Harlan Huckleby
01-18-2008, 09:11 PM
1.January 17th,
2008
9:48 pm Just finishing my last nightshift and waiting for the Chopper home from the North Sea; get to watch this game with a beer. My Question is, do you think that the Giants have enough cover left, or are they running on a wing and a prayer? Just get the feeling that they can’t stand any more injuries if they are going to come through this one. Whatever happens though, have to hope that this has been a turning point for Manning and Coughlin; get the feeling that whatever happens on Sunday the Giants will come back stronger next year, a team with more belief, and greater expectations and maybe, just maybe a quarterback whose shoulders are now up to the challenge of carrying those expectations.
JOHN BRANCH says: Ah, our friend on the oil platform in the North Sea. Too bad you can’t make it to Green Bay this weekend; you might find it quite balmy. Let me start by thanking everyone for submitting questions. It is kind of a crazy day, and I’ll try to check in occassionally and answer the questions that strike my fancy. And don’t be shy about engaging one another in discussions, either.
I’ve thought about the what-if, should the Giants lose. I think 2007 will be seen as the turning point for Coughlin and Manning after years of “Is this the right guy?” speculation that swirled around both of them. The flip side is that the Giants will no longer carry that valuable underdog status. They might just be next year’s Cowboys, arriving with Super-Bowl-or-Bust expectations. I’ve always thought the most-fun seasons are those that are unexpected. Starting next season, the Giants will be expected to go this far, or farther, every season. That’s the standard you want, but a tough one to have.
— Posted by Rob
2.January 17th,
2008
10:31 pm Is the Giants offensive line physical enough to deal with the front 7 of the Packers in the run game? I think that with the weather being somewhere around below 77 degrees that both teams will want to establish the run, but even more so for the Giants since Eli has not been the best in the cold. Or course, Eli has been proving everyone wrong the past few weeks, so what do I know?
— Posted by JessF
3.January 17th,
2008
11:08 pm Jacobs or Bradshaw? Who should be featured or will it matter? People have been talking about Bradshaw as if he’s the next coming of Joe Morris. These people are also forgetting that when healthy, Jacobs averaged over 100 yards per game in December on only 20 carries per game. I wouldn’t exactly annoint Bradshaw as no 1 RB just yet.
Also, what are the odds Buck and Aikman are rooting against the Giants again?
JOHN BRANCH says:
Let’s combine some of these questions into one answer. As opposed to the Packers, who will hand the ball to Ryan Grant, the Giants have the luxury — and curse — of two backs. It’s a luxury, because they can go with the hot hand. It’s a curse, because we’ve seen teams get a little too worried about sharing the load, and neither back builds momentum. How the Giants juggle these two will be key. It feels like a Brandon Jacobs game, doesn’t it? Cold weather and a slick surface, perfect for pound-the-gut football. I think the Giants can run on the Packers, who were ranked 14th in rush defense. Then again, that partly stems from their 13-3 record, which means a lot of teams were passing against them to try to catch up. And the Packers allowed only 28 yards to Seattle last week. But if there is a soft spot, I’d say it’s up the middle. We’ll see.
As for Buck and Aikman, I’ll leave that to all of you. I’m at the games, so I don’t hear the television commentary. The only thing I hear is Mike Lupica or Gary Myers or Dave Klein chattering nearby, which is always interesting in itself.
— Posted by Charles
4.January 17th,
2008
11:41 pm Eli has played well the last few weeks and given the results may be unfair to ask: what took so long. How good is the rest of the team though when they play so well when all Eli has to do is not screw up so badly as to lose the game by himself?
Charles’ question regarding Buck and Aikman is a good one. Aikeman is painfully dumb and is only now getting to the point of having even a few valid thoughts and rarely shares anything not painfully obvious to anyone but those barely familiar with the game.
Buck is a disgrace to his dad as he is the most opinionated - and always one-sided - play by play guy on the air. Almost always have to mute the TV sound when these two are the broadcast team.
— Posted by Tom F
5.January 18th,
2008
12:03 am I do not want to look a gift quarterback in the mouth, but re the “evolution” of Eli, is it Eli who has evolved or is it Kevin Gilbride? There finally appears to be the acknowledgement that throwing downfield is not cost effective. Does the data support this? Are there more short throws (at the point of completion or incompletion) and runs in their recent games?
JOHN BRANCH says:
Bob, you know what I’m going to say. I’d agree that the Giants have tightened their offensive game plans in recent weeks, calling for more runs and shorter, less-risky passes. The Giants are playing traditional “playoff football,” beating teams with the run, some well-timed passes and defense and special teams. They have made a more concerted effort to balance their run/pass ratio, which Tom Coughlin wants to be 50-50. Against the Cowboys, the Giants ran only 44 plays, and Manning threw 18 times and was sacked three times. That’s a 23-21 ratio, skewed by a fourth quarter when the Giants ran on all but two plays (a pass and a sack). As for the computation of average completion minus YAC (yards after catch)? That sounds like a good homework assignment for you, Bob.
— Posted by Bob
6.January 18th,
2008
1:58 am Wow. Lots of Aikman and Buck bashing. I don’t know what sort of insight John Branch can shed on this, but I think Aikman and Buck are about as good as there can be in the current era of NFL television play by play. Networks don’t want a football scientist in the booth, evidenced by ESPN’s complete deaf ear to the chants of more Jaworski, Vermeil and Nessler, they want average insight that appeals to both die hards and non-fans as well as a little “everyman’s opinion.” Joe Buck is absolutely perfect at this. It’s not so easy to analyze a game with cogency and accuracy while not alienating fans who are less knowledgeable with two much football science, all the while keeping a light and entertaining tone. Aikman and Buck are just fine in the current confines of the system.
I’m wondering about the Giants coaching staff. Most notably, Steve Spagnuolo. I will be shocked if Spags isn’t given heavy consideration for a head coaching spot this spring. With the history the Giants have of letting valuable young head coach candidates slip through their system to other teams (Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Bill Belichick, John Fox, Sean Payton, just to name a few), is there anyway the Giants can go the route that Dallas has gone in keeping Jason Garrett and sign Spagnuolo to an extension with the idea that when Coughlin (who’s one of the older coaches in the league) decides to call it a career, the job is his? The players LOVE this guy. How can we keep him on the Giants?
JOHN BRANCH says: There is some serious Steve Spagnuolo love going on around here. I don’t think you have to worry about him leaving this year, since I’m not sure there will be any more coaching vacancies. But I also don’t think the Giants are the type of franchise to sign him to a contract that, in essence, makes him the heir apparent. You can argue that the Cowboys are putting a lot of pressure on Wade Phillips and creating a weird dynamic in the coaches meetings by working so hard to keep Garrett around. That’s not the Giants way. Besides, Spagnuolo has been a coordinator for just one year. Let’s see where things are a year from now.
— Posted by Dan
7.January 18th,
2008
3:48 am 1. How does Plax look going into the game, his productivity is almost at nil right now and I imagine the cold won’t help him any. Yeah, yeah…I know we still need him on the field if nothing else, as a decoy. But how does he look relative to recent weeks?
2. Any sense that the defense has been game-planning for traction issues? That is, do they anticipate any such issues and the effect it may have on them being able to rush the QB?
Thanks.
JOHN BRANCH says: Ah, the equipment question. The Giants will take several pairs of shoes for each player (it was four, I believe, to Buffalo), each with different kind of nubs and cleats. They’ll experiment before the game. But “the frozen tundra” is a bit of a misnomer. Lambeau Field is actually heated, we hear, by underground pipes, which keeps the field fairly soft. Now, it can still be slick, but unless there is some frozen rain falling, the field shouldn’t be an ice rink.
And Plax? It’s hard to tell. He’s not doing much in practice, but that hasn’t changed all season. He shrugged off his limp in Dallas (when he leapt for a high pass in the end zone and seemed to land awkwardly), and said on Wednesday that he is fine. At this point, if he could suck it up in October, I’m sure he’ll suck it up in the conference championship game.
— Posted by Bakes
8.January 18th,
2008
8:01 am John,
From your article on Geoff Pope. Wow! Are these quotes from the Jerry Reese manual on player motivation? Maybe trying to trick the Pack? With so few, if any options, I think maybe the boss should be trying to boost his confidence.
“Trust me, we don’t want him out there,” General Manager Jerry Reese said. “He gets pushed out there because we’ve run out of bodies.”
“He didn’t get beat badly,” Reese said. “But he’s not supposed to be out there.”
JOHN BRANCH says: Thanks for reading, Harold. As a reporter, you have to love Jerry Reese because he says what is on his mind. Remember a few weeks ago when he used the word “skittish” in describing Eli Manning? He was bashed for it, even though that is what everyone else in the world was thinking about Manning, too. We’re just not used to hearing someone in charge say it, which is too bad. Reese isn’t saying anything that the Giants aren’t thinking; they know they got caught in a bind because of injuries. Even Pope admitted to me that he was surprised that Tony Romo didn’t try to attack him, and he suspects that Brett Favre will take a long look at last week’s film and see if he can’t pick on the rookie. Should be interesting.
— Posted by Giants Fan
9.January 18th,
2008
8:28 am To earlier posts by Charles and Tom F
After the game, Buck, Troy and most of the Fox crew all sounded like they had lost a puppy. Hope someone kept them away from sharp objects.
Without hesitation, they will be routing for a Packer win.
— Posted by Jets Fahn
10.January 18th,
2008
8:32 am I actually think Aikman is a very good analyst, just honest in ways that sometimes make our heroes come up short. But I agree with comment about playing calling. I think in past, the Giants have tried to over use the downfield passing and kept putting themselves in whole. John?
Also great questions on Bradshaw and Jacobs. Jacobs is a horse, terrific pile mover and pretty fast, too. But Bradshaw appears like he can hurt you more ways — as a receiver and break away threat who can make things happen with just very small creases.
So, John, how DO you think Giants should use them.
JOHN BRANCH says: I touched upon this above, but I’d defer to Tom Coughlin on this one. I hesitate to admit it, but he might be a tad smarter than me on this issue. He raises the point that they have enough similarities in their styles and abilities to keep the Giants a bit less predictable when one or the other is in the game. From Wednesday’s press conference:
“They have complimented each other very well. Bradshaw, when utilized, has done very, very well, and the two of them create some problems for the defense because of the style in which they play. I think when we do use them both and we do use them in a capacity… the interesting thing is both of them can do a lot of things. Jacobs can catch the ball, Bradshaw can run inside, obviously Jacobs can run inside, so they both can do a little bit of what the other guy does so you are not restricted in any way in terms of play calling. You saw the four-minute aspect of the game in Tampa where Bradshaw was the four-minute back.”
— Posted by Mike Gelb
11.January 18th,
2008
8:38 am First, it is clear that the Giants are playing above this season’s talent level of some of the teams they have beaten or given a run for their $$ (e.g. Patriots). There has been talk about a different environment in the locker room, a special team feeling, a different TC etc. As someone, who unlike the average fan,has access to the locker room, how much of this “intangible” impact is real, and how much is hype?
Second, a comment. I believe Steve Smith may be critical. I think the Giants ought to establish a running game. I think the Packers ought and will key on Toomer, and Plaxico is an unkown quantity. Smith is unique in his route running and catching ability (for possession short and medium routes) and can also go long. I wouldn’t be surprised if he proves to be a key component (as he was on the closing first half scoring drive against Dallas).
JOHN BRANCH says: Jay, I’m going to merge your question about the locker-room environment with the next one, from Rich. This is a hot topic among fans. My take is this: The Giants did not have huge locker-room issues last year. I think a lot of that speculation is revisionist. As much as fans have ganged up on Tiki Barber and his ego this season — I have never seen a fan favorite fall from grace so quickly — the players last year were glad to have him, not just for his running abilities, but for being bold enough to say the things (sometimes to Coughlin) that they were thinking.
What has changed is the attitude toward Coughlin. When the Giants decided to keep him instead of fire him, players realized that they might as well get used to him. Coughlin, to his great credit, tried like mad to alter his personality. He’s still a hard-nosed throwback, but players appreciated the effort to meet them part way, something Coughlin had not done much in the past. The other dynamic at play? The Giants have fed off of the nobody-thinks-we’re-good perception, and they have fostered it. (Note the “all-Pros vs. all-Joes” mentality last week against the Cowboys.) They relish in their underdog status, and it is easier to carry that vibe when you don’t have a media star like Tiki and, to a degree, like Jeremy Shockey in recent weeks (which might be the only positive thing about his season-ending injury). Notice how Michael Strahan is not dominating your TV? Notice how nobody is saying anything to light a fire under the opponent? Notice (as Rich has) that the messages seem cohesive? That’s a product of the Giants trusting their coach, and believing that they have found the best way to convey their team’s personality. It took a couple of years, but they have figured it out.
— Posted by Jay in Toronto
12.January 18th,
2008
9:11 am John,
On the Giants official website, they have available daily press conference interviews with the coaches and many of the players. I spent about an hour watching and listening to these interviews yesterday and I have never seen a team so focused, cool and calm and “in the moment” as all of these guys. They all seem to be on the same page and just very very determined but relaxed too, to simply complete the next task at hand, which is to win this next game that is in front of them. Is this my imagination, or do they all really have that steely determination that is showing up in these interviews. I’ve never seen a instance where every player and every coach underplays an up- coming champtionship game as they are, except for maybe the Pat’s. Thanks.
Rich S.
— Posted by Rich S.
13.January 18th,
2008
9:42 am John,
With all the talk of the cold weather, I’m going to ask something “crazy”: doesn’t the aweful conditions favor the Giants more than the Pack? If the weather forces the Pack into a run-first team, making them get back into the I formation, the Giants can really take advantage of that and negate the mismatch between receivers and corners. Plus, in the cold weather I have to believe Jacobs is going to be more punishing on the defense than Grant will be on the G-Mens. Thoughts?
— Posted by Lee
14.January 18th,
2008
9:54 am I can’t believe Reese would say those things about Pope right before the NFC Championship game. Unless he’s trying some reverse psychology tactic here, I highly question his choice of words.
Will Madison be ready to play? How did Ross look in practice yesterday and is he at 100% yet?
— Posted by Phil
15.January 18th,
2008
10:03 am RE: Aikman and Buck. I think Troy as most QBs in the booth (Phil Simms comes to mind) does a fine job breaking down the game. I also feel he is rather unbiased. Buck, however, seems to latch onto a simplistic theme at the outset of a game and ride it for all its worth. He is a color man trapped in a play by play body. Just call the game, Joe, and let Aikman provide the insights. Simple stuff. P.S: Ron Jaworski is the best Xs and Os man in the the business, its a shame he has to share the air with that hack and Cosell wannabe Tony Kornholer.
— Posted by Dave
16.January 18th,
2008
10:25 am John–
First of all, I LOVED your article on Geoff Pope today, so much so that I read it twice. Of all the storylines of last week, the Giants’ patchwork secondary holding against the best receiving corps in the NFC was my favorite. McQuarters being dragged halfway down the field on that holding call summed it up for me– they just wouldnt let go, even when badly overmatched.
Which brings me to my first question; how would you rate them this season, including the postseason? The secondary has long been a question mark for the G-men. But now we’ve seen one draft pick work out well (Aaron Ross) and another finally living up to his expectations (Corey Webster, shutting down Joey Galloway and T.O. in consecutive weeks). Could it be that we don’t need to draft a safety or cornerback next year? And, of course, what can we expect this sunday from this ragtag, injury riddled bunch, Geoff Pope included?
Second, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the offensive (pun intended) play calling last week. It seemed like despite Eli’s good play, Gilbride just still doesnt trust him enough even to call a simple playaction with a late lead. Those two three-rush-and-punt drives almost lost the game last week, and seemed completely inexplicable, considering what an important factor Eli had been in getting the lead in the first place. Do you think the play calling was a mistake, one that the Giants will learn from, or do you think they will look at it as the right plan poorly executed, and continue to leave Eli out?
Thanks. And go Giants. I think we can win this game, if the weather allows our pass rush to get to Farve.
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Oh, Chris, flattery won’t get you anywhere, but it will get your questions answered. I’ve thought all along that the secondary is the weakest unit of the team. But I think we’ve learned (or re-learned) just how much a good pass rush can help. Let’s also give the defensive backs — and coaches Peter Giunta (cornerbacks)and Dave Merritt (safeties) — a huge dose of credit. The Giants, in essence, played without their top three cornerbacks last week (Sam Madison, Aaron Ross and Kevin Dockery) in a game against a team that threw eight touchdowns against them in the regular season. And they held the Cowboys to a field goal in the second half, on the road. Impressive. But I still say the Giants need offseason help in the secondary. Madison and McQuarters are getting older, and a true shut-down corner would be nice, even if you believe that Ross and Webster are solid starters. And the Giants could use a safety that truly scares the other team. Despite the strong play lately, I still think that the secondary is the primary spot of emphasis for Jerry Reese.
On to Eli: Now, Chris, you can’t have it both ways. First Gilbride gets criticized for being too pass happy and not trusting his running backs. Now you say that he was too conservative in the fourth quarter against Dallas. That is part of the Giants’ playoff transformation — they are trying not to make any mistakes that will beat them, and they will take their chances with their defense, which has been their most dependable unit during the second half of the season. On the first drive you’re talking about, on a 3rd-and-1 at their own 12-yard line, with a 21-17 lead and 8 minutes to go, Jacobs was stopped for no gain. On the last one, on a 3rd-and-4 at their own 18 with 2:14 left, Manning was sacked — a smart play, because an incompletion would have stopped the clock and given the Cowboys one more play down the stretch.
What would you be asking today if Manning had thrown an interception in one of those spots? I’ll tell you: You’d be asking nothing, because the Giants would be out of the playoffs and we wouldn’t be doing this little Q&A.
— Posted by Chris in N.Y.
17.January 18th,
2008
10:46 am Being a lifelong Packer fan, I want to comment a moment on the cold as it relates to the passing game. Brett Favre does not have issues with the cold, it is the wind. In Chicago, when wind speeds were 30-40 MPH, that affects the passing game. The footballs are kept warm and changed regularily. Sunday’s forecast is for cold, but only 10 MPH winds max. I’ll be there trying to keep warm, but I do not expect the cold to have much of an impact on the passing game.
— Posted by Walt
18.January 18th,
2008
10:47 am John: I cannot feel confident about this game, thinking that the law of averages is in play here. But, I don’t feel concerned or apprehensive as I have for each of the 18 previous games. I see this as an exhibition game. If the Giants play well and lose (plain get beat), it is a springboard for 2008 and Favre gets to go to the Superbowl and get his brains beat in by the Pats. IF the Giants play poorly and get stomped, hey, they beat the hated Cowboys and Favre gets to go to the Superbowl and get his brains beat in by the Pats!
— Posted by Gary K.
19.January 18th,
2008
11:27 am I know the G-men need to rush Favre, establish the running game etc. etc. However, they also need to put some points on the board. My question is why don’t they try to deliver the ball to Bradshaw with some space around him with some short passes, screens etc? Why do they always seem to try to run Jacobs wide, which seems like a bad idea since he lacks speed, and run Bradshaw straight ahead into the line. They could’ve closed out the Dallas game with a couple of 1st downs with 4 mins to go. It was frustrating to see them run Bradshaw right into the line.
— Posted by World B. Free
20.January 18th,
2008
12:15 pm Now, John, I hardly think calling for a more balanced, less predictable attack is trying to “have it both ways.” I don’t question giving the ball to Jacobs to pound it in on third and 1, but everybody, and I mean everybody, in Dallas or at home watching on TV, knew what was going to happen on second down on both of those drives. What’s wrong with a little deception? Eli’s at his best coming off the playaction. And with the ‘Boys stacking against the run, completing a playaction screen or a similar high-percentage, low-risk pass play could have been a first down. potentially, it could be a big play. And clinging to a slim lead with a banged up, near exhausted defense squaring off against a very explosive offense, you need to be aggressive and try to put more points on the board, or at the very least run the clock. I understand that if Jacobs had picked up a first down against all-out Dallas run defense, it would be a huge blow. But Gilbride very, very, very nearly handed the game to Dallas.
In my opinion, Gilbride consistently abandons the running game too early when behind (see: Redskins game), and the passing game when ahead (Dallas). He is emminently predictable. Old-school football– bruising running game, good defense– is certainly what makes the Giants good. Add a consistent passing threat to that, and the Giants offense can be truly scary.
And for the record, by a good passing game I mean short to medium strikes off of the playaction, avoiding risky passes. Not the wasted long-bombs or forced throws into traffic that have dragged them down this year. With Eli’s evolution continuing– and I do think that is inevitable, he’s really received an unfair amount of criticism– and Steve Smith providing another weapon alongside Burress and Toomer, all the pieces are there. What’s lacking is imaginative play-calling to put them all together.
— Posted by Chris in N.Y.
21.January 18th,
2008
12:35 pm Joe Buck hates everything NY. His dad was the consumate professional, loved St. Louis but could check his opinion at the door. Joe’s hatred of NY is so severe that he actually becomes a Red Sox fan every fall. Is it our fault that NY IS the center of the universe! This week FOX will be on the Favre lovefest (not that it’s undeserving), but if the G-Men pull this off, they’ll get no credit from the boys at FOX (maybe Jimmy won’t cry.)
In regards to the Gilbride comment, he has to go at the end of this season, regardless of the results. I don’t know who actually calls the plsys that make it to the field, but Gilbride has always been the kind of coach that’s the difference between good teams and ones that make the Superbowl (ask any Steeler, Charger, or even the Jags fans.) Look how good Eli plays in the two minute offense, when he’s making the calls. Gilbride just doesn’t get it. He pushes his agenda rather than working with the tools at his disposal. If te G-Men are running the ball down some teams throat, he goes straight drop back on a pass play and Eli gets smacked for a sack, losing all the yards they just gained running the ball. PLAY-ACTION! The Giants run great with the play-action threat, it keeps the pressure off Eli, heck, it works great for all teams. Eli has taken way too much criticism this season, and most of it was a result of ludicrous play calling early in the game (bring back Parcell’s “run it ’til it works”), the Giants would get panicky and Eli would make mistakes, as well as some of the worse reciever route running in the league. Somebody has to make Shockey practice with the team in the off season, his work out routine is not cutting it, look at the success Boss is having, Shockey could be the best in the league if he spent more time with Eli and less time free-wheeling it. Spagnuolo is a perfect example of a young, modern coach, play to win, be aggressive. The Giants need to look for the next Jason Garrett, of course they had him, then Sean Payton, and like Dan said, they always let the next great young guy go somewhere else, so they can keep the dinosaurs employed. Wellington Mara was the greatest owner of all time, the NFL as we know exists because of him, but at times his loyalty exceeded common sense, now that it’s a new era, let’s give some new blood a chance.
— Posted by Rod A.
22.January 18th,
2008
12:35 pm John, While I appreciate the insight, I think you were unneccessarily dismissive of Chris in N.Y.’s concerns about the play-calling. Granted we are all thrilled with the running game and it’s nice to see Eli looking composed out there, but a concervative approach doesn’t preclude a quick three yard slant or a screen pass, does it? Aren’t we supposed to have a five yard contigency play for just such a situation? If Eli can’t be trusted to throw a screen pass without fear of a pick 6, he probably shouldn’t be our quarterback. If Dallas hadn’t melted down at the exact time the defense found its mettle, there would be howls for the heads of everyone involved in consecutive three-and outs. It shouldn’t be ignored just because we managed to eek out a win, should it?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Hey, we’re back after I had some technical problems. You’re not rid of me yet. Looks like we have some questions/criticisms of Gilbride’s play calling. I’ve always felt that the most popular guy on the team is the backup quarterback, and the least popular is the guy that calls plays. There have certainly been times where I have thought, “What?”, including the countless times that the Giants have run the ball on second-and-10 following an incompletion. (By the calculation in my head, it’s about 98.3 percent, but that could be off by 10 or 40 percent.) The Giants run Jacobs to the outside precisely because of what many of you are arguing for — it’s not as predictable. Against the Cowboys, both the final two drives took place inside the Giants’ 20-yard line, with a 4-point lead. If I’m Gilbride, I’m thinking: Don’t be a hero. Don’t give away the game. Yes, a big play would be great. A bad play could be catastrophic. The defense is playing well. The crowd is loud. Maybe God really is looking through that hole in the roof, as the Cowboys fans always suggest. So you play conservative.
I just can’t say that the play calling of Gilbride is the difference between the Giants going 10-6 and, say, 13-3. Now, if you want to suggest that Manning’s progress has not been good enough under Gilbride, at least until the past three weeks (when the play calling got more conservative — coincidence?), then I’d tend to agree. Think we all expected better.
Phew. My fingers are tired.
— Posted by Jason
23.January 18th,
2008
12:51 pm Joe Buck may be a bad football play-by-play guy, but at least he’s not as bad as Bryant (not Greg) Gumbel.
The NFL in Cartoons: www.football-week-in-pictures.com
— Posted by Alex Kamilewicz
24.January 18th,
2008
1:06 pm The most amazing part ofhte season is the transformation of Coughlin. What are the odds that a 60+ guy can take heed and change his style, personality and actions and lead in a different and effective way. How often do you see that in sports, business or politics?
— Posted by John S.
25.January 18th,
2008
1:22 pm John - Bob here from post #5 above. I attempted to research my question re any trends in yards per pass (minus YAC and including uncaught passes) and # runs/game but every site I went to has only cumulative season stats. If you or anyone can point me at a site with stats per game I’d be glad to report back (it’s important to quantify the number and length of the incomplete passes to determine whether in fact the offensive pattern has changed, but I do not recall ever seeing a box score that shows anything but attempts, completions and total passing yards).
Thanks
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Bob, you win the dedication award. Your prize is an all-expense paid trip to your couch to watch the game. (Sadly, the expense is yours.) I’m afraid I sent you on a goose chase. Without digging, I don’t know if you can find such information online, although I know some subscription services that we use computes the YAC for each game. In that way, I could probably just subject the YAC from the passing yards, divide by the number of completions, and — ta-da! — we’d have an answer. But I’m not going to do that. Not because I doubt your theory — you’re right, and several analysts have agreed, anecdotally — but because I have to write some stories for Sunday. Alas, I have but two hands to give to this football nation.
— Posted by Bob
26.January 18th,
2008
2:31 pm There have been a lot of close games in the playoffs, including some where the favorite comes from behind to win. (Or not!)
So a good old NFC blowout is long overdue. The Giants will leave a stink in Lambeau that will take until next season to clear out, giving them the ticket home that was inevitable for them this year. But at least that will keep expectations for the Giants next season a little more down to earth.
— Posted by Pilgrim
27.January 18th,
2008
2:49 pm Wow - I didn’t know everybody disliked Joe and Troy so much!
I actually like Joe Buck - although he doesn’t hide his preference for the Red Sox or his dislike of the Yanks too well. But, heck, did anyone ever hear one of his Dad’s old partners, Mike Shanahan, do the Cardinals games? Maybe that’s where Joe learned to insert his bias into his reporting.
Anyway, I think Joe sounds good - he adds a needed and appropriate amount of drama/urgency to the play calling and the Joe/Troy pair is one of the better football play-by-play matchups since Pat Summerall/John Madden or Don Criqui/Bob Trumpy.
Funny how everyone loves Eli now - isn’t it?
It’ll be the Giants against the Pats in the SuperBowl.
— Posted by Dan
28.January 18th,
2008
3:00 pm Some historical perspective: Even if the Giants don’t beat the Packers this weekend, Giants fans can take some solace in what’s to come next season, if history is any indication.
This season is starting to look remarkably like 1985. In that year, the Giants finished the regular season just as they did in ‘07: a wild-card team with a 10-6 record. Phil Simms threw 20 interceptions and had a passer rating in the mid-70s (almost exactly identical to Eli Manning this season).
The Giants made it to the divisional playoffs against the Bears, but were flat in the cold and wind of Soldier Field, losing 21-0 (this was the infamous Sean Landeta whiff-punt game).
We all know what happened the following season.
— Posted by Ralph
29.January 18th,
2008
3:12 pm I thought I heard Eli make a comment that he is not a great cold-weather QB. Did I hear that correctly and if so, it makes me a little skittish about Sunday?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: (By the way, every time I type in: JOHN BRANCH SAYS, Richard Dawson’s voice rings in my head from Family Feud. “Survey SAYS!”) Jill, thanks for your question. The answer is that we just don’t know. While Brett Favre has played lots of games in the cold — he is 43-5 at Lambeau Field when the temperature is 34 degrees or colder — Eli Manning has barely played any truly cold games at all. He said that the worst weather conditions he has faced came recently at Buffalo. The game-time temperature was 52 degrees, which is about 52 degrees warmer than he will face in Green Bay.
Now, to be fair, I was there that fateful day in Buffalo last month. And it was the most unpleasant day I can remember (and that was in the press box!). The wind was howling, the temperature fell like a stone, and the sky spit an angry sleet before offering a blinding snow. It was brutally cold. But probably not as cold as it will be Sunday. That is why you will probably see Manning wearing one glove. It won’t look cool, but it might help him prevent the dropsies that he had in Buffalo, when he fumbled five times (losing two).
— Posted by Jill
30.January 18th,
2008
3:16 pm Great postings by all the Giant fans.
As a lifetime Packer fan I can say this weekends game will be bittersweet for me. My two favorite teams are the Green Bay Packers and whoever is playing the Cowboys. Geez…I hate those guys!
It’s going to be a great game unless the Giants have run out of gas. Keep your chins up. No one can piss away a game better than Brett Favre. If he plays for the Packers and hangs onto the ball the Pack will be tough to beat. Brett will light up the limping Giants secondary.
Good luck to both teams. The Patriots look like they’re going to kill whoever they play in the Super Bowl.
— Posted by Kevin McNevin
31.January 18th,
2008
3:25 pm In all the talk about Eli, the game really rests on the shoulders of NYs Defense and on turnover margin. In last weeks GB/Seattle contest, Grant fumbled twice and Seattle was up 14 in 3 minutes. After that, the Pack scored 6 touchdown on consecutive drives, completely dominating every aspect of the game. They have not looked that good since the 1997 season which ended in a SB loss to Davis and the Broncos. [replace Broncos with Pats this year]
Favre and Eli are both going to be coached to “manage the game” and not give the other team a short field. And although the Giants have had a ton of moxy the last 4 weeks, the Pack have too many options offensively and too few weaknesses defensively.
In my question to Mr. Branch, do you feel the cold will affect turnover potential for either defensive unit, or hinder play calling by either offensive unit. And how can the coaches use that to their advantage.
Com’on San Diego!
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Robert, you hit upon a key question going into the game. Both teams say that the cold is not as big an issue as wind (it could be a tad breezy) or rain (no worry there). But we saw Manning drop a couple of snaps in Buffalo, presumably because of cold hands and a frozen ball. Balls are harder to catch (watch for deflected passes)and a bit more slippery to hold (watch for defenders doing a lot of clutching and poking). Tom Coughlin is preaching, big time, the importance of holding onto the ball. In his mind, other than the score, turnovers are the most important statistic in football. In his night-before pep talk in Tampa Bay, he pointed out that teams that do not turn the ball over win 86 percent of the time. I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s his core message.
— Posted by Robert Beets
32.January 18th,
2008
3:30 pm Mike Shannon, not Shanahan, does the Cards games. Still does, in fact. And yes, he’s pretty one-sided. I think Buck does a nice job with baseball, but is terrible at football, along with every other play-by-play and color man, save Ron Jaworski. I don’t mind Al Michaels, despite his conservativism, but Madden’s a moron. And Aikmen is a box of hammers.
— Posted by Josh
33.January 18th,
2008
3:34 pm The Packers’offensive line could offer the weak link which the Giants can leverage. The two guards are
second year players who haven’t experienced the likes of the Giants defensive front. Also their center is
not 100% healthy. This should provide an opportunity for the Giant’s defense to attack and penetrate the middle.
— Posted by Lac from Connecticut
34.January 18th,
2008
3:47 pm So good to hear that I am in fine company as a football fan of the “not the Cowboys” stripe.
One thing up on which I’m picking in these comments (and elsewhere) is the feeling that, while this game has much potential (and I am very excited to watch it), the winner is nearly guaranteed a loss to the presumptive Pats no matter how hard they play, how much “heart” they have, or how much potential they might have been allowed against any other (eventual) Super Bowl rival. Is this *really* what’s going on, and how long will it be before the substitution of “Pats” for “Cowboys” in my above sentence becomes more broad? *wink*
— Posted by Nora Rocket
35.January 18th,
2008
4:02 pm john, not quite sure where you came up with the idea that the packers were soft through the middle. they have lost a starting tackle to injury but were arguably the deepest team in the nfl in terms of talent on the defensive line (they kept 11 linemen on the active roster). ryan pickett has played unbelievably well as a three technique defensive lineman, and first round pick harrell has come on strong (post johnny jolly’s injury) in the second half of the season. the giants best hope is to turn green bay over and win on special teams. now for a question - in week two when the packers rolled out a five-wide attack for the first time, the giants were at a loss for how to stop it. do you think the giants experience against the patriots will help them in defending against an incredibly deep crop of receivers in the packers 5-wide set?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Listen to you, popping out the “three technique” reference. Nicely played. I wanted to address your second question. The Packers ate up the Giants with short passes out of the multi-wide formations. I’d expect they’d try to do the same, at least at first, to see if the Giants have learned their lesson. I think the Giants have. They have become a much more physical team at the line of scrimmage, and some of the key matchups (on both sides) will be those rarely seen on television — the 5-yard scrum between receivers and corners. If the Giants can throw Green Bay’s receivers a tad off balance, altering their routes and their timing, it could be enough to allow the pass rush to reach Favre. The risk, of course, is that playing so tightly at the line of scrimmage makes the Giants susceptible to having a receiver run right past them. The Giants are horribly thin in the secondary, especially if Sam Madison doesn’t play. When they go to their dime package, they will probably have Geoff Pope on the field at cornerback. Could be interesting.
— Posted by mr. guinn
36.January 18th,
2008
4:04 pm yo John, they actually pay you for this?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Crazy, isn’t it?
— Posted by kendall
37.January 18th,
2008
4:17 pm JOHN BRANCH SAYS: …I’ve thought all along that the secondary is the weakest unit of the team. … But I still say the Giants need offseason help in the secondary. … Despite the strong play lately, I still think that the secondary is the primary spot of emphasis for Jerry Reese.
Hasn’t the Giants’ secondary been weak for years? The Wil’s were drafted high and were never very good. Do other teams have this problem? It strikes me that a football player is only in the secondary when he’s fast but not big enough to play any other position, including, increasingly, wide receiver. Wide receivers get bigger and bigger, and they can catch the ball.
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Oh, ccbid (is that your REAL name?), I want to thank you for letting me plug a story I wrote last week, that was buried deep on our web site. It talks about why cornerbacks are smaller than receivers. It doesn’t answer your question about the Wills (James and Peterson), two drafted corners who didn’t work out in the long run for the Giants. Anyway, hopefully this link will work: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/sports/football/12gia nts.html?scp=7&sq=january+12+2008
If not, you’ll have to trust me. It was brilliant. Brilliant, I say.
— Posted by cc
38.January 18th,
2008
4:22 pm Mr. Branch:
Love these Q&As. Thank you. I know you’re very busy, but please, if possible, continue them after the season. Quick question: Will there be a spot for Derrick Ward in the backfield next year (if he can heal)? I really thought he was a key player and was having a great game against the Bears before going down in the third quarter.
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: The Giants love Derrick, and he showed how good he can be early this season, but at some point they have to wonder if he can ever stay healthy. We’ve seen what Jerry Reese does to guys with injury histories (see Arrington, Lavar; Emmons, Carlos; Petitgout, Luke). Le’s presume that Jacobs and Bradshaw are the 1-2 punch next year. The third guy is either Ward or Reuben Droughns — an intriguing talent with an injury history, or a rather bland back who stays healthy — or they find someone else. Now imagine if they had kept Ryan Grant.
— Posted by warren
39.January 18th,
2008
4:27 pm I’m with # 6 on Aikman and Buck. And Aikman has to be good becuase he was a Cowboy. I think he sympathizes with whoever has the ball, maybe because that’s how he spent his career. I’m impressed with him and Moose as analysts; they seem to be trying to be fair.
as for the game, Eli makes one amazingly bad throw a game in good weather. He throws a lot of flutterballs anyway. I doubt Lambeau will help him in that regard. So I’m not expecting much.
— Posted by joe w.
40.January 18th,
2008
4:37 pm Never admit a coach may be smarter than you! Never, never, never! Don’t you want to be an editor someday?
— Posted by John Brady
41.January 18th,
2008
4:56 pm To those who say Buck will be biased against NY…sorry kids but everyone in the country outside NY will be rooting for the boys in green.
GO PACK GO!
— Posted by Kelly H
42.January 18th,
2008
5:31 pm John - Bottom line is that the game plan has to be short passes and lots of runs and, as noted above, don’t try and send Jacobs around the corner and get Bradshaw the ball with space (ie some screens and swings). I’m warming up the couch (and by the way, the team is better without Shockey - less drama, more football - it’s execution, not personality, that’s important).
— Posted by Bob
43.January 18th,
2008
5:41 pm Green Bay’s local TV station has canceled Seinfeld for Saturday night only. Seinfeld is well known to be Eli Manning’s favorite television show.
Is that playing dirty or what? ha
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Did you hear that Jerry Seinfeld sent Manning a DVD player and the full series collection of “Seinfeld”? So did Sony, and a few others, I hear. Did the Green Bay station not consider that possibility? As I wrote in a blog earlier, I think the Giants should be worried. Manning might stay up all night watching nonstop “Seinfeld” episodes.
— Posted by Packer Fan
44.January 18th,
2008
6:17 pm thanks, John, for the link. I had missed that story, and it does cite an actual skill that’s desired for cornerbacks, so they’re not just failed receivers.
Not sure what you’re asking about my “name”–do you think we’re supposed to provide real ones, along with our primary e-mail addresses? I doubt it: I use this e-mail mainly for functions like posting on the internet, but you can certainly reach me there if you want. You’re actually not supposed to publish the e-mail address, which I would guess means any part of it, so I would prefer if you edited that to just “cc” (my real initials, I don’t mind saying), the “name” I submitted. Or are you implying that “ccbid” is a reference to something? If so, I don’t recognize it, and that’s not my intention.
— Posted by cc
45.January 18th,
2008
6:22 pm John:
I m interested in your post game analysis of the Cowboy game, it seemed to me that the game plan that the Cowboys put forth played to the Giants strengths as opposed to staying with the what made the Cowboys so formidible.
By playing a ball control, conservative offensive approach, the Cowboys did not pressure the giants to keep pace with them in producing points. It was if they thought their defense could not stop the Giants from scoring prolifically.
Traditionally, the team with the stronger offense would attack attack and attack and force the giants to play catch up,( See Giants-Bills 1990) but the Cowboys did not go with what was their success all season.
Was this because of things the Giants were doing that were not readily apparent in viewing a game broadcast? While my heart roots for the Giants unconditionally, my brain tells me the packers will not not make the same mistake. Thanks for your hard work, and i look forward to your insights.
Go Giants
Richard Fox
JOHN BRANCH SAYS Wow, Richard, that already seems like a long time ago. I, too, was a bit surprised that the Cowboys didn’t attack the Giants the way they did during the regular season, with play-action and some deep throws. They tried to dink them a lot more, which the Giants handled by draping the receivers off the line of scrimmage and pulling their safeties deep to prevent the big plays. In some ways, that’s a gameplan I’d half-expect the Packers to use. But I can’t help but think that Brett Favre is going to take some shots downfield. I don’t think you nickel-and-dime yourself downfield in 20 plays when the temperature is 0. You try to run, then take your chances over the top. Thanks for the question.
— Posted by Richard fox
46.January 18th,
2008
6:33 pm Trivia question — each team has a starting lineman who grew up in Wisconsin — in small towns about 10 miles apart, in fact — who can name the linemen and their hometowns? Hint: One played for the Dons, the other for the Apaches.
— Posted by Matt W
47.January 18th,
2008
6:53 pm Lest you all forget, Brett Favre’s recent playoff failures are the stuff of nightmares in GB. Just type “Brett Favre playoff failures” into Google and your browser will positively overflow with lackluster/disappointing results. This is the guy that threw 6 INTS in one game and has had some of the worst post-season games imaginable. Somewhere deep inside he still exists and is just waiting for another appearance.
Regarding the Aikman Buck bashing going on, Buck is incapable of creating any interest other than the standard fairy tale ending story line. So he was all over Romo like he was Jessica last week. Aikman was so clueless he actually said at one point that the only chance the Giants had was if the Cowboys didn’t execute. Sickening but expect more of the same this week with the Favre resurrection storyline.
This feels like a tuck game; the Giants in an upset in an ugly game and then on to face the mighty pats only to dash their perfect season!! Sweetness will prevail!!
— Posted by Heck Stanler
48.January 18th,
2008
6:59 pm John: A slightly silly question for you…
As a Giants fan (which I assume you are despite your possible forced journalistic neutrality), are you finding it hard to work up a game-day hatred of Green Bay fans (and Wisconites in general) because we’re just so gosh darn nice (as opposed to some of those in say, Dallas)?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS:Oh, I love this question. When I was in college, I went with friends on a football road trip to a large Midwestern university that shall remain nameless — but it starts with an “N,” and that letter on their helmet stands for “Nowledge,” as we used to joke. We were fired up, at least until all the fans from the other team were “so gosh darn nice,” as you say. It is quite disarming.
Regarding allegiances, it is amazingly easy to let go of your favorite teams when you become a sports writer. That’s because you quickly learn that not every person on the team is as wonderful as fans would like to think, and plenty of players on the rival team are wonderful. Ther lines between “good” and “evil” in rivalries disappear. It is actually one of my least favorite things about being a sportswriter — you don’t cheer for teams any more. You actually cheer for very selfish things, like late deadlines, on-time flights and fresh story angles. More than you wanted to know, but you got me started…
2008
9:48 pm Just finishing my last nightshift and waiting for the Chopper home from the North Sea; get to watch this game with a beer. My Question is, do you think that the Giants have enough cover left, or are they running on a wing and a prayer? Just get the feeling that they can’t stand any more injuries if they are going to come through this one. Whatever happens though, have to hope that this has been a turning point for Manning and Coughlin; get the feeling that whatever happens on Sunday the Giants will come back stronger next year, a team with more belief, and greater expectations and maybe, just maybe a quarterback whose shoulders are now up to the challenge of carrying those expectations.
JOHN BRANCH says: Ah, our friend on the oil platform in the North Sea. Too bad you can’t make it to Green Bay this weekend; you might find it quite balmy. Let me start by thanking everyone for submitting questions. It is kind of a crazy day, and I’ll try to check in occassionally and answer the questions that strike my fancy. And don’t be shy about engaging one another in discussions, either.
I’ve thought about the what-if, should the Giants lose. I think 2007 will be seen as the turning point for Coughlin and Manning after years of “Is this the right guy?” speculation that swirled around both of them. The flip side is that the Giants will no longer carry that valuable underdog status. They might just be next year’s Cowboys, arriving with Super-Bowl-or-Bust expectations. I’ve always thought the most-fun seasons are those that are unexpected. Starting next season, the Giants will be expected to go this far, or farther, every season. That’s the standard you want, but a tough one to have.
— Posted by Rob
2.January 17th,
2008
10:31 pm Is the Giants offensive line physical enough to deal with the front 7 of the Packers in the run game? I think that with the weather being somewhere around below 77 degrees that both teams will want to establish the run, but even more so for the Giants since Eli has not been the best in the cold. Or course, Eli has been proving everyone wrong the past few weeks, so what do I know?
— Posted by JessF
3.January 17th,
2008
11:08 pm Jacobs or Bradshaw? Who should be featured or will it matter? People have been talking about Bradshaw as if he’s the next coming of Joe Morris. These people are also forgetting that when healthy, Jacobs averaged over 100 yards per game in December on only 20 carries per game. I wouldn’t exactly annoint Bradshaw as no 1 RB just yet.
Also, what are the odds Buck and Aikman are rooting against the Giants again?
JOHN BRANCH says:
Let’s combine some of these questions into one answer. As opposed to the Packers, who will hand the ball to Ryan Grant, the Giants have the luxury — and curse — of two backs. It’s a luxury, because they can go with the hot hand. It’s a curse, because we’ve seen teams get a little too worried about sharing the load, and neither back builds momentum. How the Giants juggle these two will be key. It feels like a Brandon Jacobs game, doesn’t it? Cold weather and a slick surface, perfect for pound-the-gut football. I think the Giants can run on the Packers, who were ranked 14th in rush defense. Then again, that partly stems from their 13-3 record, which means a lot of teams were passing against them to try to catch up. And the Packers allowed only 28 yards to Seattle last week. But if there is a soft spot, I’d say it’s up the middle. We’ll see.
As for Buck and Aikman, I’ll leave that to all of you. I’m at the games, so I don’t hear the television commentary. The only thing I hear is Mike Lupica or Gary Myers or Dave Klein chattering nearby, which is always interesting in itself.
— Posted by Charles
4.January 17th,
2008
11:41 pm Eli has played well the last few weeks and given the results may be unfair to ask: what took so long. How good is the rest of the team though when they play so well when all Eli has to do is not screw up so badly as to lose the game by himself?
Charles’ question regarding Buck and Aikman is a good one. Aikeman is painfully dumb and is only now getting to the point of having even a few valid thoughts and rarely shares anything not painfully obvious to anyone but those barely familiar with the game.
Buck is a disgrace to his dad as he is the most opinionated - and always one-sided - play by play guy on the air. Almost always have to mute the TV sound when these two are the broadcast team.
— Posted by Tom F
5.January 18th,
2008
12:03 am I do not want to look a gift quarterback in the mouth, but re the “evolution” of Eli, is it Eli who has evolved or is it Kevin Gilbride? There finally appears to be the acknowledgement that throwing downfield is not cost effective. Does the data support this? Are there more short throws (at the point of completion or incompletion) and runs in their recent games?
JOHN BRANCH says:
Bob, you know what I’m going to say. I’d agree that the Giants have tightened their offensive game plans in recent weeks, calling for more runs and shorter, less-risky passes. The Giants are playing traditional “playoff football,” beating teams with the run, some well-timed passes and defense and special teams. They have made a more concerted effort to balance their run/pass ratio, which Tom Coughlin wants to be 50-50. Against the Cowboys, the Giants ran only 44 plays, and Manning threw 18 times and was sacked three times. That’s a 23-21 ratio, skewed by a fourth quarter when the Giants ran on all but two plays (a pass and a sack). As for the computation of average completion minus YAC (yards after catch)? That sounds like a good homework assignment for you, Bob.
— Posted by Bob
6.January 18th,
2008
1:58 am Wow. Lots of Aikman and Buck bashing. I don’t know what sort of insight John Branch can shed on this, but I think Aikman and Buck are about as good as there can be in the current era of NFL television play by play. Networks don’t want a football scientist in the booth, evidenced by ESPN’s complete deaf ear to the chants of more Jaworski, Vermeil and Nessler, they want average insight that appeals to both die hards and non-fans as well as a little “everyman’s opinion.” Joe Buck is absolutely perfect at this. It’s not so easy to analyze a game with cogency and accuracy while not alienating fans who are less knowledgeable with two much football science, all the while keeping a light and entertaining tone. Aikman and Buck are just fine in the current confines of the system.
I’m wondering about the Giants coaching staff. Most notably, Steve Spagnuolo. I will be shocked if Spags isn’t given heavy consideration for a head coaching spot this spring. With the history the Giants have of letting valuable young head coach candidates slip through their system to other teams (Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Bill Belichick, John Fox, Sean Payton, just to name a few), is there anyway the Giants can go the route that Dallas has gone in keeping Jason Garrett and sign Spagnuolo to an extension with the idea that when Coughlin (who’s one of the older coaches in the league) decides to call it a career, the job is his? The players LOVE this guy. How can we keep him on the Giants?
JOHN BRANCH says: There is some serious Steve Spagnuolo love going on around here. I don’t think you have to worry about him leaving this year, since I’m not sure there will be any more coaching vacancies. But I also don’t think the Giants are the type of franchise to sign him to a contract that, in essence, makes him the heir apparent. You can argue that the Cowboys are putting a lot of pressure on Wade Phillips and creating a weird dynamic in the coaches meetings by working so hard to keep Garrett around. That’s not the Giants way. Besides, Spagnuolo has been a coordinator for just one year. Let’s see where things are a year from now.
— Posted by Dan
7.January 18th,
2008
3:48 am 1. How does Plax look going into the game, his productivity is almost at nil right now and I imagine the cold won’t help him any. Yeah, yeah…I know we still need him on the field if nothing else, as a decoy. But how does he look relative to recent weeks?
2. Any sense that the defense has been game-planning for traction issues? That is, do they anticipate any such issues and the effect it may have on them being able to rush the QB?
Thanks.
JOHN BRANCH says: Ah, the equipment question. The Giants will take several pairs of shoes for each player (it was four, I believe, to Buffalo), each with different kind of nubs and cleats. They’ll experiment before the game. But “the frozen tundra” is a bit of a misnomer. Lambeau Field is actually heated, we hear, by underground pipes, which keeps the field fairly soft. Now, it can still be slick, but unless there is some frozen rain falling, the field shouldn’t be an ice rink.
And Plax? It’s hard to tell. He’s not doing much in practice, but that hasn’t changed all season. He shrugged off his limp in Dallas (when he leapt for a high pass in the end zone and seemed to land awkwardly), and said on Wednesday that he is fine. At this point, if he could suck it up in October, I’m sure he’ll suck it up in the conference championship game.
— Posted by Bakes
8.January 18th,
2008
8:01 am John,
From your article on Geoff Pope. Wow! Are these quotes from the Jerry Reese manual on player motivation? Maybe trying to trick the Pack? With so few, if any options, I think maybe the boss should be trying to boost his confidence.
“Trust me, we don’t want him out there,” General Manager Jerry Reese said. “He gets pushed out there because we’ve run out of bodies.”
“He didn’t get beat badly,” Reese said. “But he’s not supposed to be out there.”
JOHN BRANCH says: Thanks for reading, Harold. As a reporter, you have to love Jerry Reese because he says what is on his mind. Remember a few weeks ago when he used the word “skittish” in describing Eli Manning? He was bashed for it, even though that is what everyone else in the world was thinking about Manning, too. We’re just not used to hearing someone in charge say it, which is too bad. Reese isn’t saying anything that the Giants aren’t thinking; they know they got caught in a bind because of injuries. Even Pope admitted to me that he was surprised that Tony Romo didn’t try to attack him, and he suspects that Brett Favre will take a long look at last week’s film and see if he can’t pick on the rookie. Should be interesting.
— Posted by Giants Fan
9.January 18th,
2008
8:28 am To earlier posts by Charles and Tom F
After the game, Buck, Troy and most of the Fox crew all sounded like they had lost a puppy. Hope someone kept them away from sharp objects.
Without hesitation, they will be routing for a Packer win.
— Posted by Jets Fahn
10.January 18th,
2008
8:32 am I actually think Aikman is a very good analyst, just honest in ways that sometimes make our heroes come up short. But I agree with comment about playing calling. I think in past, the Giants have tried to over use the downfield passing and kept putting themselves in whole. John?
Also great questions on Bradshaw and Jacobs. Jacobs is a horse, terrific pile mover and pretty fast, too. But Bradshaw appears like he can hurt you more ways — as a receiver and break away threat who can make things happen with just very small creases.
So, John, how DO you think Giants should use them.
JOHN BRANCH says: I touched upon this above, but I’d defer to Tom Coughlin on this one. I hesitate to admit it, but he might be a tad smarter than me on this issue. He raises the point that they have enough similarities in their styles and abilities to keep the Giants a bit less predictable when one or the other is in the game. From Wednesday’s press conference:
“They have complimented each other very well. Bradshaw, when utilized, has done very, very well, and the two of them create some problems for the defense because of the style in which they play. I think when we do use them both and we do use them in a capacity… the interesting thing is both of them can do a lot of things. Jacobs can catch the ball, Bradshaw can run inside, obviously Jacobs can run inside, so they both can do a little bit of what the other guy does so you are not restricted in any way in terms of play calling. You saw the four-minute aspect of the game in Tampa where Bradshaw was the four-minute back.”
— Posted by Mike Gelb
11.January 18th,
2008
8:38 am First, it is clear that the Giants are playing above this season’s talent level of some of the teams they have beaten or given a run for their $$ (e.g. Patriots). There has been talk about a different environment in the locker room, a special team feeling, a different TC etc. As someone, who unlike the average fan,has access to the locker room, how much of this “intangible” impact is real, and how much is hype?
Second, a comment. I believe Steve Smith may be critical. I think the Giants ought to establish a running game. I think the Packers ought and will key on Toomer, and Plaxico is an unkown quantity. Smith is unique in his route running and catching ability (for possession short and medium routes) and can also go long. I wouldn’t be surprised if he proves to be a key component (as he was on the closing first half scoring drive against Dallas).
JOHN BRANCH says: Jay, I’m going to merge your question about the locker-room environment with the next one, from Rich. This is a hot topic among fans. My take is this: The Giants did not have huge locker-room issues last year. I think a lot of that speculation is revisionist. As much as fans have ganged up on Tiki Barber and his ego this season — I have never seen a fan favorite fall from grace so quickly — the players last year were glad to have him, not just for his running abilities, but for being bold enough to say the things (sometimes to Coughlin) that they were thinking.
What has changed is the attitude toward Coughlin. When the Giants decided to keep him instead of fire him, players realized that they might as well get used to him. Coughlin, to his great credit, tried like mad to alter his personality. He’s still a hard-nosed throwback, but players appreciated the effort to meet them part way, something Coughlin had not done much in the past. The other dynamic at play? The Giants have fed off of the nobody-thinks-we’re-good perception, and they have fostered it. (Note the “all-Pros vs. all-Joes” mentality last week against the Cowboys.) They relish in their underdog status, and it is easier to carry that vibe when you don’t have a media star like Tiki and, to a degree, like Jeremy Shockey in recent weeks (which might be the only positive thing about his season-ending injury). Notice how Michael Strahan is not dominating your TV? Notice how nobody is saying anything to light a fire under the opponent? Notice (as Rich has) that the messages seem cohesive? That’s a product of the Giants trusting their coach, and believing that they have found the best way to convey their team’s personality. It took a couple of years, but they have figured it out.
— Posted by Jay in Toronto
12.January 18th,
2008
9:11 am John,
On the Giants official website, they have available daily press conference interviews with the coaches and many of the players. I spent about an hour watching and listening to these interviews yesterday and I have never seen a team so focused, cool and calm and “in the moment” as all of these guys. They all seem to be on the same page and just very very determined but relaxed too, to simply complete the next task at hand, which is to win this next game that is in front of them. Is this my imagination, or do they all really have that steely determination that is showing up in these interviews. I’ve never seen a instance where every player and every coach underplays an up- coming champtionship game as they are, except for maybe the Pat’s. Thanks.
Rich S.
— Posted by Rich S.
13.January 18th,
2008
9:42 am John,
With all the talk of the cold weather, I’m going to ask something “crazy”: doesn’t the aweful conditions favor the Giants more than the Pack? If the weather forces the Pack into a run-first team, making them get back into the I formation, the Giants can really take advantage of that and negate the mismatch between receivers and corners. Plus, in the cold weather I have to believe Jacobs is going to be more punishing on the defense than Grant will be on the G-Mens. Thoughts?
— Posted by Lee
14.January 18th,
2008
9:54 am I can’t believe Reese would say those things about Pope right before the NFC Championship game. Unless he’s trying some reverse psychology tactic here, I highly question his choice of words.
Will Madison be ready to play? How did Ross look in practice yesterday and is he at 100% yet?
— Posted by Phil
15.January 18th,
2008
10:03 am RE: Aikman and Buck. I think Troy as most QBs in the booth (Phil Simms comes to mind) does a fine job breaking down the game. I also feel he is rather unbiased. Buck, however, seems to latch onto a simplistic theme at the outset of a game and ride it for all its worth. He is a color man trapped in a play by play body. Just call the game, Joe, and let Aikman provide the insights. Simple stuff. P.S: Ron Jaworski is the best Xs and Os man in the the business, its a shame he has to share the air with that hack and Cosell wannabe Tony Kornholer.
— Posted by Dave
16.January 18th,
2008
10:25 am John–
First of all, I LOVED your article on Geoff Pope today, so much so that I read it twice. Of all the storylines of last week, the Giants’ patchwork secondary holding against the best receiving corps in the NFC was my favorite. McQuarters being dragged halfway down the field on that holding call summed it up for me– they just wouldnt let go, even when badly overmatched.
Which brings me to my first question; how would you rate them this season, including the postseason? The secondary has long been a question mark for the G-men. But now we’ve seen one draft pick work out well (Aaron Ross) and another finally living up to his expectations (Corey Webster, shutting down Joey Galloway and T.O. in consecutive weeks). Could it be that we don’t need to draft a safety or cornerback next year? And, of course, what can we expect this sunday from this ragtag, injury riddled bunch, Geoff Pope included?
Second, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the offensive (pun intended) play calling last week. It seemed like despite Eli’s good play, Gilbride just still doesnt trust him enough even to call a simple playaction with a late lead. Those two three-rush-and-punt drives almost lost the game last week, and seemed completely inexplicable, considering what an important factor Eli had been in getting the lead in the first place. Do you think the play calling was a mistake, one that the Giants will learn from, or do you think they will look at it as the right plan poorly executed, and continue to leave Eli out?
Thanks. And go Giants. I think we can win this game, if the weather allows our pass rush to get to Farve.
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Oh, Chris, flattery won’t get you anywhere, but it will get your questions answered. I’ve thought all along that the secondary is the weakest unit of the team. But I think we’ve learned (or re-learned) just how much a good pass rush can help. Let’s also give the defensive backs — and coaches Peter Giunta (cornerbacks)and Dave Merritt (safeties) — a huge dose of credit. The Giants, in essence, played without their top three cornerbacks last week (Sam Madison, Aaron Ross and Kevin Dockery) in a game against a team that threw eight touchdowns against them in the regular season. And they held the Cowboys to a field goal in the second half, on the road. Impressive. But I still say the Giants need offseason help in the secondary. Madison and McQuarters are getting older, and a true shut-down corner would be nice, even if you believe that Ross and Webster are solid starters. And the Giants could use a safety that truly scares the other team. Despite the strong play lately, I still think that the secondary is the primary spot of emphasis for Jerry Reese.
On to Eli: Now, Chris, you can’t have it both ways. First Gilbride gets criticized for being too pass happy and not trusting his running backs. Now you say that he was too conservative in the fourth quarter against Dallas. That is part of the Giants’ playoff transformation — they are trying not to make any mistakes that will beat them, and they will take their chances with their defense, which has been their most dependable unit during the second half of the season. On the first drive you’re talking about, on a 3rd-and-1 at their own 12-yard line, with a 21-17 lead and 8 minutes to go, Jacobs was stopped for no gain. On the last one, on a 3rd-and-4 at their own 18 with 2:14 left, Manning was sacked — a smart play, because an incompletion would have stopped the clock and given the Cowboys one more play down the stretch.
What would you be asking today if Manning had thrown an interception in one of those spots? I’ll tell you: You’d be asking nothing, because the Giants would be out of the playoffs and we wouldn’t be doing this little Q&A.
— Posted by Chris in N.Y.
17.January 18th,
2008
10:46 am Being a lifelong Packer fan, I want to comment a moment on the cold as it relates to the passing game. Brett Favre does not have issues with the cold, it is the wind. In Chicago, when wind speeds were 30-40 MPH, that affects the passing game. The footballs are kept warm and changed regularily. Sunday’s forecast is for cold, but only 10 MPH winds max. I’ll be there trying to keep warm, but I do not expect the cold to have much of an impact on the passing game.
— Posted by Walt
18.January 18th,
2008
10:47 am John: I cannot feel confident about this game, thinking that the law of averages is in play here. But, I don’t feel concerned or apprehensive as I have for each of the 18 previous games. I see this as an exhibition game. If the Giants play well and lose (plain get beat), it is a springboard for 2008 and Favre gets to go to the Superbowl and get his brains beat in by the Pats. IF the Giants play poorly and get stomped, hey, they beat the hated Cowboys and Favre gets to go to the Superbowl and get his brains beat in by the Pats!
— Posted by Gary K.
19.January 18th,
2008
11:27 am I know the G-men need to rush Favre, establish the running game etc. etc. However, they also need to put some points on the board. My question is why don’t they try to deliver the ball to Bradshaw with some space around him with some short passes, screens etc? Why do they always seem to try to run Jacobs wide, which seems like a bad idea since he lacks speed, and run Bradshaw straight ahead into the line. They could’ve closed out the Dallas game with a couple of 1st downs with 4 mins to go. It was frustrating to see them run Bradshaw right into the line.
— Posted by World B. Free
20.January 18th,
2008
12:15 pm Now, John, I hardly think calling for a more balanced, less predictable attack is trying to “have it both ways.” I don’t question giving the ball to Jacobs to pound it in on third and 1, but everybody, and I mean everybody, in Dallas or at home watching on TV, knew what was going to happen on second down on both of those drives. What’s wrong with a little deception? Eli’s at his best coming off the playaction. And with the ‘Boys stacking against the run, completing a playaction screen or a similar high-percentage, low-risk pass play could have been a first down. potentially, it could be a big play. And clinging to a slim lead with a banged up, near exhausted defense squaring off against a very explosive offense, you need to be aggressive and try to put more points on the board, or at the very least run the clock. I understand that if Jacobs had picked up a first down against all-out Dallas run defense, it would be a huge blow. But Gilbride very, very, very nearly handed the game to Dallas.
In my opinion, Gilbride consistently abandons the running game too early when behind (see: Redskins game), and the passing game when ahead (Dallas). He is emminently predictable. Old-school football– bruising running game, good defense– is certainly what makes the Giants good. Add a consistent passing threat to that, and the Giants offense can be truly scary.
And for the record, by a good passing game I mean short to medium strikes off of the playaction, avoiding risky passes. Not the wasted long-bombs or forced throws into traffic that have dragged them down this year. With Eli’s evolution continuing– and I do think that is inevitable, he’s really received an unfair amount of criticism– and Steve Smith providing another weapon alongside Burress and Toomer, all the pieces are there. What’s lacking is imaginative play-calling to put them all together.
— Posted by Chris in N.Y.
21.January 18th,
2008
12:35 pm Joe Buck hates everything NY. His dad was the consumate professional, loved St. Louis but could check his opinion at the door. Joe’s hatred of NY is so severe that he actually becomes a Red Sox fan every fall. Is it our fault that NY IS the center of the universe! This week FOX will be on the Favre lovefest (not that it’s undeserving), but if the G-Men pull this off, they’ll get no credit from the boys at FOX (maybe Jimmy won’t cry.)
In regards to the Gilbride comment, he has to go at the end of this season, regardless of the results. I don’t know who actually calls the plsys that make it to the field, but Gilbride has always been the kind of coach that’s the difference between good teams and ones that make the Superbowl (ask any Steeler, Charger, or even the Jags fans.) Look how good Eli plays in the two minute offense, when he’s making the calls. Gilbride just doesn’t get it. He pushes his agenda rather than working with the tools at his disposal. If te G-Men are running the ball down some teams throat, he goes straight drop back on a pass play and Eli gets smacked for a sack, losing all the yards they just gained running the ball. PLAY-ACTION! The Giants run great with the play-action threat, it keeps the pressure off Eli, heck, it works great for all teams. Eli has taken way too much criticism this season, and most of it was a result of ludicrous play calling early in the game (bring back Parcell’s “run it ’til it works”), the Giants would get panicky and Eli would make mistakes, as well as some of the worse reciever route running in the league. Somebody has to make Shockey practice with the team in the off season, his work out routine is not cutting it, look at the success Boss is having, Shockey could be the best in the league if he spent more time with Eli and less time free-wheeling it. Spagnuolo is a perfect example of a young, modern coach, play to win, be aggressive. The Giants need to look for the next Jason Garrett, of course they had him, then Sean Payton, and like Dan said, they always let the next great young guy go somewhere else, so they can keep the dinosaurs employed. Wellington Mara was the greatest owner of all time, the NFL as we know exists because of him, but at times his loyalty exceeded common sense, now that it’s a new era, let’s give some new blood a chance.
— Posted by Rod A.
22.January 18th,
2008
12:35 pm John, While I appreciate the insight, I think you were unneccessarily dismissive of Chris in N.Y.’s concerns about the play-calling. Granted we are all thrilled with the running game and it’s nice to see Eli looking composed out there, but a concervative approach doesn’t preclude a quick three yard slant or a screen pass, does it? Aren’t we supposed to have a five yard contigency play for just such a situation? If Eli can’t be trusted to throw a screen pass without fear of a pick 6, he probably shouldn’t be our quarterback. If Dallas hadn’t melted down at the exact time the defense found its mettle, there would be howls for the heads of everyone involved in consecutive three-and outs. It shouldn’t be ignored just because we managed to eek out a win, should it?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Hey, we’re back after I had some technical problems. You’re not rid of me yet. Looks like we have some questions/criticisms of Gilbride’s play calling. I’ve always felt that the most popular guy on the team is the backup quarterback, and the least popular is the guy that calls plays. There have certainly been times where I have thought, “What?”, including the countless times that the Giants have run the ball on second-and-10 following an incompletion. (By the calculation in my head, it’s about 98.3 percent, but that could be off by 10 or 40 percent.) The Giants run Jacobs to the outside precisely because of what many of you are arguing for — it’s not as predictable. Against the Cowboys, both the final two drives took place inside the Giants’ 20-yard line, with a 4-point lead. If I’m Gilbride, I’m thinking: Don’t be a hero. Don’t give away the game. Yes, a big play would be great. A bad play could be catastrophic. The defense is playing well. The crowd is loud. Maybe God really is looking through that hole in the roof, as the Cowboys fans always suggest. So you play conservative.
I just can’t say that the play calling of Gilbride is the difference between the Giants going 10-6 and, say, 13-3. Now, if you want to suggest that Manning’s progress has not been good enough under Gilbride, at least until the past three weeks (when the play calling got more conservative — coincidence?), then I’d tend to agree. Think we all expected better.
Phew. My fingers are tired.
— Posted by Jason
23.January 18th,
2008
12:51 pm Joe Buck may be a bad football play-by-play guy, but at least he’s not as bad as Bryant (not Greg) Gumbel.
The NFL in Cartoons: www.football-week-in-pictures.com
— Posted by Alex Kamilewicz
24.January 18th,
2008
1:06 pm The most amazing part ofhte season is the transformation of Coughlin. What are the odds that a 60+ guy can take heed and change his style, personality and actions and lead in a different and effective way. How often do you see that in sports, business or politics?
— Posted by John S.
25.January 18th,
2008
1:22 pm John - Bob here from post #5 above. I attempted to research my question re any trends in yards per pass (minus YAC and including uncaught passes) and # runs/game but every site I went to has only cumulative season stats. If you or anyone can point me at a site with stats per game I’d be glad to report back (it’s important to quantify the number and length of the incomplete passes to determine whether in fact the offensive pattern has changed, but I do not recall ever seeing a box score that shows anything but attempts, completions and total passing yards).
Thanks
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Bob, you win the dedication award. Your prize is an all-expense paid trip to your couch to watch the game. (Sadly, the expense is yours.) I’m afraid I sent you on a goose chase. Without digging, I don’t know if you can find such information online, although I know some subscription services that we use computes the YAC for each game. In that way, I could probably just subject the YAC from the passing yards, divide by the number of completions, and — ta-da! — we’d have an answer. But I’m not going to do that. Not because I doubt your theory — you’re right, and several analysts have agreed, anecdotally — but because I have to write some stories for Sunday. Alas, I have but two hands to give to this football nation.
— Posted by Bob
26.January 18th,
2008
2:31 pm There have been a lot of close games in the playoffs, including some where the favorite comes from behind to win. (Or not!)
So a good old NFC blowout is long overdue. The Giants will leave a stink in Lambeau that will take until next season to clear out, giving them the ticket home that was inevitable for them this year. But at least that will keep expectations for the Giants next season a little more down to earth.
— Posted by Pilgrim
27.January 18th,
2008
2:49 pm Wow - I didn’t know everybody disliked Joe and Troy so much!
I actually like Joe Buck - although he doesn’t hide his preference for the Red Sox or his dislike of the Yanks too well. But, heck, did anyone ever hear one of his Dad’s old partners, Mike Shanahan, do the Cardinals games? Maybe that’s where Joe learned to insert his bias into his reporting.
Anyway, I think Joe sounds good - he adds a needed and appropriate amount of drama/urgency to the play calling and the Joe/Troy pair is one of the better football play-by-play matchups since Pat Summerall/John Madden or Don Criqui/Bob Trumpy.
Funny how everyone loves Eli now - isn’t it?
It’ll be the Giants against the Pats in the SuperBowl.
— Posted by Dan
28.January 18th,
2008
3:00 pm Some historical perspective: Even if the Giants don’t beat the Packers this weekend, Giants fans can take some solace in what’s to come next season, if history is any indication.
This season is starting to look remarkably like 1985. In that year, the Giants finished the regular season just as they did in ‘07: a wild-card team with a 10-6 record. Phil Simms threw 20 interceptions and had a passer rating in the mid-70s (almost exactly identical to Eli Manning this season).
The Giants made it to the divisional playoffs against the Bears, but were flat in the cold and wind of Soldier Field, losing 21-0 (this was the infamous Sean Landeta whiff-punt game).
We all know what happened the following season.
— Posted by Ralph
29.January 18th,
2008
3:12 pm I thought I heard Eli make a comment that he is not a great cold-weather QB. Did I hear that correctly and if so, it makes me a little skittish about Sunday?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: (By the way, every time I type in: JOHN BRANCH SAYS, Richard Dawson’s voice rings in my head from Family Feud. “Survey SAYS!”) Jill, thanks for your question. The answer is that we just don’t know. While Brett Favre has played lots of games in the cold — he is 43-5 at Lambeau Field when the temperature is 34 degrees or colder — Eli Manning has barely played any truly cold games at all. He said that the worst weather conditions he has faced came recently at Buffalo. The game-time temperature was 52 degrees, which is about 52 degrees warmer than he will face in Green Bay.
Now, to be fair, I was there that fateful day in Buffalo last month. And it was the most unpleasant day I can remember (and that was in the press box!). The wind was howling, the temperature fell like a stone, and the sky spit an angry sleet before offering a blinding snow. It was brutally cold. But probably not as cold as it will be Sunday. That is why you will probably see Manning wearing one glove. It won’t look cool, but it might help him prevent the dropsies that he had in Buffalo, when he fumbled five times (losing two).
— Posted by Jill
30.January 18th,
2008
3:16 pm Great postings by all the Giant fans.
As a lifetime Packer fan I can say this weekends game will be bittersweet for me. My two favorite teams are the Green Bay Packers and whoever is playing the Cowboys. Geez…I hate those guys!
It’s going to be a great game unless the Giants have run out of gas. Keep your chins up. No one can piss away a game better than Brett Favre. If he plays for the Packers and hangs onto the ball the Pack will be tough to beat. Brett will light up the limping Giants secondary.
Good luck to both teams. The Patriots look like they’re going to kill whoever they play in the Super Bowl.
— Posted by Kevin McNevin
31.January 18th,
2008
3:25 pm In all the talk about Eli, the game really rests on the shoulders of NYs Defense and on turnover margin. In last weeks GB/Seattle contest, Grant fumbled twice and Seattle was up 14 in 3 minutes. After that, the Pack scored 6 touchdown on consecutive drives, completely dominating every aspect of the game. They have not looked that good since the 1997 season which ended in a SB loss to Davis and the Broncos. [replace Broncos with Pats this year]
Favre and Eli are both going to be coached to “manage the game” and not give the other team a short field. And although the Giants have had a ton of moxy the last 4 weeks, the Pack have too many options offensively and too few weaknesses defensively.
In my question to Mr. Branch, do you feel the cold will affect turnover potential for either defensive unit, or hinder play calling by either offensive unit. And how can the coaches use that to their advantage.
Com’on San Diego!
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Robert, you hit upon a key question going into the game. Both teams say that the cold is not as big an issue as wind (it could be a tad breezy) or rain (no worry there). But we saw Manning drop a couple of snaps in Buffalo, presumably because of cold hands and a frozen ball. Balls are harder to catch (watch for deflected passes)and a bit more slippery to hold (watch for defenders doing a lot of clutching and poking). Tom Coughlin is preaching, big time, the importance of holding onto the ball. In his mind, other than the score, turnovers are the most important statistic in football. In his night-before pep talk in Tampa Bay, he pointed out that teams that do not turn the ball over win 86 percent of the time. I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s his core message.
— Posted by Robert Beets
32.January 18th,
2008
3:30 pm Mike Shannon, not Shanahan, does the Cards games. Still does, in fact. And yes, he’s pretty one-sided. I think Buck does a nice job with baseball, but is terrible at football, along with every other play-by-play and color man, save Ron Jaworski. I don’t mind Al Michaels, despite his conservativism, but Madden’s a moron. And Aikmen is a box of hammers.
— Posted by Josh
33.January 18th,
2008
3:34 pm The Packers’offensive line could offer the weak link which the Giants can leverage. The two guards are
second year players who haven’t experienced the likes of the Giants defensive front. Also their center is
not 100% healthy. This should provide an opportunity for the Giant’s defense to attack and penetrate the middle.
— Posted by Lac from Connecticut
34.January 18th,
2008
3:47 pm So good to hear that I am in fine company as a football fan of the “not the Cowboys” stripe.
One thing up on which I’m picking in these comments (and elsewhere) is the feeling that, while this game has much potential (and I am very excited to watch it), the winner is nearly guaranteed a loss to the presumptive Pats no matter how hard they play, how much “heart” they have, or how much potential they might have been allowed against any other (eventual) Super Bowl rival. Is this *really* what’s going on, and how long will it be before the substitution of “Pats” for “Cowboys” in my above sentence becomes more broad? *wink*
— Posted by Nora Rocket
35.January 18th,
2008
4:02 pm john, not quite sure where you came up with the idea that the packers were soft through the middle. they have lost a starting tackle to injury but were arguably the deepest team in the nfl in terms of talent on the defensive line (they kept 11 linemen on the active roster). ryan pickett has played unbelievably well as a three technique defensive lineman, and first round pick harrell has come on strong (post johnny jolly’s injury) in the second half of the season. the giants best hope is to turn green bay over and win on special teams. now for a question - in week two when the packers rolled out a five-wide attack for the first time, the giants were at a loss for how to stop it. do you think the giants experience against the patriots will help them in defending against an incredibly deep crop of receivers in the packers 5-wide set?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Listen to you, popping out the “three technique” reference. Nicely played. I wanted to address your second question. The Packers ate up the Giants with short passes out of the multi-wide formations. I’d expect they’d try to do the same, at least at first, to see if the Giants have learned their lesson. I think the Giants have. They have become a much more physical team at the line of scrimmage, and some of the key matchups (on both sides) will be those rarely seen on television — the 5-yard scrum between receivers and corners. If the Giants can throw Green Bay’s receivers a tad off balance, altering their routes and their timing, it could be enough to allow the pass rush to reach Favre. The risk, of course, is that playing so tightly at the line of scrimmage makes the Giants susceptible to having a receiver run right past them. The Giants are horribly thin in the secondary, especially if Sam Madison doesn’t play. When they go to their dime package, they will probably have Geoff Pope on the field at cornerback. Could be interesting.
— Posted by mr. guinn
36.January 18th,
2008
4:04 pm yo John, they actually pay you for this?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Crazy, isn’t it?
— Posted by kendall
37.January 18th,
2008
4:17 pm JOHN BRANCH SAYS: …I’ve thought all along that the secondary is the weakest unit of the team. … But I still say the Giants need offseason help in the secondary. … Despite the strong play lately, I still think that the secondary is the primary spot of emphasis for Jerry Reese.
Hasn’t the Giants’ secondary been weak for years? The Wil’s were drafted high and were never very good. Do other teams have this problem? It strikes me that a football player is only in the secondary when he’s fast but not big enough to play any other position, including, increasingly, wide receiver. Wide receivers get bigger and bigger, and they can catch the ball.
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Oh, ccbid (is that your REAL name?), I want to thank you for letting me plug a story I wrote last week, that was buried deep on our web site. It talks about why cornerbacks are smaller than receivers. It doesn’t answer your question about the Wills (James and Peterson), two drafted corners who didn’t work out in the long run for the Giants. Anyway, hopefully this link will work: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/sports/football/12gia nts.html?scp=7&sq=january+12+2008
If not, you’ll have to trust me. It was brilliant. Brilliant, I say.
— Posted by cc
38.January 18th,
2008
4:22 pm Mr. Branch:
Love these Q&As. Thank you. I know you’re very busy, but please, if possible, continue them after the season. Quick question: Will there be a spot for Derrick Ward in the backfield next year (if he can heal)? I really thought he was a key player and was having a great game against the Bears before going down in the third quarter.
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: The Giants love Derrick, and he showed how good he can be early this season, but at some point they have to wonder if he can ever stay healthy. We’ve seen what Jerry Reese does to guys with injury histories (see Arrington, Lavar; Emmons, Carlos; Petitgout, Luke). Le’s presume that Jacobs and Bradshaw are the 1-2 punch next year. The third guy is either Ward or Reuben Droughns — an intriguing talent with an injury history, or a rather bland back who stays healthy — or they find someone else. Now imagine if they had kept Ryan Grant.
— Posted by warren
39.January 18th,
2008
4:27 pm I’m with # 6 on Aikman and Buck. And Aikman has to be good becuase he was a Cowboy. I think he sympathizes with whoever has the ball, maybe because that’s how he spent his career. I’m impressed with him and Moose as analysts; they seem to be trying to be fair.
as for the game, Eli makes one amazingly bad throw a game in good weather. He throws a lot of flutterballs anyway. I doubt Lambeau will help him in that regard. So I’m not expecting much.
— Posted by joe w.
40.January 18th,
2008
4:37 pm Never admit a coach may be smarter than you! Never, never, never! Don’t you want to be an editor someday?
— Posted by John Brady
41.January 18th,
2008
4:56 pm To those who say Buck will be biased against NY…sorry kids but everyone in the country outside NY will be rooting for the boys in green.
GO PACK GO!
— Posted by Kelly H
42.January 18th,
2008
5:31 pm John - Bottom line is that the game plan has to be short passes and lots of runs and, as noted above, don’t try and send Jacobs around the corner and get Bradshaw the ball with space (ie some screens and swings). I’m warming up the couch (and by the way, the team is better without Shockey - less drama, more football - it’s execution, not personality, that’s important).
— Posted by Bob
43.January 18th,
2008
5:41 pm Green Bay’s local TV station has canceled Seinfeld for Saturday night only. Seinfeld is well known to be Eli Manning’s favorite television show.
Is that playing dirty or what? ha
JOHN BRANCH SAYS: Did you hear that Jerry Seinfeld sent Manning a DVD player and the full series collection of “Seinfeld”? So did Sony, and a few others, I hear. Did the Green Bay station not consider that possibility? As I wrote in a blog earlier, I think the Giants should be worried. Manning might stay up all night watching nonstop “Seinfeld” episodes.
— Posted by Packer Fan
44.January 18th,
2008
6:17 pm thanks, John, for the link. I had missed that story, and it does cite an actual skill that’s desired for cornerbacks, so they’re not just failed receivers.
Not sure what you’re asking about my “name”–do you think we’re supposed to provide real ones, along with our primary e-mail addresses? I doubt it: I use this e-mail mainly for functions like posting on the internet, but you can certainly reach me there if you want. You’re actually not supposed to publish the e-mail address, which I would guess means any part of it, so I would prefer if you edited that to just “cc” (my real initials, I don’t mind saying), the “name” I submitted. Or are you implying that “ccbid” is a reference to something? If so, I don’t recognize it, and that’s not my intention.
— Posted by cc
45.January 18th,
2008
6:22 pm John:
I m interested in your post game analysis of the Cowboy game, it seemed to me that the game plan that the Cowboys put forth played to the Giants strengths as opposed to staying with the what made the Cowboys so formidible.
By playing a ball control, conservative offensive approach, the Cowboys did not pressure the giants to keep pace with them in producing points. It was if they thought their defense could not stop the Giants from scoring prolifically.
Traditionally, the team with the stronger offense would attack attack and attack and force the giants to play catch up,( See Giants-Bills 1990) but the Cowboys did not go with what was their success all season.
Was this because of things the Giants were doing that were not readily apparent in viewing a game broadcast? While my heart roots for the Giants unconditionally, my brain tells me the packers will not not make the same mistake. Thanks for your hard work, and i look forward to your insights.
Go Giants
Richard Fox
JOHN BRANCH SAYS Wow, Richard, that already seems like a long time ago. I, too, was a bit surprised that the Cowboys didn’t attack the Giants the way they did during the regular season, with play-action and some deep throws. They tried to dink them a lot more, which the Giants handled by draping the receivers off the line of scrimmage and pulling their safeties deep to prevent the big plays. In some ways, that’s a gameplan I’d half-expect the Packers to use. But I can’t help but think that Brett Favre is going to take some shots downfield. I don’t think you nickel-and-dime yourself downfield in 20 plays when the temperature is 0. You try to run, then take your chances over the top. Thanks for the question.
— Posted by Richard fox
46.January 18th,
2008
6:33 pm Trivia question — each team has a starting lineman who grew up in Wisconsin — in small towns about 10 miles apart, in fact — who can name the linemen and their hometowns? Hint: One played for the Dons, the other for the Apaches.
— Posted by Matt W
47.January 18th,
2008
6:53 pm Lest you all forget, Brett Favre’s recent playoff failures are the stuff of nightmares in GB. Just type “Brett Favre playoff failures” into Google and your browser will positively overflow with lackluster/disappointing results. This is the guy that threw 6 INTS in one game and has had some of the worst post-season games imaginable. Somewhere deep inside he still exists and is just waiting for another appearance.
Regarding the Aikman Buck bashing going on, Buck is incapable of creating any interest other than the standard fairy tale ending story line. So he was all over Romo like he was Jessica last week. Aikman was so clueless he actually said at one point that the only chance the Giants had was if the Cowboys didn’t execute. Sickening but expect more of the same this week with the Favre resurrection storyline.
This feels like a tuck game; the Giants in an upset in an ugly game and then on to face the mighty pats only to dash their perfect season!! Sweetness will prevail!!
— Posted by Heck Stanler
48.January 18th,
2008
6:59 pm John: A slightly silly question for you…
As a Giants fan (which I assume you are despite your possible forced journalistic neutrality), are you finding it hard to work up a game-day hatred of Green Bay fans (and Wisconites in general) because we’re just so gosh darn nice (as opposed to some of those in say, Dallas)?
JOHN BRANCH SAYS:Oh, I love this question. When I was in college, I went with friends on a football road trip to a large Midwestern university that shall remain nameless — but it starts with an “N,” and that letter on their helmet stands for “Nowledge,” as we used to joke. We were fired up, at least until all the fans from the other team were “so gosh darn nice,” as you say. It is quite disarming.
Regarding allegiances, it is amazingly easy to let go of your favorite teams when you become a sports writer. That’s because you quickly learn that not every person on the team is as wonderful as fans would like to think, and plenty of players on the rival team are wonderful. Ther lines between “good” and “evil” in rivalries disappear. It is actually one of my least favorite things about being a sportswriter — you don’t cheer for teams any more. You actually cheer for very selfish things, like late deadlines, on-time flights and fresh story angles. More than you wanted to know, but you got me started…