. Manning was sacked eight times. No room to run consistently. The receivers were once again blanketed, this time by Dallas defenders.
The result: Six offensive points.
What has happened is a trickle down effect. Not having 17 out there moves up the chain of receivers against better corner and nickel backs. This non-fear of the teams passing game is allowing more defenders to creep to the line to commit more to the run. This is has led to more blitzes which in turn has led to a slow breakdown of the offensive line who cannot handle the five, six and sometimes six man blitzes that are now being sent.
And people are actually questioning why the Giants suddenly have problems moving the ball and scoring points.
Isn't it obvious?
Would Jacobs help? Not if the defense is bringing eight men and you are only blocking with seven.
Did they have to rid themselves of this troublemaker?
Yes.
But at the same time they had to know that his presence was going to be missed severely.
Perhaps they were arrogant enough (like most teams) to think they were Teflon when it came to losing players. At a certain point, you lose one too many and cannot replace him.
The blueprint on how to beat the Giants is available for any team that has a good defense to look at. Fans are wondering why the team is having problems moving the ball now as opposed to before as if to think it is not obvious.
The Giants DO miss Plaxico. They may miss the bruising running of Jacobs, but as teams are stacking the line, geared up to stop him, the receivers are now forced to play beyond their current skill sets.
Correcting this problem is not as easy as receivers simply “stepping up.”
It is an issue that now threatens to derail what appeared to be a Super Bowl season unless certain changes or made.
Otherwise, there will be no trip to Tampa.
If there is, no Lombardi Trophy for the second straight year.
No comments:
Post a Comment