First, the obvious. It's hard to imagine a more awful ending to a game than watching Shawne Merriman doing the "Lights Out" dance while Eli lies face-down on the Meadowlands turf. Compounding the heartbreak was that the Giants should have clinched the game a few minutes earlier when they had 1st and goal from the Chargers' four. At the very least, they should have not folded on defense to preserve the win.
Though the ending was bad, the game itself did not constitute a worst-case outcome. Not even close. After all, we had been thoroughly outplayed in all our previous games against non-atrocious opponents. That didn't happen in this game. In half of those games, we looked as though we didn't deserve to be on the same field as the other team. That wasn't the case in this game. So as devastating as this loss was -- I can't think of a worse loss since the Tennessee game in 2006 -- it could have been worse. To have not felt a slight sense of relief that we didn't get blown out is to have been deluded in your expectations of the 2009 Giants.
For a fan, there are two types of losses: There are losses that shake your faith in your team, and there are those that hurt in the standings. Our previous three losses fell into the former category: The Saints game showed that there were teams out there that were really good, and that maybe we weren't the best team. The Cardinals game showed that maybe we weren't even among the league's excellent teams. The Eagles game showed that -- shit! -- we probably weren't even among the league's good teams. What did this game show that we didn't know? That we couldn't stop a good offense in a big spot for all the marbles? I suppose, but at least we stopped that offense on a few other occasions in what amounted to an adequate defensive performance. Frankly, I wasn't sure we were capable of even that.
For all its psychological devastation, this loss hurt most in the standings. Because if we lose after the bye week against the Falcons, we're probably done. Here's how it breaks down: The Falcons play Carolina next week, who isn't terrible these days. Even if they lose, they'll be 5-4 when they play us. If they beat us, they'll move to 6-4 and we'll slip to 5-5, which would effectively place us two games behind the Falcons for the sixth playoff spot because they would have the tiebreaker. If we fall two games behind them with six to go, we're not catching them, if for no other reason than that our schedule is so much harder. Over those final six games, the Falcons play: Tampa Bay, Philly, New Orleans, the Jets, Buffalo, and Tampa Bay again. That's three gimmes (Tampa Bay twice, Buffalo), one really tough game that they'll probably lose (Philly), and one winnable game but tough game (Jets). Expecting anything worse than 3-3 is unrealistic. On the other hand, our schedule over the final six games is: Denver, Dallas, Philly, Washington, Carolina, and Minnesota. That's one gimme (Washington), one game you'd like to think we should win (Carolina), and the rest of the games against teams that are right now incontrovertibly better than us. I know Minnesota might have something wrapped up by Week 17, but the fact remains that we would have to go 5-1 down the stretch if Atlanta so much as goes 3-3. In other words, we'd be completely fucked. (This analysis doesn't even factor in the Bears, who might get their heads out of their asses at some point and make a run. To be fair, it's possible that Philadelphia, which is currently 5-3, slips. But they look like one of the conference's best teams these days, even considering their loss to Dallas.)
So despite all the talk this past week that the Chargers game was a one-game Super Bowl -- which seemed to me like so much out-of-context quotes blown out of proportion -- applying that cliché to the Falcons game would not be an overstatement. We have to win that game. If we do not, it's probably over.
**
The pass defense has shouldered much of the blame for the Giants' disappointing start so far, and with obvious good reason: It singlehandedly precluded us from having any chance in both the Saints and Eagles games. But the pass defense normalized somewhat yesterday, so let's focus on another area of this team that is significantly worse year than it was last year: The running game.
Last year, the Giants ranked third in rushing according to DVOA, a Football Outsiders stat that adjusts conventional stats for situation and opponent. This actually surprised me. With as dominating as the Giants running game was all year, I was sure they would rank first (Denver and Carolina ranked ahead of them). Either way, the running game was elite last year. But this year it's middle-of-the-pack: Going into the San Diego game, it ranked 14th in DVOA. Against San Diego, one of the worst run defenses in the league, the Giants managed 115 yards on 27 carries for an average of 4.25. That's right around the league average of 27.2 carries, 115 yards, and an average of 4.2 yards per, so don't expect the Giants ranking to change significantly.
So what's the problem? Well, it's not the personnel. With the exception of losing McKenzie for one game and the substitution of Bradshaw for Ward, the personnel is the same as last year.
But clearly, the line isn't dominating the line of scrimmage like it did last year, when gaping holes for Jacobs and Ward were the rule, not the exception. That much is obvious from watching, but the reasons for why this is so are not. Are defenses stacking more defenders near the line of scrimmage than they were last year? Have they adjusted to the Giants blocking schemes that were so effective last year? I honestly don't know.
So the line isn't as good, but even when it succeeds in opening up holes, the running backs aren't doing as much with them as they were last year. This seems especially true in the case of Jacobs. Yesterday, to his credit, he showed some shiftiness and decisiveness through the hole - if the two aren't a contradiction in terms -- and had a good game, averaging 6.1 yards per carry. But there were two occasions in which he found himself one-on-one in the open field and had one man standing between him in a big run. In both cases, he lost that one-on-one battle. We need our running backs to make plays when presented the opportunity.
There's another explanation for why our running game isn't nearly as good this year as it was last year: regression to the mean. The running game made a huge leap forward last year. It was only to be expected that it would regress somewhat, though not nearly this much.
Another point about Jacobs: For a guy whose calling card is his power, he needs to do a better job finishing his runs. It seems like he often isn't fully committed to a direction at the point of contact, and for that reason, gets spun sideways like a much smaller man would.
**
When Coughlin got conservative on the Giants final drive after the Snee holding penalty, I was one of many people in the press box killing him. As I saw it, Coughlin was being overly cautious and laying out for the Chargers a path to victory, which of course they were able to take advantage of.
But Brian Burke, writing on his excellent website, Advanced NFL Stats, uses win probability models to show that Coughlin's decision to run on 3rd down wasn't all that consequential. He notes that a pass in that situation gives the Giants a .85 Win Probability, while a run gives them a .84 WP.
What the Giants really should have done was go for the touchdown on 4th and goal from the 4, Burke writes. That would have given them a .87 WP, as opposed to the .82 after the field goal. Remember, the Chargers would have had at least 16 yards more to drive than they did after Tynes' squib touchback (a total fluke).
"Putting this in perspective," Burke writes. "Coughlin's decision to run instead of pass on 3rd down cost 0.01 WP. His decision to kick the field goal cost 0.05 WP. But his defense's inability to stop the Chargers' TD drive cost 0.84 WP. This really is on the players."
Fair enough. It's certainly more on the players than Coughlin. But here's my problem with Burke's analysis. It doesn't factor in 2nd down, and many of us Giants fans would have wanted to pass on 2nd down and not 3rd down on the grounds that it would have caught the defense a more off-guard than a 3rd down pass. Also, if the Giants were going to try draw plays, they should have used Bradshaw and not Jacobs. A draw play is effective if the runner is quick enough to make yardage as the defense is converging on him. Bradshaw fits that description, Jacobs doesn't.
**
Finally, an abbreviated What's to like/What's not to like. As always, the list is non-exhaustive.
What's to like:
Eli (really a tremendous performance given that he was on the run all game); Jacobs (sure he didn't break some of those big runs, but he had 6.1 yards per carry); Ware (let's see more of this guy); Smith (8 catches on 11 targets, 57 yards; Manningham (6 catches on 6 targets - hey! - for 52 yards); Nicks (once again showed his ability to make a play with the ball in his hands).
Bruce Johnson (by my extremely unofficial count, they targeted him three times in single coverage and he made two good plays on the ball); Tuck (the guy is great, except when he has to cover Antonio Gates downfield); Michael Johnson (not sure about this one with all the Gates catches/drops, but he made that important pick and seemed to force Vincent Jackson into a case of Alligator Arms and a consequent drop); Terrell Thomas (good job in coverage, tackling, and of course the pick and return); run-defense (an unsung bounce-back performance after the Eagles game).
What's not to like:
Pass protection (beyond awful. Eli got sacked five times [two of these were dubiously counted, but still] and hurried 9 times, according to Mike Garafolo's unofficial count); Bradshaw (seems like he's coming down with a case of Sinorice Moss Syndrome: getting frustrated with his lack of productivity and consequently getting too cute and trying to make one move too many); Kickoff coverage (along with Tynes' kickoffs, this area needs to improve); Feagles (punts were bad, hold on the first FG attempt was just weird);
Webster (has gotten his lunch eaten the past two weeks. We need him to quickly regain form); Boley (blown coverage on that last big play to Sproles, who got behind him way too easily); Whoever had to cover Antonio Gates all game (if Gates doesn't drop two passes, the Chargers might cruise to victory. Instead, he had 5 catches for 67 yards); The Defense (final drive collapse gives the Giants a loss and the defense a place in this column).
Penalties (9 penalties for 104 yards. Webster's interference was 29-yards, but that was on a tough one-on-one assignment. More egregious were the Dockery fair-catch interference and, of course, Snee's holding); Coughlin (those penalties are on you, big guy); Sheridan (that final drive is largely on you, big guy. Way too easy.)