NY Giants (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I am working on my rankings and projections for 2009, and the situation with the Giants has been on my mind. I watched a lot of the Giants' games last year and I noticed how the team struggled running the ball after Plaxico was injured. So, I went back to look up the stats to see if they supported my memory .....

The last game Plaxico played in 2008 (besides emulating Jesse James) was in week 11 when he caught three passes for 47 yards. Here are the stats for the Giants' running game, with and without Burress in the lineup:

Weeks 1-11 (ten games)

30.8 rushing attempts per game

171.7 rushing yards per game

5.57 yards per carry average

8.8 rush first downs per game

1.3 rushing touchdowns per game

That is mightily impressive. Here are the stats without Plaxico:

Weeks 12-17 (six games)

26.8 rushing attempts per game

127.5 rushing yards per game

4.75 yards per carry average

6 rush first downs per game

.83 rushing touchdowns per game

These stats indicate a sharp decline after Burress was injured. This even include the MONSTER game against the Panthers in week 16. In that game, the Giants' backs combined for over 300 rushing yards and three rushing scores. In these six games after the Burress injury, New York finished 3-3 after starting out 9-1 with Plaxico. In these six games without a true WR1, and no threat of a legitimate down-field option, the Giants only rushed (as a team) for over 105 yards once, and that was the game against the Panthers. The others include a 78-yard game against Arizona, a 72-yard contest against Dallas and 101 rushing yards against Washington. None of the three were that great against the run.

I see the loss of Plaxico Burress as huge for the Giants' offense. Defenses did not respect the pass as much and were able to concentrate on stopping the run. In addition, Burress is a good blocker, thus helping the run game. His loss was noticeable in many facets of the offense. Plus, Derrick Ward is now in Tampa Bay making things more difficult for Jacobs. Will Hakeem Nicks be a target for defenses? I like Nicks a lot, but I doubt it is enough to open running lanes. I see the Giants struggling to run the ball this year, and having a disappointing season. At this time, I see Jacobs having a subpar season and the Giants finishing 10-6 or worse. I know I will catch grief for the prediction, but I do not see a viable running game. Yes, the defense is as good as ever, but I do not know if that will be enough for another 12-win season.

 

[Avery]

I see the loss of Plaxico Burress as huge for the Giants' offense. Defenses did not respect the pass as much and were able to concentrate on stopping the run. In addition, Burress is a good blocker, thus helping the run game. His loss was noticeable in many facets of the offense.

True, true and true.The loss of Burress was HUGE and not only becuase of the loss of his production. He forced double teams which opened up everything else the Giants do. Until at least one of the Giants WRs steps up and demands extra attention, the Giants will be facing a lot of eight man fronts.

Plus, Derrick Ward is now in Tampa Bay making things more difficult for Jacobs.

Disagree here.Ward was nice but Ware, Bradshaw and Brown should more then make up for his loss. Remember, the Giants liked Ware enough last year to protect him on the 53 man roster all year without activating him and having four RBs in front of him.

Yes, the defense is as good as ever, but I do not know if that will be enough for another 12-win season.

Actually the defense should be better.Add a heathy Osi plus FAs Bernard and Canty to the front seven. Much of the Giants fading late in the year was due to the front four wearing out, in addition to the loss of Burress. Osi will have had over a year to recover and Bernard and Canty add starter quality depth and versatility to the D-line.Add Boley and Sintim to the LB corps and you have even more pass rushing options.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Weeks 1-11 (ten games)30.8 rushing attempts per game171.7 rushing yards per game5.57 yards per carry average8.8 rush first downs per game1.3 rushing touchdowns per gameThat is mightily impressive. Here are the stats without Plaxico:Weeks 12-17 (six games)26.8 rushing attempts per game127.5 rushing yards per game4.75 yards per carry average6 rush first downs per game.83 rushing touchdowns per game

I constantly see these stats and people draw the conclusion that Plax is the difference. What people fail to recognize is that Jacobs also failed to play 3 of the last 6 games, causing a decrease in the running game. A look at the NYG running game with and without Jacobs reveals a completely different view of the NYG offense:With Jacobs: (weeks 1-11, 13-14, 16)403-2214-1731 rushing attempts per game170.3 rushing yards per game5.49 yards per carry average1.31 rushing touchdowns per gamewithout Jacobs: (weeks 12, 15, 17)22.67 rushing attempts per game90 rushing yards per game3.97 yards per carry average0.33 rushing touchdowns per gameIf the stats without Plax make people believe that the NYG offense sucks then the stats without Jacobs should make people believe that the offense is total crap without Jacobs. It's not all about Plaxico.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Weeks 1-11 (ten games)30.8 rushing attempts per game171.7 rushing yards per game5.57 yards per carry average8.8 rush first downs per game1.3 rushing touchdowns per gameThat is mightily impressive. Here are the stats without Plaxico:Weeks 12-17 (six games)26.8 rushing attempts per game127.5 rushing yards per game4.75 yards per carry average6 rush first downs per game.83 rushing touchdowns per game

I constantly see these stats and people draw the conclusion that Plax is the difference. What people fail to recognize is that Jacobs also failed to play 3 of the last 6 games, causing a decrease in the running game. A look at the NYG running game with and without Jacobs reveals a completely different view of the NYG offense:With Jacobs: (weeks 1-11, 13-14, 16)403-2214-1731 rushing attempts per game170.3 rushing yards per game5.49 yards per carry average1.31 rushing touchdowns per gamewithout Jacobs: (weeks 12, 15, 17)22.67 rushing attempts per game90 rushing yards per game3.97 yards per carry average0.33 rushing touchdowns per gameIf the stats without Plax make people believe that the NYG offense sucks then the stats without Jacobs should make people believe that the offense is total crap without Jacobs. It's not all about Plaxico.

What were Jacobs' stats without Plax? That is the question. 21 for 72 with a TD vs Wash10 for 52 vs Phil24 for 87 and 3 TDs vs Car (in a same game that Ward averaged almost 15 yds a carry)So, a total of 55 carries for 211 yards. That is less than four yards a carry. Since you think this is not about Plaxico, why did Jacobs struggle with Burress out of the lineup?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Weeks 1-11 (ten games)30.8 rushing attempts per game171.7 rushing yards per game5.57 yards per carry average8.8 rush first downs per game1.3 rushing touchdowns per gameThat is mightily impressive. Here are the stats without Plaxico:Weeks 12-17 (six games)26.8 rushing attempts per game127.5 rushing yards per game4.75 yards per carry average6 rush first downs per game.83 rushing touchdowns per game

I constantly see these stats and people draw the conclusion that Plax is the difference. What people fail to recognize is that Jacobs also failed to play 3 of the last 6 games, causing a decrease in the running game. A look at the NYG running game with and without Jacobs reveals a completely different view of the NYG offense:With Jacobs: (weeks 1-11, 13-14, 16)403-2214-1731 rushing attempts per game170.3 rushing yards per game5.49 yards per carry average1.31 rushing touchdowns per gamewithout Jacobs: (weeks 12, 15, 17)22.67 rushing attempts per game90 rushing yards per game3.97 yards per carry average0.33 rushing touchdowns per gameIf the stats without Plax make people believe that the NYG offense sucks then the stats without Jacobs should make people believe that the offense is total crap without Jacobs. It's not all about Plaxico.

What were Jacobs' stats without Plax? That is the question. 21 for 72 with a TD vs Wash10 for 52 vs Phil24 for 87 and 3 TDs vs Car (in a same game that Ward averaged almost 15 yds a carry)So, a total of 55 carries for 211 yards. That is less than four yards a carry. Since you think this is not about Plaxico, why did Jacobs struggle with Burress out of the lineup?

Well, maybe a better question is, what were Hixon's stats versus Plax?Plax (weeks 1-3, 6-11)9 games - 35 - 454 -4 13.0 ypr - 3.89 rec/game - 50.44 yards/gameHixon (weeks 5, 12-17)7 games - 32 - 453 - 214.2 ypr - 4.57 rec/game - 64.71 yards/gameIsn't it obvious that Jacobs was more important than Plax? It is to me.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Weeks 1-11 (ten games)30.8 rushing attempts per game171.7 rushing yards per game5.57 yards per carry average8.8 rush first downs per game1.3 rushing touchdowns per gameThat is mightily impressive. Here are the stats without Plaxico:Weeks 12-17 (six games)26.8 rushing attempts per game127.5 rushing yards per game4.75 yards per carry average6 rush first downs per game.83 rushing touchdowns per game

I constantly see these stats and people draw the conclusion that Plax is the difference. What people fail to recognize is that Jacobs also failed to play 3 of the last 6 games, causing a decrease in the running game. A look at the NYG running game with and without Jacobs reveals a completely different view of the NYG offense:With Jacobs: (weeks 1-11, 13-14, 16)403-2214-1731 rushing attempts per game170.3 rushing yards per game5.49 yards per carry average1.31 rushing touchdowns per gamewithout Jacobs: (weeks 12, 15, 17)22.67 rushing attempts per game90 rushing yards per game3.97 yards per carry average0.33 rushing touchdowns per gameIf the stats without Plax make people believe that the NYG offense sucks then the stats without Jacobs should make people believe that the offense is total crap without Jacobs. It's not all about Plaxico.

What were Jacobs' stats without Plax? That is the question. 21 for 72 with a TD vs Wash10 for 52 vs Phil24 for 87 and 3 TDs vs Car (in a same game that Ward averaged almost 15 yds a carry)So, a total of 55 carries for 211 yards. That is less than four yards a carry. Since you think this is not about Plaxico, why did Jacobs struggle with Burress out of the lineup?

Well, maybe a better question is, what were Hixon's stats versus Plax?Plax (weeks 1-3, 6-11)9 games - 35 - 454 -4 13.0 ypr - 3.89 rec/game - 50.44 yards/gameHixon (weeks 5, 12-17)7 games - 32 - 453 - 214.2 ypr - 4.57 rec/game - 64.71 yards/gameIsn't it obvious that Jacobs was more important than Plax? It is to me.

Well Jacobs is still in NYG and Burress is not. The point in the OP is that defenses played the Giants differently without Plax in the lineup. Hixon was able to get open with defenses focused on stopping the run. That is why I think it is applicable to 2009. Hixon is not the threat that Burress is/was. This is why I think Jacobs will struggle running the ball in 2009 just like he did in 2008.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Burress' stats were not good before he was lost for the season. It was not his receiving stats that the Giants missed. It was the threat that he posed.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Weeks 1-11 (ten games)30.8 rushing attempts per game171.7 rushing yards per game5.57 yards per carry average8.8 rush first downs per game1.3 rushing touchdowns per gameThat is mightily impressive. Here are the stats without Plaxico:Weeks 12-17 (six games)26.8 rushing attempts per game127.5 rushing yards per game4.75 yards per carry average6 rush first downs per game.83 rushing touchdowns per game

I constantly see these stats and people draw the conclusion that Plax is the difference. What people fail to recognize is that Jacobs also failed to play 3 of the last 6 games, causing a decrease in the running game. A look at the NYG running game with and without Jacobs reveals a completely different view of the NYG offense:With Jacobs: (weeks 1-11, 13-14, 16)403-2214-1731 rushing attempts per game170.3 rushing yards per game5.49 yards per carry average1.31 rushing touchdowns per gamewithout Jacobs: (weeks 12, 15, 17)22.67 rushing attempts per game90 rushing yards per game3.97 yards per carry average0.33 rushing touchdowns per gameIf the stats without Plax make people believe that the NYG offense sucks then the stats without Jacobs should make people believe that the offense is total crap without Jacobs. It's not all about Plaxico.

What were Jacobs' stats without Plax? That is the question. 21 for 72 with a TD vs Wash10 for 52 vs Phil24 for 87 and 3 TDs vs Car (in a same game that Ward averaged almost 15 yds a carry)So, a total of 55 carries for 211 yards. That is less than four yards a carry. Since you think this is not about Plaxico, why did Jacobs struggle with Burress out of the lineup?

Well, maybe a better question is, what were Hixon's stats versus Plax?Plax (weeks 1-3, 6-11)9 games - 35 - 454 -4 13.0 ypr - 3.89 rec/game - 50.44 yards/gameHixon (weeks 5, 12-17)7 games - 32 - 453 - 214.2 ypr - 4.57 rec/game - 64.71 yards/gameIsn't it obvious that Jacobs was more important than Plax? It is to me.

Well Jacobs is still in NYG and Burress is not. The point in the OP is that defenses played the Giants differently without Plax in the lineup. Hixon was able to get open with defenses focused on stopping the run. That is why I think it is applicable to 2009. Hixon is not the threat that Burress is/was. This is why I think Jacobs will struggle running the ball in 2009 just like he did in 2008.

And my point is that maybe defenses played the Giants different without Jacobs in the lineup. Plax was also able to get open with defenses focused on the run, but apparently not as effectively as Hixon. I'm not saying that Hixon is better but the stats certainly suggest he was was more effective than Plax. The stats clearly don't support that Plax was the difference. They clearly suggest that Jacobs was the difference.

 

[identikit]

Burress' stats were not good before he was lost for the season. It was not his receiving stats that the Giants missed. It was the threat that he posed.

I agree 100%.

More often that not, it was Plax's rep that helped boost the Giants offensive effectiveness (when he was actually on the field, that is).

I think it was a very daunting task to try to compensate for Plax's absence on the fly during the season.

The NYG coaching staff has had plenty of time now to adjust to life without Plax.

My bet is they'll be fine this season.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

And my point is that maybe defenses played the Giants different without Jacobs in the lineup. Plax was also able to get open with defenses focused on the run, but apparently not as effectively as Hixon. I'm not saying that Hixon is better but the stats certainly suggest he was was more effective than Plax. The stats clearly don't support that Plax was the difference. They clearly suggest that Jacobs was the difference.

this is where I disagree. Watching those games, it was painfully obvious that the defenses did not respect Hixon and Jacobs' (and the Giants YPC averages) bear that out. You are trying to measure it by the WRs' stats while my sole point is that it was not Plax's stats (see post above) but the threat he poses. The stats of Hixon and Plax are not the issue. It was the affect on the running game. In post four, I asked why Jacobs struggled without Plax in the lineup. You flipped it to Plax vs Hixon. My question still remains. If it is all about Jacobs, then why did he and the Giant run game struggle in five of six games without Burress in the lineup?

 

[nittanylion]

Burress' stats were not good before he was lost for the season. It was not his receiving stats that the Giants missed. It was the threat that he posed.

Not ... SUPER POSTING! They had to respect and game plan for Burress, and that created space for everyone else in the Offense.It's my opinion that the loss of Ward is going to sting too. I'm really starting to warm up to Bradshaw as a Player, but I'm still convinced he's a knucklehead, and nothing will dissuade me from believing this until he he stays issue free for a considerable amount of time. It's just me, but that's the proof I need to buy into him completely.I'm eager to see if Andre Brown translates to the NFL, and based on the opinions of others, I'm eager to see what Danny Ware brings to the table in Training Camp. He's now very much on my Watch List.I liked Nicks in College, and I'm intrigued by Barden, but until this whole group show the rest of the NFL they are something to be reckoned with, defenses will continue to clamp down on the run, and blanket Smith and Boss and force Eli, Bradshaw, Hixon and the Rookies to make plays.The Giants Offense is definitely near the top of my Question Marks List going into July. Lots to be answered here.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

And my point is that maybe defenses played the Giants different without Jacobs in the lineup. Plax was also able to get open with defenses focused on the run, but apparently not as effectively as Hixon. I'm not saying that Hixon is better but the stats certainly suggest he was was more effective than Plax. The stats clearly don't support that Plax was the difference. They clearly suggest that Jacobs was the difference.

this is where I disagree. Watching those games, it was painfully obvious that the defenses did not respect Hixon and Jacobs' (and the Giants YPC averages) bear that out. You are trying to measure it by the WRs' stats while my sole point is that it was not Plax's stats (see post above) but the threat he poses. The stats of Hixon and Plax are not the issue. It was the affect on the running game.

The problem with that is that you originally used stats to make your point. Now, you are using your "eye" to say that Plax poses a bigger threat.My point is much simpler than that. You want to use stats to suggest that Plax is the reason for the Giants' struggles. I used stats to show that it could be Jacobs as the reason for the Giants' struggles. More statslax w/ Jacobs: 35-454-4; 13.00 ypcPlax w/o Jacobs: 0- 0 - 0 ; Hixon w/ Jacobs; 16-274-1; 17.13 ypcHixon w/o Jacobs; 16-179-1; 11.19 ypc

In post four, I asked why Jacobs struggled without Plax in the lineup. You flipped it to Plax vs Hixon. My question still remains. If it is all about Jacobs, then why did he and the Giant run game struggle in five of six games without Burress in the lineup?

Well, in your stats, you left one game out. Jacobs was also 15-136-2 against Seattle, so your numbers were not quite accurate. That would make him:W/ Plax: 9 games - 149 - 743 - 9; 4.94 ypc; 86.15 ypgw/o Plax: 4 games - 70 - 346 - 6; 4.99 ypc; 82.56 ypgI guess he really wasn't affected by the loss of Plax.

 

[dmac37]

Burress' stats were not good before he was lost for the season. It was not his receiving stats that the Giants missed. It was the threat that he posed.

Not ... SUPER POSTING! They had to respect and game plan for Burress, and that created space for everyone else in the Offense.It's my opinion that the loss of Ward is going to sting too. I'm really starting to warm up to Bradshaw as a Player, but I'm still convinced he's a knucklehead, and nothing will dissuade me from believing this until he he stays issue free for a considerable amount of time. It's just me, but that's the proof I need to buy into him completely.

I'm eager to see if Andre Brown translates to the NFL, and based on the opinions of others, I'm eager to see what Danny Ware brings to the table in Training Camp. He's now very much on my Watch List.

I liked Nicks in College, and I'm intrigued by Barden, but until this whole group show the rest of the NFL they are something to be reckoned with, defenses will continue to clamp down on the run, and blanket Smith and Boss and force Eli, Bradshaw, Hixon and the Rookies to make plays.

The Giants Offense is definitely near the top of my Question Marks List going into July. Lots to be answered here.

Bradshaw a knucklehead From what I recall he has had 2 issues, both as a teenager. One I don't recall, the other was stealing a video game unit when he was 17-19 years old in college. Because he has served time in the last two years people think he has had issues recently, I do not think this is the case.

Maybe someone has the details on his history, but from what I have heard he has been a great teammate and no knucklehead issues since he has been a NYG.

 

[nittanylion]

- Hey, I'm with you. I don't even know exactly what it is - it's just a gut feeling on my part. I'm not attempting to convey this as theory based on evidence, but rather just where he sits in my personal view.

Better wording: 'I'm still convinced he might turn out to be a knucklehead...'

Like I said: It's just me, and I may totally be off the mark. I just can't shake my personal impression of him. Not saying I'm right or wrong, but something in my gut makes me uncomfortable about Ahmad Bradshaw, and it's going to be some time before I feel otherwise. It's just my own personal gut feeling, and until whatever it is goes away, I guess it stays.

Right now, in my mind, he's an 'X Factor', and I lack certainty in my own mind about him. That's all.

 

[Patoons]

Bradshaw a knucklehead From what I recall he has had 2 issues, both as a teenager. One I don't recall, the other was stealing a video game unit when he was 17-19 years old in college. Because he has served time in the last two years people think he has had issues recently, I do not think this is the case.Maybe someone has the details on his history, but from what I have heard he has been a great teammate and no knucklehead issues since he has been a NYG.

You're right. The recent jail time was a result of stealing the Xbox back at Marshall. He's pretty much stayed clean after being drafted (it did kill his draft stock though).

 

[Bri]

What were Jacobs' stats without Plax? That is the question. 21 for 72 with a TD vs Wash10 for 52 vs Phil24 for 87 and 3 TDs vs Car (in a same game that Ward averaged almost 15 yds a carry)So, a total of 55 carries for 211 yards. That is less than four yards a carry. Since you think this is not about Plaxico, why did Jacobs struggle with Burress out of the lineup?

Ward ran for 215 against Carolina. Both teams running games were phenomenal that week.The Giants almost shouldn't have passed. Eli wasn't very good and the game went into OT despite all their gaudy stats.BTW Jacobs injured both knees late in the regular season.He should not have been playing, really risked career ending hit with already weak knees.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Burress' stats were not good before he was lost for the season. It was not his receiving stats that the Giants missed. It was the threat that he posed.

Not ... SUPER POSTING! They had to respect and game plan for Burress, and that created space for everyone else in the Offense.

Here's my issue with this sort of thinking:The DC is going to call a defense based on the game situation and down and distance scenario. As soon as the ball is snapped, the LB's and the S's are likely reading the backfield, the O-line and the QB to determine how the play is developing...which means if it's a run, they are ignoring Plax at that point...almost immediately post-snap. So he's not really a decoy at this point. The exception to this would be a draw play...but how many of those are actually getting called each game? Enough to cause the statistical differences being talked about?Even if Plax is a great blocker, he's likely only going to tie up a CB on the outside, which means he really only impacts a run which comes wide to his side of the field...few CB's really try that hard to work back into the scrum in the middle of the field where many of the running plays go. So of all the runs that get called in a game, how many does Plax really affect as a blocker? Enough to cause the statistical differences being talked about?And whether or not there is double coverage called on a play does not always follow the name on the jersey. In any particular passing situation, any WR can earn a double based on the pattern he's running relative to the coverage called, even if he's got bad hands or has Hixon written across his jersey.I think everyone is on thin ice relying on game stats to prove their theory. This kind of question requires proof in the form of game film analysis, not statistical analysis. There are so many variables that go into what plays and formations get called, trying to isolate it down to how much Plax makes a difference using stats only just seems like an exercise in debate skills. If you want to know if D's play the Giants run game differently with Plax in the game, the answer should be there in the game film.It's the same thing with many of the cliche's we hear around here: "He's going to see 8 in the box all day", "The presence of X will mean less double coverage for Y", "The presence of X will mean fewer targets for Y." The proof of who's right should be in the game film.Now, where can we get that game film?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

One major item being missed in all this is the the defenses the Giants faced with or without Plax. Did the Giants face harder defenses with or without Plax or was there no difference. Pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the Giants struggled without Plax if when they played top defenses without him which was the reason for the lower offensive numbers.

I haven't looked into the numbers closely but at first glance it seems that the defenses the Giants played after Week 12 were harder than those in the first 12 weeks. In week 13-16, they played, WAS (6th), PHI (4th), DAL (20th), CAR (12th)

You guys are using like 3 or 4 game samples to prove a point regarding Brandon Jacbos. That is a mighty small sample size and you are ignoring the defenses again.

 

[Biabreakable]

There are a confluence of things happening at the end of the season that affect a teams performance.

Just out of curiousity I would like to see all teams and how they performed respectivly using the 11 game and 5 game split. That might be interesting.

As far as how the Giants may miss Plax and how that changes the offense? I think this hurts Eli most and the whole offense slightly in general because of that. Not for a statistical reason. But because Plax is a huge target that really disguised some of Eli's accuracy issues.

I see the Nicks and Barden picks as a plan to hopefully get a hybrid of Plax role in the offense from both players. In theory using Barden more in the end zone, fades ect while using Nicks more often and with a more varied route tree. If Nicks were a few inches taller maybe he could give the Giants what Plax did but he isn't. I think there is a specialty role for Barden if he pans out. Of course that goes for any rookie. Beckum may also be competing for this role.

I like Bradshaw a lot but Brown is a good player as well so there will be compitition there.

The Giants and Chargers have been doing the best job through the draft imo. So I consider that when I look at the players they take.

I think Mario Manningham will also be in the mix as well as other holdover WR. Steve Smith is the most reliable WR they have and is now getting Toomers role. The skill positions are turning over so a lot of opportunity for new players here.

I think Eli would rather have some no brainer throws to Plax than having to distribute the ball to so many different players which is more the way it is looking now.

 

[Koya]

I can't believe it has taken this long in a thread about a team without a stud WR to talk about - well... IT'S FREAKIN' WRS!!!!

Losing Plax was huge. You can talk about what D's they faced, or the status of their running game. And yes, Plax was having a big time sub par year when he got hurt - but as noted, opposing teams HAD to respect the threat. The Giants were, simply put, a much weaker offense without Plax in there.

That is ALL that has to be said about the situation in regard to the subjects discussed so far.

It comes down to this: Giants lost a huge weapon and threat. SO - how do they replace that threat / adjust. Both at the position itself and in terms of game plan.

The real answer here will be how does the Giants' draft work out. If Hakeem Nicks can be a viable number 1 WR (viable doesnt mean stud, and even asking viable is a lot for a rookie), then the Giants will be fine in regard to the loss of plax. Their third rounder could do some damage and be a THREAT in the redzone if he can make the jump from 1AA (ok, subdivision non champtionship we dont call it 1AA anymore) to the pros. Should one and especially both these things happen, Giants offense will be very good.

Now, asking one of two, and ideally two rookies to contribute meaningfully is not a guarantee by any chance. But I don't see why Nicks can't have something close to a Colston like impact his rookie season. (Of course, that doesnt mean he won't... but its certainly more than possible imo).

So, enough talk of what D's were faced or the running game or the giants defense - how will the Giants replace the production and the threat is the question. Nicks is the biggest component to that answer. If Nicks can be even a 1A WR, then Hixon, Smith and possibly even Manningham can fall into productive support roles. Not to mention the wildcard third rounder in the redzone.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I see the loss of Plaxico Burress as huge for the Giants' offense. Defenses did not respect the pass as much and were able to concentrate on stopping the run. In addition, Burress is a good blocker, thus helping the run game. His loss was noticeable in many facets of the offense.

True, true and true.The loss of Burress was HUGE and not only becuase of the loss of his production. He forced double teams which opened up everything else the Giants do. Until at least one of the Giants WRs steps up and demands extra attention, the Giants will be facing a lot of eight man fronts.

Plus, Derrick Ward is now in Tampa Bay making things more difficult for Jacobs.

Disagree here.Ward was nice but Ware, Bradshaw and Brown should more then make up for his loss. Remember, the Giants liked Ware enough last year to protect him on the 53 man roster all year without activating him and having four RBs in front of him.

Yes, the defense is as good as ever, but I do not know if that will be enough for another 12-win season.

Actually the defense should be better.Add a heathy Osi plus FAs Bernard and Canty to the front seven. Much of the Giants fading late in the year was due to the front four wearing out, in addition to the loss of Burress. Osi will have had over a year to recover and Bernard and Canty add starter quality depth and versatility to the D-line.Add Boley and Sintim to the LB corps and you have even more pass rushing options.

You both have some accurate points. My take: I agree that Plax was a big loss, his blocking ability was an unsung reason on top of the obvious one of getting the attention in the passing game.I also agree with Avery that losing Ward will not make a big difference between the backs they have now. Don't forget Jacobs missed some of those final games and I beleive McKenzie was banged up as well (run blocking stud)Back to the passing game, one of the major problems the Giants had was they really weren't prepared to lose Plax. They still kept Toomer in there and people can say what they want, but the guy could have been blanketed by a linebacker or safety and he put zero pressure on the defense. The Giants will be better prepared with the solid if not spectacular options they have.The defense will be better and that will help the offense. Avery has that answered.one item I am unsure of, but wasn't the end of the year schedule harder also (I didn't look that up)

 

[Bri]

I think Mario Manningham will also be in the mix as well as other holdover WR. Steve Smith is the most reliable WR they have and is now getting Toomers role. The skill positions are turning over so a lot of opportunity for new players here.

Manningham is either going to PS or will have to force Coughlin to consider 6 WRs with Tyree being the special teams dynamo.I don't think he goes with 6. There's been DL injuries and (like many coaches) he'd probably rather an extra DL than an extra WR.The chances of him making the Giants are very slim

 

[Avery]

I think Mario Manningham will also be in the mix as well as other holdover WR. Steve Smith is the most reliable WR they have and is now getting Toomers role. The skill positions are turning over so a lot of opportunity for new players here.

Manningham is either going to PS or will have to force Coughlin to consider 6 WRs with Tyree being the special teams dynamo.I don't think he goes with 6. There's been DL injuries and (like many coaches) he'd probably rather an extra DL than an extra WR.The chances of him making the Giants are very slim

Disagree here, Bri.Manningham was injured early in camp last year. I would be shocked if a third round pick from last year is never given an opportunity of a full camp to show what he can do. As much as I love Tyree, I'd say Manningham has a better shot of making the team over Tyree. Also, I don't think Manningham is eligible for the practice squad and if he was, another team would scoop him up in a heartbeat.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I can't believe it has taken this long in a thread about a team without a stud WR to talk about - well... IT'S FREAKIN' WRS!!!!

Losing Plax was huge. You can talk about what D's they faced, or the status of their running game. And yes, Plax was having a big time sub par year when he got hurt - but as noted, opposing teams HAD to respect the threat. The Giants were, simply put, a much weaker offense without Plax in there.

That is ALL that has to be said about the situation in regard to the subjects discussed so far.

It comes down to this: Giants lost a huge weapon and threat. SO - how do they replace that threat / adjust. Both at the position itself and in terms of game plan.

The real answer here will be how does the Giants' draft work out. If Hakeem Nicks can be a viable number 1 WR (viable doesnt mean stud, and even asking viable is a lot for a rookie), then the Giants will be fine in regard to the loss of plax. Their third rounder could do some damage and be a THREAT in the redzone if he can make the jump from 1AA (ok, subdivision non champtionship we dont call it 1AA anymore) to the pros. Should one and especially both these things happen, Giants offense will be very good.

Now, asking one of two, and ideally two rookies to contribute meaningfully is not a guarantee by any chance. But I don't see why Nicks can't have something close to a Colston like impact his rookie season. (Of course, that doesnt mean he won't... but its certainly more than possible imo).

So, enough talk of what D's were faced or the running game or the giants defense - how will the Giants replace the production and the threat is the question. Nicks is the biggest component to that answer. If Nicks can be even a 1A WR, then Hixon, Smith and possibly even Manningham can fall into productive support roles. Not to mention the wildcard third rounder in the redzone.

Thank you, Koya. This was my thinking. I apologize if/since I did not articulate it well. I think the NYG offense (and their success in '09) will hinge on whether or not the opposing defenses respect the pass AND whether the Giant coaching staff can adjust (a great point made by Liquid Tension). The coaching staff was not prepared to lose its best/only weapon in the passing game. It should be interesting to watch play out.

 

[Bri]

I think Mario Manningham will also be in the mix as well as other holdover WR. Steve Smith is the most reliable WR they have and is now getting Toomers role. The skill positions are turning over so a lot of opportunity for new players here.

Manningham is either going to PS or will have to force Coughlin to consider 6 WRs with Tyree being the special teams dynamo.I don't think he goes with 6. There's been DL injuries and (like many coaches) he'd probably rather an extra DL than an extra WR.The chances of him making the Giants are very slim

Disagree here, Bri.Manningham was injured early in camp last year. I would be shocked if a third round pick from last year is never given an opportunity of a full camp to show what he can do. As much as I love Tyree, I'd say Manningham has a better shot of making the team over Tyree. Also, I don't think Manningham is eligible for the practice squad and if he was, another team would scoop him up in a heartbeat.

Well if Tyree isn't like the Tyree of old, and it's been a while, then Manningham has a good shot of beating him out.We're agreeing on Smith, Hixon, Barden and Nicks as locks, right?Most NFL coaches won't keep six. That only leaves one spot for Sinorice, Tyree, Mario and a plethora of "no name guys".I'm not sure of his PS eligibilty. If what you say is true, the Gmen might be better served trading him then.Paramount to anything when a coach is deciding on cuts is who will contribute most to the team. Tyree is going to contribute on ST, possibly having a dramatic impact on ST. Where Manningham sits in the WR pecking order will be important here.He probably won't be above Nicks. Smith and Hixon are likely to be ahead of him too. If he can beat out/stay ahead of Barden then he can be first man off the bench to come in for 3 WR sets and that's contributing. (I'm assuming with his experience he can play two spots not just one like Barden is likely to) If Barden is above him, as a red zone weapon he could be, when will Mario play?There's teams that sorely need WRs like Detroit IMO. If his contribution will be next to nothing, trading has to be considerred. I'm of the opinion that a player sitting two years just destroys any value he has and possibly spells the end of his career so I think Mario's gotta do something this year.

 

[Avery]

I think Mario Manningham will also be in the mix as well as other holdover WR. Steve Smith is the most reliable WR they have and is now getting Toomers role. The skill positions are turning over so a lot of opportunity for new players here.

Manningham is either going to PS or will have to force Coughlin to consider 6 WRs with Tyree being the special teams dynamo.I don't think he goes with 6. There's been DL injuries and (like many coaches) he'd probably rather an extra DL than an extra WR.

The chances of him making the Giants are very slim

Disagree here, Bri.Manningham was injured early in camp last year. I would be shocked if a third round pick from last year is never given an opportunity of a full camp to show what he can do. As much as I love Tyree, I'd say Manningham has a better shot of making the team over Tyree. Also, I don't think Manningham is eligible for the practice squad and if he was, another team would scoop him up in a heartbeat.

Well if Tyree isn't like the Tyree of old, and it's been a while, then Manningham has a good shot of beating him out.We're agreeing on Smith, Hixon, Barden and Nicks as locks, right?

Most NFL coaches won't keep six. That only leaves one spot for Sinorice, Tyree, Mario and a plethora of "no name guys".

I'm not sure of his PS eligibilty. If what you say is true, the Gmen might be better served trading him then.

Paramount to anything when a coach is deciding on cuts is who will contribute most to the team. Tyree is going to contribute on ST, possibly having a dramatic impact on ST. Where Manningham sits in the WR pecking order will be important here.

He probably won't be above Nicks. Smith and Hixon are likely to be ahead of him too. If he can beat out/stay ahead of Barden then he can be first man off the bench to come in for 3 WR sets and that's contributing. (I'm assuming with his experience he can play two spots not just one like Barden is likely to) If Barden is above him, as a red zone weapon he could be, when will Mario play?

There's teams that sorely need WRs like Detroit IMO. If his contribution will be next to nothing, trading has to be considerred. I'm of the opinion that a player sitting two years just destroys any value he has and possibly spells the end of his career so I think Mario's gotta do something this year.

Yes.So unless Manningham completely blow in camp or there is an injury, I think the top 5 WR (in no particular order):

Nicks

Smith

Hixon

Barden

Manningham

If they keep 6, which is highly possible, I see a battle between Moss and Tyree for the 6 spot.

To be a little more conservative, there is a battle between Moss, Tyree and Manningham for 1-2 spots, but I see Manningham as having a decent leg up over the other two.

As far as trade value, I don't think any of these three guys having any real trade value. If Manningham doesn't show enough is camp to make the roster, I don't see how a 3rd round pick who has shown nothing in two years of NFL camp getting anything in return.

 

[Bri]

interesting Avery, some good points, we'll see

 

[netnalp]

I think Tyree or Moss are the ones on the bubble. The one that has the better camp & preseason stay. I think they'll keep 6 WR, without clear cut starters at this time, it makes sense that they'd keep and extra body around till things get settled.

I'm curious, in previous stops, does Gilbride appear more to be a plug players into his system coach or does he develop his system around the players he has. The difference being, will he run the same offense and try to replace Plax or will we see a new passing offense. Hope this makes sense.

 

[Novice2]

I watched a lot of the Giants' games last year and I noticed how the team struggled running the ball after Plaxico was injured. So, I went back to look up the stats to see if they supported my memory .....

I think those were the heydays of Ward ala Jacobs being hurt. I believe the Giants were hurt because 1) Jacobs was injured. 2) When Jacobs came back they mixed in 2 much Ward. Sure Plax is a good WR and Eli could use a good WR but as long as Jacobs is healthy an used right the Giants will not suffer.For what its worth im an Eagle fan ( Ok im no longer a Eagle Fan so the jinx is over and the Eagles will win the Super Bowl in 2k10 go Eagles )

 

[Tanner9919]

Weeks 1-11 (ten games)

30.8 rushing attempts per game

171.7 rushing yards per game

5.57 yards per carry average

8.8 rush first downs per game

1.3 rushing touchdowns per game

That is mightily impressive. Here are the stats without Plaxico:

Weeks 12-17 (six games)

26.8 rushing attempts per game

127.5 rushing yards per game

4.75 yards per carry average

6 rush first downs per game

.83 rushing touchdowns per game

I constantly see these stats and people draw the conclusion that Plax is the difference. What people fail to recognize is that Jacobs also failed to play 3 of the last 6 games, causing a decrease in the running game. A look at the NYG running game with and without Jacobs reveals a completely different view of the NYG offense:With Jacobs: (weeks 1-11, 13-14, 16)

403-2214-17

31 rushing attempts per game

170.3 rushing yards per game

5.49 yards per carry average

1.31 rushing touchdowns per gamewithout Jacobs: (weeks 12, 15, 17)

22.67 rushing attempts per game

90 rushing yards per game

3.97 yards per carry average

0.33 rushing touchdowns per game

If the stats without Plax make people believe that the NYG offense sucks then the stats without Jacobs should make people believe that the offense is total crap without Jacobs. It's not all about Plaxico.

and that is why Jacobs could do this season what LJ did back in 2005-6, i.e, 1700+ yards rushing, 17+ rushing TDs..Jacobs could be an absolute MONSTER this season, if he stays healthy

 

[shotman]

I think Mario Manningham will also be in the mix as well as other holdover WR. Steve Smith is the most reliable WR they have and is now getting Toomers role. The skill positions are turning over so a lot of opportunity for new players here.

Manningham is either going to PS or will have to force Coughlin to consider 6 WRs with Tyree being the special teams dynamo.I don't think he goes with 6. There's been DL injuries and (like many coaches) he'd probably rather an extra DL than an extra WR.

The chances of him making the Giants are very slim

Disagree here, Bri.Manningham was injured early in camp last year. I would be shocked if a third round pick from last year is never given an opportunity of a full camp to show what he can do. As much as I love Tyree, I'd say Manningham has a better shot of making the team over Tyree. Also, I don't think Manningham is eligible for the practice squad and if he was, another team would scoop him up in a heartbeat.

Well if Tyree isn't like the Tyree of old, and it's been a while, then Manningham has a good shot of beating him out.We're agreeing on Smith, Hixon, Barden and Nicks as locks, right?

Most NFL coaches won't keep six. That only leaves one spot for Sinorice, Tyree, Mario and a plethora of "no name guys".

I'm not sure of his PS eligibilty. If what you say is true, the Gmen might be better served trading him then.

Paramount to anything when a coach is deciding on cuts is who will contribute most to the team. Tyree is going to contribute on ST, possibly having a dramatic impact on ST. Where Manningham sits in the WR pecking order will be important here.

He probably won't be above Nicks. Smith and Hixon are likely to be ahead of him too. If he can beat out/stay ahead of Barden then he can be first man off the bench to come in for 3 WR sets and that's contributing. (I'm assuming with his experience he can play two spots not just one like Barden is likely to) If Barden is above him, as a red zone weapon he could be, when will Mario play?

There's teams that sorely need WRs like Detroit IMO. If his contribution will be next to nothing, trading has to be considerred. I'm of the opinion that a player sitting two years just destroys any value he has and possibly spells the end of his career so I think Mario's gotta do something this year.

Yes.So unless Manningham completely blow in camp or there is an injury, I think the top 5 WR (in no particular order):

Nicks

Smith

Hixon

Barden

Manningham

If they keep 6, which is highly possible, I see a battle between Moss and Tyree for the 6 spot.

To be a little more conservative, there is a battle between Moss, Tyree and Manningham for 1-2 spots, but I see Manningham as having a decent leg up over the other two.

As far as trade value, I don't think any of these three guys having any real trade value. If Manningham doesn't show enough is camp to make the roster, I don't see how a 3rd round pick who has shown nothing in two years of NFL camp getting anything in return.

Smith and Hixon are looking like the starters right now. I think Tyree will be the odd man out.

 

[netnalp]

last season the talk was, Tyree would have been gone if he hadn't gotten hurt. It also helped the Giants avoid the negative PR of cutting Tyree after all the publicity of his Super Bowl catch.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think Tyree or Moss are the ones on the bubble. The one that has the better camp & preseason stay. I think they'll keep 6 WR, without clear cut starters at this time, it makes sense that they'd keep and extra body around till things get settled.

I agree with the above. Tyree is good on special teams and obviously came on during the SB, but Moss played well in his little time on the field so perhaps the light bulb is coming on for him as well? I think there is only 1 who will be cut as they will keep a deep position and see where it shakes out. If Manningham stinks this off season then he could go, but from the little we have seen I would expect him to be a guy you wouldn't want to cut yet.The problem with my weak analysis above is that it is being done in a vacuum and these decisions will really be made by how much depth we have in other positions. if we are light in some other areas it gives the Giants the luxury of extra WR's, but if the same issue is going on with other positions, then there are some good players who will be cut. BTW, I know he is being dismissed by many this year, but Ware has some game

 

[Patoons]

One important factor that's being missed in this thread is the intangible. The whole Plax thing was a huge off the field issue for the Giants. Not only did the lose a solid contributor on the field who took the safety out of the box, but it pushed the Giants into a downward spiral.

They continued to talk in press conferences that the Plax issue wasn't an issue. Of course it was. One of their star players who carried a hell of a lot of toughness, swagger and even leadership wasn't a part of the team anymore. This had a HUGE impact on the team and became a big distraction.

The addition of Barden and Nicks should solidify the WR situation. The Giants o-line is and was still one of the best units in the league, so I think we'll still see solid production out of the Giants run game, but probably not to the dominant level it was early on last year, but better than to close out the year. That team in the first weeks of the season was firing on all cylinders.

Great thread, Jeff.

 

[netnalp]

parts of transcript of Coughlin interview:

Q: Eli said that you don’t necessarily have to have that one guy like a Plaxico or Amani to go to. Do feel the same way?

A: Yeah, I have a lot of very competent guys who can do multiple things and create the kind of flexibility that you do need. And when you have that kind of ability where you have different players accomplishing your objectives basically on a game to game basis, very good things, then I think you have the ability to spread the ball around; you have the ability to force the defense to have some multiple coverage worries. And if you have got those one or two guys that can win those one on one situations, you are going to cause some serious thought on the part of the defense in terms of their overall package.

Q: You don’t feel that you need to have a veteran really established at receiver if you can ……?

A: We have some, whether you want to call them veteran receivers or not, they have been around enough to know the system. I think right away you have seen Steve (Smith). Steve seems to be having a really nice spring. Domenik (Hixon) comes right out and literally looks like the Seattle game right away the first time we came out here. I think Sinorice has improved and he is doing a lot of good things. Mario is a guy that we sort of saw a little bit of his surface last year when he was working but we are seeing more on a daily basis. And the more these young guys get involved, the better off that is as well. So I think you want to be as good as can. I don’t know what you need to do in terms of, say how many years it takes for a guy to be classified as a veteran, but you want as many qualified individuals as you can to spread it around.

Q: Sinorice made some pretty good plays out there today. Do you sense that he is taking advantage of his -- I don’t know if it is his last opportunity, but it has to be running out at some point?

A: I wouldn’t put it that way. What I would say is that he seems to be a more comfortable, confident guy right now. He seems to know what he has to do, what is expected of him. And he seems to be a guy that is looking forward to that opportunity. And he has always been a highly conditioned athlete. He is strong. We know he has that very, very quick jitterbuggish like maneuverability. So let’s just encourage him and see the continued growth.

Q: Did anybody miss practice? David Tyree?

A: He just had a little leg thing.

From ST coach:

Q: If a guy like Domenik Hixon has to start at receiver and Ahmad Bradshaw has to be the second running back, does that take them out of the return game? Do you have to find someone else or can they have a limited presence in that?

A: There are a lot of different guys - Mario Manningham is a guy that we have been working with this spring. He has done a really good job. Sinorice Moss, he continues to get better…… Stoney Woodson was a rookie – there are a couple of different rookies. Hakeem Nicks returned kickoffs a little bit for us in the rookie camp.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Positive news about Tyree, Hagan for that matter either. Supports my view that Tyree is gonna be cut, Hagan possibly too.

With a bunch of WR's with Different abilites, maybe we'll see more spread offense? Will Gilbride bring in some of his Run & Shoot from the Oilers days?