And now we're a little worried, not only because the Giants might be slipping, but because some other teams -- the Colts, the Vikings, the Pats, the Saints -- are looking so good. For a stretch last year, the Giants were the only team playing at an elite level. Now, there are a bunch of teams playing at an elite level and the Giants aren't one of them.
As post-XLII Giants fans, we've been conditioned to be optimistic. The optimistic take would be that the Giants defense, which was the most troubling aspect of the team heading into Sunday, righted itself with a good performance. Instead it was the offense that was the problem, but the offense can be expected to rebound. The Giants played a bad game against a pretty good team and lost. It happens and it's not the end of the world. When a few guys come back from injury, the talent will be in place to put together a run in which this team can beat anybody.
On the other hand, what if this team just isn't that good? What made the Giants so dominant for that stretch last year was their elite running game; that seems to have declined this year. Their defense, despite its decent performance on Sunday, remains a huge question mark. And Eli Manning just had two bad games in a row: What if he goes in the other direction from "pretty good" to "average," and not the step forward to "excellent" that we're all banking on?
Lots of questions. Next week against the Eagles, we'll get a few answers.
**
What's to like:
The defense: Overall, a solid bounce-back performance despite the loss. The defense was put in bad positions by the offense all night, including the obvious example of Adrian Wilson's tipped interception deep in Giants territory. They weren't great in the red-zone (as usual), but they kept the Giants in the game with some clutch stops. If a few more things go right on offense late in the game, we'd be talking about the D's gutsy performance.
The pass rush: They didn't quite dominate, but they were good. They sacked Warner twice and hit him seven other times. You wouldn't quite say that Warner looked rattled and out of sorts, but you wouldn't say he looked comfortable either.
The secondary: Warner hit a few passes to some guys over the middle, but the Giants held him to 6.4 yards per attempt and forced an interception. This isn't that amazing, but it's good enough to merit a place in the "What's to like" list.
Hakeem Nicks: Sure his touchdown was lucky, but Nicks has earned a little "You make your luck" presumption by now. Similarly, Nicks' numbers might seem somewhat deceiving because lots of his big plays have been made when games have been effectively over, but you can't deny that 315 yards and 4 touchdowns in just five games is impressive. The guy seems like he's for real.
Brandon Jacobs: We'll give it up to him because his numbers were good, but I'm still not convinced. Yes, it was nice to see Jacobs getting to the outside and turning the corner on the run that set up the touchdown, and of course it was nice watching him run over that linebacker at the goalline. But there were some troubling moments as well: On one play - I frankly forgot when it was, but NBC showed the overhead replay - Jacobs hit a wide open hole up the gut but then inexplicably fell down in front of the safety's feet. Then, on that critical fourth quarter 3rd and 3 from the Arizona 4, Jacobs failed to read Suebert's pulling block and instead bounced his run to the next hole over, resulting in his getting stuffed a yard short of the first down. These plays showed the impatience with which Jacobs is running this year. Taken as a whole, his game showed what most Giants fans should already know by now: Jacobs is capable of ripping off large chunks of yardage when the blocking is good because he can run through arm tackles once he gets a head of steam. But he's not the elite between-the-tackles guy people always want to peg him for. He lacks the quickness, balance, and ability to change direction for that description.
Kevin Boss: For holding onto that rock. Wow.
**
What's not to like:
Eli Manning: The Cardinals employed the old "stack-8-in-the-box-and-make-Eli-beat-us-deep" strategy, and it worked because Eli couldn't make them pay. Once again the old saw applies: Defenses will make Eli beat them, so the Giants will go as far as Eli takes them.
It was bad on Sunday: Back-foot throws, telegraphed passes leading to tipped balls, general inaccuracy, and slightly shaky pocket presence. For the second straight week, Giants fans saw the Eli of 2006. That's ok - he's allowed to have bad games. But obviously, Giants fans have to hold their horses in declaring him among the game's very best. This game was also another data point in the mounting case that Eli and his fluttering passes are uniquely ill-suited for the Meadowlands. That's not a deal-breaker by any means, but it certainly isn't a good thing. Hopefully, Eli snaps out of it next week. If there's anybody capable of snapping out of funks, it's Eli.
Mario Manningham: It was easy to say we could live with the drops when the Giants were blowing teams out. Now it's looking like a serious problem. If Manningham is wide open downfield and Eli puts it in there, what are the odds that he catches the ball? 65 percent? Seriously...
On the bright side, Manningham again flashed the quickness and moves that make him such an exciting player. I don't recall any negative reports about his hands coming out of college, so hopefully this is just a bizarre aberration. But it's officially an issue now.
Domenik Hixon: This one isn't directed at Hixon himself - he's a very likable player - but rather than the coaching staff for featuring Hixon too much in the passing game. The Rodgers-Cromartie interception was the second unsuccessful instance in which we've featured Hixon on "deep shot" in the past two weeks. One has to wonder why the coaches think he's the best candidate for those passes. If Hakeem Nicks is running that route, maybe he outmuscles the defender. If Mario Manningham is running that route, maybe he gets two steps of separation instead of a quarter-step. Hixon is a valuable player because he's an excellent return man and a capable receiver. But that's all he is: capable. Nicks and Manningham have the ability to be very good.
Ahmad Bradshaw: You could almost see him trying to make up for his bad game when he made that fateful twisting move that led to his fumble. While it came at an inopportune time, it was his first fumble of the season and was the product of effort, and can be forgiven for those reasons. A bad game for Ahmad, but we'll need him next week.
Lawrence Tynes: How many years have the Giants had to overcome the handicap of short kickoffs? Since the Brad Daluiso pre-knee injury days, when Daluiso was the kickoff specialist and David Treadwell was the placekicker? I have this strange feeling that Tynes is due for a good placekicking run for the rest of the season (You read it here first). But if that doesn't happen, the NFC Championship Game "hero" doesn't justify the organization's continued loyalty.
Jeff Feagles: What the hell was that? His bad game was so shocking because we've come to expect such great things from him.