(
)
The Giants might be exactly what we thought they were, though after four games it seemed as if they were more than we figured they might be.
It was impossible not to view the Giants as early playoff contenders after they went 3-1 in the first month and pulled ahead of the Eagles and Cowboys in the NFC East. Sure the Giants showed fairly obvious deficiencies as they beat the winless Rams and needed a 21-point fourth quarter to overtake the Cardinals in Arizona, but the win was the thing and the Giants had three in the books and the Seahawks up next on the schedule.
One horrendous loss does not expose or damn a team, but what Seahawks 36, Giants 25 did was jar the thinking back to what the Giants looked like before the season-opening kickoff — a team full of questions.
Offensive line’s a question. Defensive backfield’s a question. Young linebackers are a question. Tight ends are a question.
No answers have been provided as of yet to those questions, though tight end Jake Ballard has impressed as a pass-catching option.
The mystery of the third receiver has been solved, because Victor Cruz has proved he has playmaking ability — though he must clean up the rough edges. The pass rush even without Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyiora for stretches has been even better than advertised with an NFL-high 18 sacks, and Eli Manning is off to a fine start.
The basics, though, are eluding the Giants. Their running game (3.2-yard average) is in shambles and their run defense (122.2 yards allowed per game) is unreliable. They resemble a decent team with periods of excellence and moments of ineptitude.
The Giants also get some key players back from injury but others take their place on the sideline. They are better than decent but not quite good enough to really be taken seriously. At 3-1, the look-ahead to 6-1 was natural with three consecutive home games but the best they can be is 5-2 — the exact record coach Tom Coughlin has had the Giants at every season since arriving in 2004, other than 2008, when the Giants after seven games were 6-1.
Second-half swoons under Coughlin are common and this season a dive might be inevitable. After the Bills this Sunday and then the bye, the Giants face the Dolphins before a five-week stretch with teams currently ranked first, third, second and fourth in total offense, with the 4-1 49ers the only team not among the scoring elite.
Anyone who witnessed the way Charlie Whitehurst carved up the Giants has to wonder (or shudder) at the prospect of what Tom Brady, Michael Vick, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers will do to them in that five-week span.
Up next is a team the Giants would do well to study and emulate.
The Bills are not dominating anyone. They have rushed for 691 yards and allowed 692 rushing yards. They have allowed more first downs than they’ve gained, given up more than 200 passing yards than they’ve amassed and committed the exact same number of penalties as their opponent.
But the Bills are 4-1, mainly because of a league-leading plus-11 turnover ratio fueled by an NFL-high 12 interceptions, including three returned for touchdowns.
Jolted by that defensive infusion, the Bills are averaging 32.8 points a game, led by a brainy (he’s from Harvard for goodness sakes) quarterback, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and an undrafted running back from Coe College, Fred Jackson, who has to be considered an early MVP candidate with 480 rushing yards and 257 receiving yards.
If the Bills stop taking the ball away they might fade away. The Giants usually save their fade-outs until the second half of seasons, though it could come earlier if they lose this one.
Pierce-ing comments are off base
Knowing and liking Antonio Pierce, it’s obvious what he’s doing when he says Justin Tuck and Brandon Jacobs need to get back on the field as long as their injuries don’t require surgery. During his career as a middle linebacker, Pierce took his leadership role seriously and wasn’t afraid to tweak a teammate to get him to pick up his game. He’s retired but still is trying to do the same thing.
We get it. Pierce gets paid by ESPN to make interesting and intriguing observations and a little controversy doesn’t hurt.
Nevertheless, Pierce should get on players for their performance, not for their perceived toughness. Tuck has a neck injury (plus a strained groin) and you don’t mess with neck injuries.
Pierce should know, considering how his career was cut short. In a game against the Cardinals 2009, Pierce was diagnosed with a burner — same as Tuck — and played two more games before getting shut down when an MRI exam revealed a bulging disk. He never had surgery and played again. Now he’s insisting Tuck rush back with a neck injury because the Giants need him?
Tuck initially was bent out shape about this and still isn’t thrilled, but he has smoothed things over with Pierce.
Still, Pierce’s remarks open the door to those who wish to question the toughness of Tuck and Jacobs and that’s unnecessary.
Antrel Rolle said on his weekly WFAN spot yesterday that he didn’t think it was Pierce’s place — or Michael Strahan‘s place a few weeks ago when he chided Tuck for coming off the field in Philadelphia — to question banged-up Giants players sitting out.
Rolle said he saw Jacobs’ knee after the game in Arizona and that it was “the size of a volleyball with the amount of fluid.”
If Pierce had seen that, perhaps he would have held his tongue.
No-huddle no cure-all
This discussion arises at least once a season, usually after a Giants comeback is sparked by a few Eli Manning drives operating out of a situational no-huddle offense. Why not use the no-huddle more often?
Sure, Manning is good at it, but he wants no part of using it more than he already does.
“I don’t think that would make a difference,” Manning said. “We tried a little no-huddle in the second quarter [against the Seahawks] for a couple [of] series, didn’t have much success with it. We work on it. We dabble in that. It’s not going to work every time you do it.”
The play selection is limited in the no-huddle, which is why Manning said the Giants don’t want to “live in it.”
The no-huddle has a time and place, but not all the time and not in every place.