Giants Loss To Dallas Limits Them To Wildcard

With seven games remaining, Dallas has a two game lead as well as the tie breaker, which translates into a full three game lead for the division title over the Giants. The loss to Dallas effectively ends any chance that the Giants can win the Division, which means no chance at a bye in the first week of the playoffs and no home field advantage. It was a huge game to lose - and the Giants have steadily built a tradition of coming up short in big games.

Why did they lose? Well, first and foremost, because they are not the better team. OK, well duh. So, why are they not the better team? Much has been made all week that the difference between the two teams is that Dallas has the better QB. Maybe that is true, but I don't believe that explains the difference between the two teams. More specifically, had Romo played for the Giants and Eli played for Dallas, the result last Sunday would still have been the same.

Is the problem the offense? Well, to an extent the answer has to be yes. At halftime the score was 17-17. The final score was 31-20. In other words, the powerful Giants offense scored 3 points the entire second half. So, yes, the offense was a problem. More specifically, the passing attack has become anemic. Toomer isn't getting the ball in clutch situations as he did before he went down for the count in 2006. Plaxico has done nothing for four games now (and remember - four games is basically 50 percent of the games played so far). There is no third receiver. And while Shockey had a lot of catches in the Dallas game, he was more a possession type receiver - with little yardage added after the catch. The passing game has become anemic. But, and I repeat, I do not believe for one second that the game would have ended differently had Romo been playing for the Giants and Manning for the Cowboys. Was there a difference in play between the quarterbacks? You betcha. But not to the extent that Romo would have "saved" the game had he been the Giants quarterback.

The difference is that the Dallas defense made stops when it counted while the Giants defense fell short when a stop was needed. Fell short as they have in every big game in recent memory (and while I haven't gone back and studied each game, I'd define "recent memory" as probably dating back to 1991). In any event, the point is that I have confidence that had Manning been the Dallas QB, the Giants defense would have been unable to stop Manning and the Cowboys when the chips were down. And likewise on the other side of the ball - the Dallas defense would have stopped the Giants drives in the second half regardless of who was playing quarterback. It wasn't the play of the quarterback that made the difference.

It was the play of the men in the trenches - on both sides of the ball - that made the difference. The Giants defensive unit was unable to put the pressure on Romo because the Dallas offensive line was far too superior. The Giants simply could not crack that unit when the chips were down in the second half. Romo went virtually untouched and he didn't even have to rely upon his feet. He was able to sit back in the pocket without worrying about anything but his receivers because the Dallas offensive line was that much better than the Giants defense that they were able to handle anything and everything the Giants threw at them. And on the other side of the ball, Manning was under constant pressure, especially during the second half. The Giants lost the battle in the trenches on both sides of the ball.

I'm not saying Romo wasn't the better QB last Sunday because I certainly think he was. But that simply doesn't bother me. I don't need Eli Manning to be the best QB that has ever lived for me to be happy with his play as my team's QB. And if that is true - that means by definition there will be better QB - in the past and in the future - than Eli Manning. The sole issue for me is whether he is a QB that is good enough to carry his weight at his position. Prior to this season I thought the answer to that question was "no" because I didn't like the way he threw the football - I didn't feel he could throw an accurate pass. But he's changed my opinion this year and I haven't seen anything so far that changes that view. He is still stepping into his throws and he is not making those occasional wild throws that couldn't hit water if he was throwing from inside a boat. That seems to be a thing of the past. He made some mental mistakes on Sunday, but you know what? Mental mistakes are much more easily correctable.

No, my concern about the Giants is not at QB. My concern is defense and, in particular, the front seven. I know, everyone is going to kill me and say I'm crazy - that it is the back seven - the lack of quality safety and cover corners that are the problem. Well, last week the Giants strategy was to commit to pressuring Romo and leaving the secondary alone on an island to hold down the fort by themselves. Did Dallas hit some big plays in which the secondary looked lost? Yup - that's certainly how it looked. But it only looked that way because the Giants generated zero pressure on Romo despite committing the farm to get there. It's one thing to ask your secondary to hold down the fort while Romo is running for his life. It's quite another thing entirely to ask them to stand alone while Romo has all the time in the world. This game was lost because the Giants did not possess the ability to get to Romo even when committing 7 men to the attack. I don't care how good the Dallas offensive line is - despite committing their entire front 7 to the pass rush, the Giants couldn't generate enough pressure to even force Romo out of the pocket.

So, you can talk Eli Manning. You can talk safety and cornerback. But I think the problem is that the Giants defensive front 7 is simply not strong enough to be a dominant defense. The Giants are not going to win a Super Bowl until they have a defense that can force a 3 and out with the game on the line - and the Giants haven't had that kind of defense - a truly dominant defense - since the 1990 Super Bowl.

Showdown Against Dallas

What can be better? A huge November home game against a hated divisional rival. Having dispatched the Dolphins in the mud-bowl in London, the Giants - fairly healthy coming out of their bye week - commence the more difficult second half of their schedule. And it starts off with a real bang.

While they will face other tough games down the stretch, none will be bigger than Sunday's game against Dallas. Dallas leads the Division and has already beaten the Giants once. Lose to Dallas for the second time on Sunday and the Giants will in essence be three games behind and, for all practical purposes, out of the running for a divisional title. On the other hand, a win ties them for the division lead and sets up a season long battle for the divisional crown. At stake is a chance of a first round bye and home field advantage in the playoffs. The difference between a win and a loss is simply huge. For both teams.

This is the type of game that defines championship teams. Seattle went on to the Super Bowl after holding on for their lives against the Giants two years ago. Last year Chicago went to the Super Bowl after downing the Giants in a nail biter at the mid-point last year. Championship caliber teams win the important games - the games with significance above and beyond a mere W or L in the standings. This year is likely to be no different. The winner on Sunday greatly improves their chances of ending up in Phoenix on Feb 3rd.

This is not the same Giants team that faced Dallas in the season opener. Strahan has worked himself back into game shape. Osi is healthy. If not quite comfortable, Kiwi is certainly more familiar playing linebacker. The defense, as a whole, is simply playing better. And the team is emotionally healthy, having been spoon fed six straight wins from the schedule gods (not their fault and certainly better than the alternative). But I believe there are two factors that will make a huge difference on Sunday - two things Dallas didn't have to address back in September - cornerback on defense and Brandon Jacobs on offense.

On Sunday the Giants enter the game with legitimate strength at corner. Although Ross is going to make rookie mistakes, his entry into the starting lineup has made a huge difference for the Giants. Yet it is the play of Madison that really seals the deal for me. Simply put, the transformation between his play in 2006 and 2007 has been nothing short of miraculous. And strength at corner - something that didn't exist back in September - is going to be huge on Sunday.

I am convinced that the secret to stopping Dallas on Sunday will be getting constant pressure on Romo. No small order. Dallas has an excellent offensive line - they have only given up 12 sacks all season - and the Giants sack attack will have their hands full. They will likely need to bring more than just four to get pressure - they need to bring the house. But the Giants have something they didn't have in September - two corners capable of holding up their end of the bargain. Dallas will likely get some big plays - but in the end, Madison and Ross should allow the Giants to be in Romo's face all day long on Sunday - to allow the Giants to attack rather than sit back.

On the other side of the ball, Brandon Jacobs could have an even greater impact. If I had a crystal ball that told me he'd stay healthy (a big "if"), there isn't any running back in the game today that I'd trade head up for Jacobs. A 125 yard game from a break away runner is very different than a 125 yard game from Brandon Jacobs. While 25-50 yard runs are exciting - and a threat - I'll take a steady diet of 4-8 yard runs by Brandon Jacobs, thank you very much. Not only does he move the chains and eat up the clock, he beats defenders into submission - physically and emotionally. And he opens up the passing game in ways a Tiki Barber style runner never dreamed of. Brandon Jacobs has the rare ability to totally dominate a game without having a single run over 10 yards.

The Cowboys didn't get the opportunity to have a "Brandon Jacobs experience" back in September. But on Monday morning I think they'll know exactly how it feels to be run over by a Mack truck.