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.